Why The Two Legs Of Daniel 2 Represent Only Western Rome

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Lets have a barney, Daniel 8 describes the events of the four generals taking over Alexandra the Greats Empire and the establishment of the manifestations of the four heads of the third beast. The Third beast does not influence the four division of Alexandra's empire until after Alexandra's death. We then read of the influence of the little horn beast. Daniel 8 records this: -

Daniel 8:8-12: - 8 Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. 10 And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. 11 He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. 12 Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered.​

Now here in this section of Daniel 8, heavenly hosts are mentioned and the little horn grew up to the host of heaven, i.e. God, and it cast down some of the hosts and the stars to the ground and tramples them. The little horn even went up against Christ and he was given an army to destroy the temple, and to cast truth down.



If the little horn is the prince that is given an army in Daniel 9:26b then the little horn has exerted its influence over one of the divisions of Alexandra's empire from around 250 BC up and until around 70 AD, a period around 320 years. If this little horn is a person then how did he live for 320 year if he is a person.

I would suggest that you are looking in all of the wrong places to justify your understanding and that you are using the primary characteristic of the first beast of Daniel 7 which is the mind of a man to back up your understanding.

Daniel 7:2 speaks of spiritual entities that are from heaven that stir up the seas. If they are spiritual entities from heaven they are also heavenly hosts originally from heaven.

No matter how many times you repeat your understanding which is also the SDA understanding, it does not make what you write true.

Daniel 8:
20 “The two-horned ram that you saw stands for the kings of Meʹdi·a and Persia.+ 21 The hairy male goat stands for the king of Greece;+ and the great horn that was between its eyes stands for the first king.+ 22 As for the horn that was broken, so that four stood up instead of it,+ there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

these scriptures are clear to me that the two-horned ram, which is a beast stands for the kings of media and Persia and kings represent empires. The Media-Persia empire did actually exist, its history. and when the scriptures say the two-horned ram stands for the kings of Media and Persia, that's what I believe. If these beasts represented fallen Angels as you say then God would have said so.

as I said before Satan and his demons influence mankind to be against or fight against The True God Jehovah and his Son Jesus which means Satan influences mankind to be against the Messianic Kingdom. This explains Daniel 7:2. The beasts themselves are not fallen Angels but are empires of men who are alienated against God and influenced by Satan and his demons

Daniel 9:26b you are talking about didn't exist in the years 250B.C. TO 70 C.E.(A.D.) and it wasn't a person it was another empire that started with Great Britain or England but now exists as a dual world power consisting of England and the United States. Its called the Anglo-American World Power.

You're not going to convince me I'm wrong no matter how much you disagree, which is you're right. The beasts are kingdoms just as the scriptures say. Do they belong to Satan? Absolutely, but the beasts themselves are kingdoms just as the scriptures say.

 

[Jay Ross]

Daniel 8:
20 “The two-horned ram that you saw stands for the kings of Meʹdi·a and Persia.+ 21 The hairy male goat stands for the king of Greece;+ and the great horn that was between its eyes stands for the first king.+ 22 As for the horn that was broken, so that four stood up instead of it,+ there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

these scriptures are clear to me that the two-horned ram, which is a beast stands for the kings of media and Persia and kings represent empires. The Media-Persia empire did actually exist, its history. and when the scriptures say the two-horned ram stands for the kings of Media and Persia, that's what I believe. If these beasts represented fallen Angels as you say then God would have said so.

as I said before Satan and his demons influence mankind to be against or fight against The True God Jehovah and his Son Jesus which means Satan influences mankind to be against the Messianic Kingdom. This explains Daniel 7:2. The beasts themselves are not fallen Angels but are empires of men who are alienated against God and influenced by Satan and his demons

Daniel 9:26b you are talking about didn't exist in the years 250B.C. TO 70 C.E.(A.D.) and it wasn't a person it was another empire that started with Great Britain or England but now exists as a dual world power consisting of England and the United States. Its called the Anglo-American World Power.

You're not going to convince me I'm wrong no matter how much you disagree, which is you're right. The beasts are kingdoms just as the scriptures say. Do they belong to Satan? Absolutely, but the beasts themselves are kingdoms just as the scriptures say.

What is there for me to gain from pointing out the error of your posts. Nothing. But for those who may read my posts, that they may gain understanding of the truth of the scriptures. As you have stated, your knowledge comes from linking history with biblical verses to justify your understanding.

So be it. I trust/believe/have faith that I am not blind and understand what the scriptures convey.

If you want the last word simple continue replying. You and your friends who parrot the same views.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

What is there for me to gain from pointing out the error of your posts. Nothing. But for those who may read my posts, that they may gain understanding of the truth of the scriptures. As you have stated, your knowledge comes from linking history with biblical verses to justify your understanding.

So be it. I trust/believe/have faith that I am not blind and understand what the scriptures convey.

If you want the last word simple continue replying. You and your friends who parrot the same views.

Just remember that Saul of Tarsus before he became the Apostle Paul truly believed and trusted he was doing right by The True God so much, that he approved of the stoning of the disciple Stephen and then went to the religious leaders in Jerusalem to attain papers to go to Damasus finding any who followed Jesus to bring them back to Jerusalem to be judged. We know of course that Jesus intervened that day and let him know he was wrong how he believed. So you can trust and believe and have faith that what you say you believe and teach is true, doesn't necessarily mean its true or right. I have faith and trust and I believe what I say has scriptural backing, but I also know that I'm not infallible.