spin

You know that's rubbish.

Cite the primary source for this claim.

The leopard is the prince of Persia (sic). Read Dan 11:1-2, set in the time of "Darius the Mede": "Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. So "Darius the Mede" and "three more kings", ie four kings of Persia.

The horn that comes later is chronological. The Persians came after the Medes. The bear is Media and after the bear came the leopard, ie Persia.

You come to this quandary because you are mixing visions.

But you know that the big horn came before the four horns and that the little horn came after them, so there is a chronological order set up in ch.8. The little horn in ch.8 was on the ram and it came out of one of the four.

The fourth beast had ten horns which were kings. If it was the same power, then those kings had to have been one after the other.

Because they never were one.

Mixing visions.

Wrong interpretation, unless you'd like to propose that a kingdom can have ten kings at the same time. Not much of a kingdom.

You are not dealing with when Daniel was written. If it were written in 165 BCE then of course there were 10 kings before Antiochus IV.

You aren't reading the text.

Already dealt with above. The ten kings were of the same kingdom.

And that fits the evidence as well. You just have some hokey crap about ten contemporaneous kings. Using your logic you have no way of saying that the four beasts themselves were not contemporary. Dan 7:3 says that four beasts came out of the sea. It doesn't say that one came after the other, so obviously they are contemporary. And if you want to grumble about "first", "then", etc, it doesn't change the fact that in 7:3 you see them all together.

There is no messiah in the text. There are two anointed figures. Even Aaron was anointed. Do you want to call him the messiah?... I thought not.

Your misunderstanding of a Jewish text.

Nobody ever made such a claim. It's only your willful misunderstanding of Daniel that makes you ask.

There is no messiah in Daniel. There are two high priests, Jeshua ben Jehozedek, the anointed prince -- as I've explained a few times now, he was crowned according to Zechariah, hence "anointed prince" -- and Onias III, an anointed one who was cut off. Why don't you ask Jewish scholars about Daniel rather than believing people who have no background in understanding Jewish literature? You can steal the literature, but that doesn't help you understand it.

You are in no state to learn. You have to take your fingers out of your ears first.

spin

Jack the Bodiless

I see the rest of this has been answered: but this was quite extraordinary!
Now, quite apart from the fact that "Cyrus was also a Mede..." is made-up claptrap: Jeremiah definitely WAS a false prophet!
So, if Jeremiah had NOT been a false prophet: the Medes would have destroyed Babylon, and Daniel (if he had been a real person) would have been slain or forced to flee. So he couldn't possibly have served "Darius the Mede" or "Cyrus the Persian" in the uninhabited ruins of Babylon.

funinspace

I find it incredulous that you don’t know what I am talking about. Here are just some of the times I have asked you to explain your usage of the term empire in a consistent manner. It goes beyond talking about Daniel and who ruled over Israel.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...19&postcount=6
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...3&postcount=19
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...0&postcount=23
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...5&postcount=28 {This is where I started mentioning the issue as point (4)}
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...8&postcount=31
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...7&postcount=46
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...7&postcount=56

You make everything in Europe and the US as being an out growth (subset) of the Roman Empire to fulfill Daniel 7:23. However, for some mysterious reason you don’t apply the same super generalization of the Roman Empire just being an out growth (subset) of the Greek Empire. Anyone applying your definitions/methodology to defining empires, would see that there was no fourth empire, because it really is just more of the Greek Empire. The Roman empire has far more in common/relation to the Greek Empire, than the US has in relation to the Roman empire (in which you weave your prophetic tales). Therefore your whole Daniel 4 empire construct crumbles on your own very unique way of defining empires.

Conclusion: Your position crumbles on either
(1) There not being 4 empires via your method of defining empires, or
(2) If one accepts a more normative usage of the word empire, your fourth empire (Roman) fails to never fulfilled Daniel 7:23 to “devour the whole earth, beat it down, and crush it”.

sugarhitman

The Grecian empire was completely of the Greeks. The Roman empire was of Latins and the Germanic peoples as well as the Greeks. If im not mistaken the Greek empire did not extend that far into Europe whereas the Romans did. This is what seperates these two empires.

Rome recruited a large number of Germanic peoples into their armies, and these people later took over the empire. The Germanic peoples have been in control of Europe since then. France, England, Germany, Denmark, Russia, America and a host of other European countries are dominated by the Germanic tribes.


And certainly through empires like the British, and America they have indeed devoured the whole earth with Russia (that is subjugated rest of the nations). Both America and England are dominated by the same people who dominated Rome...The Germanic peoples. Even Russia was founded by a Germanic tribe the Anglo-Saxons....the Vikings.


The Greeks, the Slavs, Turks, Germanic, and Latin (itallian?) people basically the Europeans, have since the Days of Rome have been the dominant peoples. All of the modern empires have been established by them....but the Germanic peoples remain dominant....the Roman empire fell into the hands of these people who through the years have tried to revive the empire. The European empires that followed are indeed subsets of the Roman empire.

funinspace

First thank you for directly responding to my question. Well, every peoples tend to be of older groupings and influenced by others. However, for the sake of argument, we can start here.

This is where I see you getting off the mark. Let’s stay with the early centuries of the Roman Empire’s emergence (like the first 5 hundred years 800-300BC). Wouldn’t this certainly be the defining period of who/what is Roman? Germanic peoples were not part of the early empire. And Greek influence is tremendous. Here is just a small sampling of Greek influence on Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome

Below is some information on the emergence of the Roman empire and how Greece gave the Romans their gods, reading and writing, and even were settlers all over the Italian peninsula:

http://www.roman-empire.net/founding/found-index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_R...unding_of_Rome

http://history-world.org/rome.htm
http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art153.htm
The Germanic peoples, as I have shown above, were not the party to the creation of the Roman Empire. You have stretched the imagination to make the US and others inheritor’s of the Roman Empire, while the Greek influence and later absorption of Magna Graecia and many other city states shows at least as much linkage. Can you show how the Greek influence on Rome is some how less than Roman influence on Washington DC?

This can wait until you give some detailed response to the above question.

Sitamun

http://library.thinkquest.org/10805/map-g.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/g...ncient-Greece/

Yes, Rome conquered more of Europe. However, why is Europe more important then the middle east, heading into Asia? If we apply this thinking...

Median Empire:http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archi...res_600_bc.htm

Persian Empire: http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson_ima...anEmpire03.jpg
The Persian Empire extends more into Europe than the Median Empire, therefore The Persians are the "more important" Empire. Not that any of this makes sense, since your "definition" does not make any sense.


http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...historyid=ac67
The Romans USED the Germanic tribes as a buffer zone. They allowed them to live in Roman territory to protect Romes borders. There are several instances of rebellion against Rome. What seems clear here is that the Germanic people never ever considered themselves as Romans. It is ridiculous to even think that the Romans considered the Germanic tribes as Romans.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural.../the_huns.html
http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/w...golEurope.html
http://www.spaincostaluz.com/moors.htm

Oh yes, just the Germanic tribes have been in control of European land since the fall of the Roman Empire.



No matter how much our leaders may wish it, America most certainly has NOT "devoured the whole earth". The British I believe may have been the closest but even then no one nation or empire has ever had control of all of the earth. The Vikings are among the first Russians, but they were not the only inhabitants of the land.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...historyid=ac14


*Bolding done by me
http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/1400/1429/1429.jpg

You seem to have blinders on to all that is not "German".
So, you admit that many have TRIED to revive the Roman empire only to fail then and that the HRE was NOT even a bastard child of the Roman Empire?

Sheshonq

Wrong.

You are mistaken as usual.

Source?

Wrong. The Empire moved east to Constantinople.

Also wrong.

Laughably incorrect. The rest of your post is likewise cartoonish.

That's a lot of guessing for you to do in one post. Are you trying to set a record?
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

Sheshonq

Let me help:

Indeed. He even tries to tell us that Germans run Russia. I'll be the Slavs would be surprised (and pissed) to hear that.

He didn't understand that point prior to shooting off his mouth. It's unlikely he will admit the mistake now.

sugarhitman

"The German and Celts ended up therefore being the primary source of recruits for the Roman armie, not suprisingly so as IN RACIAL TERMS THEY WERE MUCH CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL ROMANS THAN THE MAJORITY OF INHABITANTS OF ROME ITSELF, PARTICULARLY FROM THE 2ND CENTURY A.D. ONWARDS."


"These Romanized Germans and Celts were to play a significant role in the remaining years of the Western Roman empire: and it was they, predictably, who formed the backbone of the resistence to the last German invasions which saw the final physical fall of Rome." www.white-history.com



"The Germanic tribes have been blamed for the collaspe of the Roman empire; however this is incorrect. For the most part the collaspe of the Roman empire was not a collaspe of an empire, but an intergration of Germanic custom and Roman culture. This means the collaspe of the Roman empire was a transfer of power from one ruling party to another. This transfer was niether peaceful nor quick, but it is the foundation of modern western society and Europe as we know it today." http://anthologyoi.com


"The political and territorial unity found at the height of the Roman Empire came to be replaced by the fragmentation of fifth-century western Europe into several Germanic kingdoms."

"Political power shifted from the Romans (not an ethnic title, but political one) to the Germans who after invading the territory settled and established independent kingdoms throughout western Europe." www.ucalgary.ca


The inclusion of the Germanic peoples is what seperates the Grecian and Roman Empires. The Roman empire was divided into the seperate states of Europe dominated by the Germanic tribes. Daniel said this 4th kingdom would fall into a divided state, which is true of the Roman empire. The people who took over the empire has colonized the whole planet. Since that time they have been the dominant power. In Daniel's vision no other human kingdom susceeds the 4th kingdom whether united or divided...no other shall exalt itself over them....they will last to the end. The Roman-European power is the longest reigning power in the history of civilization.....strong as iron that brakes the rest into pieces...how accurate Daniel is.

Toto

I'm not even going to click on a link to "white-history" - I think that sugarhitman has just destroyed any credibility he had left, assuming that he had any to start with.

Someone let the moderators know when this thread should be put to sleep.