Amil interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12 vs Genesis 9:15

[grafted branch]

You argue the flood was local, but in doing so you ignore explicit verses that prove your assumption in err!

Which verses are you talking about?

 

[rwb]

Which verses are you talking about?

See replies #2, 5, 7 & 12 in this thread

 

[Davidpt]

Have you looked at the Biblical case for a local flood instead of a global flood? Perhaps a local flood means a local 2 Peter 3:10-12 event which might work with your view of the millennium, I don’t know. There are some good arguments for a local flood.

For example, kol eretz and ha eretz (translated as whole earth, the earth) have a much more localized and grounded meaning in Hebrew. I could go further on this but I don’t want to derail your thread into something that you didn’t intend.

My position is a global flood. And here is something some probably never think about. Dinosaurs. Well they obviously lived and existed at some point. They obviously no longer exist. Could it be that it was the flood that caused them to go extinct? As in, Noah never boarded any of these upon the ark. If dinosaurs were spread all over the planet at the time, it would then require a global flood to wipe them out entirely per this scenario.

And that I don't believe dinosaurs existed prior to the 6 days of creation since I don't buy into a gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or wherever that gap is typically inserted.

 

[grafted branch]

See replies #2, 5, 7 & 12 in this thread

I replied to post #12 in my post #15. As for the other posts, here’s my rebuttal …

In 2 Peter 2:5, Peter writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire.

The limitations that Peter imposes upon Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human reprobation. An obvious example is God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[grafted branch]

My position is a global flood. And here is something some probably never think about. Dinosaurs. Well they obviously lived and existed at some point. They obviously no longer exist. Could it be that it was the flood that caused them to go extinct? As in, Noah never boarded any of these upon the ark. If dinosaurs were spread all over the planet at the time, it would then require a global flood to wipe them out entirely per this scenario.

And that I don't believe dinosaurs existed prior to the 6 days of creation since I don't buy into a gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or wherever that gap is typically inserted.

I had someone suggest the expanding earth theory to explain the dinosaurs. I don’t necessarily agree with it and I’m not trying to promote it either but it is interesting.

The expanding earth theory is just the idea that basically the earth was smaller in the past and all the continents fit together and covered the entire planet. Then at some point the earth expanded, the continents drifted to where the are today and the oceans filled in the spaces between the continents.

This theory doesn’t give a good explanation of how the earth expanded but does give circumstantial evidence that might support the theory. A smaller earth means less gravity and that helps explain how the largest dinosaurs could even exist.

Currently, with our current amount of gravity, it would be physically impossible for some dinosaurs to exist on the planet because the larger dinosaurs would simply be crushed under their own weight. Their bones couldn’t support the weight, elephants are currently the largest land animals and they are limited in size by the force of gravity acting on their bodies. Also the giant dragon fly and pterodactyl, per the fossils that have been found, couldn’t fly under our current gravitational force. Lower gravitational forces in the past solves these problems.

Genesis 10:25 Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided. This verse could be referring to the movement of the continents during the expansion period of the earth.

 

[Davidpt]

I replied to post #12 in my post #15. As for the other posts, here’s my rebuttal …

In 2 Peter 2:5, Peter writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire.

The limitations that Peter imposes upon Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human reprobation. An obvious example is God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 6:6 ¶And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 ¶But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.


We can't ignore any of this, though. Look what verse 7 states. How can He not be meaning that universally? Then compare with Genesis 9:15, a passage I brought up per the OP.

Genesis 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh .

Local floods happen all the time on this planet. Since when have we ever heard of a global flood happening all over the planet? Meaning after Noah's flood.

BTW, I get your mindset over all. The fact you are mainly a Preterist everything in the Bible is basically only involving something regional no matter what it might be.

 

[Davidpt]

I had someone suggest the expanding earth theory to explain the dinosaurs. I don’t necessarily agree with it and I’m not trying to promote it either but it is interesting.

The expanding earth theory is just the idea that basically the earth was smaller in the past and all the continents fit together and covered the entire planet. Then at some point the earth expanded, the continents drifted to where the are today and the oceans filled in the spaces between the continents.

This theory doesn’t give a good explanation of how the earth expanded but does give circumstantial evidence that might support the theory. A smaller earth means less gravity and that helps explain how the largest dinosaurs could even exist.

Currently, with our current amount of gravity, it would be physically impossible for some dinosaurs to exist on the planet because the larger dinosaurs would simply be crushed under their own weight. Their bones couldn’t support the weight, elephants are currently the largest land animals and they are limited in size by the force of gravity acting on their bodies. Also the giant dragon fly and pterodactyl, per the fossils that have been found, couldn’t fly under our current gravitational force. Lower gravitational forces in the past solves these problems.

Genesis 10:25 Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided. This verse could be referring to the movement of the continents during the expansion period of the earth.

This is probably going to sound crazy, but maybe we can learn something from the Flintstones about dinosaurs. That when they existed they were basically being used in the same manner. That they basically did all the heavy lifting when things were being built that would have been impossible for humans to have built without some kind of help. So who knows, this theory you just brought up, though I was not aware of it until you brought it up, maybe there is something to it? I just don't know. Haven't had time to think about it yet.

 

[grafted branch]

Genesis 6:6 ¶And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 ¶But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.


We can't ignore any of this, though. Look what verse 7 states. How can He not be meaning that universally? Then compare with Genesis 9:15, a passage I brought up per the OP.

Genesis 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Local floods happen all the time on this planet. Since when have we ever heard of a global flood happening all over the planet? Meaning after Noah's flood.

BTW, I get your mindset over all. The fact you are mainly a Preterist everything in the Bible is basically only involving something regional no matter what it might be.

It’s more likely that humans were concentrated and localized prior to the flood. There is nothing that points to them leaving the general area around the Garden of Eden. A local flood was all that was needed to wipe out all of mankind except Noah and his family.

 

[grafted branch]

This is probably going to sound crazy, but maybe we can learn something from the Flintstones about dinosaurs. That when they existed they were basically being used in the same manner. That they basically did all the heavy lifting when things were being built that would have been impossible for humans to have built without some kind of help. So who knows, this theory you just brought up, though I was not aware of it until you brought it up, maybe there is something to it? I just don't know. Haven't had time to think about it yet.

It was a popular theory many years ago but most scientists don’t agree with it now. If you do a search you’ll see all the pros and cons.

 

[rwb]

I replied to post #12 in my post #15. As for the other posts, here’s my rebuttal …

In 2 Peter 2:5, Peter writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire.

The limitations that Peter imposes upon Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human reprobation. An obvious example is God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

At the time of Noah's flood, it was the world of the ungodly, that utterly perished, because only the ungodly were left alive on the earth after the ark was filled. The same shall be true when Christ comes again, and the fiery wrath of God that shall come down from heaven will utterly destroy the whole earth where at this point shall be the world of the ungodly. Because when God's fiery wrath is poured out it will be AFTER all the faithful saints of Christ have been caught up to meet the Lord in the air, to be with Christ forevermore.

 

[Davidpt]

It’s more likely that humans were concentrated and localized prior to the flood. There is nothing that points to them leaving the general area around the Garden of Eden. A local flood was all that was needed to wipe out all of mankind except Noah and his family.

Here is something I typed up earlier that I was going to post to you but never got around to it. If nothing else it at least shows that I'm trying to be somehat objective here.

-------------
Here is something one could maybe argue that might make a local flood seem more plausible than a global flood. Not that I am arguing for the former. My current position is the latter.

During Noah's day there was no way to communicate with people on the other side of the planet, assuming there were ppl on the other side of the planet. The point being, since when does God not give warnings in advance before He execute any judgments? Through Noah, those in that region were being warned what was about to take place eventually. They obviously noticed him and others building this huge ark in the meantime. But how does that help out anyone on the other side of the planet, assuming the other side of the planet is occupied with human life at the time? They for sure couldn't hear Noah warning about this nor see him building this ark.

And then there could be that no human life yet existed on the other side of the planet at this point? Thus all human life at that time existed mainly in this region. Per that scenario what would be the point of flooding the entire planet if there is not even humans living all over the planet at that time? IOW, it seems it would be in vain to commence destroying something that is not even present in portions of the world being destroyed.

 

[Davidpt]

At the time of Noah's flood, it was the world of the ungodly, that utterly perished, because only the ungodly were left alive on the earth after the ark was filled. The same shall be true when Christ comes again, and the fiery wrath of God that shall come down from heaven will utterly destroy the whole earth where at this point shall be the world of the ungodly. Because when God's fiery wrath is poured out it will be AFTER all the faithful saints of Christ have been caught up to meet the Lord in the air, to be with Christ forevermore.

How do we then, per this scenario you presented, make sense of passages I brought up earlier from Luke 19, verses 12, 15, and 27? The idea is not to contradict anything. We all agree with that. Yet, how can nothing not be being contradicted here, in light of Luke 19:12,15, 27, if your interpretation is entirely correct?

 

[Davidpt]

Okay so once again what is your interpretation?

Of Revelation 20:9? If yes, since I'm Premil it would mean God does not destroy every unsaved person on the planet when He returns. And that these are tested after the millennium when the ruling with a rod of iron is lifted and satan is loosed to temp and deceive them into thinking they can overthrow Christ's one world government that has been ruling over the entire planet for a thousand years. Even if that doesn't make sense to you, how then do you propose we are to make sense out of this per Amil?

If the millennium precedes the 2nd coming, obviously then, if they are present during satan's little season, this means they were already present during the final days and years of the millennium. And if it is not until satan is loosed that they are deceived, how can this then not equal that they were not deceived during the millennium? If someone is not deceived during the millennium, keeping in mind, still meaning Amil's proposed millennium, how can that not mean that they are among the saved during the millennium, in that case? You then end up with after the millennium, the saved coming against the saved, per this scenario. I'm not saying this is how Amils reason and interpret this. I'm just simply looking at it and what this would have to logically mean. I am in no way misrepresenting anyone here since I never claimed one time that this is how Amils reason and interpret this. Just thought I should mention that before being falsely accused of misrepresenting Amil, maybe not by you, but by another Amil.

 

[rwb]

How do we then, per this scenario you presented, make sense of passages I brought up earlier from Luke 19, verses 12, 15, and 27? The idea is not to contradict anything. We all agree with that. Yet, how can nothing not be being contradicted here, in light of Luke 19:12,15, 27, if your interpretation is entirely correct?

Look at more context to determine the time period for which the parable was spoken.

Luke 19:8-10 (KJV) And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Luke 19:11 (KJV) And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

The parable begins with a noble man, who represents Christ. The parable is spoken to those who do not believe that at His coming to earth a man, the Kingdom of God had come. They could not believe Christ because they were fixated upon a literal/physical Kingdom of God. They could not understand that the Kingdom of God that came with Christ is not now and cannot be physically seen because the Kingdom of God is within you. (Lu 17:21)

The parable tells us that Christ would go away to receive for Himself a Kingdom, then return again. Christ ushered in the Kingdom of God and before leaving this world He equipped the Church for all that we would need to complete building the Kingdom of God as the gospel is proclaimed unto all people through the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ would send after He departed this earth.

The ten servants in the parable represent the fullness of the Church that will be sent out to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God, warning every man to repent and believe the gospel. The citizens represent those in unbelief beginning with Jews belonging to Abraham's natural seeds, who hated and rejected Christ and would never receive Christ as their King to reign over them.

Luke 19:26-27 (KJV) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

After the Kingdom of God in heaven is complete, Christ will come again and demand a reckoning of the ten (Church) to be judged according to what they did or did not do that the Kingdom of God in heaven would be built through them. In this age when the Church is being sent out with the message of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, those who are faithful are promised to receive much in this life. Some in this life will receive greater or less depending upon their faithfulness to do the works of Christ. Those within the Church who remain idle without taking up their cross and following Christ shall lose even what they had in this life. (Mt. 10:29-30) But to those who are faithful servants will hear Christ say "Well done My good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of the Lord."

Luke 16:10 (KJV) He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

 

[Marty fox]

Of Revelation 20:9? If yes, since I'm Premil it would mean God does not destroy every unsaved person on the planet when He returns. And that these are tested after the millennium when the ruling with a rod of iron is lifted and satan is loosed to temp and deceive them into thinking they can overthrow Christ's one world government that has been ruling over the entire planet for a thousand years. Even if that doesn't make sense to you, how then do you propose we are to make sense out of this per Amil?

If the millennium precedes the 2nd coming, obviously then, if they are present during satan's little season, this means they were already present during the final days and years of the millennium. And if it is not until satan is loosed that they are deceived, how can this then not equal that they were not deceived during the millennium? If someone is not deceived during the millennium, keeping in mind, still meaning Amil's proposed millennium, how can that not mean that they are among the saved during the millennium, in that case? You then end up with after the millennium, the saved coming against the saved, per this scenario. I'm not saying this is how Amils reason and interpret this. I'm just simply looking at it and what this would have to logically mean. I am in no way misrepresenting anyone here since I never claimed one time that this is how Amils reason and interpret this. Just thought I should mention that before being falsely accused of misrepresenting Amil, maybe not by you, but by another Amil.

But some people are deceived during the millennium before satan is released, the key is if they use the great chain.


The great chain is the power of the gospel which binds satan from deceiving people.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let me be clear here. By Amil I'm not meaning every single Amil. I'm only meaning Amils falsely teaching these things, that God is literally going to engulf the entire planet in fire the same same way He literally engulfed the entire planet in water during Noah's flood.

So, Amils like me, in other words. Thanks for clarifying. Really appreciate it.

I fully agree with Amil about the timing of 2 Peter 3:10-12 regardless that I'm Premil . I disagree with certain Amils that the entire planet is going to be literally engulfed in flames, therefore, burning to death infants, children, adults, the entire animal kingdom, etc.

So, how about you tell us how exactly you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 then?

And no, I'm not interested in hearing these Amils possibly argue that He is going to spare infants and children though, when these Amils know good and well He never spared them during Noah's flood.

Why do you always try to dictate what Amils can or can't believe? Nowhere does it say that this future fiery event has to be exactly like the flood in every way. The comparison between the two is in relation to the scope of destruction of each of them, which is global. And Jesus makes the point that all unbelievers were killed by the flood in Noah's day and that the same will happen when He comes again (Matthew 24:35-39). He did not comment on the fate of infants and children there.

What do you think happened to the infants and children that were killed by the flood? Do you think they went to heaven (or Abraham's bosom) or to hell? If you say they went to heaven then how is that different than my belief that they will not be killed when Jesus comes but instead will be among those who are alive and remain and are immediately changed to put on bodily immortality? Obviously, at the time of the flood it was not yet time for anyone to put on bodily immortality, so those infants and children just died rather than being changed to put on bodily immortality.

And since it is absurd that He would burn to death infants and children to begin with

Hold on a minute here. You have entered the Irrational Zone. You are totally cool with God drowning infants and children, but burning them to death is over the line for you? You can't be serious. In a sense, drowning would be worse because in the flood there must have been people who were suffering for some amount of time while trying to stay above water and trying to breathe before they died. God burning up the earth will result in instant death like what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. So, your idea that somehow burning up the earth would be worse than flooding the earth with water is false.

, let alone the entire animal kingdom, this tells any reasonable person He's not going to literally set the entire planet on fire to begin with.

He drowned many animals with the flood, but somehow you think he won't kill animals with fire? Okay then. I see that you have no interest in making any reasonable arguments.

Genesis 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Unlike certain Amils in this case, I believe what God said here. I do not think God is a liar here, but apparently they do.

If God plainly said that He is never going to do this ever again--- and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. We are to believe He has found a loophole, that He is going to do something a million times more profound, burn all flesh to death this time around?

LOL. Why are you purposely being unnecessarily inflammatory against Amils? We agree completely with what is written there. God will never flood the earth again just as He said. YOU are the one twisting God's words to mean that He would never destroy the earth in any other way, which is not what He said.

The argument you're trying to make in this thread is based entirely on emotion and what you want to happen and not on scripture at all.

Picture being on a small ship at sea that has caught on fire and that there is no way to put it out, that it is raging fiercer by the minute. What fate do you assume one might choose per that scenario? Staying aboard the ship risking being burned to death eventually? Or jumping overboard risking being drowned to death eventually?

LOL. This is not a valid comparison between the flood and what Amils like me believe will happen when Jesus returns. I believe unbelievers will be killed instantly by fire when He returns just like what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. You are acting as if people will just be running around screaming while being on fire and suffering horribly for some amount of time and so on. I don't believe that. In the way I view, drowning is much worse because it involves suffering and not just dying.

Surely these Amils have heard of cases where people were trapped in buildings numerous stories up that have caught on fire. And that some of them literally jumped out of windows to their death below rather than choosing to be burned to death instead. Clearly, being burned to death is one of the most cruelest ways to die, otherwise, why would anyone jump out of a window to their death below instead of being burned to death? They are going to die either way, regardless.

Good grief. Where did you get the idea that Amils believe this kind of scenario will happen? Apparently, it came only from your imagination because I'm sure that no Amil has ever said that they believe the type of scenario you're describing will happen when Jesus returns. Instead, I'm pretty sure Amils who take 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally like I do would agree with me that people will be killed instantly by fire when Jesus returns rather than having the type of scenario that you're talking about occurring.

These Amils seriously need to repent of not believing God when He said what He said in verse 15 above, just so that they can make their Amil view supposedly work.

You speak such nonsense! You need to repent of slandering Amils like this! We agree with what God said, which is that He will never flood the earth again. Believing that He will send fire down upon the earth doesn't change that.

No habitable planet = no millennium can follow, right?

The planet will be habitable, but there will be no millennium following it. He will renew this earth by fire and then the meek shall inherit the earth for eternity. It will be a renewed or what scripture calls "a new earth".

Yet, once again, if He's never going to do that ever again, He certainly isn't going to do something a million times more profound instead.

This is the most ridiculous argument imaginable. Do you call what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah a million times more profound than what He did in Noah's day? Your entire argument is based on emotion and nothing else. Dying by drowning or dying by fire results in death, either way. It's utterly ludicrous to say that one is a million times worse than the other. Especially in the way I view it, which, again, is that people will die instantly when Jesus comes in flaming fire and sends fire down upon the earth to take vengeance against unbelievers (2 Thess 1:7-9).

In my case, Premil has nothing to do with why I initially reject the Amil literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10-12. I reject it because I have better common sense than these certain Amils do in this case, since I know full well, if God is never going to bring a flood upon the earth to destroy all flesh, He certainly isn't going to do something even more profound, burn all flesh to death via the entire planet being literally engulfed in flames the way the entire planet was literally engulfed in water during Noah's day.

This is the problem. You interpret scripture with emotion and "common sense" instead of using spiritual discernment and accepting what it teaches regardless of how you want things to be.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you looked at the Biblical case for a local flood instead of a global flood? Perhaps a local flood means a local 2 Peter 3:10-12 event which might work with your view of the millennium, I don’t know. There are some good arguments for a local flood.

No, there are not. Not in scripture. Scripture is very clear that the flood was global. Do you get truth from scripture or from secular scientists who hate God and scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How do you reconcile a localized flood in days of Noah with what is written?

2 Peter 3:4-7 (KJV) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The world, including the inhabitants in the days of Noah perished, but the heavens and the earth which are now are reserved for fiery judgment and perdition of ungodly man when Christ comes again. Only 8 souls of man upon the ark were spared, with the animals that were also brought into the ark.

It's pure nonsense for anyone, especially any Christian, to deny that the flood was global. Some people allow biased secular scientists to tell them what happened instead of scripture. It's absolutely pathetic.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have no clue from what you submitted here as to how you interpret all this fire imagery. Just because it contains fire imagery, it doesn't necessarily mean literal fire is meant.

So, how about you tell us what it means instead then? I can't believe you would create a thread specifically about 2 Peter 3:10-12 without even telling us how you interpret it.

 

[Wish-it]

Right, and the fourth kingdom was Rome, which did rule over all the earth.

I suggest you reconsider the 4th kingdom. Look at the origins, the brothers of Isaac and Jacob. Gen 16.11,12, Gen 25.23,Gen 27.39,40. Read Obadiah, Malachi 1. The all point to who that 4th kingdom is. Look at all the nations surrounding Israel.
Look at the make up of the beasts of Dan 7, Rev 13. All Islamic, not Roman. Is Rome terrifying frightening and very powerful.