Statue of Daniel 2 (Abrahamic only)

[BlandOatmeal]

How about when he predicted he would come back in "this generation", which was almost 2000 years ago? Paul even told the early church at first not to marry because the 2nd coming was eminent, but later finally relented.

BTW, over and over again and for well over a thousand years, many Christians predicted, including the J.W.'s, "The end is near!", and yet here we are.

I see that Pegg has bounced the ball back to you on this one. As a convert from Christianity to Judaism, you're probably more qualified than any of the rest of us to handle this one; and you're welcome to it.

Pegg, I think I should talk with you right now about some things I've picked up from Jews along the way. I've found that they are more than willing to discuss the Old Testament with others; but discussions with Christians nearly always end up as one-way proselytizing exercises, wherein Christians use only selected passages from the OT; and then, only to justify Christian doctrines. It would do Christians well, to realize that Jews do not look at the OT, or "TaNaKh" in this way: They look at it as the basis of a way of life, to be swallowed whole and put into practice. That, in fact, is how God intended it to be read, from a time long before Jesus arrived on the scene. In so receiving TaNaKh, the Jewish people have a great deal they can teach Christians, if the latter will humble themselves long enough to listen. Remember that Jesus discoursed with Jews, on their own level of understanding, for his entire life, and so did all his disciples. Paul took it for granted, that the vast majority of his readers were well-versed in these things; so that the things he said cannot be fully understood without taking the Jewish worldview into account.

As for the "generation" thing, Metis,

Matt 1
[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου χριστου υιου δαβιδ υιου αβρααμ

Matt 24
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
αμην λεγω υμιν ου μη παρελθη η γενεα αυτη εως αν παντα ταυτα γενηται

Matt 11
[16] But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
τινι δε ομοιωσω την γενεαν ταυτην ομοια A-NSF εστιν παιδαριοις εν αγοραις καθημενοις και προσφωνουσιν τοις εταιροις αυτων

Word: γενεσεως
Pronounce: ghen'-es-is
Strongs Number: G1078
Orig: from the same as 1074; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral). G1074
Use: TDNT-1:682,117 Noun Feminine
Heb Strong: H1755 H2233 H3205 H4940 H5271 H8435
1) source, origin
1a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated
2) used of birth, nativity
3) of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life
3a) the wheel of life (Jas 3:6), other explain it, the wheel of human origin which as soon as men are born begins to run, i.e. its course of life

Word: γενεα
Pronounce: ghen-eh-ah'
Strongs Number: G1074
Orig: from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. G1085
Use: TDNT-1:662,114 Noun Feminine
Heb Strong: H410 H1755 H2233 H2567 H3117 H3211 H4940 H5971 H7256 H8029
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30-33 years

Word: γενεαν, from γενεα
Pronounce: ghen-eh-ah'
Strongs Number: G1074

The passage under consideration uses "generation" in the same sense as in Matt 11:16. It refers to individuals of the same parent, or cut from the same cloth -- like "fifth generation fighter aircraft".

Jesus had no idea about when the time of judgment would come, and he said as much. He did know that he would rise from the dead, though, and enter into his eternal role as king (a la Joseph in Egypt). Some of his disciples saw him rising into heaven, fulfilling this prophecy.

 

[metis]

Jesus did return to that generation after his death.... 3 days later he was resurrected.

Have you considered that perhaps we are living in the time of 'the end'? The sign given by Jesus is a sure indicator that we are....the scriptures say that the 'last days' will span for a 'short period of time'

So entering into the 'end' was never meant to mean that all would end at that point. There is still more to come.

His supposed return, whereas it was supposedly happening "in this generation", had nothing to do with his supposed return to the apostles but was in reference to the final judgment:

Mark 13[23] But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.
[24] "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
[25] and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
[26] And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
[28] "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
[29] So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
[30] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
[31] Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
[32] "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
[33] Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come.
[34] It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.
[35] Watch therefore -- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning --
[36] lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
[37] And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

 

[BlandOatmeal]

His supposed return, whereas it was supposedly happening "in this generation", had nothing to do with his supposed return to the apostles but was in reference to the final judgment:

Mark 13[23] But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.
[24] "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
[25] and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
[26] And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
[28] "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
[29] So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
[30] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
[31] Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
[32] "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
[33] Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come.
[34] It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.
[35] Watch therefore -- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning --
[36] lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
[37] And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

METIS AND PEGG, WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH DANIEL 2 IS BEYOND ME. Should I re-name this thread, "Christian-Jewish Proselytizing"??

OK, Metis. The passage you cited has an OBLIQUE reference to Daniel, so I'll discuss it here:

First, we need to backtrack to see what Jesus meant by "those days":

Matt. 24
[20] And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

[19] For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

[17] But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

[14] But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

That's the reference to Daniel:

Daniel 9
[26] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

• So, when did this happen? When were the city and the sanctuary destroyed? In 70 AD.
• When was the "affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be"? 1941-45, the Shoah -- or an even worse incident to come, such as the battle of Zech. 14.

The time of "those days, after that tribulation", are therefore the days we are living in, or the near future, after Zech. 14. Now, you're trying to tell me that (1) this refers to the "final judgment", which it OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT (That does not happen until 1000 years after the Perousia), and (2) this has something to do with "This generation shall not pass away..." Let's pull up THAT quote now:

Luke 21
[31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
[32] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Again, we have to see what "these" refers to:

[28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

[24] And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[25] And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
[26] Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

This is immediately preceded by

[23] But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

which connects these times with Matt 24:
[19] And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

When Jesus was talking about "this generation" (which I have already established means "this people", of the same progenitor) it refers to God's' "children" (not grandchildren) through Jesus, namely, the church. This generation clearly has not passed away, and shows no promise of doing so in the near future.

That said, how about a discussion of Daniel 2?

 

[BlandOatmeal]

By the way, Metis, Pegg was probably talking about something entirely different:

Luke 9
[22] Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
[23] And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
[24] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
[25] For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
[26] For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
[27] But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Matt 16
[24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
[28] Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This "coming in his kingdom" obviously cannot be the "coming" spoken of in Matt. 24. Jesus' "kingdom" can justly be thought of as beginning when he overcame death and the grave, and stopped to talk to his disciples on his way to sit at the right hand of God. Also,

Acts 10
[55] But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
[56] And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
[57] Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
[58] And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
[59] And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
[60] And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

 

[metis]

By the way, Metis, Pegg was probably talking about something entirely different:

Luke 9
[22] Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
[23] And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
[24] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
[25] For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
[26] For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
[27] But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Matt 16
[24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
[28] Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This "coming in his kingdom" obviously cannot be the "coming" spoken of in Matt. 24. Jesus' "kingdom" can justly be thought of as beginning when he overcame death and the grave, and stopped to talk to his disciples on his way to sit at the right hand of God. Also,

Acts 10
[55] But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
[56] And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
[57] Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
[58] And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
[59] And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
[60] And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Please note that this is what you wrote on your previous post: METIS AND PEGG, WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH DANIEL 2 IS BEYOND ME. Should I re-name this thread, "Christian-Jewish Proselytizing"??

I agree that this got off onto a side-bar, which is not unusual for threads here throughout this site, so I agree maybe we should get back on track. BTW, I was not "proslytizing" in any way, but simply disagreeing and explaining why I disagree.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Please note that this is what you wrote on your previous post: METIS AND PEGG, WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH DANIEL 2 IS BEYOND ME. Should I re-name this thread, "Christian-Jewish Proselytizing"??

I agree that this got off onto a side-bar, which is not unusual for threads here throughout this site, so I agree maybe we should get back on track. BTW, I was not "proslytizing" in any way, but simply disagreeing and explaining why I disagree.

Thanks, Metis. I chimed in too. It's easy to do. It seems that on any of these threads, we get to an impasse concerning the matter at hand, and then either meander off onto tangents, or just drop out of sight. The main issue, then, never gets properly addressed. The design of these threads lends itself to this, since threads are kept "alive' by the volume of comments, not their content.

By the way, both of you got ME to looking into those tangential NT scriptures more carefully than I ever had, and that's a good thing.

Does anyone have anything else to add to the Daniel 2 discussion? Or can we now pronounce that we all understand about the statue? I started a new thread, called "Empire" Prophecies in the Book of Rev. (Abrahamic only), in order to deal with NT angles on Daniel's prophecies. Most Jews that I've talked with on the Internet do not consider the NT to be valid, so one can't use those scriptures as the basis for arguments[1]. In the Book of Revelation, for instance, John explicitly identifies Rome as one of the "heads" corresponding to the "beasts" of Daniel 7 (which, I think we've all pretty well established, corresponds to the statue of Daniel 2). He also prophesies that one of those heads will appear to have had a "deadly wound", but to have healed; and says that one head (probably the same one) would come in John's future, to succeed the Roman Empire. Those details cannot be profitably employed in identifying Daniel's fourth beast (Dan. 7)/ legs and toes (Dan. 2) convincingly to a Jew or other who does not accept the NT.

For the sake of this discussion, which I started on behalf of Franklin, I personally will consider the matter "closed" when we see or clearly don't see, how we in the modern world fit into this prophecy. Are we, in our various countries, the "toes" of Nebuchadnezzar's statue?

[1] By the way, I do not equate citing a scripture with any statement of faith for or against the "canonicity", "inspiration" or "validity" of the scripture. It's technically possible, for instance, for an Atheist to connect all the prophecies of the Bible with current events, without attributing any divinity to their authorship. I, for instance, would like to some day fully understand various prophecies; but I don't want anyone to therefore credit me with divine insight because of it -- or say I'm a devil, if I prove wrong.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I doubt we are the toes. I think we are so distant of kingships and empires today, and we assume that they were vastly different than the systems that we have now. I don't think they were.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I doubt we are the toes. I think we are so distant of kingships and empires today, and we assume that they were vastly different than the systems that we have now. I don't think they were.

Hi, Franklin. I'm trying to piece together what you're saying here. There is no end of things that people "think". I believe that the ten horns of the fourth beast represent kingdoms or countries which (1) originated somehow in the Roman Empire, (2) are present today, (3) are federated or allied in some way (clay-iron MIXTURE), and (4) collectively a major world power (as were Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.), and (5) are partly strong and partly weak.. That leads me to believe they are most likely a group like NATO, which accounts for some 80% of the military spending in the world.

That is what I believe, and my reasons for this belief. What do you believe these ten toes or horns are, and what are your reasons?

 

[Pegg]

For the sake of this discussion, which I started on behalf of Franklin, I personally will consider the matter "closed" when we see or clearly don't see, how we in the modern world fit into this prophecy. Are we, in our various countries, the "toes" of Nebuchadnezzar's statue?

Yes, we believe so.

And that being the case, we are living in the 'time of the end' when the statue of earthly rulership is going to be crushed by the 'stone not made with hands'


Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Yes, we believe so.

And that being the case, we are living in the 'time of the end' when the statue of earthly rulership is going to be crushed by the 'stone not made with hands'

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite

Pegg, it's nice to see someone who agrees with me; but troubling too.

I would REALLY appreciate it, if you would comment at "Empire" Prophecies in the Book of Rev. (Abrahamic only) -- By incorporating information from Revelation, we get a more precise description of the end-times beasts. I don't want to deal with that here, because it might end up in pointless wranglings about what is "canonical".

PS. I spent some time this week, reading up on Chanukkah. Did you know it's not even mentioned in the Bible? The events covered can only be found in the Catholic Bibles, in the Apocrypha. Even then, there is no record of any miracle with the oil. So much for Judaism and canonicity. Please comment on what I've said on the other site.

As for the present site, nobody has commented yet about the "little horns". There are two of them -- one on the goat, and one on the fourth beast.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi, Franklin. I'm trying to piece together what you're saying here. There is no end of things that people "think". I believe that the ten horns of the fourth beast represent kingdoms or countries which (1) originated somehow in the Roman Empire, (2) are present today, (3) are federated or allied in some way (clay-iron MIXTURE), and (4) collectively a major world power (as were Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.), and (5) are partly strong and partly weak.. That leads me to believe they are most likely a group like NATO, which accounts for some 80% of the military spending in the world.

That is what I believe, and my reasons for this belief. What do you believe these ten toes or horns are, and what are your reasons?

I believe that the represent what you believe they represent, I do not believe however that it is a sign of prophecy, but more of a structure of governance. I.e. People have particular patterns that they follow and like, and as it says in Ecclesiastes "there is nothing new under the sun". So the reason why it would appear that the ten horns represent these countries and that it appears prophetic is because that is how a structure of government has existed for years, always being partly strong, and partly weak, especially during moments of decline.

In part we look at empires like Rome, Greece, and the likes and consider their empires as unified and structured, but I think the way that empires were ruled, have not really changed from the way we rule governments today.

 

[metis]

PS. I spent some time this week, reading up on Chanukkah. Did you know it's not even mentioned in the Bible? The events covered can only be found in the Catholic Bibles, in the Apocrypha. Even then, there is no record of any miracle with the oil. So much for Judaism and canonicity.

Just because something isn't canonized, does that mean it didn't happen?

However, as you're aware of, I don't get hung up on such matters, but more go along with Joseph Campbell's "... and the myth became the reality". So, to me, it's a story with some lessons found within-- nothing more, nothing less.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Just because something isn't canonized, does that mean it didn't happen?

However, as you're aware of, I don't get hung up on such matters, but more go along with Joseph Campbell's "... and the myth became the reality". So, to me, it's a story with some lessons found within-- nothing more, nothing less.

Wasn't Chanukkah established during the war with the Seculids?

 

[RabbiO]

There is no scholarly consensus as to why, at least, First Maccabees was not included in the Hebrew canon. There is general agreement that the First Maccabees is historically accurate. One reason often cited for its exclusion is the documented animus toward the Hasmoneans by the rabbis.

The story of the oil that lasted for 8 days, which appears in the Talmud, may have been a legend already circulating when the Talmud was compiled, or it may have been constructed out of whole cloth to recast the emphasis of a minor holiday, that was too well entrenched to be eliminated, from being about a military victory by the Hasmoneans to being about a miracle from G-d.

Peter

 

[metis]

Wasn't Chanukkah established during the war with the Seculids?

Yep.

BTW, for those who may be unfamiliar with the story, let me post this:

The story of Chanukkah begins in the reign of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered Syria, Egypt and Palestine, but allowed the lands under his control to continue observing their own religions and retain a certain degree of autonomy. Under this relatively benevolent rule, many Jews assimilated much of Hellenistic culture, adopting the language, the customs and the dress of the Greeks, in much the same way that Jews in America today blend into the secular American society.

More than a century later, a successor of Alexander, Antiochus IV was in control of the region. He began to oppress the Jews severely, placing a Hellenistic priest in the Temple, massacring Jews, prohibiting the practice of the Jewish religion, and desecrating the Temple by requiring the sacrifice of pigs (a non-kosher animal) on the altar. Two groups opposed Antiochus: a basically nationalistic group led by Mattathias the Hasmonean and his son Judah Maccabee, and a religious traditionalist group known as the Chasidim, the forerunners of the Pharisees (no direct connection to the modern movement known as Chasidism). They joined forces in a revolt against both the assimilation of the Hellenistic Jews and oppression by the Seleucid Greek government. The revolution succeeded and the Temple was rededicated.

According to tradition as recorded in the Talmud, at the time of the rededication, there was very little oil left that had not been defiled by the Greeks. Oil was needed for the menorah (candelabrum) in the Temple, which was supposed to burn throughout the night every night. There was only enough oil to burn for one day, yet miraculously, it burned for eight days, the time needed to prepare a fresh supply of oil for the menorah. An eight day festival was declared to commemorate this miracle. Note that the holiday commemorates the miracle of the oil, not the military victory: Jews do not glorify war. -- Judaism 101: Chanukkah

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I throw up my hands in this whole exercise. What you all (except Pegg) are saying, is that Daniel 2 has no discernible relevance to our lives.

Concerning the ten toes/ ten horns, Let me just post this fact of history, and draw whatever conclusions you wish. In the period between the independence of Belgium and the beginning of American involvement in WWII, roughly 1830-1941, some 110 years, there have been only 16 countries that have remained independent all that time:

1. Germany
2. Austria
3. Italy
4. Britain
5. France
6. Spain
7. Portugal
8. Belgium
9. Netherlands
10. Sweden
11. The U.S. of America
12. Russia
13. Ottoman Turkey
14. Japan
15. China
16. Thailand

TEN of them are in Western Europe, use the Roman Alphabet and have other attributes of the Roman Empire. Three of those ten (Germany, Austria, Italy) were "plucked up by the roots" by the US and allies in WWII. To anyone who sees the "ten horns" as part of an entitiy that exists in the "last days", before the coming of the Messianic Kingdom, these are the "ten horns" simply because THERE ARE NO OTHER CANDIDATES -- they were all vassals, in recent history, to the "horn" countries.

I have never heard any two people give a common, coherent explanation other than this.

The list above is my best effort so far, and may be flawed. I'm still trying to work with the fact that many Spanish, Portugese and French (Haiti) possessions became independent in the early 1800s. If we push the dates back to include them with the mother countries, Belgium gets lopped off the list. If we eliminate Belgium, though, the DR Congo comes out as one of the "great survivors" -- a rather absurd notion. The point is, that there are not many countries to choose from as the "ten".

 

[RabbiO]

Concerning the ten toes/ ten horns, Let me just post this fact of history, and draw whatever conclusions you wish. In the period between the independence of Belgium and the beginning of American involvement in WWII, roughly 1830-1941, some 110 years, there have been only 16 countries that have remained independent all that time...............

Well, the Ottoman Empire was gone by 1922 and Austria ceased to exist as a separate entity in March of 1938.

Peter

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Well, the Ottoman Empire was gone by 1922 and Austria ceased to exist as a separate entity in March of 1938.

Peter

Rabbi, I'm frankly not interested in this gnit-picking. If you don't recognize a continuum between the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, there's not much point discussing history with you. Just cut to the quick, and tell me who or what you think the ten toes of Daniel 2 are, and your reasons why. Thanks.

 

[Flankerl]

I throw up my hands in this whole exercise. What you all (except Pegg) are saying, is that Daniel 2 has no discernible relevance to our lives.

Concerning the ten toes/ ten horns, Let me just post this fact of history, and draw whatever conclusions you wish. In the period between the independence of Belgium and the beginning of American involvement in WWII, roughly 1830-1941, some 110 years, there have been only 16 countries that have remained independent all that time:

1. Germany
2. Austria
3. Italy
4. Britain
5. France
6. Spain
7. Portugal
8. Belgium
9. Netherlands
10. Sweden
11. The U.S. of America
12. Russia
13. Ottoman Turkey
14. Japan
15. China
16. Thailand

Germany: You are now aware of the french occupation of the ruhr area. So much for "independent".
Austria: Joined Germany in 1938.
Italy: How highly convenient that you choose 1941 and not 1943, by then the south of Italy was under alled control while the north was under german one.
Britain: Wow, true... well except for the channel islands. BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THEM ANYWAY!
France: lol at the end of June 1940 France was under german control
Spain: true if you see the nationalists as the proper spanish government, otherwise its false
Portugal: true
Belgium: lol Belgium surrendered in may 1940
Netherlands: lol the Netherlands surrendered in may 1940
Sweden: true
USA: true
Russia: large parts of the USSR were occupied by germany at the end of 1941
Turkey: if turkey was always independent, how come that they had a war of independence for 4 years?
Japan: true
China: lol what? ever heard about the Marco Polo bridge?
Thailand: true

TEN of them are in Western Europe

Germany: Central Europe
Austria: Central Europe
Italy: Southern Europe
Britain: Western Europe (1)
France: Western Europe (2)
Spain: Western Europe (3)
Portugal: Western Europe (4)
Belgium: Western Europe (5)
Netherlands: Western Europe (6)
Sweden: Northern Europe
USA: North America
Russia: Eastern Europe while most of its territory is in Asia
Turkey: Asia
Japan: Asia
China: Asia
Thailand: Asia


It seems you cant count and dont know anything about Europe.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Hi, Flankert.

I think you're mostly trying to be cute; but you are doing a better job than Rabbi of keeping on track. Before I go into your criticisms of my list, I put the same thing to you that I did to Rabbi: PRESENT YOUR OWN LIST, so you can be subject to the same sort of criticism you mete out to others.

Now, to your critique:

Germany: You are now aware of the french occupation of the ruhr area. So much for "independent".
Austria: Joined Germany in 1938.

I didn't explain myself well, because I was in a hurry. It is obvious, that the countries of Europe had a habit of overrunning one another. My focus, however, is not on Europe but on the world -- since the prophecy in Daniel 2 depicted world-dominating powers. In Daniel's day, Nebuchadnezzar controlled only a small area of the Middle East; but because so much of the world's knowledge, wealth and power was concentrated in that area, he was thought of as the greatest ruler on earth. likewise, the chest and shoulders of brass, representing the Persian Empire, was said to "rule over all the earth", though it only ruled a small portion of the globe:

Daniel 2
[39] And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

In dealing with the "ten toes" period, we have a situation unique in history, in that there was a period when there was a collection of major powers who collaborated with one another to govern the entire world. This began with the "Congress Europe" period, from Napoleon's demise until the outbreak of WWI. It was followed by the League of Nations period until WWII. After the war, the nations who had allied themselves against the Axis powers formed the "United Nations", as a permanent arbitrating body. Because of inherent weaknesses in the UN structure, this body has been augmented by smaller groupings, such as NATO (together with its "partnerships"), the G-8, the G-20 and, most recently, the "P5+1".

In trying to apply the prophecy to our times, I have been trying to apply patterns found elsewhere in Daniel. The notion of "horns", for instance, is not unique to the "ten horns" of Daniel 9. It is also found in the "ram and goat" prophecy of Daniel 8:

Daniel 8
[8] Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
[9] And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

The "little horn" in that prophecy refers, as you probably know, to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was one of a LINE of kings in the Seleucid Dynasty. The "four notable ones", on the other hand, are not as straightforwardly interpreted as some present them to be. When Alexander died, he left a young son, under the guardianship of Antigonus. Antigonus ruled primarily in what is now Turkey. Other "notable ones" were Seleucis, who ruled in Babylon, Ptolemey, who ruled in Egypt, Cassander, who ruled Macedonia and Lysimachus, who ruled Thrace. Those four "notables" attacked Antigonus, as shown below, leading to the "four-way" division of the empire.

That division wasn't all that neat, however. Antigonus left a son, Demetrius, who had little more than a fleet (like the "Beggars of the Sea" in the Dutch war of independence). He later overthrew Kassander's heir and founded what was to be the ruling dynasty of Macedonia up to Roman times. Besides this, many other independent kingdoms and other entities had arisen out of Alexander's empire by this time, such as the Aeolian League, Bithynia, Armenia and Bactria.

Counting "horns", therefore, is not an exact science. There are some obvious candidates in modern times: The United States did not even exist until 1776, yet has grown to be the most powerful country the world has ever known. We, therefore, may well be the "little horn" that rose among the TEN (not Antiochus of the "four"). That begs the question of who the "three horns" were, who were "plucked up by the roots". If we confine our field to Europe, these can be seen as the Axis Powers Germany, Austria and Italy. Though Austria was subsumed into Germany in 1938, it was treated separately by the conquering allies, and divided into Russian, American, English and French sectors -- as was Germany. Italy likewise, after Mussolini was hanged, came under direct Allied occupation and government. (Japan fared better than those three, getting to keep its emperor).

Other obvious candidates for the "ten" are the countries that conquered and colonized the world. Here there is some difficulty, in that some, such as the Spanish and Portugese, got an early start; whereas others, such as Germany and Italy, only began in earnest at the end of the 19th Century.

Belgium would certainly be included in this group, because of the Congo Free State, held as a personal possession of the Belgian king and later taken over as the Belgian Congo. The trouble in comparing Belgium with "early starters" such as Spain and Portugal, is that Belgium was indeed not independent during the early years of my focus; and by the time Belgium became independent in 1830, the Spanish and Portugese empires had recently divided into independent states.

So far, I've mentioned Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Belgium among the "ten". Other great colonial powers of this period were Britan (which ruled a third of the world's people), France (which ruled much of Africa, as well as Indochina and other holdings) and the Netherlands (which ruled Indonesia and other places). That adds up to nine countries. Russia could easily be counted as the tenth; but I am hesitant to include it with its Western (Latin script) colleagues. In its place I chose Sweden, perhaps not the best choice.

Those are the "horns", in ROUGH OUTLINE. I have tried many times to get a clearer picture, using a common paradigm; and as you have noticed, it does not work well.

Italy: How highly convenient that you choose 1941 and not 1943, by then the south of Italy was under alled control while the north was under german one...
China: lol what? ever heard about the Marco Polo bridge?
Thailand: true

Ditto on most of what you said here. The Marco Polo bridge? Are you referring to the Japanese invasion? The Japanese tried, but did not succeed, to conquer China. It was conquered before then by the Manchus and Mongols; but none of this seems to have much connection with the "ten horns". There is actually some justification in considering Japan as one of the "horns"; but I think it's more prudent to confine such consideration to countries that more obviously arose out of the ruins of the Roman Empire. During the Boxer Rebellion, China was defeated by the "Eight-Nation Alliance": (1) Austria-Hungary, (2) France, (3) Germany, (4) Italy, (5) Japan, (6) Russia, (7) the United Kingdom, and (8) the United States

...It seems you cant count and dont know anything about Europe.

You can see now that I can count indeed, and am quite familiar with European history. Is there something of value I should draw from such a remark.

I await your own marvelous exposition now, which you will present for us to criticize.