BIBLE, Book of Daniel 7..19-26 (Theoretical explanation)

[lucas224]

19 I wanted to be sure about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and was exceedingly terrible: it had iron teeth, bronze claws, it devoured and crushed and trampled the rest with its feet,
23 He said this: “The fourth beast - there will be a fourth kingdom on earth, it will be different from all kingdoms; he will devour the whole earth, tread it down, and crush it.
(New world order)
24 And ten horns - ten kings will arise from that kingdom.
(Ten equally powerful countries will want to form a one world government)
After them another will arise, he will be different from the previous ones and he will depose the three kings.
(Globalists/antichrist, will destroy three kings out of ten .. weakening and destroying USA, Russia and China)
25 He will speak against the Most High and destroy the saints of the Most High.
(Denying the Bible and Jesus Christ, banning Christianity)
He will seek to change the times and the law. The saints shall be delivered into his hand until time and times and half a time,
(Creation of one new super tolerant religion....persecuting Christians and those who will not want the "mark of the beast", duration of NWO for "42 months")
26 but the judgment will sit and the rulership will be taken away from him, and he will be completely destroyed and destroyed.
(The destruction of the NWO, a global storm after which the small remnant of humanity will start over)

 

[Bandaboy]

Sounds good

 

[Lemongrass00]

Interpreted like a true fundamentalist

 

[Taudefindi]

I'm of the belief that any and every religious text is quite open to interpretations, and those tend to be made based on a person's own point of view and beliefs.

Three people can have three different interpretations from one text.Nothing is really set in stone, plus people can see those texts literally or metaphorically.
In the end, people speak what they want to see, not really what may be.

 

[Xenophon]

Interpreted like a true fundamentalist

Depends on how one construes that remnant. I know anarchists, so-called neo-Nazis, and some practitioners of Native American religions who put their money on the "saving remnant." Besides what does "fundamentalist" even mean besides "intellectually unfashionable"? It does not mean "necessarily WRONG."

 

[pixel_fortune]

what does "fundamentalist" even mean

"Fundamentalist" has a specific, clear meaning: it means people who believe in strict, literal interpretation of scripture - i.e. getting back to what they see as the "fundamentals"
(for example, Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old are usually fundamentalists)

Given OP quoted scripture, @Lemongrass00 was correctly using the term "fundamentalist" in its usual, specific, definition, rather than as a generalised vague insult.

(They may be right or wrong about whether OP's interpretation is fundamentalist, you'd be getting into the semantic weeds of what counts as a metaphor, but it clearly wasn't a random insult, it was directly relevant to OP's argument)

 

[Xenophon]

"Fundamentalist" has a specific, clear meaning: it means people who believe in strict, literal interpretation of scripture - i.e. getting back to what they see as the "fundamentals"
(for example, Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old are usually fundamentalists)

Given OP quoted scripture, @Lemongrass00 was correctly using the term "fundamentalist" in its usual, specific, definition, rather than as a generalised vague insult.

(They may be right or wrong about whether OP's interpretation is fundamentalist, you'd be getting into the semantic weeds of what counts as a metaphor, but it clearly wasn't a random insult, it was directly relevant to OP's argument)

How is saying OP's argument "fundamentalist" useful? I mean having read the post, for someone come along and say it's fundamentalist is a bit like a reader of Newton saying, "Spoken like a physicist." It's belaboring the obvious...UNLESS the speaker thinks the term in question here conveys something more. I'm saying the use of "fundamentalist" here is simply a knee jerk attempt at insult. Scarcely objectionable, given the give-and-take of disagreement. But scarcely rising to the level of Oscar Wilde when it comes to repartee.

 

[pixel_fortune]

You said, "what does 'fundamentalist' even mean" (with the implication that it doesn't really mean anything).

So, I told you what it means and why Lemongrass's use was correct.

Possibly my interpretation of your question was too strict and literal? If only there was a word for that...

 

[Vandheer]

What are you guys even arguing about

 

[Xenophon]

You said, "what does 'fundamentalist' even mean" (with the implication that it doesn't really mean anything).

So, I told you what it means and why Lemongrass's use was correct.

Possibly my interpretation of your question was too strict and literal? If only there was a word for that...

Could be I was playing too fast & loose. Or could be I was imputing wickedness to Lemon that was not in him.

Post automatically merged: Apr 6, 2024

What are you guys even arguing about

I don't think we are anymore. I think pixel took "fundamentalist" for a useful descriptive term; I, for an attempted insult. Since neither Lemongrass nor OP are joining in, it were best to let it drop. I have gefullte fishch to fry or something.