Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Opinion|Thu, Aug. 20 2009 01:05 PM EDT

Is Obama the Antichrist?

By CP Guest Contributor|Dr. Daniel B. Wallace

More than one Christian friend has suggested to me, in all seriousness, that President Obama is the Antichrist. I haven’t taken such suggestions too seriously, but recently a video has shown up on Youtube that seems to claim that Jesus identified Obama as the Antichrist. Some Christians have been startled by this (and the video is wildly popular) and believe that the evidence is compelling. The video is found here.

  • obama antichrist
    This frame grab image was taken from a video posted on YouTube which suggests that U.S. President Barack Obama is the Antichrist.

The anonymous narrator introduces his provocative four-minute video by asking if Jesus identified the name of the Antichrist, then says, “I will report the facts; you can decide” (reminiscent of Greta Van Susteren’s tagline on her show on Fox News). The narrator then notes that in Luke 10.18, Jesus says, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan falling from the heavens.”

He then begins to link several hypotheses together. First, he claims that Luke 10.18 was written originally in Greek, but that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, “which is the most ancient form of Hebrew.” Second, he observes that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and claims that the Aramaic that Jesus spoke would have been quite similar to the Hebrew that is spoken today and, presumably, similar to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Third, he then says that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew, and retranslates the text as follows: “I saw Satan falling as lightning from the heights, or from the heavens.” Fourth, he discusses the Hebrew words for ‘lightning’ and ‘heights.’ He notes that the word for ‘lightning’ is baraq. Fifth, he claims that Isaiah is the source of the Christian understanding of Satan or ‘Lucifer’ (Isa 14.12 in the KJV). Sixth, Isa 14.14 has Satan say, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” Seventh, the Hebrew word in Isa 14.14 for ‘heights’ is bamaw, and this is surely what ‘heavens’ means in Luke 10.18. Eighth, the Hebrew letter waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. Ninth, the waw is used in Hebrew as a conjunction. Tenth, in Hebrew poetry baraq obamah literally is translated “lightning and the heights” or “lightning from the heights.” Eleventh, if Jesus’ words in Luke 10.18 were spoken in Hebrew by a Jewish Rabbi today he would say, “And I saw Satan as baraq ubamah.” He concludes his narration by asking, “Did Jesus reveal the name of the Antichrist? I report; you decide.” There is a disclaimer at the end of the video that simply says the correlation is striking, but not that the narrator is claiming that the President is the Antichrist.

This video was followed up by another by the same narrator. You can see it here.

It essentially argues the same point, but changes a couple of points (without warrant).

What can we say about these videos and the linguistic argument used? Of the eleven points noted above, the fourth and eighth are the only ones that are indisputable: the Hebrew word for lightning is baraq; and the waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. The seventh point comes close to being correct: the Hebrew word for height is bamah, but the plural is used in Isa 14.14, bamot (pronounced baw-moat). As for the rest of the points, some are debatable, while others are factually wrong. Taking them in order: (1) It is debatable whether Jesus spoke most of the time in Aramaic; he may have done much of his teaching in Greek. It is also not true that Aramaic is the oldest form of Hebrew. (2) and (3) A sleight of hand has occurred here: First, it is claimed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but then it is claimed that he spoke in Hebrew. Which is it? Although the characters for both languages are the same, the vocabulary has some key differences, especially in vowel points but also often in the very consonants used. (5) and (6) Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan. The Hebrew word, helel means ‘morning star’ or ‘shining one.’ Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have ‘shining one,’ ‘day star,’ ‘morning star,’ etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king. (9) This is true, but irrelevant. To have the idea of ‘lightning from the heights’ would normally require a preposition, not a conjunction (see next point). (10) It seems to be an illegitimate leap to say ‘lightning and the heights’ means the same thing as ‘lightning from the heights.’ Indeed, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word that means ‘from’: min. But that would produce baraq min-bamot. It’s getting more difficult to see the validity of the narrator’s linguistic points. (11) When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didn’t speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean ‘lightning from the heights.’ Baraq ubamah means ‘lightning and height.’ But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean. This is hardly a case of “I report; you decide.” It is rather a case of “I’ll tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.” Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If Obama is the Anti-Christ then I have lost all fear of Satan, the man should be referred to as President Fumbler.

    The left loves him, but even that is starting to fade.

    Now as forerunner, that's a different story, I can surely see this man worshiping the Anti-Christ if he were to show up.

  • Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:22 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    You said, “We must make sure that we are in agreement on just one position...that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”

    On this we agree!


    You also said, “It is His return that we look forward to more than any Antichrist.”

    Again, I agree but in the context of our discussions I never suggested that His return was less than the Antichrist . . . Thanks for sharing.

    Peace

  • Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have said...
    "Until you can demonstrate a similar example from Scripture and its interpretative meaning in relation to the Empires you mentioned, I am inclined to hold the interpretative view that has long been established."

    Unfortunately I have other studies in my life that consume my time. This discussion cannot continue to be one of those at this time.

    My brother, you must follow what the Holy Spirit has shown you and not what man is trying to convey.

    We must make sure that we are in agreement on just one position...that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

    It is His return that we look forward to more than any AntiChrist.

  • Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:53 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Antichrist identified:

    www.redmoonrising.com/maitreya.htm
    www.theophilos.3x.ro/Biblioteca/Carti/ONLINE/New%20Age%20dintr-o%20perspectiva%20biblica/Un%20Cristos%20fals.html
    www.letusreason.org/Nam%2037.htm
    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya
    www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Creme_Maitreya.htm
    www.amazingdiscoveries.org/the-new-age-movement-and-maitreya.html
    www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/maitreya_or_antichrist.htm
    www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm323221.html
    www.mucenicul.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/benjamin-creme-maitreya-si-maestrii-intelepciunii/
    www.skepticfiles.org/xhate/newage.htm
    www.letusreason.org/NAM19.htm
    www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Alice_Bailey.htm
    www.lermanet.com/rainbow-swaztika/naC.htm
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YKrY_MWB5w
    www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a49a4c296c735c32c867
    www.skepticfiles.org/ignor/naconspr.htm
    www.exposingdeceptions.org/newage.html
    www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3924304351562745462&ei
    www.saccsiv.wordpress.com/
    www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/8983

  • Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    If enough good people pray to transform this administration, good will win out.

    The most potent way to fight in the great duality battle of the light verses the darkness is to remain in the body of light in God's grace. God's will is God's will; if these are end times which I do not believe they are, we can change the world for the good even still. Our highest spiritual task seems to be to remain in the neutral spiritual center of this great duality, right in the midst of the storm, where great will power and leverage can be exerted to influence for the good and to dominate for the good.

    (1) Commit your soul: "I commit my myself to God's will. I place myself in his hands."

    (2) Purify with prayer: "Devine mind, source of all, assist me in this work of purification of thought, word, and deed, so that I will awaken to the innermost depts of my being the and achieve perfection in the call for devine light to shine into the minds of men and God's love to stream forth into the hearts of men."

    (3) Will: "May Christ return to earth. Seal the door where evil dwells." ..... (Mentally picture a great celestial door being sealed with a great arc of light you control).

    (4) Use Imagination: One of the greatest powers is our imagination. Flood a mental image of the earth in the great purging white light of truth and love, power and energy from the Sun to the Moon, picture a triangle of white light beaming one from the Sun on the right and one beaming down from the moon on the left, each interconnected to a point on the top of your head, then entering the top of your head and running down your spin and radiating white light energy out your body in all directions, and purging your body and the earth. As the white energy pushes out and purges evil, picture a great fire incinerating evil as it is purged, yet protecting the good and keeping the resonant energy of love everywhere in everything.

    The foregoing is a powerful image that alters realities in ways men do not yet understand. Use the power in humble spirit in the secrecy of your mind for God's plan not your plan.

    (5) Give Thanks: "God, thank you for this awareness and experience and ways in which my life serves your purpose on earth."

    (6) I personally repeat a motto from time to time to maintain some level of courage in the face of danger; it strengthens me. It goes: Be fearless, be humble, be loving, seek truth.

    These are not intended to be easy perspectives, necessarily. But they do transform.

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    Again, I have allowed the text of Scripture to describe in detail those kingdoms which history accurately affirms. Until you can demonstrate a similar example from Scripture and its interpretative meaning in relation to the Empires you mentioned, I am inclined to hold the interpretative view that has long been established. Anything less than a detailed interpretation from the text of Scripture (using the language of the text itself) becomes nothing more than guesswork and assumptions. I need a detailed account using the language of Scripture and its application to the Ottoman and Turkish Empires to be convinced my friend.

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have stated...
    "You said, "At this point king Neb has already been."

    Again, this chapter refers to kingdoms; I have given ample evidence from Scripture and history . . . Can you please do the same by giving a detailed account from the language of Scripture and apply to who you think they represent?"

    My question does not refer to the definition of kings or kingdoms. It refers to a timeline.

    If King Neb is the first Beast mentioned in the vision in chapter 7, why isn't this told to Danial during the interpretation in chapter 7 as it was in chapter 2?

    Answer...because King Neb is not the first beast described in Danial 7.

    Who is the first beast in chapter 7?

    If we believe that Rome was the fourth Beast in chapter 2, then we must look at the next empire that would have had a very similiar influence as Rome. This would clearly be the Ottoman/Muslim Empire which reigned over the East and West divided kingdom and then some.

    But, again, there is a problem because of a fifth king that is described as already having been before the end of Rome.

    So is Rome truly the fourth beast described in Danial chapter 2?

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You said, "At this point king Neb has already been."

    Again, this chapter refers to kingdoms; I have given ample evidence from Scripture and history . . . Can you please do the same by giving a detailed account from the language of Scripture and apply to who you think they represent?

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    As I mentioned earlier; chapter seven is a reiteration of chapter two with additional information. I have taken the opportunity to give a detailed account of how those kingdoms directly harmonize with the text of chapter 7. Again, can you take the very descriptive language from that chapter and apply it to the Ottoman, Turkish, or any other Empires?

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have stated...
    "Verse 17 tells us that these four great beasts represent kings from the earth"

    Dan 7:17 These four great beasts are four kings; they shall arise out of the earth.

    Verse 17 says more than just describing four great beasts as kings of the earth. It says that these kings shall arise out of the earth.

    It does not say that the first king has already arisen and three are yet to come.

    It says that four shall arise. This vision follows the vision given to King Neb, it does not precede it.

    At this point king Neb has already been.

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have stated...
    "Remember that in Daniel 2 there was no mention of or introduction of the little horn that would “speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 25). This language is what bothered Daniel so much . . . "

    Your comment here is a direct repeat of my own.
    These discriptions were not given in chapter 2 because they did not apply to the Old Testament Kings.

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You said, “The fourth Beast bothered Danial very much. Why wasn't this the case with either Danial or King Neb during the first vision?”


    Remember that in Daniel 2 there was no mention of or introduction of the little horn that would “speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 25). This language is what bothered Daniel so much . . .

    So, again; the detailed language in these texts must be recognized and applied to our interpretations of the book of Daniel. With that being said; can you reapply this language to the Ottoman/Islamic Empires and Turkey? How do these kingdoms fit these biblical descriptions?

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “Please provide your thoughts on the following verses: Dan 7:17 these four great beasts are four kings; they shall arise out of the earth.”


    Verse 17 tells us that these four great beasts represent kings from the earth. We need to be aware that the scriptures’ use of kings and kingdoms are considered synonymous. For example, in Daniel 2:38 we see that Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold in the dream. However, Nebuchadnezzar was the representation of the kingdom of Babylon, for the rest of the interpretation describes world empires.

    Also, Daniel sees this vision in the days of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, it makes logical sense that the first beast refers to Babylon, as the first image in Daniel 2 also referred to Babylon. Further, there are many prophetic references to Babylon being called a lion (Jeremiah 4:7; 49:19, 22; 50:17, 44) and an eagle (Jeremiah 49:22; Lamentations 4:19; Ezekiel 17:3; and Habakkuk 1:8).

  • Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4him

    For the moment, I would ask that you indulge me.

    Please provide your thoughts on the following verses:

    Dan 7:17 These four great beasts are four kings; they shall arise out of the earth.

    Why wasn't Danial told that the first Beast already was?

    Dan 7:28 Here is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my thoughts troubled me much, and my face changed on me. But I kept the matter in my heart.

    The fourth Beast bothered Danial very much. Why wasn't this the case with either Danial or King Neb during the first vision?

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Now, what about the four headed Leopard? The language in the text reads: “After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it” (Daniel 7:6).

    History records that Greece conquered the Medo-Persian Empire; so, this four headed Leopard represents Greece. After Alexander the great passed away his kingdom was divided into four provinces; his four generals Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus represented by the four heads each ruled part of the Greek empire.

    So, we must allow the texts of Scripture to describe these powers instead of randomly taking powers and imposing them into the text. This is very important.

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I have already mentioned from Scripture what Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel said regards to Babylon and its demise at the hands of the Medes/Persians. So, according to what some have proposed, the Bear is the Medo-Persian Empire; notice the how the language appropriately describes this kingdom.

    “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh” (Daniel 7:5).

    First, notice the bear was rasied up itself on one side, what does this mean? Together the Medes and Persians ruled after Babylon, in fact, it was under the Medes that Babylon was conquered. However, under Cyrus, a Persian king, the Persian division of the empire eventually became more powerful through the rest of its dominion. This seems to be the meaning of the bear raised up on one side. This also parallels Daniel 8 with the two horned ram (Medo-Persia) and the one horned he-goat (Greece); it is said that one horn was higher than the other (Daniel 8:20-21). The three ribs in the bears mouth denotes three major powers that the Medo-Persians conquered-Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “You have me very confused.”

    Sorry about that; I do respect your reasons though I may disagree with them. I know that you believe that the kingdoms in Daniel 7 refer to future kings but I have been trying to demonstrate from the Scriptures that these kingdoms are the same as those in Daniel 2. This is why I wanted to slow down a bit and consider the actual language used in the texts before moving on to Revelation.

    Let’s start from scratch again; I am proposing that these chapters are describing the same kingdoms, which is why I asked for your interpretation for the Lion and the Bear. I know that you said that the Lion was the Ottoman/Islamic Empires and the Bear may be associated with Turkey. If this is true; the language in these texts should appropriately have significant meaning to these powers that you mentioned. How do you make this connection? Indulge me for a bit as I propose how the language in the text actually highlights the kingdom it is referring to.

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4him

    You have me very confused.
    Everything you have described in your latest comments seems to refer to the kings of the Old Testament. This is what is described in Danial 2.

    I have not suggested that I am in any disagreement with the assessent of the kings in Danial 2. I have suggested that I am in disagreement that the kings described in Danial 7 are the same. And I have provided scriptural reasoning for this.

    Appearently you have more extensive knowledge on the symbolism and how it it used throughout the various kingdoms. This is good and I trust this helps you to have greater faith in the scriptures.

    But if you are going to ask for the same analysis from me, I cannot provide such details. Like you, I must rely on those who claim to be gifted with the understanding of these matters.

    But where I clearly see a problem with an interpretation based on what scripture says, I must question it.

    If you wish to believe that the Roman Catholic church is the AntiChrist spoken of in Revelations, there are two problems with this thinking that I can immediately point out.

    One is that the AntiChrist rules over a Kingdom but is not defined as the kingdom itself, and that the AntiChrist is only given a short time to reign on earth.

    Most certainly the Roman Catholic church has been around for centuries.

    These are the reasonings I have. Unless I have seriously misunderstood something you have said, I would only ask you to respect these reasonings.

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jeremiah 51:10-12 says, 10. “The Lord hath brought forth our righteousness: come, and let us declare in Zion the work of the Lord our God. 11. Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple. 12. Set up the standard upon the walls of Babylon, make the watch strong, set up the watchmen, prepare the ambushes: for the Lord hath both devised and done that which he spake against the inhabitants of Babylon.”


    You said, “The Bear may be associated with Turkey.”

    Can you explain how this language (. . . And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: . . . - Daniel 7:5) applies to Turkey?

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel tells us who conquered Babylon:

    “Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5:28).

    Isaiah 13 says, 17. “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. 19. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 20. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. 21. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and Satyrs shall dance there. 22. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged” (Isaiah 13:17-22).

  • Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “Nonetheless, the Ottoman/Islamic Empires are believed to be the Lion. The East and West represent the two wings. The Bear may be associated with Turkey. The Leopard and Fourth Beast would not yet be revealed.”


    By quickly moving into Revelation 17 we are bypassing some key information in Daniel; again, let’s review these texts in their entirety and its language before moving on. The Scriptures actually give us the identity of this Lion; Jeremiah says . . .

    “Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones” (Jeremiah 50:17).

    Note: In the Babylonian religion the winged-lion represented their chief deity Bel/Marduk. Sculptures of winged lions were present in ancient Babylon. It is known that the winged lion was the national symbol of the empire. Therefore, in the vision given to Daniel the winged-lion was an appropriate representation of ancient Babylon.

  • Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "Exactly; this proves my point, you continue to avoid giving an alternative interpretation for Daniel 7. Giving the proper exegesis of these specific texts is what I am referring to; evading the text gets us nowhere. Let’s zero in on these texts by addressing the Lion, Bear, Leopard, the four beast and its horns. For starters, explain the Lion which had two wings . . . "

    I did not realize that you were taking this discussion to this level. You had commented earlier that my argument suggests eight kings as opposed to the popular thinking of four.

    You wanted proof of this so I was using the vision in Revelations 17:10 to show the description of eight kings.

    The problem is that this same vision was recorded around 100AD. The Roman Empire had not yet fallen and yet, according to the vision, five of the eight kings had already fallen.

    Nonetheless, the Ottoman/Islamic Empires are believed to be the Lion. The East and West represent the two wings.

    The Bear may be associated with Turkey. The Leopard and Fourth Beast would not yet be revealed.

    Again, the problem is in the timeline presented in Revelations 17:10. I have yet to read an author who can explain the fifth fallen king.

  • Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “Although this does not come from Danial directly, I believe this to be supportive scripture for what is explained in Danial.”

    Exactly; this proves my point, you continue to avoid giving an alternative interpretation for Daniel 7. Giving the proper exegesis of these specific texts is what I am referring to; evading the text gets us nowhere. Let’s zero in on these texts by addressing the Lion, Bear, Leopard, the four beast and its horns. For starters, explain the Lion which had two wings . . .

    You said, “Please provide your own thoughts and not those of the scholars and commentators that you have heard.”

    I’d love to after you to explain the language used in Daniel 7 and apply it to your future kings.

  • Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    you have commented...
    "Not so; you have only dismissed what I have proposed without giving an alternative biblical explanation for Daniel 7. I have shared that most scholars agree that Daniel 7 is a reiteration of chapter 2 with additional information, I pointed out that Daniel 2 specifically mentions four kingdoms before the Lord sets up His kingdom, and I have asked you to explain the language used in Daniel 7 and apply it to your future kings. You have not done so; I am not the one avoiding something . . ."

    Again, please consider the following....
    Mat 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

    Mar 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God draws near. Repent, and believe the gospel.

    1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time. And just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have risen up, from which we know that it is the last hour.

    Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings; five have fallen, and one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
    Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition.


    This is a timeline provided by the following scriptures. Especially note what is stated in Revelations.

    Although this does not come from Danial directly, I believe this to be supportive scripture for what is explained in Danial.

    Please provide your own thoughts and not those of the scholars and commentators that you have heard.

  • Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “You asked me to prove my argument and I have begun doing this, but you continue to take the discussion back to Danial as though you may be trying to avoid something.”

    Not so; you have only dismissed what I have proposed without giving an alternative biblical explanation for Daniel 7. I have shared that most scholars agree that Daniel 7 is a reiteration of chapter 2 with additional information, I pointed out that Daniel 2 specifically mentions four kingdoms before the Lord sets up His kingdom, and I have asked you to explain the language used in Daniel 7 and apply it to your future kings. You have not done so; I am not the one avoiding something . . .


    You said, “Yes, this will happen. But God's Kingdom is already here and was established on earth by Christ 2000 years ago in the days of the Roman Empire.”

    Incorrect; the gospel was given to preach to the world with the emphasis of God’s coming kingdom; it is not here and now. Again, you ignore the actual text of Scripture; it clearly states the God's coming kingdom will break and consume all earthly kingdom. This has not happened.


    You said, “We don't know if Babylon is literal or figurative in Revelations.”

    Again, Scripture has already explicitly stated that Babylon would never be inhabited or rebuilt; you cannot simply ignore this. So, basically what you are saying is that Jeremiah was wrong . . . I think not.

  • Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "You are jumping ahead again; we have been specifically discussing the identities of these four kingdoms not the antichrist. As Scripture foretold, the fourth kingdom would be divided and THEN the antichrist would rise"

    While we agree on the identity of the kingdoms mentioned in Danial 2, and we agree that the Roman Empire was the fourth kingdom mentioned in Danial 2, we do not agree that the Roman Empire is part of the vision described in Danial 7.

    You asked me to prove my argument and I have begun doing this, but you continue to take the discussion back to Danial as though you may be trying to avoid something.

    You have also commented...
    " God will create a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1) which means all of these earthly kingdoms will be no more."

    Yes, this will happen. But God's Kingdom is already here and was established on earth by Christ 2000 years ago in the days of the Roman Empire.

    The events in Revelations happen at the time of the AntiChrist. This is what Danial 7 talks about, not Danial 2.

    You have also commented...
    "Incorrect; it has been fulfilled. In present day Iraq where the ancient city of Babylon once stood, it is an archeological tourist site; not a city where people are living and it is definitely not the spiritual capital of the world"

    Not at this current time. But this is what we are watching for. We don't know if Babylon is literal or figurative in Revelations.

  • Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “What kind of Kingdom do believe God set up?”

    “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44) . . . . God will create a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1) which means all of these earthly kingdoms will be no more.

    You said, “How then can it be true that Rome is the final Kingdom?”

    You are jumping ahead again; we have been specifically discussing the identities of these four kingdoms not the antichrist. As Scripture foretold, the fourth kingdom would be divided and THEN the antichrist would rise.

    You said, “It is obvious that the prophecy of Jeremiah is not yet fulfilled.”

    Incorrect; it has been fulfilled. In present day Iraq where the ancient city of Babylon once stood, it is an archeological tourist site; not a city where people are living and it is definitely not the spiritual capital of the world.

  • Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "Christ has not come and consumed all these kingdoms . . ."

    What kind of Kingdom do believe God set up?
    Or do you believe God's Kingdom is here?

    You have also commented...
    "You are mistaken; in the context of these chapters … All of the before mentioned names held to the same four kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome; etc) of Daniel 2 & 7."

    The reign of the AntiChrist is just a few short years. How then can it be true that Rome is the final Kingdom?

    You have also commented...
    "Babylon of Revelation can never be a rebuilt city in modern day Iraq because Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would be a desolation forever (Jer. 51:62) and that it would never be inhabited (Jer. 50:39). Again, let’s try to stay in Daniel before moving to Revelation . . .

    It is obvious that the prophecy of Jeremiah is not yet fulfilled. The city of Babylon is inhabited. Not as it once was, but it is inhabited. In fact, the United States military has a base located in Babylon which has been of great concern to many in that region.

    This is why many scholars are having to think twice if they believed that Babylon was completely crushed following the captivity of Israel.

  • Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You said, “God's Kingdom on earth begins with Christ. He is the head of the Kingdom.”

    Sorry, you are not reading Daniel 2 in its context and the other passages you posted do not apply to Daniel 2 at all. The entire verse (44) reads: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” Christ has not come and consumed all these kingdoms . . .


    You said, “What these men believe in is the return of Babylon or a symbolic Babylon.”

    You are mistaken; in the context of these chapters … All of the before mentioned names held to the same four kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome; etc) of Daniel 2 & 7.


    You said, “There is more proof today that the old ancient city is being rebuilt.”

    Babylon of Revelation can never be a rebuilt city in modern day Iraq because Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would be a desolation forever (Jer. 51:62) and that it would never be inhabited (Jer. 50:39). Again, let’s try to stay in Daniel before moving to Revelation . . .

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "Most throughout history have tied the vision of Daniel 2 with the vision of Daniel 7 in all respects; this has been the view of the early Church Fathers (see http://biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htm), John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Marin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Jan Huss, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, H. Grattan Guinness, C.H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E.B. Elliot, Bishop Thomas Newton, and countless others . . ."

    What these men believe in is the return of Babylon or a symbolic Babylon. There is more proof today that the old ancient city is being rebuilt. That is what these gentlemen will agree with.

    But if Babylon is restored, it will replace the United States as the economic center of the world. So the United States must fall when the AntiChrist comes on the seen.

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "...and “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom” (verse 44). . . .

    Please consider the following....
    "Mat 12:28 No, it is not Beelzebul, but God's Spirit, who gives me the power to drive out demons, which proves that the Kingdom of God has already come upon you."

    1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time. And just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have risen up, from which we know that it is the last hour.

    God's Kingdom on earth begins with Christ. He is the head of the Kingdom. This is the timeline suggested in Danial chapter 2. During the days of these other Kingdoms will come the Kingdom of God.

    But as we in 1 John, we are still awaiting The AntiChrist who will receive powers and authority not from man, but from Satan also known as the Great Dragon in Revelations.

    The stage is being set, but the AntiChrist is not yet on the seen. And once he is, it will only be for a short time.

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    I apologize if you thought that I was angry; I was not; the reason for capitalizing my question was to highlight the obvious fact that in the context of Daniel 2 only FOUR kingdoms were to arise followed by the Lord setting up his kingdom. Daniel begins by telling Nebuchadnezzar (verse 38) that he is the head of gold (1-Babylon), “after thee shall arise another kingdom” (2-Medo-Persia, verse 39), “and another third kingdom” (3-Greece, verse 39), “And the fourth kingdom” (4-Rome, verse 40), and this fourth kingdom would be “divided” (Europe, verse 41), and “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom” (verse 44). . . .

    As you can see, in the context of this chapter there are a total of four kingdoms with the fourth being divided followed by the Lord setting up His kingdom; not eight kingdoms as you propose. I am surprised to hear you say “In all my years of bible study regarding Danial, I have never heard or read that the vision in Chapter 7 ties to the vision in chapter 2 in all respects.”

    Most throughout history have tied the vision of Daniel 2 with the vision of Daniel 7 in all respects; this has been the view of the early Church Fathers (see http://biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htm), John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Marin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Jan Huss, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, H. Grattan Guinness, C.H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E.B. Elliot, Bishop Thomas Newton, and countless others . . .

    So, I am very surprised that you have not heard this before . . . .

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "Oh, by the way, you still have not answered this question: “Also, the LORD himself made it clear that from his (Daniel’s) time forward there would only be FOUR kingdoms until the Lord’s Kingdom comes; HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? . . .”

    I did not mean any disrespect in not answering this question. I am not able to locate in Daniel where the Lord made such a statement and you have not provided a verse for reference.

    Also, the use of the capital letters in your comment suggest frustration and perhaps anger. My apologies if any of my comments or reasoning suggest that I am not taking this discussion seriously.

    In all my years of bible study regarding Danial, I have never heard or read that the vision in Chapter 7 ties to the vision in chapter 2 in all respects. There are similiarities, but the concrete proof says otherwise.

  • Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "You claim that the prophecies of Daniel 7 are for our current time without giving any sound explanation for this proposal"

    Please consider the following:
    Dan 7:17 These four great beasts are four kings; they shall arise out of the earth.

    Dan 7:25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and plot to change times and laws. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and one-half time.

    It is very clear that verse 17 does not allow us to tie the vision in chapter 7 to the one in chapter 2. The verse says that four Beasts shall arise. It does not say one has already arisen and three remain.

    In the interprepation given to Danial in chapter 7, there is nothing to suggest that King Neb is the first Beast described in this vision.

    Also, consider how different Danial's demeanor is in the second vision as compared to the one in chapter 2. He has clearly seen something far more distressing.

    Verse 25 clearly explains an event that we find described in Revelations. This fourth Beast will be aloowed to overcome the Saints for the same period of time mentioned in Revelations.

    This ties this vision in Chapter 7 to our current day.

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,

    You claim that the prophecies of Daniel 7 are for our current time without giving any sound explanation for this proposal. Please, give the proper interpretation or application for this chapter since you say it applies to our day. It seems that you are bent on questioning and dismissing what most have already concluded to be the same kingdoms without giving any alternative interpretation; this is not very convincing my friend.

    Also, this is the third time that you have ignored my other question . . . I am starting to think that you are not seriously here for an open and reasonable discussion. You also did not answer this question:

    If you wish to focus on the word “kings” that is fine; but then how do you explain the language and its application to these literal kings as having eagle’s wings, three ribs in its mouth, being a four headed leopard, ten horns, another little horn, and so on?

    If you wish to continue this discussion then you will have to give the same courtesy of answering questions as I have done; thanks.

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You commented...
    “Verse 17 seems to be identifying only kings; however, we need to read this verse in CONTEXT with the entire chapter. Notice that verse 15 says that Daniel was grieved in spirit and was troubled about this dream; he then came near to one in his dream and asked for revelation concerning what he is seeing. Verse 17 begins the interpretation to what Daniel saw but notice in verse 23, that the one in Daniel’s dream explains, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth” . . . This chapter parallels Daniel 2 and identifies the very same kingdoms but gives us additional insight into another power; the little horn and all biblical expositors identify these beasts as kingdoms. So, verse 17 gives Daniel a general overview to what he is seeing but then he is given additional details regarding this dream . . .”

    Yes, I read this comment but I did not regard it as the direct answer I was asking for.

    Please allow me to clearify.

    Between Danial chapter 2 and chapter 7 there are two visions. Although there are some similarities in the two visions, it is clear that the vision in Chapter 2 is for that current day, whereas the vision in Chapter 7 is for the end-time period described in Revelations.

    The proof of this is in the phrasing given to use in Danial 7:17 where it is stated that four kings will arise.

    In the course of that text, the interpretation is given to Daniel. There is no mention in that interpretation that any of the Kings referenced has already been.

    So if King Neb was part of the vision described in Chapter 7, why is this not mentioned?

    The reason is because the vision in chapter 7 is not talking about the Kingdoms of that current day.

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In closing; how about discussing one subject at a time, shall we? If you wish to discuss Bible translations, original languages, and lexicons, we can do so; but let’s stay on track and finish our original discussion – Daniel 7. Set aside the original “words” for now and give the correct interpretations to these chapters; thanks.

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You said, “But if it is believed that these two visions reference the same Kings and Kingdoms, then how does it make sense that Danial would state in verse 17 that the four Kings shall arise.”

    Again, one needs to read the entire chapter in context; you seem to be fixated on just one verse.

    You said, “In addition to this, the interpretation provided to Danial (in chapter 7) does not suggest that any of the Kings has already been (ie: King Neb).”

    Again, context will help understand these chapters; in Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar is reigning and in Daniel 7 Belshazzar is reigning. This only proves the point that scholars have long recognized; these beasts represent kingdoms; both Neb. and Bel. are kings of Babylon . . . So, who followed Babylon? Yes, it was Medo-Persia, then Greece and then Rome and then Rome eventually became divided just as the Scriptures foretold. If you wish to focus on the word “kings” that is fine; but then how do you explain the language and its application to these literal kings as having eagle’s wings, three ribs in its mouth, being a four headed leopard, ten horns, another little horn, and so on? Since you say that you all have studied this in the original Hebrew then please post in detail, the correct interpretation for these chapters . . .

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wrhalver,
    You said, “I did see this answer before but I did not regard this as a direct answer to the question.”

    Allow me to simplify this answer: “Verse 17 gives Daniel a general overview to what he is seeing but then he is given additional details (an explanation) regarding this dream . . . Again, when we read this entire chapter in context; we are told that these kings represent kingdoms . . . It is right there in verses 3 and 23, you can’t miss it.

    Oh, by the way, you still have not answered this question: “Also, the LORD himself made it clear that from his (Daniel’s) time forward there would only be FOUR kingdoms until the Lord’s Kingdom comes; HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? . . .”

  • Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented...
    "Sorry, I do not buy into your assumption that earliest Bible versions were not accurately translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages . . ."

    Which is more accurate to say...
    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. OR
    Gen 1:1 In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth.

    If you only believe in the supreme God, then the first is accurate.

    But if you believe in the Godhead, then the second is more accurate.

    We cannot ignore the fact that a plural God is referred to in the Old Testamant Hebrew. This supported by Christ himself in the New Testamant Greek.

    So then the singular version of the word God is believed to represent both the the supreme God and the plural Godhead.

    And to clear any confusion, we use the original Hebrew text to confirm the meaning and use of the word.

    This was just being used as an example of the difference between singular and plural uses that seems critical in our discussion of Beasts and Kingdoms.

    The word for Beast and King are both singular referring to one individual, not many people.

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wrhalver,

    During our dialogue I have answered every question that you've posted but I am beginning to notice that you are not giving the same courtesy . . . Perhaps, it was an oversight; you did not answer this question:

    Also, the LORD himself made it clear that from his (Daniel’s) time forward there would only be FOUR kingdoms until the Lord’s Kingdom comes; HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? . . .

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    You said, “You have not explained Daniel 7:17.”


    Again, I have already answered that question; Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:38 am but allow me to repost it since you could not find it . . .

    “Verse 17 seems to be identifying only kings; however, we need to read this verse in CONTEXT with the entire chapter. Notice that verse 15 says that Daniel was grieved in spirit and was troubled about this dream; he then came near to one in his dream and asked for revelation concerning what he is seeing. Verse 17 begins the interpretation to what Daniel saw but notice in verse 23, that the one in Daniel’s dream explains, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth” . . . This chapter parallels Daniel 2 and identifies the very same kingdoms but gives us additional insight into another power; the little horn and all biblical expositors identify these beasts as kingdoms. So, verse 17 gives Daniel a general overview to what he is seeing but then he is given additional details regarding this dream . . .”

    “So which would you discard? The English word that would be known to be misleading, or the original language which expresses the truth?”

    Sorry, I do not buy into your assumption that earliest Bible versions were not accurately translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages . . .

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4him,

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    In English, this means one supreme God.

    In the original Hebrew language, this means a plurality which is fully revealed to us through Christ.

    So which would you discard? The English word that would be known to be misleading, or the original language which expresses the truth?

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him

    You have not explained Daniel 7:17.

    Why would it not be explained to Daniel that King Nebuchadnezzar was the first King that has already past?

    Did the scholars and prophecy commentators miss this?

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You said, “The vision of Daniel 7 is not meant to parallel the vision in Daniel 2. Daniel 2 foretells the future for the present Babylon, and the kingdoms which will follow him.”

    I disagree; not only I but every scholar and prophecy commentator has routinely identified these 4 kingdoms of Daniel 7 as simply a reiteration of the four described earlier in Daniel chapter two.

    Also, the LORD himself made it clear that from his (Daniel’s) time forward there would only be FOUR kingdoms until the Lord’s Kingdom comes; HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? . . .


    You said, “The words provided earlier for the Beast and King are singular. This cannot be ignored. These are the words according to the original Hebrew language.”

    Sorry, I do not give much credibility to Greek or Hebrew lexicons; many of them are corrupt.

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    You said, “Why then does Daniel say...
    "Dan 7:17 These four great beasts are four kings; they shall arise out of the earth.”

    I have already answered that question: see Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:38 am; again, context, context, context . . .



    You said, “Daniel does not refer to Babylon as the first that it is already here.”

    Again, Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:38 “Thou art this head of gold” and verse 39-40 states, “after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, etc. Babylon is the first.

  • Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4him
    You have commented...
    "Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:38 “Thou art this head of gold” and verse 39-40 states, “after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass”. . . . “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron.”

    Why then does Danial say...
    "Dan 7:17 These four great beasts are four kings; they shall arise out of the earth.

    Danial does not refer to Babylon as the first, that it is already here.

    The vision of Danial 7 is not meant to parrallel the vision in Danial 2. Danial 2 fortells the future for the present Babylon, and the kingdoms which will follow him.

    Danial 7 foretells kingdoms that will come much later even though it sounds like a similiar arrangement to what is described in Danial 2.

    Also, consider this...
    'ĕlôhîym
    el-o-heem'
    Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X

    This Hebrew word is used to refer to God. It is used a majority of the time throughout the Old Testamant. Note that this word is used in its plural form to denote a Godhead.

    The words provided earlier for the Beast and King are singular. This cannot be ignored. These are the words according to the original Hebrew language.

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Also, you said, “Again, I refer you to the word study I provided before. The Beast is not a Kingdom.”

    And again, I refer you back to the text of Scripture which does say that a beast is a kingdom . . . Daniel 7:23 “Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth” . . . Let’s read Scripture in context. . .

    Finally, you said, “The reason for the mention of Babylon is to suggest that the attention on Rome misguided.”

    Not so; you have not given any sound biblical reason to prove otherwise . . . As I mentioned earlier, lets finish Daniel 7 before moving on to the book of Revelation . . . Let's study Daniel 7 step by step and line upon line.

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    You said, “Incorrect. These Kings (Beasts) spoken of in Daniel have not yet arrived. The kingdoms that are spoken of are not yet set up.”

    That my friend is incorrect; you say that these (beasts-kingdoms) have not yet arrived . . . but the Scriptures themselves say otherwise: Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:38 “Thou art this head of gold” and verse 39-40 states, “after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass”. . . . “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron.” Q: If Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon) is the head of gold followed by another kingdom and another kingdom, etc . . . How can you say they have not arrived yet? History bears witness to these successive kingdoms as the Scriptures foretold. Besides, Daniel 2:44 clearly indicates that “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom” . . . in the days of these kings refers to the days of the divide kingdom of Rome which is Western Europe.

    In Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2), the Lord made it clear that from his (Daniel’s) time forward there would only be four kingdoms until the Lord’s Kingdom comes. There’s no Biblical justification for seeing 4 other kingdoms in Daniel 7, and in fact I think doing so contradicts the intent of Daniel 2. Also the descriptions of the kingdoms in chapter 7 fit what we know about the ones from chapter 2 and practically every scholar and prophecy commentator has routinely identified these 4 kingdoms of Daniel 7 as simply a reiteration of the four described earlier in Daniel chapter two.

  • Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    online4him
    You have commented....
    "So, we are in agreement as to the identity of these four beasts, right? The fourth beast (Rome) was to be divided bringing forth the nations of Western Europe, right?"

    Incorrect. These Kings (Beasts) spoken of in Danial have not yet arrived. The kingdoms that are spoken of are not yet set up.

    Again, I refer you to the word study I provided before.
    The Beast is not a Kingdom. The Beast (singular) is the description for a King (singular) who will rule a nation or kingdom.

    The reason for the mention of Babylon is to suggest that the attention on Rome misguided.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links