Image of Daniel 2

[Johnny C]

Trying to peck a fight, Shep?..

[Shep]

As if I would....Us GRITS no when to hold em and fold em....and I ain't folding em yet....

[milleradam37]

dadad, as i pointed out, the image in Daniel 2 and the beasts from Daniel 7 are talking about the same thing. we know this because it even interprets who these empires are in Daniel 8, with the exception of Rome we are told who they are. as for the clay mentioned, it merely represents uncohesiveness of the empire. many have tried to unite the same land mass of the old roman empire under one ruler, hitler, napoleon, charlemagne, but without success. by this we know that there will never be europe under absolute control of a single monarch, other wise the vision would have said the toes or the feet we made solely out of clay. it says only that the kingdom(still talking about the iron kingdom) will be partly strong, partly broken, and will be divided into 10 parts, hence also the ten horns of the beast in Daniel 7. i do admit there are striking similarities to the lion being the national animal of brittian, the eagle the united states, the bear russia, the leopard possibly germany. however, russia is not an empire under a czar any longer, germany is not a superpower, there is no monarch that heads the uk any longer, in fact if there are kings they are extremely weak. (with the exception of our King) the prophecy also says "in the days of these kings" that Christ will set up His kingdom that will never be destroyed. well, there are no kings in power that reflect the above named nations at this time, they are all in our past. i would also like to point out, that Christ came to offer a kingdom to the jews at His first coming, but it wasnt what they were expecting. they thought they needed a deliverer from the romans, but He was offering deliverance from their sins! so, in that regard, what kingdom are we looking for? when pilate questioned our Lord, He said that His kingdom was Not of this world.

[DaDad]

dadad, as i pointed out, the image in Daniel 2 and the beasts from Daniel 7 are talking about the same thing. we know this because it even interprets who these empires are in Daniel 8, with the exception of Rome we are told who they are. as for the clay mentioned, it merely represents uncohesiveness of the empire. many have tried to unite the same land mass of the old roman empire under one ruler, hitler, napoleon, charlemagne, but without success. by this we know that there will never be europe under absolute control of a single monarch, other wise the vision would have said the toes or the feet we made solely out of clay. it says only that the kingdom(still talking about the iron kingdom) will be partly strong, partly broken, and will be divided into 10 parts, hence also the ten horns of the beast in Daniel 7. i do admit there are striking similarities to the lion being the national animal of brittian, the eagle the united states, the bear russia, the leopard possibly germany. however, russia is not an empire under a czar any longer, germany is not a superpower, there is no monarch that heads the uk any longer, in fact if there are kings they are extremely weak. (with the exception of our King) the prophecy also says "in the days of these kings" that Christ will set up His kingdom that will never be destroyed. well, there are no kings in power that reflect the above named nations at this time, they are all in our past. i would also like to point out, that Christ came to offer a kingdom to the jews at His first coming, but it wasnt what they were expecting. they thought they needed a deliverer from the romans, but He was offering deliverance from their sins! so, in that regard, what kingdom are we looking for? when pilate questioned our Lord, He said that His kingdom was Not of this world.

Hi MillerAdam37,
Please allow me to respond to some of your observations:

1. Daniel 2 and the beasts from Daniel 7 are talking about the same thing
This presumes the Daniel 2 FOUR world empire sequence.  Please explain verse 45 FIVE sequence.

2. these empires are in Daniel 8
I would suggest that this is more complicated than you portend. -- (I'd like to pass on this chapter in this discussion.)

3. kingdom(still talking about the iron kingdom) will be partly strong, partly broken, and will be divided into 10 parts
This is incorrect. The "partly strong, and partly broken" is a direct reference to the FEET. And the Feet will arrive to a 10 nation scenario.

4. hence also the ten horns of the beast in Daniel 7
... and also the ten horns of Rev. 13 and 17 ... (agreed)

5. the leopard possibly germany
Actually the Leopard is a Tiger*. And the Tiger is a symbol of far east Asia.

6. is not an empire
Superpowers constitute an "empire".

7. there are no kings in power
Modern governing authorities consititue "kings".

8. above named nations ... are all in our past
Actually, when the Messiah (capital "M") returns, he will throw the Dreadful beast into the pit, but the other three will regain their authority for "a season and a time", until the LORD completes the world re-organization into HIS governing structure.


* I would be glad to provide a substantiation to the leopard/tiger premise.

With Best Regards,
DaDad

[DaDad]

As if I would....Us GRITS no when to hold em and fold em....and I ain't folding em yet....

Hi Goodshepard55,
Please allow me to suggest that you ain't a holden em either.
With Best Regards,
DaDad

[Debz]

Dadad~

You asked for a response, so I will give you one. I can't speak for anyone else, here, so I won't. I can only speak for myself. This is not something I have researched, and to tell you the truth, it is not something I find that really matters to me. As many of you as wish to can feel free to argue over the image of Daniel, but I just don't find that it has, or will, make a difference in how I live my life, or a difference to my salvation. As for this:

And Debz, if I might:
Did any one is this forum suggest an alternate reason for the 4,3,5,2,1?
Did any one perform the thought experiment for 7:11-12?
Did any one suggest that the UN Permanent Membership on the Security Council was incorrect?
Did any one suggest that the Seven world empires was wrong?

So again, please tell me about the --thinking-- part, and how I was improper in my observation.

I have no idea if anyone else did such things, I know that I didn't, because the subject is irrelevant to me (Not that this portion of the Bible is irrelevant, but arguing over it is irrelevant). That doesn't mean I don't THINK. I just don't happen to want to think about the subject that you want to think about. I am a summa ***** laude college graduate, and a registered nurse, so I assure you that I possess critical thinking skills - I just prefer to use them on subjects that interest me. This particular one doesn't, and apparently, it doesn't interest very many others, or they would spend their time thinking about IT, instead of other subjects, on other threads. There is a lot of critical thinking going on in many of the threads on this site, so your blanket statement that no one here thinks is incorrect.

So, in a nutshell, your observation was improper because a) it was insulting, and b) it was incorrect. Generalizations tend to be incorrect, anyway, and this particular one was rude, because you don't know why people are not doing what you are asking them to do, you just assume that they don't do it because they are unable, rather than realizing that they are uninterested. And you know what they say about assume....

Anyway, this discussion has derailed your subject, so let's let it go, shall we? 

[DaDad]

Dadad~

You asked for a response, so I will give you one. I can't speak for anyone else, here, so I won't. I can only speak for myself. This is not something I have researched, and to tell you the truth, it is not something I find that really matters to me. As many of you as wish to can feel free to argue over the image of Daniel, but I just don't find that it has, or will, make a difference in how I live my life, or a difference to my salvation. As for this:

And Debz, if I might:
Did any one is this forum suggest an alternate reason for the 4,3,5,2,1?
Did any one perform the thought experiment for 7:11-12?
Did any one suggest that the UN Permanent Membership on the Security Council was incorrect?
Did any one suggest that the Seven world empires was wrong?

So again, please tell me about the --thinking-- part, and how I was improper in my observation.

I have no idea if anyone else did such things, I know that I didn't, because the subject is irrelevant to me (Not that this portion of the Bible is irrelevant, but arguing over it is irrelevant). That doesn't mean I don't THINK. I just don't happen to want to think about the subject that you want to think about. I am a summa ***** laude college graduate, and a registered nurse, so I assure you that I possess critical thinking skills - I just prefer to use them on subjects that interest me. This particular one doesn't, and apparently, it doesn't interest very many others, or they would spend their time thinking about IT, instead of other subjects, on other threads. There is a lot of critical thinking going on in many of the threads on this site, so your blanket statement that no one here thinks is incorrect.

So, in a nutshell, your observation was improper because a) it was insulting, and b) it was incorrect. Generalizations tend to be incorrect, anyway, and this particular one was rude, because you don't know why people are not doing what you are asking them to do, you just assume that they don't do it because they are unable, rather than realizing that they are uninterested. And you know what they say about assume....

Anyway, this discussion has derailed your subject, so let's let it go, shall we? 

Hi Debz,
Before we move too far, please be aware that this is not my first Post. I have interacted (a generous term) with some that have contributed to this specific Topic and associated discussion (another generous term).  -- Ref.: "What is meant by "the right hand", "the forehead", and "buy and sell" in Rev.13?", Post #15 - 24. -- In these communications (a generous term) I received flippant remarks from some of these same.

(Please note that Sonic.Faith was responsible in his ability to --think--.)

And again, I don't mind that MillerAdam37 prefers to address his audience as "good thinkers", but this has not been my experience in the broader context. However, I sincerely do encourage the respondents to carefully think through those points which I present, rather than default to some commentary which has inherent failures in this regard:

Did any one is this forum suggest an alternate reason for the 4,3,5,2,1?
Did any one perform the thought experiment for 7:11-12?
Did any one suggest that the UN Permanent Membership on the Security Council was incorrect?
Did any one suggest that the Seven world empires was wrong?

With Best Regards,
DaDad

[Debz]

Dadad... be blessed, my dear. 

[Ferg]

Good thinkers, we read that in this passage Daniel basically says, history looks like a statue. i am sure that if you are here that you are already familiar with what the image represents, babylon, persia, greece, and rome. my question is this, do you believe that 'the stone cut out without hands' has hit the image yet? If you believe that, give reasons, and if you dont, please explain as well. I am of the position that most of the prophecies in Revelation have already happened, (the beast of Rev 13 being the roman empire, the second beast like a lamb being the papcy, and the image of the beast being the holy roman empire starting with charlemagne, etc) remeber, that when this stone hits the image it begins the everlasting kingdom of Christ that shall never be destroyed. more to the point, do you believe that this kingdom began when Christ finished His work on the cross, or do you have an opinion that it is yet future?

A huge welcome to you milleradam37!

This kingdom began when Christ finished His work on the cross!

Hallelujah brother!!! Good to see you!

[Ferg]

Good thinkers, we read that in this passage Daniel basically says, history looks like a statue. i am sure that if you are here that you are already familiar with what the image represents, babylon, persia, greece, and rome. my question is this, do you believe that 'the stone cut out without hands' has hit the image yet? If you believe that, give reasons, and if you dont, please explain as well. I am of the position that most of the prophecies in Revelation have already happened, (the beast of Rev 13 being the roman empire, the second beast like a lamb being the papcy, and the image of the beast being the holy roman empire starting with charlemagne, etc) remeber, that when this stone hits the image it begins the everlasting kingdom of Christ that shall never be destroyed. more to the point, do you believe that this kingdom began when Christ finished His work on the cross, or do you have an opinion that it is yet future?

Simple-the future

Unless you get into a discussion with a group of Covenant Theologians who say that we are 'currently' in the Millenial Reign and Satan is 'bound'(with a tether ball cord), the stone smashes the toes and the entire statue falls to pieces. Earthly governments remain for a season and time but are under the Millenial Reign of Jesus, who will rule the nations with a 'rod of iron' from His physical and spiritual capitol of Jerusalem. His feet will have physically touched the Mount of Olives, since this is the context in which this passage is written, and it will be in the same manner in which He was taken up-meaning that His disciples saw Him raised into heaven, and He will return in the same fashion.

Sincerely,
FM

A "tether ball cord"? Do I detect a note of scorn here?

How do you understand the Davidic Covenant FM?

[DaDad]

Hi MillerAdam37,
Please allow me to respond to some of your observations:

1. Daniel 2 and the beasts from Daniel 7 are talking about the same thing
This presumes the Daniel 2 FOUR world empire sequence.  Please explain verse 45 FIVE sequence.

2. these empires are in Daniel 8
I would suggest that this is more complicated than you portend. -- (I'd like to pass on this chapter in this discussion.)

3. kingdom(still talking about the iron kingdom) will be partly strong, partly broken, and will be divided into 10 parts
This is incorrect. The "partly strong, and partly broken" is a direct reference to the FEET. And the Feet will arrive to a 10 nation scenario.

4. hence also the ten horns of the beast in Daniel 7
... and also the ten horns of Rev. 13 and 17 ... (agreed)

5. the leopard possibly germany
Actually the Leopard is a Tiger*. And the Tiger is a symbol of far east Asia.

6. is not an empire
Superpowers constitute an "empire".

7. there are no kings in power
Modern governing authorities consititue "kings".

8. above named nations ... are all in our past
Actually, when the Messiah (capital "M") returns, he will throw the Dreadful beast into the pit, but the other three will regain their authority for "a season and a time", until the LORD completes the world re-organization into HIS governing structure.


* I would be glad to provide a substantiation to the leopard/tiger premise.

With Best Regards,
DaDad

To All,
Boy, I sure raised a big stink when I adjured those in this forum to think, rather than recite. Unfortunatly, those words were apparently prophetic, as none have done so as of today.
With Best Regards,
DaDad

[ForceMajuere]

Simple-the future

Unless you get into a discussion with a group of Covenant Theologians who say that we are 'currently' in the Millenial Reign and Satan is 'bound'(with a tether ball cord), the stone smashes the toes and the entire statue falls to pieces. Earthly governments remain for a season and time but are under the Millenial Reign of Jesus, who will rule the nations with a 'rod of iron' from His physical and spiritual capitol of Jerusalem. His feet will have physically touched the Mount of Olives, since this is the context in which this passage is written, and it will be in the same manner in which He was taken up-meaning that His disciples saw Him raised into heaven, and He will return in the same fashion.

Sincerely,
FM

A "tether ball cord"? Do I detect a note of scorn here?

How do you understand the Davidic Covenant FM?

Yes.

Do you understand that when God says it is an "Everlasting Covenant", everlasting means everlasting?

Sincerely,
FM

[Ferg]

Ferg: Do I detect a note of scorn here?

FM:Yes.

Oh dear...

Pro 29:8 Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise men turn away wrath.

Ferg: How do you understand the Davidic Covenant FM?

FM: Do you understand that when God says it is an "Everlasting Covenant", everlasting means everlasting?

Of course, but to whom?

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Are you aware of the New Testament references to the Davidic Covenant...what the apostles preached about it?

[ForceMajuere]

Ferg: Do I detect a note of scorn here?

The next statement, which I responded to was:

Do you understand the Davidic Covenant FM?

To which I replied:

FM:Yes.

Ferg: How do you understand the Davidic Covenant FM?

FM: Do you understand that when God says it is an "Everlasting Covenant", everlasting means everlasting?

Of course, but to whom?

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Are you aware of the New Testament references to the Davidic Covenant...what the apostles preached about it?

How about this section:(Rom. 11:25-28)"For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is My Covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins. As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

Let's cut to the chase: I 'endured' an 800+ post on this issue with people who are absolutely sincere, but sincerely wrong.

Covenant Theology in it's essense basically says this: 1) Covenant of Works (Law), 2) Covenant of Grace (Faith).

Now, you have to know something of the history of Covenant Theology in order to realyze why it came into existence.

Yes, you could trace it's origins back to the early Church and the writings of Augustine.

But it was first articulated by Calvin and Zwingli, along with some very ascerbic references by Martin Luther as the Reformers sought to differentiate themselves from what had become Catholicism back in the 15th Century.

Their vehemence and rage against what had become the 'new' law was what motivated them to develop this Theology in the 1st place. Judaism held no particular sway over anyone; they kept to themselves and tried to avoid the various pograms and inquisitions that were held against them; they were of no consequence to the 15th century believer, except as some historical reference.

But 'the' church, as it had evolved over the previous centuries, had become effused with a 'works righteousness' doctrine, which doubted the individual's salvation, and made his road to heaven burdened with 'the works of the law', except a 'new' law which the church imposed on the believer under the pain of excommunication: it substituted a simple faith in God with a set of ordinances and precepts which obscured salvation and forced obediences to ordinances and laws which kept them in bondage to 'the works of the law', and apart from 'the obedience of faith.'

So this became the rallying cry of all Protestantism: Salvation by grace, through faith, apart from the 'works of the law', which were equated with the ordinances of Catholicism, as well as the Law of Moses. Their arguement was very simple: either you are under the 'law' or grace-there is no other choice. Paul's letter to the Galatians became a rallying cry to those who imposed mandatory obediences to the various decrees of the church at that time.

The Westminster Confession of Faith capsulated this doctrine, and various writers that followed developed an 'eschatology' for it. For example: if there is no more 'Covenant of Works', then there is no more people of the 'Covenant of Works'. In this way they could lump all the 'unsaved, apostate, "Church" with 'unsaved, apostate, "Israel".

There is one major problem with this doctrine, and all of it's eschatology hinges on it. There is no such thing as a 'Covenant of Works', or 'Covenant of Grace'. Indeed, those that propose this method have admitted that it is not stated as such, but implied, so therefore one may use 'figurative' interpretation to define the aspects of eschatology; as long as it relates to Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace.

The error is when you introduce "Covenant", indeed those Covenants made by God, they are ALL made by faith: you cannot separate 'Covenant of Works with Covenant of Grace'-both 'Covenants are made by faith, and therefore imply grace. Abraham's Covenant was made by faith; and every Covenant that preceded or followed was made by faith. God has not revoked any of His Covenants; He says they are "Everlasting" and when He says "Everlasting" He means "Everlasting". The Davidic Covenant says that He will raise up a King to rule in His place forever, and that King is certainly Jesus, this is the context of Isa. 9:7, Ps. 2:6-7, Ps. 132.

But God never 'vacates' a previous Covenant to make a New Covenant, rather, He fulfills it. "Think that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."(Matt. 5:17-18) Christ is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacrifices; He is the One and Only sacrifice for sin.

That's because Covenant=Promise, and God does not revoke His Promises, regardless of our disobedience. They are made 'none-effect' because of our disobedience, but He does not revoke them. Blessings, on the other hand, are a result of our obedience; curses, are a result of our disobedience.But He doesn't revoke the Promise, especially to His Covenant people who, time after time, He reminds them of His Everlasting Covenant with Him.

Sincerely,
FM

[ForceMajuere]

Did any one is this forum suggest an alternate reason for the 4,3,5,2,1?
Did any one perform the thought experiment for 7:11-12?
Did any one suggest that the UN Permanent Membership on the Security Council was incorrect?
Did any one suggest that the Seven world empires was wrong?

With Best Regards,
DaDad

1) Yes-It doesn't matter. What DaDad is focusing on is the 'order' of the destruction of the Statue of Nebuchadnezzer and implicit in his question is that the 'values' assigned(gold, silver, brass, iron, clay) are deliberately re-assigned their order of destruction so as to imply another meaning of which he furthur fathoms as regarding our geopolitical situation today.

The picture from Daniel 2:34 is clear,"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces." The stone is obviously Christ; the mountain that fills the whole earth is His Church-the comparison is between 2 Spiritual Kingdoms; 1) The glorious return of Christ and reign of the Kingdom of God, starting at Israel and reigning throughout the whole earth, and 2) The present reign of the Spiritual Kingdom of the Anti-christ, which is currently going on but started at Babylon and encompasses the whole earth. The purpose of assigning value in consecutive order is for God to show what progression of these kingdoms that are raised up contribute to the overall 'spiritual' development of this 'kingdom', not to assign geo-political value to their current influence. The fact is: the 'stone' smashes the feet-more specifically the 'toes', and it ALL falls down! In the dust particles are elements of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay, but it doesn't matter at this point because they are of no influence and the 'wind' carries them away.

2) As to the 5=4 arguement: the point of extrapolation becomes the 'clay' element which doesn't correspond to a 'beast' of Daniel, so therefore DaDad is free to assign a current 'geo-political' alignment based on the exclusion of this element.

Not so.

He is correct in as far as Daniel isn't shown the 'beast' that follows Rome, which is what John saw(Rev. 17:10),"And there are seven kings, five are fallen, and one is(Rome), and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue  a short space."

I believe that this describes the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither 'holy', nor 'roman', nor an 'empire', but predominated over the nations that were separated over the fall of Rome until WWII; after which the vast majority of the crowned heads of Europe were removed that intermarried to try to preserve this unity-this is the reason for the clay and iron because although it maintained some of the characteristics of Roman rule(common language, law, central governance, body of learning) it did not retain the stregnth of Rome; as the colonies became nations they saw eye to eye on things less and less, and even though inter-marriage forced them to unite for diplomatic reasons, it failed fo force the unity that was needed to maintain an 'empire' and frequent wars were the outcome.

I believe that God didn't reveal this 'kingdom' to him because of the confusion in describing it; anyway, what God did tell him about was the 4th beast which was Rome, and the 10 'horns' which were colonies of Rome that became independant after the fall of Rome. They 'grow' out of the head of the 4th beast, meaning that they were from the direct influence of Rome.

This rules out China, India, Malaysia, etc., who's cultures pre-existed before Rome and were not of any direct influence from Rome, with the exception that they all model certain values that that the 'beast' has which were given it by Rome.

3) and 4) Since we are talking about a Spiritual Kingdom, admittance(or non-admittance) to the Security Coucil is immaterial; to 'hypothesize' that one or the other nation is contained in the 'Statue' or the 'horns' based on a geo-political reading of today's world has no bearing.

5) The one exception is the US, and I will close for now.

Sincerely,
FM