Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 88

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Language is always full of unintended meanings and confusions.
    However ALL 4 beasts were portrayed to rise in the future which means any existing kingdom is NOT being included. This is the SIMPLE usage of language and how ANYONE reading it WITHOUT a PRECONCEIVED bias would read it.
    That is obviously false since I read it without a preconceived bias and saw it that way. And many other Bible interpreters have done the same. You want to judge us all as having a preconceived bias? That is just judgmentalism. I could say the same about you? You ignore the evidence that the 4 kingdoms in Dan 2 apparently match the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7. Isn't that a bias?

    Of course, you will simply argue that the language that all 4 kingdoms must be *future* is the weightier evidence. But I would argue that the correspondence of the 2 passages, and the flexibility of language, makes the correspondence of these 2 passages more likely. You don't have the right to judge the motives someone has in this instance.

    I think the language naturally suggests a correspondence between the 4 kingdoms of Dan 2 and the 4 kingdoms of Dan 7. And it doesn't bother me that the 1st kingdom had already risen as a set of 4 that were, in the future, to rise. It is a "language" issues, and not a "bias" issue.

    It's like saying I bought a set of 4 lottery tickets, and 1 had already failed. Then I say, *they* will yet succeed in the future. They are being dealt with as a set, even though the 1st lottery ticket has already failed in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    None of the beasts rose through Babylon! It was to come to an end and it will NEVER rise again.
    The then power was to come to an end.
    This dream did NOT parallel Nebuchadnezzar's instead it took us on from where Nebuchadnezzar's dream had reached.
    You didn't understand what I meant, although I can see how it sounds like that. I'm not saying that Babylon was the mechanism through which the other kingdoms come about. I'm simply saying that God presented them as a series beginning with Babylon in Dan 2, and now again in Dan 7.

    The remaining future kingdoms had begun with Babylon as a *series.* So even though Babylon had already arisen, she was part of the series of kingdoms that were yet to rise in the future. Babylon, though she had already arisen, was part of that series, which had already begun in the lifetime of Daniel.

    Apparently we cannot move any farther on this issue, although you have a legitimate concern. On the other hand, identification of Persia with the griffin is not a compelling argument for me, since the identification has nothing to do with a Persian god, nor with a Persian national symbol. Rather, it *characterized* the kingdom as like a "lion." That has more to do with Babylon, in my view, whereas the bear applies, in character, to Persia. Persia outsized Babylon.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,868
    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 obviously false since I read it without a preconceived bias and saw it that way. And many other Bible interpreters have done the same. You want to judge us all as having a preconceived bias? That is just judgmentalism. I could say the same about you? You ignore the evidence that the 4 kingdoms in Dan 2 apparently match the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7. Isn't that a bias?
    Of course you have a preconceived bias as you brought in Daniel 2. To approach it without a preconceived bias is to take the words as they are stated SOLELY within its CONTEXT first. This can be hard to do because we have many things and people etc telling us other things, and we do not forget what we have read before and often consider connections.
    I have NOT ignored the "evidence" of it being about Dan 2. I simply approach Dan 7 on its own FIRST. Therefore the meaning as it stands alone is ALWAYS the preferred understanding, and should ONLY be changed IF there is something COMPELLING within the CONTEXT to cause this.
    There is NOTHING in Dan 7 to cause this, rather it is PRETEXT which leads to the alternative. As usual though you prefer Bible scholars to what the Bible states.

    Taking Dan 7 apart we discover that the 10 kings have one come among them who is different from them and speaks against God and his dominion is then taken away and that dominion is given to the saints.
    These kings come out of the 4th beast, which is after the 3rd beast, which is after the 2nd beast which is after the 1st beast, which is yet to arise.

    Now when we connect with other prophecy we find Dan 2's 10 Toes seems to speak of the 10 Kings, which also matches the 10 horns in Revelation. This makes the Little Horn (something not mentioned in Dan 2) as being the AC. The AC will come out of the 10 Toes, horns. The 10 Toes come out of the Feet, which come AFTER the Legs, which is after the Thighs, which is after the Belly, which is after the Chest and Arms.

    Now connecting with History we note that the kingdom which arose after Babylon, and ruled over Israel and the Jews was Persia, which makes Persia the 1st beast and the Chest and arms. The next Kingdom to arise in history was the Roman kingdom, which makes it the 2nd beast, but it did NOT rule over Israel or the Jews next, so it is NOT the Belly. The Greeks arose as a kingdom AFTER the Romans in history making them the 3rd beast, but they ruled over Israel and the Jews after Persia through Alexander, making him the Belly and the Thighs as the King of the North and South. Then the Romans took over making them the Legs of Iron. The last kingdom to arise which also ruled over Israel and the Jews was the Caliphate. This makes the Caliphate the 4th beast and also the Feet Kingdom. The 10 kings will arise from that entity.

    Of course, you will simply argue that the language that all 4 kingdoms must be *future* is the weightier evidence. But I would argue that the correspondence of the 2 passages, and the flexibility of language, makes the correspondence of these 2 passages more likely. You don't have the right to judge the motives someone has in this instance.
    If you are so FLEXIBLE in language then I think you must be a JW. They are this flexible.
    Words have a MEANING, and we should ALWAYS accept that MEANING, unless we are told there is a modifier to that meaning. Otherwise words become MEANINGLESS, which is what your view is when you REMOVE the MEANING from words to become whatever you like them to mean. We should ALWAYS bend OUR understanding to what He has said, and NOT bend what He has said to our preferred interpretation.

    It's like saying I bought a set of 4 lottery tickets, and 1 had already failed. Then I say, *they* will yet succeed in the future. They are being dealt with as a set, even though the 1st lottery ticket has already failed in the past.
    Actually this example PROVES you wrong. If you have BOUGHT a set of lottery tickets then you are stating this is something done in the PAST. As soon as you change your phrase to match that in Dan 7 then you find that though they may be a set, they are ALL a set not yet in your hand.
    The CORRECT example is, I shall buy a set of 4 lottery tickets. As you have NOT bought them, how do you know if one has failed.

    You didn't understand what I meant, although I can see how it sounds like that. I'm not saying that Babylon was the mechanism through which the other kingdoms come about. I'm simply saying that God presented them as a series beginning with Babylon in Dan 2, and now again in Dan 7.
    What God presented to Neb in Dan 2 is NOT what God presented to Dan in Dan 7.

    Apparently we cannot move any farther on this issue, although you have a legitimate concern. On the other hand, identification of Persia with the griffin is not a compelling argument for me, since the identification has nothing to do with a Persian god, nor with a Persian national symbol. Rather, it *characterized* the kingdom as like a "lion." That has more to do with Babylon, in my view, whereas the bear applies, in character, to Persia. Persia outsized Babylon.
    What actually do you think the symbols mean? You have ruled out a national symbol, by which I assume how they also represented themselves or how others represented them, so then what is the symbol INITIALLY about?
    You further CANNOT claim that the 1st beast is more like a lion and that this is more like Babylon, especially IF you remove a connection with a national symbol. Persia was a greater kingdom than Babylon, it ruled over the great kingdoms of the Middle East including Egypt, which Babylon didn't do.
    The bear has no connection with Persia, and I have little idea how you mean "in character". The Bear is seen with three ribs in its mouth and being told to go and eat much flesh. This speaks of Rome.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Of course you have a preconceived bias as you brought in Daniel 2. To approach it without a preconceived bias is to take the words as they are stated SOLELY within its CONTEXT first. This can be hard to do because we have many things and people etc telling us other things, and we do not forget what we have read before and often consider connections.
    I have NOT ignored the "evidence" of it being about Dan 2. I simply approach Dan 7 on its own FIRST. Therefore the meaning as it stands alone is ALWAYS the preferred understanding, and should ONLY be changed IF there is something COMPELLING within the CONTEXT to cause this.
    There is NOTHING in Dan 7 to cause this, rather it is PRETEXT which leads to the alternative. As usual though you prefer Bible scholars to what the Bible states.
    In other words, you have as much bias as I do! The little book of Daniel has its own context. In that context, chs. 2 and 7 would be comparable. That is not a pretext--that is the context. In both cases Daniel lived in the time of the 1st Kingdom. Your own problem seems to be with the apparent *future* associated with all 4 kingdoms in ch. 7? And so, you gather up the griffin symbol, which is a Persian symbol, to make it fit the 1st Beast in ch. 7? Pretext, brother! The context does *not* require this--*you* require it!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Taking Dan 7 apart we discover that the 10 kings have one come among them who is different from them and speaks against God and his dominion is then taken away and that dominion is given to the saints.
    These kings come out of the 4th beast, which is after the 3rd beast, which is after the 2nd beast which is after the 1st beast, which is yet to arise.

    Now when we connect with other prophecy we find Dan 2's 10 Toes seems to speak of the 10 Kings, which also matches the 10 horns in Revelation. This makes the Little Horn (something not mentioned in Dan 2) as being the AC. The AC will come out of the 10 Toes, horns. The 10 Toes come out of the Feet, which come AFTER the Legs, which is after the Thighs, which is after the Belly, which is after the Chest and Arms.

    Now connecting with History we note that the kingdom which arose after Babylon, and ruled over Israel and the Jews was Persia, which makes Persia the 1st beast and the Chest and arms.
    This is your assumption, based on the notion that all 4 of these kingdoms had to be *future* to Daniel. That begs the question. If this dream appears as comparable to Nebuchadnezzar's dream, then the 4 kingdoms should be aligned, and all 4 should be viewed as a future set, complete only after all 4 have arisen.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The next Kingdom to arise in history was the Roman kingdom, which makes it the 2nd beast, but it did NOT rule over Israel or the Jews next, so it is NOT the Belly.
    Rome didn't rule over the Jews or Israel? What makes you say that? Of course they did! And, by the way, you're skipping over Alexander's Empire, and its break up into 4 segments, or "wings."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The Greeks arose as a kingdom AFTER the Romans in history making them the 3rd beast, but they ruled over Israel and the Jews after Persia through Alexander, making him the Belly and the Thighs as the King of the North and South. Then the Romans took over making them the Legs of Iron. The last kingdom to arise which also ruled over Israel and the Jews was the Caliphate. This makes the Caliphate the 4th beast and also the Feet Kingdom. The 10 kings will arise from that entity.
    I'm totally confused! The order was Rome, Persia, Greece, and Rome.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you are so FLEXIBLE in language then I think you must be a JW. They are this flexible.
    Trees don't think, so your lack of reason means you are a tree? Is this how you win arguments, brother--by name-calling?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Words have a MEANING, and we should ALWAYS accept that MEANING, unless we are told there is a modifier to that meaning. Otherwise words become MEANINGLESS, which is what your view is when you REMOVE the MEANING from words to become whatever you like them to mean. We should ALWAYS bend OUR understanding to what He has said, and NOT bend what He has said to our preferred interpretation.
    And of course, brother FHG gets to decide what words means, based on his interpretation?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually this example PROVES you wrong. If you have BOUGHT a set of lottery tickets then you are stating this is something done in the PAST. As soon as you change your phrase to match that in Dan 7 then you find that though they may be a set, they are ALL a set not yet in your hand.
    The CORRECT example is, I shall buy a set of 4 lottery tickets. As you have NOT bought them, how do you know if one has failed.
    I guess you can't understand? People who can't accept being wrong will never admit being wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What God presented to Neb in Dan 2 is NOT what God presented to Dan in Dan 7.

    What actually do you think the symbols mean? You have ruled out a national symbol, by which I assume how they also represented themselves or how others represented them, so then what is the symbol INITIALLY about?
    Quite often, national symbols are how they view themselves--not necessarily how God views them. Some nations adopted the gods of nations they conquered. That did not make them *like* the nations they conquered!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You further CANNOT claim that the 1st beast is more like a lion and that this is more like Babylon, especially IF you remove a connection with a national symbol. Persia was a greater kingdom than Babylon, it ruled over the great kingdoms of the Middle East including Egypt, which Babylon didn't do.
    The bear has no connection with Persia, and I have little idea how you mean "in character". The Bear is seen with three ribs in its mouth and being told to go and eat much flesh. This speaks of Rome.
    My point, in fact, was that the bear is bigger than a lion. As such, Persia is the bear, and the lion is Babylon.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,868
    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
    In other words, you have as much bias as I do! The little book of Daniel has its own context. In that context, chs. 2 and 7 would be comparable. That is not a pretext--that is the context. In both cases Daniel lived in the time of the 1st Kingdom. Your own problem seems to be with the apparent *future* associated with all 4 kingdoms in ch. 7? And so, you gather up the griffin symbol, which is a Persian symbol, to make it fit the 1st Beast in ch. 7? Pretext, brother! The context does *not* require this--*you* require it!
    Daniel is a wider CONTEXT than Dan 2 or Dan 7. IOW you ALWAYS deal with the CONTEXT of Dan 2 first, BEFORE widening it to the rest of Daniel, and then widen further still to the rest of scripture.
    Daniel lived in the time of the first AND second kingdom.
    I have given NO pretext. A pretext is to take from outside the context.

    This is your assumption, based on the notion that all 4 of these kingdoms had to be *future* to Daniel. That begs the question. If this dream appears as comparable to Nebuchadnezzar's dream, then the 4 kingdoms should be aligned, and all 4 should be viewed as a future set, complete only after all 4 have arisen.
    Why should they be exactly aligned? Why shouldn't they show how things have changed?
    There are NOT 4 kingdoms in Dan 2.
    Also it is NOT a comparable dream. It is giving something new.
    It isn't me who uses the FUTURE tense, but the angel who is explaining the dream. So this is NOT my notion.

    Rome didn't rule over the Jews or Israel? What makes you say that? Of course they did! And, by the way, you're skipping over Alexander's Empire, and its break up into 4 segments, or "wings."
    You obviously haven't followed what I put.

    I'm totally confused! The order was Rome, Persia, Greece, and Rome.
    I can tell. Dan 2 has the order of the Kingdoms in order of them ruling over Israel and the Jews.
    Dan 7 does NOT follow that order, but goes in the order in which the kingdoms arose from the sea.
    Rome was a kingdom AFTER Persia was a kingdom but before Greece was a kingdom.

    Trees don't think, so your lack of reason means you are a tree? Is this how you win arguments, brother--by name-calling?
    I am simply highlighting your method of argumentation. As soon as you have words meaning whatever you want, then you are using the JW method.
    I prefer to stick with words having a meaning which we understand and then applying that meaning to the words we are given.

    And of course, brother FHG gets to decide what words means, based on his interpretation?
    Actually, no I don't. You can take ANY of the meanings I have applied to any of the words and see that these are normal uses of these words.
    When you have to CHANGE the meaning of a word in order for a certain interpretation to work, then you KNOW your interpretation is wrong.

    I guess you can't understand? People who can't accept being wrong will never admit being wrong.
    I can admit to being wrong when shown it. However I think this sentence speaks to yourself. Reread your example or get someone else to follow it and they will say the same point I made.

    Quite often, national symbols are how they view themselves--not necessarily how God views them. Some nations adopted the gods of nations they conquered. That did not make them *like* the nations they conquered!
    And?!? This doesn't actually answer the question as to why God showed them a certain way. The purpose of God giving dreams and visions to His servants the prophets is so that they understand based on what they know.

    My point, in fact, was that the bear is bigger than a lion. As such, Persia is the bear, and the lion is Babylon.
    Really, could be a big lion or a smaller bear. Not all bears are grizzlies.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Daniel is a wider CONTEXT than Dan 2 or Dan 7. IOW you ALWAYS deal with the CONTEXT of Dan 2 first, BEFORE widening it to the rest of Daniel, and then widen further still to the rest of scripture.
    Daniel lived in the time of the first AND second kingdom.
    I have given NO pretext. A pretext is to take from outside the context.
    My point is that Daniel lived in the time of Babylon during both dreams, in Dan 2 and Dan 7. Yes, when interpreting a passage, the language is to be understood, 1st of all, from the immediate context. But the broader context is not irrelevant. For example, if Jesus referred, in the Olivet Discourse, to the book of Daniel, then the book of Daniel becomes integral to the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

    Similarly, we have a relatively small prophetic book in the book of Daniel. When we read the book, we begin at the beginning, and read through ch. 2 and on to ch. 7 rather quickly. The connection between the 4 kingdoms in ch. 2 and the 4 kingdoms in ch. 7 can be seen quite naturally. In both instances, the 1st kingdom is quite naturally Babylon, since that is the kingdom in power at the time of these dreams. The *only* question is concerning the futurity of these kingdoms. And as I said, it is commonly understood, by interpreters, that the set of 4 kingdoms can generally be looked at as future because they are a set, 3 of which were still in the future.

    Since this is the basis of your rejection of a correlation between ch. 2 and ch. 7, we can get no farther. We would have to look at other evidence. But this will make no difference, because you base your whole argument on the futurity of *all 4 kingdoms.* This is a classic *impasse,* brother. So we're done. We may bicker over other details, but they won't change your mind, even if I make good points.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Why should they be exactly aligned? Why shouldn't they show how things have changed?
    There are NOT 4 kingdoms in Dan 2.
    Also it is NOT a comparable dream. It is giving something new.
    It isn't me who uses the FUTURE tense, but the angel who is explaining the dream. So this is NOT my notion.

    You obviously haven't followed what I put.

    I can tell. Dan 2 has the order of the Kingdoms in order of them ruling over Israel and the Jews.
    Dan 7 does NOT follow that order, but goes in the order in which the kingdoms arose from the sea.
    Rome was a kingdom AFTER Persia was a kingdom but before Greece was a kingdom.
    Yea, I saw that. But to say Rome didn't rule over the Jews and over Israel was really confusing!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am simply highlighting your method of argumentation. As soon as you have words meaning whatever you want, then you are using the JW method.
    I prefer to stick with words having a meaning which we understand and then applying that meaning to the words we are given.
    The trouble is, you're choosing what definitions of words to use. That's why we need context. But you predetermine the context and the meaning by claiming the 1st kingdom in Dan 7 must be future. If you are wrong, then you have the context and the interpretation wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually, no I don't. You can take ANY of the meanings I have applied to any of the words and see that these are normal uses of these words.
    When you have to CHANGE the meaning of a word in order for a certain interpretation to work, then you KNOW your interpretation is wrong.

    I can admit to being wrong when shown it. However I think this sentence speaks to yourself. Reread your example or get someone else to follow it and they will say the same point I made.
    Dealing with pride has to be a conscious choice. I hope I can deal with my pride as much as I hope you deal with your own pride? We *all* have it!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    And?!? This doesn't actually answer the question as to why God showed them a certain way. The purpose of God giving dreams and visions to His servants the prophets is so that they understand based on what they know.

    Really, could be a big lion or a smaller bear. Not all bears are grizzlies.
    It certainly wouldn't be a koala!
    Even black bears can be pretty formidable, and are known to be large, powerful animals. A bear in that region may be related to the brown bear, which is a large bear. I should think a larger kind of bear would've been the point in this dream?

    The point is, Persia was larger than Babylon. Therefore, Persia would not be a lion, but rather, a bear. The leopard, which would be Greece, in my scenario, was fleet-footed and fast. Rome was the indescribable animal, overwhelming all others.

    We're not going to come to any agreement because of your view of what must be *future.* I understand, but disagree. It is a function of words to perform in non-geometric, unprecise ways. That's the function of verbalization or communication.

    The group of 4 could be viewed as future, even if 1 currently existed. It required the whole group to emerge to be revealed as a set, and this required only that most of them be still future.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,868
    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
    My point is that Daniel lived in the time of Babylon during both dreams, in Dan 2 and Dan 7. Yes, when interpreting a passage, the language is to be understood, 1st of all, from the immediate context. But the broader context is not irrelevant. For example, if Jesus referred, in the Olivet Discourse, to the book of Daniel, then the book of Daniel becomes integral to the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

    Similarly, we have a relatively small prophetic book in the book of Daniel. When we read the book, we begin at the beginning, and read through ch. 2 and on to ch. 7 rather quickly. The connection between the 4 kingdoms in ch. 2 and the 4 kingdoms in ch. 7 can be seen quite naturally. In both instances, the 1st kingdom is quite naturally Babylon, since that is the kingdom in power at the time of these dreams. The *only* question is concerning the futurity of these kingdoms. And as I said, it is commonly understood, by interpreters, that the set of 4 kingdoms can generally be looked at as future because they are a set, 3 of which were still in the future.
    No in Dan 7 the 1st kingdom is NOT Babylon.
    There is NO reason IN Daniel 7 to consider it as being Babylon.
    This is where you start to bring in your PRETEXT again.
    The kingdom in POWER is NOT one that shall arise (UNLESS Babylon were to arise again).
    Therefore the VERY SIMPLE and NORMAL reading of Daniel 7 is that this speaks of the NEXT kingdom which is Persia.
    It is as simple as that.
    The angel could NOT have made it more plain.

    The trouble is, you're choosing what definitions of words to use. That's why we need context. But you predetermine the context and the meaning by claiming the 1st kingdom in Dan 7 must be future. If you are wrong, then you have the context and the interpretation wrong.
    No, I am NOT choosing the meaning, the meaning is KNOWN from what a WORD means.
    The word "shall" is a word which speaks of the FUTURE. So unless it specifically states it is a present kingdom (which it does NOT) then the meaning is as it ALWAYS means.
    I don't determine the CONTEXT by saying something OTHER than what is EXPLICITLY stated. The angel EXPLICITLY states these kingdoms SALL arise, therefore the ANGEl gives the CONTEXT, and for me to ignore the CONTEXT and meaning the ANGEL has given is wrong.
    You prefer instead to IGNORE the words of the angel and rely on your PRETEXT because you read Daniel 2 which was about things 50 years earlier.

    Now of course IF I am wrong, that he word "shall" is NOT in the FUTURE, then I would be wrong. The SAME is true in the opposite way. IF you are wrong, then clearly you are wrong.
    So try to find an example where the usage of "shall" does NOT denote the future. Your NEED for words to be imprecise and not conveying any real meaning shows the paucity of your view.
    As soon as you accept that the words hold meaning and we should accept that meaning as the NORMAL way to interpret something first, should lead to a better appreciation of what is stated.

    It certainly wouldn't be a koala!
    Indeed there is NO native bear to Persia.
    However Italy does have a native bear from the Central part (where Rome is found).

    The point is, Persia was larger than Babylon. Therefore, Persia would not be a lion, but rather, a bear. The leopard, which would be Greece, in my scenario, was fleet-footed and fast. Rome was the indescribable animal, overwhelming all others.
    A Gryphon is a mythical creature and would be bigger than a normal lion, and bigger than a bear. yet you are arguing this as if it is about size, when this is not stated?
    The 3rd beast was fast because it had four wings.
    Rome was the bear and was like Greece and Persia.
    The 4th beast is UNLIKE the other three, and so we find with the Caliphate, which is a kingdom not based on ethnicity - Persian, Greek or Roman, but on RELIGION and so has mixed race, yet which are not united.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No in Dan 7 the 1st kingdom is NOT Babylon.
    There is NO reason IN Daniel 7 to consider it as being Babylon.
    This is where you start to bring in your PRETEXT again.
    The kingdom in POWER is NOT one that shall arise (UNLESS Babylon were to arise again).
    Therefore the VERY SIMPLE and NORMAL reading of Daniel 7 is that this speaks of the NEXT kingdom which is Persia.
    It is as simple as that.
    The angel could NOT have made it more plain.

    No, I am NOT choosing the meaning, the meaning is KNOWN from what a WORD means.
    The word "shall" is a word which speaks of the FUTURE. So unless it specifically states it is a present kingdom (which it does NOT) then the meaning is as it ALWAYS means.
    I don't determine the CONTEXT by saying something OTHER than what is EXPLICITLY stated. The angel EXPLICITLY states these kingdoms SALL arise, therefore the ANGEl gives the CONTEXT, and for me to ignore the CONTEXT and meaning the ANGEL has given is wrong.
    You prefer instead to IGNORE the words of the angel and rely on your PRETEXT because you read Daniel 2 which was about things 50 years earlier.

    Now of course IF I am wrong, that he word "shall" is NOT in the FUTURE, then I would be wrong. The SAME is true in the opposite way. IF you are wrong, then clearly you are wrong.
    So try to find an example where the usage of "shall" does NOT denote the future. Your NEED for words to be imprecise and not conveying any real meaning shows the paucity of your view.
    As soon as you accept that the words hold meaning and we should accept that meaning as the NORMAL way to interpret something first, should lead to a better appreciation of what is stated.
    I am not, of course, arguing that "shall" is not there. Instead, I'm arguing that "shall" applies to the set collectively, excepting the 1st kingdom, which already existed. As a set they were yet future, even after the 1st in the set already came into existence.

    You are arguing that the Scriptures say *every one of these kingdoms* was to be future. I don't believe that is how the expression is to be interpreted. The completion of the *set* was still future--one kingdom had already begun.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Indeed there is NO native bear to Persia.
    However Italy does have a native bear from the Central part (where Rome is found).
    The dream was given to *Daniel,* who was from Israel! Are you arguing that for a Hebrew to compare Persia to a bear that *bears must live in Persia?"

    "The brown bear is found throughout the forested areas of western and northern Iran away from the desert areas."
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bear-pers

    I have no way of knowing whether bears are *native to* or *migrated to* ancient Persia. How do you know? Regardless, it is irrelevant. This is a dream to Daniel, who was not a Persian.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A Gryphon is a mythical creature and would be bigger than a normal lion, and bigger than a bear. yet you are arguing this as if it is about size, when this is not stated?
    God and Hebrews were not into mythical creatures. This is symbolism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The 3rd beast was fast because it had four wings.
    Rome was the bear and was like Greece and Persia.
    The 4th beast is UNLIKE the other three, and so we find with the Caliphate, which is a kingdom not based on ethnicity - Persian, Greek or Roman, but on RELIGION and so has mixed race, yet which are not united.
    As I said, your whole scenario is based on the notion that all 4 of these kingdoms had to still be future in Daniel's time. We're not going to agree on that.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Had a talk with my brother today about the comparison of the 4 kingdoms of Dan 2 and the 4 kingdoms of Dan 7. Would it be conflating the 2 passages to compare the 4 kingdoms with one another? Out of that discussion I came to some conclusions.

    It is argued that whereas the 4 kingdoms in Dan 2 included Babylon, the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7 *cannot* include Babylon, since they are said to have yet to arise. I would dispute that.

    1) Both passages are in the Aramaic, which requires advanced study to know how the future (imperfect) tense would be used in Dan 7.17.

    Dan 7.17 17 The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.

    What alternative rendering in Aramaic could suggest the futurity of these kingdoms *as a group* while retaining the 1st of them as already existing? Language constraints might naturally have allowed the group as a whole to be expressed as future, even though the 1st in the group was already present? It is argued that in Dan 11.2 the same kind of situation existed, with Cyrus being expressed as part of a future group who already had existed.

    2) The angel is giving the interpretation of Daniel's dream. From a prophetic perspective, the angel may be speaking of all 4 kingdoms being as yet future. He is speaking of something as if from the perspective of being fom before these things took place.

    3) Since the passages are both in Aramaic, and given during the reign of Babylon, we might assume that the Kingdom of Babylon would be viewed as the 1st of any future set of Kingdoms. It certainly was in ch. 2! To leave out Babylon as a kingdom while the Kingdom still reigned would be viewed as offensive by the then-current Babylonian ruler.

    4) John Gill is one of a number of scholars who view the compatibility of an already present Kingdom with a future set of kingdoms that follow in sequence from the 1st. His view can be seen on Bible hub.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,762
    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
    It is argued that whereas the 4 kingdoms in Dan 2 included Babylon, the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7 *cannot* include Babylon, since they are said to have yet to arise. I would dispute that.
    You can dispute this all you want. But scripture does show them arising later. In fact the first 4 seals are these 4 beasts. In addition we the 4th kingdom arising in Rev 13 surely it has not been waiting 1000s of years.

    The 4th kingdom of Dan2 is composed of the 4 parts in dan 7.

    have you ever wondered why they are beasts? They don't have a name, they are not some known country they are part of the kingdom of Satan.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,868
    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
    Had a talk with my brother today about the comparison of the 4 kingdoms of Dan 2 and the 4 kingdoms of Dan 7. Would it be conflating the 2 passages to compare the 4 kingdoms with one another? Out of that discussion I came to some conclusions.

    It is argued that whereas the 4 kingdoms in Dan 2 included Babylon, the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7 *cannot* include Babylon, since they are said to have yet to arise. I would dispute that.

    1) Both passages are in the Aramaic, which requires advanced study to know how the future (imperfect) tense would be used in Dan 7.17.

    Dan 7.17 17 The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.

    What alternative rendering in Aramaic could suggest the futurity of these kingdoms *as a group* while retaining the 1st of them as already existing? Language constraints might naturally have allowed the group as a whole to be expressed as future, even though the 1st in the group was already present? It is argued that in Dan 11.2 the same kind of situation existed, with Cyrus being expressed as part of a future group who already had existed.
    Here is a link

    This gives you the Interlinear with the form of the verb and how it should be translated.
    There is NO ambiguity, it is a FUTURE usage. The verb denotes the form when used in Qal form.
    Another link here:

    Secondly there is NO language constraint to having one of a group already existing. You simply use the form which fits, so you could use the past form.

    In Dan 11:2 Cyrus is NOT included. It is argued he is included in order to try to claim that Dan 7 is the same kind. However Darius the Mede is reigning, then we have Cyruss, Cambyses and Bardia - whcih would be three, but then that makes Darius the fourth, however the person arguing for Cyrus to be included has Xerxes as the fourth, and so is forced to remove one of the kings - namely Bardia.
    Note also that Dan 11 is NOT in Aramaic but Hebrew.

    2) The angel is giving the interpretation of Daniel's dream. From a prophetic perspective, the angel may be speaking of all 4 kingdoms being as yet future. He is speaking of something as if from the perspective of being fom before these things took place.
    This is a poor idea. Was this true when Nebuchadnezzar had his dream?
    No, the perspective is from the time when the dream is given and explained.

    3) Since the passages are both in Aramaic, and given during the reign of Babylon, we might assume that the Kingdom of Babylon would be viewed as the 1st of any future set of Kingdoms. It certainly was in ch. 2! To leave out Babylon as a kingdom while the Kingdom still reigned would be viewed as offensive by the then-current Babylonian ruler.
    It certainly was in Ch 2, but then this was NOT spoken of in the FUTURE, but in the PRESENT, in which case we would expect the SAME in Dan 7.
    Further 50 years have happened in between, AND the Babylon kingdom is about to disappear NEVER to rise again.
    As Dan 7 was NOT for the Babylonian King, so to claim it would be offensive is poor.

    4) John Gill is one of a number of scholars who view the compatibility of an already present Kingdom with a future set of kingdoms that follow in sequence from the 1st. His view can be seen on Bible hub.
    Indeed and the reasoning why he claims it is what has been discussed and shown to be faulty.

    We should ALWAYS take what is stated AS it is stated, UNLESS CONTEXT demands it CANNOT be so. This is NOT the case with Dan 7.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    You can dispute this all you want. But scripture does show them arising later. In fact the first 4 seals are these 4 beasts. In addition we the 4th kingdom arising in Rev 13 surely it has not been waiting 1000s of years.

    The 4th kingdom of Dan2 is composed of the 4 parts in dan 7.

    have you ever wondered why they are beasts? They don't have a name, they are not some known country they are part of the kingdom of Satan.
    My dispute wasn't really with you, brother. So I'm not really sure how you see the 4 kingdoms, if you see them the same from Dan 2 to Dan 7, and what you know about my own position? We probably need to spell out what we personally believe 1st, before arguing it?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,868
    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 am not, of course, arguing that "shall" is not there. Instead, I'm arguing that "shall" applies to the set collectively, excepting the 1st kingdom, which already existed. As a set they were yet future, even after the 1st in the set already came into existence.
    You are arguing that the Scriptures say *every one of these kingdoms* was to be future. I don't believe that is how the expression is to be interpreted. The completion of the *set* was still future--one kingdom had already begun.
    As that is how the words ARE translated, so I think this is how they should be interpreted.
    You do NOT use the FUTURE form for a set if that SET has ALREADY started.

    The dream was given to *Daniel,* who was from Israel! Are you arguing that for a Hebrew to compare Persia to a bear that *bears must live in Persia?"
    "The brown bear is found throughout the forested areas of western and northern Iran away from the desert areas."
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bear-pers
    I have no way of knowing whether bears are *native to* or *migrated to* ancient Persia. How do you know? Regardless, it is irrelevant. This is a dream to Daniel, who was not a Persian.
    Daniel lived his life in Babylon (and for a while Israel.)
    The question is what would a bear mean to him?
    He would never travel to western or northern Iran. Also these animals are not considered native to Iran (you can research this if you want).
    The question is as you CORRECTLY state, what would it mean to him, and for those who come after.
    For Daniel he would be looking for a kingdom which is associated with a Gryphon, and immediately (within a few years) he would see this very symbol being used by the Persians (not seeing the Babylonians using it).

    God and Hebrews were not into mythical creatures. This is symbolism.
    It is symbolism, and that is what a lot of mythology is.
    I suggest you read C S Lewis about mythology.

    As I said, your whole scenario is based on the notion that all 4 of these kingdoms had to still be future in Daniel's time. We're not going to agree on that.
    Well if you refuse to agree with what scripture says...
    Of course IF your translation skills are better than EVERY SINGLE version of the Bible and what the Interlinear shows...

    You see what you are doing is coming with a PRETEXT (again) when you should be focused on the CONTEXT, with what is ACTUALLY stated.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,868
    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
    1) Both passages are in the Aramaic, which requires advanced study to know how the future (imperfect) tense would be used in Dan 7.17.
    Dan 7.17 17 The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.
    Just to add the form is Qal Imperfect which is (like in Hebrew) the future form of the verb.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,762
    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
    So I'm not really sure how you see the 4 kingdoms, if you see them the same from Dan 2 to Dan 7,
    This is my thread and have said this many times, You stated the following...

    "It is argued that whereas the 4 kingdoms in Dan 2 included Babylon, the 4 kingdoms in Dan 7 *cannot* include Babylon, since they are said to have yet to arise. I would dispute that."
    And my response was that the 4 beasts in Dan 7 have NOT yet raised thus ar NOT the same as the four in Dan 2 due to the fact.....

    The first 4 seals opened in the future are these 4 beasts of Dan 7. In addition we see the future 4th beast of Dan 7 arising in Rev 13 surely there has not ben 1000s of years between the lion, bear, leopard, and this fourth beast.

    The future 4th kingdom of Dan 2 is composed of the 4 parts in Dan 7. 4th kingdom Dan 2 = the four beasts of Dan 7

    The third kingdom in Dan 2 is broken into 4 parts which compose the 4th kingdom of Dan 2. These 4 parts are seen in Dan 7.

    have you ever wondered why they are beasts? They don't have a name, they are not some known country they are part of the kingdom of Satan.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,456

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Here is a link

    This gives you the Interlinear with the form of the verb and how it should be translated.
    There is NO ambiguity, it is a FUTURE usage. The verb denotes the form when used in Qal form.
    Another link here:
    I need no links brother. I already recognize we're dealing with the imperfect tense--a *future* tense. That is not even in question. The question was, how are those who are familiar with Aramaic suggesting this could be said if the 1st in the future group already existed? The only way I can conceive of would be if the group were *not* looked at as a group, which of course defeats the whole purpose. It is easier, then, simply to state the whole group as future, even though the 1st entity is not future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Secondly there is NO language constraint to having one of a group already existing. You simply use the form which fits, so you could use the past form.
    You could *not* use the past form for them as a group for the same reason you think they cannot use the future form for the whole group. They simply are not all future, nor all past. One exists, and the rest are future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    In Dan 11:2 Cyrus is NOT included. It is argued he is included in order to try to claim that Dan 7 is the same kind. However Darius the Mede is reigning, then we have Cyruss, Cambyses and Bardia - whcih would be three, but then that makes Darius the fourth, however the person arguing for Cyrus to be included has Xerxes as the fourth, and so is forced to remove one of the kings - namely Bardia.
    Note also that Dan 11 is NOT in Aramaic but Hebrew.
    Yes, I did know that there are several interpretations. Some see the 1st as Cyrus, as I indicated. You would not for the very same reason that you reject Babylon as the 1st Kingdom in Dan 7. You are using the same argument, which prohibits me from giving you a similar use of this language elsewhere. I'm therefore unable to show you how this kind of language can work as an example!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is a poor idea. Was this true when Nebuchadnezzar had his dream?
    No, the perspective is from the time when the dream is given and explained.
    I don't think it's the best argument either. It's just that both my brother and I came up with this thought independent of one another. The angel is portraying something from the vantage point of eternity, and revealing these 4 kingdoms arising from the earth. The futurity of them all is obviously a reality if it is a foretold event!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    It certainly was in Ch 2, but then this was NOT spoken of in the FUTURE, but in the PRESENT, in which case we would expect the SAME in Dan 7.
    Further 50 years have happened in between, AND the Babylon kingdom is about to disappear NEVER to rise again.
    As Dan 7 was NOT for the Babylonian King, so to claim it would be offensive is poor.
    I don't particularly like this argument either, but it does strike me that the then-current kingdom would be addressed as part of a future sequence. It certainly was in Dan 2, and likely would be as well in Dan 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Indeed and the reasoning why he claims it is what has been discussed and shown to be faulty.
    What has been shown is that *you* find it to be faulty. You have certainly not proven the scholar's logic faulty!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    We should ALWAYS take what is stated AS it is stated, UNLESS CONTEXT demands it CANNOT be so. This is NOT the case with Dan 7.
    I believe that you're hanging your interpretation of an otherwise obvious prophecy on an idiosyncrasy in the Aramaic language. Since you are not a scholar in that language, I think you should exercise caution, and not make overwhelming claims that appear *to you* to be logical, but not logical to actual scholars.

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
  •