Daniel 2 and Nebu's vision of the statue

[Alethos]

Listen buddy you need to start making some sense! If you're trying to debunk the 'inferior kingdom' your question is meaningless! Deal with the issues and forget diverting things.

Your question of...

Is just meaningless. Stay on topic. You're going off into all directions just like veteran does. Prove to me how Persia can be inferior to Babylon. Your governmental inferiority makes no sense and can't be proven! Try again!

It appears you need a lesson in humility. The above reminds me of the pharisees when Jesus would ask a question to their question...they too became frustrated and reasoned among themselves.

I pray the Father & Son can help you in this area.

Until such time, I will wait until you come to your senses.

Alethos

 

[revturmoil]

It appears you need a lesson in humility. The above reminds me of the pharisees when Jesus would ask a question to their question...they too became frustrated and reasoned among themselves.

I pray the Father & Son can help you in this area.

Until such time, I will wait until you come to your senses.

Alethos

Whatever it is I need you won't be the one to accommodate!

Common sense would go a long way with you too! I'm not impressed with you and can tell you just can't admit you're wrong. And neither can Veteran. God's Word proves the both of you wrong without even having to define the word inferior or mixed. Your were all talk on your PM's about this whole thing before we started this discussion. It was nothing but a played up arrogant way of saying, "I'm going to prove you wrong"'! You've just copped out because you just accept that the inferior kingdom is the Mede's!

If you ever come to your senses, let me know if you can admit you're wrong!

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (BABYLON) being about threescore and two years old.

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

 

[Alethos]

Whatever it is I need you won't be the one to accommodate!

Pride

Common sense would go a long way with you too! I'm not impressed with you and can tell you just can't admit you're wrong. And neither can Veteran. God's Word proves the both of you wrong without even having to define the word inferior or mixed. Your were all talk on your PM's about this whole thing before we started this discussion. It was nothing but a played up arrogant way of saying, "I'm going to prove you wrong"'! You've just copped out because you just accept that the inferior kingdom is the Mede's!

Breaking trust

If you ever come to your senses, let me know if you can admit you're wrong!

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (BABYLON) being about threescore and two years old.

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

More pride

 

[Alethos]

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (BABYLON) being about threescore and two years old.

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Inferior is used in two ways

1. Inferior to mean low

2. Earth which is lower than the Heavens

H772 Earth = Inferior to Heaven in authority, power, wisdom and strength

Ezr 5:11 And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up.

Job 12:3 But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you: yea, who knoweth not such things as these?

Job 13:2 What ye know, the same do I know also: I am not inferior unto you.

Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Inferior = The earth; by implication (figuratively) low: - earth, inferior. Derived from the root word firm or earth or country.

Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Dan 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

Dan 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.

So what you are saying is the Medo – Persian empire was lower, inferior in strength than Babylon

Correct?

 

[Alethos]

Daniel 2:39

The Medo - Persian Empire was led by Cyrus. From Nebuchadnezzar’s viewpoint how would this Empire be inferior to his?

As you have rightly suggested the empire was larger and it lasted longer.

Therefore it leaves only one way it could be inferior because Neb's viewpoint in Dan 5:28 & Dan 2:31 this kingdom wasn’t a dictatorship nor would it ever be by mere man. The monarchs could not annul a law once it was passed Dan 6:8 Dan 6:12. The kings were inferior to Nebuchadnezzar...and remember where this symbol takes us? To THE dictator in Jesus Christ who power and authority is absolute and NOT inferior. That’s the whole thrust of the vision. These successive empires result in a Righteous Nebuchadnezzar ruling over all mankind. Remember what Neb said...

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

1. Might

2. Power

3. Honour & Majesty


This would be how God would humble Neb by showing him what his might, power, honor and majesty would become after him.

And history recorded that Cyrus could not defeat the Babylon by himself and so enlisted Medes help. I could quote Gibbons if you like he gives a detail account of the Medes and Persians uniting to overthrow Babylon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon#Persia_captures_Babylon Wiki also teaches the two arms one, Persians and the other Medes.

But I think it would do you well to consider the pride of Neb and the work God did in him.

What a way to humble a proud King than to show him all his might, power, and honour and majesty would end up being given to monarchs, generals, senators and to everyday people (clay). Imagine how Neb would respond to know that the very people he lorded over would one day have his might, power, honour and majesty! This would be repugnant in his eyes and contradict his whole existence.

But I guess we would need to be in Nebs shoes to truely understand how this image affected him.

Alethos

 

[revturmoil]

Truth, Please pay attention because I'm going to go over it again. OK!

You said,

The Medo - Persian Empire was led by Cyrus. From Nebuchadnezzar’s viewpoint how would this Empire be inferior to his?

Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint about the second or any of the kingdom's that followed is irrelevant. What's important is the message depicted in the statue and what it may reveal to us. What does it matter what Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint was of the inferior kingdom...if he even considered it! The word inferior i.e. 'earth' is meant for us to understand this. Not Nebu. who was dead at the time the Mede's took Babylon.

As you have rightly suggested the empire was larger and it lasted longer.

That's true of the Persian Empire, which is why it can't be 'the inferior kingdom'! The Median Empire was smaller and also shortlived.

Therefore it leaves only one way it could be inferior...

That's true! And the only way it can be inferior is by a land inferiority because the word inferior is LAND!

http://www.bluelette...ongs=H772&t=KJV

...because Neb's viewpoint in Dan 5:28 & Dan 2:31 this kingdom wasn’t a dictatorship nor would it ever be by mere man. The monarchs could not annul a law once it was passed Dan 6:8 Dan 6:12. The kings were inferior to Nebuchadnezzar.

How is the idea of a governmental inferiority implied in the text? It's not! One word describes the second kingdom and the only people who just can't admit that Persia wasn't "land inferior" are the only people who come up with these alternative meanings. The word inferior easily debunks the Persian Empire as the "land inferior second kingdom."

and remember where this symbol takes us? To THE dictator in Jesus Christ who power and authority is absolute and NOT inferior. That’s the whole thrust of the vision. These successive empires result in a Righteous Nebuchadnezzar ruling over all mankind. Remember what Neb said...

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

1. Might

2. Power

3. Honour & Majesty


This would be how God would humble Neb by showing him what his might, power, honor and majesty would become after him.

What is said about Nebuchadnezzar applies only to him. What's said about the second inferior empire is meant only for the second empire...and so on.

Wasn't it you who said,

Let scripture interpret scripture?

Funny how you or Veteran haven't once confronted this verse.

Daniel 5:31 　And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

And history recorded that Cyrus could not defeat the Babylon by himself and so enlisted Medes help. I could quote Gibbons if you like he gives a detail account of the Medes and Persians uniting to overthrow Babylon.

Let me remind you AGAIN that there's a lot of mis-information in secular history about this. The secularist would like you to believe that Cyrus took Babylon but Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 51 say's Darius and the Mede's took Babylon. The reason for this is that there's very little secular history about Darius and the bible is the historical authority on him! Most secular historian's often don't consider the historical validity of the bible. So because Darius can't be found in secular history, they assume Cyrus took Babylon but that contradicts the bible! The Mede's and Persian's were confederate and intermarried. The custom of the Day was that the elder went into battle. Darius was older than Cyrus and He was the one who went into battle. The Persian's weren't very good warriors anyway. They were better engineers and nation builders. The Mede's were superoir warriors compared to the Persian's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon#Persia_captures_Babylon Wiki also teaches the two arms one, Persians and the other Medes.

No they don't! They teach both theories. The one I believe in is the oldest. But that doesn't matter. The idea that the Medo-Persian Empire was the second Empire came about because of the influence the RCC had on the Protestant interpreters. They were convinced Rome was the fourth Empire and formed their interpretation around that rather than the words in the text.

But I think it would do you well to consider the pride of Neb and the work God did in him.

That has nothing to do with the inferior kingdom!

What a way to humble a proud King than to show him all his might, power, and honour and majesty would end up being given to monarchs, generals, senators and to everyday people (clay). Imagine how Neb would respond to know that the very people he lorded over would one day have his might, power, honour and majesty! This would be repugnant in his eyes and contradict his whole existence.

But I guess we would need to be in Nebs shoes to truely understand how this image affected him.

You place too much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar and not enough on the words that describe each individual Empire. Do you care about what the other verses tell us about this??? Like the verses that say Darius and the Mede's took Babylon? Does it matter to you that a "governmental inferiority" isn't even remotely implied in the text?

 

[revturmoil]

So what you are saying is the Medo – Persian empire was lower, inferior in strength than Babylon

Correct?

Here you go again! Will you ever get what I say RIGHT! Will you please stop MIS-QUOTING ME!

Haven't I told you enough times that it's a land inferiority?

Are you having trouble staying 'FOCUSED'!

Both you and Veteran constantly do this....which is typical of people whove been out done!

Pride



Breaking trust



More pride

Grow up and make this a debate or just get away from it. You're having trouble coping with this because people just don't like it when they're proven wrong on a public debate.

 

[Alethos]

Truth, Please pay attention because I'm going to go over it again. OK!

You said,


Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint about the second or any of the kingdom's that followed is irrelevant. What's important is the message depicted in the statue and what it may reveal to us. What does it matter what Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint was of the inferior kingdom...if he even considered it! The word inferior i.e. 'earth' is meant for us to understand this. Not Nebu. who was dead at the time the Mede's took Babylon.



That's true of the Persian Empire, which is why it can't be 'the inferior kingdom'! The Median Empire was smaller and also shortlived.



That's true! And the only way it can be inferior is by a land inferiority because the word inferior is LAND!

http://www.bluelette...ongs=H772&t=KJV



How is the idea of a governmental inferiority implied in the text? It's not! One word describes the second kingdom and the only people who just can't admit that Persia wasn't "land inferior" are the only people who come up with these alternative meanings. The word inferior easily debunks the Persian Empire as the "land inferior second kingdom."




What is said about Nebuchadnezzar applies only to him. What's said about the second inferior empire is meant only for the second empire...and so on.

Wasn't it you who said,

Let scripture interpret scripture?

Funny how you or Veteran haven't once confronted this verse.

Daniel 5:31 　And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.



Let me remind you AGAIN that there's a lot of mis-information in secular history about this. The secularist would like you to believe that Cyrus took Babylon but Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 51 say's Darius and the Mede's took Babylon. The reason for this is that there's very little secular history about Darius and the bible is the historical authority on him! Most secular historian's often don't consider the historical validity of the bible. So because Darius can't be found in secular history, they assume Cyrus took Babylon but that contradicts the bible! The Mede's and Persian's were confederate and intermarried. The custom of the Day was that the elder went into battle. Darius was older than Cyrus and He was the one who went into battle. The Persian's weren't very good warriors anyway. They were better engineers and nation builders. The Mede's were superoir warriors compared to the Persian's.



No they don't! They teach both theories. The one I believe in is the oldest. But that doesn't matter. The idea that the Medo-Persian Empire was the second Empire came about because of the influence the RCC had on the Protestant interpreters. They were convinced Rome was the fourth Empire and formed their interpretation around that rather than the words in the text.



That has nothing to do with the inferior kingdom!



You place too much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar and not enough on the words that describe each individual Empire. Do you care about what the other verses tell us about this??? Like the verses that say Darius and the Mede's took Babylon? Does it matter to you that a "governmental inferiority" isn't even remotely implied in the text?

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that because the word for inferior can be translated either way to mean either "earth" of "low" that you have applied a meaning of earth and because of this you state that the inferiority of the Medes was ONLY ever to do with Land.

Are you kidding me! Talk about wresting scriptures...even writing these words sounds ridiculous. You have not only taken the word of context you have so far removed the lesson God was teaching Neb about his Kingdom which He had made. You are not even willing to accept any other lesson from this scripture, than the one that fits your interpretation.

I have agreed the land of Babylon was inferior to Medes & Persians but was that the only aspect? No the head of Gold was Gold for one reason. Neb was the sole power in his Kingdom. It was his power and authority which God would dissipate throughout the nations.

But you will not accept this truth.

Lets take your approach and change the scriptures to read the following...

After you there will arise another kingdom Earth to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth.

The whole point is the Father is reducing his kingdom that it will not always be strong, mighty, full of honour. Your gold will reduce and become Bronze and so on until we get to the Iron of Rome.

The two arms answer beautifully to the Medes and Persians...then Greece and yes Roman Empire as previously explained.

Alethos.

By the way you should recount the amount of insults you have fired my way. And your spiritual encouragement for me is “to grow up” Again, in hindsight you will regret sending over the fiery darts.

 

[revturmoil]

You are saying that because the word for inferior can be translated either way to mean either "earth" of "low" that you have applied a meaning of earth and because of this you state that the inferiority of the Medes was ONLY ever to do with Land.

I didn't apply the meaning of earth. It's the word 'ara' and the only verse the word inferior is translated earth! That happens a lot with words in prophetic passages. It's just like the word mixed that describes the iron and clay. That word is 'arab' and means mixed but denotes an Arabian.

Here is the link for the word inferior. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H772&t=KJV

Here is the link for the word mixed. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

Are you kidding me! Talk about wresting scriptures...even writing these words sounds ridiculous. You have not only taken the word of context you have so far removed the lesson God was teaching Neb about his Kingdom which He had made. You are not even willing to accept any other lesson from this scripture, than the one that fits your interpretation.

Stop with the foolishness. To take this out of context is to say that this inferiority has something to do with the government of the empire and that just can't be because that's not implied in the text. What is implied is inferiority and earth. That's completely within the context of the verse because I gave you the links to the lexicon of those words so if you have a problem with it you should email Strong's and Blue Letter Bible and enlighten them and tell them that it doesn't fit your false theory.

But you will nDaniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
ot accept this truth.

Lets take your approach and change the scriptures to read the following...

After you there will arise another kingdom Earth to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth.

I have a choice. I can either accept the marvelous works of the illustrious Truth, or accept the work of Strong's, Thayers, and God's literal Word.

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old.

After you there will arise another kingdom of inferior earth, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth.

The two arms answer beautifully to the Medes and Persians...then Greece and yes Roman Empire as previously explained.

You didn't explain it well at all and it's all contradictory to God's Word. But you don't care. You have a mound of scriptural evidence against you like Daniel 5:31 and you haven't even confronted the word mixed yet.

 

[Alethos]

I didn't apply the meaning of earth. It's the word 'ara' and the only verse the word inferior is translated earth! That happens a lot with words in prophetic passages. It's just like the word mixed that describes the iron and clay. That word is 'arab' and means mixed but denotes an Arabian.

Here is the link for the word inferior. http://www.bluelette...ongs=H772&t=KJV

Here is the link for the word mixed. http://www.bluelette...ngs=H6151&t=KJV



Stop with the foolishness. To take this out of context is to say that this inferiority has something to do with the government of the empire and that just can't be because that's not implied in the text. What is implied is inferiority and earth. That's completely within the context of the verse because I gave you the links to the lexicon of those words so if you have a problem with it you should email Strong's and Blue Letter Bible and enlighten them and tell them that it doesn't fit your false theory.




I have a choice. I can either accept the marvelous works of the illustrious Truth, or accept the work of Strong's, Thayers, and God's literal Word.

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old.

After you there will arise another kingdom of inferior earth, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth.



You didn't explain it well at all and it's all contradictory to God's Word. But you don't care. You have a mound of scriptural evidence against you like Daniel 5:31 and you haven't even confronted the word mixed yet.

You make a lot of Dan 5:31. History has recorded Darius the Mede - who for the most is an enigma amongst scholars was the dominant force Babylon demise. But does this support him alone? History states otherwise in my view.

How do you deal with 5:28? Peres...Your Kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians?

Interesting that Josephus interpreted it to mean "God will, therefore, break thy kingdom in pieces, and divide it among the Medes and Persians." How do you feel about Babylon being divided into two parts...sounds like two arms?

Wouldn’t you agree?

Alethos

 

[revturmoil]

You make a lot of Dan 5:31. History has recorded Darius the Mede - who for the most is an enigma amongst scholars was the dominant force Babylon demise. But does this support him alone? History states otherwise in my view.

How do you deal with 5:28? Peres...Your Kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians?

Interesting that Josephus interpreted it to mean "God will, therefore, break thy kingdom in pieces, and divide it among the Medes and Persians." How do you feel about Babylon being divided into two parts...sounds like two arms?

Wouldn’t you agree?

Alethos

History doesn't state otherwise. You don't understand the history of the Mede's and Persian's.

The Mede's and Persian's were allies. After Darius the Mede took the kingdom and ruled for 4 years, his brother in law Cyrus the Great started a rebellion to take rule of the kingdom. There was hardly a battle, a little more than 100 people died in the revolt and then Darius eventually became a vassal king. The kingdom was given to the Mede's first, and then the Persian's came in. It was more of a family feud or political coup. Daniel 5:31 doesn't contradict Daniel 5:28. They compliment one another as to how the whole thing went down.

 

[Alethos]

History doesn't state otherwise. You don't understand the history of the Mede's and Persian's.

The Mede's and Persian's were allies. After Darius the Mede took the kingdom and ruled for 4 years, his brother in law Cyrus the Great started a rebellion to take rule of the kingdom. There was hardly a battle, a little more than 100 people died in the revolt and then Darius eventually became a vassal king. The kingdom was given to the Mede's first, and then the Persian's came in. It was more of a family feud or political coup. Daniel 5:31 doesn't contradict Daniel 5:28. They compliment one another as to how the whole thing went down.

Babylon - Medo / Persian - Greecian - Roman

Your Kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians

Notice he didnt mention Greece? Thats because the Medes and Persians represent one arm (Medes) & the other arm (Persians). These two nations would be the one under Darius to break up the head of gold.

Alethos

 

[revturmoil]

Babylon - Medo / Persian - Greecian - Roman

Your Kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians

Notice he didnt mention Greece? Thats because the Medes and Persians represent one arm (Medes) & the other arm (Persians). These two nations would be the one under Darius to break up the head of gold.

Alethos

I have no idea where your coming from saying, "notice he didn't mention Greece." Is somebody saying Babylon was taken by Greece?

The bible doesn't contradict itself. Babylon was taken first by the Mede's for 4 yeras then divided between Darius and Cyrus which became the Persian Empire. This is in complete accord with all of scripture dealing with this. I explained how the Persian's were already confederate and intermarried, and how it was custom for the elder who was Darius to go into battle first, and how the Mede's were superior warriors compared to the Persian's.

Daniel say's Darius the Mede took Babylon. Not Cyrus the Persian.
Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah say's God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon.
Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah say's that God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon. Not the Persian's.

Jeremiah 51:11 　Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

You don't care that Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom as the smaller horn that came up first.

You don't care the word inferior means earth and that the Persian empire was too large to be inferior.

You don't care the word mixed denotes an Arabian. Not a Roman!

Apparently scriptural evidence is meaningless to you.

 

[Alethos]

I have no idea where your coming from saying, "notice he didn't mention Greece." Is somebody saying Babylon was taken by Greece?

The bible doesn't contradict itself. Babylon was taken first by the Mede's for 4 yeras then divided between Darius and Cyrus which became the Persian Empire. This is in complete accord with all of scripture dealing with this. I explained how the Persian's were already confederate and intermarried, and how it was custom for the elder who was Darius to go into battle first, and how the Mede's were superior warriors compared to the Persian's.

Daniel say's Darius the Mede took Babylon. Not Cyrus the Persian.
Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah say's God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon.
Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah say's that God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon. Not the Persian's.

Jeremiah 51:11 　Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

You don't care that Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom as the smaller horn that came up first.

You don't care the word inferior means earth and that the Persian empire was too large to be inferior.

You don't care the word mixed denotes an Arabian. Not a Roman!

Apparently scriptural evidence is meaningless to you.

Ok assuming we were to remove the Persian Empire altogether, based on your above comments.

Babylon - Medes - Greecian - Roman

But it must be said the Roman Empire was made up of Greek Pagan doctrine which is still prevelant today throughout the earth.

Greco - Roman

I see you are desperate to sneak the Arab connection into the Image as this fits your theory of a Isalamic Beast. To assume Rome, well, you know where that leads.

Interesting that Rome takes us to the Masters return and that history reveals the two legs of iron, are Rome divided into two parts, East and West. Also shows that Rome is still alive today in the form of the EU.

Islam in Greece??? They are a minority today. Catholics of course are well and truely the dominant force in Greece.

History supports the arms and legs of the Image, which by the way is very clever of the Father to be able ot mould history into the parts of a body?

But He can do anything!

Alethos

Your Kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians then to the Greeks and then the Romans.

 

[revturmoil]

I see you are desperate to sneak the Arab connection into the Image as this fits your theory of a Isalamic Beast. To assume Rome, well, you know where that leads.

I'm desperate???

Maybe you need a tutor!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

 

[tomwebster]

I'm desperate???

Maybe you need a tutor!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

Or maybe, your teachings are in error.

 

[revturmoil]

Or maybe, your teachings are in error.

You have just as much opportunity to prove me wrong.
Or I should say prove God's Word wrong!

Daniel say's Darius the Mede took Babylon. Not Cyrus the Persian.
Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah say's God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon.
Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah say's that God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon. Not the Persian's.

Jeremiah 51:11 　Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom as the smaller horn that came up first.

The word inferior...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H772&t=KJV

The word mixed.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV
Scroll down and you'll see....An Arabian!

I have to wonder why people have such a blatant denial of the truth. OH! I know why??? Because it proves wrong what they've believed for years!

Whose teachings are in error???

 

[Alethos]

kaoticprofit

Do you have exact timelines on the Mede & Persian empires ie. their beginning and end?

Thanks

Alethos

Desperation always ends poorly...take it from me, I know

use an agry face it may help lower your stress.

 

[Alethos]

You have just as much opportunity to prove me wrong.
Or I should say prove God's Word wrong!

Daniel say's Darius the Mede took Babylon. Not Cyrus the Persian.
Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah say's God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon.
Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah say's that God would stir up the Mede's against Babylon. Not the Persian's.

Jeremiah 51:11 　Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom as the smaller horn that came up first.

The word inferior...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H772&t=KJV

The word mixed.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV
Scroll down and you'll see....An Arabian!

I have to wonder why people have such a blatant denial of the truth. OH! I know why??? Because it proves wrong what they've believed for years!

Whose teachings are in error???

I know I have been neglecting you of late...busy refuting the supernatual.

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed (arab) with miry clay, they shall mingle (comingle or mix) themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave (to stick) one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.



So they come together enough to stayed formed, but struggle to find any unity and peace. We know the symbol of clay is commonly used for man (Job 33:6; Isa. 64:8; 1 Cor. 15:47) And iron was the chosen metal of Rome, as Bronze is well and truely the metal of Greeks, they made everything out of bronze.

Islam a non Christian community coming together with the Nations to make peace and unity will cause the image to stand in the lasts days :blink:

If you know your Scriptures you will know the Arab people struggle to unite with themsleves, as clearly prophesied.

Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild donkey of a man (Ishmael), his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."

And you think they will bind with the Nations?

Alethos

 

[revturmoil]

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Dan 2.43

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed (arab) with miry clay, they shall mingle (comingle or mix) themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave (to stick) one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

So they come together enough to stayed formed, but struggle to find any unity and peace. We know the symbol of clay is commonly used for man (Job 33:6; Isa. 64:8; 1 Cor. 15:47) And iron was the chosen metal of Rome, as Bronze is well and truely the metal of Greeks, they made everything out of bronze.

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Dan 2.43http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Dan 2.43http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Dan 2.43

The usage of different types of metals has nothing to do with the interpretation of the statue. The iron age came after the bronze age and has nothing to do with the interpretation of the great statue anyway. Rome didn't discover iron. Early Roman weapons were based on Greek types too.

I don't know what clay has to do with this statue. Clay is symbolic of men who allow the potter "God" to form them. What are you getting at???

The word clay isn't used in 1 Cor 15:47. It's the word earth.

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G1093&t=KJV

The word clay in Daniel 2

Clay...http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2635&t=KJV

The word clay in the NT

http://www.eliyah.co...on&isindex=clay

Iron and clay perfectly describes the Arab's. And the word mixed which describes the iron and clay denotes and Arabian! NOT A ROMAN!

It's surprising how you and veteran take things way out of context in an attempt to prove yourself right and me wrong. The word clay isn't found in 1 Cor. 15:47 it's the word ge which isn't clay but is arable land. Clay isn't arable! Your srcipture verses are out of context and they have nothing to do with the statue anyway.

Islam a non Christian community coming together with the Nations to make peace and unity will cause the image to stand in the lasts days

If you know your Scriptures you will know the Arab people struggle to unite with themsleves, as clearly prophesied.

Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild donkey of a man (Ishmael), his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."

And you think they will bind with the Nations?

I've already said that the Arab's were prophecied to be divided, mixed with the seed of men, (intermarried) partly strong and partly broken, and shall not cleave to one another. If I didn't mention Ishmael in my OP it's because it's been edited out to shorten it. That supports my theory and not yours anyway!

The only nations who will unite to make up the ten nation empire of the beast are Arab/Islamic nations. The empire of the beast isn't global but limited to ten nations. The Arab world has never been united but the apostasy taking place in the region right now will create a power vacumn that will eventually reveal the man of sin.

Both veteran and you need to be more honest with yourselves and the forum and stop changing the terminology of words to fit your debunked theory of the revived Roman Empire and also be more honest when quoting others. An example in your case; The word earth isn't the word clay!

And rather than assume what I say, it would be nice if you guys would quote me right the first time. But you Mr. T aren't nearly as bad as veteran though!