Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A quick look at Daniel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A quick look at Daniel

    Dan 2. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream of the Great Image. This King of Babylon represented the beginning of a string of 4 successive empires who would rule somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Near East. Each empire conquered the preceding one. The final empire would somehow endure until the Kingdom of Christ.
    The last empire was the Roman Empire, which has endured, in a different form in Europe, throughout the NT age. It has been represented by Christian Civilization both in the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. It has also been represented by various Christian states and empires that ruled from within this former Roman territory, albeit somewhat expanded.

    Out of this civilization an Antichristian coalition will assume control of the 4th Empire. Christ's Kingdom will come, destroying this series of empires.

    Dan 7. Daniel's Dream of the 4 Beasts. Daniel sees the same series of 4 empires, beginning with Babylon and ending with the Roman Empire. Daniel clearly outlines the Antichristian coalition that assumes control of the 4th Empire. It will be 7 kings (3 are defeated) and 10 states. Again, Christ's Kingdom comes to destroy this series of empires.

    Dan 9. Daniel is shown, by an angel, that following a Persian call to restore Jerusalem and the temple (457 BC) there would be a period of 70 weeks of years until the Messiah comes. His death would lead to a new judgment leveled against Jerusalem and the temple. The Messiah would, despite being cut off, establish a fulfillment of God's covenant with Israel, accomplishing 6 major things as listed in Dan 9.24. He would displace the temple system inasmuch as he would cut off sacrifices under the Law and himself become an anointed "Holy Place." Following his death the temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed by an Army, representing the "abomination of desolation." Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

    Dan 8 and 11. These chapters speak largely of the Greek Kingdom, the 3rd Empire in the series of 4 empires. It would break into 4 smaller kingdoms, and ultimately be reduced to 2 major powers, Syria and Egypt. Antiochus 4, of Syria, would become a major desolator of the Jewish temple worship, a possible foretaste of the Antichrist, who will devastate God's People, the Church.

    Dan 12. This conclusion to the book contains two major events that God used to summarize the book for Daniel. Those 2 future events are the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule, mentioned in Dan 7, and the reign of Antiochus 4, mentioned in Dan 8 and 11. Antiochus reigned 1290 days, which also is roughly 3.5 years. But these two prophecies are separate prophecies in ch. 12.

  • #2
    A lot in here, and many things in it are erroneous - and have been dealt with in other threads.
    In short:
    Dan 2 does not have ONLY 4 successive kingdoms, but 5. And those 5 actually have a couple of splits. The 4th kingdom is long gone and the AC will NOT take control over any 4th kingdom. The Final collection of 10 nations will be what the AC will take charge over.

    Dan 7 shows that it is the 10 horns which are the basis of the AC's power, and he is an 11th among them.

    Dan 8 speaks of the changeover from Persian to Greek, and leads to the little horn of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who was one who stopped sacrifice in Jerusalem.

    Dan 9 has nothing to do with 457 BC, but everything to do with the Word of the Lord! That is the FOCUS of the ENTIRE chapter.

    Dan 10 - 12 goes into great detail of the events of the Greek kingdoms focusing on the kingdoms which will rule over Jerusalem. There is NOTHING about a future AC except in types (foreshadowing). A4E reigned for longer than 1290 days. The 1290 days are from the time of the sacrifices ceasing to the death of A4E and the 1335 days are then to the end of the Greek kingdoms power over Jerusalem.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
      A lot in here, and many things in it are erroneous - and have been dealt with in other threads.
      In short:
      Dan 2 does not have ONLY 4 successive kingdoms, but 5. And those 5 actually have a couple of splits. The 4th kingdom is long gone and the AC will NOT take control over any 4th kingdom. The Final collection of 10 nations will be what the AC will take charge over.

      Dan 7 shows that it is the 10 horns which are the basis of the AC's power, and he is an 11th among them.

      Dan 8 speaks of the changeover from Persian to Greek, and leads to the little horn of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who was one who stopped sacrifice in Jerusalem.

      Dan 9 has nothing to do with 457 BC, but everything to do with the Word of the Lord! That is the FOCUS of the ENTIRE chapter.

      Dan 10 - 12 goes into great detail of the events of the Greek kingdoms focusing on the kingdoms which will rule over Jerusalem. There is NOTHING about a future AC except in types (foreshadowing). A4E reigned for longer than 1290 days. The 1290 days are from the time of the sacrifices ceasing to the death of A4E and the 1335 days are then to the end of the Greek kingdoms power over Jerusalem.

      I'm aware that you view 5 Kingdoms in Dan 2. This is *false* for the reasons I gave you, but I'll give it again here for others, who may read. The Kingdoms are numbered. We have the number 4 enumerated so that we know there are only 4 Kingdoms applying. There is reference to this 4th Kingdom again, but in the advanced stage of this Kingdom, referred to as a "Divided Kingdom." This is *not* a 5th Kingdom, because it is not enumerated as such. Rather, it is an extension of the 4th Kingdom in its latter days, a day when the "Iron" element gets mixed with the "Clay" element. Formerly, it had only been Iron.

      So the legs of this great image in ch. 2 reflect the 4th and last Kingdom of the age, before Christ's Kingdom is established on earth. And it is symbolized by a "Legs" stage and by a "Feet" stage. The Feet stage is, I believe, the Antichristian Empire that will arise out of the Roman Kingdom. The Roman Kingdom is, in my view, European Civilization beginning with the Roman Empire and developing into a Roman Christian Civilization, both Eastern and Western halves of this civilization. In the East it is today represented by Slavic countries, and in the West it is represented by Germanic countries.

      As confirmation of this interpretation we have ch. 7, which lists the same 4 Kingdoms, or Empires. You reject the 1st Kingdom being Babylon because the 4 Kingdoms are grouped together as one, and indicated to be something "arising" in Daniel's future. But there really is no tense here--just the implication that as a group there will be, eventually, a completion of the process.

      Also, Dan 9 clearly has to do with a 486.5 year period from 457 BC to 30 AD, or thereabouts. An incredible prophecy, and very significant, because Christ becomes the anointing in place of the Holy Place, which is destroyed along with the temple and the city of Jerusalem.

      We seem in agreement on Dan 8 and 11-12 being largely about Antiochus 4 and the Greek Empire, though not exclusively. Dan 8 begins with a prediction about the Persian Empire's fall to the Greeks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        I'm aware that you view 5 Kingdoms in Dan 2. This is *false* for the reasons I gave you, but I'll give it again here for others, who may read. The Kingdoms are numbered. We have the number 4 enumerated so that we know there are only 4 Kingdoms applying. There is reference to this 4th Kingdom again, but in the advanced stage of this Kingdom, referred to as a "Divided Kingdom." This is *not* a 5th Kingdom, because it is not enumerated as such. Rather, it is an extension of the 4th Kingdom in its latter days, a day when the "Iron" element gets mixed with the "Clay" element. Formerly, it had only been Iron.
        It is NOT FALSE as the other thread discusses. Not ALL the kingdoms are numbered. There is NO further reference to this 4th kingdom, but actually to ANOTHER kingdom which UNLIKE the 4th kingdom is made partly of Clay and so is a DIVIDED Kingdom.

        As confirmation of this interpretation we have ch. 7, which lists the same 4 Kingdoms, or Empires. You reject the 1st Kingdom being Babylon because the 4 Kingdoms are grouped together as one, and indicated to be something "arising" in Daniel's future. But there really is no tense here--just the implication that as a group there will be, eventually, a completion of the process.
        As Dan 7 does NOT list 5 kingdoms, it clearly is NOT the same.

        Also, Dan 9 clearly has to do with a 486.5 year period from 457 BC to 30 AD, or thereabouts. An incredible prophecy, and very significant, because Christ becomes the anointing in place of the Holy Place, which is destroyed along with the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
        Nope, NOTHING like that at all.
        And there is NO substitution in Daniel's prophecy.
        The Temple is NOT destroyed IN any of the 3 blocks of weeks, not IN the 70 weeks, contrary to some of the ECFs claims.

        However there are threads on all of these points where things are discussed in greater detail.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          It is NOT FALSE as the other thread discusses. Not ALL the kingdoms are numbered. There is NO further reference to this 4th kingdom, but actually to ANOTHER kingdom which UNLIKE the 4th kingdom is made partly of Clay and so is a DIVIDED Kingdom.
          This is a shallow argument. I could say there will be 10 kings, and then list off all kings and only provide numbers for a few of them. Does that mean there can be more than 10 kings? No. What if the word "king" is used again after the 10th king is mentioned? Does this infer an 11th king? No. Rather, it infers that the 10th king is mentioned again--not that a new 11th king is inferred. Terribly flawed argument!

          4 kings are mentioned. They are not said to be 4 kings, as in the example above I gave a complete list of 10 in advance. But the implication is that there are only a list of 4 kings because the 4th king is mentioned, and not a 5th. Therefore, a second mention of a king after the 4th king would imply the 4th king is being mentioned a 2nd time--not that a 5th king is being mentioned.

          There is nothing in the text suggesting that this last reference to a Divided Kingdom is a new Kingdom beyond the 1st 4 Kingdoms! It would have to be identified as such as a "5th," or it would have to be designated explicitly the "Last, after the previous 4," etc. No such thing is indicated, rendering the default meaning being that this Divided Kingdom is simply a 2nd reference to the 4th Kingdom, albeit in its latter stages.

          The fact that feet are attached to legs would tend to agree with the notion that the Feet are part of the Legs in one Kingdom, albeit divided into 2 stages. And the fact that iron is in both the legs and the feet suggest the same--they are one Kingdom. The fact they exist in different times and stages does not detract from the fact this is one Kingdom, a 4th Kingdom. You are the one adding the idea of a "5th Kingdom," which is an addition to the text, and therefore illegitimate. At the very least you have no grounds for trying to disprove the idea that the Divided Kingdom infers reference to the 4th and Last Kingdom!

          Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
          As Dan 7 does NOT list 5 kingdoms, it clearly is NOT the same.

          Nope, NOTHING like that at all.
          And there is NO substitution in Daniel's prophecy.
          The Temple is NOT destroyed IN any of the 3 blocks of weeks, not IN the 70 weeks, contrary to some of the ECFs claims.

          However there are threads on all of these points where things are discussed in greater detail.
          Yes, we've discussed them. The Church Fathers are not determinative, but good for background. They prove their interest was in seeing the 1st Coming of Christ and the 70 AD destruction of the temple as the central theme of the 70 Weeks.

          And I concur. The NT spends an adequate amount of time proving that Jesus was the Anointed One who fulfilled the temple worship, rending the veil of the temple, and becoming the true heavenly temple, along with his people. The earthly temple was predicted to be destroyed by Jesus. And this is what both the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse indicated.

          Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’
          are decreed for your people and your holy city ...to anoint the Most Holy Place...
          25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’...
          26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. ..
          27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.


          I've tried to abbreviate this to simplify things. What is being said here is that a 70 Week period will ensue from approx. 457 BC to the time of Messiah Jesus. He was the Anointed One, the Ruler, being pointed to, who will fulfill vision and prophecy, and anoint the Most Holy Place. He in effect will be the Anointed One in place of a desolated Most Holy Place! His own death will itself cause the temple to be dislocated by his work to "finish transgression."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by randyk View Post
            This is a shallow argument. I could say there will be 10 kings, and then list off all kings and only provide numbers for a few of them. Does that mean there can be more than 10 kings? No. What if the word "king" is used again after the 10th king is mentioned? Does this infer an 11th king? No. Rather, it infers that the 10th king is mentioned again--not that a new 11th king is inferred. Terribly flawed argument!
            Your point fails. You see IF you said there will be ONLY 10 kings THEN this limits it to 10 kings.
            However NO such statement is made in regards to the kingdoms. Nowhere does Daniel say there are ONLY 4 kingdoms.
            Furthermore IF I say a king will be tall and strong, Then if I say a king will be bald and weak would you think I am referring to the SAME king? Of course NOT!
            If one kingdom is SO strong it crushes other kingdoms, and one kingdom is divided and weakened, would ANYONE think they are the SAME kingdom? Of course NOT.

            4 kings are mentioned. They are not said to be 4 kings, as in the example above I gave a complete list of 10 in advance. But the implication is that there are only a list of 4 kings because the 4th king is mentioned, and not a 5th. Therefore, a second mention of a king after the 4th king would imply the 4th king is being mentioned a 2nd time--not that a 5th king is being mentioned.
            There is nothing in the text suggesting that this last reference to a Divided Kingdom is a new Kingdom beyond the 1st 4 Kingdoms! It would have to be identified as such as a "5th," or it would have to be designated explicitly the "Last, after the previous 4," etc. No such thing is indicated, rendering the default meaning being that this Divided Kingdom is simply a 2nd reference to the 4th Kingdom, albeit in its latter stages.
            The fact that feet are attached to legs would tend to agree with the notion that the Feet are part of the Legs in one Kingdom, albeit divided into 2 stages. And the fact that iron is in both the legs and the feet suggest the same--they are one Kingdom. The fact they exist in different times and stages does not detract from the fact this is one Kingdom, a 4th Kingdom. You are the one adding the idea of a "5th Kingdom," which is an addition to the text, and therefore illegitimate. At the very least you have no grounds for trying to disprove the idea that the Divided Kingdom infers reference to the 4th and Last Kingdom!
            Actually 3 kingdoms are numbered NOT 4. However there is NO statement as to the total number.
            The implication is NOT that there are 4 but 5, because AFTER the 4th kingdom is mentioned AND described (like the 1st, 2nd and 3rd) so we have a 5th kingdom described which is DIFFERENT to the 4th.
            Everything IN the text shows that there are 5 kingdoms. You simply refuse to accept it because you have predetermined there must be 4.
            I have given (in the other threads) numerous examples of the way that the prophecy is stated which shows 5 kingdoms.
            5 different descriptions, 5 collections of body parts, 5 different materials.
            In addition the Feet are NEVER mentioned as being part of the Legs, and it is the Feet which are struck (the Final Kingdom) and NOT the Legs - IF that were the final kingdom.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
              Your point fails. You see IF you said there will be ONLY 10 kings THEN this limits it to 10 kings.
              However NO such statement is made in regards to the kingdoms. Nowhere does Daniel say there are ONLY 4 kingdoms.
              Furthermore IF I say a king will be tall and strong, Then if I say a king will be bald and weak would you think I am referring to the SAME king? Of course NOT!
              If one kingdom is SO strong it crushes other kingdoms, and one kingdom is divided and weakened, would ANYONE think they are the SAME kingdom? Of course NOT.
              I would agree with you if that's what we have. But we don't. The latter part of this iron Kingdom becomes mixed with clay--it does *not* become another Kingdom. Not only does the text *not* say it is another Kingdom, but the obvious assumption would be that it is in fact the same Kingdom. That's how the commentaries I've read tend to read this. Who among the commentaries believe your argument and agree with you? Only you?

              The 4th Kingdom is made of iron and smashes everything. The latter portion of this Kingdom is brittle, but it still has iron and can smash things. It does not say a new metal comes into existence, nor does it identify itself as a "5th" Kingdom. You add to the text, sister.

              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
              Actually 3 kingdoms are numbered NOT 4. However there is NO statement as to the total number.
              You don't need all of them numbered--just a couple of them, in order to know that they are being counted. The assumption, once the 4th Kingdom is identified as such, is that the previous 3 are 1, 2 and 3. After 4, we cannot make such an assumption. And that's because one works backwards from the point where a count is identified.

              Another entity mentioned after the count of 4 is ambiguous--it could be a 5th, but unless it is identified as such, it remains ambiguous or somehow lumped in with the 4th.

              Do we have reason to lump the Divided Kingdom in with the Iron Kingdom? Yes, the Divided Kingdom, like the Iron Kingdom, also consists of Iron. And that's how most commentators I've read look at it.

              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
              The implication is NOT that there are 4 but 5, because AFTER the 4th kingdom is mentioned AND described (like the 1st, 2nd and 3rd) so we have a 5th kingdom described which is DIFFERENT to the 4th.
              It is not identified as a 5th Kingdom! We might well assume, without this identification, that it is a description of the 4th Kingdom in its latter days!

              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
              Everything IN the text shows that there are 5 kingdoms. You simply refuse to accept it because you have predetermined there must be 4.
              I have given (in the other threads) numerous examples of the way that the prophecy is stated which shows 5 kingdoms.
              5 different descriptions, 5 collections of body parts, 5 different materials.
              In addition the Feet are NEVER mentioned as being part of the Legs, and it is the Feet which are struck (the Final Kingdom) and NOT the Legs - IF that were the final kingdom.
              This is the problem with your separating Dan 2 and Dan 7. Both passages have the 4th Kingdom "crushing" their enemies. This would immediately tend to correlate them.

              Dan 2.40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.

              Dan 7.23 The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.

              And then we have an explanation that the 4th Kingdom has a latter day fulfillment that is somewhat different from the original 4th Kingdom.

              Dan 7.23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones.

              This indicates that just as the feet are different from the legs, so the 10 kings and Little Horn are different from the 4th Kingdom. They represent an evolved form of the 4th Kingdom, albeit different. If you see the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 as the Roman Kingdom, then you would know that the Feet are the last stage of this Kingdom, which Dan 7 identifies as different, and yet issuing out of the 4th Kingdom.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                Dan 2. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream of the Great Image. This King of Babylon represented the beginning of a string of 4 successive empires who would rule somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Near East. Each empire conquered the preceding one. The final empire would somehow endure until the Kingdom of Christ.
                The last empire was the Roman Empire, which has endured, in a different form in Europe, throughout the NT age. It has been represented by Christian Civilization both in the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. It has also been represented by various Christian states and empires that ruled from within this former Roman territory, albeit somewhat expanded.

                Out of this civilization an Antichristian coalition will assume control of the 4th Empire. Christ's Kingdom will come, destroying this series of empires.

                Dan 7. Daniel's Dream of the 4 Beasts. Daniel sees the same series of 4 empires, beginning with Babylon and ending with the Roman Empire. Daniel clearly outlines the Antichristian coalition that assumes control of the 4th Empire. It will be 7 kings (3 are defeated) and 10 states. Again, Christ's Kingdom comes to destroy this series of empires.

                Dan 9. Daniel is shown, by an angel, that following a Persian call to restore Jerusalem and the temple (457 BC) there would be a period of 70 weeks of years until the Messiah comes. His death would lead to a new judgment leveled against Jerusalem and the temple. The Messiah would, despite being cut off, establish a fulfillment of God's covenant with Israel, accomplishing 6 major things as listed in Dan 9.24. He would displace the temple system inasmuch as he would cut off sacrifices under the Law and himself become an anointed "Holy Place." Following his death the temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed by an Army, representing the "abomination of desolation." Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

                Dan 8 and 11. These chapters speak largely of the Greek Kingdom, the 3rd Empire in the series of 4 empires. It would break into 4 smaller kingdoms, and ultimately be reduced to 2 major powers, Syria and Egypt. Antiochus 4, of Syria, would become a major desolator of the Jewish temple worship, a possible foretaste of the Antichrist, who will devastate God's People, the Church.

                Dan 12. This conclusion to the book contains two major events that God used to summarize the book for Daniel. Those 2 future events are the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule, mentioned in Dan 7, and the reign of Antiochus 4, mentioned in Dan 8 and 11. Antiochus reigned 1290 days, which also is roughly 3.5 years. But these two prophecies are separate prophecies in ch. 12.
                What if you start explaining to us the book of Daniel as it should be, chronological.
                To God be the Glory

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  I would agree with you if that's what we have. But we don't. The latter part of this iron Kingdom becomes mixed with clay--it does *not* become another Kingdom. Not only does the text *not* say it is another Kingdom, but the obvious assumption would be that it is in fact the same Kingdom. That's how the commentaries I've read tend to read this. Who among the commentaries believe your argument and agree with you? Only you?
                  The 4th Kingdom is made of iron and smashes everything. The latter portion of this Kingdom is brittle, but it still has iron and can smash things. It does not say a new metal comes into existence, nor does it identify itself as a "5th" Kingdom. You add to the text, sister.
                  It is what we have. That the commentaries of a century ago etc don;t see this is not my problem. I'll stick with what scripture ACTUALLY says, and not what a commentary says it says.
                  The text DOES have it as another kingdom.
                  Your argument failed, and you refuse to accept it.

                  You don't need all of them numbered--just a couple of them, in order to know that they are being counted. The assumption, once the 4th Kingdom is identified as such, is that the previous 3 are 1, 2 and 3. After 4, we cannot make such an assumption. And that's because one works backwards from the point where a count is identified.
                  Another entity mentioned after the count of 4 is ambiguous--it could be a 5th, but unless it is identified as such, it remains ambiguous or somehow lumped in with the 4th.
                  Do we have reason to lump the Divided Kingdom in with the Iron Kingdom? Yes, the Divided Kingdom, like the Iron Kingdom, also consists of Iron. And that's how most commentators I've read look at it.
                  Right we don't NEED them to be numbered. We don't need ANY of them to be numbered. So why are they numbered? Did you STOP to consider this?
                  The numbering of the 3rd HIGHLIGHTS it is different from the 2nd and to set a precedent how we are to KNOW a new kingdom is being talked about, that a change of kingdom has a change of description.
                  The 4th kingdom is CLEARLY NOT the same as the 5th. Anyone claiming this frankly needs their head examining.
                  We CAN make an assumption BECAUSE we are given the example repeatedly. It is an assumption based on the very CONTEXT and the style etc.
                  We do NOT work backwards from where a count is mentioned, we work forwards!
                  It is NOT ambiguous in anyway that there is a 5th. You are simply stuck in what you have been told instead of reading what is stated.
                  Your argument would have Luther as being wrong!

                  Now we do have ONE reason ONLY for putting the 4th and 5th kingdoms together, and that is because the 5th has iron in it also.
                  However this in itself is NOT sufficient reason to put them together.
                  For example we could say the 5th kingdom has taken in elements of the 4th kingdom, but ruled by a different people. It could even be taht a new kingdom rises (the Clay portion) and it seeks an alliance with the previous kingdom (the Iron) and tries to make ONE new kingdom through alliance of marriage etc.
                  In fact some of the older commentaries thought this was EXACTLY what was meant, thinking that this Feet was about the King of the South and the King of the North and how they married into each others families. You would agree they are wrong, but we can understand the thought process.
                  However what is INDISPUTABLE is that the 5th kingdom, regardless of how alike to the 4th kingdom it may be, IS a new and different kingdom.
                  In my arguments with you, you have had to admit that the old kingdom of Rome was conquered and ended.
                  However what you then try to do, which is completely indefensible, is create a mystical continuation of this 4th kingdom, rather than accept that it is another kingdom. The HRE for example was NOT the Roman Kingdom.

                  This is the problem with your separating Dan 2 and Dan 7. Both passages have the 4th Kingdom "crushing" their enemies. This would immediately tend to correlate them.
                  Not a problem as I DO note the connections between them. However I am not as narrow minded or hide bound as you.
                  I note that it is the LAST Kingdom in Dan 2 and the LAST Kingdom in Dan 7 that is defeated by God.
                  I note that the Last Kingdom has 10 kings in BOTH.
                  Therefore the CONNECTION is NOT with the number 4, but with what the Last Kingdom is. A kingdom which is different from the other kingdoms.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    It is what we have. That the commentaries of a century ago etc don;t see this is not my problem. I'll stick with what scripture ACTUALLY says, and not what a commentary says it says.
                    The text DOES have it as another kingdom.
                    Your argument failed, and you refuse to accept it.
                    Oh yea, what other respectable Christian scholars think be damned--it's only what you think that determines the outcome? I refuse to dismiss all of the commentaries in favor of *your commentary?"

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    Right we don't NEED them to be numbered. We don't need ANY of them to be numbered. So why are they numbered? Did you STOP to consider this?
                    The numbering of the 3rd HIGHLIGHTS it is different from the 2nd and to set a precedent how we are to KNOW a new kingdom is being talked about, that a change of kingdom has a change of description.
                    The Kingdoms are numbered so that we know there are only 4.

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    The 4th kingdom is CLEARLY NOT the same as the 5th. Anyone claiming this frankly needs their head examining.
                    Actually, you are limiting the possibilities. It is also possible--even likely--that this Divided Kingdom is not a 5th Kingdom, but only a different stage of the 4th Kingdom. Or, haven't you considered that? You should because I've suggested it several times!

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    We CAN make an assumption BECAUSE we are given the example repeatedly. It is an assumption based on the very CONTEXT and the style etc.
                    We do NOT work backwards from where a count is mentioned, we work forwards!
                    False. If a list is provided and a number given, you assume the previous items on the list are previous numbers in the list. You do *not* assume any items following the number given is included in the list.

                    Simple example. I list 10 things I bought from the grocery store. I tell someone I just bought my 10th item. This presumes the previous 9 items were part of the numbered list. 1-10--not 11, or 12!

                    Now, I may go and buy more items, but they will never be part of the original list of 10 items, because those items were determined to be part of a list leading up to 10 items. Even if I buy an 11th item, it will never be counted forward from 10 unless we know it is actually part of that list. But the previous items we *know* were part of the list, because it has already taken place!

                    It would be perfectly natural to assume that another, distinctly-different Kingdom listed after 4 Kingdoms would be a 5th. But in this case, we don't even *know* that this Divided Kingdom is part of the original list of 4 or not!

                    The assumption has to be made that it is actually a latter stage of the 4th Kingdom, because both "leg" stage and "foot" stage have iron in them, indicating they are portions of the same Kingdom. And further, if we compare with a corresponding passage in Dan 9, the 4 Kingdoms clearly indicate that the 4th Kingdom has a latter stage.


                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    It is NOT ambiguous in anyway that there is a 5th. You are simply stuck in what you have been told instead of reading what is stated.
                    Your argument would have Luther as being wrong!

                    Now we do have ONE reason ONLY for putting the 4th and 5th kingdoms together, and that is because the 5th has iron in it also.
                    However this in itself is NOT sufficient reason to put them together.
                    For example we could say the 5th kingdom has taken in elements of the 4th kingdom, but ruled by a different people. It could even be taht a new kingdom rises (the Clay portion) and it seeks an alliance with the previous kingdom (the Iron) and tries to make ONE new kingdom through alliance of marriage etc.
                    In fact some of the older commentaries thought this was EXACTLY what was meant, thinking that this Feet was about the King of the South and the King of the North and how they married into each others families. You would agree they are wrong, but we can understand the thought process.
                    However what is INDISPUTABLE is that the 5th kingdom, regardless of how alike to the 4th kingdom it may be, IS a new and different kingdom.
                    In my arguments with you, you have had to admit that the old kingdom of Rome was conquered and ended.
                    However what you then try to do, which is completely indefensible, is create a mystical continuation of this 4th kingdom, rather than accept that it is another kingdom. The HRE for example was NOT the Roman Kingdom.
                    I've never said otherwise! You didn't "force" me to accept the reality that ancient Rome ended--I *began* with that point!

                    Yes, the Roman Kingdom extended beyond the ancient Roman Kingdom, the "Knees," because the "leg" part of this Kingdom had to be fulfilled as well. Thus, this Roman Kingdom did not consist of the ancient Roman Empire alone, but rather, of a generalized view of a Roman Kingdom, in which the Society of the Romans continued under various monarchies, East and West.

                    This may indeed be an odd way of looking at a Kingdom. But in fact, European Civilization has continued unabated, and Islam has not been able to turn it off. Therefore, I also see it as a "Kingdom" that did not end with the fall of Rome nor with the fall of Constantinople. It will continue until the rise of the Antichristian Kingdom. This also will be part of the "Roman Kingdom." But it can be distinguished as a "latter stage" of this Kingdom.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You guys posts would not continue in errors if you

                      stopped doing this....

                      "The Antichrist"...........



                      And started doing this.....


                      "the person"...... as the little horn

                      "the person"............as the Antichrist

                      "the person"...........as the beast



                      little horn - 7th of the related kings of the Roman Empire. (the EU leader)

                      Antichrist - King of Israel coming in his own name.

                      beast - 8th of the related kings of the Roman Empire, having been one of the 7 kings before. (the EU dictator)


                      __________________________________________________ ________________________________


                      The person starts as the little horn, then is the prince who shall come in Daniel 9, who is perceived by the Jews as the messiah. He is then anointed the King of Israel, becoming the Antichrist, and confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years, as directed by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. After approximately 3 years, he comits the transgression of desolation, ending his time as the Antichrist, as he is revealed as the man of sin and not the messiah after all. God has the person killed; and in disdain for him brings him back to life. At which time the spirit of the serpent ascends out of the bottomless pit possessing the person - making the person the beast in Revelation 13.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post

                        Now we do have ONE reason ONLY for putting the 4th and 5th kingdoms together, and that is because the 5th has iron in it also.
                        However this in itself is NOT sufficient reason to put them together.
                        Well, the text in Daniel 2 doesn't say fifth kingdom. In Daniel 2:40-41, the fourth kingdom just continues.

                        And in Daniel 7, it is the fourth kingdom in power when the saints inherit the everlasting kingdom - Daniel 7:27.

                        So there is no reason to create a confusion factor by saying fifth kingdom


                        A person could say that the fourth kingdom has special attributes about itself, in the latter days.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Douggg View Post
                          You guys posts would not continue in errors if you

                          stopped doing this....

                          "The Antichrist"...........



                          And started doing this.....


                          "the person"...... as the little horn

                          "the person"............as the Antichrist

                          "the person"...........as the beast



                          little horn - 7th of the related kings of the Roman Empire. (the EU leader)

                          Antichrist - King of Israel coming in his own name.

                          beast - 8th of the related kings of the Roman Empire, having been one of the 7 kings before. (the EU dictator)


                          __________________________________________________ ________________________________


                          The person starts as the little horn, then is the prince who shall come in Daniel 9, who is perceived by the Jews as the messiah. He is then anointed the King of Israel, becoming the Antichrist, and confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years, as directed by Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. After approximately 3 years, he comits the transgression of desolation, ending his time as the Antichrist, as he is revealed as the man of sin and not the messiah after all. God has the person killed; and in disdain for him brings him back to life. At which time the spirit of the serpent ascends out of the bottomless pit possessing the person - making the person the beast in Revelation 13.
                          I can't do that, brother, because I don't believe that. The Little Horn, the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, and the Beast, the head over the Beast Kingdom, are all the same, depending on which passage you read. It is all based on the Little Horn that emerges from the 4th Beast in Dan 7. He is not the AoD, nor is he the Prince that shall come. Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army were AoDs--not the Antichrist. The Prince that shall come was the head over the Roman Army.

                          No, Antichrist's name did not evolve--he is described with different characteristics in Dan 7, allowing the NT authors to describe him differently. Because Dan 7 describes him as merely a man boasting over God Paul describes him as one who deifies himself. Because he is described in Dan 7 as a murderer of God's people, Paul describes him as a man of lawlessness. Because Dan 7 describes him as opposed to the Kingdom established by the Son of Man, John refers to him as an Antichrist. And because Dan 7 describes him as originated from the 4th Beast John identifies him as the Beast.

                          All of these identities of the Antichrist come from Dan 7. They refer to the same guy. The AoDs--2 of them--are not the Antichrist, nor is the Prince that was to destroy the city and the sanctuary in Dan 9. We need to separate these people clearly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by randyk View Post

                            I can't do that, brother, because I don't believe that. The Little Horn, the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, and the Beast, the head over the Beast Kingdom, are all the same, depending on which passage you read. .
                            ...are all the same - "what" ?

                            Same person? Yes, the same person. But being the little horn is not the same as being the Antichrist.


                            When you study the bible about the person, you should consider mapping the person's beginning to his end.

                            Just as you would map someone like John F. Kennedy, for example. PT109 commander, then Senator of Massachusetts, then President of the United States.

                            The bible, in similitude to a book on JFK's biography, is giving the biography of the arch villain of the end times. We don't know the person's actual name as of yet - so we have to refer to him as "the person".

                            __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________



                            The person is the Antichrist only for the time he is the King of Israel coming in his own name.


                            "Christ" implies the King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord.

                            John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Douggg View Post

                              ...are all the same - "what" ?

                              Same person? Yes, the same person. But being the little horn is not the same as being the Antichrist.


                              When you study the bible about the person, you should consider mapping the person's beginning to his end.

                              Just as you would map someone like John F. Kennedy, for example. PT109 commander, then Senator of Massachusetts, then President of the United States.

                              The bible, in similitude to a book on JFK's biography, is giving the biography of the arch villain of the end times. We don't know the person's actual name as of yet - so we have to refer to him as "the person".

                              __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________



                              The person is the Antichrist only for the time he is the King of Israel coming in his own name.


                              "Christ" implies the King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord.

                              John 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
                              We don't have enough details about the Antichrist to study in more detail. We are only given what is there. And we only have Dan 7 in the OT and Rev 13 in the NT, which is also based on Dan 7--not much by which to distinguish between names.

                              As I said, I believe the names all come from Dan 7, for the reasons I gave you. The Little Horn is part of the 4th Beast, and boasts, as a mere man, against God--hence he "claims he is God." He persecutes the saints and thus instigates lawless behavior, or sin--hence he is the "Man of Sin." And he is the "Antichrist" because he is portrayed as one who dominates on earth, in opposition to the coming of the Son of Man, or Christ.

                              All of these things are wrapped up in what we today refer to as "the Antichrist." Beyond this I think we're digging too deep.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X