Hi Joshua: No, I am not saying that they are the same thing, but they do help us see approximately when these prophecies are written for. "In the Lord's day" is a time period that I think is defined by the presence of the Lord Jesus in the flesh, or at least by one of his bride, in which he is "one flesh" with and therefore would also be broadly termed a time during the presence of Jesus in the "flesh". The "time of the end" is the last portion of the "Lords Day". In the first Century the presence of the Lord, or the Lord's Day would have been from the time Jesus existed in the flesh on earth till the time that there was no longer a faithful member of his flesh, his bride on the earth. We don't know exactly when this happened in the first Century as the actual history of the early Christian Church has been compromised by the Catholic Church which I think started in the first Century itself among new covenant saints that went bad. I believe the second presence of the Lord or the Lord's Day started with the santification of the new covenant saints at the end of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the 20th Century and continued until the Watchtower lost it's water baptism with that dreadful letter to all bodies of elders dated November 10th, 2001 when they denied having formed an idolatrous relationship with the U.N. and instead of repenting in front of all onlookers, put the blame on the "op-posers" who pointed out their idolatrous course. From that point forward, any of the new covenant saints who were formerly a part of Jesus bride, his flesh, no longer were, but they became "unclean" by virtue of their lack of a valid water baptism, therefore necessitating the "washing of the feet". Jesus explained to Peter that the body of his bride was already clean, but that her "feet", or the last remaining ones on the earth would need to be cleaned, as he did for his disciples in demonstation. Since that time, the Watchtower has not had an approved water baptism from Jehovah God. How can an organization that is collectively an unrepentant sinner right up to the very top be the Steward of an approve baptism from the God that they supposedly worship exclusively. The only answer is that you can't. The temple of the new covenant saints has been in an unapproved state since that time and will continue for 4600 prophetic days of Daniel 8. 2300 morning sacrifices plus 2300 evening sacrifices equals 4600 total sacrifices (a sacrifice for a day). So that day when they will re-establish their cleanliness as Christ's bride is nearing, so we have been living during the time of the fulfillment of Daniel 7 and 8 whether we know it or not. I think that day could be as close as less than a month away. I could be wrong, as I have in the past, but I think we are very near to the fulfillment of these prophecies. frank
Tell me this, If it's the small horn that comes against the constant feature, then how is it the small horn comes against the constant feature before the fourth beast is killed in Dan 7? Dan 11 tells us that the constant feature is removed before the last battle between North and South. As well again, how is it that the small horn exists along side the fourth beast in Dan 7 speaking and carrying on, if as you claim the small horn comes from the destruction of the fourth beast? Red was added: Dan 7:11; “I kept watching at that time because of the sound of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking; I watched until (then) the beast was killed and its body was destroyed and it was given over to be burned in the fire." Again, how could the head with a death stroke be the west if the small horn comes up from the fourth beast long before that fourth beast is killed? And what is that beast? Nation? Why does Rev 17 describe the beast in Rev 13 "the beast that you saw"? Didn't we see the beast in Rev 13 with a healed head? Why does it say at that point it was? How was it? Did it not have a healed head? Is that not how it was, with a healed head? Then why does it go on to say "it is not"? Isn't this after we "saw it" with a healed head? Then it says it is yet to come out of the abyss. But wait, how could it have come out of the abyss sometime later if in Rev 13 shows it already healed? Why does this beast come from abyss and Rev 13 comes from sea? Do you not see the paradox's in chronology? Do you not see that the chronology of Rev 17 makes it impossible for the death stroke to be the reason it comes out of the abyss? Again, how can this be so if the horn comes to be before the fourth beast of Dan 7 is killed? And might I note, again, that the fourth beast is killed by the second death. How can that be healed? Again, how can this be so if the horn comes to be before the fourth beast of Dan 7 is killed? And might I note, again, that the fourth beast is killed by the second death. How can that be healed?
Hi SingleCell: I honestly am not saying this out of any disrespect to you as I like my discussions with you, but do you actually know what is meant by typical and antitypical, because you deny the existence of an antitype fulfillment in our day, but then you proceed to define what will happen, which pretty much defines what antitypical means? Again, I mean no disrespect and please do not take it that way. frank
I have to ask, how can you show in scripture a moment water baptism is no longer excepted? How can you imply that someones baptism by JW's is not excepted? Would this not fall into the lines of becoming an understanding outside scripture? Also, I know of only one other location that evenings and morning are discussed such as in Dan 8, and that is the creation account. What did the creation account mean by an evening and morning?
Hi Joshua: You are aware that the "constant offering" describes the sacrifices given every day in the temple, one in the morning and one in the evening of every day, are you not? That is what is being spoken about in Daniel 8 and I don't think it has anything to do with the evening and morning mentioned in Genesis. As far as baptisms go, when a person is disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation, does their baptism remain valid and intact? No, it does not, and that is the whole purpose of disfellowshipping is to remove that person from being an approved member of the congregation. When is a person "removed" from the Christian Congregation? When they show by their actions that they are an unrepentant sinner. Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization showed to all onlookers of their actions that they were not repentant for their idolatry with the U.N. when they very easily could have shown a contrite heart and admitted their mistake. But they viewed the praise from people as of more value than praise from God, cause if they would have repentantly admitted their mistake to God and to man, they would have been pardoned. They chose however the praise from man over the praise from God and on that day I believe Jehovah God and Jesus Christ disfellowshipped them for their lack of repentance. You can give them a free pass if you want to but I will not, because I wholeheartedly believe that Jehovah God has not. Lack of repentance from sin is the same thing when it is an individual or if it is in a collective fashion as it was with the hierarchy of the Watchtower. Not only did they not repent themselves, but they disfellowshipped any and all who brought this dreadful sin to their attention, compounding their error, because now they share places with the Catholic Church in regards to the blood of the Holy Ones that is on their hands. "In reply he said: “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 14 Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.†Matthew 15:14 frank
No worries Frank I AM dumb, truly, and I mean that with all seriousness. Hence 'singlecell'. But I don't think I've created the logical conundrum you've laid out. I'm not saying 'Greece' BECOMES representative of an anti-type (E.G. 'today Greece represents something not-Greece'), I'm saying Greece literally transitioned into the Roman -> Western World System. Hence in Rev 13 we see the first beast is 'LIKE' Greece, in other words, the "Western World" inherited the attributes of Greece, which Daniel 8 explicitly details. The interesting thing in Daniel 8 (which I believe proves my argument) is that it, like Daniel 7, shows a timeline of empire through the return of Christ. Yet, Daniel 8 doesn't mention Rome (the fourth beast). Why do you think that is? Could the answer lie in Rev 13's first beast where it is described as LIKE those prior empires? The "West" is a derivative of Rome and Greece, directly.
Dan 7:1; "In the first year of King Bel·shaz′zar of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay on his bed" Dan 8:1; "In the third year of the kingship of King Bel·shaz′zar, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after the one that appeared to me previously." I understand what you are saying, that perhaps the fulfillment will be in the first and third years of a future Belshazzar. I have to respectfully disagree that the mention of Belshazzar is to have any prophetic fulfillment. It doesn't fit the scenarios of the chapters. Neither Dan 7 nor Dan 8 were fulfilled when Daniel saw the visions. It was just simply when he saw the visions, which means that the first and third years of Belshazzar had nothing to do with their fulfillment since it was only a vision that was received at that time. Besides, this a common practice throughout all scripture to mention in what year of the king such and such took place, I see nothing special in him being mentioned.
Hey SingleCell, did you notice the chronology of the small horn in Dan 8 compared to Dan 7? Did you notice that the battle in Daniel 8 has to come before the events in Dan 7 because of the accounts of the small horn coming to be?
Yes and I'm really excited to dig into this and provide an argument, but I don't have time ATM! Give me a day or so. Briefly, there are some "if then" statements we need to make regarding these beasts - and Daniel 7 / 8 limits our "if" possibilities, giving us a baseline.
OK, dang - you sucked me in. There is no disparity between the 'little horn' in either of these chapters, within the framework I'm arguing for. Can you quote the scriptures you believe are contradictory, so I can respond directly to your assertion? In Daniel 8 the little horn comes from ONE of Alexander's generals empires (Ptolemy, annexed by Rome - this is the Greco-Roman connection - Ptolemy -> Rome -> iron/clay -> 10 kings -> little horn) Just to re-cap, so you know where I'm coming from: Daniel 7: Rome -> Iron/clay -> little horn (~2300 years) -> return of Christ Daniel 8: Alexander -> Ptolemy -> little horn (~2300 years) -> return of Christ I'm not suggesting that Daniel 7 / 8 have modern fulfillment, except the obvious dealings of the 10 horns, little horn, grandiose words and return of Christ. These two chapters give us details into the 3rd and 4th/5th metals of the statue. BROAD overview of Rome and Greece through return of Christ, showing that these things will find fulfillment in the Greco-Roman world they derived from. Rev 13 however gives us more details about the final part of the kingdoms in Daniel 7 and 8, going into detail about this 'little horn' and the 10 horns. Rev 13 is the economic death-stroke of the Western World, the rise of a two king power-structure which brings the world back under the "West", the first beast then becomes the eight king through the prompting of the two-kings and image (the image perhaps is the UN). No clue about the two kings at this point. It seems self refuting to suggest they are the US / UK, but that is my guess at this point.
Tell me how you explain this scripture? Dan 8:19; "Then he said: “Here I am causing you to know what will happen in the final part of the denunciation, because it is for the appointed time of the end."
"And in the final part of their kingdom" The first section is a history of the Greek empire starting with Alexander. The last section is a brief description of the conclusion, "the final part of their kingdom". (as mentioned, these two chapters go all the way to the 'final part of the denunciation'.) BROAD overview, which includes the climax. Rev 13 is ALL about the climax. Actually, I would argue that this is the only way to understand these chapters without devolving into non-correlating anti-type self-refuting frameworks For example: will there be another small horn that breaks and becomes 4 horns? Or was that Alexander and his four generals as per what the angel described? If you say that Daniel 8 has an anti-type fulfillment, this becomes an untenable mess IMO. If it is Alexander, then Ptolemy is the one which transitioned into Rome, and ultimately the 'little horn' comes out of that kingdom (which Daniel 7 describes). This is preferable IMO, since we have internal cohesion and the Bible provides the answers (rather than us speculating about anti-types) ------------------ Daniel 2 - BROOOOOAAADD overview Daniel 7 - BROAD overview of Rome through the 'little horn' and return of Christ (4th and 5th elements in the statue) Daniel 8 - BROAD overview of Medo-Persia through Greece and it's transition into Rome by Ptolemy, through the 'little horn' and return of Christ (3rd, 4th and 5th elements in the statue) Revelation 13 - the 'final part of THEIR (Greece / Rome -> the "West") kingdom Revelation 17 - the final part of their kingdom, and the overthrow of Catholicism / Judaism's influence over the nations ------------------ Recall the 'claws' of the 4th beast are Greek!
So let me clarify, you are saying that the lion leopard and bear of Rev 13 do not represent modern nations, and then therefore Dan 7 isn't representative of those same nations?
Read the verse quick: "Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like those of a bear, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth." The wild beast is 'like a leopard' (derived from Greece), 'feet like a bear' (stanced / position like Medo-Persia), 'mouth like a lion' (speaks like Neo-Babylon) In Daniel 7, these beasts are separate and distinct entities - they DON'T share attributes like this. Rev 13 is giving us NEW details about the iron-clay, there is precedence for this: the 'copper' (Greek) claws of Rome in Daniel 7. Daniel 7 is EXACTLY representative of those nations - Revelation 13 is telling us that the first beast is LIKE those nations, or in my framework - derived from. So: Babylon->Medo-Persia->Greece->Rome was the string of empires which created the "Western World" (iron and clay) Greece and Rome occupy a slightly different role, since we see in Daniel 7 and 8 that they are the nations immediately responsible for the formation of the nation-state iron-clay Western World. This squares with the historical record, and doesn't require any speculation, since the angel identified those nations for us (other than Rome and the iron/clay). Similarly, Rev 13 doesn't require speculation in this framework: we already know the identity of those nations whose attributes are found in the description of the first beast. - so "how is the West, nation-state, iron-clay LIKE Greece / Medo-Persia and Babylon?"
And just so I'm clear, within this viewpoint: The wild beast with the seven heads is the total political system which ruled over God's people from the beginning until the time of the end. (WT is correct, and Rev 17:10 is a good argument for this) (1) Egypt (2) Assyria (3) Babylon (4) Medo-Persia (5) Greece (6) Rome (7) Iron-clay, nation-state, Western world (8) post-collapse-Western Sociopath Each head is an empire, while they were dominant. The seventh head is the "West" whose main attributes derived from previous heads, and is the subject of Revelation 13, along with the 'image' (UN?) and the future 2 horned 'lamb' who goes bananas. What I'm fuzzy on, and some speculation: Is the two horned new beast out of the earth the US and UK speaking on behalf of the "Western" democratic world? (lamb= innocent, Christian -> speaking like Dragon= gone satanic and violent) Will they give power to the UN in order to enforce worldwide nation-state democracy headed by a global president? Is all of this completely wrong? And of course, all within this framework, these aren't truth statements; and I will drop at the blink of an eye for something more favorable
Hi SingleCell: It sounds as though you think the world is heading towards nation state democracy. Did I get that right? If so, do you really think that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 sounds like a nation state anything? If we are not headed towards the most totalitarian regime in the history of mankind, I will eat my hat. You will not be able to buy or sell without the permission of the government, that to me does not sound very democratic or nation state like at all, just saying,. frank
Hi SC: Since we are on the subject, would you classify the Watchtower's management style as closer to nation state democracy or totalitarian government? You know what I think, how about you. Anyone else is also free to comment on this topic. frank
All nations give their sovereignty to the beast. The deception coming out of the WW3 reactionary logic will be 'global government is needed to prevent future nuclear infractions' So a nation-state amalgamation image of the Western democratic system will both deceive, and ultimately, provide impetus for exactly what you describe: control of buying / selling. Submission to the 'solution' for war will be enforced by the sword, and the world will 'worship the beast'. At the root, sure it will be totalitarian - but deceptive enough to not be an 'evil empire' 80's movie parody The beast, the 2 horned new beast, and the image will deceive the world through 'progressive' human arguments - 'changing times and laws', 'breaking the chains' of Jehovah and his anointed. Fully rejecting Jehovah, the Bible, the Christ - these will be the grandiose words. (regarding the WT, make a different thread - let's keep this one on topic - but within this framework who will have targets on their backs? JWs IMO, because of the refinement + ministry the collapse / war / persecution will bring)
Let me ask this question while I wait for a reply to post 83, what is the next prophecy to be fulfilled?