We have already made an argument that Daniel 2, 7, and 8 predicts the four world empires (Babylonia, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome). With this as our foundation, we should look again at chapter 7 to identify Daniel’s main character in the fourth empire: Rome. In Daniel 7, we read about a figure called the “little horn”:
Problem: Does this predict the modern regathering of Israel?
Problem: God commanded Hosea to “take yourself a wife of harlotry.” However, according to Exodus 20:14, adultery is a sin; and according to 1 Corinthians 6:15–18, to have sexual relations with a harlot is immoral (cf. Lev. 19:29). How could a holy God command Hosea to take a harlot as his wife?
CLAIM: Critics argue that Daniel made a gross historical error here. On their view, Daniel believed that Darius was the one to conquer Babylon, rather than the Persian king Cyrus. Of course, Darius I ruled the Medo-Persian Empire from 522-486 BC, so he could not be the man mentioned here in 539 BC.
Continue reading →
Problem: Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar suffered from boanthropy (i.e. believing that you are an animal). Is this plausible? If this is the case, then why don’t extrabiblical sources record such an extravagant event?
Problem: Nebuchadnezzar looked into the fiery furnace and said, “I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!” (Dan. 3:25) Who is this fourth person in the fiery furnace?
Problem: Daniel is always seen with his three friends, but he isn’t mentioned here. Why not?
Continue reading →
In order to understand Daniel’s prophecy about the major empires of world history, we must compare Daniel’s prediction in chapters 2, 7, and 8. Daniel gives us three pictures of these world empires—all of which correlate with one another.
Problem: Other portions of Scripture contain Aramaic. Walvoord notes, “A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11; and the two words of the compound name Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47.”[1]
Problem: Amillennial interpreters argue that the dispensational reading of Ezekiel 40-48 is heretical, because it contradicts the author of Hebrews, who claims that reverting to animal sacrifices is apostasy. For instance, Curtis Crenshaw writes, “The passage most commonly mentioned that represents great difficulty to dispensational literalism is Ezekiel’s temple vision.”[1] Likewise, Floyd Hamilton writes, “The restoration of the whole sacrificial system seems to dishonor the sacrifice of Christ… According to a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 the whole ceremonial law is to be again set up in Israel.”[2]