Daniel's Colloquialisms and Turning Them Into a Literal Translation

By Ray Gano

As many of you know I lean towards an "eastern leg" of Roman Empire idea. Recently we had a really good conversation going on the Prophezine Yahoo Group board and I thought that I would share a post I responded too. In this we were discussing the 10 kingdoms, America and the "west" in Bible Prophecy. One poster named Dan stated the following...

> While Psa 83 is a list of 10 nations, we must interpret
> Scripture in context and when Dan 7:23-24 says that fourth
> kingdom devours the "whole earth" with 10 kingdoms coming out
> of it, then we would be wise not to reject that statement in
> favor of a list of 10 nations found in the Psalms, IMO.

This is the common idea that many believe.

First of all, I want to let you all know that I am not trying to put anyone down, but I do try to show "holes" and errors in many people's logic in light of scripture.

What is taking place here is the common error of taking an allegory or colloquialism and turning it into a literal translation. Folks, this is something I have even done it myself.

To refute this, my first point, the word "earth" used in Dan 7:24 is not "erets"... Hebrew for earth, but in the verse you are referencing it is ar-ah' which is a figurative for "low".

In fact the "context" that Daniel is using is not earth at all, but the "whole land" or commonly understood that being the known world of the time.

If we are to take a literal translation of Daniel 7 and maintaining "literal context" then I have to ask the following regarding Daniel 7:3.

Dan 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

In writing this Did Daniel mean four beast LITERALLY came out of the sea? It is obviously No

But to better understand the context it helps to know who are the four beasts spoken of in Daniel 7.

We know for a fact that the first three beasts are Babylon, Persia, and Greece.

Now did any of these nations rule the "whole earth"? No, but here Daniel while interpreting Nebuchadnezzar dream of the statue states that one of the kingdoms did in fact rule over ALL THE EARTH.

Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Now we know based on prophecy fulfilled that Greece was the third kingdom as it was the third beast spoken about later in chapter 7. Knowing that I have to ask, did Greece literally rule over ALL THE EARTH? To further expand on this point, did the Indians in the Americas shake and tremble at the sight of Greece? What about the natives in Papa New Guinea? Did the people of Japan know of the power of Greece and did they succumb to her?

Anyone with a hint of historical knowledge knows the answer to these questions is No. If fact without coming out and saying it, the common man understands that what is spoken about here is the known world and not ALL THE EARTH when viewed in proper context and understanding of the colloquialisms Daniel as well as many of the writers of the Bible often used. It is a style of writing that Daniel in particular embraced.

We know that Greece ruled the KNOWN WORLD, but not ALL THE EARTH. Just like Babylon and Persia did as well.

So to use the word "WHOLE EARTH" and associate it to the entire globe is not what is being said here. What Daniel is referencing is the known world at that time, AKA the Middle East. Daniel used colloquialisms, so we can not take those and make them literal.
Now here is another point, what about the fourth kingdom?

Many people state that it is Rome. This is an incorrect belief that began with Martin Luther and his protesting of the catholic church. He is the originator of much that is being taught today about Rome, the Catholic church, the pope, ect. While many are aware that Luther (father of the Protestant Reformation) came to view the Rome's Catholic Papacy as the spiritual seat of the Antichrist, few are aware that Luther believed that actually the Turks were the Kingdom of Antichrist:

"The Pope is the spirit of Antichrist, and the Turk (Muslim) is the flesh of Antichrist." source - Martin Luther, Tischreden, Weimer ed., 1, No. 330

In Luther's 1520 Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther declares: "There is no doubt that the true Roman Empire, which the writings of the prophets foretold in Numbers 24[:24] and in Daniel [11:30f], has long since been overthrown...That was brought to pass...especially when the `Turkish' [Mohammadan] Empire arose almost a thousand years ago." source - Works, Holman, Philadelphia, 1915, II, pp.149 & 154

To help prove a point regarding Rome, please answer following questions...

- During what reign, empire or kingdom did John the revelatory live?

- Who imprisoned him?

- When was the book of Revelation written?

I ask these questions to help point out that John, the author of Revelation clearly stated 3 times that Rome WAS NOT, the fourth kingdom.

To basically answer the questions which we as students of bible prophecy pretty much know, John was imprisoned by the Romans, lived during the Roman empire during the reign of Emperor Domitian on the Isle of Patmos and wrote Revelation around AD 95-96. Even it one does not know this off the top of one's head, it is very easy information to find out.

Moving forward...

Please read the following scriptures that John of Patmos wrote.

Revelation 17:8 (KJV) The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 17:11 (KJV) And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Right here in black and white John is clearly saying that the Revived Empire of the last days is NOT Rome.

Not only does he say it once, but as I stated before he makes the point three times.

1. The beast that thou sawest was, (It existed prior to the time of John's writing Revelation) and is not; (DID NOT EXIST during the time of John writing Revelation) and shall ascend (shall return in the future) out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

2. when they behold the beast that was, (It existed prior to the time of John's writing Revelation) and is not, (DID NOT EXIST during the time of John writing Revelation) and yet is. (shall return in the future)

3. And the beast that was, (It existed prior to the time of John's writing Revelation) and is not, (DID NOT EXIST during the time of John writing Revelation) even he is the eighth (shall return in the future)

John is clearly stating that the revived empire is not Rome and yet the traditions of men say it is Rome. So who is correct? Is it men in all their teaching or is it God's Word? I know that I am going against the grain of many of you, but I have to say it, the teaching of a Revived Roman Empire does not match up to what Scripture states. John as well as Daniel back this up as well.

In fact it is Daniel in chapter 11 where he states where the AC will hail from by giving prophecy about Anticus Epiphanies the first "king of the North and then giving prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled about the modern King of the North... AKA the Antichrist. It is this same "king of the north" that will align himself with the 10 kingdoms, this is also backed up clearly in Psalms 83 with the 10 kingdoms mentioned. WHICH are also the same kingdoms that belong to the blood feud originating with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spoken of in Genesis.

The EU, Illuminati, Rome, US, the West, ect are not named in Bible Prophecy, neither are they part of the blood feud originating with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Again I point out that what the church has done over the ages is a kin to replacement theology. We have placed "the west" and the church in place of Israel and the middle east, in God's Word, the Bible, which is all about Israel and the Middle East. Clearly the end time players are from the Middle East and it is Christ Himself who comes and rescues Israel from the 10 kings of Psalms 83 and The beast, Assyrian, King Pharaoh of Egypt, Prince of Tyre, The King of the North that person whom we call the Antichrist.

To take my point even further, often teachers of Bible Prophecy point to a EU strawman claiming this mystery person will be the Antichrist. Yet they can not point to any solid evidence and instead use self supporting circular reasoning to prove their points.

Well here is a mind bender for you.. Islam, the primary religion of the Middle East and the modern form of Baal worship has a person whom they are looking for to be their savior. This man is known as the Mahdi.

The following is a list comparing what we know about the Antichrist and what we know about Islam's Mahdi.

Both Deny Trinity And Cross
Both Deny The Father And The Son
Both Are Blasphemous
Both Are Called Deceiver
Both Claim To Be Messiah
Both Kingdoms Suffer A Head Wound
Both Work False Miracles
Both Ride A White Horse
Both Attempt To Change The Law
Both Deny Women's Rights
Both Rule Over Ten Entities
Both Are the Source of Death and War
Both Use Military Force
Both Honor Their God with Gold and Silver
Both Honor a God of War And Advance His Glory Through War
Both Condon Rape
Both Usher Seven Years Peace Treaty
Both Deceive And Destroy By Peace
Both Break Treaties
Both Love War for Booty
Both Desire World Domination
Both Lead A Turkish-Iranian Invasion
Both Exalted As God
Both Ascend To Heaven
Both Are Described As Beautiful And Wise Bird
Both Are Light Beings
Both Are Pride Filled
Both Are Lords of This World and the Underworld
Both Are Called the "Son of the Dawn"
Both Are Afflicters
Both Are Cast Out Of Heaven
Both Are "The Lords of Demons"
Both Are Possessed
Both Practice Beheading
Both Desire Israel's Destruction
Both Occupy the Temple Mount

Can the proponents of a EU / Western Antichrist point to anyone, any comparisons? All they have to point to is some smoke and mirrors sort of person personified in many western books and in fact a whole series was dedicated to this vapor of a person. So many now believe the book series and give it as much credit as they do scripture even though the authors clearly state that it is pure fiction and a work of their own imagination.

What many are guilty of, and I include myself in that as well is what I call "Parroting the parrots."

What we need to do is get back to scripture and allow scripture to interpret scripture and put away many of the old teachings of men. When we realize that the bible is a book authored by God through the Hebrew oracles about the promised land, the blood feud and the coming messiah, all of a sudden things seem to just fall into place. No more square pegs being forced into round holes. Things make clear sense because instead of using the ideas of man to interpret, we are relying on the original author, the Holy Spirit to show us and illuminate the scripture.

To say it in a more "courtroom" way... If Scripture Fits, We Must Submit.

I look forward to questions and comments. I enjoyed the chance to present these points from scripture.