(bold emphasis mine)

That's true. But, we understand that the Second Coming of Christ and the Judgment were present truth in the 1830's and 40's. They got the event wrong. And if Jesus would have had a people ready, He would have come back in the mid 1800's. So, I don't believe your point is apples to apples with the point I'm trying to make.

If how God led His people in the past is not rightly discerned, those who do not learn from their mistakes will undoubtedly repeat them.

I am sure that you are not following me any better than you perceive that I follow you.

There is a famine of the word in the land today because so many do not relish humble fare. I must feast on the tidbits that others discard lest the famine comes to my table too.

Are you the one who is saying Obama is the last president?
Under what conditions will you accept Obama is not the last president?

Let me rephrase your question
"Under what conditions do you believe that Obama is the last president?"

I have given this problem to several people, will you care enough about my salvation to explain it to me from the Bible?

Esigesis (the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions )

So perhaps you can help me with sorting it out correctly?

The facts:

Daniel saw 4 sea-beasts (7:1-3)

Heaven explained 4 earth-beasts (7:17)

Traditionally the sea-beasts have been explained as the "worldwide" kingdoms (Babylon to Rome)

Revelation 13 differentiates a sea-beast from an earth-beast.

The problem:

Traditionally the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 have been taken symbolically and the earth-beasts literally. That Esigesis flies in the face of sound Bible study because the same symbolism exists in Daniel 7 as in Revelation 13 (lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast) so to have the same item (and only that item) to be symbolic in one chapter and literal in the other cannot be correct.

If the traditional Esigesis that the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 are the earth-beasts stands true; then that view destroys the Eschatology, (the study of 'end things', whether the end of an individual life, the end of the age, the end of the world and the nature of the Kingdom of God) that is set forth in Revelation 13.

If the Eschatology that has been applied to Revelation 13 by Adventists in the past is correct, then the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 are the old world kingdoms that foreshadow an endtime revelation about the earth-beasts that relates to the new world.

The Scriptures don't contradict each other. The symbolic sea-beasts and earth-beasts in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are to be interpreted by the same standard. So if a sea-beast is an earth-beast in Daniel 7 then a sea-beast is an earth-beast in Revelation 13. If a sea-beast is different than an earth-beast in Revelation 13, then a sea-beast is different than an earth-beast in Daniel 7.

Esigesis?

)

Here is the first mistake you make.

The first statement is true.
The second is false.

True, Daniel saw 4 beasts rise out of the sea.



But heaven does NOT explain 4 earth beasts.
Heaven tells us those four sea beasts represent four earthly king[doms].

Thus heaven explains that the 4 sea beasts in the vision ARE symbolic of four earthly kingdoms.

4 symbolic sea beasts = 4 actual earthly kingdoms.



So, Daniel sees a vision -- He sees four beasts emerge from the sea.

He is troubled -- what does it mean?

A heavenly messenger comes and tells him the four beasts which he saw REPRESENT four kingdoms.

True exegesis (careful, objective analysis of the Biblical passage) studies the vision, and sees the explanation as telling us what the vision means.

Esigesis introduces one's own presuppositions and decides quite out of line with what the scriptures say, that somehow the heavenly messenger is giving ANOTHER symbolic prophecy rather than giving the interpretation of the vision.

There are no beasts arising out of the earth in Daniel 7, only four beasts arising out of the sea.
Those four sea beasts represent something -- the heavenly messenger tells Daniel they represent four kingdoms that will arise upon the earth.

The vision is symbolic.
The messenger gives the meaning of the symbols seen in the vision, he does NOT give more symbols.

Dedication,
Thank you for graciously taking the time to answer my question.
we agree on this point



The problem remains





Daniel saw sea-beasts--Heaven explains earth-beasts

Revelation 13 uses the same symbolism as Daniel 7
lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast

In Revelation 13 lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast are all symbolic.





Yes Daniel and Revelation explain each other, but Revelation supplements Daniel. Example: Daniel saw beasts arise from the sea and Revelation 17:15 explains the gathered waters (seas) are--"The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."

So when Revelation 13 uses the same symbols as Daniel 7 and Rev 13 clearly supplements Dan 7 you agree that sea-beast and earth-beast in Rev 13 are both symbolic, BUT in Daniel 7; you hold that sea-beast is symbolic and earth-beast is literal.



That view disregards the fact that Revelation 13 indicates that both the sea-beast and earth-beast are symbolic and it is supplementing the meaning of Daniel 7. But rather than allow the Scriptures to explain themselves, you accept the traditional view that places these two texts in contradiction of each other.

You quote "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth," Daniel 7:24 to support your position.

In 7:17 Heaven declares the earth beasts as KINGS and the translators that understand the 4 kingdom view translate Daniel's words to turn the kings back into kingdoms.

Is this a translation issue? The word translated as kingdom in 7:24 is never translated as kingdom <04437> in any other book in the Bible except Daniel and it is not always translated as kingdom in Daniel.







When Heaven declares "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth" Why did the translators not remain consistent to Heaven's interpretation:



Reign would have been more consistent with Heavens interpretation that it is explaining 4 kings but God commanded that the meaning of Daniel was to be sealed until the endtime. Thus the translators fulfilled God's word by interjecting their understanding into their translation.

Not until the time of the 4 kings arrived could the meaning of Daniel 7:17 be understood.



So the position that Daniel 7 is about "4 symbolic sea beasts = 4 actual earthly kingdoms" cannot be correct:

1) It makes Daniel 7 contradict Revelation 13
2) Is does not follow the pattern of Revelation 13 that supplements Daniel 7
3) The book of Daniel was sealed until the endtime--the kingdom view was established hundreds of years before the endtime--it cannot be the meaning that was unsealed in the endtime
4) God promised to increase knowledge in the endtime
5) The translation of some words in Daniel contradict the context

We must beware of error

Here in Daniel 7, the four beasts are normally considered land beasts, but, they are coming up out of the sea. In verse 16, an angel has arrived to show Daniel the interpretation. This is why there is a change in our thinking in verse 17. Verse 17 is part of the interpretation.

The symbolic beasts are literal nations and the symbolic sea represents a populated part of the earth.

I hope I was clear.

Alchemy,
That is very well put. Thank you.

So the only problem that remains is to Reconcile Daniel 7 with Revelation 13.

In Daniel 7 logic would have us to conclude Heaven's interpretation is an interpretation of the vision and not an expansion of it. But within the portion of Scripture that interprets the vision there are some facts that are out of context with the vision:

The origin of the beasts has been changed from sea to earth.
The fourth beast now has brass nails-- not mentioned in the vision.
The beasts are cited as KINGS (a word that occurs in the Bible about 2800 times in either Aramaic or Hebrew and with 5 exceptions it is KING(s) never kingdoms.

Conversely the word kingdom can be rendered reign, realm or kingly.

So Heaven's interpretation that they are KINGS trumps man's understanding that they are kingdoms. But man manipulates the text and reasons that kings are kingdoms and does away with Heaven's interpretation using the vision to interpret the interpretation rather than the interpretation to interpret the vision.

After man has disregarded a plain thus saith the Lord "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth" (Daniel 7:17)

Man disregards the fact that Revelation 13 explains the meaning of the symbolic earth that will in turn explain who these kings are in the time of the end when Revelation supplements Daniel and they explain themselves by their fulfillment.

The partial understanding of the 4 kingdoms was correct before knowledge increased. Now the problem is that the partial understanding has become a barrier to a more complete understanding that is revealed in the endtime when Daniel is standing in his lot.

So "these great beasts", where did Daniel see them, where are they in reference to, if they weren't one and the same beasts Daniel just saw? Where are the land beasts explained? Isn't that what Daniel was troubled about and wanted to know?

Da 7:16 "I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things:

Are you saying the Bible should really say, 'So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of some other things:'

Kland

Would you agree that:
Daniel 7:1-14 is the vision
Daniel 7:15-28 is the interpretation

Should our understanding of the vision be used to explain the interpretation?

Or should our understanding of the interpretation be used to explain the vision?

Heaven's interpretation states: "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth" (7:17).

Thus from Heavens interpretation it is known that the vision is about "4 kings."

Thus from Heavens interpretation it is known that the vision is about 4 kings that come from the "earth."

Then we must ask "what is the earth?"



After studying the vision and the interpretation, is it our position that the vision explains the interpretation or does Heaven's interpretation explain the vision?



Heaven's interpretation (7:17) states that it is explaining 4 kings--Kings are rulers "He shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler" (1 Kings 1:35).

Heaven's interpretation states that it is explaining that they come from the "earth"--Bible study as summarized from the Spirit of Prophecy quote indicates that the symbolic earth relates to the United States in Bible prophecy so we must apply our understanding of Heaven's interpretation to the vision.

To understand the vision correctly, Heaven's interpretation of the vision is the INTERPRETATION. To use the vision to explain Heaven's interpretation is faulty logic.

Rightly understood, the vision in 7:1-14 carries us to the endtime and the interpretation in 7:15-28 reveals the endtime American Presidents that are in office until Christ comes as sure as King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold at the onset of Daniel's prophecy.