-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question for Jews : Has the Kingdom in Daniel 2:44 been set up?
- Thread starter TrueBeliever37
- Start date
If you think about these four kingdoms, each was the lone super power of its time. Since Rome fell there hasn’t been a time when a lone super power ruled all the known world. The Roman kingdom has broken up into parts. Again, the “feet of clay”. When the moshiach comes the existing remnants of the fourth kingdom, and all the world, will become part of the new everlasting kingdom. Let’s leave the final war aside from the discussion.
You will not find a lot of end time discussion by Jews. Christian bookstores are filled with end time writings. There is a reason for this. The end time for Jews doesn’t need much discussion within Judaism. The Jewish Scriptures tell us what will happen but we are told not to try to discern when it will be. Instead our focus is on how to live. Knowing it will happen is all we can know. Jews accept that and that HaShem will allow it to happen at the perfect time.
Shalom
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
1 Samuel 9:9 says that he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Some more background.
http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
I thought I saw the Hebrew word for kings in my interlinear. I'll have to check again. What is the Hebrew word for rulers?
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
The Aramaic word used there is "malchaya". The related Hebrew word is the root m-l-ch which means to rule as a king (when used as a verb). https://www.pealim.com/dict/1057-limloch/
We often speak of God as a "king" (melech) even though he is not like a mortal king, but he has rulership over us AS a king.
More reading
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/rabbis-without-borders/kingdom-without-a-king/
We often speak of God as a "king" (melech) even though he is not like a mortal king, but he has rulership over us AS a king.
More reading
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/rabbis-without-borders/kingdom-without-a-king/
You are reading this wrong. This is parenthetical information. It is explaining that previously the words were interchangeable but now (when this book was written) the words were no longer synonyms. This is clear when you look at later writings. They use both terms, sometimes within the same passage. If all seers were to be called prophets going forward that makes no sense. For example Isaiah 29 or 30 would make no sense if seers and prophets were synonyms.
Tumah
Veteran Member
The fourth kingdom is the Roman empire alluded to by the legs of iron. But verse 44 doesn't come after an explanation of the iron legs, it comes after an explanation of the toes that were made of iron and clay in verses 41-44. This alludes to a fifth time-period that is not the Roman empire. And it's referring to this fifth time-period to which verse 44 refers when it says, "in the days of those kings".
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
You mean you don't consider him a person, even though God mentions him in Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20? (Including him with such esteemed men as Noah, and Job.)
No, the author of Ezekiel mentions that God mentions him. a not unimportant distinction. I have zero reason to believe this author (or subsequent redactors) to be infallible.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Maybe I should have quoted more of the verse. Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he spoke thus: Come, let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer. 1 Samuel 9:9 To me this means one that is now called a prophet, used to be referred to as a seer.
1 Samuel 3:20 says Samuel was established as a prophet. 1 Samuel 9:18-19 Saul asks where the seer's house is. Samuel answers and says, I am the seer.
2 Samuel 24:11 The word came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying...
Sometimes there are passages that are difficult to reconcile. For instance it says that Abraham didn't know God by his name in Exodus 6:3, yet in a few passages such as Genesis 24:2-7, it seems to sound like he mentions or calls on the name. I am not trying to cause trouble, I sincerely would appreciate it, if you have a reasonable answer. I have wondered about this for quite a while, and tend to think that somehow it was just Moshe filling in the blanks so to speak, when he wrote the books, after knowing the name of God.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Just a quick note, there are a variety of words which refer to "seeing" (n-b-h, r-a-h-, ch-z-h, tz-f-h) and which might be translated in a reductionist way to "seeing". They have different technical uses and also were used by commoners in different ways as opposed to the particular shades of literary/religious use.
--------------
Second point, as to the Ex 6:3, the commentators explain this in a variety of ways. Here is he statement by R. Shlomo, Son of Yitzchak
"ושמי ה׳ לא נודעתי להם BUT BY MY NAME THE LORD WAS I NOT KNOWN TO THEM — It is not written here לא הודעתי [My name the Lord] I did not make known to them, but לא נודעתי [by My name, the Lord], was I not known [unto them] — i. e. I was not recognised by them in My attribute of “keeping faith”, by reason of which My name is called ה׳, which denotes that I am certain to substantiate My promise, for, indeed, I made promises to them but did not fulfill them [during their lifetime]."
--------------
Second point, as to the Ex 6:3, the commentators explain this in a variety of ways. Here is he statement by R. Shlomo, Son of Yitzchak
"ושמי ה׳ לא נודעתי להם BUT BY MY NAME THE LORD WAS I NOT KNOWN TO THEM — It is not written here לא הודעתי [My name the Lord] I did not make known to them, but לא נודעתי [by My name, the Lord], was I not known [unto them] — i. e. I was not recognised by them in My attribute of “keeping faith”, by reason of which My name is called ה׳, which denotes that I am certain to substantiate My promise, for, indeed, I made promises to them but did not fulfill them [during their lifetime]."
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Understood, but no matter what scriptures you refer to, it will always be an author mentioning what God says. How are you going to pick and choose which ones you believe?
I take biblical text to be agenda-driven narrative and process it accordingly.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Daniel 2:40-44 all seems to be referring to the time involving the 4th kingdom, and possibly it's demise.
v41 - Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potters clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it...
v42 - And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.
But the Roman Empire, and the kings are no longer around, so how could it ever be fulfilled, if it hasn't already been fulfilled?
Tumah
Veteran Member
No, the demise of the Roman empire ends at the change to the material. If it was simply the Roman kingdom being split into two, then both materials should have been iron, but somehow separated, representing the one kingdom split into two. That's not what's described. What is being described is that the remnants of the previous kingdom being mixed with an entirely new people, the clay. These two peoples jointly represent the last reign before G-d's kingdom is set up.