70 x 7

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Aussiemike

i agree the second chapter of daniel sets the tone of the book. It begins with Babylon and ends with the stone striking the toes of the image the divided roman empire. This stone is the kingdom of God at the second coming. It is nonsence to say that its the first coming The toes are the states of europe.

You need some lessons on bible prophecy.

Not to mention that all the nations were ground to powder. The whole image was ground to powder.

Were all the nations destroyed at Christ's First Advent?

The Roman persecutions were unequaled after Christ's ascension.

Hello!

1. Daniel chapter two does NOT MENTION THAT ALL THE NATIONS WERE GROUND TO POWDER!

2. Daniel chapter two mentions that only the kingdoms mentioned in the image were ground to powder. The whole image covered only the nations of Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome. No other kingdoms except the Kingdom of the Stone are mentioned in Daniel chapter two.

3. You are adding stuff that the Scripture does not include! This is why you have such skewed view of Daniel chapter two!

4. The Bible in Daniel chapter two does NOT STATE THAT THE TOES ARE THE "STATES OF EUROPE"!

That is a human idea. It does not come from the Bible!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

This is just a statement of your opinion. The Scripture of Daniel chapter seven does not say what you are asserting.

No where in Daniel chapter seven does it say that this is the "investigative judgment". It does not say that in fact and it does not "imply" and investigative judgment!

Daniel chapter seven does not IDENTIFY THE "LITTLE HORN"!

Most of what you wrote above is just your opinion is not stated by fact or by implication in Daniel Chapter Seven!

I know you will disagree, but I believe it's because you refuse to see it. You choose to not see it.

I have presented this doctrine to the most humble people who have never heard it before, and when they read these scriptures, they said "It's just so clear! A judgment precedes the Second Advent! Wow!"

But you refuse to let your mind meditate on these concepts in a simple, humble, teachable spirit.

One could say the same about you!

Making such a claim on your part shows that you cannot make your case based on the clear Scripture by itself. You have to make baseless attacts like above, additions not stated in the text, unfactual inferences, historical mumbojumbo, baseless assumptions, tortured logic, etc. etc. in order for your view to be known!

I have shown you the straight Scripture of both Daniel chapter two and Daniel chapter seven by using the actual Words of the Bible. NO ADDITIONS, NO INFERENCES, NO HISTORICAL MUMBOJUMBO, NO ASSUMPTIONS, NO TORTURED LOGIC, ETC. ETC.

[Lysimachus]

One could say the same about you!

Making such a claim on your part shows that you cannot make your case based on the clear Scripture by itself. You have to make baseless attacts like above, additions not stated in the text, unfactual inferences, historical mumbojumbo, baseless assumptions, tortured logic, etc. etc. in order for your view to be known!

I have shown you the straight Scripture of both Daniel chapter two and Daniel chapter seven by using the actual Words of the Bible. NO ADDITIONS, NO INFERENCES, NO HISTORICAL MUMBOJUMBO, NO ASSUMPTIONS, NO TORTURED LOGIC, ETC. ETC.

I simply don't understand your logic. It's too confusing. How can I refute something I don't understand?

God is not the author of confusion.

You need to go read some books like "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Clifford Goldstein, or his "1844 Made Simple", or how about "The Case for the Investigative Judgment" by Marvin Moore. They provide sound BIBLICAL exegesis establishing the case for the Investigative Judgment.

When you write, it is evident that you have not taken out your tome to read these books.

I'll be honest and say that I have a hard time respecting the arguments of those who have not taken out candid time to read these sound Adventist published works.

[miz3]

I simply don't understand your logic. It's too confusing. How can I refute something I don't understand?

God is not the author of confusion.

You need to go read some books like "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Clifford Goldstein, or his "1844 Made Simple", or how about "The Case for the Investigative Judgment" by Marvin Moore. They provide sound BIBLICAL exegesis establishing the case for the Investigative Judgment.

When you write, it is evident that you have not taken out your tome to read these books.

I'll be honest and say that I have a hard time respecting the arguments of those who have not taken out candid time to read these sound Adventist published works.

LOL!

You are the one who stated the Bible "talks in code"(complex and confusion). I am the one who reads the Words of Bible as they are (simple and direct)!

Everyone sees the irrational nature of your post above. You are just squirming because you do UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHAT I AM SAYING YOU JUST DON'T HAVE A BIBLICAL ANSWER!

You are the one with long, complex, involved multiple set posts of how a passage is read, full of complex charts. I have not done that, I have indeed been simple and direct by reading the passage just as it is read.

You are the one who wants to prove your point with human authors like Clifford Goldstein and Marvin Moore. I was not aware that they were inspired-prophets. Are these men Godlstein and Moore writings you consider on the level with Biblical Inspiration (the Bible)?

I prefer the truly Inspired Writings of Daniel just as they are written.

You are correct about "one thing" it is "hard to refute" the Direct Word of God (in this case Daniel) because God is simple and infallible. Second, you don't understand the Direct Word of God untouched by filthy human logic because you have not spent enough time Directly with God in His Word without anything else but the Holy Spirit. Your mind is too cluttered with the "fallible works of humans"!

You are also correct that God is not a God of confusion. That is why your complex, convoluted, added to, twisted facts, etc. etc. don't work. You are confused because your study of the Bible is so filled with confusion!

The cure is to ask God Directly for help and He will send you His Holy Spirit to give you the Truth (see 1Corinthians 2:6-16.)! As long as you get your "truth" from Goldstein and Moore you will remain confused!

Jesus Christ met with the same thing in His day. Everyone kept wanting Jesus Christ to study "Rabbi this and Rabbi that" but Jesus Christ read only the Scripture (Bible) and communed with His Father.

I think the example of Jesus Christ in terms of study is the Best Model. NOT YOUR MODEL of Goldstein and Moore!

[hch]

Originally Posted By: Daniel 12:4

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

History shows us that men run to and fro NOW more than they ever did in Christ's day or Daniel's day. There was virtually no change in modes of transportation in that time-span: foot power, beast of burden, sailing ship. But about the time of Abraham Lincoln (mid 1800's) steam engines to drive boats and trains. And since then you will agree it has been astounding.

History shows us that knowledge has increased NOW more than it ever did between Christ's day and Daniel's day. I do not recall the exact rate though I heard it a few years ago, but the gist of it is that knowledge is doubling every few years now.

[hch]

Quote:

"But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

Daniel

12:4.

...

Even before 1844, there have been other explosions in movement and knowledge. The Great Age of Exploration with the explorers that literally went round the World. The explosion of knowledge was again profound (1500's, 1600's, 1700's) long before 1844! Long before the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries!

Thus the rise in knowledge and the movements of humans has happened many times throughout history after Daniel, not just in the days following 1844!

Thus, you cannot use that text and that phrase to say Daniel was talking only about 1844 and onward!

[miz3]

Quote:

"But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

Daniel

12:4.

...

Even before 1844, there have been other explosions in movement and knowledge. The Great Age of Exploration with the explorers that literally went round the World. The explosion of knowledge was again profound (1500's, 1600's, 1700's) long before 1844! Long before the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries!

Thus the rise in knowledge and the movements of humans has happened many times throughout history after Daniel, not just in the days following 1844!

Thus, you cannot use that text and that phrase to say Daniel was talking only about 1844 and onward!

[ClubV12]

The industrial revolution is not proportional to a degree worth considering as it concerns history. It was profound, unprecedented, unimaginable before it took place.

Any typical, average "man on the street" can grasp the fundamental principle of "knowledge shall increase" and logically, reasonably apply it to the last 100 plus years of earths history.

No other event(s) even come close. You don't need to be a christian or a bible student to understand this basic truth of the matter.

Why in the world, miz3, you would fight against even this simple and obvious observation is a mystery? It's an "argument" impossible to win under any circumstances, and yet, you cling to it.

I theorize your reluctance to accept it is tied to your profound rejection of the day/year principle and anything, no matter how reasonable, that seems to disagree with that position must also be rejected.

What was that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results I think it was.

[miz3]

The industrial revolution is not proportional to a degree worth considering as it concerns history. It was profound, unprecedented, unimaginable before it took place.

Any typical, average "man on the street" can grasp the fundamental principle of "knowledge shall increase" and logically, reasonably apply it to the last 100 plus years of earths history.

No other event(s) even come close. You don't need to be a christian or a bible student to understand this basic truth of the matter.

Why in the world, miz3, you would fight against even this simple and obvious observation is a mystery? It's an "argument" impossible to win under any circumstances, and yet, you cling to it.

I theorize your reluctance to accept it is tied to your profound rejection of the day/year principle and anything, no matter how reasonable, that seems to disagree with that position must also be rejected.

What was that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results I think it was.

Not even a good try ClubV12!

[miz3]

Is not ClubV12's statement saying that I am "insane" not a personal attack?

I have been chastised for much less than that!

What's up John317!

From Moderator: Please see my PM to you.

[Lysimachus]

1. The one thing that nixes your whole theory is that there is no year/day principle. Without that your theory goes up in smoke!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Is not ClubV12's statement saying that I am "insane" not a personal attack?

I have been chastised for much less than that!

What's up John317!

nahh...don't take the bait miz3

[miz3]

The "increase in knowledge" phrase is generally accepted and recognized to represent the increase in knowledge of Biblical truth, and especially Christ's High Priestly ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Law of God. It is without question that after 1798, there was an explosion of increase in knowledge concerning God's prophetic declarations.

The increase in knowledge concerning science and industry is only a secondary application, but not primary. So whether you wish to subscribe to it or not, interpretation 1 still holds.

1. "Generally accepted" does not make it true. Second, who makes it "generally accepted"?

2. The RCC was "generally accepted" in the Dark Ages. Are you asserting that they were correct in those days?

3. I would say the explosion of Bible Truth during the Reformation Period was much greater both in quantity and quality than the 19th Century. In fact the comparison of the two periods is not even close. The Reformation wins hands down.

Besides Daniel does stipulate what kind of specific knowledge increased!

You are just flailing at the wind!

[miz3]

There is very little that you have contributed on this forum that cannot be labeled "erroneous". You practically reject just about every single main pillar of our faith.

Your rejection of the day/year principle is on par with a nose-dive into apostasy, because when you reject this principle, you destroy the entire 1500+ year construction of some of the Godliest men of the past. You're better off becoming an atheist. "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev 3:15,16)

1. Merely your opinion. It is DEFINITELY NOT FACT!

2. You are correct it does destroy your erroneous theory! Why? Because it was NOT BIBLICAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

3. Don't you apply that Revelation chapter three text to you and your comrades!

Thus, it cannot apply to me!

[ClubV12]

I merely offered a definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

...if the shoe fits...

The "explosion" of knowledge as seen in the industrial revolution is irrefutable. I TO accept the premise that the increase of knowledge is applicable as well to a knowledge of the Lord and an understanding of the bible. Specifically, the end time prophecies. But the "typical", average man on the street would see that plain simple biblical statement (knowledge shall increase) relating to something like the industrial revolution, or the electronic revolution. To deny this is "nuts"!

As to the issue of the 2,300 days, it is a fixed period of time, with a beginning and an ending date. As it concerns the SDA church, their study of the bible and the position of Ellen White, it's not open to debate. It's a done deal. To doubt it, is to doubt the very foundation of all Adventism. To wit, those that deny it, are not Seventh-day Adventists, regardless of whether they think they or not. It is an impossible position.

[miz3]

I merely offered a definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

...if the shoe fits...

The "explosion" of knowledge as seen in the industrial revolution is irrefutable. I TO accept the premise that the increase of knowledge is applicable as well to a knowledge of the Lord and an understanding of the bible. Specifically, the end time prophecies. But the "typical", average man on the street would see that plain simple biblical statement (knowledge shall increase) relating to something like the industrial revolution, or the electronic revolution. To deny this is "nuts"!

As to the issue of the 2,300 days, it is a fixed period of time, with a beginning and an ending date. As it concerns the SDA church, their study of the bible and the position of Ellen White, it's not open to debate. It's a done deal. To doubt it, is to doubt the very foundation of all Adventism. To wit, those that deny it, are not Seventh-day Adventists, regardless of whether they think they or not. It is an impossible position.

More personal attacks!

[ClubV12]

It's nothing personal miz3, it's just a reasonable, logical, irrefutable position on how the average, typical man on the street would interpret this bible verse.

Think about it, "Knowledge shall increase". Did that happen in the last 100 plus years compared to the rest of history? The answer is obvious, to any reasonable man on the street, there is only one answer, "yes". Now it could be argued the "man on the street" is an idiot, doesn't have a clue, and that the biblical statement itself is not true. But it would be a pretty dumb argument!

So, why would one take such a position on the question?

My theory is that such a person has already taken an unsustainable position and cannot allow any reasonable discourse to upset that position in any way. To wit: The day/year principle in this case.

[John317]

As moderator:

For all:

Keep on topic.

If members feel they are being attacked, contact the moderator by PM.

[hch]

...I agree with it, but what if the 70 weeks are cut off at the end of the 2300 days. There's still no start date and it's a 50/50 chance of one or the other being correct.

Something as important as 1844 should be built upon something sturdier than a 50/50 chance.

Also at the end of the 2300 days the sanctuary is cleansed or as some would say 'made righteous', I have no problem with either term. If something is cleansed or made righteous, it's a finished process. But that's not what Adventists teach - they teach that in 1844 the cleansing is just beginning with no end in sight. That is not something that's completed or finished or cleansed or made righteous. Another problem for the validity of 1844.

I would also like to say that in asking these questions, I am not trying to tear down anyones faith. Some on this forum would have us believe that the bible can only be interpreted by Ellen White or men of higher learning. These were the same sentiments in days of the reformation when Catholics feared that the common man would not be able to grasp the big words of the bible.

Questions should always drive us to the bible and prayer - if they don't we're not seekers of truth.

Cheddar,

As I catch up on posts that have been made while I was offline for a while, I am impressed with this one.

Sometimes we fall into the either / or trap and miss the "both" solution.

I have stated previously that the 2300 of Daniel 8:14 was literal time fulfilled in Ezra's day linking with his arrival at Jerusalem. A local application cleansing the Temple in 457 BC to end the literal 2300-days and to start the 2300-years.

Later, I learned that the 2300-years ended twice: 1843 & 1844 depending on whether the prospective was BC or AD. The 1843 aligns with the 1260, 1290, and 1335-years in their secondary application between 508-1843.

Then the same prophecies prove that the 2300-years ended again in 1844 and the events in Daniel (Christ's anointing, & the gospel to the Gentiles) aligns perfectly with 1844.

With so much haggling over details that are poorly understood, we miss some really important stuff.

The 70-weeks of years were fulfilled in the past as 70-years and in the very recent past they have been fulfilled as literal time 70-weeks 7 times. That is a problem for those that believe that prophetic time stopped in 1844. Prophetic time stopping in 1844 is a distortion of the Spirit of Prophecy teaching about prophetic time because in 1907 +/- Ellen White clearly gives instances where she states that periods of prophetic time will be repeated. That is another topic.

So while we are quibbling over things rather than praying and studying: the endtime counterfeit prince of the covenant has set up the abomination that makes desolate right under our noses. The daily has recently been taken away and the 1260, 1290, & 1335-days have recently past with the blessing an UNDERSTANDING that the word of God is TRUE! In fact, around Yom Kippur 7 October 2011, we will be at the 2300-day mark after the 1335-days ended.

Sounds wild? So many have not got the basics down yet, & here I come with facts yet to be introduced into evidence. Blame the Review? I have sent them 2 or 3 recent articles that they have yet to even acknowledge as having received them.

The American economy will collapse on schedule whether 2 August 2011 or some time shortly thereafter. The outpouring of the Holy spirit will come on God's time frame. And those that cast their shadows over the word of God will not block light from everyone that seeks truth.

But rather than try to explain everything here on this topic in a 220-page post or in pieces that would get interrupted by comments so much so that the flow would be too impossible to follow send an e-mail to me at loudcry.2007@gmail.com

My vacation responder automatically replies. The response also contains a link to my bookstore that gives more information. [i'm fundraising to send my children to an SDA school in a few weeks (that deadline is here) so there is a request for a few dollars for the material.] One lady wanted to help so she got the material from the bookstore. But in fact, though she paid much more, her good intentions did not translate into a blessing at this time because the bookstore keeps the funds on hand until their monthly distribution date. School will have started before they send the royalties and after their fees are taken off the top, not much left. I do not deny folks the information if they request it free; God knows our need and theirs as well.

This is need to know stuff. It is Bible AND Spirit of Prophecy that nails down specifics. Since the words of a prophet are to be a blessing to those who receive them, I am not ashamed to dig into the Bible and then search for supporting Spirit of prophecy material. As Jesus asked, "How do your read...?" I will tell everyone up front that there are some things that are not being read correctly. Unfortunately, where tradition has crept in truth has been set aside. IMHO much of the faultfinding with the Spirit of Prophecy can be traced back to how the SOP has been taken from its context and twisted to say something that it does not say.

[miz3]

It's nothing personal miz3, it's just a reasonable, logical, irrefutable position on how the average, typical man on the street would interpret this bible verse.

Think about it, "Knowledge shall increase". Did that happen in the last 100 plus years compared to the rest of history? The answer is obvious, to any reasonable man on the street, there is only one answer, "yes". Now it could be argued the "man on the street" is an idiot, doesn't have a clue, and that the biblical statement itself is not true. But it would be a pretty dumb argument!

So, why would one take such a position on the question?

My theory is that such a person has already taken an unsustainable position and cannot allow any reasonable discourse to upset that position in any way. To wit: The day/year principle in this case.

Like I said you lose on the year/day hoax!

The Bible and the Bible only does not support any of your conjectures!

You chose to use "reason" as your authority, I choose the Bible and its clear unaltered statements.

[hch]

Quote:

Submit New Light to Experienced Brethren.--There are a thousand temptations in disguise prepared for those who have the light of truth; and the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for "in the multitude of counselors there is safety."--Testimonies, Vol. 5, pp. 291-293. (1885.) {CW 47.1}

This is good advise. BUT the men of experience are not of the same caliber today as they once were. I wrote an article for the Review and Bro. Johnsson referred it to Bro. Shea who was in the BRI at the time. Shea misunderstood the article, wrote a cordial letter explaining what he thought it said, then he tore apart his explanation. In fact he had misunderstood the article so much so that it was in 100% agreement with the view that he was putting forth against the article. But after that misunderstanding, there was no recourse. As long as Shea remained at the BRI, he did not answer any of my follow up correspondences.

Unfortunately that example is not an isolated incident. When corresponding with other SDA, it has frequently been the case that when something would arise that they did not see in the same light, they would stop communicating. As if to say OOPS here's an error don't want to get contaminated.

That makes it very difficult to have a meaningful study. In fact, when errors are noted in a teaching that is well established, if those errors are exposed to the light of day, many SDA's won't look at the possibility that an error has crept into our church in spite of the fact that Ellen states so clearly that ministers and doctors were bringing them in after 1844.

That being said, sometimes the Lord calls individuals to go forward to agitate the topic and let the Lord handle the fallout. Not the best way to do it, but when tradition has a strangle hold on the people, it is time to cry aloud and spare not! Come what may.

Ellen had to do that once. After waiting on the brethren for 2 years, she said that she would wait no more.

Quote:

To every church I would bear the message that man is not to exalt his own judgment. Meekness and lowliness of heart will lead men to desire counsel at every step. And the Lord will say, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me." It is our privilege to learn of Jesus. But when men, full of self-confidence, think that it is their place to give counsel instead of desiring to be counseled by their experienced brethren, they will listen to voices that will lead them in strange paths. {TM 501.1}

Unfortunately if the leading brethren are the ones taking the strange paths, the voices of reason don't sound so reasonable.

When I attempted to prove that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are repeated in the endtime as literal time, some leading brethren listened until it was pointed out that prophetic time repeats. Then they declared that there is no prophetic time after 1844 - end of discussion. Rather than to double check the Spirit of Prophecy and see that their position lumped all prophetic time together and that their position was contrary to the Spirit of Prophecy's counsel and that the Spirit of Prophecy cited instances of prophetic time in the 1900's that Ellen also said had been fulfilled previously, they stood their ground and shut out the light.

So even the best advise from the throne of Heaven, when committed to the hands of erring mortals, may not be sufficient to stem the evil tide when Satan attacks the Church and its teachings. After all he is a master of turning signposts around to point the wrong way.

loudcry.2007@gmail.com

[hch]

Daniel chapter two sets the parameters for the beginning and ending of all the prophetic material contained in the Book of Daniel!

That means none of the events predicted therein could ever cover thousands of years.

Second there is no time period mentioned in the Book of Daniel that spans thousands of years. Every time period is mentioned in days, weeks, and times (always short number of years).

Everything begins with the Babylonian Empire and ends with the Roman Empire! That's it!

NO THOUSANDS OF YEARS! NO PREDICTIONS OF THE SDA CHURCH! NO INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT! NO SDA SANCTUARY DOCTRINE!

Why? For all the reasons stated above and the key fact that there is no Biblical year/day principle!

Daniel 2 is an overview from Babylon to Christ's return.

Daniel 4 expands and explains Daniel 2. In chapter 4 Babylon symbolic of the apostate church that receives the deadly wound that is healed goes beyond pagan Rome to papal Rome.

Daniel 7 expands and explains Daniel 2 even more. 7:17 gives heaven's interpretation that the 4-beasts are actually 4 kings from the earth. Revelation 13 identifies the beast from the prophetic earth as America. Thus the 4 beasts that Daniel 7:17 changes from sea-beasts to earth-kings links Daniel to America's last 4 Presidents.

But if Daniel's prophecy is limited so much so that it cannot be followed past Rome; when all of the facts are not understood in their prophetic significance, it will not be possible for those setting limits on God's word to understand the lessons in Daniel that are needed on the eve of Christ's Advent.

loudcry.2007@gmail.com

[hch]

Originally Posted By: aussiemike

nonsence. from babylon to the end of the Roman Empire was nearly a thousand years. Then you have divided europe and the second coming of Christ.

You trying to tell us that from Babylon until the return of Christ doesnt cover thousands of years

The Book of Daniel does not cover the Second Coming! Nor does the Book of Daniel cover what you call a "divided europe either!

The return of Christ in the Second Coming is NOT COVERED IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL!

Christ's First Coming happened during the years covered by Daniel but NOT THE SECOND COMING!

In Daniel 7:11 "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame."

The burning flame cited here is the glory of Christ's Advent that destroys the wicked at His coming.

[hch]

...

The Book of Daniel does not cover the Second Coming! Nor does the Book of Daniel cover what you call a "divided europe either!

The return of Christ in the Second Coming is NOT COVERED IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL!

Christ's First Coming happened during the years covered by Daniel but NOT THE SECOND COMING!

If this were a true conclusion, that might seem like the end of the matter.

But as I read Revelation 10, the little book of Daniel is opened and John hears the command to prophesy again. Since the book of Daniel is the one that was prophesying as it is opened within the context, when it is to prophecy again, it continues to prophesy until Christ stands for His people the final time (see Daniel 12:1)

[hch]

1. Daniel chapter two does NOT MENTION THAT ALL THE NATIONS WERE GROUND TO POWDER!

2. Daniel chapter two mentions that only the kingdoms mentioned in the image were ground to powder. The whole image covered only the nations of Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome. No other kingdoms except the Kingdom of the Stone are mentioned in Daniel chapter two.

3. You are adding stuff that the Scripture does not include! This is why you have such skewed view of Daniel chapter two!

4. The Bible in Daniel chapter two does NOT STATE THAT THE TOES ARE THE "STATES OF EUROPE"!

That is a human idea. It does not come from the Bible!

Daniel 2:31-15 (NASB) states

31 “You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. 32 The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

How are you explaining that Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome were crushed all at the same time at Christ's first Advent?