Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67

Thread: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    There is indeed a connection with the Feet and Toes, and these 10 Toes are certainly connected with the 10 horns. So are you really a Preterist declaring that these 10 horns happened in the time of Jesus? If you state (like I do) that these 10 horns are yet future, then this also means the 10 Toes are future - having made the SAME connection.
    This means the Kingdom of Toes is NOT the Roman kingdom of Jesus' time.
    It is the Kingdom of Legs which is the 4th kingdom and is the Roman's of Jesus' time.
    You sure aren't representing my view!
    For me, the 10 kings rise up in the endtimes out of the old Roman imperial tradition. Jesus lived in the time of the ancient Roman Empire. The 10 kings emerge out of this ancient tradition in modern times.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry, but then you make God UNABLE to state things clearly.
    You are CHANGING how a vision would be given to YOUR preconceived one.
    This is a STUPID argument, and entirely circular because you are presetting the parameters rather than going with the parameters WITHIN the prophecy.
    I'm about done with your nonChristian behavior, brother...

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    And yes scholars can be stupid. We ALL can be stupid (and I include myself). The question is whether what is CLEARLY stated is being kept to, or whether we bring in a PRETEXT to detemrine how we understand things.
    I don't think you should call me stupid, scholars stupid, or yourself stupid. Just try to be civil about it, and treat other positions, no matter how weak, with respect. I don't mind a little "emotion"--just don't go overboard, please?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    And Gill's comment is STUPID. It IS a material objection to say, that the first is already at an end. No one takes a denomination from a larger number. Four is the larger number and trumps three. ALL four are stated to arise in the future.
    Gill acknowledges the issue, but his declamation is most certainly stupid, and anyone who agrees with this is also stupid. Can you find another example from scripture where this is true without it being clarified? No you can't.
    Gill is trying to brush aside his PRETEXT with a baseless argument.
    I don't like your rudeness. If you will look in the very quote I gave you, he answers your question.

    "thus it is said, Daniel 11:2, that three kings of Persia should stand up, and yet Cyrus, who was one of them, reigned already."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I know you have ATTEMPTED to show a connection. However when I have shown you WHY such a connection is invalid, you have FAILED to deal with MY objection. That is sad! It means you have no real response. His hair did NOT grow like eagle's feathers. I quoted it for you and you seem unable to accept that is NOT what was stated. ONLY the LENGTH of his hair was like the LENGTH of an eagle's feather. Eagle's feathers can grow to 40 cms (15 - 18 inches) so as a comparative the prophecy is saying that Nebuchadnezzar's hair grew to be around 40 cm LONG.
    This is NOT indicating an exalted figure, but an UNKEMPT bedraggled, sorry specimen of a man.
    I also highlighted that IF wings in Dan 7:4 is referring to what happened to Neb, then wings in Dan 7:6 should ALSO refer to a similar thing, in order for it to be an INTERNALLY CONSISTENT interpretation. Yet this you have totally ignored and failed to deal with.
    I made the connection--you just don't accept it. I have nothing more to say about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    God did use the description of the beast to give understanding of what kingdom was meant, and does speak of its characteristic. To this we agree, however prophecy is meant to bring understanding, and it would quickly become apparent to Daniel that the Griffin was speaking about Cyrus and Persia.
    You're getting to be a big waste of time. You seem unteachable to me--big pride problem.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You sure aren't representing my view!
    For me, the 10 kings rise up in the endtimes out of the old Roman imperial tradition. Jesus lived in the time of the ancient Roman Empire. The 10 kings emerge out of this ancient tradition in modern times.
    So have these 10 Toes arisen ALREADY?
    Is it ONE Kingdom or are you recognising they are TWO separate kingdoms?

    I don't think you should call me stupid, scholars stupid, or yourself stupid. Just try to be civil about it, and treat other positions, no matter how weak, with respect. I don't mind a little "emotion"--just don't go overboard, please?
    I am stating an argument is stupid. If you prefer, the argument is nonsense. You do NOT say, four kingdoms will arise, when you mean 3 kingdoms will arise because 1 kingdom already is.

    I don't like your rudeness. If you will look in the very quote I gave you, he answers your question.
    "thus it is said, Daniel 11:2, that three kings of Persia should stand up, and yet Cyrus, who was one of them, reigned already."
    Actually IF you pay attention to Daniel 11 you will note that Darius the Mede was king:
    Dan 11:1* “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.*
    Dan 11:2* “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.*

    Now which King is being referenced in Dan 11:2 - who is the fourth King?
    Most would agree it is Xerxes (including Gill).
    So who are the three before?
    Again Gill accepts Darius as one of them, along with Cambyses, so that leaves just one more.
    Gill claims Cyrus as the future king, as clearly he acknowledges the reign of Darius the Mede. Yet he removes Smerdis, who is also called Bardiya, (Gautama) who was proclaimed King on 1st July 522 and was killed on 29th September 522 by Darius.

    When his brother, king Cambyses, was conquering Egypt, someone calling himself Smerdis rebelled and became sole ruler of the Achaemenid empire after Cambyses' had died of natural causes. According to the Behistun inscription, this Smerdis' rule started on 11 March 522 BCE, and this is corroborated by the dating of letters in Babylonia; on 1 July he formally became king. The new king was killed, however, by the Persian prince Darius, on 29 September in a stronghold in Media called Sikayauvati.

    Darius states in the Behistun inscription that the man he had now succeeded was not the real Smerdis (who he claims was killed before Cambyses set out for Egypt) and that the rebel was a lookalike named Gaumâta. This man was a Magian and there are some indications that 'Magians' were not Persians but Medes.
    Quote from Livius

    As Smerdis was Cambyses brother, and as he was crowned and as letters were dated according to his reign, so it seems the prophecy of Daniel was correct and that ALL four kings were future.

    I made the connection--you just don't accept it. I have nothing more to say about it.
    I didn't simply not accept it. I explained why NO ONE should accept it. If you MISQUOTE scripture then why should anyone take the view you do?
    Now if you could actually deal with the objections which I highlighted, then progress could be made.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    So have these 10 Toes arisen ALREADY?
    Is it ONE Kingdom or are you recognising they are TWO separate kingdoms?
    I've already told you. The 10 kings in both chs. 2 and 7 speak of an *endtimes confederation!*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am stating an argument is stupid. If you prefer, the argument is nonsense. You do NOT say, four kingdoms will arise, when you mean 3 kingdoms will arise because 1 kingdom already is.
    "Nonsense" is better than "stupid," yes. We've already exhausted this argument. Neither of us will change our minds on this point, apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually IF you pay attention to Daniel 11 you will note that Darius the Mede was king:
    Dan 11:1* “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.*
    Dan 11:2* “And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.*

    Now which King is being referenced in Dan 11:2 - who is the fourth King?
    Most would agree it is Xerxes (including Gill).
    So who are the three before?
    Again Gill accepts Darius as one of them, along with Cambyses, so that leaves just one more.
    Gill claims Cyrus as the future king, as clearly he acknowledges the reign of Darius the Mede. Yet he removes Smerdis, who is also called Bardiya, (Gautama) who was proclaimed King on 1st July 522 and was killed on 29th September 522 by Darius.

    When his brother, king Cambyses, was conquering Egypt, someone calling himself Smerdis rebelled and became sole ruler of the Achaemenid empire after Cambyses' had died of natural causes. According to the Behistun inscription, this Smerdis' rule started on 11 March 522 BCE, and this is corroborated by the dating of letters in Babylonia; on 1 July he formally became king. The new king was killed, however, by the Persian prince Darius, on 29 September in a stronghold in Media called Sikayauvati.

    Darius states in the Behistun inscription that the man he had now succeeded was not the real Smerdis (who he claims was killed before Cambyses set out for Egypt) and that the rebel was a lookalike named Gaumâta. This man was a Magian and there are some indications that 'Magians' were not Persians but Medes.
    Quote from Livius

    As Smerdis was Cambyses brother, and as he was crowned and as letters were dated according to his reign, so it seems the prophecy of Daniel was correct and that ALL four kings were future.
    I can't say. I suppose it's your view vs Gill's view?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I didn't simply not accept it. I explained why NO ONE should accept it. If you MISQUOTE scripture then why should anyone take the view you do?
    Now if you could actually deal with the objections which I highlighted, then progress could be made.
    I don't see "progress" as happening.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I've already told you. The 10 kings in both chs. 2 and 7 speak of an *endtimes confederation!*
    Which is then a problem for your view of it being one kingdom as the kingdom of Rome finished in 1453 AD.

    I can't say. I suppose it's your view vs Gill's view?
    Not really my view versus Gill's view. Gill presented a view, and then I responded to the holes IN Gill's view.
    The very basis of the claim by Gill is flaky, that the first of four is already in existence.
    I then deal with the example elsewhere which supposedly supports this and show that there are three kings in the future before Darius.

    I don't see "progress" as happening.
    Well of course you won;t as you haven;t dealt with the points I made.
    Neb did NOT have eagle's feathers but hair as LONG as an eagle's feather - IOW hair roughly 12 - 15 inches long. That was the symbolic connection.
    So Dan 4 does NOT connect with Dan 7 in any particular.
    Additionally if wings, means a king has feathers growing on them, then the leopard beast with FOUR WINGS must have a lot more feathers growing on him.
    This is known as having a CONSISTENT approach to the interpretation of a scripture. Yet you do NOT have a candidate who fits that for the leopard beast . Instead just about everyone agrees this is Greece (including me).
    For progress to happen requires acknowledging a point made and then responding to the questions and issues that point raises - which you don't often do.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Which is then a problem for your view of it being one kingdom as the kingdom of Rome finished in 1453 AD.
    I don't see it being a problem because in prophecy the 4th Kingdom was predestined to break up into 10 separate kingdoms. That process has been unfolding ever since Rome fell in 476 AD and Constantinople fell in 1453 AD.

    We have had the Roman imperial culture persevere long after these dates, historically. We had the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Russian Empire, succeeding the ancient Roman imperial tradition. Hitler tried to reestablish imperial control in Europe, and I'm not sure we're done yet?

    The European Union is ensuring that Europe remains united, in almost "imperial" fashion. And Antichrist has yet to come.

    So this 4th Kingdom is *not* like the 1st 3 kingdoms. Otherwise, I would completely agree with you that I have a problem. The fall of the ancient Roman Empire would've proven my scenario false. But it doesn't, in my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not really my view versus Gill's view. Gill presented a view, and then I responded to the holes IN Gill's view.
    The very basis of the claim by Gill is flaky, that the first of four is already in existence.
    I then deal with the example elsewhere which supposedly supports this and show that there are three kings in the future before Darius.
    Yes, in your view my view and Gill's view is flaky. But those who circumvent your argument, believing that the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7 are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, are myriad.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Well of course you won;t as you haven;t dealt with the points I made.
    That's false. You don't agree with the rebuttals I made.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Neb did NOT have eagle's feathers but hair as LONG as an eagle's feather - IOW hair roughly 12 - 15 inches long. That was the symbolic connection.
    He looked like a debased eagle--that's how I interpret it--like it or not. Anything could've been used to depict the length of the hair, including an actual measurement. The fact it was compared to eagle's feathers is significant, in my view. Nebuchadnezzar, in my view, was being depicted as a fallen eagle.

    Again, it isn't that I don't address your concerns. It's that you *don't like* my answers. Your concerns have been answered.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So Dan 4 does NOT connect with Dan 7 in any particular.
    We disagree, but will get nowhere in simply restating our disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Additionally if wings, means a king has feathers growing on them, then the leopard beast with FOUR WINGS must have a lot more feathers growing on him.
    Silly. Nebuchadnezzar has hair long like eagle's feathers, and he had his eagle's wings stripped of. The leopard had 4 bird's wings. I see no problem with consistency here?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is known as having a CONSISTENT approach to the interpretation of a scripture. Yet you do NOT have a candidate who fits that for the leopard beast . Instead just about everyone agrees this is Greece (including me).
    For progress to happen requires acknowledging a point made and then responding to the questions and issues that point raises - which you don't often do.
    I do not acknowledge points that are illegitimate. Claiming I don't address your points when I do is illegitimate. I do have a candidate for the leopard, as I suggested. I and many others believe the leopard, the 2nd Beast, is the Greek Empire, which had 4 "wings," or territories which carried Alexander's Empire into farther reaches of the world, including Macedonia, Lydia, Syria, and Egypt.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't see it being a problem because in prophecy the 4th Kingdom was predestined to break up into 10 separate kingdoms. That process has been unfolding ever since Rome fell in 476 AD and Constantinople fell in 1453 AD.
    We have had the Roman imperial culture persevere long after these dates, historically. We had the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Russian Empire, succeeding the ancient Roman imperial tradition. Hitler tried to reestablish imperial control in Europe, and I'm not sure we're done yet?
    The European Union is ensuring that Europe remains united, in almost "imperial" fashion. And Antichrist has yet to come.
    So this 4th Kingdom is *not* like the 1st 3 kingdoms. Otherwise, I would completely agree with you that I have a problem. The fall of the ancient Roman Empire would've proven my scenario false. But it doesn't, in my view.
    Actually the Legs in Dan 2 are followed by Feet.
    And Rome did NOT become 10 kingdoms.

    Yes, in your view my view and Gill's view is flaky. But those who circumvent your argument, believing that the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7 are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, are myriad.
    I prefer to deal with what scripture states. Gill's view I looked at and dealt with highlighting the problems with it, and which you continue to ignore.

    That's false. You don't agree with the rebuttals I made.
    Not false at all. You have NOT provided a rebuttal, but simply a reiteration, which seems to be your modus operandi trying to wear down any opposition.

    He looked like a debased eagle--that's how I interpret it--like it or not. Anything could've been used to depict the length of the hair, including an actual measurement. The fact it was compared to eagle's feathers is significant, in my view. Nebuchadnezzar, in my view, was being depicted as a fallen eagle.
    It was NOT compared to an eagle's feather, but the LENGTH of an eagle's feather.
    He did NOT look like a debased eagle, but like an OX with long hair.
    Also the 1st beast is NOT a debased eagle but a lion with eagle's wings, which is powerful, not fallen.

    Again, it isn't that I don't address your concerns. It's that you *don't like* my answers. Your concerns have been answered.
    Actually the above is the closest you have come to address my point. It TOTALLY fails to do so as it involves CHANGING what scripture actually says.

    Silly. Nebuchadnezzar has hair long like eagle's feathers, and he had his eagle's wings stripped of. The leopard had 4 bird's wings. I see no problem with consistency here?
    Yes, you are being silly. Do you KNOW what the word CONSISTENT means? I am pretty sure you do.
    If a King having long hair like the length of an eagles feathers means a beast has two wings, then how long must the king's hair be if he has four wings.
    Clearly the four wings have NOTHING to do with long hair, and therefore CONSISTENTLY applying the symbolism means that two wings also has NOTHING to do with long hair.

    I do not acknowledge points that are illegitimate. Claiming I don't address your points when I do is illegitimate. I do have a candidate for the leopard, as I suggested. I and many others believe the leopard, the 2nd Beast, is the Greek Empire, which had 4 "wings," or territories which carried Alexander's Empire into farther reaches of the world, including Macedonia, Lydia, Syria, and Egypt.
    As you hadn't they were legitimate points.
    So did Alexander have long hair from which he never lost it as the four wings were never taken off?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually the Legs in Dan 2 are followed by Feet.
    And Rome did NOT become 10 kingdoms.
    2 possibilities here. Either the feet have been developing since the fall of the ancient branches of the empire, or the legs continued long after the fall of the ancient branches of the empire. I prefer the latter.

    I think the legs of E. and W. Imperial Rome continued past 476 AD and 1453 AD. The 2 legs, for all I know, may still exist? But it does seem that the imperial tradition has been temporarily suspended in East and West, until the 10 nations develop who will comprise the "toes."

    Imperialism sort of "died" in the 1st World War, but reemerged in Communist Russia in the East and in Nazi Germany in the West. We now have the states of Europe formed in the EU, which is sort of ominous to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I prefer to deal with what scripture states. Gill's view I looked at and dealt with highlighting the problems with it, and which you continue to ignore.
    Again, I haven't "ignored" you--I just disagreed with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not false at all. You have NOT provided a rebuttal, but simply a reiteration, which seems to be your modus operandi trying to wear down any opposition.
    No, that's not my purpose. If I'm repetitious, it's because I feel my points have not been adequately understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It was NOT compared to an eagle's feather, but the LENGTH of an eagle's feather.
    He did NOT look like a debased eagle, but like an OX with long hair.
    Also the 1st beast is NOT a debased eagle but a lion with eagle's wings, which is powerful, not fallen.
    Nebuchadnezzar *became* like an ox--he was exalted like a tree before that. You're too caught up in the metaphors. If all that was important was the length of the hair, the dream would've given just a measurement.

    But we have a measurement associated with a particular creature--an eagle. That is deliberate, because a tree that is high attracts lots of birds. And in particular, an eagle is associated with high trees, and is a good symbol of regal supremacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually the above is the closest you have come to address my point. It TOTALLY fails to do so as it involves CHANGING what scripture actually says.

    Yes, you are being silly. Do you KNOW what the word CONSISTENT means? I am pretty sure you do.
    If a King having long hair like the length of an eagles feathers means a beast has two wings, then how long must the king's hair be if he has four wings.
    You aren't using the metaphors properly. The hair is compared to eagle's feathers not just because of the length but also because of the image of a regal creature humbled to become a mentally impaired man.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Clearly the four wings have NOTHING to do with long hair, and therefore CONSISTENTLY applying the symbolism means that two wings also has NOTHING to do with long hair.
    It is a fallacy to use the same metaphor the same way, compared to hair, in a different context. It is context that determines how a metaphor is to be applied. The eagle's wings are torn off, showing the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar, is different than the 4 wings of the Leopard, which has to do with the extension of Alexander's Empire.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As you hadn't they were legitimate points.
    So did Alexander have long hair from which he never lost it as the four wings were never taken off?
    Your application of the wings' metaphor is wrong, because you are engaging in a fallacy of interpretation. The same symbol is not always used the same way--it depends on context.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    2 possibilities here. Either the feet have been developing since the fall of the ancient branches of the empire, or the legs continued long after the fall of the ancient branches of the empire. I prefer the latter.
    I think the legs of E. and W. Imperial Rome continued past 476 AD and 1453 AD. The 2 legs, for all I know, may still exist? But it does seem that the imperial tradition has been temporarily suspended in East and West, until the 10 nations develop who will comprise the "toes."
    Imperialism sort of "died" in the 1st World War, but reemerged in Communist Russia in the East and in Nazi Germany in the West. We now have the states of Europe formed in the EU, which is sort of ominous to me.
    Actually NEITHER of your two possibilities MATCH what happens with the Head of Gold becoming the Chest and Arms of Silver. So that reason alone is enough to reject your view.
    However Rome did NOT continue in the West after 476 AD. It was GONE!
    Rome did NOT continue past 1453 AD in the East either. It was GONE!

    So how you can say - for all I know they may still exist - is up there with, for all I know pink elephants are living on the moon.
    You also seem to bypass the Feet as if they are irrelevant.

    Again, I haven't "ignored" you--I just disagreed with you.
    I didn't say you ignored me. This post of yours show you haven't. What you HAVE IGNORED are the points I had previously made.

    No, that's not my purpose. If I'm repetitious, it's because I feel my points have not been adequately understood.
    You ALWAYS seem to think that when people disagree with your point. When you are quoting what others have put then that means you are aligning yourself on the basis of that point. As I dealt with that point, then it shows "your" point has been adequately understood.

    Nebuchadnezzar *became* like an ox--he was exalted like a tree before that. You're too caught up in the metaphors. If all that was important was the length of the hair, the dream would've given just a measurement.
    But we have a measurement associated with a particular creature--an eagle. That is deliberate, because a tree that is high attracts lots of birds. And in particular, an eagle is associated with high trees, and is a good symbol of regal supremacy.
    The purpose of metaphors, is so that they show something and explain something. The visions are FULL of metaphors, so to IGNORE them or to CHANGE them is COMPLETELY wrong.
    The hairs are NOT all the EXACT same length, it is a picture of long hair.
    A high tree WAS showing the height to which he reached, but the picture of the long hair does NOT show a height, but a DEPTH to which he has sunk. The picture is the OPPOSITE of what yo are inferring, which shows how badly you are getting Daniel 4.

    You aren't using the metaphors properly. The hair is compared to eagle's feathers not just because of the length but also because of the image of a regal creature humbled to become a mentally impaired man.
    Nope, it is ONLY about the length. This is why it mentions the LENGTH as being the REASON for the comparative.

    It is a fallacy to use the same metaphor the same way, compared to hair, in a different context. It is context that determines how a metaphor is to be applied. The eagle's wings are torn off, showing the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar, is different than the 4 wings of the Leopard, which has to do with the extension of Alexander's Empire.
    You state it is a different CONTEXT, yet the CONTEXT is Daniel 7. In Daniel 7 we have two wings and four wings. My view is applying the SAME meaning CONSISTENTLY within ONE CONTEXT.
    THEREFORE the FALLACY is on your part of bringing in a PRETEXT from a different vision, seen by a different person about a different point and event.

    Your application of the wings' metaphor is wrong, because you are engaging in a fallacy of interpretation. The same symbol is not always used the same way--it depends on context.
    Actually this blows your interpretation out of the water, not mine. Apply the above sentence to your own view and you will understand why I reject it.
    CONTEXT in Dan 4 is different to Dan 7. To this we should be agreed. Yet YOU claim Dan 4 IS the context of Dan 7.
    However when I highlight that in Dan 7 in the ONE vision, which has ONE CONTEXT, you seem to wish to change the meaning. That is just poor reasoning.

  9. #39

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually NEITHER of your two possibilities MATCH what happens with the Head of Gold becoming the Chest and Arms of Silver. So that reason alone is enough to reject your view.
    However Rome did NOT continue in the West after 476 AD. It was GONE!
    Rome did NOT continue past 1453 AD in the East either. It was GONE!
    The Roman empire was transformed into the "holy" Roman empire.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually NEITHER of your two possibilities MATCH what happens with the Head of Gold becoming the Chest and Arms of Silver. So that reason alone is enough to reject your view.
    This is a claim without proof. In fact, Persia succeeded Babylon, making it a logical interpretation in both Dan 2 and Dan 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However Rome did NOT continue in the West after 476 AD. It was GONE!
    Rome did NOT continue past 1453 AD in the East either. It was GONE!
    I already indicated the *ancient* imperial structures passed at those times! My argument would be that the *imperial tradition* did *not* pass away. Barbarians simply assumed control of the Empire, until the Holy Roman Empire formed in the West. Thus, the *imperial tradition* did *not* pass away. It was *not* gone!

    The same thing happened in the East. Muslims assumed control over the Eastern Empire. However, in the East, the imperial tradition appeared to pass north to Russia, and to the Slavic states. And as I've argued, this imperial tradition has continued all the way up until the 20th century. It may still be evident in Russia, despite the collapse of the USSR. It may still be evident in the West in the formation of the EU.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So how you can say - for all I know they may still exist - is up there with, for all I know pink elephants are living on the moon.
    You also seem to bypass the Feet as if they are irrelevant.
    How am I bypassing the Feet? This is the formation of an imperial tradition into confederations, which is what Europe has been developing towards for a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I didn't say you ignored me. This post of yours show you haven't. What you HAVE IGNORED are the points I had previously made.
    Please distinguish between disagreement and "ignoring you."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You ALWAYS seem to think that when people disagree with your point. When you are quoting what others have put then that means you are aligning yourself on the basis of that point. As I dealt with that point, then it shows "your" point has been adequately understood.
    By all means disagree with me. Just ensure that you are understanding my position before disagreeing with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The purpose of metaphors, is so that they show something and explain something. The visions are FULL of metaphors, so to IGNORE them or to CHANGE them is COMPLETELY wrong.
    The hairs are NOT all the EXACT same length, it is a picture of long hair.
    A high tree WAS showing the height to which he reached, but the picture of the long hair does NOT show a height, but a DEPTH to which he has sunk. The picture is the OPPOSITE of what yo are inferring, which shows how badly you are getting Daniel 4.
    I think very many more scholars would agree with my position than with your position. So I don't believe I'm getting anything "badly."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, it is ONLY about the length. This is why it mentions the LENGTH as being the REASON for the comparative.
    My point again is that if *length* was the only issue, then a *measurement* would've been given, instead of a comparison to eagle's feathers!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You state it is a different CONTEXT, yet the CONTEXT is Daniel 7. In Daniel 7 we have two wings and four wings. My view is applying the SAME meaning CONSISTENTLY within ONE CONTEXT.
    There are contexts within contexts. Yes, there is a single context for the dream of Dan 7. But within that dream there are different beasts, each of which presents its own context. You are mixing these contexts, and thus the symbolism. Wings for one beast are different from wings for another beast.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    THEREFORE the FALLACY is on your part of bringing in a PRETEXT from a different vision, seen by a different person about a different point and event.

    Actually this blows your interpretation out of the water, not mine. Apply the above sentence to your own view and you will understand why I reject it.
    CONTEXT in Dan 4 is different to Dan 7. To this we should be agreed. Yet YOU claim Dan 4 IS the context of Dan 7.
    However when I highlight that in Dan 7 in the ONE vision, which has ONE CONTEXT, you seem to wish to change the meaning. That is just poor reasoning.
    You're mixing the comparisons. Yes, ch. 2 is comparable with ch. 7. No, symbols from one beast cannot be mixed with symbols from another beast if the applications of "wings" are different.

    And they are. As I said, one indicates the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as an exalted leader. The other represents the expansion of Alexander's Empire into 4 sections. You can't mix these images, since they are contextually different!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is a claim without proof. In fact, Persia succeeded Babylon, making it a logical interpretation in both Dan 2 and Dan 7.
    That Persia follows Babylon does NOT prove that Dan 2 and Dan 7 are speaking of the SAME kingdom. That is a simple PRESUMPTION without recourse to what is STATED in the two visions.
    It is NOT a logical interpretation at all.

    I already indicated the *ancient* imperial structures passed at those times! My argument would be that the *imperial tradition* did *not* pass away. Barbarians simply assumed control of the Empire, until the Holy Roman Empire formed in the West. Thus, the *imperial tradition* did *not* pass away. It was *not* gone!
    The same thing happened in the East. Muslims assumed control over the Eastern Empire. However, in the East, the imperial tradition appeared to pass north to Russia, and to the Slavic states. And as I've argued, this imperial tradition has continued all the way up until the 20th century. It may still be evident in Russia, despite the collapse of the USSR. It may still be evident in the West in the formation of the EU.
    You agree it is GONE, and then you bizarrely claim it is NOT GONE. What are you actually claiming?
    There is NO such thing as an "imperial" tradition. That is just a nonsense.
    Barbarians did NOT simply assume control of the Empire. In the West they smashed it and tore it apart, until there was nothing left.
    In the East it was conquered by the Caliphate who also did NOT continue it. There was no passing to Russia.

    Of course people wanting to legitimise their claims to power and to make themselves greater claim all sorts of things.

    How am I bypassing the Feet? This is the formation of an imperial tradition into confederations, which is what Europe has been developing towards for a long time.
    So what Kingdom WAS the Feet Kingdom? We can identify the others, but you have it as an amorphous gloop out of which some 10 kings kingdom will come.

    I think very many more scholars would agree with my position than with your position. So I don't believe I'm getting anything "badly."
    So now you are arguing NOT on whether your view fits with scripture and what it says, but on whether some scholars hold your view?

    My point again is that if *length* was the only issue, then a *measurement* would've been given, instead of a comparison to eagle's feathers!
    A baseless claim. How long is 15 inches? Were they all 15 inches? Why say he was like an ox? A metaphor is used to give a picture WITHOUT being an EXACT measurement. This is why a picture was given. An eagle's feathers are longer than a swallows for example.

    There are contexts within contexts. Yes, there is a single context for the dream of Dan 7. But within that dream there are different beasts, each of which presents its own context. You are mixing these contexts, and thus the symbolism. Wings for one beast are different from wings for another beast.
    Wow!
    So now it is sub-contexts which are paramount, yet when the wider CONTEXT of the whole dream is looked at - which is called being CONSISTENT - you prefer to go to a yet wider context instead, of a dream given to another person, maybe 40 years earlier, and yet REJECT the implication WITHIN the SINGLE vision!
    Sorry, but that is TRULY faulty reasoning.
    I agree they are different, for one beast has two wings and the other has four wings.
    Yet how do you interpret the meaning of the four wings? Which previous dream of Daniel's will you consult to understand it?

    You're mixing the comparisons. Yes, ch. 2 is comparable with ch. 7. No, symbols from one beast cannot be mixed with symbols from another beast if the applications of "wings" are different.
    And they are. As I said, one indicates the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar as an exalted leader. The other represents the expansion of Alexander's Empire into 4 sections. You can't mix these images, since they are contextually different!
    No, I am NOT the one who is bringing in a different dream. I am considering SOLELY within the Dan 7 dream. It is you who is bringing in Dan 2 and Dan 4. So you are REFUSING to be CONSISTENT in the one dream, yet seem to think looking at other dreams is more correct. Well if you ALWAYS prefer the PRETEXT to the CONTEXT then I know we won;t get any further.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    That Persia follows Babylon does NOT prove that Dan 2 and Dan 7 are speaking of the SAME kingdom. That is a simple PRESUMPTION without recourse to what is STATED in the two visions.
    It is NOT a logical interpretation at all.


    You agree it is GONE, and then you bizarrely claim it is NOT GONE. What are you actually claiming?
    There is NO such thing as an "imperial" tradition. That is just a nonsense.
    Barbarians did NOT simply assume control of the Empire. In the West they smashed it and tore it apart, until there was nothing left.
    In the East it was conquered by the Caliphate who also did NOT continue it. There was no passing to Russia.

    Of course people wanting to legitimise their claims to power and to make themselves greater claim all sorts of things.


    So what Kingdom WAS the Feet Kingdom? We can identify the others, but you have it as an amorphous gloop out of which some 10 kings kingdom will come.


    So now you are arguing NOT on whether your view fits with scripture and what it says, but on whether some scholars hold your view?


    A baseless claim. How long is 15 inches? Were they all 15 inches? Why say he was like an ox? A metaphor is used to give a picture WITHOUT being an EXACT measurement. This is why a picture was given. An eagle's feathers are longer than a swallows for example.


    Wow!
    So now it is sub-contexts which are paramount, yet when the wider CONTEXT of the whole dream is looked at - which is called being CONSISTENT - you prefer to go to a yet wider context instead, of a dream given to another person, maybe 40 years earlier, and yet REJECT the implication WITHIN the SINGLE vision!
    Sorry, but that is TRULY faulty reasoning.
    I agree they are different, for one beast has two wings and the other has four wings.
    Yet how do you interpret the meaning of the four wings? Which previous dream of Daniel's will you consult to understand it?


    No, I am NOT the one who is bringing in a different dream. I am considering SOLELY within the Dan 7 dream. It is you who is bringing in Dan 2 and Dan 4. So you are REFUSING to be CONSISTENT in the one dream, yet seem to think looking at other dreams is more correct. Well if you ALWAYS prefer the PRETEXT to the CONTEXT then I know we won;t get any further.
    We won't get any further because you always tend to make disagreement a personal matter. The issues you bring up are simply a restatement that you don't like my positions. I see little to respond to, except to perhaps an "attitude."

    If you wish to have a real answer to your latest questions, simply go back and read what I've already said. It wouldn't take too much to imagine what my responses would be.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    We won't get any further because you always tend to make disagreement a personal matter. The issues you bring up are simply a restatement that you don't like my positions. I see little to respond to, except to perhaps an "attitude."
    If you wish to have a real answer to your latest questions, simply go back and read what I've already said. It wouldn't take too much to imagine what my responses would be.
    I am not making it a personal matter, but you often personalise it because I am disagreeing with you.
    I have highlighted WHY certain positions are NOT justifiable from scripture, nor from history nor from CONSISTENCY of interpretation.
    I have highlighted that how we interpret wings in one part of one dream should therefore be the same for wings in that same dream.

    You prefer to ignore what words mean, and prefer to bring in an interpretation given to a dream that was given to another person possibly 20 or more years earlier.
    This is known as a PRETEXT.
    I also dealt with the nuances WITHIN the dreams referenced and show how they portray the opposite to that claimed - hair the length of an eagle's feather is NOT saying someone is regal, but the opposite, that they are abased, which is what CONTEXTUALLY in Dan 4 it means.

    Now WHEN you are ready to deal with the points made, then you can stop making it personal and start dealing with scripture. Until then there is no point in responding.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,329

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I am not making it a personal matter, but you often personalise it because I am disagreeing with you.
    I have highlighted WHY certain positions are NOT justifiable from scripture, nor from history nor from CONSISTENCY of interpretation.
    I have highlighted that how we interpret wings in one part of one dream should therefore be the same for wings in that same dream.
    That is so easy to disprove! I can pull a speech, or a dream, or an account and find the same words used in different places, meaning different things. It is so obviously false that the same words have to mean the same thing in different parts of the same speech.

    Again, I've given you my answer, and you just choose to pretend I don't. That's maddening. My answer is still the same. In context wings means one thing when applied to Nebuchadnezzar, and means something completely different when applied to the kingdoms Alexander's Empire broke up into.

    It's okay for us to disagree. Let it go. There's nothing more to say, apparently? I enjoy arguing with you, but not the paraphernalia that goes with it. And that tends to happen once we reach an impasse.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You prefer to ignore what words mean, and prefer to bring in an interpretation given to a dream that was given to another person possibly 20 or more years earlier.
    This is known as a PRETEXT.
    I also dealt with the nuances WITHIN the dreams referenced and show how they portray the opposite to that claimed - hair the length of an eagle's feather is NOT saying someone is regal, but the opposite, that they are abased, which is what CONTEXTUALLY in Dan 4 it means.
    This is part of the "impasse." I told you that had a hair measurement been the only thing in context, a comparison to "feathers" would not have been given. There has to be a reason for eagle's feathers to be given! My argument is that this shows Nebuchadnezzar's previous lofty position as "king of kings," together with his fall from grace. The wings pulled off reflects his humiliation as a king given over to insanity.

    I don't know why you keep repeating your argument? It makes no impact upon my own argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now WHEN you are ready to deal with the points made, then you can stop making it personal and start dealing with scripture. Until then there is no point in responding.
    No, we reached an impasse a little while ago, and you continue to suggest I don't respond, or am an idiot, stupid, or stubborn. I pray we can get past this kind of rhetoric, and act like grownups?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,747
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Does Daniel 2 and 7 speak of the same four kingdoms? Or are they different?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That is so easy to disprove! I can pull a speech, or a dream, or an account and find the same words used in different places, meaning different things. It is so obviously false that the same words have to mean the same thing in different parts of the same speech.
    Really, wow! Please do provide examples.
    CONSISTENCY of meaning is a REQUIREMENT for communication.

    Again, I've given you my answer, and you just choose to pretend I don't. That's maddening. My answer is still the same. In context wings means one thing when applied to Nebuchadnezzar, and means something completely different when applied to the kingdoms Alexander's Empire broke up into.
    It's okay for us to disagree. Let it go. There's nothing more to say, apparently? I enjoy arguing with you, but not the paraphernalia that goes with it. And that tends to happen once we reach an impasse.
    In CONTEXT means that the CONTEXT matters. Yet you are REJECTING the CONTEXT by claiming that what is said in CONTEXT is irrelevant to the meaning of word wings. Therefore your statement above is false. You are NOT following CONTEXT but in fact following PRETEXT.

    This is part of the "impasse." I told you that had a hair measurement been the only thing in context, a comparison to "feathers" would not have been given. There has to be a reason for eagle's feathers to be given! My argument is that this shows Nebuchadnezzar's previous lofty position as "king of kings," together with his fall from grace. The wings pulled off reflects his humiliation as a king given over to insanity.
    Hair measurement is NOT in Dan 7. So nothing there about CONTEXT.
    The comparison was to the LENGTH of a feather. IF you IGNORE words that are stated then you will come to all sorts of conclusions which are wrong.
    Having long hair does NOT show Neb's lofty position. The VERY point is the OPPOSITE, that it is about how LOW Neb is.
    I really don't get why you are determined to bring Dan 4 into a dream given to a different person possibly 10 or 15 years later.
    However as PRETEXT seems to be your method for interpreting scripture, then I shouldn't be too surprised.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 21st 2018, 03:12 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Sep 29th 2017, 08:34 AM
  3. Discussion Five kingdoms in Daniel 2?
    By ForHisglory in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: May 2nd 2015, 11:16 AM
  4. Daniel 7 - visions of kings and kingdoms/leopard rises twice
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 28th 2011, 03:33 PM
  5. Daniel 7 - kings and kingdoms/visions/ had yet four heads
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 14th 2011, 03:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •