The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8

[cv5]

That AI needs sacking - that is not the Historic view 0 maybe it is the SDA church view but it is not the Historic view .

Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

In its time Rome was governed by seven forms of Government

1. Kings
2. Consuls
3. Dictators
4. Decemvirs
5. Military Tribunes
6. Military Emperors
7. Despotic Emperors

5 had fallen in Johns day they were already past
the one is - the 6th form of government that was present in Johns day was the Military Emperors
the not yet come - in Johns day were the 7th form - the despotic Emperors

Diocletian marked the start of the Despotic Emperors - Prior to Diocletian all the Emperors wore the Laurel Crown but Diocletian discarded this and wore the Diadem - qhich was the badge of Asiatic despotic Sovereignty

The Papacy is the eighth in verse 11

Revelation 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Historicist speculations inevitably fail to account for the other 99.999% of the content of the Bible.

[Dan 7:25 KJV] 25 And he shall 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.

[Dan 12:7 KJV] 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which [was] upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that [it shall be] for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these [things] shall be finished.

[Rev 11:2 KJV] 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months.

[Rev 13:5 KJV] 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months.

[Rev 12:14 KJV] 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

[Rev 13:11-12 KJV] 11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

[Rev 16:13 KJV] 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

[Rev 19:20 KJV] 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 

[GaryA]

But do not forget the book of Revelation says right at the beginning it is symbolic:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The use of the word 'signified' in Revelation 1:1 does not mean that Revelation is 100% symbolic. It does not in any way set any definition concerning "how symbolic" Revelation is - it merely means that it was indicated-and-shown to John by 'his angel'.

 

[dkontner]

There is nothing symbolic about the destruction of mystery Babylon and the coming of the Lord. He made everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. That's what He says and that's what He'll do.

 

[GaryA]

Just to let you know:
Demonizing the RC Church and popes as the Church Age anti-christ etc are and old worn out and ridiculous Reformed trope.

"I see the Matrix has you..."

 

[GaryA]

Besides the fact that you make points with inaccurate facts (the clay is baked, there for its pottery vs 33 so there is no "being shaped" by God), and absolutely illogical conclusions like Christ would take out his own people, I feel like this thread is going in circles.

'going in circles' - 'stuck on repeat' - yeah, something like that...

 

[GaryA]

Not sure why you make those assumptions. There is no reference to the clay being baked in verse 2:33. It simply mentions clay - then, verse 2:34 tells us the Stone strikes the feet and breaks apart the iron and the clay (not the entire statue).

It does not say that the stone smote the image upon its feet and 'separates' the iron from the clay - it says that it breaks the feet "that were of iron and clay" into pieces - iron and clay together - broken to pieces. The feet were broken to pieces. Nothing was 'separated' except the different-and-various 'pieces' that were each-and-all [composed] of iron-and-clay-together...

 

[GaryA]

I believe that it could be reasonably and accurately said that Daniel 2:34 represents Jesus "breaking"/defeating/annihilating the world system/government existing at the time of His return at the Second Coming of Christ and that Daniel 2:35 represents Jesus [then] dismantling/destroying/eradicating all man-made world systems/governments from all of history.

 

[GaryA]

I believe that the clay is just as much a part of the 4th kingdom as the iron and not something outside of the kingdom [that is] "being controlled" or "held captive" by the kingdom.

The 4th kingdom - itself - as a whole - during the 'feet' part of its existence - is 'partly strong, and partly broken' (Daniel 2:42).

 

[GaryA]

The 4th kingdom is not a strong kingdom controlling a not-part-of-that-kingdom broken something/anything. That kingdom - within itself - is both strong and broken.

It is left to us to properly discern what part of it is strong and what part of it is broken.

 

[GaryA]

@cv5 - while I do not agree with every-single-detail of what you have said - I do wholeheartedly 100% agree with you concerning the clay not being Israel - for what it may be worth...

It is "kinda nice" when we can agree on something within the realm of eschatology.

 

[cv5]

That AI needs sacking - that is not the Historic view 0 maybe it is the SDA church view but it is not the Historic view .

Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

In its time Rome was governed by seven forms of Government

1. Kings
2. Consuls
3. Dictators
4. Decemvirs
5. Military Tribunes
6. Military Emperors
7. Despotic Emperors

5 had fallen in Johns day they were already past
the one is - the 6th form of government that was present in Johns day was the Military Emperors
the not yet come - in Johns day were the 7th form - the despotic Emperors

Diocletian marked the start of the Despotic Emperors - Prior to Diocletian all the Emperors wore the Laurel Crown but Diocletian discarded this and wore the Diadem - qhich was the badge of Asiatic despotic Sovereignty

The Papacy is the eighth in verse 11

Revelation 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Do you feel yourself stranded in the deep dark woods looking for breadcrumbs?
Here let me give you some more....

Rev 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Rev 12:6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

All of this utterly ruins the historicist pretensions. With no remedy.

 

[WayneNSO]

Do you feel yourself stranded in the deep dark woods looking for breadcrumbs?
Here let me give you some more....

Rev 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Rev 12:6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

All of this utterly ruins the historicist pretensions. With no remedy.

I ignore your posts because you have yet to post anything significant or anything that casts doubt on the Historic interpretation. I do wonder why you feel the need to spam me like some sort of Judas Virus though. Do you feel threatened by my beliefs ? If so I will expect more spam from you - but do not expect replies to dross.

 

[cv5]

I ignore your posts because you have yet to post anything significant or anything that casts doubt on the Historic interpretation. I do wonder why you feel the need to spam me like some sort of Judas Virus though. Do you feel threatened by my beliefs ? If so I will expect more spam from you - but do not expect replies to dross.

On the contrary, I have just destroyed the historicist delusion right before your very eyes.
Would you care for more of the same?

Do you understand the implications of these pieces of the eschatology jigsaw puzzle? Nope.
You have no answer. Rather, we are at the stage where the losing party gets all stompy feet, whiny, and then flees the debate floor.

2Ti 2:17
And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

2Ti 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection (rapture) is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

2Th 2:2
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ (DOTL aka tribulation) is at hand.

 

[Delvianna]

Not sure why you make those assumptions. There is no reference to the clay being baked in verse 2:33. It simply mentions clay - then, verse 2:34 tells us the Stone strikes the feet and breaks apart the iron and the clay (not the entire statue).

The word used is ḥăsaph which implies baked, like pottery, not wet clay. In verse 35, how could the clay be "broken" into pieces if its wet and moldable?

 

[cv5]

The word used is ḥăsaph which implies baked, like pottery, not wet clay. In verse 35, how could the clay be "broken" into pieces if its wet and moldable?

Yes—your observation is strong. In Daniel 2, חֲסַף (ḥăsaph) is better understood as pottery, earthenware, or ceramic material, not merely loose, wet clay.


Daniel 2:35 says that the iron, ḥăsaph, bronze, silver, and gold were all “crushed/broken into pieces” together. The Aramaic verb here, דּוּק (dûq), means to crush, pulverize, or reduce to small fragments. That description naturally fits hardened pottery, which shatters when struck—not soft clay, which would merely deform, splatter, or be displaced.

 

[cv5]

Not sure why you make those assumptions. There is no reference to the clay being baked in verse 2:33. It simply mentions clay - then, verse 2:34 tells us the Stone strikes the feet and breaks apart the iron and the clay (not the entire statue).

Hey friend, did you not notice verse 35 following?
And did you not also notice that the great mountain filled the whole earth ***AFTER*** the total destruction of the graven image?

Dan 2:34
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.

Dan 2:35
Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole ear

*********************************************************************************

All of which comports with the futurist dispensationalist premillennial view.....flawlessly!

 

[Delvianna]

Hey friend, did you not notice verse 35 following?
And did you not also notice that the great mountain filled the whole earth ***AFTER*** the total destruction of the graven image?

Dan 2:34
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.

Dan 2:35
Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole ear

*********************************************************************************

All of which comports with the futurist dispensationalist premillennial view.....flawlessly!

You mentioned dispensationalist view, I'm not going to detour this thread (I'll just ask this and move on), but I'm just curious which definition you hold to dispensationalism (because theres 2 versions).

 

[cv5]

You mentioned dispensationalist view, I'm not going to detour this thread (I'll just ask this and move on), but I'm just curious which definition you hold to dispensationalism (because theres 2 versions).

Why bother nit-picking exacting details on the precise definition of the term?
The whole point is that the other views are appallingly biblically illiterate.
And effortlessly debunked, and when I say effortlessly, I mean one single solitary verse utterly obliterates.
Two or three and its case closed.

Frankly, I am in shock and awe observing these historicists and preterists and postmillenialists trip all over themselves.
All that they can do is regurgitate canned Church dogma and repeat it endlessly, bereft of the most elementary scrutiny or analysis.
Their supposed arguments are little more than deflection and denial.

Yep, what passes around here as scholarship is mostly stygian ignorance and hopeless irrationality, all cloaked in pious religiousness.

With notable exceptions, such as your home run with the term ḥăsaph.
THAT, dear friend, constitutes legit due diligence and honest detective work, so congratulations.

 

[Delvianna]

Why bother nit-picking exacting details on the precise definition of the term?
The whole point is that the other views are appallingly biblically illiterate.
And effortlessly debunked, and when I say effortlessly, I mean one single solitary verse utterly obliterates.
Two or three and its case closed.

Frankly, I am in shock and awe observing these historicists and preterists and postmillenialists trip all over themselves.
All that they can do is regurgitate canned Church dogma and repeat it endlessly, bereft of the most elementary scrutiny or analysis.
Their supposed arguments are little more than deflection and denial.

Yep, what passes around here as scholarship is mostly stygian ignorance and hopeless irrationality, all cloaked in pious religiousness.

With notable exceptions, such as your home run with the term ḥăsaph.
THAT, dear friend, constitutes legit due diligence and honest detective work, so congratulations.

Considering people hold to different views for the same term IS a valid question. It's not "nit-picking" to ask you what your personal belief is since you used the term. Since we're in a discussion about Daniel and you brought up that it "fits flawlessly", it's hard to comment in general when I don't know what belief you personally hold to that term "dispensationalism". But if you're going to deflect instead of answering my question, forget it. Just don't use words for your beliefs in the future if you aren't going to define them.

 

[JustThinking]

The word used is ḥăsaph which implies baked, like pottery, not wet clay. In verse 35, how could the clay be "broken" into pieces if its wet and moldable?

Thank you kindly for asking this question… it definitely shows that you are still willing to discuss this issue and maybe even come to see another interpretation rather than responding as you did earlier.

Now, I have to go out for a few hours but I will be happy to respond to this. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Best wishes.