Talk:Daniel's final vision

Daniel 11 refers to past events
I used to suspect that Daniel 11 refers to future events too; however, after comparing Daniel 11 to historical events, I came to independently believe that the vast majority of Daniel 11 refers firstly to the Seleucid (king of the north) and Ptolemaic (king of the south) kingdoms, and then much of the final verses refer to Antiochus IV "Epiphanes". Note that it does not say that he dies in Jerusalem; it only says that he pitches his tent there (in other words, that he made it his home/base), and then he later died of disease. I should add that just because Daniel 11 refers to the past, that does not mean that other books of Daniel have no as of yet future implications... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Media/Persian Empire
It is the Persian empire. This is clear from both 11:1, 13, 20 and 12:2. The text has "Darius the Mede" as king of the Persian empire. --spin (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel 11 Refers to Future Events
What I'm about to say is original research, but if needed, I'm sure I could find an agreeing source, as many Christians believe Daniel 11 is about the future. Daniel 11:31 says, "...they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." All of Daniel 12 then clearly goes on to talk about the end of the world, finally saying in verses 11-13, "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.  But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." If the end of the world happens 45 days (1335-1290) from the setup of the abomination that make desolate, and if the events of Daniel 11 occured in the 2nd or 3rd century BC, including the setup of the abomination itself, there lies a logical inconsistancy, because I'm still here. To make the clearly bogus (as proven above) claim that the prophecies here refer to past events right at the top of the article, stated as fact, is not appropriate. Even if the controversy against this opinion is great, the futurist view of this chapter should at least be given more appropriate weight. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research
This page was filled with Original research. Please edit with reliable sources and references. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

King of the North
MOVE: The Book of Daniel section was moved to this page at: Daniel 11 on 03:25, 26 September 2011. It no longer exists on the Book of Daniel page. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel
On what basis is the angel called Gabriel? I didn't find it in any translations and as far as I know, this angel remains nameless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senitiel (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Keeping page encyclopedic
The page as it stands at present leaves me with the impression that it's style is no longer truly encyclopedic but is veering towards textbook style. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states: "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". This may partly be a question of the layout of the new material, but encyclopedic brevity helps the reader. &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue with such religious topics is that it is so easy to insert a pov without being aware of it. Someone commenting on some text might actually tell the truth, or they might be seeing things, or they may be deluded, or they may deliberately lie.  The only way to tell for sure is check it out for yourself.  That why I included the comparison.  But I agree that brevity is a good thing.  So I have collapsed the added material so that those who want more detail can check it out.  is this workable?  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a step in the right direction. &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed after over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Daniel 11 → Daniel's final vision – This article is actually about chapter 10, 11, and 12, since they all cover one vision. StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scripture
The Scripture is not an authority for Wikipedia, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

True, but neither is Collins. "Although set during the 6th century BCE, the Book of Daniel was written in reaction to the persecution of the Jews by the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–164 BCE" - if you follow the footnote, Collins cites HIMSELF seven times in the first four pages of his paper (see footnotes 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 & 20) - which clearly fails the "encyclopedic" acid test.

Collins use of the Masoretic text (~1008 C.E.) to call into question the Qumran texts (4QDan, ~125 B.C.E) does NOT explain how supposed events of Antiochus Epiphanes ~168-65 B.C.E became part of the Qumran library/cannon (8x copies) in less than four decades. See https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1541&context=jats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.233.199 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit war
"Claiming that historical criticism is passé may suggest to some that conservative biblical scholarship has won the “battle” against historical criticism and is now finally vindicated. This may sound appealing in popular circles, but it is not true in academia."

- Peter Enns

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)