So is your argument that since MKJV like the old KJV calls the fourth beast a KINGDOM that it is a KINGDOM?

Is That argument valid?

In Da 5:20 The very word that you use to support your position is translated as kingly "But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly <04437> throne, and they took his glory from him:"

In Da 6:3 The very word that you use to support your position is translated as realm. "Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm."

In Da 6:28 The very word that you use to support your position is translated as reign "So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian."

The very word that you use to support your position is not translated KINGDOM anywhere else in Scripture other than Daniel!

So how do you justify your position that is a rejection of a clear thus saith the LORD?

Da 7:17 "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth."

Nichol, F. D. can argue that the light regarding the word translated as kingdom and reign had not yet come when he wrote his commentary.

But it is clear that the light has now come. The word that Daniel used that the translators rendered as kingdom is reign and reign is in harmony with Heaven's interpretation:

"These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth."

"Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth reign upon earth, which shall be diverse from all reigns, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." (Dan 7:23, supplemented)

The KJV translators can argue that they understood the 4-kingdoms and light had not come to give them cause to doubt that it had another meaning.

God said that He closed, sealed, and shut up the book of Daniel until the time of the end when knowledge shall increase (Da 12: 4 & 9).

So when light has increased on this subject, what justification is there for presenting a position that is clearly based on an error that clouded the understanding of people in past ages to keep the light of Present Truth from enlightening us today?

Your conclusion, rather than embracing the unsealing of Daniel in the last days when knowledge has increased, is an attempt to reseal that which God has opened and to deny the knowledge that God has revealed through Bible study.

Henry, you have dramatically misquoted me above. The quote you are referencing from is my own personal comments, they are not the words of FD Nichol.

It will be easy to disprove your arguments above re "kingdoms" so I am in no rush here. I will wait a bit and see what develops here.

Would you agree there is no mechanism in place today for a past two-term president to come back into office?

Under what conditions would you be convinced that Obama is not going to come back into office? That is, suppose Trump is impeached and Pence takes office. Or 2018 progresses and Trump is still in. Or Trump serves 4 years and another president other than Obama is elected?

HC

Both the Septuagint and Vulgate translate the word into “kingdoms, as does the KJV, MKJV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and a number of others. And this is for good reason, verifiable in the scriptures, just as they read.

You have accused me of somehow “resealing” the book of Daniel, while I will maintain that the correct word to use is that I have revealed it. I believe your theories conceal what we need to know today.

The first reason your theories of darkness are wrong is that your “word study” is clearly engineered by you to reflect your own doctrinal leanings, and this is never how the Bible is to be studied and revealed to others

Daniel 7:23 does use the word “kingdoms” and this is the most correctly known translation thereof. Just by common logic alone, one would have to ask: “why would a “king” (vs 23) have to turn into a “king” when it was already a king? It doesn’t make sense to say :”a king will become a king” when he is already a king! Daniel 7:18 verifies that these “kings” were kingdoms:

“But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.” (Daniel 7:18) The word in question is (H4437- malku&#770; re Strongs) and is translated as “kingdom 47 times in the book of Daniel, 4 times as “reign” and only one of those in Daniel, (6:28), it is translated 3 times as “realm, and only one of those in Daniel, (6:3), malku&#770; is translated as “kingdoms” twice, and both times in the book of Daniel, (2:44, 7:23), and the word “kingly” is only used once in Daniel 5:20, as you mentioned in your above response regarding Dan 5:20.

(if anyone wants a list of these 47 texts just let me know )

You are obviously coughing up some very specious adhominem arguments to make one text say something is wrong with 47 other textual renderings. You stated above: “The very word that you use to support your position is not translated KINGDOM anywhere else in Scripture other than Daniel!” and this proves nothing, even if it were true, which it is not.

In order to reveal the book of Daniel rather than conceal its correctly verified meanings, we must look at Context:

The “Ancient Of Days” (7:13), was given a “kingdom” not a “king.” and we can reflect further on this through the next verse. “And there was given Him a dominion (H7985) glory (H3367) and a kingdom. (H4437)

Daniel 7:14 calls “the kingdom” given to “The Ancient of Days” “him.” This explains why the wording, as I have so far reflected it is correct. King, dominion, reign, etc are all used to denote a kingdom in many places throughout the Bible. That’s exactly why it is correct to say from Daniel 7:23 that those four kings of Daniel 7:17 include the “kingdoms” as mentioned in Daniel 7:23

Daniel 7 is an expansion of Daniel two, expanding our knowledge of the kingdoms denoted by the statue of Dan 2 and giving us more light on the kingdoms, not kings of the great image therein which the King dreamed about. Therefore, we should expect nothing less in our message today, and God's people must categorically deny assent to your audacious claims, as they relate the eisegesis which your theories dishonour us with on the internet and in your books.

“The saints of The Most High shall take “THE KINGDOM” not the king. (Daniel 7:18). Those who “would know the truth,” (Dan 7:19), about the “fourth beast were given the unmistakeable answer: they were the ones who “possessed the KINGDOM”” (Dan 7:22), so why would it switch all of a sudden to just meaning an individual “king” in vs 23 as you have tried to say?

ThusH3652 he said,H560 The fourthH7244 beastH2423 shall beH1934 the fourthH7244 kingdomH4437 upon earth,H772 whichH1768 shall be diverseH8133 fromH4481 allH3606
kingdoms,H4437 and shall devourH399 the wholeH3606 earth,H772 and shall tread it down,H1759 and break it in pieces.H1855

Because of the correlations of Daniel 7 with Daniel 2, we know even more, how the use of the word “king” is used as a way to denote a kingdom. The Bible does this all over the place. Even the two letter word “He” in Daniel 7:25 is talking about what? The very same “kingdoms” mentioned in Daniel 7 vs 23.

You cant just stick in the word “reigns” as desired for vs 23, but even if your theory is errant enough to do so, it would not change the fact that a “reign” would have to mean there is a kingdom involved, as a “reign” makes no sense on it’s
own, without a kingdom. You have so far failed completely to prove anything I have said is “wrong.”

Trying to accuse me of “re-sealing” the book of Daniel is akin to saying that I have the power to undo what God has done:

The book of Daniel is now unsealed, and the revelation made by Christ to John is to come to all the inhabitants of the earth. By the increase of knowledge a people is to be prepared to stand in the latter days. {CTr 338.4}

It is very easy for people to unravel the many “private interpretations” arising by people proclaiming their spiritual prowess, through “dreams” and naming of specific individuals/presidents/kings by constantly rerouting all “special light” to the intended correctly verified context and message of Daniel & Revelation. All that’s going to happen from people arisng of their own selves, is that by publically naming names, (with undeserved labels), and the naming of times not set forth in Scripture, is that they will bring the entire body of Adventists, or even anybody like them into a time of trouble that is premature, unwarranted and not in keeping with God’s expressed will.

There is a time of trouble coming to the people of God, but we are not to keep that constantly before the people, and rein them up to have a time of trouble beforehand. There is to be a shaking among God’s people; but this is not the present truth to carry to the churches; it will be the result of refusing the truth presented. {CTr 363.5}
The ministers should not feel that they have some wonderful advanced ideas, and unless all receive these, they will be shaken out, and a people will arise to go forward and upward to the victory. Satan’s object is accomplished just as surely when people run ahead of Christ and do the work He has never entrusted to their hands, as when they remain in the Laodicean state, lukewarm, feeling rich and increased with goods, and in need of nothing. The two classes are equally stumbling blocks. {CTr 363.6}

Some zealous ones who are aiming and straining every energy for originality have made a grave mistake in trying to get something startling, wonderful, entrancing, before the people, something that they think others do not comprehend. But often they do not themselves know what they are talking about. . . . {CTr 363.7}

Wanderer

Please refer back to your own post. Perhaps you should have cited the references differently? I quoted you as you posted it (omitting the box and indicating that material had been omitted by inserting ...)

My intent was not to misquote you but to comment on what you posted as it came through in your post. It is so easy to be misunderstood and misquoted if we don't have everything just so.

Christian regards

kland,

I agree with you. I do not see a mechanism for an American President to come back into office.

I follow Daniel 7 & 8 to Obama. And Revelation 13.

Thus I am studying the translators rendition of the prophecies. Daniel 8 does not say that the beasts have two horns. It only says that they have horns. The number two is an added word from the translators.

So there is room for more study. Does the beast with the two lamblike horns have 2 horns or is that also supplemented by the translators? I have more study to do on this before I can make any specific comments other than what I have already stated as my current view.

As I understand it...
Daniel is written in Hebrew (1:1-2:2) (8:1-12:13)
Daniel is written in Aramaic (2:3 - 7:28)
The only other book that is written in Aramaic is Ezra. The word kingdom <04437> that appears in the Aramaic part of Daniel is never translated as kingdom in Ezra.

Only in Daniel. Of this Aramaic word, I wrote “The very word that you use to support your position is not translated KINGDOM anywhere else in Scripture other than Daniel!”

Where is the evidence to the contrary upon which you base this statement that implies that I am in error?

It does have two horns and upon a careful reading of the text you will find it therein. You cannot reinvent the Bible to "support" your whimsical doctrines

This is not true and I showed the evidence above