Differences between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7

The Four Beasts

The history of how Daniel chapter 7 has been interpreted as being analogous on a 1:1 basis to Daniel chapter 2 is important in understanding how an error from the past can propagate to today. Scholars have long poured over Daniel’s vision of the beasts in chapter seven and compared them to the four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. The linkage between the visions of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue with Daniel’s beasts includes that both were written in Aramaic: true. The book of Daniel has an overall symmetrical construction to it, and likening chapter 7 to chapter 2 is substantiated on that basis: true. Another is the coincidence that both are four in number: true. It is not surprising that commentaries and study Bibles will draw a one for one connection between the parts of the statue and the beasts. However, the comparison between the two does not fit exactly; they do not align in every aspect. Two verses given in Daniel 7 conflict with the information given in Daniel chapter 2 which invalidates a complete 1:1 equation between the two chapters.

Historically, the parts Daniel names before in chapter two are only ones scholars had to look at to assign their meaning. This comes to mind if the beasts of chapter 7 are end time nations; commentators preceding them would have nothing to look at so as to discern their true nature. The impossibility lies with their being able to predict the type of nations these beasts might be from their descriptions before these nations have developed – were they future to their examination. Only by looking back and finding characteristics for comparison can one see how the prophecy has been fulfilled.

So if these beasts were to represent end time nations, any commentary before these nations took shape and became recognizable would excuse those commentators from being able to predict the beasts of chapter seven. As they are revered, and once a die is cast it is not easily departed from by following commentators; reluctance to go against what has been long established is quite understandable. And after so much has been written, the prevailing misapplication becomes an accepted fact and the matter has been judged settled, no one looks for any other possible solution that fits better. But getting back to the fact that the comparison is invalidated within the text of Daniel chapter 7, should allow for a reexamination for the majority view of parity between the statue and the beasts.

To show the beasts from a different aspect, this section will challenge the absolute one-for-one comparison between the statue and the beasts. That comparison leads to the beasts and the statue to be only considered as multiple accounts of the same timeline.

As way of explanation for the following diagram, the top line represents Daniel 7. The vertical gold bar represents Jesus’ coming anew at the end of man’s reign; establishing the Millennium Kingdom of His Reign. The bottom timeline represents Daniel 2. The vertical gold and red bar represents Jesus’ First Advent Ministry. The first vertical blue and white bar represents Israel’s demise as a nation after the second Jewish Revolt in the second century A.D., while the second vertical blue and white bar represents the formation of the modern state of Israel post-WWII. The vertical gold bar at the end of chapter 2 is the same as it is in the first case: the Return of Jesus and the establishment of His Millennium Kingdom. This information was conveyed previously in my book, so I have inserted this paragraph here for you the reader.


The critique offered here will show how the fit between the ancient kingdoms and the beasts is not a complete “fit” and how the Bible shows evidence that the beasts differ from the kingdoms spelled out before by Daniel chapter two. The appendix provides a new interpretation as a possible fit to the first three beasts. But apart from any new exegesis, which is why it is in the appendix, if the beasts are not the same as the kingdoms; then this section presents a parallel account, and the beasts give the reader more information about a time of interest to the end.

Lest the reader think one has to throw out all comparisons between the statue and the beasts, there may be likenesses between these kingdoms of antiquity and the future nations that go into the end times as hypothesized. The ancient kingdoms may have corresponding characteristics in the end time nation; the wealth of Babylon to the lion, the two tiered nature of Medes-Persia to the bear, and the divisiveness of Greece to the leopard. The final beast concludes both accounts and because both end man’s rule on earth, this supports an initial assumption that they are one and the same. A comparison of the first three beasts with their similarities and differences follows.
DA 2:32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold,
DA 2:37 You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

DA 7:4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

The one similarity comes from Jeremiah which likens Babylon as a lion. In two other instances, Jeremiah says an eagle will overtake Moab and Edom. But Jeremiah does not call Babylon a winged lion. Although a symbol of Babylon in its time, this distinction is shared by nations other than just Babylon. The first beast, however, goes through a two step transformation. The wings can suggest speed, power or shelter, and here probably describes a powerful nation. The wings are then removed, so the nation describes sees a reduction in power. Yet this nation is lifted up and God being sovereign over the Nations can be said to have done this. This nation then stands as a man and the heart of a man is given to it. So a second transformation changes this nation into a different quality than it had before. This changing nature of the first beast does not describe Babylon, so the comparison shifts to Nebuchadnezzar and he alone then represents the entire kingdom to make the comparison fit. But the explanation in DA 7:17 plainly says the four beasts are four kingdoms. So Nebuchadnezzar’s fall and restoration cannot represent the characteristics of this first beast or nation.

The second aspect of the comparison concerns the attribute given the beast: the heart of a man. While Nebuchadnezzar is the head; he falls due to his pride. As a difference, pride and heart are not the same. While pride comes from the heart, it’s not the only emanation the heart, or ‘inner man’ another translation of lehab, can evoke (Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible p.1540). God can harden the heart as with Pharaoh and the whole of Egypt (DT 11:3), or change it with Saul (1SA 10:9), the heart can become proud with self-sufficiency (DT 8:14; DA 5:20), but as a condition of the heart, man’s is in opposition to God’s being evil (Gen 6:5, 8:21; JER 17:9). For pride to be the only thing that can come from the heart is not necessarily indicated in being given a man’s heart. The heart of man suggests a leaning towards secular affairs, or humanity, being that the heart of man is far from the Lord, because these things displace the Lord from the center of worship and idol worship in any form is a detestable thing to God.
DA 2: 32 its chest and arms of silver,
DA 2:39 "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours.

DA 7:5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, `Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'

The rule by the Medes and Persia whereby one is stronger than the other compares favorably to the bear which is raised up on one side. “The three ribs may represent the three principal conquests: Lydia (546 B.C.), Babylon (539) and Egypt (525)”—NASB Study Bible, Zondervan, p.1238 notes. The KJV translates this clause as, “and it raised up itself on one side,” showing the word in verb form as acting on itself instead of the more common descriptive form. The Hebrew has just bear raised up on side. The NASB as the best word for word translation has this as a descriptive clause. The word Get up here is also translated in the KJV and NASB as Arise comes from the Aramaic word qum which carries much the same as its Hebrew counterpart. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p.1067) Used in a variant spelling Get up differs from raised up which comes from the same root word in that it carries the added dimension of “arise (out of inaction) and devour” (Brown-Driver-Briggs p. 1110) and a similar usage can be found in Ezra 5:2; “set to work,” or in the KJV as “began to build.”

However, before reaching a conclusion that the bear represents Medes–Persia, that nation already has a representation by a distinct animal with this explanation in another vision in Daniel. Nations are described as beasts and they have distinctive characteristics which God links to various animals. Thus, God imparts some information as to how He views the nations and it also allows for distinction between nations; the end-time four beasts being unclean predators versus the more noble and clean animals which represent the overreaching kingdoms of Medes-Persian and Greece.

DA 8:3 I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later.
DA 8:20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.
Here the aspect of ruling, represented by the horns more aptly represents the shared rule with one side stronger than the other and additionally it notes it as coming later. The characteristic of the bear being raised up on one side can describe this, but it can also describe a nation’s characteristics such as: culture, focus, and population density. (In the appendix is an example of a nation raised up on one side that fits just as well and possibly better.) Likewise, while the ribs may signify three conquests in the past, prior to 1900, no commentator could possibly know the Twentieth Century would be the bloodiest century so far in man’s existence. Other nation’s history could also fulfill the three conquests spoken of by the bear.

Since Medes–Persia already has a known animal form, these two coincidences of having a dual nature and three conquests do not dictate assignment of the second beast to the silver part of the statue: it could just as well describe another nation as the assignment of a different animal suggests. However; the Medes-Persian connection could serve as template for the end-time second beast. While this commentary strives to make a distinction between the beasts and the parts of the statue, parallels between the two are certainly allowed.

DA 2:39 Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth.
DA 7:6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
The Zondervan NASB Study Bible does just as good a job as any conventional commentary, referencing the wings to the speediness of Alexander’s conquest and the four heads to the division of the Greek empire after his death in 322 B.C. Wings can also convey power, shelter, and speed. And there is one wing for each head, suggesting these bird wings (which are never four in number in nature) are not functional in that regard, but may convey the strength of each of the major powers within this third beast. This comparison makes the strongest case for a one-for-one comparison. There are a couple differences though.

First, these heads fit all on one body. The split of the Grecian world of Alexander defies this descriptive definition: they were not united as one. History is replete with wars between the various Greek factions; the generational battles of King of the North and South are detailed in Daniel chapter eleven.

The second difference is the attribute given to this beast, dominion, or the authority to rule. This again suggests one body. While the four heads suggest factional pulling in different directions the body as a whole will have only one resultant vector. This can be thought of in practical terms based on various alliances within the four which form to create a predominant force. It is this beast’s attribute given it by God: its authority to rule which should be the basis for discerning which nation this is, and that does not describe the warring powers left in the aftermath of Alexander the Great.

Another reason to reject this as a historical perspective has to do with how nations are labeled as animals by the Bible. Like Medes–Persia, Greece already has a known animal form to represent it in God’s view: the Goat.
DA 8:5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground.
DA 8:8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.
DA 8:21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

Greece already has an animal form to represent it, verified by explanation from the “Son of Man.” Here, the speed of Alexander’s conquest is figuratively shown as not touching the earth, like a bird moves, but without wing. Secondly, as having authority to rule, or dominion, the four nations that come up from Alexander are diminished in power, and so do not meet the test of the attribute given the third beast, which should dictate that it is considered as one nation within one body.

In putting together a picture of the beasts as it relates to the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, one correction will have to be made. While Rome certainly is in existence until the end, as was shown in the previous portion of this chapter discussing the statue, the terrible beast has not yet been realized. None of the various renditions of the Roman Empire or the historical reformations which have surfaced can be aptly fingered to be the final terrible ten horned beast which Daniel describes. Thus, the previous graph will have to be modified to show a disjointed timeline for the beasts:

Because there is a distinct and unbroken sequence fashion to the parts of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, the beasts do not follow that same pattern. Changing the first model contrasting the beasts to the statue begins a process to present the beasts in a different light. While this new view makes a break with the one-for-one basis, nothing in this view negates certain comparisons from the historical model presented by the statue as imbuing the end-time beasts. Thus the lion shares characteristics of wealth like Babylon had, and so forth.

If it were just that the descriptions between the statue and the beast were not complete, that they did not fit well, then the argument is equally balanced with some commonalities and discrepancies so nothing can be decided. However, the Bible adds some information to differentiate these beasts from the overall timeline of the kingdoms over Israel. The first is the category of the beasts in chapter seven and the two known references to the kingdoms in chapter eight. The end-time nations are hunters, carnivores, while the historical examples are farm animals, herbivores. In case of Medes–Persia and Greece, the dichotomies between the two forms they are said to possess are not even similar in nature.

The second difference is the nothing in the account of the beasts can be said that one conquers another In chapter two with the statue, Daniel explains to Nebuchadnezzar that after you, next and finally come other kingdoms. These words are nuances of language which indicate the kingdoms proceed in strict succession. In chapter seven, there is nothing in the language to indicate the same strict succession relationship exists between the beasts. Thus, there is nothing to prevent an overlap between their existences. And indeed this difference whereby the beasts are not successive is reinforced by the opening of chapter seven.

DA 7:2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

These beasts come up in an order but all together in Daniel’s vision. And like the beast of Revelation, they come out of the sea. So these beasts might be represented in this fashion coming out of the sea in sequential form:




Expounding for a moment upon the sea, it is more than just the Dead Sea, or the Sea of Galilee, or even the Mediterranean. The sea can be synonymous to the abyss, and represent Hell, as it did to the first century disciples when they crossed over to the Sea of Galilee to the area of Gerasenes, or the Gentiles that lived on the eastern shore. To make that journey meant literally to cross over an abyss or chasm separating the Jews from the Pagans.

The sea also represents nations as Isaiah says:
ISA 23:4 Be ashamed, O Sidon, and you, O fortress of the sea,
for the sea has spoken:
"I have neither been in labor nor given birth;
I have neither reared sons nor brought up daughters."
ISA 23:11 The LORD has stretched out his hand over the sea
and made its kingdoms tremble.
He has given an order concerning Phoenicia
that her fortresses be destroyed.

Compare the Virgin Daughter of Sidon (Isa 23:12) in contrast with the image of Israel in Rev 12:1 who is about to give birth. The sea encompasses the nations, specifically here in Isaiah we can say the sea is the Gentile nations that do not have life, that is, they are apart from God.
ISA 57:20 But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
which cannot rest,
whose waves cast up mire and mud.

The great sea while in immediate vicinity to Israel would be the Mediterranean, however, it should more aptly be thought of the greater nations. And in either application of time, the long stretching all the way back to Nebuchadnezzar, these nations are Gentile.

The scene of action is "the great sea" (v. 2), which possibly meant the Mediterranean. At any rate, it stood for the ever-changing Gentile world (cf. the similar symbolic usage in Rev 13:1 and also in 21:1, which predicts that in the new earth there will be no more "sea" [thalassa]). From the sea (Gentile nations) emerge in succession four fearsome beasts (v. 3), which apparently go on shore to perform their roles.—EBCOT

So when Daniel describes these four beasts, they all come out of the sea. This can be profound in a few aspects:
1. It indicates all of the beasts have a European flavor to them. Babylon and Medes-Persia do not share this attribute at all.
2. It also indicates these beasts are not sequential over time, but rather are contemporary to each other.
3. There is a distinct order to their arising which can be pegged to history once enough time has passed to so as to see in hindsight. This was not possible before the modern era with the rise of the nations and the national movement seen in the nineteenth century.

This second aspect of timing has an important indicator in Daniel 7 which points away from the one-for-one historical perspective formed centuries ago which is still found in most commentaries. In Daniel’s vision is an explanation offered by one standing there in the Heavenly Court of God:
Dan 7:16b So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 `The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

In the explanation of the four beasts, the Bible through either an Angel or an Elder (or even perhaps Jesus) clearly puts the formation of the four beasts as a future event: they will rise - future tense. From Daniel’s perspective in time, Babylon has already risen. Yet, this authority coming from Heaven itself clearly puts the formation of the first beast in the future. This fact of prophecy must be incorporated in any exegesis of the beasts in order to take into account all the relative facts known about the beasts. The historical, conventional commentaries do not meet that test when they compare the beasts solely to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue on a one-for-one basis.

But this by itself may not suffice to settle the argument for the conventional wisdom. In order to say all three beasts are contemporary to the fourth, two more facts of prophecy are added; one from Revelation, and final one from Daniel 7 again. In the first fact of prophecy, John is describing the same end time terrible beast of Daniel in Revelation 13:1. Like Daniel’s vision, this terrible beast arises out of the sea. But more importantly, John adds an important detail not presented in Daniel’s account:
2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion.

Now we are provided with a beast that as Daniel would say is different from all the former beasts. The striking detail here is that parts of all three of the former beasts in Daniel chapter seven are within the last one. Adding all three to one also explains why the fourth beast is so powerful: there is the synergistic effect of addition where the whole exceeds the sum of each individual beast’s power.

Another interesting aspect is that they are listed in inverse order as they appear to Daniel. It may be that the form of the final beast uses the template of the multi-headed leopard in order to unite by federation the previous three beasts. This aspect is covered later as the ten Kings who are given power for one hour from Revelation chapter 17 suggest a ruling council, since they do not bring ten distinct kingdoms with them, being only rulers once the fourth beast is assembled. The Revelation account in chapter 13 presents a description of the fourth beast where it is shown to be the combination of the first three beasts of Daniel. This can be depicted as:



With Daniel chapter seven, the terrible beast is a repeating event. Likewise Daniel’s account in chapter seven gives additional information on a time of intense interest to the Christian. And this information is given in unequivocal terms denoting a future event with the Son of Man coming on the clouds. The indication here is for a parallel account, where the first three beasts come out of the sea of the Roman model and combine to construct the terrible beast that no one can fight (REV 13:4). This would confirms the first three beasts as coming out of the Gentile world in the general sense of sea, and out of the Western mold in particular in regards to the great sea by Israel.

The second fact of prophecy which must be incorporated in any correct exegesis on the four beasts which argues that these first three beasts are not from antiquity - can be found with the defeat of the fourth beast. The first three beasts survive the destruction of the fourth. Babylon, Medes–Persia and the four parts of Greece have all been buried in history, but after the ‘horn’ as the head of the fourth beast is destroyed;
(The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time)”—DA 7:12

This describes a current condition occurring at the end of God’s wrath upon the earth, and cannot be applied to nations that are no longer ‘alive.’ The evidence in the Bible is weighed against a simplistic one-for-one comparison of the first three beasts with the kingdoms of antiquity. In fact, Daniel 7:12 not only precludes an interpretation of the beasts to the parts of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue because each succeeding Kingdom displaced the former so that by the time Rome comes to the world scene the others are memories ― but it also means that any interpretation of the three former beasts must allow that they are not only contemporary to the fourth, but actually also survive its destruction.

The fourth beast of Daniel chapter seven describes a unique nation that will not be found until the end of the Roman model. Being last it cannot correspond one-for-one with 2200 years of the history from the over arching timeline given previously in this chapter. This last nation has to come out of the Roman mode because that is the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue that is struck by the rock that is cut out of the mountain (Zion) without hands (by God). Scripture cannot be broken so a proper interpretation has to incorporate all the diverse elements within prophecy. So while the timeline from the dream of Nebuchadnezzar encompasses all of what can be rightfully called Rome, this fourth beast is only the last part of that whole timeline since it is not in existence as of this writing. It can be said to encompass all that is Rome though, and could represent a revived Roman empire uniting various parts as shown by being composed of the three previous beasts. Like the foot of the statue, though, God overcomes this fourth beast.

This vision some fifty years after his interpretation in Daniel chapter two puts forth more detail, especially of the end than the previous overview where the rock crushes the statue. There is specific information of the last beast which wasn’t provided with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about the legs and feet of the statue. This marks the beasts with all the indications of a parallel account which details more information about a time of great interest, the long awaited judgment of the world, and the nature of the Nations in the end times. Because both accounts have a common point in their end, they can be linked at the end of their respective timelines. Recognizing them as parallel accounts can be illustrated like this:



Furthermore, now that these two accounts have a common link with a specific and unique event, they can be compressed into a whole:



With the final four nations, couching prophesy in terms unrecognizable before their fruition has been done before by God with Jesus. In order to discern if the fruit is ripe, and so events are coming to the end times, as a marker, only those in the end times would have a perfect fit for these beasts. Jesus did say to watch, and “when you see all these things, you know that it is near.”—MT 24:33 Putting these beasts in history because they didn’t fit for so long can blind the reader to the possibility that these beasts could actually describe present day nations better than the ones from antiquity. While every generation has thought they were the last, one actually will be. It would be a shame if the call for an application to that present moment would be discounted because it’s been done so many times before that it would be like crying wolf.

To conclude this portion showing the development of the nations in the timeline, the theme of Daniel is God’s sovereignty over the Nations. And as book, Daniel gives the best description of the Nations. To establish a timeline, the second part is the world the Church has been called out of; the Nations make up the main portion of the model. The basis for viewing how the last nation comes about can only be discerned by the combination of Daniel and Revelation.

Now the three parts can be brought together and with all three in place and developed, the model can be developed and move forward in symphonic manner.

(This model is part of a larger diagram where the main propellant in the timeline is the nations represented in the middle. Above, are Heavenly actions, and below, is the narrow way of the Church. The whole model is developed with other preceding chapters. This visualization just tries to tie them all together in one holistic fashion so that the diverse actions of the end-times can be seen acting in concert with each other.)

As an epilogue, this model is developed gradually though the book as a visual aid.

At this point, no examination of the one 'seven' has been made; it simply ends with Jesus' Second Advent.

A full model has been presented before in this thread, and I might add threads to show the development of its various parts.

keras said:

What will happen to cause those 'beasts' to combine, to form a One World Govt against Christ?

Click to expand...

Silly rabbi keras, Trix are for kids...

What unites the "North" is its common enemy: the "South".
Dan 11:40 "At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through."

keras said:

The Assyrian Kingdom – [Sargon]
[SIZE=11pt]Daniel 7:4 [/SIZE]The first beast was like a lion with eagles wings, then its wings were removed and it stood on two feet like a human. It was given the mind of a human.
[SIZE=11pt] [This kingdom had already passed by the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. It conquered and sent into exile the ten Northern tribes of Israel][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The Babylonian Kingdom[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] – [Nebuchadnezzar][/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Daniel 2:38 [/SIZE]You king Nebuchadnezzar, are that head of gold.
[SIZE=11pt]Daniel 7:5 [/SIZE]The second beast was like a bear, it raised itself up on one side and it had three ribs in its mouth. The command was given: Get up and gorge yourself on flesh. [The Babylonian conquest of Judah]

Click to expand...

Another superficial 'this means that' and 'that means this' conclusion without support, and without anything other than rabbi keras' opinion, laughable on the surface, and not to be taken seriously.

keras said:

Obviously it isn't possible for Marcus to be civil and have a reasoned discussion with anyone who doesn't kowtow to his 'wisdom'. I will leave it to others to decide for themselves where the truth lies.

Click to expand...

You did not "discuss" what I presented.
You took one quip from me and took it to warn others that life doesn't go on forever... Oh really? Did anyone think it did? At 74, do you?
You asked one silly question, which is easily answered from Daniel, whose book lays out the nations so well.
You then launched into an entirely off-base, imaginary treatise which makes a 1:1 connection between Daniel 2 & 7 but in the most profane manner because it goes against Scripture!

You have willy-nilly assigned the head to the Assyrians who were history at that time of Nebuchadnezzar.
You then go directly against Daniel's God-given interpretation of the dream Nebuchadnezzar had in verse 2:38 and 39 that HE is the first Kingdom depicted.
Dan 2:38b You are the head of gold. and-
Dan 2:39 After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, (the silver Kingdom of Medes-Persia) then another third kingdom of bronze, (Greece) which will rule over all the earth.
You offer up nonsense.
You say Nebuchadnezzar is the second Kingdom that Daniel says arises after him.
You take the Bible and malign it and then ask the reader to choose your "truth".
You have not a smidgen of truth in what you present; it is nonsense. It goes against the Bible.
___________________________

Now one serious note to the reader who might like the mud wrestling here (I do not):

Look at "all" in Daniel 2:39.
Greece did not rule over ALL the earth as we count "all".
Greece did not rule over India.
Greece did not rule over China, which by the way, had a culture and kingdom rivaling the best of Rome and lasting longer.
Greece did not rule the Americas.

Greece did rule over all that mattered from a Jewish state point-of-view.

So the concept I would like to impart for the reader to consider is that the Hebrew use of kol (all) is not the iron-clad 100% entirely everything we use it as.

It instead can be less than 100%. 99% is "all". We bristle at that - yet they wouldn't quibble over the crumbs left over - "all" of the pie is gone.
kol can be taken as: all that is applicable.

brakelite said:

The only thing I would comment on regards Marcus presentation is on the precept he espouses regarding the complete eradication of the empires depicted in Daniel 2, thereby according to Marcus, negates the possibility of the beasts of Daniel 7 being the same, because "their lives are prolonged for a season" beyond the lifespan of the 4th beast.

Click to expand...

Well in response, that first, as to the eradication of the first three Kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's statue: it is an historical fact.
Secondly, it is also a Biblical "fact" as I like to say, that the first three beasts survive the destruction of the fourth!

Now as the underlying theme I was taught was in Daniel, and that I can see for myself as well is that God is sovereign over the nations.
He puts them in place; He pulls them down. He has authority over the Kings, and they cannot do something without God allowing it.

So when the anti-Christ exercises his authority in the first half of the one 'seven' - God allows that. He will hand us over - Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, (Mt 24:9) and God allows that too. We will not escape persecution. Indeed, we will be waged war upon, oppressed, and then killed outright in the Great Tribulation. That is a literal interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation chapter 13.

As far as pagan practices, read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, and you will find that even Protestant Churches are replete with pagan practices and that pagan practices are not the sole province of the Roman Catholic Church. If you read it, you will find that many of the things you take for granted as being Bible-based (like having a pastor preach from the pulpit) are pagan practices.

Now, I think you take a Historicist view, and you then said you were so in your own post and put in a plug for it
I now see that where we diverge is rather basic.
For the reader, here is how the Expositor's Bible Commentary defines the Historicist view:
As the word implies, this view centers on history and its continuity as seen in Revelation. It started with Joachim of Floris (d. 1202), a monastic who claimed to have received on Easter night a special vision that revealed to him God's plan for the ages. He assigned a day- year value to the 1,260 days of the Apocalypse. In his scheme, the book was a prophecy of the events of Western history from the times of the apostles (in some varieties, from the Creation) until Joachim's own time. A short time after his death, the Franciscans considered themselves the true Christians of his vision. They interpreted Babylon not only as pagan Rome but also as papal Rome. In the various schemes that developed as this method was applied to history, one element became common: the Antichrist and Babylon were connected with Rome and the papacy. Later, Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers came to adopt this view. That this approach does not enjoy much favor today is largely because of the lack of consensus as to the historical identification it entails. The distinguished exegete Henry Alford (1810- 71) held a guarded version of this view.

So I do not agree with your view, and that is allowed.
You have not maligned the Bible like rabbi keras has - we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Nothing strange there - this is eschatology - it's almost impossible to have two people agree on 3 out of 4 things about it!

I really don't care who did what first, because then I have to lean on another's understanding. The Bible is written so all can see it; the fact is, that there are many ways to see it.

Here is how the Expositor's Bible Commentary, summed up four ways to approach the book of Revelation. In the end, they take a dual view. I am of another opinion, but again, those vary widely.

8. Interpretative Schemes
Four traditional ways of understanding Revelation 4- 22 have emerged in the history of the church. In our day, additional mixed views have been developed by combining elements from these four traditions.

a. Futurist
This view is that, with the exception of chapters 1 to 3, all the visions in Revelation relate to a period immediately preceding and following the second advent of Christ at the end of the age. Therefore, the seals, trumpets, and bowls refer to events still in the future; the beasts of chapters 13 and 17 are identified with the future Antichrist, who will appear at the last moment in world history and will be defeated by Christ in his second coming to judge the world and to establish his earthly millennial kingdom.

Variations of this view were held by the earliest expositors, such as Justin Martyr (d. 165), Irenaeus (d. c. 195), Hippolytus (d. 236), and Victorinus (d. c. 303). After nearly a ten- century eclipse, during which time the allegorical method prevailed, the futurist view was revived in the late sixteenth century by Franciscus Ribeira, a Spanish Jesuit. He held that the beast was the Antichrist of the end time and that Babylon was not Rome under papal rule but a degenerate Rome of a future age. Unlike many modern futurists, Ribeira founded his views on a thorough appreciation of the historical backgrounds of Revelation and its language. Thus he understood the first five seals to depict various elements of early Christianity. The white horse was the apostolic age; the red, the early persecutors; the black, heresies; the pale, the violent persecutions by Trajan. But when Ribeira came to the sixth seal, he took this to indicate the signs that would precede the return of Christ; he also understood the seven trumpets and seven bowls to follow the three and a half years. This futurist approach to the book has enjoyed a revival of no small proportion since the nineteenth century and is widely held among evangelicals today. The chief problem with it is that it seems to make all but the first three chapters of Revelation irrelevant to the contemporary church. This objection is pressed more strongly when adherents to the futurist view affirm, as many do today, that the church will be removed from the earth before the events described in 6:1ff. occur. 23

b. Historicist
As the word implies, this view centers on history and its continuity as seen in Revelation. It started with Joachim of Floris (d. 1202), a monastic who claimed to have received on Easter night a special vision that revealed to him God's plan for the ages. He assigned a day- year value to the 1,260 days of the Apocalypse. In his scheme, the book was a prophecy of the events of Western history from the times of the apostles (in some varieties, from the Creation) until Joachim's own time. A short time after his death, the Franciscans considered themselves the true Christians of his vision. They interpreted Babylon not only as pagan Rome but also as papal Rome. In the various schemes that developed as this method was applied to history, one element became common: the Antichrist and Babylon were connected with Rome and the papacy. Later, Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers came to adopt this view. That this approach does not enjoy much favor today is largely because of the lack of consensus as to the historical identification it entails. The distinguished exegete Henry Alford (1810- 71) held a guarded version of this view.

c. Preterist
According to this view, Revelation is to be seen as related to what happened in the time of the author; as to the time of its writing, it is a contemporary and imminent historical document. So the main contents of chapters 4- 22 are viewed as describing events wholly limited to John's own time. This approach identifies the book with the Jewish apocalyptic method of producing "tracts for the times" to encourage faithfulness during intense persecution. The beasts of chapter 13 are identified respectively as imperial Rome and the imperial priesthood. This is the view held by a majority of contemporary scholars, not a few of whom are identified with the liberal interpretation of Christianity. As a system, it did not appear till 1614, when a Spanish Jesuit named Alcasar developed its main lines. Today some commentators argue that the events were imminent but not yet realized when John wrote; hence, they suggest an imminent historical view (so Caird). While they do not ignore the importance of the historical setting, those who accept Revelation as a book of genuine prophecy concerning events extending beyond the first six centuries are little attracted by this view.

d. Idealist
This method of interpreting Revelation sees it as being basically poetical, symbolic, and spiritual in nature. Indeed, it is sometimes called the spiritualist view-- not, of course, in reference to the cult of spiritualism, but because it "spiritualizes" everything in the book. Thus Revelation does not predict any specific historical events at all; on the contrary, it sets forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil that continues throughout the church age. As a system of interpretation, it is more recent than the three other schools and somewhat more difficult to distinguish from the earlier allegorizing approaches of the Alexandrians (Clement and Origen). In general, the idealist view is marked by its refusal to identify any of the images with specific future events, whether in the history of the church or with regard to the end of all things. Undoubtedly, the book does reflect the great timeless realities of the battle between God and Satan and of divine judgment; undoubtedly, it sees history as being ultimately in the hand of the Creator. But certainly it also depicts the consummation of this battle and the triumph of Christ in history through his coming in glory.
_______________________________

Which view is the right one? Since there have been evangelicals who have held to each of the four views, the issue is not that of orthodoxy but of interpretation. In recent years many expositors have combined the stronger elements of the different views. The history of the interpretation of Revelation should teach us to be open to fresh approaches to it, even when this attitude goes contrary to the prevailing interpretations. Nothing short of the careful exegesis of the text uninhibited by prior dogmatic conclusions is required for the fullest understanding of the Apocalypse.

This commentary will pay close attention to the historical situation of first- century Christianity in its Judeo- Greco- Roman world setting. I do not, however, take the position that this emphasis necessarily leads to the conclusion that John's language and visions describe the political entities of imperial Rome or the imperial priesthood. Thus we feel that the preterist and to a lesser extent the preterist- futurist's views are misled.

On the other hand, we believe that John is describing the final judgment and the physical, bodily return of Christ to the world. This means that in every age Revelation continues to encourage the church in persecution as well as to warn the church of the beast's satanically energized, multifaceted deception. Its language describes the deeper realities of the conflict of Christ's sovereignty with satanic power rather than the mere temporary historical- political entities, whether past (such as Rome) or future.

Revelation may then be viewed, on the one hand, as an extended commentary on Paul's statement in Ephesians 6:12:"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of the dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." On the other hand, it also reveals the final judgment upon evil and the consummation of God's kingdom in time and eternity.

keras said:

but it mostly doesn't have any effect on what is prophesied to happen next. That will be the Lord's Day of vengeance and wrath against the nations.

Click to expand...

Wrong again, and yet again, you're off topic. We were having a related discussion about how one can view the book of Revelation.

The fourth terrible beast has not yet formed.
The anti-Christ has not yet "hamstrung" ('uproot' is not an agricultural term and it also means to hamstring) three temporary "kings".
The one 'seven' has not yet started when he "prevails" (not confirms) a covenant with many.
He has not yet oppressed the Church.
The midpoint abomination has not yet been erected in the Temple.
The two laws which accompany that event have not yet been issued.
The Great Tribulation has not yet decimated the Elect with unjust death.
The sun/moon/star event has not yet happened.
Jesus has not yet gathered the remaining Elect in the Rapture.

Only then does the first Trumpet sound for the Day of the Lord's Wrath.