Thread: Preterist Commentary on Daniel

Does anyone know of any preterist commentaries of Daniel? If so, are they online anywhere?

James Jordan is supposed to be coming out with one. check americavision.org for updates. Gary Demar was touting it on his show.

Originally Posted by Slippery

James Jordan is supposed to be coming out with one. check americavision.org for updates. Gary Demar was touting it on his show.

Though I would be reluctant to read anything by James Jordan nowadays. I am giving a talk on Daniel 3 - Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego being thrown into the fiery furnace - on Tuesday night (D.V.) and will probably use R.J. Rushdoony's Thy Kingdom Come to help me bring out the social and political implications of the chapter.

You can get a pdf copy of Daniel's Last Vision and Prophecy (James Farquharson) from American Vision in this set, but it deals only with the last few chapters.

Another online friend recommended one to me by his pastor.

Visions of Daniel Fulfilled: An Interpretation of Prophecy by R. D. Smith

I'm working on a brief one on my blog. Chapter 7 is coming shortly.

Thanks, I will have to look into it further.

Rushdoony is an idealist. Jordan's commentary cannot simply be dismissed (although I as a premillennialist do take issue with it ). Jordan does brutalize liberal scholarship and force you to think about the whole Bible.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Rushdoony is an idealist. Jordan's commentary cannot simply be dismissed (although I as a premillennialist do take issue with it ). Jordan does brutalize liberal scholarship and force you to think about the whole Bible.

Though Rush's idealism would not affect how he brings out the socio-political significance of events within the book. Another problem with James Jordan is his multi-perspectivalism (or whatever its called).

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Rushdoony is an idealist. Jordan's commentary cannot simply be dismissed (although I as a premillennialist do take issue with it ). Jordan does brutalize liberal scholarship and force you to think about the whole Bible.

Though Rush's idealism would not affect how he brings out the socio-political significance of events within the book. Another problem with James Jordan is his multi-perspectivalism (or whatever its called).:2cents:

“Interpretive maximalism”

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Rushdoony is an idealist. Jordan's commentary cannot simply be dismissed (although I as a premillennialist do take issue with it ). Jordan does brutalize liberal scholarship and force you to think about the whole Bible.

Though Rush's idealism would not affect how he brings out the socio-political significance of events within the book. Another problem with James Jordan is his multi-perspectivalism (or whatever its called).:2cents:

“Interpretive maximalism”

Right. Let's not knock Perspectivalism (if we are thinking of people like Frame and Bahnsen). It's a valid presuppositional move.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Rushdoony is an idealist. Jordan's commentary cannot simply be dismissed (although I as a premillennialist do take issue with it ). Jordan does brutalize liberal scholarship and force you to think about the whole Bible.

Though Rush's idealism would not affect how he brings out the socio-political significance of events within the book. Another problem with James Jordan is his multi-perspectivalism (or whatever its called).:2cents:

“Interpretive maximalism”

Yes, that is what you call it.