[Hope12]

Hello Everyone,

What is the lesson and message behing the Prophecy is Daniel chappter 3 about the image made of Gold? What do you think it is?

Take care,
Hope12 :o

[arcura]

There is no prophesy there.
The three Jews said that God COULD rescue the, but if he did not they still would nor worship the king's god or the image of gold that was 90 feet tall.
Have you ever stopped to think about how heavy that would be? It would have to be built on solid bed rock for it would sink in the sand or soil of that desert kingdom.
Of course the lesson is false worship.
The Jews had their own God. For them to worship a different god, (and a false on at that) would be sacrilege.
Holy Scripture tells us that God rewarded their strong faith with rescue.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

:)

[Morganite]

Daniel said:

"The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king." Their power was from beneath; they were servants of Satan; their religion was not founded on the rock of revelation; visions and the things of the Spirit were far from them. "But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets," Daniel said, "and [he] maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days."

The dream and its meaning pertain to our day, "the latter days," the days just preceding the Second Coming of Him who gave the dream.

"Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; As for thee, O king," Daniel said, "thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass."

Standing in the awesome mortal presence then on earth, speaking boldly before all of the imperial court, relying upon prophetic insight and with seeric assurance, Daniel gave the divine interpretation: "Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image."

Doubt is absent; Daniel knows!

"This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible."

No artist has yet gained the inspiration to paint the terrible form nor the awesome visage of this great image, nor do we the suppose that mortal skill could record on canvas what the Lord placed first in the mind of the wicked king and then in the heart of the righteous prophet.

Providentially we have a few of the descriptive words from that prophet, the prophet in whose presence even the roaring lions closed their mouths.

"This image's head was of fine gold," Daniel continued, "his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay."

Such was the wondrous image chosen by divine wisdom to represent the successive and great kingdoms of men.

Looking back we can identify with ease the respective earthly powers whose periods of supremacy were molded and sculptured into the terrible image.

"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory," Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar.

"And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."

Babylonia was indeed the first world -- kingdom. She held sway from about 605 to 538 B.C. with Nebuchadnezzar's prosperous reign lasting from about 606 to 562 B.C. His voice was as the voice of God to the millions who trembled at his word. His armies traversed the earth, conquered kingdoms, and transported whole nations from one land to another by the sharpness of their swords and the piercing power of their spears. On the roof of his vast palace in Babylon were the famous hanging gardens, ranked as one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee," Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, "and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth."

These kingdoms are the Medo-Persian or second world-kingdoms, whose dominion prevailed from about 538 to 333 B.C. and the Grecian powers that prevailed beginning with the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.

"And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise."

Here we see the powers of Rome, beginning with the Caesars, particularly Augustus, who ruled when the Lord Jesus was born, and continuing until the first barbarian king ruled in Italy in A.D. 476.

The two legs of iron symbolize perfectly the division into an eastern and a western Roman Empire, with Constantine the Great (in whose day the Nicene Creed was written) establishing a new capital at Byzantium and giving it the new name of Constantinople (now Istanbul).

"And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

"And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

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."

Clearly these are the numerous, divided, warring kingdoms -- some strong, others weak -- that grew out of the mighty Roman Empire.

That they did not "cleave one to another" has resulted in the death and misery of many people during the long ages from the fall of Rome to the day of restoration with which the dream is now prepared to concern itself.

Having thus described the terrible image, Daniel tells the king: "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floor; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

By way of interpretation, Daniel's divine word is: And in the days of these kings -- those of divers sorts, powers, and strengths, which grew out of the Roman Empire -- "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Dan. 2:27-45.)

How wondrous are the ways of the Lord! How glorious are the mysteries of this kingdom! And how sweet is the word he sends by dreams and visions and seeric interpretations!

Here we have seen the kingdoms of this world, kingdoms drenched in blood and held together by the arm of flesh, one following another until the set time for the great latter-day restoration of all things.

Then a stone is cut out of the mountain without mortal hands and a kingdom is set up by the God of heaven. It is a new kind of kingdom. The arm of flesh plays no part in its creation. It is created without man's hand. It comes from God. It is established by revelation. It is the Church and kingdom of God on earth.

And it grows until it fills the whole earth, until the knowledge of God covers the earth as the waters cover the sea, until every living soul on earth is converted. And what of the other kingdoms? This eternal kingdom, this kingdom which shall never be destroyed, this kingdom which is the new and everlasting kingdom, shall break in pieces and consume all kingdoms. It shall make a full end of all nations; they shall vanish as the chaff before the summer breeze and shall not be found on earth. And the new kingdom shall not be left to any other people; never again will there be a general apostasy; the Church of the God of heaven will be set up on earth to stand forever.

Thus saith Daniel. Thus saith the Lord. And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. (Dan. 2:45.)

This kingdom was set up on April 6, 1830, by revelation and commandment from on high. It is "called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord" has named. (Isa. 62:2.)

For, as the prophets foretold, "the Lord God shall.. . Call his servants by another name" (Isa. 65: 15) in that day when Israel is restored and her people are prepared for his coming.

It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and its eternal destiny is assured.

For thus saith the Lord: `The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth."

And further, by way of invitation, the revealed word says:

"Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the earth, that the inhabitants thereof may receive it, and be prepared for the days to come, in the which the Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth.

"Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth, that thine enemies may be subdued; for thine is the honor, power and glory, forever and ever." (D&C 65:2, 5-6.)

When we say, as say we must with all the power and persuasion at our command, that the Almighty promised to set up his Church and kingdom again on earth before his millennial return; when we speak of the restoration of the everlasting gospel in the last days; and when we testify that the ancient keys and powers must once again be vested in mortal men -- such pronouncements mean that everything that appertains to, is connected with, or is part of the gospel shall be restored and shall be administered by the Church.

God's Church and kingdom can accomplish its destined mission only if it is restored in all its glory, beauty, and perfection.

And that, Hope12, is what I think the message behind the prophetic vision of Daniel 3.

Thank you for asking a question that required much thought to answer.

MORGANITE

:)

[Morganite]

It would have to be built on solid bed rock for it would sink in the sand or soil of that desert kingdom.
:)

Most of the desert kingdoms are built on solid bedrock. I have driven for miles across these deserts without coming across one of the Red Shadow's sand dunes.

Flat rock almost all the way. Occasionally a sudden rise in the floor level of a foot or more, catapulting the vehicles into the air for several feet if approached at a reasonable speed.


:)

[arcura]

Ah, the voice of an experience I have not had.
To my mind the word desert speaks of sand and sand dunes.
A few bare rocks might come to mind and some hot dry mountians.
I must therefore take your exerience into consideration for I have not been in the type of desert you speak of.
Thanks for the explanation,
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
:)

[keenu]

Satan was just one of the gods.
He was only considered "bad" by the other, very competitive, gods.
Hence our modern-day misinterpretation that "Satan" is "evil".

[Morganite]

I shared your view before I actually went there. My vision was of the Sahara's vast wasteland, rather than the wilderness and uncultivated places. Just as a pointer, you have probably seen photographs or pictures of the Gates of Babylon, and seen what great ornate structures they were.

Like you, I was surprised at what I found. I had been taken in by too many movies about desert sheiks and trudging Bedouins.

[Morganite]

Satan was just one of the gods.
He was only considered "bad" by the other, very competitive, gods.
Hence our modern-day misinterpretation that "Satan" is "evil".

I am surprised at your lack of understanding, even as I acknowledge your patent desire to communicate and learn. Pope issued a warning to those who learn to little and then believe they are the masters of their craft:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

~ Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

I feel sure that behind your brief pronouncements there is a little learning. I am equally sure that if you were to "drink largely" instead of sipping a little here and a little there, that your desire for knowledge would be satisfied and your contributions to the discussion would be more valuable than, "That's it. Take it or leave it!"

Was Satan just one of the gods? According to which particular brand of polytheism?
Was he only thought to be evil because his competitors in the maligned him?
Is he really a good god who has had a bad press?

The name 'satan,' is Hebrew, "saw-tahn,' and mean an adversary, and is applied to a superhuman adversary who is a bad influence. This understanding is not 'modern' as you say it is, but it is extremely ancient.

In Greek, he is known as satanas, and identified with the same character as he is in the Hebrew Scriptures, so your saying that 'an evil satan' is a modern misconception, falls down under the weight of history that controverts your claim.

Satan is the enemy of God and the enemy of humankind. If you do not believe in a supreme God, then this mean nothing to you, but, bear in mind that every civilisation and every religion has among the heart of its beliefs a deadly struggle for the souls of man.

That this "Manichean" struggle is universal, is not accidental. It is not only the product of divine revelation, but also the universal fruit of human experience. Satan's promptings to evils present themselves insidiously in our daily association. They come in the shape of temptations, as they came to the Savior after his baptism.

When Satan said, ". . . command that these stones be made bread," (Matt. 4:3) he was appealing to the appetite. He knew that Jesus was hungry, that he was physically weak and thought that by pointing to those little limestones which resemble somewhat a Jewish loaf of bread, he could awaken a desire to eat.

Failing in that, he received the divine word, ". . . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Ibid. 4:4.)

Satan then tried him in another way. He dared him—an appeal to his pride, to his vanity, quoted scripture to support his temptation, for remember, the Savior answered him in terms of scripture, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Matt. 4:7.)

What was the third? An appeal to his love of power, domain wealth, "All these things [the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof] will I give thee," said the tempter, "if thou wilt fall down and worship me." (Ibid., 4:9.) "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Ibid., 4:10.) Now, nearly every temptation that comes to you and me comes in one of those forms.

You have said in another post that the Bible is history. That means that the above story of Jesus and Satan is true, which, in turn, means that Satan, having acted in an evil manner by seeking to receive for himself the worship due only to God, is himself evil. Then, Satan must be real and evil, for you yourself have attested to the historicity of the Bible.

People, even gods, are not evil because they are considered so by others. Being evil is achieved by one's behaviour, be ye man, angel, spirit, god, or donkey. As a man does, so is he. Satan is an ancient foe of man and God, not someone who has been picked on by bullies, and so deserving of our sympathy.

Holding an alternate view that is as antithetical to the Bible as yours, is not possible. To hold on to and make sense of your polythestic pagan view you must perforce relinquish all hold on the Bible as a source of wisdom and information about the divine and God's dealings with humankind because its contents, are so far divorced from yours as to make even the most tenuous juxtaposition untenable. Ambivalence is error!

The fundamental ambivalence of Western civilization consists of a permanent conflict of spiritualities derived from the human condition itself. The assumptions underlying this conflict have created the mantic world view of vertical supernaturalism, a dualistic metaphysic that includes not only the natural order, but also another world order which transcends it, and the sophic world view of horizontal naturalism, a monistic metaphysic that confines all realities to the natural order.

The antithetical spiritualities implicit in these disparate perspectives became explicit at the dawn of human existence, when our first parents, following their expulsion from Eden, taught the revealed word of God to their children, only to face formidable opposition when "Satan came among them, saying:.. . Believe it not; and they believed it not."

Thus, unbelief arose as a counter to faith in anything that is not experienced naturally, for Adam witnessed in his immediate family the decisive split between skepticism and belief which has since polarized the human race.

Thus, "Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord" as a man of faith, but Cain was a skeptic who "rejected the greater counsel which was had from God" and "hearkened not [to the words of the Lord], saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?" When the Lord subsequently rejected Cain's sacrifice, which was prompted not by the revealed spirit of faith, but by the natural spirit of unbelief, "Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother," nor to anyone else "who walked in holiness before the Lord," and he was "shut out from the presence of the Lord"--not because the Lord rejected him, but because he rejected the Lord.

The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 and its Latin translation are explicit as to these two kinds of spirituality. Since psychikos anthropos (animalis homo) refers to the spiritual psyche of a human being and not to the physical body, the "natural man" constitutes the secular version of the spiritual man, which Paul compares to the pneumatikos [anthropos] (spiritualis [homo])-the Christian version of the spiritual man whose spirit (pneuma, spiritus) descends from above as a charismatic gift. The natural man is thus a spiritual man, the human being as psyche (anima), not as soma (corpus).

We confirm this distinction every day by discussing sophic manifestations of the human "spirit" in the liberal arts and elsewhere without referring in any way at all to the mantic spirit of revealed religion.

That the spiritual conflict of naturalism and revealed religion permeates the scriptures, is attested in one guise or another in virtually all of the world's cultures. It has created the head-on collisions of Athens with Jernsalem, for example, which pervade the whole of Western intellectual history. The sophic view, which eventually prevailed in Greece, has thus given birth to Greco-Roman naturalism, whereas the Egypto-Mesopotamian supernaturalism which produced the Judeo-Christian tradition is the issue of the mantic outlook.

Naturalism even when dressed in the garb of polytheism is a reactive tradition which must be studied in relation to the tradition it reacts against. Thus, the instances of naturalism, such as the recurring conflicts of science with religion, "can be understood only against the background of the religious belief.. . [they] question or deny."

The influence of the religious (revealed) and skeptical (opinionated) traditions on each other, has never been identical. The overall tendency of their interaction is always one-sided--toward the naturalization of religion, not toward the supernaturalizing of science or scholarship--since naturalism is committed to the extermination of supernaturalism (something it can never hope to accomplish) and reacts only negatively to religious criticism, and your arguments - I will not call them arguments, for you do not argue your case - show that the flame of the most ancient conflict has not been extinguished.

MORGANITE

[arcura]

Very good post.
Well done.
Well said.
Fred
(arcura)

[keenu]

"I am surprised at your lack of understanding, even as I acknowledge your patent desire to communicate and learn."

Your being "surprised at my lack of understanding" shows your lack of understanding and knowledge. Oh, and thank you so much for acknowledging my patent desire to communicate and learn. I find you slightly arrogant. You have no idea of what my learning might or might not be. I can assure you that my learning extends way beyond the bible. Quoting the bible certainly doesn't prove anything to me.
Can anyone here have an intelligent discussion of anything that has to do with something other than the bible?

[Morganite]

"I am surprised at your lack of understanding, even as I acknowledge your patent desire to communicate and learn."

Your being "surprised at my lack of understanding" shows your lack of understanding and knowledge. Oh, and thank you so much for acknowledging my patent desire to communicate and learn. I find you slightly arrogant. You have no idea of what my learning might or might not be. I can assure you that my learning extends way beyond the bible. Quoting the bible certainly doesn't prove anything to me.
Can anyone here have an intelligent discussion of anything that has to do with something other than the bible?

If you want to avoid discussing the Bible, why come to a religion forum? I didn't start the thread, I am only responding.

If you want to attack the Bible, or those who believe the Bible, that's just fine. Go right ahead and enjoy yourself. But if you expect Bible believers to sit back and take your vicious darts without defending their beliefs is too controlling.

I invited you to a feast of leanring. You decline. That's fine. No hard feelings.

Remember, the thread is about Biblical prophecy!

If you want to talk about something else, start a thread.




:)




MORGANITE

[arcura]

Of course we can have such a discussion.
But here on this thread we discuss the Bible and related subjects.
You can discuss what you like of course.
Others, I'm sure will do the same.
Maybe you should start an different thread to your liking.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura) :) :) :)

[STONY]

I Agree With Your Summary. When I Was In Israel I Was Astounded At Why This Country Was Not The Supplier If Concrete To The World. I Mean Once You Get Away From The Jordan Valley/river, You Cannot Spit On The Ground Without Hitting Rocks... they Are Everywhere!