Today you will not find much difference between us and Europe in that respect. We are primarly now a secular society, regardless of the percentage of people who go to church--it's merely a symbolic thing for most of them.. I know this from personal experience--and regardless of what the so-called "Christian-right" would have you believe.
Interesting. So when I see the results of surveys which suggest that about 92% of Americans believe in God, compared to only about 45% in Britain, this isn't really accurate? I've also seen survey results which suggest that about 40% of Americans believe that the world was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago — which to most Europeans would seem hilariously cute at best or an example of extreme religious mania at worst.
ddog800 wrote:
all the mainstream protestant organizations are banded together in systems like the "National Evangelical Association", which pretty much follow de-facto standard protestant beliefs that you'll also find in Europe.
Except that mainstream 'Protestant' denominations in the United States tend to be rather more 'conservative' than, say, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Evangelical Church of Germany, the Church of Sweden etc.
It's a very logical and almost convincing, albeit a little specious argument. Certainly, you are right, but look at the ingredients - you have an abundance of other things than vegetables in your soup, whereas the rather exiguous number of pagan customs will never outnumber Christian traditions in present-day religious practice. They are like spices in a dish but the ingredients you mixed into your soup definitely spoil the taste of it. You will never recognise that it has once been a vegetable soup. At the same time, the presence of pagan customs/traditions is nigh-on symbolic and they are hardly ever implemented in their original form. You don't even think of all of those customs as being pagan.
Well, i guess the point of that is, from a biblical point of view, there is a certain meaning in place that God intended to have there that has been watered down or altered through "re-interpretation", or the addition of foreign elements such as the so-called "pagan" influence. The original meaning is now lost. I have an excellent case-in-point.
America was founded on the Constitution of the U.S. It holds certain rights and things that are guaranteed every American citizen, and even many non-citizens. Things such as the freedom of speech, freedom to dissent, and many other freedoms. This has been around for centuries now and it has stood the test of time quite well. We now have someone in the office of the President who has, quite literally, taken upon himself to nullify the constitutional rights at his and his friends in power's whim. He has effectively "re-interpreted' it to what he believes it should read (which happens to be convenient for him as well) by adding in foreign elements (Presidential signing statements, and such). They have also "re-interpreted" the Geneva convention to their convenience. We are only now really feeling the repercussions of this as we now know that under the guidelines are they holding people without trials, there have been COUNTLESS incidents in the last few years of them refusing to let people protest, etc etc. all under the guise of these new guidelines. Basically, by reinterpreting these things and adding elements of their own, the Constitution of the United States , as well as our Bill of Rights, has been completely watered down to hold new meanings and legal precedents for interpretation. I can promise you that our founding fathers are rolling around in their graves, as we have pretty much tossed out everything that once kept America relatively near the moral high-ground, and the things that made us flourish in the first place... In many ways we're now no better than what Saddam was. I will not delve any further into that topic any further on this thread, but I wanted to use it as an example of what re-interpreting and adding/changing elements will do. It is in this same way that the original meaning of Christianity and Jesus Himself have been long altered and watered down.
Liz wrote:
That's true. King Stephen I converted to christianity and implemented Christian customs, making them obligatory for all Hungarians for the prosaic reason that he wanted our nation to survive, get integrated into Europe and prevent it from sinking into oblivion. If he hadn't done that, we wouldn't exist now - in all likelihood.
However, it raises the question whether the philosophy based on the statement "the end justifies the means" is compatible with Christianity or not. In my opinion, it isn't but the fact that it all happened in the ancient and medieval times shouldn't be overlooked, either.
I too am inclined to think that, at least in this case, the ends to not justify the means. Nowhere did Jesus state "Go out and use my name to form a vast empire". In fact His primary message was to go out preach the coming Kingdom of God, a subject that greatly frightened Rome at the time. This was why they had to have Him killed, from the moment He was born. They were well aware of Hebrew traditions, particularly the ones surrounding the Messiah, and they knew that the Hebrews believed the Messiah would come and establish a kingdom all over the Earth. From Rome's point of view in the 1st century, that was tantamount to treason. They likely didn't believe Jesus was really God, but they saw Him as someone who could unite the people against them, which is why King Herod tried to have Him killed from the day He was born.
God constantly says that you need only faith in Him, but many times people take it upon themselves to do what THEY think is right.. and, I hate to keep bringing this up, but this is precisely why God took out ancient Israel... Bringing in practices from outside cultures and thinking it was ok and that it wouldn't hurt anything because it was just harmless. What they didn't realize is that it destroyed the glue that held them together, as their very culture was also based on those values, and when they broke down so did their culture. Once God removed His protection from them and let them have what they wanted, which was basically to be part of the rest of the world, then they effectively were forced to succumb to the forces of the world, and probability was certainly not in their favor, especially at the time. Assyria quickly invaded, and after about a 3 year siege they had pretty much trucked the majority of Israelites out of the northern kingdom and into Assyria, and replaced them with Assyrian migrants, and others. The only thing that saved Judah was that they repented at the last minute and abolished all the foreign practices and for some reason Assyria decided not to mess with Judah. But it only took a generation or 2 for the people to forget again, and about a century later Judah was taken captive by Babylon for the same reason Israel was taken by the Assyrians.
Essentially what we have now is a counterfeit Christianity which slightly resembles the original, but is just a bad copy. A few interesting words of note from Jesus:
Matthew 24:4
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Matthew 24:5 and Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying *, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (note: this one is how its supposed to be once it gets REALLY bad)
There is a constant theme in the new testament of a counterfiet Christianity coming about. Needless to say, it looks as if Jesus really saw this coming, and tried to actually let us know.
Liz wrote:
PS: I hope my posts make at least a modicum of sense as I'm writing too quickly and carelessly. I bet I didn't get most of the prepositions right.
Today you will not find much difference between us and Europe in that respect. We are primarly now a secular society, regardless of the percentage of people who go to church--it's merely a symbolic thing for most of them.. I know this from personal experience--and regardless of what the so-called "Christian-right" would have you believe.
Interesting. So when I see the results of surveys which suggest that about 92% of Americans believe in God, compared to only about 45% in Britain, this isn't really accurate? I've also seen survey results which suggest that about 40% of Americans believe that the world was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago — which to most Europeans would seem hilariously cute at best or an example of extreme religious mania at worst.
like i said, regardless of the percentage, most people do not take it seriously. I live in the so-called 'bible belt' where most people do go to church, but I can promise you that most of them do not take it seriously at all, especially the younger generation, for which its almost a non-issue with them. Its just somewhere they go on sunday so they can dress up nice and socialize and appear to be "good church-going people" like they're supposed to be. Of course there are still a lot people who earnestly care about it, and believe they're really doing the right thing, but so are there in Europe as well. I will be interested to see those same previously mentioned statistics in another 20 or 30 years once these younger generations and their kids take over the majority. Contrary to popular belief, even the remote possibility of teaching about God or even "intelligent design" in school WILL land you in court, and it will be rule against you. Many school boards all over the country in the last few years have made big public issues about it and they pretty much always toss any idea of a God or designer out the window. I have seen stories of countless teachers being dismissed for even bringing up the possibility in the curriculum. And all I was ever taught in school was evolution, big bang, universe is 15 billion years old, there is no God. Whatever people believe now anyway, it will be very different in 20 or 30- years after everyone has grown up in what our society has now become.
Personally I believe that the universe is obviously much older than 6000 years, and that also is biblically supportable.. but once again, thats a complete other topic that may need a new thread.
Benjamin wrote:
ddog800 wrote:
all the mainstream protestant organizations are banded together in systems like the "National Evangelical Association", which pretty much follow de-facto standard protestant beliefs that you'll also find in Europe.
Except that mainstream 'Protestant' denominations in the United States tend to be rather more 'conservative' than, say, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Evangelical Church of Germany, the Church of Sweden etc.
Yes, this is very true, they are a little more conservative this side.
D-Dog, are you familiar with the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South in the book of Daniel?
Are you familiar with the the ten horns that rose out of the fourth beast, and the one horn who proves victorious over the rest? What world power do you interpret that horn to represent?
Quote:
There is a constant theme in the new testament of a counterfiet Christianity coming about. Needless to say, it looks as if Jesus really saw this coming, and tried to actually let us know.
Finally got back to this, but alas, life had called me away . Actually I've focused a lot of my energy on bible prophecy, as it is closely related to my studies of history, and also prophecy actually encompasses around a quarter of the bible itself, so it's definitely an important topic. I went ahead and refreshed myself on the book of Daniel as its been about a year or so since I've really delved into it.
Porthos wrote:
D-Dog, are you familiar with the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South in the book of Daniel?
Yes, i'm familiar with this topic. Its difficult to say the identities of these Kings though there are many guide markers for that subject, but the thing to remember is that it should be taken from the viewpoint of Jerusalem. So it would be kings north and south of that location. To speculate on the identities would require a lot of historical backstory and context that would be overkill on this thread, but i'm definitely open to discussion on that one.
Porthos wrote:
Are you familiar with the the ten horns that rose out of the fourth beast, and the one horn who proves victorious over the rest? What world power do you interpret that horn to represent?
This is also an interesting topic that requires a bit of backstory, but I think its do-able (is that even a word? i felt an unusual urge to hyphenate it :P) here.
In my experience, the bible will always interpret itself. And we need only look at our own history to see what has come about. To understand the meaning of the fourth beast and the horns, you really need to go back to the beginning of the book of Daniel, to King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which was described and interpreted to the king by Daniel, starting in Daniel 2 I believe, and also Daniel's dream years later. The king viewed in his dream a large image rising up above the plains of Shinar that had a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, thighs of bronze, and legs of iron. At the bottom of the legs were feet and toes of clay and iron mixed (which in practice, do not mix well, btw). Then from out of the sky came a large stone that was "cut without hands", that crashed down onto the toes and destroyed the entire image, which blew away. Then the stone became a great mountain which grew and encompassed the entire earth. Later in the chapter, he describes to Nebuchadnezzar that HE is the head of gold from the image, and that 3 kingdoms would rise up in succession after his, which obviously take the part of the silver, bronze, and iron/iron-clay sections of the image. The mountain rising up would represent the Kingdom of God, encompassing the entire earth, as is shown in numerous prophecies (which is consistently shown as a mountain throughout the bible), and the stone which was "cut without hands" would be Christ destroying this system with Babylon at its head, and beginning the reign of His kingdom (the mountain).
Years later Daniel has a dream of his own, which starts in Daniel 7. He stood and saw a raging sea with dark clouds swirling about, and from these clouds he saw "four great beasts" emerge and go one by one to the shore. The first looked like a lion, the second like a bear, the third was a four headed leopard, and the fourth he could only describe as a horrible beast with great iron teeth at which point 10 horns came up from its head, or something to that effect. This dream concludes with the saints receiving God's kingdom, and possessing it forever. According to verse 17, these four beasts which arose successively represent four kings or kingdoms, and verse 23 states that the fourth beast represents the fourth kingdom on the earth. Thus you can see that these two dreams are just different visions of the same events.
Going back to recorded history, you will see that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian empire under Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, Belshazzar, which hundreds of years later fell to Alexander's Greco-Macedonian empire. Alexander ruled for about a decade before he died, and after a failed attempt to stabilize the empire, it was divided among 4 prominent Greek generals who them pronounced themselves Kings, fulfilling the prophecy from Daniel 8--The four heads of the leopard (the 3rd kingdom) had emerged. There is more about these 2 kingdoms (the 2nd and 3rd) in Daniel 8. vs 3-4 talk about a 2 horned ram that goes out and subdued everything around it. Then it talks about a 1 horned he-goat that comes up and the takes out the ram. The ram represents the doubled-armed Medo-Persians, with each horn representing the king of each, and the he-goat represents the king of Greece, with the single horn representing its first king. This is confirmed in verses 20-22:
Daniel 8:20
The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
8:21
And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
8:22
Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
Verse 22 is confirming the succession of "Grecia" into the 4 divisions for the remainder of its reign.
After that the 4th beast came up, which would have been Rome swallowing up Greece and taking its place as "the 4th kingdom on the earth", and was the kingdom in power by the time of Christ. This was obviously not a happy creature in Daniel's dream, and he couldn't even equate it with a real animal, just a terrible beast. In Daniel 2 the 4th kingdom is described as strong as iron, which shatters and breaks everything, and that the kingdom would break and shatter all others. In Daniel 7 he describes the 4th kingdom as diverse or different from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet, and also as diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. This is basically the empire that would be around until the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom, also as depicted in both dreams. This empire can only be Rome, which descended from Babylon, which was absorbed by the Medo-Persians, which was absorbed by the Greco-Macedonian empire, which was finally absorbed into the Roman Empire, as history has recorded.
Anyone familiar with the prophecies of Revelation, in particular chapter 13, should find the imagery in Daniel very familiar. These creatures are one and the same as what appears in John's vision as he stood on the island of Patmos. He looked out into the ocean and saw dark clouds lowering and then a strange creature came up out of the sea. It had the mouth of a lion, the body of a leopard, and the feet of a bear. It also had 7 heads along with 10 horns. This is identical to Daniels dream in which he saw all 3 of these creatures along with the terrible beast encompassing 7 heads across them (remember the leopard had 4 heads). The primary difference here is that all of the animals, or kingdoms, are of course combined, just as in the dream in Daniel 2. There is also a dragon, which gives the beast its power and authority, which Revelation 12 identifies as the devil, Satan, the old serpent which deceives the entire world. Daniel 7 makes it clear that the 4 creatures are 4 kingdoms, and Revelation 17 states that the 7 heads are 7 kings (remember that 4 ruled Grecia simultaneously after Alexander), or 7 mountains (as mountains usually indicate kingdoms), and these 2 chapters also make it clear that horns represent kings as well. You'll notice that John stated that it appeared as if he saw crowns on each of the horns. As indicated by Daniel 7, the 10 horns appeared on the head of the 4th beast, Rome, and so those 10 kings must be associated with that kingdom. Also, of quick note, John also saw that one of the heads received a deadly wound, which was healed. From his point of view, the first 6 heads would have already passed away into history, so that can only be the 7th and last remaining head, the one that was currently in power at that time.
This takes us into Roman history.. in the late 3rd century, the emperor divided the empire into east and west regions, which completed the image of the "2 legs of iron" that would continue down until the end result of the prophecies where they would recombine as the 10 kings mixed of iron and clay (i.e. 2 substances that do not mix). In the early 5th century there was a barbarian group, the Vandals, that invaded Roman territory in north Africa, and eventually made a treaty with Rome that basically said the Vandals were the continuing government of Rome in that region. In the mid 5th century they actually looted the city of Rome, and they became a nuisance and hated by the church of Rome. By the late 5th century the western empire had pretty much succumbed to the barbarian invasions and looting coming from the european side, culminating in the death of the last western Roman emperor "Romulus Augustulus", which signifies the 'traditional" fall of the Roman Empire. This was accomplished by the Herulii, another barbarian group. The eastern empire then recognized their leader, Odacer, as the legitimate Roman government on the Italian penninsula. At this point another figure began to flex its influence that it had built up over the last few centuries, especially as the previous civil government had crumbled throughout the 5th century.. the bishop of Rome had aquired a lot of power during that time, particularly political power, as well as major religious influence. He wasn't to comfortable with the barbarian influence that was entering the area, as they practiced a less orthodox form of Christianity, Arianism. They were afraid they might destabilize the unity of the empire, so the church supported another Arian leader, of the Ostragoths, Theodoric. He eventually overtook the Herulii and removed them, but then the Ostragothic rule became unpopular with the bishop as well as the population. In the early 6th century the eastern empire invaded from Constantinople to remove the Vandals from north africa, then removed the Ostragoths from italy. They entered Rome with no opposition from the bishop, as the general was seen as a liberator, and he was also a trinitarian which put him into favor with the bishop. Later in the mid-6th century, once all the barbarians were conquered, Justinian, the emperor of the eastern empire, issued his "Imperial Restoration" which basically bestowed control of the western empire to the bishops and chief's of each province. It would be their job to appoint people to administer the government. You will find that all the successive attempted revivals of the Roman empire have had the blessing, as well as are crowned by, and coronated in the presence of the bishop of Rome.
Its not difficult to see how the 7th head, Rome, received the deadly wound to its head, which was the fall of the Roman Empire in 476ish AD. The ten horns are the 10 kings that would come up from the empire and each attempt to revive it to its glory, leading up until the time of the end. The first 3 horns were the Vandals, Herulii, and the Ostragoths, the first to try and revive the dead western leg of the Roman Empire. Then came up the little horn, which as Daniel said "in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." Justinian then plucked out those first 3 horns before , and at the behest of, the little horn that appeared (you'll notice in Daniel 7, that the little horn does not pluck the first 3 up itself, but they are plucked up BEFORE it. 'Before' is translated from the Aramaic word 'Min', which means 'from, out of, by, by reason of, at, more than, as a result of, according to'), in this case, that little horn is actually the bishop of Rome, and not technically a world power as you suggested, though they have always flexed enormous political influence and control then, and so on until even today. At that point, the Imperial Restoration took place not long after, and so began the rest of the attempted revivals through out medieval and modern history, which began with Charlemagne, who was crowned on Christmas day by Pope Leo in front of St. Peter's alter around 800 A.D.
I will stop here, as I've reached my point concerning the 3 first horns, and the little horn. Also, I do feel compelled to point out that, from the point of Jerusalem, and with the knowledge that the Roman empire will reach its final and most deadly incarnation at the time of the end when the Kings of the North and South become relevant, that it is the most likely identity of the King of the North. Also, given the modern geo-political landscape, I would put my best guess at this moment for the King of the South as being of Arab origin, but that is purely speculation on my part based on current facts.
I'd love to hear someone elses opinion or comments on this topic.
Quote:
Are you familiar with the parable of the weeds and the wheat?
Its very late and I've got to go to sleep before I pass out right here, I'll surely post something tomorrow on this.
his takes us into Roman history.. in the late 3rd century, the emperor divided the empire into east and west regions, which completed the image of the "2 legs of iron" that would continue down until the end result of the prophecies where they would recombine as the 10 kings mixed of iron and clay (i.e. 2 substances that do not mix). In the early 5th century there was a barbarian group, the Vandals, that invaded Roman territory in north Africa, and eventually made a treaty with Rome that basically said the Vandals were the continuing government of Rome in that region. In the mid 5th century they actually looted the city of Rome, and they became a nuisance and hated by the church of Rome. By the late 5th century the western empire had pretty much succumbed to the barbarian invasions and looting coming from the european side, culminating in the death of the last western Roman emperor "Romulus Augustulus", which signifies the 'traditional" fall of the Roman Empire. This was accomplished by the Herulii, another barbarian group. The eastern empire then recognized their leader, Odacer, as the legitimate Roman government on the Italian penninsula. At this point another figure began to flex its influence that it had built up over the last few centuries, especially as the previous civil government had crumbled throughout the 5th century.. the bishop of Rome had aquired a lot of power during that time, particularly political power, as well as major religious influence. He wasn't to comfortable with the barbarian influence that was entering the area, as they practiced a less orthodox form of Christianity, Arianism. They were afraid they might destabilize the unity of the empire, so the church supported another Arian leader, of the Ostragoths, Theodoric. He eventually overtook the Herulii and removed them, but then the Ostragothic rule became unpopular with the bishop as well as the population. In the early 6th century the eastern empire invaded from Constantinople to remove the Vandals from north africa, then removed the Ostragoths from italy. They entered Rome with no opposition from the bishop, as the general was seen as a liberator, and he was also a trinitarian which put him into favor with the bishop. Later in the mid-6th century, once all the barbarians were conquered, Justinian, the emperor of the eastern empire, issued his "Imperial Restoration" which basically bestowed control of the western empire to the bishops and chief's of each province. It would be their job to appoint people to administer the government. You will find that all the successive attempted revivals of the Roman empire have had the blessing, as well as are crowned by, and coronated in the presence of the bishop of Rome.
Its not difficult to see how the 7th head, Rome, received the deadly wound to its head, which was the fall of the Roman Empire in 476ish AD. The ten horns are the 10 kings that would come up from the empire and each attempt to revive it to its glory, leading up until the time of the end. The first 3 horns were the Vandals, Herulii, and the Ostragoths, the first to try and revive the dead western leg of the Roman Empire. Then came up the little horn, which as Daniel said "in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." Justinian then plucked out those first 3 horns before , and at the behest of, the little horn that appeared (you'll notice in Daniel 7, that the little horn does not pluck the first 3 up itself, but they are plucked up BEFORE it. 'Before' is translated from the Aramaic word 'Min', which means 'from, out of, by, by reason of, at, more than, as a result of, according to'), in this case, that little horn is actually the bishop of Rome, and not technically a world power as you suggested, though they have always flexed enormous political influence and control then, and so on until even today. At that point, the Imperial Restoration took place not long after, and so began the rest of the attempted revivals through out medieval and modern history, which began with Charlemagne, who was crowned on Christmas day by Pope Leo in front of St. Peter's alter around 800 A.D.
My interpretation is different, as I look at in longer terms. I would say that the horn that rises above all others is the Anglo-American world power.
The North-South kings at least initially, were to the north and south of Judah, yes. But eventually, as history unfolded, that no longer held true, when we were well into the Gentile times and the post-Christian era. The North-South struggle was prophesied to carry on until the time of Armageddon, or the "last days", which would mean that there are still a king of the North and a King of the South right on up to our day. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I would say that interpreting the Book of Daniel in the context of modern events is completely inappropriate.
According to most modern biblical scholars, the Book of Daniel is apocalyptic literature written in the 2nd century BCE as a way of encouraging the Jews during the Greek occupation of Jerusalem, under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. It basically details how the righteous Jews will be rewarded after life, and how the persecutors will get their comeuppance.
What use would prophecy referring to the 21st century CE have been to people living in Palestine 2,200 years ago? (Or 2,600 years ago, if you adhere to the traditional view that the Book of Daniel really was written by Daniel in the 6th century BCE during the exile in Babylonia).
I would say that interpreting the Book of Daniel in the context of modern events is completely inappropriate.
According to most modern biblical scholars, the Book of Daniel is apocalyptic literature written in the 2nd century BCE as a way of encouraging the Jews during the Greek occupation of Jerusalem, under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. It basically details how the righteous Jews will be rewarded after life, and how the persecutors will get their comeuppance.
What use would prophecy referring to the 21st century CE have been to people living in Palestine 2,200 years ago? (Or 2,600 years ago, if you adhere to the traditional view that the Book of Daniel really was written by Daniel in the 6th century BCE during the exile in Babylonia).
You don't believe the Bible is the word of God, Benjamin. So your approach to the bible is one of a secular scholar, and you view the bible like any other man-made book. So, it's pointless for you to debate this topic.
But to answer your question:
2 Timothy - 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, reproving, for setting things straight, and for disciplining in righteousness.
So, the book of Daniel was not written only for the Jews, nor was it even written primarily for them. It was a book of prophecy, prophecies which in large part, would not see their fulfillment until the "Lord's Day", or the "Conclusion of the system of things". It was written for our benefit, as Christians. And last time I checked, we were still around in the 21st century. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
My interpretation is different, as I look at in longer terms. I would say that the horn that rises above all others is the Anglo-American world power.
Please explain. Remember that these 10 horns spring out of the 4th beast, which the bible indicates is Rome, so the horns must also be of Rome. However, if the little horn is Anglo-American world power (and there has been nothing little about Anglo world power, beginning with the rise of the British Empire in the 19th century), then who are the 3 little horns that it has had plucked up, and who plucked them up "before" that little horn? And what of the remaining 7? There is yet more detailed information on this topic that can still be covered. In fact, there will be a horn that overtakes Anglo-American world power, which is already on the decline as everyone can painfully see. And just as with all of the other horns, they will receive their power from the little horn... the final horn, which is the final revival (and most "successful") of the empire, which is yet to come. Lets look a bit more at what the scriptures say about the little horn: (comments are inline in italics)
Daniel 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots <leaving only 7 behind, as the first 3 have been removed from the image>: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom<emphasis added> are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse <i.e. different> from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. <so here it makes clear that the first 3 horns are 3 kings, as are the remaining 7, which will rise up out of this single kingdom.. but the little horn is different, it is not a 'king' per se, which means it could not be a world power>
and remember, this following verse we have already discussed, regarding the alterations and additions made to the Christian practices by the church of Rome.. this is that same horn, as it goes on to say:
7:25 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.
Now, in Revelation 17, you'll find a more detailed description of that final head which contains the 10 (now 7) horns/kings. Remember that Revelation describes the events leading up to teh "Day of the Lord", or the "Lord's Day", an event signified both in the new testament and the old as the time when God will establish his kingdom over the earth.
Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. <as you'll recall, the first dream from Daniel 2 showed that Babylon was at the head of this system, and even in its final incarnation it is still recognized as Babylon>
17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
I find this interesting, because even John could not help but marvel at her with admiration, at least until he learns what it is. The angel even asks him:
17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
At first glance most people just assume this is the same beast from Revelation 13, but a close examination reveals that its rather a more detailed description of the final beast, the 4th kingdom. Notice the differences: The beast of Revelation 13 is described as being parts of the different creatures from the book of Daniel, as John simply saw them all as components of a single entity, but this beast in chapter 17 is just a 'scarlet coloured beast. And now there is a rider present, also draped in scarlet and more, the great whore that sits on many waters. Additionally, we can refer to Revelation 13 to further connect the 4th kingdom to this new beast in chapter 17:
Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
This parallels with chap 17:
17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition <meaning utter destruction>: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
This is accounting the same thing... He saw one of his heads (the beast that "was"), that then received a deadly wound (now the beast "is not"), which is then healed (and now the beast "yet is"). In both accounts the world marveled at the beast at how it was healed and how it, somehow, "is" again, and in both scriptures the same Greek word is used in the place of wonder, "Thaumazo', meaning "to wonder, wonder at, marvel,to be wondered at, to be had in admiration". This is obviously the same entity. So you can see more clearly the connection between the beast of Rev 17 and the 4th kingdom, or that 4th beast from the previous image.
As you'll follow these narratives from the beginning of Daniel to the end of Revelation, you'll see that it goes from being a broad description before any of it occurs (as was the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream) to becoming more and more detailed and refined as the years pass and certain elements have already occurred (as is the final image in Revelation 17). In fact, by the time you get to Revelation 17, John is witnessing events that will happen in the very days leading up to the rise of the final beast power just before Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom. This is why it is so focused only on the fourth incarnation, and then the final elements of that incarnation.
So, the beast from Rev 17 represents the 4th kingdom, while the 7 heads represent the final remaining 7 horns from that kingdom, upon which the woman sits (17:9-10). The rider represents the one who is in control of this great power, just as any rider controls a horse, etc. We know from history that that power over this 4th kingdom was given to the church during the Imperial Restoration, as the church was issued the power to appoint and crown the heads of state, just after those first 3 horns were "plucked". The 10 horns present on this beast represent the 10 toes of mixed iron and clay from the original vision in Daniel 2, and they are quite different from the kings of the previous image, because these are kings that already have power, and they will willingly give that power up to the woman and to the beast. As this beast in Rev 17 represents the final end-time result of the Babylonian system, it can only be synonymous with the feet and toes of that first image, since that image ends with Christ coming from out of the clouds and smashing the image at its feet, the final stage of that image starting with ancient Babylon at its head. Lets read on:
17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
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.<remember, this is now in the context of being very close to the Lord's Day, and that these 7 kings are synonymous with the 7 remaining horns of the 4th beast from Daniel 7. At this point in the vision there have been 5 fallen kings, or 5 fallen attempted revivals of the empire, 1 is, and 1 still to come>
17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. here it describes the 10 horns on this second beast, which clearly are not described the same as the 10 horns from Revelation 13, or Daniel 7. The original 10 horns (now represented as heads) were reduced to 7 by the 'little horn', and you'll note that in this scenario there is no little horn... that is now being represented as the rider
17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Rome has always been an empire of many tongues and peoples, and this will extend to many nations as well, in its final incarnation
17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
As we can see, the bible interprets itself quite well. There is no need for us to attempt to put our own interpretation of it without a proper, logical, and scriptural reasoning. As you quoted from 2 Tim 3:16
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Interpretation of the bible is not ever meant to be a mystery, or secretive or something that "certain" people can understand, and the bible will ALWAYS interpret itself, so there is no need for us to try and use our imaginations. Also, another very important bit to remember is from 2 Peter 1:
1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
The North-South kings at least initially, were to the north and south of Judah, yes. But eventually, as history unfolded, that no longer held true, when we were well into the Gentile times and the post-Christian era. The North-South struggle was prophesied to carry on until the time of Armageddon, or the "last days", which would mean that there are still a king of the North and a King of the South right on up to our day.
Yes, your correct in that the center of world events has certainly drifted away from Jerusalem over the last few thousand years, but as even Jesus Himself indicated, when the latter days came about, then world events would also then be surrounded around Jerusalem. The majority of the bible has centered itself around the land of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, going all the way back to the time of Abram, when he left his home in Ur of the Chaldeas (a region of ancient Babylon) and into the land of Caanan (the promised land, Israel). From that point on the bible is always centered around either people in the promised land, or people trying to get to, or get back to the promised land, and even up to the time of Jesus, they were in Jerusalem. Even in Jesus' prophecies concerning the last days, it is still centered around the city of Jerusalem, as spoken in numerous prophecies, such as Luke's account of the Olivet prophecy (Luke 21:20). The battle of Armageddon actually refers to a place in the promised land, the Hill of Megiddo, which overlooks the Valley of Jezreel, about 55 miles north of Jerusalem, where the armies would gather to fight Christ upon His return. Once Christ returns, He will descent onto the mount of olives, in the promised land and establish the capital of his kingdom in Jerusalem. Also, note Zechariah 12
12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces * , though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
Even now, world events are more and more centering around Israel and Palestine. Tell me, how much to do you hear about Palestine and Israel in the news today? It is indeed a burdensome stone for all peoples, and it will only get worse and worse until it culminates into something awful. Lets take a look at Daniel 11 also.
11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land (Israel, the promised land), and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
So here we can see that the King of the North in the end time will come against the King of the South, and this will involve the King of the North entering Israel. This bit of prophecy was all written from the point of view of Jerusalem, and there is no indication that the positioning of the Kings of the north and south would change over time. In ancient times, Syria would have been considered the King of the North. They were conquered and absorbed into, none other than, the Roman Empire, in the 1st century A.D.
What use would prophecy referring to the 21st century CE have been to people living in Palestine 2,200 years ago? (Or 2,600 years ago, if you adhere to the traditional view that the Book of Daniel really was written by Daniel in the 6th century BCE during the exile in Babylonia).
It actually wouldn't, and didn't serve any purpose to the people living there at the time, and that is precisely why it wouldn't make sense at all if it was just some book written in 200BC to juice up the Jews with a little encouragement. Thats some encouragement, "You're pretty much screwed until centuries after you die, and everything hits the fan." As nice as it is just having the knowledge of a future resurrection (which they already had had for centuries, btw), it would have done nothing to stir the spirit of the Jews at the time. Which is why it was written down and preserved, and here we are 2600 years later in the 21st century reading it, and amazingly it meshes up perfectly with writings done by different people hundreds of years apart, and then found hundreds or thousands of miles apart, centuries apart. In fact, the book of Daniel specifically states that it is for those in the latter days.. note the following verses:
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
A lot of these words were clarified later by Jesus, and then by John, and lots of it still made no sense to the people at the time. The book of Daniel focuses primarily on prophecy leading up to the end times. Daniel did not even understand what he was seeing, and when he asked for the answer he was simply told to go away, that the words were not for him, they are for the 'time of the end'... not very encouraging. Then in vs 13 the Lord tells him again to go his way, and rest (die), until the end of days when he will stand in his lot (referring to Daniel 12:2)
You don't believe the Bible is the word of God, Benjamin. So your approach to the bible is one of a secular scholar, and you view the bible like any other man-made book. So, it's pointless for you to debate this topic.
Presumably you reject modern biblical scholarship off-hand then, simply dismissing concepts like source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and narrative criticism as 'secular'.
Presumably you reject modern biblical scholarship off-hand then, simply dismissing concepts like source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and narrative criticism as 'secular'.
If modern scholars try to view or portray the bible as just any other book, written by men, then yes, I reject them. Because you can't view it as such if you wish to understand it. Do I belive that some of the bible is true, while other parts are fantasy, or mythology, or folktales? No. Because I believe it to be the word of God, with God as the author of every one of the books. And the bible does not contradict itself, despite being written over the course of hundreds of years by people of many different backgrounds.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. Actually I've focused a lot of my energy on bible prophecy, as it is closely related to my studies of history, and also prophecy actually encompasses around a quarter of the bible itself, so it's definitely an important topic. I went ahead and refreshed myself on the book of Daniel as its been about a year or so since I've really delved into it.