Truth, Please pay attention because I'm going to go over it again. OK!
You said,
Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint about the second or any of the kingdom's that followed is irrelevant. What's important is the message depicted in the statue and what it may reveal to us. What does it matter what Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint was of the inferior kingdom...if he even considered it! The word inferior i.e. 'earth' is meant for us to understand this. Not Nebu. who was dead at the time the Mede's took Babylon.
That's true of the Persian Empire, which is why it can't be 'the inferior kingdom'! The Median Empire was smaller and also shortlived.
That's true! And the only way it can be inferior is by a
land inferiority because the word inferior is LAND!
http://www.bluelette...ongs=H772&t=KJV
How is the idea of a governmental inferiority implied in the text? It's not!
One word describes the second kingdom and the only people who just can't admit that Persia wasn't "land inferior" are the only people who come up with these alternative meanings. The word inferior easily debunks the Persian Empire as the "land inferior second kingdom."
What is said about Nebuchadnezzar applies only to him. What's said about the second inferior empire is meant only for the second empire...and so on.
Wasn't it you who said,
Let scripture interpret scripture?
Funny how you or Veteran haven't once confronted this verse.
Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
Let me remind you
AGAIN that there's a lot of mis-information in secular history about this. The secularist would like you to believe that Cyrus took Babylon but Daniel 5:31 and Jeremiah 51 say's Darius and the Mede's took Babylon.
The reason for this is that there's very little secular history about Darius and the bible is the historical authority on him! Most secular historian's often don't consider the historical validity of the bible. So because Darius can't be found in secular history, they assume Cyrus took Babylon but
that contradicts the bible! The Mede's and Persian's were confederate and intermarried. The custom of the Day was that the elder went into battle. Darius was older than Cyrus and He was the one who went into battle. The Persian's weren't very good warriors anyway. They were better engineers and nation builders. The Mede's were superoir warriors compared to the Persian's.
No they don't! They teach both theories. The one I believe in is the oldest. But that doesn't matter. The idea that the Medo-Persian Empire was the second Empire came about because of the influence the RCC had on the Protestant interpreters. They were convinced Rome was the fourth Empire and formed their interpretation around that rather than the words in the text.
That has nothing to do with the inferior kingdom!
You place too much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar and not enough on the words that describe each individual Empire. Do you care about what the other verses tell us about this??? Like the verses that say Darius and the Mede's took Babylon? Does it matter to you that a "governmental inferiority" isn't even remotely implied in the text?