Who or what is the Stone in Daniel 2?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Bert

Miz3 - What you are saying is that the Roman Empire is still in existence since the world has not evolved beyond the legs of iron. As such, then Daniel has not progressed beyond the fourth beast, and the ten horns mean nothing since they have not taken affect yet.

What is sad is that you fail to see the fallacy of your interpretation, for it is completely at odds with the entire structure of eschatology in both Daniel and Revelation. Maybe your Bible version is the cause of your misunderstanding, for the KJV says that the kingdom will 'be divided', and be 'partly strong, and partly broken'. The word 'brittle' is misleading, for the Hebrew word is tbar , meaning figuratively 'to be fragile':---broken. That is the adjectival response to the division of the kingdom, for it is broken up.

Originally Posted By: miz3

You are putting words in my mouth. I never, ever said that the Roman Empire is still in existence. I also never said that time stopped with the Roman Empire.

What I did say is that the vision stopped with the Roman Empire. That is it.

miz3 - Just read your two short paragraphs and you will find a dichotomy. If you interpret the vision to stop with the Roman Empire, then you are saying that the Roman Empire is still in existence. If the dream concludes with the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms, represented by the ten toes, followed by the second coming of Christ, represented by the rock that crushes the image, then it is prophecy that ends with Christ's coming, not with the Roman Empire still in existence.

Wrong. No dichotomy.

Your fallacy is that you assume the Stone means the "Second Coming". I make no such assumption. I call your it an assumption because the Bible does not say that the Stone is the Second Coming.

In fact the Stone can not be the Second Coming because the vision ends with the Roman Empire.

You keep getting everything backwards because you start from an unBiblical assumption. You should start from FACT. That is Biblical FACT.

Starting from an assumption that is not in the Bible will ALWAYS GET YOU IN TROUBLE.

I am not the one with a dichotomy, but it appears you are the one with a dichotomy because you put so many assumptions into the plain Word of God instead of reading the Bible as it actually is written.

Second your definition of the word "division" is not the same definition the Bible gives to the word "division". Again this makes your views wrong.

Between unBiblical assumptions, unBiblical definitions it is no wonder that you have such far out view of the Bible is actually saying. This will always happen when you put "human things" into the Word of God that are not there.

In order to know the Truth you need to shed your "human assumptions, your human made definitions, your theological constructs, your outside the Bible sources, etc. etc.".

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Bert

miz3 - You have completely taken prophecies out of context and application. Bible prophecy is centered around the nation of Israel since it was the area that would see the Messiah come, and it is the area in which the gospel message would be formed and then spread throughout the rest of the world. As such, prophecies are pertinent to that area of the world.

In Daniel's time, the people of Asia were unknown as well as too distant to be involved in any problems and activities in Israel. And what part of the western hemisphere was involved with Israel or any of the nations that surrounded Israel in Daniel's time? The existence of the Americas was hundreds of years away.

The Roman Republic was just being organized at the time of Daniel's vision, and it wasn't until 27 BC before the Roman Empire came into existence and ruled the then Western world. It was highly civilized and along with Greece, was the center of commerce, art, beautiful buildings, and a well-organized governmental system.

Sorry, but you're the one that is interjecting human ideas and interpretations, for there is not one single other verse in the Bible that supports your premise. The Bible tells us that when studying the Bible we should do it 'precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little.' Isaiah 28:10.

Originally Posted By: miz3

1. If the Bible prophecies "center around the nation of Israel, then the "heathen tribes north of the Roman Empire (Italy) would and did have nothing to do with Israel. They did not care one wit about Israel. Thus, using your own argument you are wrong. The "ten nations" of Europe that you assert have nothing to do with Israel and prophecy in the time of Daniel and even in the time of Jesus Christ

.

miz3 - The Roman Empire extended throughout most of what is now Europe, all the way to the British Isles. You're probably right that the northern tribes were not interested in what was transpiring in Israel, but they were part of the Roman Empire, and most likely had to furnish troops and taxes to Rome. It was these tribes to which you refer that eventually established their own nationality when the Roman Empire broke up, and the Roman yoke was thrown off. They were, and are, the ten toes of the great image.

1. Yes those northern entities did belong to Roman Empire but so did the entities of northern Africa, the eastern part of Rome went into Asia, and the Middle East. These entities also broke up and reorganized after the Roman Empire fell. There is nothing noteworthy about any of this.

The fact is more than ten entities broke up and away from the Roman Empire at its fall. The vision does not cover this.

It does however cover that Jesus Christ set up a Kingdom, His Kingdom, while He was on earth. It was not a formal earthly kingdom but is an Heavenly Spiritual Kingdom (Christ told Pilot that His Kingdom was not of this World). Thus, Jesus Christ is the Stone that at His "First" Coming set up an Eternal Kingdom which is still in existence today. It is a Spiritual Kingdom and thus it has none of the human structures we look for in the many .org churches.

2. When the Roman Empire broke up there were more than ten entities in the north alone that broke away from Rome. To limit the break to just ten particular entities that suit your fancy is not Biblical.

Second you yourself have admitted that these so-called ten cared nothing about Israel.

Thus on numerous counts you are wrong.

This is what happens as I have said before when you use: Human assumptions, theological constructs, historical configurations, outside Biblical sources, human analysis, etc. etc. instead of reading the Bible as it is actually written.

3. Please, Bert, when you post get who said what correct. I have twice now had to correct your erroneous attributions. You keep getting yours and my words mixed up so that I am say what you said and visa versa.

I am sure this is inadvertent.

When you do this you confuse those reading the posts. Thanks for being more careful about your posts in the future.

[Alchemy]

miz3 - Your interpretation of the word 'division' as it pertains to the succession of kingdoms is flawed, and cannot be verified or confirmed by scripture or any secular source, and neither does it conform to other prophecies that parallel Daniel 2. Therefore, it fails to meet the test required by Isaiah 8:20.

Excellent post, Bert.

At one point miz3 said the Daniel 2 never taught a division. Then, when it was shown from Daniel 2 did talk of a division, miz3 came up with his private interpretation.

miz3 can believe whatever he/she wants, but it is not Biblical.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Bert

miz3 - Your interpretation of the word 'division' as it pertains to the succession of kingdoms is flawed, and cannot be verified or confirmed by scripture or any secular source, and neither does it conform to other prophecies that parallel Daniel 2. Therefore, it fails to meet the test required by Isaiah 8:20.

Excellent post, Bert.

At one point miz3 said the Daniel 2 never taught a division. Then, when it was shown from Daniel 2 did talk of a division, miz3 came up with his private interpretation.

miz3 can believe whatever he/she wants, but it is not Biblical.

Go back and reread the posts again. Your version of things is wrong.

What I said was that "division" as stated in Daniel chapter two did not mean "split in two".

"Division" in Daniel chapter two means "partly weak and partly strong".

Please read my posts carefully before you accuse me falsely.

Second your view of "division" is the one that is not Biblical.

[Windsor]

Bert is on the right track. The kingdoms of Daniel were relevant because of their relation to God's people. First, the Israelites and later the Christians. North Africa and the Middle East is largely devoid of Christians to this day. Europe, however, is not.