- This topic has 302 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
The Image of Dan 2
The image has a head of gold, and Daniel interprets it as follows: ‘You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the sons of men, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold.’ Thus we are told that the head of gold represents Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Under Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon rose to a position of great power, wealth and magnificence.
The breast and arms of this image are of silver and Daniel interprets as follows: ‘And after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you’. In my opinion, Daniel is here describing the Median empire. This empire was contemporaneous with the Babylonian empire, but after the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 562 BC it became the stronger of the two, because the power and wealth of Babylon immediately declined. Babylon was still a power, but the scales had tipped in favour of the Medes. Remember that the head of gold symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar, and Daniel says, ‘And after you (Nebuchadnezzar) shall arise another kingdom inferior to you.’ Following the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Media was the major power for at least twelve years until it was united with Persia in 550 BC under the rule of Cyrus. The Median empire did not, however, have the glory and magnificence of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon—it was of inferior quality.
It is often objected that the Median empire did not really follow after the Babylonian empire—it was contemporaneous with it. It may be replied, however, that the order of Daniel’s kingdoms is the order of their rise to the height of power and prominence. Daniel does not say that each kingdom exists only from the time of destruction of the preceding kingdom to the time of its own destruction. The order of the kingdoms is notmerely the order of their existence—it is the order of their occupation of the seat of supreme power: in other words, the order in which they held the title of ‘top nation’! This is confirmed in the vision of the four beasts, because we learn there that after the fourth kingdom has been destroyed, the first three kingdoms continue to exist for a while together, although their dominion is taken away from them. This clearly indicates that they are to some extent contemporaneous.
The assertion that there was no Median empire between the Babylonian and Persian empires seems to be based on a misconception. This misconception is the idea that Persia succeeded Babylon as dominant world power when it overthrew Babylon in 539 BC. Persia in fact became the dominant world power some years before Babylon fell. Cyrus built up a very large and powerful empire which outstripped the Babylonian empire several years before he got round to conquering the latter empire. If it be admitted, and so it must, that Persia became dominant world power before the actual fall of Babylon, it can also be admitted that Media may have been the dominant world power before Persia.
Babylon and Media were the two great rivals for world power, and after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, it seemed inevitable that Media would overthrow Babylon. This was the state of affairs for a few uneasy years. But suddenly, events took an unexpected turn. Media’s king was overthrown by one of his own vassals, the brilliant Persian king, Cyrus. Cyrus united the Medes and Persians as allies under his own rule; but from this time Persia was on the ascendant. For some years the two peoples held the reins of power together; but the Persians had the edge on the Medes and increased their power until they were completely dominant.
Daniel continues the interpretation as follows: ‘… and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth’. The third kingdom is symbolized by the image’s belly and thighs of bronze and is to ‘rule over all the earth’. The characteristic of this third kingdom is the immense area over which it rules. This is the perfect description of the Persian empire, because the most striking aspect of that empire was the huge area it covered—it was by far the vastest empire the world had seen. The following Greek empire was in fact slightly smaller than the Persian empire. In all regions except Greece and across the Indus river, Alexander’s Greek empire either fell short of or failed to extend beyond the limits of the Persian empire.
Cyrus himself created the largest empire the world had seen up to that time; but his successors continued to push the frontiers outwards until the Persian empire was truly breathtaking in size. In a series of brilliant campaigns Cyrus annexed the entire Median empire, the large and powerful kingdom of Lydia in Asia Minor, much territory in the East—and then the Babylonian empire. His successors added all Egypt, a chunk of Europe and more territory in the East.
Note also the way in which Daniel groups together the second and third kingdoms. The second kingdom is passed over quickly with a brief and belittling remark, possibly indicating that its term of supreme power is comparatively insignificant and short-lived, as well as being inferior in wealth and magnificence. It is grouped with, and closely followed and overshadowed by, the world-ruling third kingdom. The whole description is strongly suggestive of the Medo-Persian situation, because the comparatively insignificant Median empire was absorbed and eclipsed by the subsequently enormous Persian empire only a very short time after it (Media) had itself surpassed Babylon. The description of the second and third kingdoms fits the Median and Persian empires far better than it fits the huge, wealthy, long-lived Persian empire and the rather smaller Greek empire.
The Four Beasts of Dan 7
Daniel recounts, ‘The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand upon two feet like a man; and the mind of a man was given to it.’
The winged lion is familiar in Babylonian art. The eagle was a symbol of swiftness and the lion one of strength and nobility (2 Sa. 1:23). The eagle was the king of birds, and the lion the king of beasts. They correspond to the image’s head of gold, the metal which was regarded as the noblest and most valuable of all metals. Almost all are agreed that this beast represents Babylon and that the change which comes upon it probably symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar’s madness and subsequent restoration (Dn. 4). Note that again Babylon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar is strongly indicated. The Bible repeatedly describes Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans of his time as being like both an eagle (Dt. 28:49–53, cf. 2 Kings 25:1–11; Je. 49:19, 22; La. 4:19; Ezk. 17:1–5, 11–14; Hab. 1:6–8) and a lion (Is. 5:25–30; Je. 4:6, 7, 13, cf. 25:9, 38; 49:19, 22; 50:17, 44). These creatures were used to convey a picture of Nebuchadnezzar coming from afar against the Jews and their neighbours and carrying them off as captives to Babylon. The book of Daniel always associates the glory and magnificence of Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar (Dn. 2:37, 38; 4:22, 30, 36; 5:18, 19).
It is a historical fact that Nebuchadnezzar was largely responsible for the glory of the Neo-Babylonian empire. He came to the throne when his father died in 605 BC, soon after the final obliteration of Assyria—an event which Nebuchadnezzar helped to bring about. During his long reign of 43 years, Babylon was practically invincible. Moreover, he lavished immense wealth and architectural skill on his capital city, making it world-famous for its magnificence and strength. Nebuchadnezzar was both a great soldier and a great builder. After his death, however, a series of relatively weak kings followed each other in rapid succession and Babylon’s power declined. She was still a power, but whereas she formerly had the edge on her great rival, Media, the position was now reversed.
Daniel continues, ‘And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side; it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, “Arise, devour much flesh.” ’ Although the bear is not so swift as the lion, it was equally feared, owing to its great strength and the unpredictability of its actions. The lion and the bear are mentioned together a number of times in Scripture (1 Sam. 17:34; Prov. 28:15; La. 3:10; Am. 5:19), and both were clearly objects of special fear and respect. In a similar way the rival powers of Babylon and Media together commanded the nations’ fear and respect. The bear is a comparatively slow-moving and clumsy creature; therefore this symbol applies better to the Median empire than to the Persian. The career of Cyrus the Persian was characterized by a succession of swift and brilliant victories, better symbolized by the next beast, which is a leopard.
We are told that the bear ‘was raised up on one side’, and I suggest the following explanation. Media’s period of power was divided into two very different stages. During the first stage she was the powerful head of a large empire—this is represented by the side of the bear which is raised up. During the second stage she was the somewhat inferior partner of Persia—Daniel is careful to emphasize (chapters 5, 6 and 8) that the Medes and Persians ruled together as allies for a number of years following Cyrus’s victory over the Median king in 550 BC. This part of Media’s reign is represented by the lower side of the bear. During her partnership with Persia, she was still ruling the nations, but in a humbler capacity than before. Her partnership with Persia constituted the world’s most powerful empire; but despite the exalted nature of her continued ruling of the nations, it was not as exalted as it had been before the rise of Persia.
We are told that three ribs were in the bear’s mouth between its teeth, and that it was commanded, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’ It is generally agreed that the three ribs must represent three nations conquered by the bear, and that the bear is ordered to arise and make fresh conquests. The identities of the three nations, however, have remained in doubt. The Bible itself, as is so often the case, provides the answer. We find it in Jeremiah 51:27–29. In this passage God stirs up four nations against Babylon. This reminds us that the bear with the three ribs was also stirred up—and probably against Babylon. Three of these nations were the small kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. They all lay to the north of Babylon and all were within the Median empire. The fourth nation was the Median empire itself. The bear with the three ribs between its teeth is a perfect picture of the Median empire and the three small subject kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. Note that Media is the principal nation stirred up against Babylon. In the eleventh verse of the same chapter we read, ‘The Lord has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it.’ In Isaiah 13:17 we read, ‘Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them (the Babylonians).’ We can see therefore that the prophets repeatedly proclaimed that God would stir up the Medes against Babylon. This is the meaning of the command to arise and devour much flesh. In Isaiah 21:2 Elam and Media are ordered to besiege Babylon, and in verse 9 the fall of Babylon is proclaimed. By the time Media got round to actually besieging Babylon, it had become the inferior partner of Persian-occupied Elam, Cyrus’s country of origin. (Elam is not mentioned in Je. 51:27, because although it was a vassal of Media, it formed an alliance with Babylon during the period of Media’s primacy.)
Thus the general picture we have is that Media became stronger than Babylon on the death of Nebuchadnezzar and planned to overcome her, being stirred up to this by God. But before Media was able to carry her plans into effect, she was joined and surpassed by Persia.
Daniel continues, ‘After this I looked, and lo, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back; and the beast had four heads; and dominion was given to it.’ The swift and agile winged leopard contrasts vividly with the slow-moving, clumsy bear. Such was the contrast between the ponderous Median empire and the brilliant, swiftly-moving armies of Cyrus the Persian. The early kings that followed Cyrus were not as brilliant as he, but they certainly moved much faster and more purposefully than the Medes.
Now the main characteristic of this third kingdom is, like that of the ‘bronze’ kingdom, one of widespread authority or ‘dominion’, which was the chief characteristic of Persia. This is shown by the four wings symbolizing the four winds, one for each of the ‘four corners of the earth’ (Ps. 104:3; Zc. 2:6). On a clay cylinder, Cyrus described himself as ‘king of the four corners of the earth’. On another he said, ‘Sin, the light of heaven … gave into my hands the four corners of the earth.’
The beast had four heads. Now a head naturally suggests a king or some similar authority. In the eleventh chapter of Daniel we are specially told about four kings of Persia. The first is Cyrus and the fourth is Xerxes. This interpretation of the meaning of the four heads is eminently suitable, because Persia’s main period of expansion and aggression only covered the reigns of these first four kings—Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius and Xerxes (Pseudo-Smerdis being merely a short-lived impostor). Between them these first four kings created the Persian empire in all its vast extent and wealth; and it was after the reign of Xerxes that the decline of the empire began. Xerxes’ small gains in Greece were lost within a few months; but the empire reached the pinnacle of its power, wealth and size during his reign. Each of these four kings had a part to play in the creation of this enormous empire. It was not the work of one man, and the four-headed beast is a perfect picture of this.
Note that the four heads have nothing to do with the four horns of Greece (8:8). The four heads appear to be a feature of the beast’s great dominion, whereas the four horns of Greece are connected with a loss of dominion (cf. 11:4). In 11:2–4 the number four is mentioned twice—once in connection with Persia, and once with Greece. The reference to Persia speaks of an initial phase of riches and power, whereas the reference to Greece speaks of a second phase of division and loss of territory and power. If the third kingdom is the Persian empire, it also follows that the unequal horns of the Persian ram (8:3–4, 20) do not signify the same thing as the unequal sides of the bear (7:5). There is a connection, however, since in both cases the inequality has something to do with the partnership between the Medes and Persians.
We can see therefore that whatever resemblance the third beast might have to any other empire, it was fulfilled in every respect by the Persian empire. Let it again be pointed out that the only thing said about the beast’s rule was the fact that it was to have dominion—which corresponds to the statement that the bronze kingdom was to ‘rule over all the earth’. This was by far the most striking aspect of the Persian empire. It was several times the size of any previous empire. The Greek empire, on the other hand, was no larger than the Persian, and was probably in fact slightly smaller. Moreover, the Persians maintained their vast empire for over two hundred years, whereas the Greek empire was broken up and reduced in size only nine years after its foundation. Note, however, that both the third kingdom and the fourth kingdom are said to rule over or tread down ‘the whole earth’ (2:39; 7:23), and we are given the impression that the fourth kingdom crushes the first three kingdoms (2:40; 7:7, 23). We have already noted that Rome was defeated by the Parthians, and that Babylonia, Media and Persia all remained outside the Roman empire. Greece, on the other hand, rapidly crushed and took over the entire Persian empire (apart from some border areas), including Babylonia, Media and Persia. Thus the third and fourth kingdoms both rule over ‘the whole earth’, and regarding this, we note that Greece ruled over almost the same vast area (both in size and location) as Persia. Note also that the third kingdom rules over the whole earth, but the fourth kingdom devours it, and tramples it down and breaks it to pieces. The Persians ruled over their great empire for over two hundred years. Alexander smashed it rapidly and thoroughly, but he died soon afterwards, before he was able to organize it into as closely cohesive a system as that of the Persians. His successors were unable to maintain it, and it split up into a number of separate kingdoms and was reduced in size. This is all vividly portrayed in Daniel’s fourth kingdom, but I am not dealing with that kingdom here in any detail.
I shall, however, summarize very briefly the ways in which Greece fulfilled the visions of the fourth kingdom and Rome did not—leaving out of consideration the idea that the Roman empire (in its ‘feet of iron and clay’ stage) is still in existence or is to be revived at the end of the present age. (1) The Greek armies of Alexander were invincible, whereas the Roman armies were not (2:40; 7:7, 19). (2) The Greek empire was divided in a very clear-cut way into an initial period of invincible strength and a second period of division and weakness, whereas Rome was not (2:41, 42). (3) Daniel 2:43 was fulfilled very exactly by the Greek attempt to fuse East and West through intermingling and inter-marriage, whereas Rome provided no such fulfilment. (4) The western nation of Greece was very ‘different’ from the oriental nations of Babylon, Media and Persia, whereas Rome was in many respects very similar to Greece (7:23). (5) In the context of the book of Daniel, Greece can be said to have ‘devoured the whole earth’ and to have crushed the first three kingdoms, whereas this cannot be said of Rome (2:40; 7:23). (6) The horns of the fourth beast found a very precise fulfilment in the kings of the Syrian part of the Greek empire from Seleucus Nicator to Antiochus Epiphanes (nearly all of whom are described in chapter 11), whereas Rome provided no such fulfilment. (7) The Greek empire was destroyed before Christ was glorified, whereas Rome was not (2:34, 35; 7:11, 13, 14; cf. the verses quoted earlier which show that the stone became a mountain and the one like a son of man received the kingdom at the time of the first advent. Note that the Roman empire reached its greatest extent and was at the zenith of its power during the reign of Trajan, many years after the time of Christ. At this time Christianity had already spread to most parts of the empire and far beyond.)
These conclusions are reinforced when we take chapters 8, 11 and 12 and other matters into consideration. I think, however, that enough has been written here to show that the case for identifying Daniel’s four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece is very strong indeed.
The link…https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-four-kingdoms-of-daniel-2-and-7/
It seems absurd to believe that it was lifted except for the kingdoms part.
Weird.
Is it worth addressing?
I think it defeats itself.
Is there any point?
I contend that just as Daniel talks about a king, and by association addresses the kingdom, so it would be for Revelation whether it was lifted from Daniel or based on the same truth as Daniel.
I think that answers your question.
What outstanding concerns do you have now?
It seems absurd to believe that it was lifted except for the kingdoms part.
Hi Proclaimer, I don’t know what is this (weight) lifting on Biblical texts. New Testament writers had lifted much from the Hebrew Bible to suit their agenda in this case the book of Revelation. This writer cleverly never quoted any writer of the Hebrew Bible but taken much from the book of Daniel. He was narrating about the Roman Empire and its Kings at the time of his writing. Your repeated arguments on Kingdoms and Kings is wasting much of our time instead please give your commentary based on the texts.
I guaranty you none of these writers foresaw our timeline 2021 or the distant future as they repeatedly cried out “time is short, time is near, at hand, these things going to take place soon, immediate Parousia of Jesus…so on and so forth”.
The rest are speculations by the conservatives…..
Hi Proclaimer, I don’t know what is this (weight) lifting on Biblical texts. New Testament writers had lifted much from the Hebrew Bible to suit their agenda in this case the book of Revelation. This writer cleverly never quoted any writer of the Hebrew Bible but taken much from the book of Daniel.
Okay. Further proof for you that the heads which are kings represent kingdoms.
As for the plagiarism charge. Well it is logical that two stories that are true will appear to be similar. Further, if Revelation was a scam, the writer got very lucky with the seven successive kingdoms.
- Egypt – 3100 to 677 BC (Genesis 12:10)
- Assyria – 677 to 626 BC (Genesis 2:14)
- Babylon – 626 – 539 BC (Daniel 1:1)
- Medo-Persia – 539 – 449 BC (Daniel 5:28)
- Greecia – 449 – 146 BC (Daniel 10:20)
- Rome – 146 BC-476 AD eastern leg / 1453 AD western leg or Byzantium (Daniel 9:26 & Romans 1-7)
- Ottoman – 1453 – 1924 AD (Future empire when Revelation was written, but historical empire today)
Further, if it was a scam, then why widen the scope? If it was kept within the scope of Daniel, then more chance that you and others could be fooled. Introducing a bigger picture means more scrutiny which is risky for any scammer.
Hi Proclaimer, it’s good idea to see that you are interpreting the texts. But I request you to restrict our debate to two books Daniel and Revelation.
Daniel is talking about kingdoms and so is Revelation.
Daniel is narrower in scope.
Revelation and knowledge increase with time.
And there is more to come.
Too many people live in the past.
You can send a letter if you want.
Or send an email or message on the Internet today.
The light is getting brighter for those with eyes to see.
So you have conceded that your two points are contradictory.
The more you hold onto them, the more you debunk your own arguments.
If you push argument 1, that debunks argument 2.
If you push argument 2, that debunks argument 1.
If you continue to argue both, then both are debunked at the same time.
You can’t hold onto both.
It would be good to know which of the two is more important to you.
I will then debunk it and then you have the choice to pick up the other argument when your chosen point has failed.
Who are the seven kings mentioned in the book of Revelation?
Rev 17:9-10
9 “This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, 10 of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while.
Here’s a decent analysis of the passage;
It is these seven kings that we want to deal with in this paper. Basically, there are three different interpretations that could be considered about who these seven kings are:
- Seven Individual Kings: This interpretation has a couple variations. Some try to identify seven individual emperors (a typical preterist view), and others seven individual popes.
- Seven Kingdoms: This interpretation typically identifies the first five kings either as being Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Pagan Rome, and Papal Rome; or as being Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece.
- Seven Forms of Roman Government: This interpretation typically identifies the first five kings as being five of the following forms of government: a) kings, b) consuls, c) dictators, d) decemvirate, e) military tribunes with consular power, and f) triumvira
The common view of critical scholarship is that the Revelation is a (Jewish) apocalypse, written circa AD 90-100. The beast which comes from the sea (chapter 13) or abyss (chapters 11, 17) is a symbol for the Roman Empire of the author’s day. The seven heads of the beast, which ‘are seven kings’, somehow represent Roman emperors.
By the late first century, the Nero Redivivus myth had emerged. In AD 68 the emperor Nero was declared an enemy of the empire. He subsequently stabbed himself in the neck and died, and he was quickly buried. But rumor arose that he hadn’t really died, but escaped to Parthia out east. Or perhaps he had died, but would come back from the dead. Either way, it was said he would one day return with an army from beyond the Euphrates to conquer Rome. This myth received moderate acceptance by Jews and Christians alike, and can be found in apocalyptic texts like the Sibylline Oracles.
Today’s scholars believe the Nero Redivivus legend is reflected, in part or in whole, in a handful of passages in the Revelation. Chapter 9 mentions an immense army coming from the east, beyond the Euphrates. Chapter 13 has one of the beast’s seven heads (which symbolize seven kings) fatally wounded by a sword, followed by the beast’s unexpected recovery. Chapter 16 again mentions armies from beyond the Euphrates gathered for war (though here it seems to be Rome doing the gathering). Chapter 17 mentions how one of the beast’s kings ‘was, is not, and will come’. And of course, the number of the beast’s name in chapter 13 is six hundred sixty-six, which equates to ‘Nero Caesar’ in gematria.
After that, the biggest contention is whether the revelator meant or cared to identify any other emperors. The argument against is that the number seven is simply symbolic, meant to represent the idea of the emperors, with Nero being singled out because he was the first to actually instigate a persecution of Christians in AD 64. However, the trend in apocalyptic literature has the authors thinking of specific rulers. Daniel 11 never names names, but is otherwise an obvious recap of specific kings of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. Fourth Ezra 11-12, written contemporary to the Revelation, symbolizes the Roman Empire as an eagle, and goes into detail about how its wings and feathers correspond to the line of emperors, going back to Julius Caesar. The Sibylline Oracles lists out the emperors (in isopsephy code) multiple times.
Because Revelation 17 specifies not just the number of ‘kings’, but also when they would told (five have already passed, the sixth is current, the seventh will rule only a short time), it seems the revelator does indeed have specific emperors in mind. On this side, the debate is whether the revelator intended to begin his count with Julius Caesar (as in other apocalyptic literature) or with Augustus (the first ‘official’ emperor), and whether he intended to skip certain emperors (e.g. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, who all died within a year after Nero’s suicide). Because Revelation 13 seems to depict the death of Nero, yet mentions the beast’s unexpected recovery — a true enough summary of the Year of the Four Emperors — he seems to be including the emperor who stabilized Rome, Vespasian.
At minimum, the revelator has in mind Nero, and possibly also Vespasian. Other than that, debate abounds even in critical scholarship.
One theory among many.
It doesn’t tick many if any boxes.
Do you have any other theories you want to propose or quote?
Most see the seven successive empires of history in that part of the world.
It fits nicely and of course would not have been an option for many who lived before this history or part of it.
Why the seven mountains are seven kingdoms
Mountains in the Old Testament of often kingdoms or empires. In Jeremiah. 51:25 we see that Babylon is called a mountain.
“I am against you, you destroying mountain…”
And in Ezekiel 35:2, we read:
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir, and prophesy against it, and say to it, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out my hand against you, land I will make you a desolation and a waste. I will lay your cities waste, and you shall become a desolation, and you shall know that I am the Lord.
Even in Daniel 2:35 we read about a huge mountain that filled the whole earth. No guesses as to what that is. Suffice to say it is a kingdom.
But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
And for further clarification, the Kingdom of Judah is often referred to as Mount Zion.
So there you have it Adam. The seven mountains are seven kingdoms.
I think we can put this one to bed now Adam.
Do you want me to debunk your other conflicting argument that Revelation was a scam that was lifted from the Book of Daniel? Or have you given up on that now?
One theory among many.
It doesn’t tick many if any boxes.
Do you have any other theories you want to propose or quote?
Most see the seven successive empires of history in that part of the world.
It fits nicely and of course would not have been an option for many who lived before this history or part of it.
Hi Proclaimer, yes there are plenty of theories in Christianity on these two books but one needs to see the theory nearer to the original text of the book. You deny the insights and interpretations given by the messenger in the visions of these books. For example Rev 17:9-10
9 “This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, 10 of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while.
You are avoiding the interpretation given by the writer himself in the particular context. This is what I am arguing here.
So there you have it Adam. The seven mountains are seven kingdoms.
I think we can put this one to bed now Adam.
Do you want me to debunk your other conflicting argument that Revelation was a scam that was lifted from the Book of Daniel? Or have you given up on that now?
Again you are misquoting my post on Daniel. Please read my posts on Dan 2, 7 and 11. You are not catching my point here. We have to see the writer’s mind in these texts based on the insights/interpretations given in those texts. I again quote Dan 2:
37 You, O king, the king of kings—to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom,
39 After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth. 40 And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; just as iron crushes and smashes everything, it shall crush and shatter all these.
44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever;
You need not search some where else to find their meaning here. The original texts contain the meaning and insights. I tell you there are no Seven Kingdoms in Daniel but it certainly talks about Four (world) Kingdoms. You can imagine any thing beyond this.
So there you have it Adam. The seven mountains are seven kingdoms
A mountain can mean so many things but we have to see what the writer intended us to infer. Rev 17:9-10 talks about ‘Heads=Mountains=Kings’
Rev 17:
9 “This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, 10 of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while.
I think we should stop this unending debate on convincing each other.
Mountains are kingdoms in scripture.
In case you had any doubt, in Revelation, the mountains are also kings.
So that is two very good reasons for believing that the heads are kingdoms.
Kings rule kingdoms after all.
Like Revelation, Daniel talks of a king and we know that the metals are referencing kingdoms.
So both Daniel and Revelation 13 and 17 are referencing kingdoms.
Enough said.
Case settled.
Arguing against this just looks desperate to me.
It is clear.
Move on.
You need not search some where else to find their meaning here. The original texts contain the meaning and insights. I tell you there are no Seven Kingdoms in Daniel but it certainly talks about Four (world) Kingdoms.
It is well understood that Daniel got a narrower view of said empires.
Revelation which is much later, has a wider scope.
It includes Daniel and looks beyond and even before.
A narrower view vs a wider view is not an issue for me as it seems to be for you.
Could I suggest that you move on as your own rules have no merit.
It is widely understood that the New Testament was later and so reveals more and places things in a greater context.
And your so-called proof or evidence that the New Testament is a scam has been debunked.
Do you have any points that have not been debunked yet?
I will gladly look at any new points you have that could be considered evidence for your view.
It is well understood that Daniel got a narrower view of said empires.
Revelation which is much later, has a wider scope.
It includes Daniel and looks beyond and even before.
A narrower view vs a wider view is not an issue for me as it seems to be for you.
Could I suggest that you move on as your own rules have no merit.
It is widely understood that the New Testament was later and so reveals more and places things in a greater context.
And your so-called proof or evidence that the New Testament is a scam has been debunked.
Do you have any points that have not been debunked yet?
Hi Proclaimer, finally you have come to conclusion that OT is narrower and the NT is wider.
OK please carry on. I am not here to prove or disprove any thing. I am only seeking the truth in these texts as the Christianity boasts about the greatness of these ancient writings and as if they were talking about our day/timeline.
Hi Proclaimer, finally you have come to conclusion that OT is narrower and the NT is wider.
Are you serious? What made you think I just concluded that? Certainly nothing I have said. It’s common knowledge. Everything I have said would not make a person think otherwise.
Yet somehow you thought otherwise. Weird. Your statements keep missing the mark Adam. Perhaps if you lose the bias and actually listen to others, you might actually learn something.
Let the truth win Adam. It’s not about you vs me. If I make a reasonable argument, then consider it. If I don’t, then reject it. I will do the same if you make a reasonable argument.
Until it’s refuted, it remains a possibility.
Further, it is common sense that the future gives you more insight and foresight as far as history goes.
A fool sees otherwise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
