Daniel 12: 11

  • 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!

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
DaDad said:
-- are you willing to start down that path by resolving 2:45, and discover that the Chapter 2 FIVE ≠ the Chapter 7 FOUR?
Poppin said:
if there's significance, tell me what it is.
DaDad said:
The INTELLIGENT DESIGN is given in the Dan. 2:45 sequence: Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE. The observation is that there indeed are FIVE world empires, for which the Fifth "Feet of Clay" is "divided" exactly as evidenced in this 3-superpower era. Of course, we also know that each of these are Republics, which have the residue of Iron (Roman REPUBLIC) in this Fifth empire of Clay. And finally we also know the 10 nations which are represented by the 10 Toes of the Image.


With Best Regards,
DD






Retrobyter said:
After his [Alexander's] death, nearly all the noble Susa marriages dissolved, which shows that the Macedonians despised the idea. There never came to unity between Macedonians and Persians and there wasn't even a unity among the Macedonians. Alexander's death opened the anarchic age of the Successors and a bloody Macedonian civil war for power followed. As soon as the news of Alexander's death were known, the Greeks rebelled yet again and so begun the Lamian War. The Macedonians were defeated and expelled from Greece, but then Antipater received reinforcements from Craterus who brought to Macedonia the 10,000 veterans discharged at Opis. Antipater and Craterus jointly marched into Greece, defeated the Greek army at Crannon in Thessaly and brought the war to an end. Greece will remain under Macedonian rule for the next one and a half century. In Asia the Macedonian commanders who served Alexander fought each other for power. Perdiccas and Meleager were murdered, Antigonus rose to control most of Asia, but his growth of power brought the other Macedonian generals in coalition against him. He was killed in battle and the Macedonian Empire split into four main kingdoms - the one of Seleucus (Asia), Ptolemy (Egypt), Lysimachus (Thrace), and Antipater's son Cassander (Macedonia, including Greece). The rise of Rome put an end to Macedonian kingdoms. Macedonia and Greece were conquered in 167/145 BC, Seleucid Asia by 65 BC, and Cleopatra VII, the last Macedonian descendent of Ptolemy committed suicide in 30 BC, after which Egypt was added to the Roman Empire.

Hi Retrobyter,

The question was, and still is: How many divisions were there at Alexander's death? Your account is subsequent to that initial division.

It's no different than noting that there were 13 original Colonies; -- but you insist there were 16, because they were turned into States in the 1700's versus the States which were added subsequent to the 1700's, and you have a "16" AGENDA.

Once again, please provide the division of Alexander's Empire AT HIS DEATH.


With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Poppin.

Poppin said:
what path?
if there's significance, tell me what it is.
if it is only for the few, it's not what you think it is.
would you take part in a thread on the book of daniel?
it's aaaaaaamazing.
all fulfilled.
faith building to see it....scripture/scripture + history = God is precision
God Bless,
Poppin

The 70th week followed the 69th.
Jesus fulfilled His atoning work on the cross and rose from the dead in the 70th week.
If He didn't (right on schedule, btw); you are not saved.
Daniel 9:27
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
KJV


I agree with you that there is no biblical signal that the 70th Seven was separated from the 69th Seven. I also recognize that Yeshua` Himself was the one who was the One who (1) confirmed the covenant with many for one Seven, (2) caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease in the middle of the Seven, and (3) made it desolate on account of the overspreading of abominations. HOWEVER, have you considered that it was HE who split the Seven, postponing the second half until later?

First, notice that Yeshua` confirmed the covenant, but this is NOT talking about the NEW Covenant. It is talking about the DAVIDIC Covenant! HaMashiach - the Messiah - the PROPER antecedent for the word "he" in verse 27 all three times - was anointed to be KING over Isra'el, as well as prophet and priest!

Luke 1:30-33
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS (Greek: IEESOUS, transliteration of Hebrew: YEESHUA`).
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
KJV


Matthew 2:1-6
2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship (Greek: proskuneesai = "to kneel before") him.
3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ (Greek: Christos = Hebrew: Mashiach = "Anointed [One]") should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
KJV


This contains a quotation from Micah's prophecy which we know today as "Micah 5:2":

Micah 5:2
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
KJV


The head cohaniym (priests) and transcribers of the Tanakh, when consulted by Herod, recognized this as a Messianic prophecy! The cohaniym knew the prophecies and discussed them frequently; the transcribers of the Tanakh knew where to find those prophecies quickly - THEY were the "index" to the scrolls! They knew the Torah, the Navi'iym (Prophets), and the K'tuviym (Writings) - the TaNaKh - so well, they could roll the correct scroll right to the passage and find it on the page quickly, especially if they were the one who wrote it out by hand! Remember: They didn't have chapters and verses, the books were not together into one book, yet, and they had no concordances, indices, or computers! So, they had to scan the page until they found the phrase for which they were looking.

The Davidic Covenant, a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant, says this:

1 Chronicles 17:1-27
1 Now it came to pass, as David sat in his house, that David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in an house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of the LORD remaineth under curtains.
2 Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee.
3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,
4 Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the LORD, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in:
5 For I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another.
6 Wheresoever I have walked with all Israel, spake I a word to any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedars?

7 Now therefore thus shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, even from following the sheep, that thou shouldest be ruler over my people Israel:
8 And I have been with thee whithersoever thou hast walked, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee, and have made thee a name like the name of the great men that are in the earth.
9 Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning,
10 And since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. Moreover I will subdue all thine enemies. Furthermore I tell thee that the LORD will build thee an house.
11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.
12 He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.
13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.

15 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.
16 And David the king came and sat before the LORD, and said, Who am I, O LORD God, and what is mine house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?
17 And yet this was a small thing in thine eyes, O God; for thou hast also spoken of thy servant's house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree, O LORD God.
18 What can David speak more to thee for the honour of thy servant? for thou knowest thy servant.
19 O LORD, for thy servant's sake, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all this greatness, in making known all these great things.
20 O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
21 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
22 For thy people Israel didst thou make thine own people for ever; and thou, LORD, becamest their God.
23 Therefore now, LORD, let the thing that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning his house be established for ever, and do as thou hast said.
24 Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified for ever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee.
25 For thou, O my God, hast told thy servant that thou wilt build him an house: therefore thy servant hath found in his heart to pray before thee.
26 And now, LORD, thou art God, and hast promised this goodness unto thy servant:
27 Now therefore let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may be before thee for ever: for thou blessest, O LORD, and it shall be blessed for ever.
KJV


YHWH was NOT talking about Shlomoh (Solomon) but David's SEED! Of key significance is verse 13 above! This is why it was so important for YHWH to say what He said at Yeshua`s mikvah (baptism)!

Matthew 3:16-17
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
KJV

Mark 1:9-11
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
KJV

Luke 3:21-22
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
KJV

John 1:32-34
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
KJV


I don't think you have any problem with point (2) above, found in Hebrews 9 and 10.

Third, however, Yeshua` was the One who made the city desolate for the "overspreading of abominations":

After one reads all of Matthew 23 and reads about all the "woes" proclaimed on the P'rushiym (Pharisees, meaning "Separatists") and teachers of the Torah, one comes down to the final words of the Messiah:

Matthew 23:37-39
37 “Yerushalayim! Yerushalayim! You kill the prophets! You stone those who are sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you refused! 38 Look! God is abandoning your house to you, leaving it desolate. 39 For I tell you, from now on, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai.’
CJB


So, it was HE who broke the continuity of the 70 Sevens of Dani'el 9:24-27! He didn't break it between the 69th and 70th Sevens, as many teach, but He broke off the last half of the Seven! See, the purposes of the 70 Sevens was said to be...

l’kalei’ = to-finish
hapesha` = the-transgression
uwlhaateem = and-to-make-an-end
chaTaa’owt = [of]-sins
uwlkhapeer = and-to-make-reconciliation-for
`aavon = iniquity
uwlhaaviy’ = and-to-usher-in
tsedeq = righteousness
`olaamiym = of-ages
v’lachtom = and-to-seal-up
chaazown = vision
v’naaviy’ = and-prophecy
v’limshoach = and-to-anoint
qodesh = holy
qaadaashiym: = of-holies:


"to-finish the-transgression
and-to-make-an-end [of]-sins
and-to-make-reconciliation-for iniquity
and-to-usher-in righteousness of-ages
and-to-seal-up vision and-prophecy
and-to-anoint holy of-holies:"


Some of these purposes were completely fulfilled. Most were NOT! They had BEGUN to be fulfilled, but their fulfillment is not complete. So, when Gavri'el said, "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate," he was saying that Yeshua` would continue to make it desolate UNTIL the completion of the time of desolation and all that was decided to be poured out upon His people - upon the Desolate - would be poured out. Thus, Yeshua` postponed His offer of the Kingdom to Isra'el until, said He, they could say, "Baruwkh haba' b'shem YHWH." The phrase "baruwkh haba'" (in the plural) is found all over in Isra'el on the welcome signs, wherever tourists and emigrants arrive. Yeshua` was saying they would have to say, "Welcome, Comer in the authority of YHWH," referring to Himself, the Messiah of YHWH. Not everything in the list of six purposes was accomplished at Yeshua`s first advent. The rest have been postponed until His second advent.

P.S. - I'm going to try to keep everyone on their toes, as much as I can. When you said, "If He didn't (right on schedule, btw); you are not saved," let me emphasize again that "saved" is the WRONG WORD! NO ONE has been "saved" like the prophecies talk about! What you mean (and should say) is "you are not JUSTIFIED BY GOD!"

+++++++++

Shalom, DaDad.

DaDad said:
...

Hi Retrobyter,

The question was, and still is: How many divisions were there at Alexander's death? Your account is subsequent to that initial division.

It's no different than noting that there were 13 original Colonies; -- but you insist there were 16, because they were turned into States in the 1700's versus the States which were added subsequent to the 1700's, and you have a "16" AGENDA.

Once again, please provide the division of Alexander's Empire AT HIS DEATH.


With Best Regards,
DD
WHY? What is the point in doing this weirdness? It really boils down to what shook out after all the chaos! There were a WHOLE lot more than four in competition for Alexander's empire! One cannot limit it to five anymore than one can limit it to four in the initial years following Alexander's death! It was a forty-year-plus period of intrigue and assassination!

Wikipedia gives us this information:

Division of the empire
Further information: Diadochi
Kingdoms of the Diadochi in 281 BC: the Ptolemaic Kingdom (dark blue), the Seleucid Empire (yellow), Kingdom of Pergamon (orange), and Macedonia (green). Also shown are the Roman Republic (light blue), the Carthaginian Republic (purple), and the Kingdom of Eprius (red).
Alexander's death was so sudden that when reports of his death reached Greece, they were not immediately believed.[67] Alexander had no obvious or legitimate heir, his son Alexander IV by Roxane being born after Alexander's death.[158] According to Diodorus, Alexander's companions asked him on his deathbed to whom he bequeathed his kingdom; his laconic reply was "tôi kratistôi"—"to the strongest".[134]
Arrian and Plutarch claimed that Alexander was speechless by this point, implying that this was an apocryphal story.[159] Diodorus, Curtius and Justin offered the more plausible story that Alexander passed his signet ring to Perdiccas, a bodyguard and leader of the companion cavalry, in front of witnesses, thereby nominating him.[134][158]
Perdiccas initially did not claim power, instead suggesting that Roxane's baby would be king, if male; with himself, Craterus, Leonnatus, and Antipater as guardians. However, the infantry, under the command of Meleager, rejected this arrangement since they had been excluded from the discussion. Instead, they supported Alexander's half-brother Philip Arrhidaeus. Eventually, the two sides reconciled, and after the birth of Alexander IV, he and Philip III were appointed joint kings, albeit in name only.[160]
Dissension and rivalry soon afflicted the Macedonians, however. The satrapies handed out by Perdiccas at the Partition of Babylon became power bases each general used to bid for power. After the assassination of Perdiccas in 321 BC, Macedonian unity collapsed, and 40 years of war between "The Successors" (Diadochi) ensued before the Hellenistic world settled into four stable power blocks: the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, the Seleucid Empire in the east, the Kingdom of Pergamon in Asia Minor, and Macedon. In the process, both Alexander IV and Philip III were murdered.[161]
More can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great.

So, what are you suggesting? What are you trying to prove?
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Retrobyter said:
... Macedonian unity collapsed, and 40 years of war between "The Successors" ...
So, what are you suggesting? What are you trying to prove?

Hi Retrobyter,

If your wife gave birth to FIVE children, and one died at the age of 40, then apparently you really only had FOUR children? -- YOU put J. Carney to shame! --


The fact is, the commentators have an agenda which supersedes the TRUTH, in spite of History which accounts for the division of Alexander's empire among FIVE Generals:

1. [SIZE=11pt]Antipater taking Macedonia and Greece[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]2. Lysimachus Thrace[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]3. Antigonus Asia Minor[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]4. Selecucs Babylonea[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]5. Ptolemy Egypt[/SIZE]

Durant, Will, Story of Civilization: Part I, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1954, pp. 557-558


Because Scripture accounts for a division of FOUR, ( -- which the commentators falsely ascribe to ancient times -- ):


Daniel 8:8
Then the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.


... the commentators falsify history to meet their ancient fulfillment agenda, -- which stands in direct violation of the Angelic instructions:

Daniel 12:4
But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”


So the question is: Why do the commentators falsify History when it doesn't match Prophecy? Are we really better served having an answer to all things Scriptural when the experts know it's FALSE, -- or would we be better off if they admitted they CANNOT resolve these Prophecies?


For example, consider what the HONEST experts say about Daniel Chapter 9 -- (as applicable, I would propose, to Daniel's other Prophetic Chapters):

  • “...Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all.”
  • “...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”
  • “...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”
  • "... efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.",
  • "... the great Catholic chronographers ... as well as those of all subsequent chronographers (including the great Scalinger and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed.. And Edward Young too, finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens ... and leaves it without a satisfactory explanation."
  • The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. ...
  • “This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance.”

So go ahead and blindly trust your commentators, and tell me how well it works for you.



OR, maybe, -- just maybe --, we should be looking to END TIME events for the fulfillment of this Prophetic Book.



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, DaDad.

Trust the writings of Robert Young at your own peril. If ANYONE has mixed up the Scriptures, HE sure did in his "Young's Literal Translation!" He was a novice in the Hebrew language and may have been purposely misled by the Jewish Rabbi under whom he studied. No one BUT a novice would think to translate a narrative written in the present tense in Hebrew as written in the present tense in English! We don't tell narratives that way! We use the PAST tense to tell our narratives! When WE use the present tense, we are suggesting that the action is ON-GOING! That's not true in Hebrew! To use the present tense in English is to confuse the reader!

Second, one must understand that the word "seven" as a cardinal number is an ADJECTIVE! In Hebrew, all nouns have gender, either masculine or feminine. The adjective - including a cardinal number - takes on the same gender as the noun it modifies! Young should have known this! While shanah (year) is feminine, mow`eed (festival cycle) is masculine!

OT:4150 mow`eed (mo-ade'); or mo`eed (mo-ade'); or (feminine) mow`aadaah (2 Chron 8:13) (mo-aw-daw'); from OT:3259; properly, an appointment, i.e. a fixed time or season; specifically, a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand):
KJV - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synogogue, (set) time (appointed).

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The bottom line is that Robert Young is JUST AS MUCH a "commentator" as any of the others! And, the credentials of the others are more impressive to me than his are.
 

Poppin

New Member
Jan 16, 2014
241
14
0
DaDad said:
Because Scripture accounts for a division of FOUR, ( -- which the commentators falsely ascribe to ancient times -- ):


Daniel 8:8
Then the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.
Hi DaDa.
I know you were not posting to me. I hope its okay to keep having discussions :) ...so I took a chance to reply. :huh:

Clearly Alexander (he-goat); who died and his empire was divided among 4 generals. that makes 5 men mentioned in the closing of the Greek domination.

God counts the ones He deems significant. It wouldnt matter if 15 general divided Alexander`s empire - what matters is does God testify and explain more about those figures He deems significant in other places in the Word - yes.

ex: though all 10 Caesars who ruled the Empire during the Incarnation (along with 7 Herods) There are a few Caesars who are left out of this portion of the vision:

Revelation 17
11As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. 12And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. 13These are of one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

So there are 3 (kings - horns) Caesars of the 10 not mentioned in the bolded part.
Because they all died in short a time and their deeds were so insignificant - they are dropped from the 10.

While Vespasian besieged Jerusalem during the Jewish rebellion, emperor Nero committed suicide and plunged Rome into a year of civil war known as the Year of the Four Emperors. After Galba and Otho perished in quick succession, Vitellius became the third emperor in April 69. The Roman legions of Roman Egypt and Judaea reacted by declaring Vespasian, their commander, emperor on 1 July 69.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian

the 8th was Titus, who was (the son) of the 7th (Vespasian)

Titus (Latin: Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus;[2] 30 December 39 – 13 September 81) was Roman Emperor from 79 to 81. A member of the Flavian dynasty, Titus succeeded his father Vespasian upon his death, thus becoming the first Roman Emperor to come to the throne after his own biological father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus

NERO was the 6th.

Nero as the Antichrist
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

I wonder if some of us would be disappointed if these things were about the 1st century :unsure: , during the singular explosive event of human history - God is made manifest in the flesh, for our salvation.

grace peace and mercy to you
Poppin
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Poppin said:
Hi DaDa.
I know you were not posting to me. I hope its okay to keep having discussions :) ...so I took a chance to reply. :huh:

Clearly Alexander (he-goat); who died and his empire was divided among 4 generals. that makes 5 men mentioned in the closing of the Greek domination.

God counts the ones He deems significant. ...
Hi Poppin,

Scripture says:

Deut 18:22
when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.


If History accounts for a division of FIVE, and the (agenda driven) scholars claim FOUR, -- so that it falsely "matches" Scripture --, then Historically speaking, it has not come to pass, and therefore we need not fear the "prophet", or thereby Scripture/GOD.



So we either ignore Scripture/GOD, OR, you err presuming that Alexander fulfilled this prophecy, (and I believe the latter). If otherwise, then PLEASE provide an historians account of the division of Alexander's empire AT HIS DEATH, into FOUR pieces.



With Best Regards,
DD
Retrobyter said:
Shalom, DaDad.

Trust the writings of Robert Young at your own peril. If ANYONE has mixed up the Scriptures, HE sure did in his "Young's Literal Translation!" He was a novice in the Hebrew language and may have been purposely misled by the Jewish Rabbi under whom he studied. No one BUT a novice would think to translate a narrative written in the present tense in Hebrew as written in the present tense in English! We don't tell narratives that way! We use the PAST tense to tell our narratives! When WE use the present tense, we are suggesting that the action is ON-GOING! That's not true in Hebrew! To use the present tense in English is to confuse the reader!

Second, one must understand that the word "seven" as a cardinal number is an ADJECTIVE! In Hebrew, all nouns have gender, either masculine or feminine. The adjective - including a cardinal number - takes on the same gender as the noun it modifies! Young should have known this! While shanah (year) is feminine, mow`eed (festival cycle) is masculine!

OT:4150 mow`eed (mo-ade'); or mo`eed (mo-ade'); or (feminine) mow`aadaah (2 Chron 8:13) (mo-aw-daw'); from OT:3259; properly, an appointment, i.e. a fixed time or season; specifically, a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand):
KJV - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synogogue, (set) time (appointed).

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The bottom line is that Robert Young is JUST AS MUCH a "commentator" as any of the others! And, the credentials of the others are more impressive to me than his are.

Hi Retrobyter,

I believe that Walvoord cited EDWARD Young, who agreed with Keit and Kliefoth.

And Edward Young too, finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens ... and leaves it without a satisfactory explanation."

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”


In fact, I would argue that Mauro came close with his expectation that the "weeks" were "years", -- as implied by Dan. 9:2 --, except that Mauro failed to see the encompassing vague diction as covering the seventieth -- which is truly a week of years --. And thus the inconcise Masculine gender text covers BOTH the year/week durations.


So back to Young's assertion that the "going forth of the word" as NOT from a Persian king, but rather an edict from GOD, -- where does GOD provide that guidance? (You might want to check the Psalms.)



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Poppin

New Member
Jan 16, 2014
241
14
0
DaDad said:
Hi Poppin,

Scripture says:

Deut 18:22
when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

If History accounts for a division of FIVE, and the (agenda driven) scholars claim FOUR, -- so that it falsely "matches" Scripture --, then Historically speaking, it has not come to pass, and therefore we need not fear the "prophet", or thereby Scripture/GOD.

So we either ignore Scripture/GOD, OR, you err presuming that Alexander fulfilled this prophecy, (and I believe the latter). If otherwise, then PLEASE provide an historians account of the division of Alexander's empire AT HIS DEATH, into FOUR pieces.

Hi DaDad.
Perhaps you need that 5th - to create a revived Roman Empire?
in any case, history and Daniel (which we should do a study of one day - you'll be a believer!) don't make it a mystery so that we can ponder mysterious thousand year gaps.
It's all fulfilled...all of Daniel.
Poppin
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, DaDad.

DaDad said:
...

Hi Retrobyter,

I believe that Walvoord cited EDWARD Young, who agreed with Keit and Kliefoth.

And Edward Young too, finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens ... and leaves it without a satisfactory explanation."

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”


In fact, I would argue that Mauro came close with his expectation that the "weeks" were "years", -- as implied by Dan. 9:2 --, except that Mauro failed to see the encompassing vague diction as covering the seventieth -- which is truly a week of years --. And thus the inconcise Masculine gender text covers BOTH the year/week durations.


So back to Young's assertion that the "going forth of the word" as NOT from a Persian king, but rather an edict from GOD, -- where does GOD provide that guidance? (You might want to check the Psalms.)



With Best Regards,
DD
Oops! Sorry! Guess I missed that! Just the same, my conclusion is the same: The bottom line is that EDWARD Young is JUST AS MUCH a "commentator" as any of the others!

Romans 3:4
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
KJV


Take EVERY commentator with a grain of salt, because even the man with the most noble noblest of intentions may still make misteaks ... er ... mistakes.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Retrobyter said:
Shalom, DaDad.


Oops! Sorry! Guess I missed that! Just the same, my conclusion is the same: The bottom line is that EDWARD Young is JUST AS MUCH a "commentator" as any of the others!

Romans 3:4
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
KJV


Take EVERY commentator with a grain of salt, because even the man with the most noble noblest of intentions may still make misteaks ... er ... mistakes.

Hi Retrobyter,

For such a careful student, it sure becomes easy for you to overlook the inconvenient. Wouldn't you rather resolve than excuse?



With Best Regards,
DD




Poppin said:
Hi DaDad.
Perhaps you need that 5th - to create a revived Roman Empire?
in any case, history and Daniel (which we should do a study of one day - you'll be a believer!) don't make it a mystery so that we can ponder mysterious thousand year gaps.
It's all fulfilled...all of Daniel.
Poppin
Hi Poppin,

I guess neither you nor Retrobyter wish to resolve the inconvenient. History states a division of Alexander's empire under FIVE Generals. You apparently assert that History doesn't need to match Prophetic Scripture, in violation with Deut. 18:22, which dictates that that Prophetic Scripture MUST align with world History, So now I can either believe Scripture, or your personal assurances.

Can you guess which one I believe?!?



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
DaDad said:
Hi Retrobyter,

For such a careful student, it sure becomes easy for you to overlook the inconvenient. Wouldn't you rather resolve than excuse?



With Best Regards,
DD





Hi Poppin,

I guess neither you nor Retrobyter wish to resolve the inconvenient. History states a division of Alexander's empire under FIVE Generals. You apparently assert that History doesn't need to match Prophetic Scripture, in violation with Deut. 18:22, which dictates that that Prophetic Scripture MUST align with world History, So now I can either believe Scripture, or your personal assurances.

Can you guess which one I believe?!?



With Best Regards,
DD
Why must the choices be "resolve" or "excuse?" I vote neither! With all due respect, I AM resolved! And, I see nothing to resolve in this issue! I don't like dichotomist ultimatums, the old "either...or" scenario. Like Captain Kirk of the Enterprise, I don't like no-win scenarios; I'm always looking for the THIRD choice, and frankly, I think you're making mountains out of molehills.

I find it amazing that anyone would go to such lengths to read something into the Scriptures that I don't think is there! Maybe YOUR history records five, but MOST histories do not! Thrace was never considered as something separate from Macedon/Greece, and it was soon absorbed by the Romans anyway!

And yet, YOU label historians who give the 5-general division "HONEST experts!" Who says?! Who's the judge in such matters?! What is the criteria for making such judgments?! What you have are TWO OPINIONS and that is the same as two opinions in ANYTHING! You might gravitate to one or the other, but who's to say which is right? I think to claim that ANY opinion is absolute truth is DISHONEST!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poppin

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Retrobyter said:
Maybe YOUR history records five, but MOST histories do not!
Hi Retrobyter,

All I ask for is for you to provide a perspective from a World Historian which accounts for the division of the Grecian Empire AT ALEXANDER'S DEATH. But all I receive are assurances from both you and Poppin that I don't need no stink'in Historians.


Please let me know if my expectations cannot be met given the limitations of the World Historical record; that World Historians are not objective; or that Bible World Historians are the only ones who know what happened to Alexander's Empire AT HIS DEATH. (Yeah, there's no conflict of interest when they need FOUR, -- and surprisingly enough THEY ARRIVE AT FOUR some FORTY YEARS AFTER THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE.)

With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shabbat shalom, DaDad.

DaDad said:
Hi Retrobyter,

All I ask for is for you to provide a perspective from a World Historian which accounts for the division of the Grecian Empire AT ALEXANDER'S DEATH. But all I receive are assurances from both you and Poppin that I don't need no stink'in Historians.


Please let me know if my expectations cannot be met given the limitations of the World Historical record; that World Historians are not objective; or that Bible World Historians are the only ones who know what happened to Alexander's Empire AT HIS DEATH. (Yeah, there's no conflict of interest when they need FOUR, -- and surprisingly enough THEY ARRIVE AT FOUR some FORTY YEARS AFTER THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE.)

With Best Regards,
DD
And all I ask is why does it have to be "AT ALEXANDER'S DEATH?" Quite frankly, his empire was NOT divided at his death! They were hoping that his unborn child would be a male, and that he could be a SECOND "Alexander the Great!" Of all the men with Alexander at the time of his death, Perdiccus, Craterus, Leonnatus, and Antipater were his closest allies and they were expecting to be the new child's guardians, protectors, and tutors. The infantry and its leader Meleager all wanted Philip Arrhidaeus (Philip III) to be the successor. The compromise (at first) was that all five, Perdiccus, Craterus, Leonnatus, Antipater, and Meleager would be the protectors of the JOINT rulership of Alexander IV (yes, the baby was a boy) and Philip III!

However, over the course of the forty years to follow, the Diadochi (the War between the Successors), both boys were killed, and everybody who was in charge of anything was battling over who would be the eventual heir of Alexander's empire! It wasn't until the strong leaders, Ptolemy (Egypt), Seleucus (Asia), Lysimachus (Thrace), and Antipater's son Cassander (Macedonia & Greece) took charge that things finally settled down! Perdiccus and Meleager had been killed, and Antigonus, an empire-seizing hopeful, was defeated and the kingdom divided.

Note that the Scriptures say,

Daniel 11:2-4
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. 3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.
NIV


Daniel 11:2-4
2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
KJV


So, how do these verses disagree with human history?
 

Poppin

New Member
Jan 16, 2014
241
14
0
DaDad said:
Hi Poppin,

I guess neither you nor Retrobyter wish to resolve the inconvenient. History states a division of Alexander's empire under FIVE Generals. You apparently assert that History doesn't need to match Prophetic Scripture, in violation with Deut. 18:22, which dictates that that Prophetic Scripture MUST align with world History, So now I can either believe Scripture, or your personal assurances.

Can you guess which one I believe?!?



With Best Regards,
DD
Hello DD.
Would you like to study the last chapters of the book of Daniel with me?
We'll match it all to history.
NONE of the kingdoms EXCEPT CHRIST'S - THE 5TH...are future. And His began at His Resurrection and Ascension.
ALL the kings and kingdoms in Daniel are long gone.
Except the Lord.

America isn't in the Bible.
Newspaper headlines aren't prophecy.
love Poppin
 

DanielTheSmith

New Member
Feb 12, 2014
30
0
0
Dang, I been using Young's literal too.lol Spirited debate, Friends! Anyways, not to interupt your guys' train of thought, but are you guys into Biblical numerology?

Have you ever thought of how the 12, in Daniel 12, could be the "1" standing for the river and the "2" standing for the men standing on either side?

In Biblical numerology 2 can mean witnesses, I think it might go w/ the martyr verse in Rev. Also, 1 can be like the Holy Spirit (especially if it's water) 'cause 1 is a component of 3.

9 (see how 9 means the end, just like 9-11 and how the eleven means the 2 buildings, or Tubal-Cain's two posts) And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end.
10 Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but they that are wise shall understand.

12 "Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. 13(13 is possibly the sign for tribe of Dan) But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

It could mean raptured out of the grave(prob does), but "days" is plural.. the rapture event is not, it's singular. Here's the closest (supposedly) english translation:
Young's Literal Translation
And thou, go on to the end, then thou dost rest, and dost stand in thy lot at the end of the days.'(I'm just waitin' to get blown out of the water on this idea lol)

the martyrs will finally rest at the end of the days. check this in Rev:
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest (I mean, Daniel was a martyr, right?) yet for a little season,(until the 6th seal when the witnesses emerge, maybe?) until their fellow servants(Canaans by curse) also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Maybe the dude in white is a witness and he's turning the river to blood (purifying it) and figuratively the dude accross the water hasn't crossed it, and hasn't been purified and given a white robe, maybe. Just a theory. I highly doubt it's totally right, but parts of it sure could be. You know, anything "man made"(6) is corrupted, even theories. That's why we must pray for disernment so the Holy Spirit can illuminate what's right.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Retrobyter said:
So, how do these verses disagree with human history?

Hi Retrobyter,

You say FOUR, but history says FIVE:


1. [SIZE=11pt]Antipater taking Macedonia and Greece[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]2. Lysimachus Thrace[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]3. Antigonus Asia Minor[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]4. Selecucs Babylonea[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]5. Ptolemy Egypt[/SIZE]

Durant, Will, Story of Civilization: Part I, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1954, pp. 557-558


... and my second grade teacher suggest that Four ≠ FIVE, so either YOU are wrong, or Ms. Woods is wrong. Personally I'd like to trust YOU.


With Best Regards,
DD
Poppin said:
Hello DD.
Would you like to study the last chapters of the book of Daniel with me?
Hi Poppin,

If you can't arrive to the Daniel sequence: Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold = FIVE, then I would propose that you are not ready to study the rest.


With Best Regards,
DD
 

Poppin

New Member
Jan 16, 2014
241
14
0
DaDad said:
Hi Poppin,

If you can't arrive to the Daniel sequence: Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold = FIVE, then I would propose that you are not ready to study the rest.


With Best Regards,
DD

The Iron and the clay are a single kingdom, DD.

Daniel 2:43
And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

Gnostics like to think they hold a secret (something hidden: occult) that no one else will ever understand without instruction from an illumined one.
Fortunately, we don't need that sort of teaching or understanding.
We can all just simply read the entire narrative (Daniel) and understand it.
It's actually quite clear, if we don't get sidetracked by eisegeting what we want into the text.
This is particularly pernicious within the Dispensationalist paradigm. IF there must be a future 5th kingdom, we have to pluck it from somewhere.

In any case, The Bible is pretty straightforward about the iron kingdom - the 4th. which was mixed with clay. Still the 4th.
Together they made up the last - the feet.

It's confirmed everywhere in the NT :) what the iron and the clay were:

Apostate Israelites mingled with Pagan Romans. In place and in time (right on schedule according to Daniel) to rage and plot in vain against the Lord's Anointed, The King set on Zion God's Holy Mountain, seated on the throne of David, The Lord Jesus Christ.

Very simple.

Acts 4
“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’

27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

there they are - the Iron and the Clay.

http://biblehub.com/esv/acts/4.htm

However, I will assume the best about you, that you are not a gnostic who has a special secret, and I will ask (i think this is the 4th time) for you to teach me what significance you believe that (literary device) sequence has.

You continue to refuse to explain it, though.
I find this perplexing. Why won't you share with me (us) what the significance is?

In any case, if the Lord wills it, this evening I will start a thread on the Book of Daniel. Perhaps at the right passage you would contribute and explain the critical significance of the 5 elements (Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold) in that critical sequence.

though I asked:

"Would you like to study the last chapters of the book of Daniel with me?"

You said:

I am "not ready to study the rest."

To which I say, yes, I am ready. There is no future 5th evil kingdom.
The 5th and last was Christ's.

:)
God's riches blessings to you,
let us be kind and helpful to one another today, and every day.
Please help me on the Daniel thread if you will.
Poppin.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Poppin said:
The Iron and the clay are a single kingdom, DD.

Hi Poppin,

Scripture is not correct in one instance, and incorrect in the second, any more than a drafting design is correct in the plan view, and incorrect in the side views. As such you must take ALL Scriptural components to arrive to the Designer's intent:


45 ,,, the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE


Please let me know when you find FIVE World Empires, for which the FIFTH is "divided" between two or more superpowers:

41 And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.


Daniel 7:
Lion/Eagle -- U.K./U.S.
Bear with 3-ribs -- Russia, and it's three illegal conquests
Leopard with 4-heads & 4-wings -- (actually a "tiger"), China with FOUR branches of government, and FOUR "Modernization"
Dreadful -- United Nations



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Poppin

New Member
Jan 16, 2014
241
14
0
DaDad said:
Hi Poppin,

Scripture is not correct in one instance, and incorrect in the second, any more than a drafting design is correct in the plan view, and incorrect in the side views. As such you must take ALL Scriptural components to arrive to the Designer's intent:


45 ,,, the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE


Please let me know when you find FIVE World Empires, for which the FIFTH is "divided" between two or more superpowers:

41 And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.

Hi DD.
Here's the interpretation of the dream.
Count the empires:

Daniel 2
Daniel Interprets the Dream
31"You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. 32"The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, 33its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

"The head of that statue was made of fine gold,
its breast and its arms of silver,
its belly and its thighs of bronze,
its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. < one empire/system of kings.

that's FOUR.

THESE KINGS - in ONE KINGDOM - the MIXED EMPIRE - Rome and The Great Harlot Jerusalem/;

Daniel 2
40And there shall be a fourth kingdom, < ROME who ruled and occupied Judea in Christ's lifetime.

strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things.
And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these.
And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay.
And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle.

HERE COMES THE PROPHECY OF JESUS - in conflict with the Romans and the Herods and gentiles and peoples of Israel::
and HIS VICTORY over them all:

Daniel 2
43As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, < THEY DID
but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. < THEY DIDN'T. IT ALL CAME TO NOTHING

And in the days of those kings [THE 4TH KINGS - THE IRON & CLAY FEET - SEE PSALM 2]
the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people.
It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.

and there's your sequence: "it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold." - which has no futuristic or secret significance.
Unless it actually really does and you're ready to explain it.
the FIFTH Kingdom was the one God set up - in the days of those kings- CHRIST - the stone cut without hands.
and all the kingdoms are like chaff in the wind....gone.

DaDad said:
41 And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay.


Daniel 7:
Lion/Eagle -- U.K./U.S.
Bear with 3-ribs -- Russia, and it's three illegal conquests
Leopard with 4-heads & 4-wings -- (actually a "tiger"), China with FOUR branches of government, and FOUR "Modernization"
Dreadful -- United Nations



With Best Regards,
DD
Well, can you show any internal evidence (more convincing than what i posted directly from the same prophecies) that the kingdoms of Daniel are ones you listed?

love in Christ
Poppin

Jerusalem was Mystery Babylon, the Great Harlot.
She sat upon the Roman beast.

Then she was burned by fire. Judged.
it's over.
 

DaDad

Member
Sep 28, 2012
541
3
18
Poppin said:
that's FOUR.

Hi Poppin,

45 ,,, the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE


that's FIVE.



Poppin said:
"it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold." - which has no futuristic or secret significance.
Unless it actually really does and you're ready to explain it.
Perhaps you missed the following:

DaDad, on 04 Feb 2 014 - 3:48 PM, said

The INTELLIGENT DESIGN is given in the Dan. 2:45 sequence: Iron, Bronze, Clay, Silver, Gold = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE. The observation is that there indeed are FIVE world empires, for which the Fifth "Feet of Clay" is "divided" exactly as evidenced in this 3-superpower era. Of course, we also know that each of these are Republics, which have the residue of Iron (Roman REPUBLIC) in this Fifth empire of Clay. And finally we also know the 10 nations which are represented by the 10 Toes of the Image.


With Best Regards,
DD




PS And yes, Daniel substantiates the FIVE, in Chapters 7, 8 & 11. In addition, John substantiates the FIVE in Rev. 13 & 17. Furthermore, we should find the numbers 7 (perfection) and 10 (completion) = perfectly complete. :)





To All,

If an aluminum wheel company machinist made a "wheel" strictly to the Plan View, he could use sheet metal and do it in minutes, -- but he is FIRED. Alternately a good machinist would complying with all the views and cross-sections, and build a casting which takes days, and performs as designed. And he is PROMOTED.

So too is the "student" who attempts to interpret Scripture with one perspective, who is FLUNKED, versus the good student which complies with ALL the provided information, and is REWARDED..



So who is the student who can resolve the Intelligent Design of verse 45?

Dan. 2;45
,,, the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. = 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE



With Best Regards,
DD
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
DaDad said:
Hi Retrobyter,

You say FOUR, but history says FIVE:


1. [SIZE=11pt]Antipater taking Macedonia and Greece[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]2. Lysimachus Thrace[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]3. Antigonus Asia Minor[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]4. Seleucus Babylonea[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]5. Ptolemy Egypt[/SIZE]

Durant, Will, Story of Civilization: Part I, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1954, pp. 557-558


... and my second grade teacher suggest that Four ≠ FIVE, so either YOU are wrong, or Ms. Woods is wrong. Personally I'd like to trust YOU.


With Best Regards,
DD

...
...OR Will Durant is wrong, book or no book! "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar!" I know that he probably meant "story" as an "account" or a "narrative," but "story" IMPLIES a "version," a "fiction," a "fabrication," a "LIE!" Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1997) says,

story, n., pl. -ries, v. -ried, -rying. --n. 1. a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse; tale. 2. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel. 3. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature: song and story. 4. the plot or succession of incidents of a novel, poem, drama, etc. 5. a narration of incidents or events. 6. a report of the facts concerning a matter in question. 7. a lie; fabrication. 8. Archaic. history. --v.t. 9. to ornament with pictured scenes, as from history or legend. 10. Archaic. to tell the history or story of. [1175-1225; ME < AF estorie < L historia HISTORY]

And, no, I don't think Ms. Woods is wrong about 4 <> 5, either.