First, if Daniel 11:1 was NOT consecutively uttered by the angel continuing from chapter 10, the angel sent to Daniel simply lied in chapter 10 since he never delivered any of the promised information to Daniel he said he would in the 3rd year of Cyrus (chap. 10:1). First, the angle never promised Daniel ALL the information in the third year of Cyrus....What info did he promise danile for the third year or in Ch 10 that you are so concered with? The latter days are discussed in ch 10 and it does not cover everything in the latter days . So too does ch 2:28 ..so what ?...The same time frame same latter days different events/ details in it...What is the point you are trying to make with the events given in any of the other chapters..? If there is any insult to the Angel it is in the attempt to force the text to read anything other then what it specifically states regardless of when the Angle is speaking in Ch 10 (3rd year of Cyrus) and when the events of the other chapters are recorded they still took place in the first year of Darius even if Daniel & Angel get around to discussing them at a latter date reflecting on what they had been discussed before. it doesn?t change anything..,..( Even if it was all one narrative that took place in the third year of Cyrus were true), In any case you insist on creating a entirely inconsistent and very unnecessary naration of events that is directly contradictory to what the text states about itself... It doesn?t matter how "the greatest church minds have saw it..?..The definitions the text gives for itself and the times frames it gives for itself cannot be superceded by the inability to understand how the angle & Daniel recording of that encounter would not be lying if the text were taken "in the first year of Darius" at face value..(not to mention the fact that if it does not mean what it says then what is he talking about? But even before you get to that explination you must first explain why it is even nessisary.....). ....Regardless of when the Angel is speaking in Ch 10 (3rd year of Cyrus) and when the events of the other chapters are recorded they still took place in the first year of Darius even if Daniel & Angel get around to discussing them at a latter date reflecting on what had been discussed before. it doesn?t change anything..,, In any case you insist on creating a entirely inconsistent and very unnecessary assertion for ch 9 & 11 in the narration of events that is directly contradictory to what the text states about itself... it doesn?t matter how you or others feel about it... The definitions the text gives for itself and the times frames it gives for itself cannot be superceded by the inability to understand how the angle & Daniel recording of that encounter would not be lying if the text were taken at face value .......Regardless of when the vison are recorded the events in ch 9 are in the same year as Ch 11& 12 and 10 is in the third year of Cyrus... There is no logical argument to the contrary nor has anyone ever put one forward except that in your case you argue you don?t think the angel would lie and or that would be an insult..?. Neither of which has any bearing on my outline anyway nor does my outline force those statements?..You have not nor can you show how my outline would cause the Angle or Daniel to be a liar.. You are simply trying to force a dichotomy that does not exist, but is nessisary for your overall agreements which however, are wrong on other independent grounds as well. Your arguments make no logical sense whatsoever as it relates to what the text states or to the outline i gave you...your simply arguing in circles asscusing me of making the angle into a liar.... ???? You have not gotten to the primary we most certainly have.......and the reason is because you cant get any further then ch 11 because you wont take the text for what it states you are more interested in your feelings on what and when the angel would have said something based on what you think would constitute a lie.....?? Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Two things, Allen. First, if Daniel 11:1 was NOT consecutively uttered by the angel continuing from chapter 10, the angel sent to Daniel simply lied in chapter 10 since he never delivered any of the promised information to Daniel he said he would in the 3rd year of Cyrus (chap. 10:1). I don't accept that. Since adopting your theory means treating the angel of God as a liar, I reject your theory. It's over with. Your view of when that prophecy was delivered to Daniel involves an impossibility. It's bad enough you pose yourself as right and hundreds of the church's greatest minds as wrong, but your view entails making a liar out of an angel. I'm not having any of it. Second, Job had occasion to respond to this line of thinking in regard to the faulty assessment made by his "friends." Job remarked, "surely wisdom dies with you!" Note that this was sarcasm on Job's part: he didn't really mean it! By the way, we really haven't even GOTTEN to the question of your primary chronology yet (which may be right or wrong -- it needs to be evaluated on the merits). Before making landfall, the ship has round aground on a serious sandbar: your completely faulty treatment of Dan. 11:1. It is manifestly wrong, whether or not ANYONE else ever wrote a syllable about it in a commentary or footnote. Elect angels don't lie when God sends them to testify to saints like Daniel. Martin P.S. I think trying to force me (wrongly) to concede is now the least of your problems. I think insulting an angel is a more serious matter. Jude 8: "Yet these men, as a result of their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and insult the glorious ones." I'd think someone as serious about Scripture as you obviously are would step back a moment before diving deeper into the pit you keep digging, lest you get perilously close to fitting Jude's bill here, knowingly or not. At this point, I'm very concerned about what I keep hearing back from you. Very concerned. Either you're confused, or deadset on a perilous course. I hope it's the former. On May 28, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Allen Daves wrote: Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On May 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Allen Daves wrote: .I call on Martin to concede Wouldn't that be a premature request, setting aside the matter of how bold it actually is? No, Phil Ask a very good question and there may be others, I am willing to keep exploring other issues but the one that was specifically in front of us was Persian Kings chrono and dates of Daniel ch 9-12..I don?t ask you or anyone else to even accept what I am saying (although I hope for your own understanding you would) however, the arguments you make referring to footnotes is simply circular it does not demonstrate what the text states it demonstrates what someone thinks about the text..If we are going to digress to that then there is no point in any attempt at discussing or understanding the text by using the text, we need only to get as many ?scholars? that appeal to our various views to proclaim certainty of truth?.if that is the case either the Greek orthodox or Roman Catholic have the most scholars of any single group or interpretation and therefore the majority wins?? Everyone has there scholars and you can produce one for any view out there including me but what does that have to do with certainty or Knowledge of truth?NOTGHINTG! ..truth is not measured by scholarship or the numbers of scholars if that were true the HC/AC would also be true. It is ?scholarships? responsibility to find truth?your scholarship is wrong not because there are more of me, but rather because the arguments are not demonstratabel they are only assertions to belief; nor are they consentient with scripture or handling of scripture,?the scripture given by God not the footnotes placed by people who don?t know any more scripture then anyone else. The argument is in error because its approach is in error, its underlying premise is in error.. Your argument would and is equivalent to me writing my own footnotes ( or finding footnotes I do agree with) & asserting the truth of my position based on the footnotes so carefully inserted into the scriptures?I am certainly qualified??.. Check out the footnotes in the Jehovah?s witness Bibles produced by so many scholars or the Mormons with even more biblical scholars. They have whole books of footnotes ..Without question you can find support for your position Just not in scripture without asserting, accepting and believing that how you read it is correct first based on others who hold a similar or you just pick and chose scholars for various verse that suit you??.The arguments I make come from a ordinary reading of difficult passages. Hence I correlate them but when correlated require no interpretation for only one meaning can be demonstrated external of my head and the scholars and what folk think..difficult reading yes, but there is a difference between basing the argument on correlated scriptures that discuss the same things and the footnotes I or someone created to support my interpretation of it regardless of how or what scripture states?.Your argument is wrong because, although you claim scripture as the/your ultimate authority, the ultimate authority for your argument is found in your scholars and footnotes and interpretations not scripture.. I call you to concede (specifically on the Persian kings and chapters arguments) because even if you could demonstrate your argument from scripture, (which as of yet you have not), at this point your arguments are logically invalid. ??..Circular fallacies??? ?I?m right because my footnote/ position states your wrong??.?????? This is the nub of the matter: you want people to trash their commentaries and go straight to the word, EXCEPT... that you claim the only correct interpretation of that word is the one provided in your charts. So, what we have, in effect, is a competition between 20 centuries of commentaries versus your new commentary that you've assembled on your own. I see considerable humility exhibited by the writers of commentaries in the past: even if they should disagree about things, they maintained a Christ-honoring decorum and worked hard not to misrepresent each others contributions. But your zeal to canonize your charts and then call on 20 centuries of Biblical scholarship to concede its position doesn't inspire any confidence. Perhaps that shouldn't surprise anyone. The function of Levites -- Bible scholars, if you will -- is laid out in Malachi 2:7 thus: "For the priest's lips should preserve knowledge of sacred things, and people should seek instruction from him." The generation-to-generation preservation of biblical scholarship is part of the Levitical function, and Jeremiah 33 makes clear that we're not without Levites/scholars under the New Covenant (they're simply not a hereditary office anymore, as Jeremiah explained it). So when you advocate the mindless trashing of commentaries, this conflicts with Malachi's perspective. Bible knowledge generally followed the growth pattern outlined in Mark 4:28 thus: "First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." Newton's comments about seeing farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants applies to Bible scholarship as well. The idea that God has failed to illuminate 20 centuries of Christendom's greatest scholars, but has illuminated Allen Daves and authorized him to assert that nobody else knows what they're talking about except Allen, is, one must admit, something of a stretch. So, let's just take a look at the Who's Who in Daniel 11:1 Scholarship to see how many Bible scholars hold (as I've taught for many many rounds on this thread) that Daniel 10 through 12 constitutes a single vision all delivered in the 3rd year of Cyrus, none of it being spoken by the angel at any earlier time. I agree with these saints of old because they DO know what they're talking about -- it's obvious on the face of it, right in the text, and they and I can all see it. The blindness isn't ours, and never was -- we're not protecting some preconceived theory, but calling it the way the text presents it. Obviously, the translators of the New English Translation agree with me (otherwise Allen wouldn't have spluttered in horror at their supposedly insane footnotes). H. J. Rose, Archdeacon of Bedford, and J. M. Fuler, Vicar of Bexley, in The Bible Commentary (10 volumes, 1871-1881 Charles Scribners), reprinted 1981 by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Volume 6, page 365, also affirm that "Chapters 10 through 12 form a section of themselves. They occupy the position naturally assigned to them by their date (Daniel 10:1 -- "In the third year of Cyrus the king of Persia")." The entire prophecy covering all 3 chapters was delivered by the angel in the 3rd year of Cyrus, not the 1st year of Darius, as explained further on page 371: "The opening verse of chapter 11 is usually connected with 10:21, rather than with 11:2. The division into chapters 10, 11, 12 is unfortunate and inconvenient. The whole section forms one connected whole, and to be understood must be read regardless of the current divisions." Edward J. Young, Th.M. Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, writing in his 1949 commentary "The Prophecy of Daniel" (Eerdmans, 10th printing March 1978), page 223, is headlined "Chapters 10-12. The Vision in the Third Year of Cyrus." He treats the three consecutive chapters as all being delivered in the 3rd year of Cyrus; none of what the angel says was spoken years earlier in the 1st year of Darius. On pg. 231 Young points out that verse 11:1 "really belongs with the preceding. The Speaker now relates how He had previously been a help to Michael. During the first year of Darius, when the overthrow of Babylonia by Medio-Persia [sic] was effected, the Speaker had furnished to Michael the aid and support which he needed. I stood up] -- lit., my standing up, Unto him] -- not unto Darius but unto Michael. Thus we learn that the overthrow of Babylon was accomplished by the Lord working through His archangel. ... (11:2) -- The Messenger again assures Daniel of the veracity of His message. Perhaps the word truth reflects upon the "writing of truth" mentioned in 10:21." In the justly acclaimed 10-volume Commentary on the Old Testament by Keil and Delitzsch written in the 19th century (Eerdmans 1983 reprint), Vol. 9, p. 402-403, C. F. Keil asserts that Chapters 10 through 12 constitute a single prophecy: "In the third year of the reign of Cyrus, Daniel received the last revelation regarding the future of his people.... It consists of three parts: Chapter 10:1-11:2a, Chapter 11:2b-12:3, and Chapter 12:4-13." Later, p. 423, Keil affirms of Daniel 11 that "The first verse of the eleventh chapter belongs to ch. 10:21; the also I is emphatically placed over against the mention of Michael, whereby the connection of this verse with ch. 10:21 is placed beyond a doubt..." Keil provides an additional second reason that affirms this correction of the bad chapter break. Charles H. H. Wright, Ph.D., D.D., (Williams and Norgate, London: 1906, reprinted Klock & Klock 1983), in "Studies in Daniel's Prophecy," pg. 36 of his translation of the Hebrew, affirms in his chapter heading for chapter 11: "Chapter XI: Hebrew -- Continuation of preceding" and places the chapter break between 11:1 and 11:2. The revered Matthew Henry, in his early 18th-century commentary (MacDonald edition), Vol. 4, pg. 1095ff, asserts of Daniel 10 thus: "This chapter and the two next (which concludes this book) make up one entire vision and prophecy, which was communicated to Daniel for the use of the church, not by signs and figures, as before (ch. 7 and 8), but by express words; and this was about two years after the vision in the foregoing chapter." Note that Matthew Henry supports my position that Daniel 9 and Daniel 11 were given several years apart, NOT in the same year as Allen has continued to insist upon. Charles Boutflower, in his 1923 book "In and Around the Book of Daniel" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; Macmillan, New York), reprinted 1977 by Kregel Publications, pg. 245 affirms the unity of the vision of Chapters 10 through 12 very clearly: "The date of the prophet's last vision, given us in Chapter 10:1, viz. "the third year of Cyrus," coupled with the gracious assurance at the close of that vision, "Go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days," are indications that the Book was finished shortly after that vision and a little before his death." The date of the vision is 3rd year of Cyrus, as I've insisted upon, and the vision extends from Chapter 10 to the end of Chapter 12. Allen continues to claim that 11:1 teaches that portion of the vision was given at an earlier date, rather than treating that verse, at the bad chapter break, as being the ultra-brief retrospective flashback it obviously is. H. C. Leupold's "Exposition of Daniel" (The Wartburg Press, 1949, assigned to Augsburg Publishing House), 1969 reprint by Baker Book House, pg. 468, commenting on Dan. 11:1, states: "Nothing could be clearer than that this verse still belongs to what was just considered. Only the fact that it contains a statement of time similar to that of certain other opening verses of chapters (cf. 9:1 and 10:1) led commentators to make an unfortunate chapter division at this point. Surely, the aim of this verse is not to mark the revelation of this chapter as having been received in the first year of Darius the Mede. This verse merely looks back and supplies a thought that rounds out the last one that was uttered. The angel had just said, 'Michael stands by me.' He now adds, 'This is quite natural, for we both collaborate; and two years ago I helped him in an emergency.' " As Leupold concludes, "A simple evaluation and just a bit of confidence in the sound state of the Hebrew text would spare the critics much confusion that arises out of the lack of patience to discover the good order that is inherent in the Word." Professor Zoeckler was responsible for the 1870 commentary on Daniel appearing in Lange's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Zondervan, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by Rev. Dr. Strong from the German, n.d., Schaff's Foreword dated 1876), Vol. 13, pg. 223, identifies Chapter 10-12 as a single vision delivered in the 3rd year of Cyrus ("Concerning the final vision of Daniel (chap. x-xii) as a whole" heads the section discussing this fact). As expected, Zoeckler treats the preface of the vision as extending from 10:1 to 11:1, as affirmed by all the above scholars. Thus, "the first verse of chapter xi is thus intimately connected with the last verse of chapter x; and it was unwise to separate them." The importance of the proper resolution of this question is revealed by Zoeckler when he discusses the prediction of Dan. 11:2 -- "Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia." Zoeckler says, "doubtless, after the present king, hence after Cyrus (see chap. x.1)." In other words, the future three kings are referenced to the 3rd year of Cyrus of 10:1, not the 1st year of Darius of 11:1 which forms a retrospective flashback and aside by the angel, having no relevance to the date this vision occurred. Allen's version of events would then distort the meaning of 11:2, apart from making mincemeat of the angel's speech to Daniel. Rev. H. Deane, in Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Zondervan's 1954 edition), Vol. 5, pg. 291, says of Daniel 11:2 thus: "Compare chapter 10:21. This is the commencement of the revelation promised in chapter 10:14." In Volume 2, Part 2 of Eerdman's reprint of the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown "Exegetical and Critical Commentary on the Whole Bible," the same fact is observed at page 443. The unity of the vision and its date of deliverance is presaged at page 440: "The tenth chapter is the prologue; the eleventh, the prophecy itself; and the twelfth, the epilogue." Dr. F. W. Farrar, in the Expositor's Bible (Baker's 1982 reprint of the 1903 version), Vol. 4, page 423, says of Daniel 10 through 12: "The remaining section of the Book of Daniel forms but one vision, of which this chapter is the introduction or prologue. It is dated in the third year of Cyrus." As I said. Ernst W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament arrives at the same conclusion,and makes it explicit in his multi-volume work, "The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament" (Mack Publishing's 1972 reprint of the 1871 edition, posthumous). as does E.B. Pusey in his 1864 book, "Daniel the Prophet." This chronology for the giving of the one vision spanning chapters 10 through 12 of Daniel goes back at least as far as St. Jerome (hey, how about my Roman Catholic brothers on this forum sticking up for Jerome's depth of scholarship here a bit? How often does a Protestant commend Jerome like this? Step up to the plate, boys!). So, I find the above scholarship compelling. It comports with the text as it stands written. It doesn't require massive theological override of the text, which Allen has inexplicably argued for. I thought we had resolved this issue, but he either misunderstood what he was admitting to or has forgotten what he wrote to me. In any event, Allen, I see no reason to concede. I emphatically deny that the prophecy of 11:1 was given in the same year that 9:1 was given, and the vast weight of conservative Biblical scholarship is on my side. I'm personally convinced based on direct examination of the two chapters, in context, and I also heartily agree with the consensus of scholarship and its accumulated weight. For the record, this was my view BEFORE consulting the commentaries on the matter. I just read from Chapter 10 through 11 to see what was going on, and note the fact that the angel was in mid-speech at the chapter break. That's all I had to discern to recognize that 11:1 does not insert a grossly anomalous anachronism into the giving of the angel's vision to Daniel. The controlling timeframe is established at chapter 10:1 for the entire three-chapter-long vision. The vision was given, in all likelihood, on a single day, several years after the 70 weeks prophecy was given to Daniel, and not in the same year as the earlier prophecy, despite your repeated insistence on this by baldly quoting 11:1 without considering what it actually says and who is saying it and why. THAT is why I provided the excellent NET translation. You can see the truth without looking at the translator's footnotes. And, I might add, without slandering the footnotes and their authors. Slander is a serious sin in Scripture. In any event, the bottom line here is straightforward. No concession. Martin