In our previous examination, we noted Four obvious 'kingdoms' (Empires),
Each distinguishable from the last, because each introduces a new nation
and a new 'king' (Emperor) with new cultural values.
The Kingdoms are easily demarcated because each is brought in by
a world-size (Empire-size) Conqueror who vanquishes the previous one.
Nechabudnazzar ushers in the Babylonian Empire:
Cyrus ushers in the Mede/Persian Empire,
Alexander ushers in the Greek Empire, and
Pompey ushers in the Roman Empire and rule over Palestine (Israel).
Each respectively heralds the beginning of a cultural invasion into the area .
In place of this we have Porphyry's lame attempt to get rid of the Roman Empire
by making the Greek become (in his mind) TWO Empires.
This is hardly credible however, since Alexander's reign is not
at all conquered, but simply divided into provinces,
while extending the very same influence and cultural invasion.
Furthermore, Daniel does not allow Alexander to be a whole "Kingdom",
and his successors a separate "Kingdom". Daniel 8 is clear on the point that both Alexander and his successors are ONE Greek Empire with several kings (horns).
The modern critics, in adopting Porphyry's general plan to dump Rome,
attempt to extend the Medio-Persian Empire into TWO Empires,
i.e., the Median Empire and the Persian Empire.
The problem with this new solution is that its hardly any more plausible
than Porphyry's original schema, and only gives a surface-appearance
of a solution. Daniel 2 (the main image) plainly describes SUCCESSIVE Empires,
and the Medes and Persians CO-ruled at the same time, pretty much as
ONE Empire as far as anyone can tell.
The modern adjustment, while restoring the statue's pants,
leaves him a midget.
Now "modern" Critical Commentaries on Daniel
invoke yet another level of sophistication and obfuscation into the process,
all in order to confuse Christian readers and erode their confidence in Daniel.
They don't openly push the 'critical viewpoint' anymore,
as it is too obvously anti-prophecy and ant-Christian in its impact.
Never mind the impact on commentary sales.
So they instead they present "three views", obscurantizing the flaws,
and also smokescreening the real differences.
Then they 'recommend' the critical view as the 'most reasonable',
without proper evaluation or comparison.
Here is a perfect example of this smoke-screening obfuscation:
Westark Church of Christ on Daniel
First, the lecturer tells the reader that it doesn't matter which interpretation
of Daniel's vision we adopt (even though only ONE points to Christ).
Then the lecturer presents each as having a 'small problem' or flaw,
making them 'equally plausible'.
Next the lecturer 'helps' the reader by recommending the one
endorsed by "experts" (who are really heretical and skeptical infiltrators).
Finally, the lecturer presents three charts which are made to look
virtually identical, giving more support to the idea that it "doesn't matter",
its all the same.
The Perversions and Deformities of the alternate "interpretations" are completely hidden.
The Perverse doctrines that inspired the alternate "interpretations" are also omitted.
The Three Stooges
One final point must be made regarding the new fadish 'interpretations' of Daniel's Vision.
(1) No Jew has ever or ever will accept these modern interpretations of Daniel.
(2) No historical Christian has ever knowingly embraced these radical schemes of "interpretation" until after the late 18th century, and those who do believe them today have never been told who inspired them and what must be sacrificed to embrace them.
But there is more:
(3) The real (pseudo)Author of Daniel is a complete FAILURE according to critics, because, all Jews and Christians who believed him to be the real Daniel believed the wrong interpretation of his visions.
Thus Daniel succeeded by being unanimously misunderstood for 2,000 years. The story of the real author becomes a tragedy-comedy of errors.
But the story is even more incredible that one can imagine:
(4) The pseudo-author of Daniel was such a deep, and incredibly sophisticated forger that he anticipated and survived the harshest and most meticulous examination and analysis, and still left the world's experts in history and linguistics divided, unable to reconcile their views about this fraud into a single coherent picture.
And the critics expect us to consider that on the one hand
(5) The author of Daniel was a criminal GENIUS of forgery,
yet wrote for the lame and short-sighted purpose of "inspiring Jews during the Maccabean Revolt" to not lose hope.
How can the author be so subtle and sophisticated a linguistic genius, and such a hillbilly provincial simultaneously?
How could such a forger, such a jaded secular humanist even half-heartedly encourage fellow believing Jews to sacrifice themselves and die for what he himself as a crook and a forger must have regarded as the stupidest ideology in history, just as his neo-platonic critics also must also think?
"If only He had used his power for niceness, instead of evil." - Maxwell Smart (Agent 86, C.O.N.T.R.O.L.)
This means that every Christian who ever lived from the time of Christ until the Reformation believed in Daniel and Christ on a mistaken premise, by adopting the spurious writing of a pseudo-prophet who impersonated an ancient hero, and Christ Himself must have been mistaken to quote him as an authority, if we accept the modern view of the book of Daniel.
This is the Trojan Horse these perverts are offering to unsuspecting Christians.
These are easily proven "doctrines of satan" infilterated into the Church by unbelieving moderns.