Book of Daniel/ America

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikekle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikekle

Guest
I did a CAF search on this and surprisingly nothing came up, although I am pretty sure this has been discussed before on here…I was watching Irvin Baxter last night and his show was devoted to him proving America was mentioned in the bible, in my opinion, without a doubt, he proved this.

His main argument was regarding Book of Daniel and ‘the times’ for which certain things could be understood. Bible refers to ‘nations’ as animals, the bear is Russia, Lion is England, Leopard is Germany, America is the eagle, etc all is pretty common knowledge, so Im wondering if all this fitting so perfectly, (especially the ‘eagle’ coming from the ‘lion’) is just a big coincidence or…?

Im getting ready for work right now, and do not have time to link a bunch of stuff that backs this up, I may later tonight though, I found the topic very curious, just how everything seems to fit so perfectly, Baxter also said there was something in Daniel referring to 7-4-1776 that also fit into America coming into existence.
 
I understood that the prophesies in Daniel, like the 4 nations, ultimately referred to Rome and the coming of the Catholic Church. That made the most sense to me, but 🤷.
 
Respectfully, Mr. Baxter is a Oneness Pentecostal, if Google is to be believed. Since he denies the very essence of God’s nature as Trinity, it’s not wise to listen to his theology at all.

Moreover, seeing current events “clearly” referenced in Sacred Scripture has been a source of embarrassment for a great deal of Protestants, especially over the past few decades. I’m sorry, but on a practical level that sort of exegesis simply fails, and predictions based on such exegesis are simply wrong.

In my book, a Christian who is obsessed with eschatology is simply a Christian who should be ignored on that front.
 
I can come up with a prophecy and “prove” that Canada is the antichrist and Whore of Babylon using nothing but a phone book.

The immediate historical meaning of the nations imagery of Daniel is simply Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece. This is in light of the modern interpretation of Daniel’s authorship (apocalyptic literature to encourage Jews during the Seleucid persecution).

Or if one wants to extend the interpretation to a more prophetic one, Babylon, Media and Persia, Greece and Rome (however, this is more of a spiritual interpretation than historic).

I can also make it to mean the Ferengi Alliance, Klingon Empire, Romulan Empire and United Federation of Planets.

In other words, trying to make Daniel apply to the United States (or any modern nation-state) is a useless exercise and is not spiritually edifying.
 
FonsBonitatis said:
Respectfully, Mr. Baxter is a Oneness Pentecostal, if Google is to be believed. Since he denies the very essence of God’s nature as Trinity, it’s not wise to listen to his theology at all.

Moreover, seeing current events “clearly” referenced in Sacred Scripture has been a source of embarrassment for a great deal of Protestants, especially over the past few decades. I’m sorry, but on a practical level that sort of exegesis simply fails, and predictions based on such exegesis are simply wrong.

In my book, a Christian who is obsessed with eschatology is simply a Christian who should be ignored on that front.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Plus as I recall most mainstream readings of Daniel have the final nation being Rome. Not a modern nation state.
 
FonsBonitatis said:
Respectfully, Mr. Baxter is a Oneness Pentecostal, if Google is to be believed. Since he denies the very essence of God’s nature as Trinity, it’s not wise to listen to his theology at all.

Moreover, seeing current events “clearly” referenced in Sacred Scripture has been a source of embarrassment for a great deal of Protestants, especially over the past few decades. I’m sorry, but on a practical level that sort of exegesis simply fails, and predictions based on such exegesis are simply wrong.

In my book, a Christian who is obsessed with eschatology is simply a Christian who should be ignored on that front.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 👍

Moreover, classical Catholic exegesis has always viewed the four beasts / kingdoms as being Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and finally Roman. 🙂
 
As a non-American, I find all these attempts to link Daniel or Revelation to America very puzzling. 😛 No, seriously.
 
Im beginning to wonder if I really should have stayed in the Pentecostal church instead of coming back to the CC.

I just do not see it the way you all do, the way he described it made perfect sense to me, I think it would be strange if the bible did not give mention to what nations would be around at the time of his second coming and how things would be, Daniel even said, it would not be understood (or unsealed) until the ‘times’ were right, if these times were already long gone, why is it making sense to me and so many other people?

I have tried and tried to learn about catholic beliefs, but the more I think about it, not just with this topic either, I cannot force myself to change what I believe…right?
 
mikekle said:
I did a CAF search on this and surprisingly nothing came up, although I am pretty sure this has been discussed before on here…I was watching Irvin Baxter last night and his show was devoted to him proving America was mentioned in the bible, in my opinion, without a doubt, he proved this.

His main argument was regarding Book of Daniel and ‘the times’ for which certain things could be understood. Bible refers to ‘nations’ as animals, the bear is Russia, Lion is England, Leopard is Germany, America is the eagle, etc all is pretty common knowledge, so Im wondering if all this fitting so perfectly, (especially the ‘eagle’ coming from the ‘lion’) is just a big coincidence or…?

Im getting ready for work right now, and do not have time to link a bunch of stuff that backs this up, I may later tonight though, I found the topic very curious, just how everything seems to fit so perfectly, Baxter also said there was something in Daniel referring to 7-4-1776 that also fit into America coming into existence.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church warns strictly about reading Scripture without taking into consideration the writing’s purpose, genre, and original intended audience. Unfortunately Fundamentalism, some of the New Religious Movements like Jehovah 's Witnesses, and even some Protestants have made great predictions based on interpretations from the Book of Daniel which have ended only in embrassment and failure.

For instance, though Daniel was a prophet, as noted by Jesus at Matthew 24:15, this does not mean the Book of Daniel is a book of prophecy. For instance, at Acts 2:30-31 Peter calls David “a prophet” referring to David’s psalm as foretelling Christ, but this doesn’t mean the Book of Psalms is a book of prophecy. It is not, though it sometimes contains them.

The same goes for the Book of Daniel. The book is an apocalypse. While it reads as if Daniel is foretelling the march of nations to the end of history in language similar to the prophets who preached in Israel and Judah, an apocalypse merely borrows such language. Daniel is concerned with telling the Jews during the crisis of the period of the Maccabees that their period of injustice will end in God’s victory just as if it were written in prophecy to do so. While the “visions” are not prophecies in and of themselves, Daniel did occasionally “foresee” events directly associated with Christ as did all the other authors of the Old Testament.

But Daniel was not one of the Prophets of Israel or Judah. The “visions” and “oracles” in the book are declared to Gentiles and in particular their kings. In apocalyptic language, the author is merely telling the Jews suffering under the foreign attackers of his day that God’s worship and the autonomy of his people are sure to be restored, which they were with the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty and the events celebrated at Chanukah to this day.

The beasts associated with the visions in Daniel have been used by many to claim that events like the rise of America and even Cold War were foretold in the Bible, and thus the Bible “must be true.” These fantastic claims meant to raise faith in Scripture have sadly done the reverse. Not only do these modern “interpreters” mark out the past march of nations via Daniel, they attempt to foretell the near future by means of them. The greatest failures among them have been Herbert Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God and the constantly “revised” interpretations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses which, with each new failure, are “updated” when the Watchtower interpretations fail to materialize. The Worldwide Church of God literally dissolved when Armstrong passed away, and along with the current failures of the Watchtower have caused great numbers to turn to atheism when “the Bible failed to prove true” as promised by these type of preachers.

While the Book of Daniel is found among the prophets in the Christian canon of the Old Testament, it is not from the era or even written in the language of the Prophets sent to Israel and Judah. Therefore Daniel is not counted as one of the Prophets among the Jews, and as an apocalypse it is not found in the Prophet section of the Jewish canon. It is found among the Writings, like the Psalms. It’s view that God’s Kingdom will eventually rule over all is true, but the rest of the book is not meant to be seen as a literal March of future nations leading up to the Parousia.
 
mikekle said:
Im beginning to wonder if I really should have stayed in the Pentecostal church instead of coming back to the CC.

I just do not see it the way you all do, the way he described it made perfect sense to me, I think it would be strange if the bible did not give mention to what nations would be around at the time of his second coming and how things would be, Daniel even said, it would not be understood (or unsealed) until the ‘times’ were right, if these times were already long gone, why is it making sense to me and so many other people?

I have tried and tried to learn about catholic beliefs, but the more I think about it, not just with this topic either, I cannot force myself to change what I believe…right?
Click to expand...
In the end, Catholicism teaches that one must never go against the dictates of their conscience. However that conscience will never lead you right unless it is properly trained in sound teaching.

The are specific reasons why the “End of Days in Daniel” approach cannot succeed, and you should take into consideration the following before making any rash decisions.

The historical Daniel was a faithful Jew who likely lived a long time before the deportation to Babylon. As a Hebrew Catholic, learning my Jewish history has been very important to me. One of our greatest heroes was Daniel, a Jew who proved faithful to the Law of Moses while he lived among the Gentiles. But Daniel’s virtue was already legendary by the time the Babylonians began their siege of Jerusalem. In fact, Ezekiel mentions Daniel as a holy figure of the past who was comparable to Noah and Job at Ezekiel 14:14. Both Jewish history and Scripture agree that the “Daniel” in the Bible book that bears his name is but a legendary re-telling of his life. Instead of giving us the historical account, the inspired author has placed Daniel in “modern times,” proving faithful among the Babylonians and the Gentiles that replaced them.

The events in Daniel cannot be made to match literal history. The opening verse of Daniel purposefully tells the readers that the following events are not literal by stating the siege of Jerusalem occurred in third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. (Daniel 1:1) In fact the siege occurred only after Jehoiakim had been captured and deported and subsequently died. (2 Chronicles 36:5-8; 2 Kings 24) Daniel 4 claims that Nebuchadnezzar went insane for a time, but historically this never happened to him. The events of Daniel 4, however, did happen to Nabonidus which even secular history details. And the book of Daniel would have you believe that our hero lived as a young adult man before the deportation to Babylon began, lived through the entire time of the exile, and was still alive to see Babylon fall into the hands of the Medes and Persians and then some. These are Jewish narrative devices used to tell people that the stories are not literal history but religious stories designed to teach morals and inspire faithfulness.

Those offering their interpretations of Daniel as a map of current world affairs have always been wrong and have always led others astray. It was commonly taught by those who preached that Daniel is a prophetic map of world affairs to come that the fight between the King of the North and King of the South in Daniel was a battle between the democratic United States and the communist Soviet Union. But by the time the 20th century ended there was no communist Soviet Union, and the End of Days had not come as promised by these Daniel exegetes. Their interpretations have never been right. It is easy to make the past seem to fit the images of beasts and political intrigue of Daniel, but the real proof is can they make the future fit? They have never done so. As mentioned before the Worldwide Church of God and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the two most famous groups who have created an army of religious-hating atheists (very different from the average live-and-let-live atheist) who are angry that they slaved their lives away because they believed the promises of teachers who stated that world events show from Daniel that the end was coming in their lifetime. The promises were based on the same type of interpretation of Daniel you are talking about.

So if you feel you must follow another one of these Daniel interpreters, know that Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) may try to reason you out of this. The preachers of a “Daniel future” take the book as historical fact and the apocalyptic “visions” as prophetic oracles. None of this can be substantiated. Follow them if you must, be remember this: It never ends well.
 
CeelosDeznos said:
In the end, Catholicism teaches that one must never go against the dictates of their conscience. However that conscience will never lead you right unless it is properly trained in sound teaching.

The are specific reasons why the “End of Days in Daniel” approach cannot succeed, and you should take into consideration the following before making any rash decisions.

The historical Daniel was a faithful Jew who likely lived a long time before the deportation to Babylon. As a Hebrew Catholic, learning my Jewish history has been very important to me. One of our greatest heroes was Daniel, a Jew who proved faithful to the Law of Moses while he lived among the Gentiles. But Daniel’s virtue was already legendary by the time the Babylonians began their siege of Jerusalem. In fact, Ezekiel mentions Daniel as a holy figure of the past who was comparable to Noah and Job at Ezekiel 14:14. Both Jewish history and Scripture agree that the “Daniel” in the Bible book that bears his name is but a legendary re-telling of his life. Instead of giving us the historical account, the inspired author has placed Daniel in “modern times,” proving faithful among the Babylonians and the Gentiles that replaced them.

The events in Daniel cannot be made to match literal history. The opening verse of Daniel purposefully tells the readers that the following events are not literal by stating the siege of Jerusalem occurred in third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. (Daniel 1:1) In fact the siege occurred only after Jehoiakim had been captured and deported and subsequently died. (2 Chronicles 36:5-8; 2 Kings 24) Daniel 4 claims that Nebuchadnezzar went insane for a time, but historically this never happened to him. The events of Daniel 4, however, did happen to Nabonidus which even secular history details. And the book of Daniel would have you believe that our hero lived as a young adult man before the deportation to Babylon began, lived through the entire time of the exile, and was still alive to see Babylon fall into the hands of the Medes and Persians and then some. These are Jewish narrative devices used to tell people that the stories are not literal history but religious stories designed to teach morals and inspire faithfulness.

Those offering their interpretations of Daniel as a map of current world affairs have always been wrong and have always led others astray. It was commonly taught by those who preached that Daniel is a prophetic map of world affairs to come that the fight between the King of the North and King of the South in Daniel was a battle between the democratic United States and the communist Soviet Union. But by the time the 20th century ended there was no communist Soviet Union, and the End of Days had not come as promised by these Daniel exegetes. Their interpretations have never been right. It is easy to make the past seem to fit the images of beasts and political intrigue of Daniel, but the real proof is can they make the future fit? They have never done so. As mentioned before the Worldwide Church of God and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the two most famous groups who have created an army of religious-hating atheists (very different from the average live-and-let-live atheist) who are angry that they slaved their lives away because they believed the promises of teachers who stated that world events show from Daniel that the end was coming in their lifetime. The promises were based on the same type of interpretation of Daniel you are talking about.

So if you feel you must follow another one of these Daniel interpreters, know that Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) may try to reason you out of this. The preachers of a “Daniel future” take the book as historical fact and the apocalyptic “visions” as prophetic oracles. None of this can be substantiated. Follow them if you must, be remember this: It never ends well.
Click to expand...
What you say makes a lot of sense, and I can see it from a different perspective now, but really, like other topics ive been in on here, the bible is not very ‘reader friendly’ in this regard, if any other book had been so deceiving to so many people over the years, Im pretty sure the authors would have ensured people understand it correctly by whatever means they could.

What you say is true, linking bible with modern events/ nations has and IS confusing ALOT of people, but it seems many of the verses can be twisted and ‘read to mean’ just about anything and everything one could think of.

What Im saying is, you would think if this is so important to God that people understand this all correctly and come to him, why make the bible so confusing and so easy to believe it is saying something totally opposite than its intended message?
 
mikekle said:
What you say makes a lot of sense, and I can see it from a different perspective now, but really, like other topics ive been in on here, the bible is not very ‘reader friendly’ in this regard…you would think if this is so important to God that people understand this all correctly and come to him, why make the bible so confusing and so easy to believe it is saying something totally opposite than its intended message?
Click to expand...
Why is Daniel (and other parts of the Bible) so confusing if God wants people to understand this verses correctly?

Two things to keep in mind: the Bible never promises that all people will understand God’s Word correctly. In fact, it tells us that God often has the opposite in mind. Not only are some who are wicked kept from understanding God’s written Word, some righteous persons, even some of the authors fail to have its mysteries made plain to them.–See Matthew 13:10-17.

Second: what you are learning now about Daniel from the Catholic Church may contain points not often highlighted by Christians during the anti-Semitic era of Christianity. It was always available but due to prejudice, anger and strife from both sides the Church downplayed much of this during these centuries. Sadly the strife grew to a climax and into the horrors of the Holocaust.

It was only after being able to reflect on its own failures of this era that the Church began a dialogue with Judaism, recognized the Jews’ irrevocable place in the economy of salvation, and started giving proper consideration to how the original writers and audience of the Hebrew Scriptures incorporates into the Gospel. You will note that Church commentary on Daniel and the rest of the Jewish Scriptures changes dramatically depending if it was composed prior to the events of the Holocaust or afterwards.–See “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

So God never claims that he intends all people to understand the Scriptures fully. And not only are many in the Catholic Church running to catch up to learn the value of the wisdom of Jewish exegetical scholarship and where it holds an import to understanding Scripture, some religions have not even begun this process.

Shouldn’t the Bible be more “reader-friendly”?

Catholicism like Judaism is not based on the inspired Scriptures. As a matter a fact, the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired because they were composed by faithful members of Judaism. The same holds for the New Testament. The works therein were inspired because faithful members of the Church wrote them.

In both cases, the Scriptures are a product or result of true religion, not the basis for this. While it is true that some doctrines have grown from the Scripture texts themselves in both Judaism and Christianity, both religions had a living theology, set of doctrine and practices prior to the composition of any of the inspired Scripture texts.

What does this have to do with the Bible not being “user-friendly”? A lot. The Bible isn’t user-friendly because it wasn’t composed as a catechism or compendium of doctrine. Just as you can’t become a Jew by reading and studying the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian salvation does not come from mere comprehension of the Scriptures.

Knowing the Bible alone isn’t the means of salvation. Getting to know Jesus, however, is. (John 14:6; 17:3) While we can learn a lot about Jesus from Scripture, not all Jesus taught was written down. (John 20:30; 21:25) The riches of salvation in Christ are in his Body, the Church.–1 Timothy 3:15.

The Church has a Deposit of Faith. The Scriptures are part of that deposit. You will only understand what you read if you ask other members of the salvation community. (Compare Acts 8:29-31) Truth and doctrine can be learned from them, yes, and it is life-saving, but it is not designed to be understood by merely “one” user. It is a work by a community and for a community. It forces us to be part of it if we truly love what is written in it.

It is meant to be readers-friendly, not “reader-friendly.”
 
When I hear Roman Catholics preach that theirs is the ONE TRUE CHURCH I cringe.
I do not attack RC’s like some do.I also go to their services now and again.
However the dogma of the RC church cannot stand up to scrutiny and so therefore they cannot claim to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
 
Graeme_Bell said:
When I hear Roman Catholics preach that theirs is the ONE TRUE CHURCH I cringe.
I do not attack RC’s like some do.I also go to their services now and again.
However the dogma of the RC church cannot stand up to scrutiny and so therefore they cannot claim to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH.
Click to expand...
Yes it can, and yes it is.
 
40.png
Graeme_Bell:
You can claim it but it it is nonsense.
Click to expand...
It is not.

We have Scripture and history on our side.
 
40.png
Graeme_Bell:
No you have your poor interpretation of Scripture.Many of the Roman Catholic doctrine does not meet up with Scripture.
Click to expand...
Nope. Our interpretations are the correct ones, and we have history on our side.

You do not possess the authority to deem Catholic interpretation “poor.”

Oh, and coming in guns blazing while claiming not to is not a great way to introduce yourself to the CAF community by the way.

Try again, perhaps in the meet and greet forum. And unless you have something concrete to contribute to the topic of THIS thread, leave it and start a new one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top