Rome's 7 0F 10 Hills

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Revelation 13:1 ¶And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

This is a complete endtime entity. It's not a sucession of empires. Neither is it a global empire or one world government.

...


The Book of Daniel disagrees. But of course you disagree with Daniel. Thus your error.


BibleScribe

To All,

One should contemplate exactly why there is a Lion, a Bear, and a Leopard in Daniel Chapter 7, -- and ~coincidentally~ a Lion, Bear, and a Leopard in Revelation 13. is this really a ~coincidence~? Are these NOT related? Is GOD so confusiing that HE intentionally throws apparently connected, but actually disconnected information to simply confound us?

Some would portend that each musician is using a different musical score, and when the conductor starts, there's a chaos of notes. However, I would propose that the score is the same, but each sheet of music shows different notes at different intervals. And when assembled, there's a harmony of perfection. And isn't GOD Perfection?


BibleScribe
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
The Book of Daniel disagrees. But of course you disagree with Daniel. Thus your error.


BibleScribe

To All,

One should contemplate exactly why there is a Lion, a Bear, and a Leopard in Daniel Chapter 7, -- and ~coincidentally~ a Lion, Bear, and a Leopard in Revelation 13. is this really a ~coincidence~? Are these NOT related? Is GOD so confusiing that HE intentionally throws apparently connected, but actually disconnected information to simply confound us?

Some would portend that each musician is using a different musical score, and when the conductor starts, there's a chaos of notes. However, I would propose that the score is the same, but each sheet of music shows different notes at different intervals. And when assembled, there's a harmony of perfection. And isn't GOD Perfection?


BibleScribe



You've got it wrong already. I dis-agree with you! Thus your error and inability to hold a sensible debate. I'm dealing with somebody who uses the intelligent design of the firing order of GM's and Audi's to prove his ideas on the sequence of kingdoms in Daniel 2.

But if you want to try to make a sensible debate on this. Show me why you think I disagree with Daniel. And I will show you how you are in contradiction with Daniel and the rest of prophecy!

Just try not to be ambiguous and explain yourself....and try to give me some scriptural evidence as to how you arrive at your conclusions.
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
The Book of Daniel disagrees. But of course you disagree with Daniel. Thus your error.


BibleScribe

To All,

One should contemplate exactly why there is a Lion, a Bear, and a Leopard in Daniel Chapter 7, -- and ~coincidentally~ a Lion, Bear, and a Leopard in Revelation 13. is this really a ~coincidence~? Are these NOT related? Is GOD so confusiing that HE intentionally throws apparently connected, but actually disconnected information to simply confound us?

Some would portend that each musician is using a different musical score, and when the conductor starts, there's a chaos of notes. However, I would propose that the score is the same, but each sheet of music shows different notes at different intervals. And when assembled, there's a harmony of perfection. And isn't GOD Perfection?


BibleScribe

Look at the word before in Daniel 7. It implies that all of the beast mentioned are all end-time kingdoms as they are all present at the same time. The rise out from the area of the Mediterranean. They want to dominate the area of the Middle-East.

http://www.bluelette...ngs=H6925&t=KJV



The same is true about the word before in Rev. 13:12 as it is in Daniel 7.

Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast
before him [i.e., in his sight or presence], and causeth the earth
and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose
deadly wound was healed.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1799&t=KJV

These things need to be considered in any interpretation.

 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Look at the word before in Daniel 7. It implies that all of the beast mentioned are all end-time kingdoms as they are all present at the same time. ...

You miss the point. Daniel 2:45 says there are FIVE distinct empires, and you errantly ascribe a 4a/4b interpretation. Thus your doctrine is flawed.

... The rise out from the area of the Mediterranean. They want to dominate the area of the Middle-East.
...

Your presumptions are incorrect.


BibleScribe
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
You miss the point. Daniel 2:45 says there are FIVE distinct empires, and you errantly ascribe a 4a/4b interpretation. Thus your doctrine is flawed.



Your presumptions are incorrect.


BibleScribe


You miss the point. Daniel 7 has nothing to do with Daniel 2. The word before in Daniel 7 indicates the kingdoms are all present at the same time. Just as the word before does in Revelation 13.

...and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,

It's typical of you to do nothing to prove me wrong.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
... Daniel 7 has nothing to do with Daniel 2. ...

... and I suppose that Mathew 1 has nothing to do with Matthew 2, and so forth.




To All,

Scripture says for the Church to judge within. As such I would defend that Scripture is like an orchestra. Each portion substantiates the whole, all are interdependent, and the concert is perfect.

However, there are some who discount that which they do not understand.


BibleScribe
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
... and I suppose that Mathew 1 has nothing to do with Matthew 2, and so forth.




To All,

Scripture says for the Church to judge within. As such I would defend that Scripture is like an orchestra. Each portion substantiates the whole, all are interdependent, and the concert is perfect.

However, there are some who discount that which they do not understand.


BibleScribe



Instead of the "To All" line and constant bikering. Why don't you make an attempt at holding a sensible debate. Never mind the to all audience. Pay attention to what we're discussing...or trying to discuss, and confront the issues! I discount what you believe because I say you don't understand it! So prove me wrong and yourself right. Your baseless and unfounded arguments are loaded with ambiguity. You refuse to confront them and the arguments I make.

Don't just tell us what you believe but why you believe it and how you arrive at your conclusions!

So forget about the orchestra, the "to All," and the firing order of junk cars. Put some effort into a real and sensible debate!
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
Daniel 2:45 says FIVE world empires. Have you found the FIVE? (Please do not provide a 4a/4b. -- Rome is DEAD.)

I can't help it if the vision of the great statue eliminates Rome.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.


There are 6 kingdoms depicted in the statue and Rome is excluded.

Kingdom #6. The millennial kingdom of God which destroyed the following kingdoms
Kingdom #5 Toes mingled with iron and clay=future Arab/Islamic kingdom(s) of the beast
Kingdom #4. Legs of iron=Greece
Kingdom #3. Thighs of Brass=Persia
Kingdom #2. Arms of silver=Medes
Kingdom #1. Head of Gold=Babylon

All the kingdoms of the statue are Mid-East kingdoms. Rome was more of a European kingdom and is excluded from this vision.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
...
Kingdom #1. Head of Gold=Babylon
Kingdom #2. Arms of silver=Medes
Kingdom #3. Thighs of Brass=Persia
Kingdom #4. Legs of iron=Greece
Kingdom #5 Toes mingled with iron and clay=future Arab/Islamic kingdom(s) of the beast

(re-sorted 1-5 by BibleScribe)

You offer that which History denies, as there was no Median Empire separate from the Persian Empire.


... So prove me wrong and yourself right. ...

History proves you wrong.


... Your baseless and unfounded arguments ...

Read your own words to yourself.






To All,

It would seem a sad state when doctrines demand delusions. For is GOD the author of confusion, or is the enemy? And who can be more deceived than the one who seeks it?

BibleScribe
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
You offer that which History denies, as there was no Median Empire separate from the Persian Empire.




History proves you wrong.




Read your own words to yourself.






To All,

It would seem a sad state when doctrines demand delusions. For is GOD the author of confusion, or is the enemy? And who can be more deceived than the one who seeks it?

BibleScribe


Here we go with the 'To All' again.

Why don't you do as I asked. Show why you believe what you believe. I omit Rome from Daniel 2 because it isn't mentioned. And I can't help that.

You don't confront anything on the issue and totally disregard the scriptural evidence. You continually tell me what you believe but never give any basis why you believe it!

It's no wonder I call you the Scribbler!

How about putting some effort into your replies and explain yourself instead of just providing your listening audience with sarcasm and snide remarks.

All I'm asking you to do is back up what you say. Show me how you pull Rome out of Daniel 2. Tell me about Daniel 7.

You have no depth and plenty of ambiguity.
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
You offer that which History denies, as there was no Median Empire separate from
the Persian Empire.


The scriptures are in accord with history and you're in a serious state of denial! The sriptural evidence proves you wrong!

Most historians do not consider the bible a history book. Evidently neither do you! I've already gone over this with you. There is very little secular history on Darius the Mede and the bible is the historical authority on him.

In Isaiah 13, God say's He would stir up the Mede's against Babylon. Not the Persian's!

Daniel 5 quotes Darius the Mede as the one who "took" Babylon at the age of 62.

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes. NOT THE PERSIANS!

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

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

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.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
... The sriptural evidence proves you wrong!
...


I provide the following comment once again: You offer that which History denies, as there was no Median Empire separate from the Persian Empire. I also challenge you to provide any historical authority which substantiates your claim of an independent Median Empire, and independent Persian Empire which fits between the Babylonian and Grecian Empires,

*Please do not cite others which skew the truth as you are doing. A simple Wikipedia should suffice.





To All,

Please be aware that some in the church are not reputable. These include some Scholars, some commentators, some Pastors, some Teachers, and some christians. These would redefine TRUTH to suit their purposes and agendas. Fortunately Scripture says to judge ALL, that you may glean kernels of truth and discard the chaff.

Toward this, please allow that Daniel correctly presents
the Babylonian Empire as defeated by the Medo/Persian King Cyrus per the following: Daniel 10:1, Daniel 6:28, and Daniel 1:21, (as provided in chronological order).


In addition Wikipedia cites the Achaemenid Empire (which is also referred to as the Medo/Persian Empire), with the same Cyrus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
...
At some point in 550 B.C.E., Cyrus the Great rose in rebellion against the Median empire (most likely due to the Medes' mismanagement of Persis), eventually conquering the Medes and creating the first Persian empire. Cyrus the Great would utilize his tactical genius,[sup][17][/sup] as well as his understanding of the socio-political equations governing his territories, to eventually incorporate into the Persian empire the neighbouring Lydian and Neo-Babylonian empires, and also leading the way for his successor, Cambyses II to venture into Egypt and defeat the Hittite Empire and the Egyptian Kingdom.



And of course this Medo/Persian history is recounted through to the Grecian King Alexander:

Darius III was taken prisoner by Bessus, his Bactrian satrap and kinsman. As Alexander approached, Bessus had his men murder Darius III and then declared himself Darius' successor, as Artaxerxes V, before retreating into Central Asia leaving Darius' body in the road to delay Alexander, who brought it to Persepolis for an honorable funeral. Bessus would then create a coalition of his forces, in order to create an army to defend against Alexander. Before Bessus could fully unite with his confederates at the eastern part of the empire,[sup][39][/sup] Alexander, fearing the danger of Bessus gaining control, found him, put him on trial on a Persian court under his control, and ordered his execution in a cruel and barbarous manner.[sup][40]


[/sup]As such, certainly neither Wikipedia nor Scripture offers any intemediate empire between the Babylonian Empire under Darius the Mede, and the Medo/Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great.. So why are we having this presentation? Because some would seek to deceive the guilible, and GOD calls us to be wise.

BibleScribe

...
It's no wonder I call you the Scribbler!
...



To All,

Please consider Matthew 7:15-19

[sup]15[/sup] “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. [sup]16[/sup] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? [sup]17[/sup] Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. [sup]18[/sup] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. [sup]19[/sup] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [sup]20[/sup] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


BibleScribe
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
To All,

Please allow a slight divergence from the focus of this topic, to address a doctrinal concept regarding Scripture:


<a name="_Toc397266597">‘EXTRA-BIBLICAL’ CONSIDERATION
Some respected authorities cite limitations on prophetic scripture to the ‘known world’ of those ancient days. To apply any portion of those prophecies to any as yet unknown countries or continents is called ‘extra-biblical.’ According to this presumed limitation, prophetic scripture only pertains to the Eur-Asian-African portion of the world. This restriction applies not only to prophesied end-time nations and events, but also to the Anti-Christ’s origins.

This position has inherent contradictions. Mark 16:15 commands Christians to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” However, using this constrictive logic, maybe the as yet undiscovered two American continents, the Australian continent, and vast regions of far east and southeast Asia should have never been evangelized. Furthermore, when Christ returns to reign for the 1,000 year Millennial Reign, will one half of the world be exempt from His authority?

Although we should be cognizant of and weigh various premises, we need to carefully judge whether a given hypothesis adheres to the encompassing scope of God’s involvement in the affairs of His creation.



Per the above, It would seem that GOD is not only the AUTHOR of History, but also the AUTHOR of the Present and the Future. As such, we would be well advised to allow GOD the latitude to depict ALL past, present, and future events as HE sees fit.

BibleScribe
 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
I provide the following comment once again: You offer that which History denies, as there was no Median Empire separate from the Persian Empire. I also challenge you to provide any historical authority which substantiates your claim of an independent Median Empire, and independent Persian Empire which fits between the Babylonian and Grecian Empires,

*Please do not cite others which skew the truth as you are doing. A simple Wikipedia should suffice.


I've already told you that there is very little SECULAR history on Darius and the bible is the historical authority on him. But you refuse to accept that.

Both secularist and most Protestant's believe Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon. But the scriptures say that Darius the Mede invaded and conquered Babylon. They don't agree that Darius the Mede's took Babylon at age 64 because it blows the revived Roman empire theory right out of the water! And most Protestants are revived Roman Empirist!

The only things I have cited is the Word of God. You're having trouble with the truth because it is in opposition to your beliefs. So you want me to quote Wiki? Isn't the bible clear enough that Darius and the Mede's invaded and took Babylon?

In Isaiah 13, God say's He would stir up the Mede's against Babylon. Not the Persian's!

Daniel 5 quotes Darius the Mede as the one who "took" Babylon at the age of 62.

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes. NOT THE PERSIANS!

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

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

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.

Since you've asked for Wiki...

From Wiki...
Another view has been more popular among Jewish scholars, at least as far back as Flavius Josephus, and has support from 20th century Biblical scholars such as John J. CollinsHYPERLINK \l "cite_note-3"[4] as well as conservative Christian scholars such as H. H. Rowley, Gurney, Lucas, and Walton.[5]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-5"[6]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-lucas-6"[7] The proposed sequence is:

The gold head - Babylon

The silver breast and arms - Media

The copper belly and thighs - Persia

The iron legs - Greece

The feet partly of iron and partly of molded clay - The Seleucids and the Ptolemies

The entire page is a great study and a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_2
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My only difference is that the iron and clay represents the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam and/or the divided and intermarried tribes and clans of the Arabs. From this will come the beast(s).


Please be aware that some in the church are not reputable. These include some Scholars, some commentators, some Pastors, some Teachers, and some christians. These would redefine TRUTH to suit their purposes and agendas. Fortunately Scripture says to judge ALL, that you may glean kernels of truth and discard the chaff.

Toward this, please allow that Daniel correctly presents the Babylonian Empire as defeated by the Medo/Persian King Cyrus per the following:
Daniel 10:1, Daniel 6:28, and Daniel 1:21, (as provided in chronological order).

Daniel 10:1 say's nothing about Cyrus the Great defeating Babylon. And neither does Daniel 6:28 or 1:21.

Daniel 6:28  So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

You may want to notice that Daniel 6 implies that Darius reigned first (2-4 years) and then Cyrus reigned after.

Daniel 5:30  ¶In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

As opposed to what you believe, Belshazzar definitely was the last king of Babylon.

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

Verse 31 is where Darius took Babylon and that verse is the last verse of chapter 5.

The first verse of chapter 6 quotes,...

Daniel 6:1  It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

2  And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage.

If it was Cyrus that defeated Babylon and ruled it, why would Daniel quote Darius as taking Babylon at 62 and then setting over the kingdom 120 princes?

You are correct, and may want to pay attention to yourself that 'some' in church are not reputable.

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

You put too much faith in secular history about Darius and the Medes when you should put you faith in God's Word since it is the historical authority on Darius!


 

revturmoil

New Member
Feb 26, 2011
816
11
0
69
New Hampshire's North Woods
To All,

Please allow a slight divergence from the focus of this topic, to address a doctrinal concept regarding Scripture:


<a name="_Toc397266597">‘EXTRA-BIBLICAL’ CONSIDERATION
Some respected authorities cite limitations on prophetic scripture to the ‘known world’ of those ancient days. To apply any portion of those prophecies to any as yet unknown countries or continents is called ‘extra-biblical.’ According to this presumed limitation, prophetic scripture only pertains to the Eur-Asian-African portion of the world. This restriction applies not only to prophesied end-time nations and events, but also to the Anti-Christ’s origins.

This position has inherent contradictions. Mark 16:15 commands Christians to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” However, using this constrictive logic, maybe the as yet undiscovered two American continents, the Australian continent, and vast regions of far east and southeast Asia should have never been evangelized. Furthermore, when Christ returns to reign for the 1,000 year Millennial Reign, will one half of the world be exempt from His authority?

Although we should be cognizant of and weigh various premises, we need to carefully judge whether a given hypothesis adheres to the encompassing scope of God’s involvement in the affairs of His creation.



Per the above, It would seem that GOD is not only the AUTHOR of History, but also the AUTHOR of the Present and the Future. As such, we would be well advised to allow GOD the latitude to depict ALL past, present, and future events as HE sees fit.

BibleScribe

Wow BS that's really deep man.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
So you want me to quote Wiki?

Feel free to quote any reputable historian. Pick one, and show where there is a Median empire sandwiched between the Babylonian and Medo/Persian (under Cyrus the Great).


Isn't the bible clear enough that Darius and the Mede's invaded and took Babylon?

The problem with false doctrines is they supercede both Scripture and History. And you epitomize that circumstance.






To All,

Please allow me to provide a the following from the Topic "Is The Book Of Daniel Wrong", Post #21,
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/14309-is-the-book-of-daniel-wrong/page__p__119507#entry119507


... so if we assert that Darius is as Daniel 9:1 describes Darius being a Babylonian (Chaldean) King, and Daniel 11:1 shows this king in peril of his kingdom and life, (needed strengthening), then how is that that Chapter 6 apparently shows this last king of the Babylonian Empire as being Medo/Persian?

Clearly Daniel 6:15 cites this King Darius as obeying the law of the Medes and Persian. So where it might appear Darius is under the Medo/Persian empire, one should consider that Darius was of Median descent (Ref. Daniel 9:1). So where he was raised with certain social, moral, and legal obligations, it would seem that this Darius retained them throughout his life.

Secondly, where in Chapter 5 describes the Royal Feast which Belshazzar held during the siege of the city, it would seem probable that the nobles would have had great reservations regarding Belshazzar's leadership. Shouldn't he have been assembling a defense, summoning armies, sending messengers, and ensuring the survival of the empire? And lacking that initiative, would these nobles have struck down this son of Nabonidus, who had taken the armies to expand the kingdom? And having killed Belshazzar, would these same nobles have installed someone who might assuage the ambitions of Cyrus, -- a kinsman, a Mede?


But even having done all this, the Medo/Persian General Gobryas continued to divert the great Euphrates. And under Daniel's council, Darius opened the gates and the city fell. Thus:

Daniel 6:28
So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

And if I might also propose, -- where Cyrus first conquered and absorbed the Medes, a Median King might have sent his family into refuge to the Babylonian realm. Thus we would find Darius.




... and so I would argue that Scripture and History are both substantiated as GOD has provided.


BibleScribe
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
... so if we assert that Darius is as Daniel 9:1 describes Darius being a Babylonian (Chaldean) King, and Daniel 11:1 shows this king in peril of his kingdom and life, (needed strengthening), then how is that that Chapter 6 apparently shows this last king of the Babylonian Empire as being Medo/Persian?

Clearly Daniel 6:15 cites this King Darius as obeying the law of the Medes and Persian. So where it might appear Darius is under the Medo/Persian empire, one should consider that Darius was of Median descent (Ref. Daniel 9:1). So where he was raised with certain social, moral, and legal obligations, it would seem that this Darius retained them throughout his life.

Secondly, where in Chapter 5 describes the Royal Feast which Belshazzar held during the siege of the city, it would seem probable that the nobles would have had great reservations regarding Belshazzar's leadership. Shouldn't he have been assembling a defense, summoning armies, sending messengers, and ensuring the survival of the empire? And lacking that initiative, would these nobles have struck down this son of Nabonidus, who had taken the armies to expand the kingdom? And having killed Belshazzar, would these same nobles have installed someone who might assuage the ambitions of Cyrus, -- a kinsman, a Mede?


But even having done all this, the Medo/Persian General Gobryas continued to divert the great Euphrates. And under Daniel's council, Darius opened the gates and the city fell. Thus:

Daniel 6:28
So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.


In the words of Mona Lisa Vito ("My Cousin Vinny"), when asked by Vinny: "Is that it?", she said: "No, there's more".


So we too should consider that after the nobles killed Belshazzar, and appointed Darius the Mede as King, that they should have significant leverage in the future of this empire under siege. But as recorded in Chapter 6, Darius elevated Daniel to his top three councilors (presidents) and wanted to make him councilor over the whole kingdom, which obviously infuriatred these Nobles (presidents and satraps). So they set their trap, which panicked Darius because Daniel was his only connection to GOD's intent for this kingdom and his own life. But after Daniel survived the night in the lion's den, the enraged Darius threw the conspirators and their wives and children into the same pit.

But the point is, -- these nobles felt they were sufficiently emboldened by their successful assassination of Belshazzar that they could have Daniel killed, and maintain leverage with this King Darius the Mede. And of course, verse 28 sums up the events of those days:

Daniel 6:28
So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.


BibleScribe