I’d like some help finding reasons why the prophecy described in this post on another message board doesn’t work. That is, in addition to the plentiful reasons for not believing in any prophecy. Hopefully, it’ll help settle an argument.
Basically, the claim is that this passage predicts the length of the recent war in Iraq:
Some choice quotes:
No bias there, surely. And:
Good stuff. Anyway, my main objection to this is that one could look through the Bible and pull out about any number of days they wanted, and then claim it predicted how the war would go. But since I’m relatively uninformed about this sort of thing, I’d also like to hear some factual reasons why this allegory doesn’t work. Any help in this area would be much appreciated.
Persia is Iran, not Iraq. That should really resolve the debate. I don’t really see the connection to the war in this quote, either.
But to add a few points: Bush didn’t ‘declare’ the combat over until yesterday. I suppose the argument is that Baghdad fell on day 21, but several towns were taken afterward, like Tikrit, which was where many thought Hussein would make his last stand. And plenty of fighting went on, in Baghdad and other places, even after that. That day was just sort of “chosen,” since there was no climactic battle or formal surrender.
The prophecy refers to the prince of Persia (in 3D!!) withstanding “me” (God? Who’s speaking in that passage?) for 21 days… it doesn’t refer to the actual length of the war.
Of course, I’d still like to know precisely when - or even if - Saddam kicked the bucket. Hell, they were screaming “We think he’s dead!” since Day One of the war.
The book of Daniel was written about 164 BCE during the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus. Antiochus was a successor to the Selucid dynasty in Syria, which in turn was one of the successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great. Antiochus was particularly hostile to Israel in that he installed a statue of Zeus in the temple and forbade all Jewish worship. The Jews revolted, beat Antiochus and took back the temple. Daniel was written during the time of the revolt and its intent was to reassure Jews that God would give them victory over Antiochus.
The book is of the apocalyptic genre, which means that it uses indirect or coded frames of reference to describe current events. In this case, Daniel is set during the sixth century Babylonian exile and tells the story of a legendary prophetic figure named Daniel who was a dream interpreter in the court of Nebuchednezzar. Daniel’s prohesies are used as a device to convey information and prophesies about the Antiochan occupation and the Maccabean resistance to it.
In the passage in question, the character of Daniel is being visited by the angel Gabriel, who speaks the line quoted in the OP. Gabriel is telling Daniel that the king of Persia will be defeated by another king (Michael) from the south. The king of Persia has a double meaning, it refers ostensibly to the Daniel era king of Babylon but esoterically to present day (at the time of the writing) Antiochus. Michael was sort of the guardian angel of the Jews. Essentially this is a prediction that God will send someone to defeat Antiochus, just as Darius (the Jews of that time mistakenly believed) had defeated Baylon.
Daniel goes on to predict that the Messiah will come and the world will end about three years after the “abomination” had been put into the temple by Antiochus (which happened in 167 BCE). Obvioulsly, the world didn’t end and the Messiah didn’t come. The revolt was successful and Antiochus died, but no Greek kings from the south intervened and Antiochus died in Persia while Daniel prphesied he would die in Palestine.
To sum up: The book of Daniel is all about the 2nd century BCE and has nothing to do with current events in Iraq. The attempts at real predicative prophesy at the end of Daniel don’t predict anything past 164 BCE, and they were wrong in any case.
and as usual I disagree with everything DTC said except that the passage in Daniel EXCEPT that the passage does not refer to the Iraq war
as to whether the war was prophesied, I’ve heard some interesting stuff claiming that is was during the first Gulf war by Rabbi Schneerson, the late leader & Messianic candidate of the Chabad Lubavitch.
Nitpick: Persia is most commonly used to refer to the Ancient Empire that ruled much of the Middle East in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and is also used to refer to a later nation that arose in the region in the third century AD and was later conquered by the Arabs. Although the name Persia was sometimes used to refer to the region until the early twentieth centruy, some historians might object to saying that Persia is modern-day Iran.
I must add my disclaimer that I completely disagree with Diogenes perspective on the book of Daniel. We agree, however, that the passage quoted is not prophetic. Also, just so you know where I am coming from, I believe in prophecy, which apparently separates me from the OP and many others, I suspect.
The passage quoted is not a prophecy of anything, much less the current war in Iraq. The actual prophecy which is given to Daniel by the angel begins in Chapter 11.
In the beginning of Chapter 10, Daniel is visited by an angel, who explains his delay in reaching Daniel by referencing pressing business that is usually interpreted in one of two ways: One interpretation is that there was an angelic battle, and the Prince of Peria is actually a reference to a specific demon. The more common interpretation is that the Prince of Persia is a literal reference to Cambyses, the son of Cyrus. At the time, Cyrus was out fighting the Scythians and left his son in charge. Cambyses was delaying the building of the temple by the Jews.
However you interpret that passage, it is in reference to events past, not the future. If you read the entire passage, it is clear that the actual prophecy begins in 11:2 and continues through the end of the book.
The region would have been known as Judaea (or, more likely, the Greek equivalent). The term “Palestine” was invented by the Romans in the 2nd century CE, about 300 years after the Maccabean revolt.
You’re sort of right, but only in terms of pronunciation. “Palestine” is just the Latinized form of “Philistine,” which is in turn the Greek form of the Hebrew “Plesheth” which appears many times in the Bible.
You want 9/11 and the Iraq war from Scripture? Try this:
And it has just as much validity as any other attempt to find evidence of present day events in Scripture – effectively none, except that Bible writers had a handle on the heart of man, and “only the names have changed.”
“And you shall come up with a cunning plan, a plan so cunning that a weasel could brush his teeth with it. And a man will come, a dirty man with a turnip, and he shall be your servant, and his name will be Baldrick.” (Blackadder 6:25-27)
