Daniel was wrong about the fate of the King of the North…..and so is the WT & others

by deegee 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Order

    I hate to burst your bubble, but Bible Scholars and the like actually don't universally agree on this interpretation. The remainder of this prophecy is very difficult, and commentators differ much respecting it." Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on Daniel 11:31-45.

    "And the king shall do according to his will,.... Not Antiochus, for he could not do as he would, being curbed by the Romans, as has been observed; and there are many things which follow that cannot be applied to him; "

    SOURCE: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/11-36.htm

  • deegee


    What are “the many things that follow that cannot be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes”?

    Daniel 11:21 – 39 accurately “foretold" the rise and reign of Antiochus Epiphanes with the same uncanny accuracy as verses 1 – 20. The prophecies "foretold" Antiochus's military successes and his deposing of the High Priest Onias in 175 B. C. They "foretold" the attempts of Antiochus to destroy the Jewish religion by banning dietary laws and desecrating the temple in Jerusalem with pagan idols and sacrifices. THEN, SUDDENLY, THE UNCANNY ACCURACY STOPPED and none of the events in Daniel 11:40 – 45 actually happened.

    Have you read the apocryphal books of the Maccabees? Many of Antiochus Epiphanes’ efforts to stamp out Jewish traditions and religious practices are recorded in the apocryphal books of the Maccabees.



  • deegee

    Further, have you and those Bible Scholars EXAMINED THE BOOK OF DANIEL IN ITS ENTIRETY?

    The uncanny accuracy of Daniel’s “prophesies” in Daniel 11: 1- 39 have perhaps led you and those scholars to believe that Daniel is an inspired book, but have you and those scholars examined the entire book?

    Daniel 11: 1 – 39 covered events from the 4th to the 2nd century B. C. with uncanny accuracy HOWEVER, when the events of 6th-century B. C. history in the book of Daniel are compared with actual history there are significant inaccuracies about this era in the book, which is shocking since Daniel claimed to be a Jewish captive who had become an important official in the Babylonian empire. Daniel did not know the events of his own era as a 6th-century B. C. Babylonian official.



    This is a clear indication that the book of Daniel is not authentic and can’t be taken seriously.

    This is why modern bible critics think it is more likely that in chapter 11 verses 1 - 39, the writer, rather than looking forward into time, was actually looking back on events that had happened far more recently than the Babylonian captivity, and so that is why he performed much better in this chapter than in those that reported the activities of Daniel in 6th-century Babylon.

  • Phizzy

    Thank you Deegee. When reading " Bible Scholars" one has to look at the individual scholar, is she/he a "believer" ? if so, it is a sad fact that often their conclusions are coloured by their belief.

    I agree fully with your estimation of the Book of Daniel, as does the estimable ex-Poster on here Leolaia. She is an ex-JW, but her studies have not been influenced by belief. She made a number of Posts on Daniel in her time here, well worth a read.

Share this