Ads
related to: daniel 11 and 12 explained commentary easy
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Chapters 10, 11, and 12 in the Book of Daniel make up Daniel's final vision, describing a series of conflicts between the unnamed "King of the North" and "King of the South" leading to the "time of the end", when Israel will be vindicated and the dead raised, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
[26] [27] Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel went into the kingdoms that Daniel predicted. [28] Many Protestant Reformers were interested in historicism and the day-year principle, assigning prophecies in the Bible to past, present and future events. It was prevalent in Wycliffe's writings, [14] and taught by Martin Luther, [29] [30] John ...
In chapter 12, the angel gives three more dates: the desolation will last "for a time, times and half a time", or a year, two years, and a half a year (Daniel 12:8); then that the "desolation" will last for 1,290 days (12:11); and finally, 1,335 days (12:12). Verse 12:11 was presumably added after the lapse of the 1,150 days of chapter 8, and ...
Clarke viewed Daniel 8 as a separate vision from Daniel 7. In his 1831 commentary on Daniel 8:14, he states that the 2,300-year period should be calculated from 334 BC, the year Alexander the Great began his conquest of the Persian Empire. His calculation ends in the year 1966, where he links to Daniel 7:25. [31]
Daniel 11:36-37 [22] speaks of a self exalting king, considered by some to be the Antichrist. [23] Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to replace worship of Yahweh with veneration of himself, and was referred to in the Daniel 8:23-25 prophecy. [24] His command to worship false gods and desecration of the temple was seen by Jerome as prefiguring the ...
The seventy weeks prophecy is internally dated to "the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede" (Daniel 9:1), [34] later referred to in the Book of Daniel as "Darius the Mede" (e.g. Daniel 11:1); [35] however, no such ruler is known to history and the widespread consensus among critical scholars is that he is a literary fiction. [36]