What seems to be certain from history is that Antiochus IV Epiphanes accomplished all of what is described in Daniel 11:31 in 167 B.C.
Daniel's 1260 vs. 1290 vs. 1335 vs. 2300 Days
- Thread starter Researcher
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The thing is - I do not believe you have properly interpreted Daniel 11 - so, I can only believe a limited portion of what you say...
(We do agree on some things - just not everything.)
As to the ships of Chittim - how about this [bit of a hint]:
"Gaius Popillius Laenas drew a circle around Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the sand..."
"Thaaat's niiice..."
However, the Olivet Discourse is a million times more clear and definitive - the 'great tribulation' referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24:21 began circa 70 A.D. - because, Matthew 24:15-20 / Mark 13:14-18 / Luke 21:20-23a unmistakably refer to the days of the events associated with the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
My posts on the matter of the structure of Luke 21 are available on this thread.
And they resoundingly debunk your thesis.
If that is the case, then it contradicts what you said here:
So according to you, the desolation of Jerusalem began here:
167 BC is not 70 AD.
I addressed this in post #31...
Here is a snippet:
That was way back in Daniel 11:18.
No contradiction. None whatsoever.
There was no prophetic 'Abomination of Desolation' that occurred circa 70 A.D. - nor did there need to be - this is what you need to understand.
The Olivet Discourse does not predict a future 'Abomination of Desolation' like most people think (and, it never did).
It has been misinterpreted to the extreme.
You MUST properly understand what the parenthetical phrases in Matthew 24:15 / Mark 13:14 are telling you or you will vastly misinterpret it - every - single - time.
Please see:
Jerusalem was in fact desolated in 167 B.C.
Jerusalem was in fact desolated in 70 A.D.
However, the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation' occurred in 167 B.C.
What you see in the Olivet Discourse is only a reference being made to the occurrence in 167 B.C. - not a prediction about a future 'Abomination of Desolation' occurrence.
Jerusalem was in fact desolated in 70 A.D.
However, the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation' occurred in 167 B.C.
What you see in the Olivet Discourse is only a reference being made to the occurrence in 167 B.C. - not a prediction about a future 'Abomination of Desolation' occurrence.
Nor does there need to be a future 'Abomination of Desolation' occurrence.
The prophetic requirement has been met - it has been fulfilled - all that is left is to properly interpret what the Bible is actually saying.
The Second Coming occurred shortly after 70AD?
Not so you would notice.
Your theory is hogwash and effortlessly debunked.
Mat 24:29 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Yet, that is exactly what you are doing if you are depending on the opinions of others to determine your own opinion.
Don't be a copycat - be original - stop researching commentaries and start researching history. Yes, it is more difficult (commentaries are the "easy route" to take); however, it usually always yields a more accurate result if you can get closer to the actual facts. In general - the more 'facts' you look at - and, the less 'opinions' of others about those facts you look at - the better.
I believe the vast majority of biblical commentaries are flawed. Why? Because, the person who wrote it assumes things that the Bible does not actually say. And, this is the great 'tragedy' where commentaries are concerned.
One of the best examples of this is the 'pre-trib' rapture belief - people assume it as the core truth and wrap the entire Bible around it - happens every day - people ignoring the simple straight-forward direct truth(s) that the Bible does say.
Do yourself a big favor - stay away from commentaries - at least for the most part. Yes, they are sometimes useful for certain things - but, for the most part, they tend to get in the way of truth.
I suggest that it sometimes takes greater discernment to read a commentary than it does to read the Bible - partially because we know every word of the Bible is true - and, that cannot be assumed with regard to a commentary.
The proper 'correction' is simply to interpret it properly - which many do not want to do - because, they are happy with what they have been fed...
My advice - be careful - do not ever let anything become more 'core' than the Bible when it comes to the search for truth.
Commentaries have a way of "slipping into the conscience" of folks and supplanting the Bible without them realizing it.
And, for as long as it remains 'discussion' (not argument), it can get even more interesting...
The only 'structure' that matters is how the three accounts of the Olivet Discourse align with each other. And, you can see that here:
When reading into history, a lot of research or discernment is necessary. Depending on who wrote the history, the narrative can be totally different, opposite.