Hi SingleCell: You are trapped in a mind set. The "stone" not cut by hands is cut out of the present "mountain" of man rule. That stone will destroy the present political structure that has been in place for eons of time, one large kingdom that predominates the rest of the nations around it, but not worldwide. That is the image of Daniel 2. When Satan and the demons destroy that system, they will present a new system of worldwide domination through a "new" beastly system. It will be unlike all the other kingdoms before it as Daniel 7 tells us. It will "fill the whole earth". It will not be located in America, or Russia, or China, but will be a worldwide government with some set up of "10 kings". These are the 10 kings of Daniel 7, Revelation 13 and the "In the days of those [10] kings" of Daniel 2:44. The 10 kings are not crushed by the stone not cut by hands, that stone destroys the present system of Satan the Devil which is represented by the image of Daniel 2. The stone that grows to become a large mountain and "fills the earth" is the beast of Daniel 7. It will have some manifestation of "10 kings" and will soon thereafter be destroyed by the kingdom of God, just like the stone destroyed the image. Just watch and see, it will happen before your very eyes SingleCell. Frank
Psalm 2 is another "broad overview". Here would be the Daniel 2:44 corollary: Ask of me, and I will give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your possession. You will break them with an iron scepter, And you will smash them like a piece of pottery. - Psalm 2:8-9
While I agree with your basic outline, I still don't see a way of reading Daniel 2:44 as being Satan's global kingdom. (which is surely coming) So, I concur with your outline, but compare Daniel 2:44 with the other "summary" chapters and you'll see a consistency with the "rock" being God's kingdom. Meh .. small potatoes either way. Satan's global empire IS coming, debating 2:44 is a bit like wall papering the kitchen while a tornado approaches
Singlecell, what if Rev 13 is a mirror of Dan 2 and 7? Could this be the absolute simplest understanding? That would make the second beast with two horns the iron/clay from Dan 2 and the fourth beast and small horn of Dan 7... Wouldn't that take out a lot of personal interpretation? After all, we know the iron/clay survives down till Gods kingdom crushes it.
Yes, but I would change the identities around.. [IMO] Daniel 7 and 8 demonstrate that the final system comes from Rome and Greece respectively, and Greece is seen explicitly in the 1st beast of Rev 13 -- I think that links the 1st beast with Daniel 7 and 8. Also, Rome not being named, even by John, coupled with the transition from iron -> iron-clay mix, seems like a hint that the Rev 13 1st beast is the subject of Daniel 7 and 8. (had John mentioned Rome explicitly, it would throw a wrench into the gears of prophecy, instead, we link-in by the "one is" in Revelation 17) Which leaves the anomaly, the 2nd beast, as unique in the schema and not discussed in Daniel. I would identify that second beast as Anglo-America, post-healed-deathstroke. (until then, they are lamb-like) Why? Because of two key attributes: A) it comes from the earth (unpopulated areas) This perfectly describes BOTH the US and UK. Rising from remote locations with sparse populations. B) they rise as Christian (lamb) horns, and THEN begin to speak like Satan (dragon), AFTER the death-stroke is healed [yeah, yeah ... we've argued about this LOLOL] This perfectly describes the US and UK (though the UK is less obvious, since Rome did sorta-"conquer" it from 1st cent. BCE -> 1st cent. CE)... However, what we consider the "UK" today is the post-Roman-post-Boudica period 1500 years later when the UK separated from the Roman church under Henry VIII. (16 C) For these reasons I see: - 1st beast as the post-Roman nation-state pseudo-empire we live in today, loosely glued together by a common financial system, common interests, and treaties - 2nd beast is post-collapse UK-US partnership which props up the UN as the conglomerated image of the pseudo-empire 1st beast This framework flows well with the statue, since the metals are transitory; consider that only Ptolemy transitioned into Rome by secession, yet Daniel 8 shows those 4 empires as leading to the little horn 8th king. In other words, there is no in-congruency here, since Daniel 2 and Revelation 13 align in method of interpretation (derivative transitory empires) and juxtaposed to history (Babylon-> Medo-Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> Western nation-states)
One clarification Joshua, just to preempt an issue coming out of Revelation 17. We're still in the Iron and Iron-clay mix empire, which I believe are referred to as ONE empire, also THREE empires. The iron was the formal Roman empire, and the iron-clay is the post-Roman nation-state system derived from Rome and Greece. Five have fallen, (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece) one is, (Rome, and iron-clay mix, which still "is") and the other has not yet arrived; but when he does arrive, he must remain a short while. (8th king, post-iron-clay-death-stroke resurrection) And the wild beast that was but is not, it is also an eighth king, but it springs from the seven, and it goes off into destruction. ------------------ So there are 7 kings. The 6th king (formal Rome) is also the 7th (nation-states) AND the 8th. (post-healed-death-stroke nation-states)
SingleCell, what if that second beast of Rev 13 is mentioned in Daniel? What creatures are in the first beast of Rev 13? The lion, bear and leopard. This matches the gold, silver and copper. As well it matches the lion, bear and leopard of Dan 7, but what about the iron/clay and the fourth beast with two horns from Daniel? Think about it, Iron/clay=two entities, fierce beast and little horn=two entities, second beast in Rev 13 with two horns=two entities. Should it not be the simplest of understandings that the second beast in Rev 13 is the missing iron/clay and fourth beast/little horn from Daniel?
That is possible, but it does create some issues squaring the attributes of the 2nd beast in Rev 13. - rises like a Lamb (not the Iron fierceness which tramples the earth a la Daniel 7) - rises from the earth (not highly populated area, Rome came from the most population dense part of the world at the time)
Frank, here are other corollary verses to Daniel 2:44 (IMO): After the 4th beast tramples the earth, 10 horns, little horn, Jesus returns and: His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed. - Daniel 7:14b Same idea, told a different way: ‘These huge beasts, four in number, are four kings who will stand up from the earth. But the holy ones of the Supreme One will receive the kingdom, and they will possess the kingdom forever, yes, forever and ever.’ - Daniel 7:17-18 "Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’" - Daniel 7:27 Another counter-argument I would make: The 'space rock' kingdom is not derivative from the statue, or the 4 beasts, it is otherworldly and becomes the whole earth and lasts "forever". The 8th king / little horn comes FROM the 4th and 3rd beast (Daniel 7 and 8). Revelation 17 says the 8th king "springs" from the 7. If the imagery of the space rock were Satan's global empire, we would get other same-y metaphors from the other correlating prophecies. Instead we see the 8th king being derivative from the empires before it.
Hence why the three different time periods, Dan 2, Dan 7 and Rev 13. We already know the entities in Dan 7 are a different time period then in Dan 2 because the lion is lifted up from the earth and given back a heart of man after it was taken away. We also know that Media-Persia had conquered three nations. The leopard's four heads are the four kingdoms that took over after Alexander had died. So therefore Dan 7 is a different time frame but the same entities as in Dan 2. If this is true of Rev 13 as well then we are just looking at these entities at a different time frame. We know the iron/clay survives to the end when Gods kingdom destroys it in Dan 2, therefore the death stroke that was healed must come to one of the heads John talks about in Rev 17. If five had past and one "is" (Rome) then we have to understand at least Rome would have to be part of the healed death stroke. That means when the death stroke is healed it's going to start off small after the healing. Regardless of who one thinks the 7th king is, there can be no doubt Rome was the 6th, and it survives to the end, although it went down in 538CE. So therefore it has to be part of the healing in order to survive in our day. If you look at the last two battles between the North and the South in Dan 11 before the denunciations are healed, the North loses them both, therefore it shows it is not the power it use to be. Therefore one of the horns of the second beast in Rev 13 must be the iron of Dan 2 and the fourth beast of Dan 7 if we are to allow each chapter to be a mirror of themselves, albeit in different time frames...
Even if we do take that framework, the attribute of rising from an unpopulated area (assuming that earth is the opposite of the sea) makes it unlikely. The attributes need to match regardless of time-frame, in my mind. "Then I saw another wild beast ascending out of the earth, and it had two horns like a lamb, but it began speaking like a dragon." - comes from an unpopulated area - initially is "lamb like" Rome came from a populated area, and was warlike immediately. The "lamb" part could be AFTER ascending.. but it seems to indicate ascending from an unpopulated area. Alternatively, "earth" isn't the opposite of the sea, but is indicating "man" (clay) rule of republicanism and democracy. ... then I think it fits actually.
What makes you think the term "earth" means an unpopulated area? I don't see the scriptural connection for that. It could simply mean from earth, or even burial. "Earth [N] ; "In the sense of soil or ground, the translation of the word adamah' . In Genesis 9:20 "husbandman" is literally "man of the ground or earth." Altars were to be built of earth ( Exodus 20:24 ). Naaman asked for two mules' burden of earth ( 2 Kings 5:17 ), under the superstitious notion that Jehovah, like the gods of the heathen, could be acceptably worshipped only on his own soil. (2). As the rendering of 'erets , it means the whole world ( Genesis 1:2 ); the land as opposed to the sea ( 1:10 ). Erets also denotes a country ( 21:32 ); a plot of ground ( 23:15 ); the ground on which a man stands ( 33:3 ); the inhabitants of the earth ( 6:1 ; 11:1 ); all the world except Israel ( 2 Chronicles 13:9 ). In the New Testament "the earth" denotes the land of Judea ( Matthew 23:35 ); also things carnal in contrast with things heavenly ( John 3:31 ; Colossians 3:1 Colossians 3:2 )." Also, what does the term, "lamb" have to do with umpopulated areas? As well you mention that earth represents clay, then this would just represent part of the little horn joining itself to the fourth beast, and has nothing to do with unpopulated areas. Could "from the earth" simply be the death stroke healing of the iron/clay??? The lamb like quality is an easy one, the entity claims to help mankind.
Sorry, I didn't intend to connect the "lamb" to unpopulated areas, but as a Christian / peaceful / harmless beginning. I didn't make that very clear Regarding the earth: The "earth" is the anti-thesis of the sea. And the sea means: "peoples and tongues and nations" "And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages." So, the 1st beast comes out of the sea of mankind. The "cradle of civilization". The 2nd beast comes from unpopulated "new" regions. [presuming we take earth as opposite sea] Related words: farmers, earth, land, of-earth, of-land, terrestrial
I'm certainly not dogmatic about this .... But unless Rev 13 is purely future, the US / UK fit the bill. The UK is basically the proto-US, it came from very humble beginnings, far removed from the "cradle of civilization". It's modern incarnation (12C+) was Christian, and separated from the Roman Catholic system. ------------- 200 years later another horn came up in a distant land, was Christian and separated from the Roman Catholic system. ------------- So, at least those two attributes fit. What remains to be seen is how the US-UK will react when the Bretton Woods system implodes. If they become the rallying point for the empowering of the UN, and performs "signs" to persuade the world to join with the 1st beast - UN Western system ... bingo, we have a winner
Any nation comes from men doesn't it? How could one differentiate between any of the nations for they all came from unpopulated lands originally unless conquered. Besides each nation is made up and comes from men, and I'm not sure there is a precedence to say the sea must be an anti type of the earth, therefore saying the earth is unpopulated areas, because I don't believe one can say the sea is "populated" areas. Nations are established by people, simply put, both in previously populated areas, (when a nation is conquered) or new land if no one is there. From the earth must simply represent what is stated in the same chapter in that of a healing from earth, and as you said representing the clay...
Throughout the scriptures the "sea" is used to indicate "peoples and nations". This is well established, but I'll find a bunch of proof texts if you like. Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 picture beasts rising from the "sea". It's not a stretch to conclude that rising from the "earth" as indicating non-peoples. (no water) But your premise simply isn't true, and only serves to homogenize history. - Rome came out of a multitude of "groups" of people in the most population dense part of the world (at the time) - The US, as the anti-thesis, came out of a (mostly) unpopulated region. (same with Britain) Were they both started by men? Yes. Was one from an unpopulated region and the other from a populated region? Yes. Either way, we can't ignore an attribute. The "earth" is a key identifier, whatever the symbol represents. "Alas, the uproar of many peoples Who roar like the roaring of the seas, And the rumbling of nations Who rush on like the rumbling of mighty waters!" - Isaiah 17:12
Just as you told Frank as it pertains to a theme in scripture about the stone being Gods kingdom and that it lasts for ever, I think we should keep that in mind here. I don't think the purpose of the prophecy is to tell us that the US is from the earth. After all the Indians were here before the US was established, it was not an unpopulated area at all. The colonies were British at one time. The US was just an extension of the British empire. How many nations in the past explored new lands and then that land became part of their nation? All of them, new lands has nothing to do with creating a nation, it only enlarges it. The US was part of Britain, therefore in reality the US came from the British empire and had already been populated by the British first.
I disagree; the Bible speaks in absolutes, and it's up to us to understand the implication of the statement, not fit the absolute into reality. (otherwise, we should still see smoke rising from Ancient Babylon) "Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever." - Isaiah 34:10 So, even if I'm wrong about the "earth" being the anti-thesis of the sea -- identification by absolutes is a dead-end. Natives on the continent don't invalidate the symbol anymore than Babylon no longer smoking invalidates Isaiah's prophecy. As an exercise, we need to find two nations which: 1. Are lamb-like (most likely Christian, given the "lamb" attribute) 2. Are in a position to sway the opinion of the entire world 3. However we identify the "earth", this is two nations origination attribute, like the beast from the sea 4. Will begin speaking like Satan once these other things occur 5. Are in a position to enforce a global financial system and empower the UN 6. Work together, so-far as being seen as "horns" on the same beast 7. Separate and distinct from the European system in some way, yet still a supporter of that European system If you can think of anything, let me know! Given the attributes above, I can't think of anything else but future fulfillment, or the US-UK.
Holy Roman Empire fits... Besides, the US was established by conquering the British Empire. Did you by chance watch the video?
SingleCell: What does the term "In the days of those kings" mean? Who are "those kings"? In Daniel 2:44? Don't go off on anything else. Frank