The Great `beastly` Federations of our Time. (Dan. 7)

[T. E. Smith]

Marilyn C did not say that, I did.

Looks like there is some confusion. Marilyn's point was that the kingdoms you mentioned do not make up the whole world. My point to her was that the kingdoms she mentioned don't make up the whole world either.

 

[for_his_glory]

Looks like there is some confusion. Marilyn's point was that the kingdoms you mentioned do not make up the whole world. My point to her was that the kingdoms she mentioned don't make up the whole world either.

This is between me and Marilyn C trying to figure out each other. If you have anything to add about the topic, I would like to hear it.

 

[T. E. Smith]

This is between me and Marilyn C trying to figure out each other. If you have anything to add about the topic, I would like to hear it.

I didn't realize two people could own a thread. But my thoughts: I think that the four kingdoms are all the ones you identified them with.

 

[Marilyn C]

Looks like there is some confusion. Marilyn's point was that the kingdoms you mentioned do not make up the whole world. My point to her was that the kingdoms she mentioned don't make up the whole world either.

Yes I agree with what you said as I saw that too. Also please join in the discussion with your thoughts as regarding the 3 reasons I gave why those 4 beasts are Contemporary.

 

[Marilyn C]

Dear sister

The four Empires have always governed the people and the land, as even today, and there were many of God's judgements against them. the last judgement will be against Mystery Babylon that will be destroyed by God's judgement on them when Christ returns, Rev 17-19.

This is not my views, but what scripture says that I am trying to discuss with you, but if that is not what you are looking for then I will bow out.

Hi fhg,

Now we are discussing better and I am seeing more of why you believe your view. So.... the Great Image is about world rulers and God judging them. It is an overview of the times of the Gentiles ruling the world.

It is NOT about the many judgments by God but about God judging each individual world ruler and then the next took power and so on.

Perhaps we should go back and discuss the Great Image to get clarity there.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Yes I agree with what you said as I saw that too. Also please join in the discussion with your thoughts as regarding the 3 reasons I gave why those 4 beasts are Contemporary.

• They arise one at a time and continue contemporaneously, (at the same time) for the last beastly power treads them all down. (Dan. 7: 7)
• 
  
• The first three powers are able to continue on after the last one if judged. (Dan. 7: 12)
• 
  
• The great powers are in the time of the Lord setting up His rulership under Israel. (Dan. 7: 27)

Okay, so let's consider these.

For the first one, the treading down need not mean that all the kingdoms existed at that point, but rather that the might of the last kingdom was so much greater than all the kingdoms of the past. Besides, if Kingdom 1 conquers Kingdom 2, but Kingdom 3 conquers Kingdom 1, then Kingdom 3 could be said to have conquered Kingdom 2.

For the second point, it need only mean that a vestige of the kingdoms was left over.

For the third, the author of Daniel would have understood the rulership of God over Israel as happening in his time and before - NOT starting in the latter 1900s.

 

[Marilyn C]

• They arise one at a time and continue contemporaneously, (at the same time) for the last beastly power treads them all down. (Dan. 7: 7)
• 
  
• The first three powers are able to continue on after the last one if judged. (Dan. 7: 12)
• 
  
• The great powers are in the time of the Lord setting up His rulership under Israel. (Dan. 7: 27)

Okay, so let's consider these.

For the first one, the treading down need not mean that all the kingdoms existed at that point, but rather that the might of the last kingdom was so much greater than all the kingdoms of the past. Besides, if Kingdom 1 conquers Kingdom 2, but Kingdom 3 conquers Kingdom 1, then Kingdom 3 could be said to have conquered Kingdom 2.

For the second point, it need only mean that a vestige of the kingdoms was left over.

For the third, the author of Daniel would have understood the rulership of God over Israel as happening in his time and before - NOT starting in the latter 1900s.

Hi T.E.Smith,

Thank you for replying and for your thoughts.

1. Kingdom 3 could not conquer Kingdom rule of 1, for it was gone, judged.

2. There was no vestige of the kingdom rules left. Babylon rulership was gone, Medes and Persian took over. Then Medes and Persian rule was judged and not more. Then Greece rulership took over. So no Babylon rulership left or Medes and Persian rulership left.

3. Daniel was in exile and Israel did not rule the world as Dan. 7: 27 reveals of their future.