Talk:Daniel 8

message: There's no talk here? Is this new? Are there any other articals related to Daniel chapter 8?
Rush4hire 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New?

message: Mekeggg:  You have introduced what appears to be unsourced material wp:verify and original Research WP:OR.  Both of which are not allowed on WP.  I will simply note with citation needed the parts that need sources, for now.  I could just eliminate your material outright, but I want to give you a chance to find the sources you need.  The material introduced by ChristianSkeptic is sourced and not Original Research.  It is allowable.  Criticisms of various positions are allowed and help keep the article NPOV.  I will correct the article to reflect these points.   Trabucogold (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop edit war 

message: It cannot be him because as stated in the chapter, he comes during the end times (at the end) which has not happened yet. The text is describing the Antichrist who comes on to the world scene during the last days tribulation period (too many references to list in the Bible)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.107.150 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn 

message: The modernist view (not scholarly view - that is a biased statement) is given substantially more text than other views in this article, as is the wiki article on Daniel 7.  The bias here is regrettable, and this article needs to be written to credibly present the various views. The best place to start is to rename the "scholarly view" the "modernist view".  There is obviously a lack of balance - and I am neither an Adventist nor a pre-trib futurist.  After reading Daniel 7 on wiki, I am so disgusted with the lack of commitment to presenting views in a balanced manner, I question whether it is worth my time to edit.  There are a number of scholars who do not separate the Medes and Persians, and who view the objections to a late date of Daniel as largely outdated in light of current research. I have no doubt that modernists, some of whom start with the assumption that Daniel is not a prophet because they reject the supernatural, would be undeterred by any contemporary scholarship in the area of archaelogy, language usage, etc.  But there should be some commitment to balance - which is sadly lacking from this and at least one other article.  I apologize if anyone is offended by my statements, but modernism should not be the primary force of an article that gives an overview.  --Baxterguy (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not an unbiased editor for this article.  Your comments are valid.  There is a lot of POV pushing and editorializing.  You and Baxterguy have been some of the most ballanced and logical editors seen so far.  erase those bogus and red herring notes with my blessing.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced article

message: Why this article gives so much space to a minority religious interpretation as the Seventh Day Adventist position?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.22.165 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprised 

message: im having trouble wrapping my brain around this article. Is it talking about a chapter of the old testament, describing differences in translation, and historic interpretations, including the modern, academic one? or is it straight Christian doctrine, which assumes that the Bible is the word of god? i think a newcomer to this subject would get the wrong idea about what is found in wikipedia. i checked the article on Daniel here, and it seemed to be a good example of how to write an article on a bible chapter or passage. the charts here seem to give no context as to who created them, and what church the person may be connected to. im not going to touch anything here, as i dont feel safe that people are going to assume good faith on my part. I wish someone with some knowledge of the bible could look at this article, and then take a step back and try to see it through the eyes of a nonbeliever, a jew, a muslim, a scientist, a linguist, a layperson, a person with no contact with this tradition, and (my reference point), an intelligent alien species trying to learn about our world. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article appears wildly unencyclopedic 

message: This needs a major rewrite to get rid of tables.  Very non-wiki....  8teenfourT4 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took 2 years. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article a terrible mess 

message: "2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days"
Doesn't 2300 mornings and evenings mean 2300 days? What is the reasoning that the "and" doesn't imply 2300 mornings and 2300 evenings? = 2300 days?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.153.197 (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the justified question of why to interpret 2300 mornings and evenings as 1150 of each instead of 2300 of each, or, in the context of Wikipedia, the question of who interprets the phrase this way, the sentence doesn't make sense at this point in the article. The paragraph is giving reasons that the "strong scholarly consensus ... holds that the 'little horn' refers to Antiochus Epiphanes", but the 1150 days from the start of the persecutions to the reconsecration of the temple cannot be one of these reasons, since that consensus holds that the book was written before the persecutions ended (and does not contain any true prophecies). For all these reasons, I have removed the sentence. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1150 days?

message: In the current version, the line
:As Daniel put it, the little horn would come from 'one of them', usually understood as referring to one of the four horns that replaced the 'notable horn', though some maintain it refers to the four winds.
is followed by a footnote reading
:These latter showing a problem in understanding the Hebrew, when they try to shift the masculine pronoun "them" from the four (horns) to the four winds because the latter is sometimes masculine. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p.302 say "The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent". The relevant verbs, עלה and יצא do not help shift the reference of the pronoun in 8:9 onto the four winds.
This doesn't make much sense. Apparently the pronoun is masculine, but if "[t]he masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent", or if "winds" is usually feminine but sometimes masculine, then there is no way to decide the question on the basis of grammatical gender. (Am I correct that "horns" is always masculine?) And what is the thing with the verbs? Has someone suggested an argument that use the verbs, and who says the argument is not valid? If this argument cannot be stated more clearly - substantiated with reliable sources - I would suggest removing the footnote. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  horns vs. winds 

message: The first three subsections are summaries of the biblical text, however the subsection the little horn is an interpretation of the text.  This subsection needs to be moved down to the interpretations section below as a scholarly interpretation or some such title.  A summary of the text (like the others) needs to be put in its place.  Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: lol...okay, done.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with Second Vision section 

message: Telpardec, I see you abject to my large revisions to the article. Here's a bit of explanation:
*Daniel 8 does not identify the angel as Gabriel. It does: in verse 16 a man's voice calls, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision." So the interpretation that follows is from Gabriel. Prior to that, of course, in verses 13-14, Daniel listens as two angels discuss how long it will take for the vision to be fulfilled - those two are not identified.
*This paragraph is sourced to Ellen Gould White, but White is not a reliable source and it can't stand in the article:
:::::In Revelation chapter 13 (verses 1-10) is described another beast, "like unto a leopard," to which the dragon gave "his power, and his seat, and great authority." This symbol, as most Protestants have believed, represents the papacy, which succeeded to the power and seat and authority once held by the ancient Roman empire. Of the leopardlike beast it is declared: "There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. . . . And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." According to Ellen G. White, this prophecy, which is nearly identical with the description of the little horn of Daniel 7, unquestionably points to the papacy.Reference: (The Great Controversy p439)
*The article contains qualifiers that turn majority opinions, even consensus, into tentative ones, such as this: "In the vision, the he-goat's first horn is broken, giving rise to four horns in its place. The "little horn" is sometimes understood to be one of the four horns that replaced the notable horn, who is accepted as Antiochus IV Epiphanes by historical-critical scholars. This is "sometimes," it's always, and "historical-critical scholars" are simply scholars using the historical critical method, i.e., scholars.
*Statements like this are not reliably sourced: Daniel 11:36 introduces a King who “shall do according to his will”. He is neither the “King of the North”, nor the “King of the South” since he wages war against both of them. REF:Daniel 11:40 “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him... ”END REF Many historicists identify this King as the “little horn.”REF Moses Lowman “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Revelation of St. John” (1807) Page 159END REF. A source from 1807????? And someone who identifies as a "historicist"? Historicists are simply a variety of millenialists, believers in the coming end of the world, which is a religious position, not a scholarly one. We have to use modern and reliable sources, which means avoiding books from 1807 and books by people who believe in prophecy.
Anyway, I'll go through the article and do the edits one by one, to give you a chance to raise objections should you wish. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to Daniel 8 

message: The "Interpretation" section somewhat dogmatically states that 'Daniel 8:13's "holy ones of the Most High" clearly means angels, although sometimes in the Hebrew Bible it seems to refer to the Israelites.' My understanding is that most theologians interpret these stars as Israelites. Antiochus Epiphanes certainly did kill many Israelites, but it's less certain that angels were "cast down to the ground and trampled upon." I don't know what the correct interpretation is, but the article should acknowledge that the interpretation is disputed. Sadiemonster (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Angels or Israelites?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daniel 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185041/http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=649&journal=1&type=pdf to http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=649&journal=1&type=pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531225517/http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp to http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The King of Greece who conquers Persia is Alexander, yet the article allows only a small section for this viewpoint. There is only ONE Greek King that conquered Persia.
Various parts of Daniel give more details.
The obvious first - He is Greek.
Also very very obvious - He conquers Persia.
His horn will be broken off - meaning he will not die of old age.
His kingdom will be split into 4 parts and not go to his descendants - I hope no explanation is needed.
The only Greek king to conquer Persia was Alexander. He did in fact die young and his kingdom was split into 4 parts, split among his generals and not his descendants.
Also lots of stuff mixed in from other prophecies. The "little horn" can be anyone up to and including Mohammad, reflecting the Muslim conquests from the south (Arabia) towards first Egypt and the area around Jerusalem before going north into modern day Syria and Turkey. The Book of Revelations also lists the little horn as a future event, so per the New Testament it does not refer to Antiochus.
The 2,300 day period refers to a time when the temple area will be unclean. In Daniel a day refers to a year, so this is actually a period of 2,300 YEARS. The period would start from the time the temple area was first desecrated (by Antiochus around 168 BC but possibly by other Greek kings even earlier) to the time it is cleaned. With the Dome on the Rock still on the temple mount, that area is still considered unclean by Jews.71.174.128.111 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of confusion here