The Book of Daniel - Greece or Rome ?

quote:

---

But we agree that Daniel 7 matches well with Daniel 2. Daniel 2 speaks of kingdoms and Daniel 7 of kings. So the terms seem to be somewhat interchangeable in Daniel.

---

No, I DON'T agree with that and I never said that I did.

quote:

---

But if they are treated as one in BOTH, as I suggest, then we get a fairly good match. This gives a more consistent interpretation. (Medo-Persia viewed as a dual, unequal union in both descriptions)

---

You get a vague match based on the interpretation of one characteristic. And you still have to assume an exact match between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 even though one speaks of kingdoms and the other of kings.

quote:

---

But if they are treated as one in BOTH, as I suggest, then we get a fairly good match. This gives a more consistent interpretation. (Medo-Persia viewed as a dual, unequal union in both descriptions)

---

But my interpretation is consistent with the fact that chapter 8 is claimed to be an end-times prophecy - something that contradicts your interpetation.My interpetation aso matches the statue of Daniel 2 to the prophecies better. You assume that it is an Empire mentioned ONLY in those two, vague and obscure chapters. Yet why should the divided Empire of Daniel 2 not be the divided Empire of chapters 8 and 11 ? The ONLY divided Empire in the text ? As I point otu above the ruler of Daniel 10-12 is a good match for both "little horns" yet your interpretation must leave at least one without a clear match.So not only do I avoid a more serious problem than any you have raised against my views what I lose on one match is more than made up for in other areas.

No, I did not. That would be circular logic. Here's my approach:
1) I conclude that the "little horns" in ch 7 and 8 are different based on their descriptions (e.g. one comes after 10 horns, the other comes from 4 horns).
2) The little horn of ch 8 comes from Greece, according to the text.
3) I conclude that the second empire matches best with the Medo-Persian ram, and the third with the Greek goat, based on their descriptions.
(Sorry for compressing/concatenating this in my first message and confusing you as to the approach.)Here's your approach, as I see it:
1) You assume that the two "little horns" are the same.
2) This forces your conclusion that the 4th empire is Greece.

quote:

---

No, I did not. That would be circular logic. Here's my approach:
1) I conclude that the "little horns" in ch 7 and 8 are different based on their descriptions (e.g. one comes after 10 horns, the other comes from 4 horns).

---

Your example misses an important nuance. The little horn of chapter 7 grows AMONGST 10 horns. In chapter 8 it grows FROM one of four horns. The conventional interpretation is that the four horns are the oriinal split whiles the 10 horns are a succession of kings. This is consisent with the two little horns being the same individual.

quote:

---

Here's your approach, as I see it:
1) You assume that the two "little horns" are the same.
2) This forces your conclusion that the 4th empire is Greece.

---

You should already know that I have raised other points. Firstly that chapter 8 is expressly stated to be a prophecy of the end times, thus ruling out a later empire. Secondly that chapters 10-12 also indicate that the final ruler will be from the Greek Empire.