Your OP is a testament as to why paraphrasing Scripture never works. Daniel 12:2 already happened.
Daniel 12:1 is about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
End of Days
- Thread starter OMC
- 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.
Your OP is a testament as to why paraphrasing Scripture never works. Daniel 12:2 already happened.
Daniel 12:1 is about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
The following verses speak of the 'time of the end':
And yet they all happened already. Do you agree @OMC ?
| Daniel 8:17 - So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Daniel 11:35 - And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. Daniel 11:40 - And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. Daniel 12:4 - But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Daniel 12:9 - And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. |
And yet they all happened already. Do you agree @OMC ?
No — Daniel’s “time of the end” prophecies have not all already happened, and the reason is simple:
Daniel uses the phrase “time of the end” (קֵץ, qēts) in a way that does not match the events of the Maccabean period, Antiochus IV, or any other past crisis.
The details Daniel gives — the king of the north overwhelming multiple countries (Dan 11:40), the unprecedented deliverance of God’s people (12:1), the resurrection of the dead (12:2), the sealing of the book until the end (12:4, 9), and the final purifying of the wise (11:35; 12:10) — have not occurred in history.
Some events in Daniel do have historical precursors (like Antiochus), but Daniel explicitly pushes beyond them into a final climactic period that has not yet unfolded. So when someone says, “And yet they all happened already,” they are flattening Daniel’s structure, ignoring the textual markers of escalation, and collapsing prophecy into past history where the details simply do not fit.
Your claim that “Daniel 12:2 already happened” and “Daniel 12:1 is about 70 AD” collapses the very things Daniel himself separates. Daniel 12:1–2 is a unit, and the events in verse 2 make it impossible to push the passage into 70 AD. Daniel 12:2 describes a resurrection of the dead — “many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
No event in 70 AD, nor anything in the first century, remotely resembles that. Jesus, Paul, and John all treat the resurrection as future, climactic, and global, not as a localized metaphor for national judgment.
And Daniel 12:1 describes “a time of trouble such as never was,” followed by deliverance of “everyone found written in the book” — again, nothing in 70 AD matches that scale.
You can’t split the unit: if 12:1 is 70 AD, then 12:2 must be too, and that forces you to claim the resurrection already happened, which contradicts the entire New Testament witness.
Daniel’s “time of the end” is not the end of the Old Covenant era; it is the end of history as Daniel defines it.
I disagree. The phrase 'time of the end' precisely matches events of past history. Specifically, the time of the end began at the battles of Actium and Alexandria. It ended in 70 AD.
The main players were Octavian, Mark Antony, Cleopatra and King Herod.
That would be Octavian/Augustus. Look up the history. It matches precisely.
12:1 refers to the Crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
| Matthew 27:52 - And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose |
It was just a small sample of people. Daniel 12:2 does not describe the final two resurrections that have yet to occur. You have conflated those events with Matthew 27:52.
That is the end of the Old Testament at the end of *that* age.
That was the finished work on the Cross. It is finished. As I mentioned several times to you in a previous post, I have already done my homework on this. Here is a sample of a very detailed study that I will be publishing for free very soon:
I am not ignorant on this topic.
I disagree.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not what the mainstream "scholars" teach. They got it wrong, yet no one has challenged them except me.
Daniel 11 and 12 are past history. The Little Horn of Daniel 8 was the early Roman Empire and sixth head of the Beast. In fact, this verse is describing King Herod:
| Daniel 8:23 - And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. |
The 'indignation' was the massacre of the innocents. Folks have no idea how wrong they are about so much of Daniel. It's unbelievable. The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is still future. It is the 'eighth of the seven'. It is the head whose deadly wound is healed.
Some of Daniel is past, some of it is future. Again, Daniel 11 and 12 is done.
Brother my intention isn’t to form any timeline . I’m any way no one knows the timing Jesus made that clear .my point was “ last days “ should be looked at in the context of what’s being said . Sometimes it refers to the end of the world other times it doesn’t …..
Daniel 11–12: what the text actually says
1. The king of the north in Daniel 11:40
You say Daniel 11:40 is Octavian/Augustus.
But Daniel 11:40–45 describes:
“the king of the north” pushing at “him,”
overflowing and passing over,
entering “the glorious land,”
Planting his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain,
and then coming to his end with none to help him.
Augustus never did that.
The text keeps the “north” terminology consistent with the earlier Seleucid line, then escalates beyond it.
There is no historical match that exhausts this description.
2. Daniel 12:1 and 70 AD
You say 12:1 is crucifixion and 70 AD.
But 12:1 says:
“a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time,”
and “at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.”
70 AD was horrific, but it did not result in the deliverance of “everyone written in the book.” Most Jews perished; the church suffered; the nations continued.
Jesus uses similar language in Matthew 24, but He pushes it to the end (Matt 24:21–31), not to 70 AD alone.
3. Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 27:52
You say Daniel 12:2 is fulfilled in Matthew 27:52. But compare the texts:
Daniel 12:2: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
Matthew 27:52–53: “The graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
Matthew describes saints only, with no mention of the wicked, no “everlasting contempt,” no final judgment, no separation of righteous and wicked.
Daniel explicitly includes both categories and their eternal destinies.
That is not a “small sample”; it is the climactic resurrection pattern echoed in John 5:28–29 and Revelation 20:11–15.
You are shrinking Daniel’s language to fit a partial event.
4. The sealing of the book (Daniel 12:4, 9)
You say the sealing is “the end of the Old Testament at the end of that age.”
But Daniel 12:4 says:
“shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”
And 12:9:
“the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”
That is not “end of the OT era”; it is “time of the end” in Daniel’s own eschatological vocabulary (cf. 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9, 13).
Revelation picks this up when the sealed scroll is opened by the Lamb (Rev 5), not by the Maccabees or by 70 AD.
5. The purifying of the wise (Daniel 11:35; 12:10)
You say 11:35 and 12:10 are simply “the finished work on the Cross.” The cross is indeed the ground of all purification, but Daniel 11:35 says:
“some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end.”
And 12:10:
“Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.”
This is an ongoing process “even to the time of the end,” not a single past event.
The New Testament agrees: sanctification and testing continue until Christ’s return (1 Thess 3:13; 1 Pet 1:6–7).
Daniel 8 and the little horn
You say the little horn of Daniel 8 is early Rome/Herod.
But Daniel 8 is explicit:
The ram is Media and Persia (8:20).
The goat is Greece (8:21).
The four horns are four kingdoms out of that nation (8:22).
The little horn arises “out of one of them” (8:9).
Rome does not arise out of one of the four Greek successor kingdoms.
Herod is a client king under Rome, not a Greek successor.
The text itself locates the little horn within the Greek aftermath, not the Roman beast.
You are overriding Daniel’s own identifications.
Past and future in Daniel
You say, “Daniel 11 and 12 is done.”
But Daniel 12:2–3, 7, 13 speak of:
a resurrection to everlasting life and everlasting contempt,
the shining of the wise “as the brightness of the firmament,”
the shattering of the power of the holy people,
and Daniel himself standing in his lot “at the end of the days.”
None of that has been exhausted in history. The New Testament repeatedly treats resurrection, final judgment, and the shining of the righteous as future (Matt 13:43; John 6:39–40; 1 Cor 15; Rev 20–22).
If Daniel 12 were fully past, the entire NT eschatology would be misaligned.
Some of Daniel is indeed past; I agree with you there.
But Daniel 11:40–45 and 12:1–3 push beyond Antiochus, beyond Rome, beyond 70 AD, into a final climactic period that has not yet unfolded.
When I let the text speak in its own terms, I cannot compress those chapters into completed history without tearing the fabric of both Daniel and the New Testament.
@OMC . Are you using AI to generate your responses? It looks very 'cut and paste'.
Incorrect. Are you paying attention to what I write or are you letting AI do the thinking for you?
The King of the North is Octavian. As far as the entire verse is concerned, there are other players involved. Octavian goes against Mark Antony (King of the South) and Cleopatra in the famous battle of Alexandria. Octavian defeats them. This is well known history.
Octavian (King of the North) pushes at Mark Antony (King of the South).
Yes, Octavian won.
Hey Mr. AI, does the Glorious Land include the Levant?
Cool. Did Octavian enter this area after the Battle of Actium?
That is referring to King Herod mentioned in Daniel 11:36.
Until I know you aren't simply using AI to respond, I will stop here.
Incorrect. Are you paying attention to what I write or are you letting AI do the thinking for you?
The King of the North is Octavian. As far as the entire verse is concerned, there are other players involved. Octavian goes against Mark Antony (King of the South) and Cleopatra in the famous battle of Alexandria. Octavian defeats them. This is well known history.
Octavian (King of the North) pushes at Mark Antony (King of the South).
Yes, Octavian won.
Hey Mr. AI, does the Glorious Land include the Levant?
Cool. Did Octavian enter this area after the Battle of Actium?
That is referring to King Herod mentioned in Daniel 11:36.
Until I know you aren't simply using AI to respond, I will stop here.
When you ask whether I am “using AI” because my responses look “cut and paste,” you reveal that you are measuring truth by style rather than by Scripture, and that is a dangerous metric for any man who claims to handle the Word. I do not anchor my argument in clever phrasing or rhetorical flair; I anchor it in the text itself, and when the text speaks with precision, I answer with precision. Your attempt to dismiss my exposition of Daniel 11 by accusing me of artificiality does not engage a single verse, a single definition, or a single prophetic structure—it merely sidesteps the weight of the evidence. You insist that Octavian is the king of the north, yet Daniel has already defined “north” as the Seleucid line long before verse 40; you insist that Actium fulfills “overflow and pass over,” yet Daniel uses that phrase for sweeping territorial invasion, not naval victory; you insist that Herod suddenly appears mid‑prophecy, yet Daniel’s narrative does not fracture itself to rescue strained interpretations. A man confident in his reading does not need to discredit the one who challenges it; he simply answers from Scripture. If you wish to continue the discussion, then meet me in the text itself rather than in suspicion, because the Word—not stylistic accusation—is the ground upon which truth stands.
History and Chronology
There is one topic in the Bible where we can fully distinguish between a prophet’s. Personal opinion and those truths they saw in vision. We simply compare their statements about timing with recoded history and notice the results. We then discover that many OT and NT writers alike thought they were living at or near the end of time. In addition to the three texts above we have Obadiah, 1:15; Joel 2:1; Isiah 13:6; Ezekiel 30:3; Zephaniah 1;14; I Cor. 7:29; 1 Peter 4:7; James 5:8; and 1 John 2:18.
A host of scholars have used clever and fanciful footwork to show that “soon” or “near” in all these texts means something other than “close at hand”. History clearly shows that more than 1,9000 years have pasted since John wrote, “This is the last hour” (1 John 2:18) Did John make a mistake in calculating his position within God’s timing of events? Yes. Did God show John or the other prophets in vision that they were living in the last days? No. Does John’s mistake and that of other prophets on timing lessen their work as prophets? No. It simply reveals in the case of John that he did not know about God’s timing even though he was acquainted with the 1,260 days time -period in Revelation 12:6. What John didn’t know was God reckoned those days as 1,260 years. God did not reveal to John the meaning of the time periods in Revelation, so John was free to say that he thought he was living in the last hour.
There is another test we can apply to the truth-full-ness of a prophet’s claim on timing. The test is apocalyptic prophecy. Apocalyptic prophecy is defined as those prophecies in Daniel and Revelation having chronological structure. This means, apocalyptic prophecy lays out the chronology of time and marks its passage through the fulfillment of events as they occur. Dan. 2 and 7 are two examples. But John didn’t understand the prophecies of Daniel. If he had , her would have known that the little horn power of Dan. 7, would persecute the saints for 1,260 years, 538-1798. He would have know the 2,300 year prophecy of Dan. 8:14 ended in 1844. But, it wasn’t time for anyone to understand that part of God’s truth in Johns day. So one cannot make an accurate statement about the nearness of Christ’s return without first having knowledge of apocalyptic prophecies. This includes the prophets.
My point is that prophets can say whatever they want to say about the things not revealed to them in visions. However, their claims about living in the last days, or hour, must be tested by history and apocalyptic prophecy. And on both counts they all made a mistake.
Keep in mind, the mistake is not a moral issue. The mistake exists because, as Paul said, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part.” (1 Cor. 13:9)
What you have written requires careful, steady correction. I am not attacking you; I am defending the integrity of Scripture itself. Your entire argument rests on the claim that the prophets—Old Testament and New—were wrong about timing, misunderstood their own visions, and spoke uninspired guesses. I cannot accept that, because the Word of God will not allow it.
You begin by saying that many prophets “thought” they were living near the end of time, and therefore they were mistaken. But when I read the prophets, I do not see men guessing. I see men declaring what the Spirit told them. When John says, “It is the last hour,” he is not calculating a date. He is identifying the era of history inaugurated by Christ’s first coming. Peter says the same thing in Acts 2:17. Hebrews says it in Hebrews 1:2. Paul says it in 1 Corinthians 10:11. None of them are predicting the timing of the Second Coming. They are declaring the theological reality that the final age has begun. You are confusing epoch with chronology, and then accusing the prophets of error when your category mistake collapses.
You also argue that “soon” and “near” must mean “immediate,” and therefore the prophets were wrong because 1,900 years have passed. But Scripture itself explains these terms. God’s judgments come suddenly when they begin. God’s promises are certain, not delayed. God’s perspective on time is not ours. “Soon” does not mean “within a few years of John.” It means when the events begin, they unfold rapidly. You imposed your own definition on the prophets, and then declared them mistaken when your definition failed. The error is not in the prophets. The error is in the definition you forced upon them.
You then claim John misunderstood Daniel’s time periods, and that God secretly converted days into years—1,260 days into 1,260 years, 2,300 days into 2,300 years ending in 1844. Student, I must speak plainly: Scripture never says that. Daniel says “days.” Revelation says “days.” You say “years.” That is not exegesis; that is the historicist system reading itself into the text. You are not testing the prophets by Scripture. You are testing the prophets by your system, and then declaring them wrong when they do not match it.
You also claim prophets can speak error when not in vision, that they can “say whatever they want” about unrevealed things. But Scripture denies this. Peter says holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Paul says all Scripture is God‑breathed. You cannot divide the prophets into “inspired parts” and “uninspired guesses.” That is not biblical. That is not Christian. That is not how inspiration works. No prophet ever wrote error in the prophetic writings. No prophet ever guessed about the last days. No prophet ever miscalculated God’s timing.
You argue that apocalyptic prophecy gives a chronological map, and that John was wrong because he did not understand your timeline. But Daniel and Revelation do not give a continuous timeline. They give visions, patterns, kingdoms, judgments, symbols, cycles, and climaxes. Your system forces Daniel and Revelation into a single linear chart, then declares the prophets wrong when they do not fit your chart. The prophets are not wrong. The chart is wrong.
Finally, you say history proves the prophets mistaken. But Scripture says history proves God patient. The prophets were not wrong. Your system is wrong. Every claim you made depends on the historicist framework—day‑year conversions, 538–1798, 1844, prophetic “mistakes,” uninspired guesses, misunderstood visions. None of these come from Scripture. All of them come from the system.
So I say this as one bound to the Word:
No prophet ever made a mistake about the last days.
No prophet ever misjudged God’s timing.
No prophet ever misunderstood Daniel.
No prophet ever wrote uninspired guesses.
The mistake is not in John, Daniel, Paul, Peter, or any prophet.
The mistake is in the system that forces Scripture to fit human chronology.
The difference between Matthew mentioning two demon‑possessed men and Mark/Luke mentioning one is not a discrepancy, contradiction, or prophetic “error”—it is simply a matter of narrative focus, not conflicting facts. Matthew records both men because his style consistently emphasizes plurality in miracle scenes, while Mark and Luke focus on the dominant, violent, outspoken man whose encounter with Jesus becomes the centerpiece of the story. Nothing in Mark or Luke says there was only one man; they simply highlight the one whose transformation becomes the testimony to Decapolis. This is the same pattern seen elsewhere in Scripture: two blind men in Matthew 20:30, but one (Bartimaeus) emphasized in Mark 10:46; two angels at the tomb in Luke 24:4, but one emphasized in Mark 16:5. The writers are not contradicting each other—they are selecting different details for theological and narrative purposes. This is exactly why your claim that “prophets cannot speak error” is correct: none of these accounts contain error, because “one” does not negate “two,” and “two” does not contradict “one.” It is the difference between reporting the full group (Matthew) and spotlighting the central figure (Mark and Luke).
OMC, on this statement of yours I will have to agree. And will add that vs. 13 of that chapter states of Daniel, " But you [Daniel], go your way till the end; for you [Daniel] shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days [1335]. It is those days that comprise the closing events before the return of Christ, after which Daniel will arise in the first resurrection with all other saints.
Brother, there is no confusion in my explanation—Mark and Luke mention one man because they focus their narrative on the dominant, violent, vocal demoniac, but they never say there was only one, never use an exclusive term, never deny the presence of the second man Matthew records; “mentioning one” is not the same as “asserting only one,” and every writer in Scripture routinely highlights the central figure without denying the others present (two blind men in Matthew, one emphasized in Mark; two angels in Luke, one emphasized in Mark). Matthew reports the full group, Mark and Luke report the central figure, and those two reporting choices are not contradictory—they are complementary.
Yes. He does. Although you'll get an AI argument/accusation about it as you just witnessed with OMC's reply to you despite in 1 thread he admitted to using AI but generally likes to argue about it mostly. You're going to get lots of statement contradictions, as you can see as an example that Goldwing pointed out.
Yeah, the disabled guy needs tech to communicate so lets kill him. You call yourselves followers of Christ??
I navigate with this tube and speak into the microphone. It takes dictation and organizes my notes.