Recommended Posts

Here's an interesting series that I went through a few years back. I wound up making friends with Xoroaster:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes on and on through several parts. 

 

But what an interesting thing to get into. Especially for those who are only familiar with the run of the mill christian interpretations of Daniel and the variety of false assumptions made about it's writing period and who was responsible. This is like a forensic investigation into how late the book of Daniel had to have been written and why. Good stuff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooo I am going to have to watch these. One of the core doctrine of the church I was a Bishop in was taught from Daniel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2017 at 8:54 PM, DarkBishop said:

Oooo I am going to have to watch these. One of the core doctrine of the church I was a Bishop in was taught from Daniel.

 

As a former SDA, I can say the same! And it affects Revelation retelling Daniel in certain ways. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

As a former SDA, I can say the same! And it affects Revelation retelling Daniel in certain ways. 

I watched all of them. And started on decrypting revelation. A lot of what he said was very interesting. It's nice to see an interpretation of biblical metaphor that doesn't involve believing in magical pink fairy farting unicorns that grant magical wishes.

 

DB

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds very interesting. I'll have to try to remember to check out the videos when I have some spare time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I watched all of them. And started on decrypting revelation. A lot of what he said was very interesting. It's nice to see an interpretation of biblical metaphor that doesn't involve believing in magical pink fairy farting unicorns that grant magical wishes.

 

DB

 

 

The authors lack of knowledge of the time in question and knowledge of much later periods, just gives it away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The vid says Nabonidus is the arms of silver but most people believe Medo-Persia is the 'inferior kingdom.'  But...

 

The only thing said about the second kingdom is that it's inferior to Babylon.  The Empire of the Medes is the arms of silver or "inferior kingdom."  it was much smaller and also short lived.  


The word inferior is actually the word "arah" which means earth, world, and ground, and it's coupled with the adverb 'below.'  It is the only place the word inferior is used and translated like that.  So it means "less land."  That rules out the Medo-Persian empire as the second empire since it was about three times the size of Babylon.  It wasn't 'land inferior' to Babylon.  The Median Empire was not only short-lived but it was also much smaller making it the inferior kingdom. 

 

Daniel 5 quotes Darius the Mead as the one who "took" Babylon at the age of 62.  Not Cyrus like the secularist would have you believe.

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes. 


"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old." 

Checl Isaiah 13:17 and Jeremiah 51:11.

 .

The experts try to tell us the legs of iron and toes mixed with iron and clay is Rome and the EU.  That too is unlikely since the word MIXED is the Aramaic word "arab" and denotes an Arabian or Arabia.  I would like to know how people associate this word with ROME, ITALY.

 

Daniel 2:43  And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. 

 

The Correct Sequence of Kingdoms of Daniel 2. 
Babylon = Head of Gold 
Mede's = Arms of silver 
Persian' s = Thighs of brass 
Greeks = Legs of iron. 

Toes of iron and clay....

 

Daniel says the Iron and clay would be divided, partly strong and partly broken, not cleaved to one another, "mixed with the seed of men." (intermarried...The word Arab is today a variation of the word 'crossed'.) That perfectly describes the Arabs. Iron and clay are brittle and they don't mix.  I believe the iron is the Sunni sect of Islam.  The clay is the Shia sect of Islam.  The iron and clay would, 'subdue all things.  Islam has subdued nearly every religion in the Middle East.  

 

That's how I see it anyway.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Profound and wishful thinking at the same time.  That's a cute trick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is?  The inferior kingdom?  Or the word 'arab' which describes the iron and clay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

What is?

...

Your interpretation.

 

 

...

The inferior kingdom?  Or the word 'arab' which describes the iron and clay?

These are two details contained in your interpretation.  Neither is profound.  It is your entire presentation that is profound.  You demonstrate a fair amount of research and study of these particular Biblical verses and a decent ability to interpret them.  I have seen dozens and dozens of interpretations of these verses from other folks that differ from you interpretation.  No doubt, you have also.

 

Still, if what you are interpreting is fiction, midrash and/or nonsense, you demonstrate wishful thinking to the extent you actually believe the source and what you write.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Your interpretation.

 

These are two details contained in your interpretation.  Neither is profound.  It is your entire presentation that is profound.  You demonstrate a fair amount of research and study of these particular Biblical verses and a decent ability to interpret them.  I have seen dozens and dozens of interpretations of these verses from other folks that differ from you interpretation.  No doubt, you have also.

 

Still, if what you are interpreting is fiction, midrash and/or nonsense, you demonstrate wishful thinking to the extent you actually believe the source and what you write.

 

The Medes being the silver and the legs of iron being Greece is an interpretation goes back to the time of Josephus. Rome being the legs of iron etc. actually has a lot to do with the unfavorable opinion Protestants have of Rome.  The word MIXED is the word 'arab' and that in no way implies an Italian. I show people how I arrive at my conclusions. The iron and clay also describes the Arabs well.  They are among the most intermarried people in the world, and have divided into several hundreds of tribes and clans.   The iron and clay is like the two horned beast of Rev. 13, they both represent the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@reverendturmoil,

        Your interpretation looks like a modern apologetic attempt to kick the can down the road in explaining why that rock which was supposed to be Jesus hasn't crushed the feet of that statue yet and become the ruling power. I am sure that this sermon would have been followed up by a sermon on Jesus and his millennial reign.

 

     I've heard the interpretation that was presented in the video before but with far less historical evidence. I've also heard an interpretation where the clay was considered to be the Catholic Church and all the ruling kingdoms during the end and after the Roman empire. But once again if either of the interpretations I listed were true than Jesus is still persona non grata for his ultimate reappearance. So now arises this new Interpretation that could have christians waiting on Jesus for another few hundred years. The fact that the word mixed is Arab doesn't really mean anything.  

 

      It could also be said that they were considered mixed as they were either the mixed children of Ishmael the son of Abraham, one of abrahams other sons, or they were in general mixed one with another. Either way it was probably a derogatory term meant to portray them as impure and a lesser class of people that stuck. The mede's themselves would have been Arab according to Gen 25.

 

Still more Arab people can claim descent from Abraham - from his wife Keturah (after Sarah died) and other concubines. As with Ishmael, they too were sent to live away from Isaac, at first "eastward, unto the east country."

 

"25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 25:2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 25:3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. 25:4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country." (Genesis 25:1-6 KJV)

Among the children of Keturah was Midian (verse 2 in the quote above). From Abraham's son Midian came the "Arab" Midianite people who dwelt in the Sinai Peninsula. When Moses fled from the Pharaoh, he took refuge with Jethro the Midianite. Moses married Jethro's daughter Zipporah, who became the mother of his two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (just as two of the Israelite patriarchs had an "Arab" mother, so too did the two sons of Moses).

 

So according to your own interpretation the chest and arms of silver should have been clay..... actually if you research it all out the whole statue may have been clay with iron legs according to your interpretation.

     I don't know who gave you this interpretation or if you figured it out yourself but it has its holes. BIG GAPING HOLES and looks like an abundant source of fecal matter pulled from a bull's or a horse's rectal region. It doesn't fit with the prophesy at all. More than likely the video comes closer to the truth as he is using historical findings that coincided with the events written by the author (who as he points out) got his history mixed up.

      Once again your newer interpretation is just another attempt at kicking the Jesus can down the road. Giving him a chance to come back and fulfill his prophecy. But he won't. 

 

Dark Bishop

     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 The word MIXED is the word 'arab' and that in no way implies an Italian. 

 

Just because Arabs are called mixed doesn't mean the clay mixed with iron means arab people. For instance. When moses and the Isrealites children fled Egypt in chapter 12 it says:

 

37  And the children H1121 of Israel H3478 journeyed H5265 from Rameses H7486 to Succoth H5523, about six H8337 hundred H3967 thousand H505 on foot H7273that were men H1397, beside H905 children H2945.

 38  And a mixed H6154 multitude H7227 went up H5927 also with them; and flocksH6629, and herds H1241, even very H3966 much H3515 cattle H4735. note

 39  And they baked H644 unleavened H4682 cakes H5692 of the dough H1217 which they brought forth H3318 out of Egypt H4714, for it was not leavened H2556; because they were thrust out H1644 of Egypt H4714, and could H3201 not tarryH4102, neither had they prepared H6213 for themselves any victual H6720.

 

This is a plural form Ay Reb. So should we then deduce the children of isreal went with a mixed multitude of Arabians? Or should we accept that it is talking about the multitude of Isrealites, with their flocks, herds, and much cattle? 

 

DB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The experts try to tell us the legs of iron and toes mixed with iron and clay is Rome and the EU.  That too is unlikely since the word MIXED is the Aramaic word "arab" and denotes an Arabian or Arabia.  I would like to know how people associate this word with ROME, ITALY.

 

Daniel 2:43  And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

 

 

The word MIXED is the word 'arab' and that in no way implies an Italian.

 

It in no way implies Arab, either. Just because a word in one language looks or sounds like something in another language does not automatically mean that they have any connection. For example, check this out:

 

http://inktank.fi/10-english-words-mean-something-else-languages/

 

Now, what matters about the Aramaic word "arab" is what it means IN ARAMAIC, which is "mix" or "mingle." The word has NOTHING to do with Arab people. Here is Strong's listing for it:

 

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

 

It's time to start thinking for yourself instead of swallowing others' nonsense. ;)

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverendturmoil,

       Citsonga is right. The bible does have words in Strong's when it is talking about Arabians. They are presented differently. Here are the various words for Arab or Arabians from Strong's. 

 

H694

Original: ארב

Transliteration: 'ărâb

Phonetic: ar-awb'

BDB Definition: Arab = " ambush"

a city near Hebron

Origin: from H693

TWOT entry: None

Part(s) of speech: Proper Name Location

Strong's Definition: From H693; ambush ; Arab, a place in Palestine: - Arab.

 

H6152

Original: ערב ערב

Transliteration: ‛ărâb ‛ărab

Phonetic: ar-awb'

BDB Definition:

steppe-dwellers

the people inhabiting the country east and south of Canaan, the nomadic desert Bedouins

Arabians, Arabs

Origin: from H6150 in the fig. sense of sterility

TWOT entry: 1688a,1688c

Part(s) of speech: Proper Name

Strong's Definition: From H6150 in the figuratively sense of sterility ; Arab (that is, Arabia), a country East of Palestine: - Arabia.

 

H6163

Original: ערבי ערבי

Transliteration: ‛ărâbı̂y ‛arbı̂y

Phonetic: ar-aw-bee'

BDB Definition: Arabian = see Arabia " mixed"

an inhabitant of Arabia

steppe-dweller

Origin: from H6152

TWOT entry: None

Part(s) of speech: Adjective

Strong's Definition: Patrial from H6152; an Arabianor inhabitant of Arab (that is, Arabia): - Arabian.

 

The word mixed in Daniel has nothing to do with Arabians or they would have used a different wording. It literally means one thing mixed with another. However I guess it could be talking about us Americans since we are all a bunch of mutts. LOL. Maybe that will be the next kick of the Jesus can down the proverbial road in time.

 

DB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your interpretation looks like a modern apologetic attempt to kick the can down the road in explaining why that rock which was supposed to be Jesus hasn't crushed the feet of that statue yet and become the ruling power. I am sure that this sermon would have been followed up by a sermon on Jesus and his millennial reign."

 

Every empire depicted in the statue was a Mid-East Empire and predominately Islamic today.  The stone that was made without hands destroys the entire statue. The geographical area that statue depict's is today's Arab/Islamic Middle-East which is now in chaos and in prime condition for some serious change.  The major players are Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and of course, Israel.  There's a lot that has to happen before this stone destroys the statue.

 

The inferior kingdom and the word 'arab' excluded Rome.  


"I've heard the interpretation that was presented in the video before but with far less historical evidence. I've also heard an interpretation where the clay was considered to be the Catholic Church and all the ruling kingdoms during the end and after the Roman empire. But once again if either of the interpretations I listed were true than Jesus is still persona non grata for his ultimate reappearance. So now arises this new Interpretation that could have christians waiting on Jesus for another few hundred years. The fact that the word mixed is Arab doesn't really mean anything."

 

I know my interpretation is the oldest one there is and goes back to before Josephus actually.  If there's any inference to Rome or anything else in this image, I believe I would have found it in my studies.  There are none.  The word 'arab' really does mean something especially if someone is saying that it's Rome...

 

So look at the link and scroll down to see what Gesenius says the pic is also below..

 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6151&t=KJV

 

It indicates either an Arab or Arabia other places in the bible too.


"It could also be said that they were considered mixed as they were either the mixed children of Ishmael the son of Abraham, one of abrahams other sons, or they were in general mixed one with another. Either way it was probably a derogatory term meant to portray them as impure and a lesser class of people that stuck. The mede's themselves would have been Arab according to Gen 25."

 
"Still more Arab people can claim descent from Abraham - from his wife Keturah (after Sarah died) and other concubines. As with Ishmael, they too were sent to live away from Isaac, at first "eastward, unto the east country."


I would agree with just about everything you said.  The connection is through Abraham and Ishmael and Esau.  


"So according to your own interpretation the chest and arms of silver should have been clay..... actually if you research it all out the whole statue may have been clay with iron legs according to your interpretation."

 

I'm saying the iron and clay are Arab and the description of the iron and clay perfectly describes them.  The legs of iron the Greeks.  Thighs of bronze are the Persians, the silver or "land inferior" kingdom, the Medes.  

 

"I don't know who gave you this interpretation or if you figured it out yourself but it has its holes. BIG GAPING HOLES and looks like an abundant source of fecal matter pulled from a bull's or a horse's rectal region. It doesn't fit with the prophesy at all. More than likely the video comes closer to the truth as he is using historical findings that coincided with the events written by the author (who as he points out) got his history mixed up."

 

I don't get my interpretations from anybody.  I do my own homework.  I've put a lot of time studying Daniel 2.  I came up with that interpretation myself and found out later it goes back to Josephus and that it's been accepted by many over the centuries because it's the most logical one.

 

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes. 

Daniel 5:31  "And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old." 

 

Isaiah 13:17  "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon) 

 

Jeremiah 51:11  Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.


Darius is said to be king...
Daniel 9:1  In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;


Daniel 11:1  Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

 

MIXED....

 

lexImage.gif.d4331439e4a8802969a14440353328a0.gif

 

INFERIOR....

 

inferior.gif.b13e59869c19392eb59cc7d1698e9065.gif

The "inferior kingdom" is described in Daniel 8:19-21 

 

V. 19  I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last. ...


V. 20 ... And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be]. The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia. 

 

The higher horn that came up last is the Persian Empire.  The other horn, the one that was not as high (smaller/inferior) that came up first is the Medes.  The two eventually merged into the ram or the Persian Empire. This means that the Medes are the smaller inferior kingdom of Daniel 2. 

 

The Protestant's believe Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, but a bunch of scriptures say that Darius the Mede invaded and conquered Babylon.  The reason for this is that there's very little secular history on Darius, and going by secularist, the Protestants believe they have ammunition to demonize Rome.


      "Once again your newer interpretation is just another attempt at kicking the Jesus can down the road. Giving him a chance to come back and fulfill his prophecy. But he won't." 

 

There's a few things that have to happen yet before the can gets to the end of the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reverendturmoil actually believes this Daniel nonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I think reverendturmoil actually believes this Daniel nonsense.

It's what I do, "study nonsense."

 

I believe in suicide bombers too....

 

Revelation 9:16-17  And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.  And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.


Revelation 9 has long been associated with the Arabs and Muslims for several reasons.  Locust are figurative of the Arabs in the Old Testament.  Both the scorpions and locust have the Mid-East as their natural habitat, especially in Arabia.  In Arabic the word "Arab" and "locust" sound similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DarkB,

 

You said...

 

Now, what matters about the Hebrew word "arab" is what it means IN HEBREW, which is "mix" or "mingle." The word has NOTHING to do with Arab people. Here is Strong's listing for it:

 

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

___________________________________________________________________

 

You do realize the link you posted says, "AN ARABIAN!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

DarkB,

 

You said...

 

Now, what matters about the Aramaic word "arab" is what it means IN ARAMAIC, which is "mix" or "mingle." The word has NOTHING to do with Arab people. Here is Strong's listing for it:

 

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

___________________________________________________________________

 

You do realize the link you posted says, "AN ARABIAN!"

 

That was me, not DB.

 

What you're looking at there is under "related entry" under Gesenius's Lexicon. In other words, it's talking about a different word.

 

The definition of the word in question is "to mix, join together." It's not talking about Arabs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

DarkB,

 

You said...

 

Now, what matters about the Hebrew word "arab" is what it means IN HEBREW, which is "mix" or "mingle." The word has NOTHING to do with Arab people. Here is Strong's listing for it:

 

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6151&t=KJV

___________________________________________________________________

 

You do realize the link you posted says, "AN ARABIAN!"

 

Yeah I'm the one that agreed with Citsonga and showed you what the Hebrews actually used when talking about Arabians. Which is not what they are saying in Daniel chapter 2. But if you want to believe the BS you have interpreted out off a book inspired by a false God that you "supposedly" had a grand old time burning here lately. Then Go ahead. Your interpretation is very loose. As I stated before. Yes the word you mention is Arab. But the word the Hebrews used when speaking of Arabians was different. You took their word for "mingle" and made it what you wanted it to be, just like most christian apologetics. Have fun kicking that can. They have been doing it for thousands of years. That's all from me I don't feel like beating my head against the Christian wall anymore today.

 

DB

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now