The Little Stone of Daniel 2 * Temperal Vatican Papal State to End Soon

Dear Daniel

As far as the outcome or the truth of Daniel chapter 2 is concerned it does not matter whether King Neb. remembered the dream or not, does it?

However" Also my understanding of the stone that grows is the stone represents the Kingdom of God which will destroy all of other earthly kingdoms. "

This sentence should be examined. Does the dream say that the stone would bring down "all the kingdoms of the world?" Or does it say it will bring down four kingdoms and their structure represented by the statue?

That does not mean that there are not other places in the Bible that teach that Jesus will overcome all his enemies in historical time. But that Neb.'s dream is limited to these four empires and their destruction in the fourth and the system associated with it which was started by and passed on by the Babylonians.

The statue represents not only the four kingdoms but also the ethos strenghtened by Nebuchadnezzar that was passed on to the three succeeding kingdoms making it world wide, and would be brought down with the demise of the fourth . The Paganism of the Babylonians was passed on to all those symbolized and come to its end with the struggle with the ethic of Jesus at the time of Constantine when after 300 years of persecution the moral ethic of Jesus overcame was accepted as the truth in the Western World until 1963. Thus chapter 2 in Daniel reached to the end of the Roman Empire and not to the end of the world.

That means that the little stone's appearance and continuation in History is in the past and not to be expected to show up for the first time in the future.

Most of the orthodox denominations accept that the little stone is the church of Christ established some time in the summer of 30 AD and came into conflict with the Roman Empire which ultimately expired and with it the predominance of paganism in the civilized world which condition existed until about 1963 when Satan was loosed from his chains to deceive the nations again, but not the church nor the Christians.

Other fringe groups like the JW's Mormons, Seventh Day folk and many evangelicals of the "Left Behind" persuasion do not see the church of Christ as the Kngdom of God, which it is.

The same four empires are pictured as animals (beasts) in Daniel 7 and the predictions there extend the the parcelling of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms and the rise of an antichrist kingdom. (If the Ten horns are kingdoms as almost all seem to agree then the little horn is a kingdom as well and not a person.) He has a period of time given to his tenure. In Daniel it is "time, times and half a time" The same figure is given in Revelation as well as 1260 days and fourty two months and three and a half years.. They all represent the same 1260. The year in which the symbol was first given was 360 days, 3 1/2 X 360 = 1260; 42 x 30 = 1260.


The restoration of the pagan ethic (1963 to the present) and the rejection of the ethics of Jesus that held sway in the Western World for about 1600 years marks us as being close to but not at the end. There is more... "Then shall the saints take the kingdom." and "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our LORD and of His Christ. That will ne history some day.

Many historical interpreters believe the reign of the temporal Papal State combining the authority of Earthly political power with assumed heavenly power began in 533 and the first blow (of seven) to limit that power came in 1793, which end the 1260 day-years of prophecy. The first vial of the last seven was poured out at that time and the demise of the Vatican State lost power by degrees until the present weakened unrepentent condition of their spurious false claim to Statehood. One blow left and the Vatican State, not to say the Roman church, will join other states in the dust bin of history.

If you are interested in a more in-depth study of these same thigs covering Dan 2, abd 7 and Revelation 13 which is built on the seventh chapter of Daniel you can find it here: http://www.moellerhaus.com/rev666.htm

all the best

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from your presence; and do not take your
Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation;
and uphold me with your free spirit.

Fred P Miller
10 Valley Drive
Carrollton, GA 30117
770 214 0627
Cell 770 880 8089
www.moellerhaus.com
Blog: http://moellerhaus.blogspot.com
Please visit Charlotte's paintings and art
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/charlt.htm

Hello Mr. Miller,

I thank you for you insight comments about the Euphrates River and the beginning of the divided kingdom between the northern and southern tribes. I hope you did have a nice Christmas, I do have to admit it is really hard for me to focus at times on the true "reason for the season," but at least I have noticed that people tend to be more giving and selfless, some of them anyways. But I wish I would get less caught up in who I need to buy gifts for and more in the fact that I'm supposed to be celebrating a really special event. I have been reading in the book of Daniel about the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the "great image," that he saw in Daniel chapter 2. I have a couple of questions. I was under the impression that Nebuchadnezzar was troubled by a dream that he had forgotten and for that reason he called his magicians, astrologers, etc. to tell him the dream and then interpret his dream for him. But now that I am reading it again, a footnote attached to the King James version that I have (actually I saw it first in one of my Spanish versions and then I looked it up also in my English King James version) for verse 5. "The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, the thing is gone from me: if you will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation.... A footnote referencing the phrase "gone from me," in verse 5 says, Persian: sure with me, then whoever added the footnotes then explains a little, "i.e. he knew his dream and desired to test them." So now that I am reading this chapter again and thinking somewhat in the matter, that does make some sense to me, as the king complains in verse 7 about the Chaldeans, "would gain the time," which seems to me that the Chaldeans are trying to stall to gain time, and in verse 9 the king says; "for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me." So I can believe that Nebuchadnezzar wanted to have his dream interpreted, but wasn't totally convinced that his Magicians & Astrologers, etc. would be able to give him the correct interpretation and for that reason he wanted them to tell him his dream first so that way he could feel sure that he would be getting the correct interpretation of his dream instead of being told, "lies and corrupt words." I've read other translations that use the verb to forget in verse 5. Do you feel that to forget or what I quoted before; "the thing is gone from me," is a bad translation or a confusing translation in that verse? Knowing that Nebuchadnezzar remembered his dream fairly well makes a difference as opposed to, I dreamed something, now I feel bothered, and now I want to know what I dreamed about. I easily believe that the king of Babylon didn't really believe in or trust his court magicians, chaldeans, astrologers, and wise men, that they really truly had those special powers that they claimed to have or if they weren't just going to tell him something he wanted to hear. Another thing, I have a question about the dream itself. He saw an image that makes me think of a humanoid, with a head, chest, legs, etc. As a side note, I will have to say that I am favorably impressed with the humility of Daniel in verse 30. Back to the dream, so a humanoid figure made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay destroyed or perhaps crushed into dust by a stone cut out of a mountain without hands that then grows into a mountain. The image of a person apparently represents worldly kingdoms, the Babylonians is one of them for sure, along with perhaps the Persians, Greeks, Romans. Also my understanding of the stone that grows is the stone represents the Kingdom of God which will destroy all of other earthly kingdoms. Okay, but what I really don't understand is the part of the image with feet of clay and iron. I don't understand that, really. The fact that the feet are made out of clay and iron, some kind of divided kingdom that is partially strong due to the iron and partially fragile due to the clay. So feet and toes made out of clay and iron, maybe I just don't understand, but what kind of divided kingdom is strong and fragile (Daniel 2: 41 -43)? Human alliances, but they don't mix together. Well, definitely an interesting chapter, so did Nebuchadnezzar remember his dream or not, and I'm confused about the feet and toes made out of clay and iron. I will have to say that I do find the Old Testament more interesting now that I understand it better. I feel that a lot of that has to do with my studies of your book of Isaiah. I wish you a prosper 2011.


Respectfully Yours,

Daniel

Hebrew Pronunciation of Jesus' Name

Tim

Your question about the right Hebrew spelling of the name of Jesus or Yeshua.

I am not convinced that getting the "correct" pronunciation of a Hebrew name is all that important nor does the correct pronumciation carry any revelation with it.

And - Also -Importantly - Biblical Hebrew was (is not now) a tonal language. If you look at a Hebrew Masoretic text of the Scriptures you will find 10 or so added markings for vowels added by the masoretes. Masorah means traditional. Different vowel sounds change the meaning of a word. Thus, just in case the proper vowel pronunciation might be lost the masoretic scholars added vowels for what they believed was the traditional and correct reading. For vowels they were probably right most of the time but they were human so their choices are subject to discussion in some cases. However We are dependent on fifth and sixth century Jews (who rejected Jesus as the Messiah) for being able to read the Hebrew text. The unpointed text would be indecipherable to most scholars including Modern-Hebrew speaking scholars. There are just too many possibilities to get it right if those who memorized and, from generation to generation, orally transmitted the masorah, had not developed marks to indicate proper vowel, accent and tone. Modern-Hebrew is a close relative to Biblical Hebrew but it has a much different grammar.

In the masoretic text, beside vowel points, there are about 35 other marks added to indicate kind of accent and probably tones.

There are no forms for tense-time in Biblical Hebrew. There are no forms for subjunctive mode in Biblical Hebrew. At this time these grammatical concepts must be determined by the context. Thus there is disagreement in rendering the tense time of a verb depending on the translaters doctrinal position.

One good example of this among many, many, is Zechariah 8:3 "Thus says the LORD; I am returned to Zion" If you believe as I do that the passage is announcing the return of the Shekina to the Second Temple then the KJV is correct. However if you are a "Futurist" you will follow the NIV and translate "I will (or shall) return to Zion."

Is one of them wrong? No! the tense time depends on the context and therefore the translation is subject to interpretation because there is no tense-time forms in Biblical Hebrew. But, since the concepts of time and subjunctive are a part of any language, they had to be a part of Biblical Hebrew, that is now lost. I believe the tones that are understood only partially by only a few of the current Hebrew scholars would have indicated these concepts.

Like saying the English slang word "yeah." Depending on the tone of voice in English, you might be agreeing with something, or you might be (depending on the tone), expressing extreme doubt.

Thus getting the pronunciation of a name right is an exercise in furility. Getting the pronunciation of a verb correct however will determine whether your doctrinal position is right or wrong.

There are other reasons,in changing spelling, and not being right or wrong, in the pronunciation or vowel pointing of a Hebrew name in the masoretic text. The place of the name in the sentence, whether it is subject or object, and what sounds go before and after, whether it has sufformatives or preformatives added to the word are a few of the reasons the same Hebrew word or name will have a different vowel spelling.

Also; Tim - the question that you asked indicates that you know only a little of the Holy language. I recommend that you take some college level courses in this language. It is a very simple language. But it takes about four years to see the simplicity.

All the best en el nombre de Jesu Christo
o en ho onoma Iasou Christou

Islam and Sharia Law in the USA

Many Muslims have come to the USA because they enjoy the freedom guaranteed by our Constitution which could not be enjoyed by them in their countries of origin. If indeed they are here for that reason then they ought to be required to publically renounce Sharia Law. How can we non-islamic citizens be required to trust or respect them othewise? Imagine Sharia Law excusing a parent or relative for physically injuring or killing a daughter or sister for refusing to marry a man or leaving an abusive husband chosen by the relative. Imagine justifying killing a former Muslim who chooses to convert from Islam to another religion. If Muslims want ordinary non-muslim citizens to trust and respect their right of religious freedom then let them publically renounce Sharia Law. Let them accept publically the right of personal choice in religious matters. Let that begin with the leaders of the proposed Mosques in Manhattan and Murfreesboro, TN. How can we trust them otherwise? Let Mr Obama be the first to ratify this idea or quit supporting Islam publically.

Let them also renounce the absolutely offensive doctrine that men will enjoy endless physical sex with unlimited virgins for eternity. What an evil doctrine! How does that sound in light of Islamic claims of equality of the sexes? I can not think that any non-muslim woman could see equality in eternity in that perverted doctrine. At present Muslim women dare not, without fear, renounce that ugly doctrine which means enslavement in eternity and thus here too.

The Song of Solomon: A Drama

SONG OF SONGS

Dead Sea Scrolls hoax

Today an article on Yahoo.com reads:

"The scrolls include the earliest known version of portions of the Hebrew Bible and have shed important light on Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity." (Full text of the article here)

Except for Isaiah and Habakkuk there is very little of Hebrew Bible in the scrolls. Most items are fragments many hardly bigger than a postage stamp.

John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were unique teachers and there is nothing in the scrolls relating to them. Some "scholars" have made money making allegations, but they are far fetched and have been disproved.

Many scholars say the scrolls were assembled by a sect known as the Essenes. Others - including University of Chicago professor Norman Golb, Raphael Golb's father - say the writings were the work of a range of Jewish groups and communities.

The origin of the scrolls is suspect. There are too many medieval markings in the scrolls to discount. I have some of them cataloged under "Controversial Marks." If interested you can see some of them here.

Also, check here and scroll to the end of the page.

Pediphile Priests not limited to 2010

The following was written in Feb. 26 2007

except for Peter who was a bishop in Babylon but no doubt died in Rome, the rest of the first six men listed as Popes in your list may have been bishops of Rome but they made no claim to being the head of all the churches. Historical facts seem clear that there was no fusion of the authority of Spiritual and the temporal or what is known as the Temporality until Justinian in the 6th century. While Constantinople remained in the Catholic community and were participants in the first seven councils they did not a ccept the superiority of the Bishop of Rome over "all the churches."

However in some things I accept the moral superiority of Roman Catholic influence over the secular demon that now holds sway over western civilization. The Roman church held the line on abortion and properly taught that human life begins at the moment of conception. This too while evangelical protestants thought it was a political issue rather than a moral issue and had to be taught by their Roman Catholic friends and who eventually (most of them) adopted the thinking of the Roman church on this issue.

The principles confronting the Roman church on homosexuality are under assault. I hope they can not only hold the moral ground on the issue but get their priesthood cleansed from the sexual sins plaguing the system world wide.

Albert Barnes on Rev 19 written before 1850


And out of the mouth of the false prophet. The word rendered false prophet--qeudoprofhtou--does not before occur in the book of Revelation, though the use of the article would seem to imply that some well-known power or influence was referred to by this. Compare Barnes on "Re 10:3". The word occurs in other places in the New Testament, Mt 7:15; 24:11,24; Mr 13:22; Lu 6:26; Ac 13:6; 2Pe 2:1; 1Jo 4:1; and twice elsewhere in the book of Revelation, with the same reference as here, Re 19:20; 20:10. In both these latter places it is connected with the "beast." "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet." "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are." It would seem then to refer to some power that was similar to that of the beast, and that was to share the same fate in the overthrow of the enemies of the gospel. As to the application of this, there is no opinion so probable as that it alludes to the Mohammedan power--not strictly the Turkish power, for that was to be "dried up" or to diminish; but to the Mohammedan power as such, that was still to continue for awhile in its rigour, and that was yet to exert a formidable influence against the gospel, and probably in some combination, in fact, if not in form, with Paganism and the Papacy. The reasons for this opinion are,

(a) that this was referred to in the former part of the book is one of the formidable powers that would arise, and that would materially affect the destiny of the world--and it may be presumed that it would be again referred to in the account of the final consummation- see Re 9:1-11;

(b) the name "false prophet" would better than any other describe has that power, and would naturally suggest it in future times--for to no one that ever appeared in our world could the name be so properly applied as to Mohammed;