Seven Mountains/Kings

B

Bible2

Guest
10s3r said in post 177:

You need to explain how the Medo-Persian empire was "land inferior" to Babylon.

Note that in Daniel 2:39, the original Chaldean/Aramaic word (ara, H0772) translated as "inferior" doesn't have to mean "land inferior", but can be used figuratively to simply mean "inferior", or "low", like how the ground is low (Strong's Hebrew and Chaldean Dictionary). Compare the feminine of H0772, which is H0773, which can be translated as "bottom" (Daniel 6:24c).

The Medo-Persian empire wasn't inferior to the Babylonian empire in territorial extent, just as the arms and chest of the image in Daniel 2:32 wouldn't have been inferior in size to its head, even though they were lower than the head. Instead, Daniel 2:39 can mean that the Medo-Persian empire was inferior in some way to the Babylonian empire in quality, just as the silver of the arms and chest were inferior in quality to the gold of the head.

--

Daniel 2:31-33a,37-40 was fulfilled by the ancient empires of Babylon (head of gold: Daniel 2:38b), Medo-Persia (silver), Greece (brass), and Rome (iron), the same 4 empires pictured by the 4 beasts in Daniel 7.

The 2 arms of the silver empire in Daniel 2:32 represented the ancient Medes and the Persians, just as the 2 horns of the ram empire in Daniel 8:3 represented the ancient Medes and the Persians (Daniel 8:20).

The 2 iron legs in Daniel 2:33 could represent how the ancient Roman empire eventually split into 2 parts: Western and Eastern (i.e. Byzantine). The territory of the latter was eventually conquered by the (Islamic) Ottoman empire.

*******

10s3r said in post 178:

Why repeat the same sequence of kingdoms of Daniel 2 in chapter 7?

God has no problem with repetition (e.g. Deuteronomy 9:4-6, Acts 11:10, Philippians 3:1b). And Daniel 7 adds information not in Daniel 2, even though it starts out by referring to the same 4 empires as Daniel 2.

10s3r said in post 178:

How can the lion be ancient Babylon when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon?

Even though Daniel didn't see the vision in Daniel 7 until the time of Belshazzar king of Babylon (Daniel 7:1), who wasn't the 1st king of the ancient empire of Babylon, the 1st beast in Daniel 7 can still represent that empire. For in Daniel 7:17, the original Chaldean/Aramaic verb (quwm, H6966) translated as "shall arise", is in the imperfect aspect, which refers "to an action, process or condition which is incomplete" (blueletterbible.org). I.e., it doesn't have to refer to something entirely in the future, but can refer to something that has already begun. So the 1st beast/empire (Babylon) can have already existed at the time that Daniel saw the vision in Daniel 7.

10s3r said in post 178:

The Hebrew word for "before" is ‘qodam’ which means "in front of, in the presence of, not "historically before" as is commonly interpreted.

In Daniel 7:7, while the original Chaldean/Aramaic word (qodam or qedam, H6925) translated as "before" is used in Daniel and Ezra in the sense of something being before something else in place, not in time, the word itself corresponds to a Hebrew word (qedem or qedmah, H6924) that can also refer to a time before (e.g. Job 29:2, Psalms 77:5, Nehemiah 12:46, Jeremiah 30:20).

So Daniel 7:7 can mean that at that point in the vision the first 3 beasts were before the 4th in place, and this signified that they would be before it in time. And they would be before it in their sequence. For Daniel says that he didn't see the 3rd beast in Daniel 7:6 until after he'd seen the 2nd beast in Daniel 7:5. And he didn't see the 4th beast in Daniel 7:7 until after he'd seen the 3rd beast in Daniel 7:6. Similarly, Daniel 7:23 can mean that the 4th beast would be the 4th empire that would be seen upon the earth in time. And it would come after the ancient Greek empire referred to in Daniel 7:6, for Daniel 7:6 and Daniel 8:21-22 refer to the same 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms which succeeded Alexander the Great.

*******

10s3r said in post 180:

A beast is usually symbolic of a person and a kingdom.

The beast that thou sawest was,

"Beasts" can sometimes refer figuratively to persons (Titus 1:12). Revelation uses a Greek masculine-pronoun "him" to refer to its beast (Revelation 13:8) when it's referring to the individual "man" (Revelation 13:18) aspect of its beast, commonly called the Antichrist, the individual "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3) who will sit (at least one time) in a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). He will bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and himself (Revelation 13:4,8, Revelation 12:9).

He will rule the earth for 3.5 literal years (Revelation 13:5-10, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7), and will have a miracle-working False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13), who by amazing, Satanic miracles (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9), such as calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13), will deceive the people of the world into worshipping a speaking (possibly an android) image of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:15), and receiving a mark of the Antichrist's name or gematrial name-number (666) on their right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18). The Antichrist and his False Prophet will ultimately be cast into the lake of fire at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:20), whereas at that time Satan will be bound in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).

A 2nd aspect of Revelation's beast is that it's a powerful fallen angel (referred to with a Greek masculine-pronoun "he" in Revelation 17:11) who's now literally in the bottomless pit and will ascend from it during the future tribulation to spiritually empower the empire of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) (Revelation 17:8-11), empire being a 3rd aspect of the beast, represented by the animal symbols of Revelation 13:1-2. The fallen-angel aspect of the beast could be the angelic prince whom Satan had assigned to spiritually empower the ancient empire of Babylon, just as Satan had assigned other fallen angelic princes to spiritually empower the subsequent ancient empires of Persia and Greece (Daniel 10:13,20). When the ancient empire of Babylon was defeated, the fallen angelic prince empowering it could have been cast in the bottomless pit. This same fallen angel could be released to empower a revival of the empire of Babylon during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (of Revelation 13:5-18).

The release of the powerful fallen angelic prince of Babylon from the bottomless pit could occur at the same time as the unbinding of 4 other powerful fallen angels now bound at the Euphrates (Revelation 9:14b), who could have been bound there at the fall of the ancient empire of Babylon. When these 4 fallen angels are released at one point during the future tribulation, they will cause an army of 200 million weird horse-like beings to kill 1/3 of mankind (Revelation 9:15-19). This could be done in order to make mankind completely desperate before its takeover by Satan and the Antichrist mid-tribulation, when Satan and his fallen angels will be cast down from heaven to the earth permanently after losing a mid-tribulation war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 to 13:18).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,620
744
78
Home in Tulsa
✟101,867.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
You need to explain how the Medo-Persian empire was "land inferior" to Babylon.

Notice the word inferior...

Hebrew Lexicon :: H772 (KJV)

You also need to explain how the word 'arab' can depict an Italian.

Notice the word 'mixed' and read what Gesenius says.

Hebrew Lexicon :: H6151 (KJV)

You are thinking "land." I am thinking "ground." The arms and chest are closer to the ground that the head. And silver and inferior to gold.

Why do you always think "Italian" when Rome had TWO LEGS? The Eastern leg is most certainly in "Arab" lands, and these prophecies are all centered on ISRAEL, not England, or the US or Europe.

Hebrew is not an exact language as Greek. I think you are being too cricital of the word "inferior." We know from history that very soon after Media took Babylon, Media and Persia joined. And again, I refer You to TWO ARMS.

LAMAD
 
Upvote 0

10s3r

Active Member
Mar 15, 2014
172
5
✟412.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are thinking "land." I am thinking "ground." The arms and chest are closer to the ground that the head. And silver and inferior to gold.
LAMAD

I don't care if you call it land or ground because 'ara' is the word for earth, world, and ground, and corresponds to the word 'erets' which means land. The word inferior is only used once in the bible and being 'inferior' is also the only thing said about the arms of silver.

'The word 'ara' is translated 20 times as 'earth' but only once as 'inferior' here in Daniel 2:39.

I accept the translation as the arms of silver being 'land inferior' to Babylon. Not only was the Empire of the Medes smaller than Babylon, it only lasted about 4 years after which Cyrus went in and overtook the Median hierarchy. It was more like a family coup than anything else and only about 100 people died in the take over.

The bible does not say that Cyrus the Persian took Babylon. It says Darius the Mede took Babylon. So that's what I believe. God does not say he would stir up the Persians against Babylon. He stirs up the Medes against Babylon.

Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath
raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against
Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom.

I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

Daniel 8:19-21
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be]. The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.

The higher horn that came up last is the Persian Empire. The other horn, the one that was not as high (smaller/inferior) that came up first is the Medes. This means that the Medes are the smaller kingdom that emerged first as the inferior kingdom of Daniel 2.

Both secularist and many Protestant's believe Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon. But scriptures say that Darius the Mede invaded and conquered Babylon. The reason for this is that there's very little secular history on Darius. If they were to agree with the bible instead of secular history where Daniel 5:31 says that Darius the Mede took Babylon at age 62, that would blow the revived Roman empire theory right out of the water! Something they've been teaching for centuries.

It really impresses me that people remain in denial and continue to believe Rome is the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 with all the evidence there is against it. The word 'mixed' in Daniel 2:39 is the Aramaic word 'arab' and denotes Arabia or an Arabian... and in no way describes the Italians.

Hebrew Lexicon :: H6151 (KJV)

We all believe in the inspired Word of God. The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants the prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So one of the most important parts of my hermeneutic is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in, AND then look at how those same biblical words are used elsewhere in the bible...AND accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what I already believe.

Daniel 7.
No man is a prophet of God who prophecies about a kingdom 'rising' when that kingdom had already 'risen' some 50 years before. Sorry folks, I know better than to accept a flawed interpretation that atheist have discovered and used to debunk Daniel as a prophet of God, and the bible as the inspired Word of God. Those of you who can't see this are in agreement with atheist Kyle Williams who knows that if a prophet prophecies about a kingdom rising that had already risen is certainly a false prophet.

Furthermore. The verses I provided prove that the word before means, "in the presence of," and not historically before. It proves that the four beast of Daniel 7 are all end-time empires. It also proves that Daniel 2 is not a repeat of Daniel 7. And it also proves that Rome is not the fourth beast of Daniel 7.

You have all accepted a pile of false prophecy!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

10s3r

Active Member
Mar 15, 2014
172
5
✟412.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are thinking "land." I am thinking "ground." The arms and chest are closer to the ground that the head. And silver and inferior to gold.
LAMAD

I don't care if you call it land or ground because ara' is the word for earth, world, and ground, and corresponds to the word 'erets' which means land. The word inferior is only used once in the bible and being 'inferior' is also the only thing said about the arms of silver.

'The word is translated 20 times as 'earth' but only once as 'inferior' here in Daniel 2:39.

I accept this as the arms of silver being 'land inferior' to Babylon. Not only was the Empire of the Medes smaller than Babylon, it only lasted about 4 years after which Cyrus went in and overtook the Median hierarchy. It was more like a family coup than anything else and only about 100 people died in the take over.

The bible does not say that Cyrus the Persian took Babylon. It says Darius the Mede took Babylon. So that's what I believe. God does not say he would stir up the Persians against Babylon. He stirs up the Medes against Babylon.

Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath
raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against
Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom.

I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

Daniel 8:19-21
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be]. The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.

The higher horn that came up last is the Persian Empire. The other horn, the one that was not as high (smaller/inferior) that came up first is the Medes. This means that the Medes are the smaller kingdom that emerged first as the inferior kingdom of Daniel 2.

Both secularist and many Protestant's believe Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon. But scriptures say that Darius the Mede invaded and conquered Babylon. The reason for this is that there's very little secular history on Darius. If they were to agree with the bible instead of secular history where Daniel 5:31 says that Darius the Mede took Babylon at age 62, that would blow the revived Roman empire theory right out of the water! Something they've been teaching for centuries.

It really impresses me that people remain in denial and continue to believe Rome is the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 with all the evidence there is against it. The word 'mixed' is the Aramaic word 'arab' and denotes Arabia or an Arabian... and in no way describes the Italians.

Hebrew Lexicon :: H6151 (KJV)

We all believe in the inspired Word of God. The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants the prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So one of the most important parts of my hermeneutic is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in AND then look at how those same biblical words are used elsewhere in the bible...AND accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what I already believe.

Daniel 7.
No man is a prophet of God who prophecies about a kingdom 'rising' when that kingdom had already 'risen' some 50 years before. Sorry folks, I know better than to accept a flawed interpretation that atheist have discovered and used to debunk Daniel as a prophet of God, and the bible as the inspired Word of God. Those of you who can't see this are in agreement with atheist Kyle Williams who knows that if a prophet prophecies about a kingdom rising that had already risen is certainly a false prophet.

Furthermore. The verses I provided prove that the word before means, "in the presence of." Not only does that debunk the theory that Daniel 2 and 7 are the same, it also proves that the four beast of Daniel 7 are all end-time empires. And it also proves that Rome is not the fourth beast of Daniel 7.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,620
744
78
Home in Tulsa
✟101,867.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
I don't care if you call it land or ground because ara' is the word for earth, world, and ground, and corresponds to the word 'erets' which means land. The word inferior is only used once in the bible and being 'inferior' is also the only thing said about the arms of silver.

'The word is translated 20 times as 'earth' but only once as 'inferior' here in Daniel 2:39.

I accept this as the arms of silver being 'land inferior' to Babylon. Not only was the Empire of the Medes smaller than Babylon, it only lasted about 4 years after which Cyrus went in and overtook the Median hierarchy. It was more like a family coup than anything else and only about 100 people died in the take over.

The bible does not say that Cyrus the Persian took Babylon. It says Darius the Mede took Babylon. So that's what I believe. God does not say he would stir up the Persians against Babylon. He stirs up the Medes against Babylon.

Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath
raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against
Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Daniel 8:3 explains the inferior kingdom.

I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

Daniel 8:19-21
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be]. The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.

The higher horn that came up last is the Persian Empire. The other horn, the one that was not as high (smaller/inferior) that came up first is the Medes. This means that the Medes are the smaller kingdom that emerged first as the inferior kingdom of Daniel 2.

Both secularist and many Protestant's believe Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon. But scriptures say that Darius the Mede invaded and conquered Babylon. The reason for this is that there's very little secular history on Darius. If they were to agree with the bible instead of secular history where Daniel 5:31 says that Darius the Mede took Babylon at age 62, that would blow the revived Roman empire theory right out of the water! Something they've been teaching for centuries.

It really impresses me that people remain in denial and continue to believe Rome is the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 with all the evidence there is against it. The word 'mixed' is the Aramaic word 'arab' and denotes Arabia or an Arabian... and in no way describes the Italians.

Hebrew Lexicon :: H6151 (KJV)

We all believe in the inspired Word of God. The word inspired means God breathed or God spoke. When God spoke to His servants the prophets, He spoke to them in the language they also spoke, understood, and wrote. So one of the most important parts of my hermeneutic is to research the definition of the words in the text in the language it was written in AND then look at how those same biblical words are used elsewhere in the bible...AND accept the definition of those words regardless if it goes against what I already believe.

Daniel 7.
No man is a prophet of God who prophecies about a kingdom 'rising' when that kingdom had already 'risen' some 50 years before. Sorry folks, I know better than to accept a flawed interpretation that atheist have discovered and used to debunk Daniel as a prophet of God, and the bible as the inspired Word of God. Those of you who can't see this are in agreement with atheist Kyle Williams who knows that if a prophet prophecies about a kingdom rising that had already risen is certainly a false prophet.

Furthermore. The verses I provided prove that the word before means, "in the presence of." Not only does that debunk the theory that Daniel 2 and 7 are the same, it also proves that the four beast of Daniel 7 are all end-time empires. And it also proves that Rome is not the fourth beast of Daniel 7.

The arms are silver are TWO arms, one for Median and one for Persia. For all intents, from a macro perspective, Daniel puts them together into one kingdom. And the two horns, one bigger than the other tells us the same thing: Daniel is considering them as a combined empire. If Daniel says Medo-persia was inferior, then I must agree with Him. Considering an image like a man, for sure the chest is in an inferior position to the head.

If this is not Daniel's meaning, how could Alexander's kingdom be inferior to those above? He conquered more territory than any before him. I think the answer must be an inferior position on the image.

I agree completely with that that chapter 7 is an END TIME image. However, I also believe that chapter 2 is both for then and for now, meaning it too is an end time vision. After all, it took time right up to Christ's kingdom on earth.

LAMAD
 
Upvote 0

10s3r

Active Member
Mar 15, 2014
172
5
✟412.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The arms are silver are TWO arms, one for Median and one for Persia.

You're basing your entire interpretation on the word 'two.' The problem with that is that word 'two' or "the arms of silver," doesn't describe the kingdom. They are simply symbolic representations of a kingdom.

The only thing said about the "arms of silver" is that it would be inferior to Babylon.

The word inferior is what describes the kingdom and nothing else. Since the word 'arab' is used to describe the iron and clay, making Medo Persia the inferior kingdom makes Rome the fourth kingdom and that contradicts the word 'arab.' That would also contradict what Daniel say's in chapter 8 about the Medes.

The word 'inferior' is the word for ground or land, and since the Medo-Persian Empire was about 3 times the size of Babylon, that also contradicts the words, "land inferior." The Median empire was smaller and short lived. These verses say right out straight that it's Darius that took Babylon.

"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

For all intents, from a macro perspective, Daniel puts them together into one kingdom. And the two horns, one bigger than the other tells us the same thing: Daniel is considering them as a combined empire.

Daniel doesn't put them into one kingdom until after the smaller horn of Daniel 8...that came up first, and the taller horn....that came up last...merge into the Ram or the thighs of bronze. You are the one considering them a combined empire.

The smaller horn that comes up first is descriptive of the Median Empire and you know it.

If Daniel says Medo-Persia was inferior, then I must agree with Him.

Daniel doesn't say the Medo-Persian was inferior. Daniel 8 says it right out straight that the Median Empire comes up first and is smaller but people don't care about such simple scriptural evidence. They go on believing what they want anyway.

Considering an image like a man, for sure the chest is in an inferior position to the head.

Again. You obtain your interpretation by using things in the text that don't describe the kingdoms in question. Your going about it the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,620
744
78
Home in Tulsa
✟101,867.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
You're basing your entire interpretation on the word 'two.' The problem with that is that word 'two' or "the arms of silver," doesn't describe the kingdom. They are simply symbolic representations of a kingdom.

The only thing said about the "arms of silver" is that it would be inferior to Babylon.

The word inferior is what describes the kingdom and nothing else. Since the word 'arab' is used to describe the iron and clay, making Medo Persia the inferior kingdom makes Rome the fourth kingdom and that contradicts the word 'arab.' That would also contradict what Daniel say's in chapter 8 about the Medes.

The word 'inferior' is the word for ground or land, and since the Medo-Persian Empire was about 3 times the size of Babylon, that also contradicts the words, "land inferior." The Median empire was smaller and short lived. These verses say right out straight that it's Darius that took Babylon.

"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)



Daniel doesn't put them into one kingdom until after the smaller horn of Daniel 8...that came up first, and the taller horn....that came up last...merge into the Ram or the thighs of bronze. You are the one considering them a combined empire.

The smaller horn that comes up first is descriptive of the Median Empire and you know it.



Daniel doesn't say the Medo-Persian was inferior. Daniel 8 says it right out straight that the Median Empire comes up first and is smaller but people don't care about such simple scriptural evidence. They go on believing what they want anyway.



Again. You obtain your interpretation by using things in the text that don't describe the kingdoms in question. Your going about it the wrong way.

Does a body have TWO arms, or not?
Does a body have TWO legs or not?

32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

I see here TWO arms, and TWO legs.

You are making FAR too much of the word "inferior."

Dan. 5:28
28 Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.


8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

You see, DANIEL put these two together, not me.

From the Pulpit commentary:

"The next dynasty is said to be inferior, that is to say, nearer the ground אָרְעָא (ar'a), which is certainly true of the shoulders in relation to the head. Not only does the inferior metal imply inferiority, but the inferior position dues so also."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee,.... This is the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the breasts and arms of silver, an inferior metal to gold;

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
The second kingdom is the Medo-Persian The inferiority is to be found in the divided character of that empire, as compared with the massive solidity of its predecessor. This is signified in the image, partly by the inferiority of the metal, silver instead of gold, and partly by the symbol of division, the two breasts opposed to the one head. It must not be forgotten that in other respects, such as extent of territory and duration of empire, the Medo-Persian far exceeded the Babylonian kingdom.

Benson CommentaryDaniel 2:39. After thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee — “It is very well known, that the kingdom which arose after the Babylonian was the Medo-Persian. The two hands and the shoulders signify that the empire of the Babylonians should be destroyed by two kings. The two kings were the kings of the Medes and Persians, whose powers were united under Cyrus, who was son of one of the kings, and son-in-law of the other, and who besieged and took Babylon, put an end to that empire, and erected on its ruin the Medo-Persian, or the Persian, as it is more usually called, the Persians having soon gained ascendency over the Medes.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
2:31-45 This image represented the kingdoms of the earth, that should successively rule the nations, and influence the affairs of the Jewish church. 1. The head of gold signified the Chaldean empire, then in being. 2. The breast and arms of silver signified the empire of the Medes and Persians. 3. The belly and thighs of brass signified the Grecian empire, founded by Alexander. 4. The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman empire. The Roman empire branched into ten kingdoms, as the toes of these feet. Some were weak as clay, others strong as iron.

The meaning is, that a kingdom would succeed that over which he reigned, so far inferior that it might be represented by silver as compared with gold.

So much for commentaries: there were many more ideas or theories about "inferior," but NONE considered "earth, world or ground."



The Hebrew word can mean earth, world or ground. Why did many choose "inferior" to translate this word here?

The KJV translates Strongs H772 in the following manner:
earth (20x), inferior (1x).

It is for sure, the chest and arms are lower to the ground that the head. I think this can be the only meaning.

LAMAD
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0