... Simple systems become more complex over time. That's a quite fundamental concept. Claiming otherwise is like claiming that people have always flown in aeroplanes rather than benefiting from the gradual development from simple concepts to complex understanding of physics and engineering.
I have major problems with simple becoming more complex, despite it being a fundamental elements of evolution. People haven’t always flown airplanes, driven in cars and built railroads, but these are all examples of intelligent designs becoming more complex. One can’t help but wonder how simple biological samples can become more complex. What would be the motivating factor? And how could it happen without intelligence? If a man lands on a distant planet and finds the wreckages of complex dwellings, weapons and conveyances, he would immediately know intelligence was required to produce it. When life goes from simple to complex, it would seem self evident that intelligent design is involved. Of course, this begs the question of why a Supreme Intelligence would need to go through this evolution on each planet it created? If the Creator knew how to create complex life forms, why would He need to create simple life forms and progress to ever more complex designs?
Both science and religion have problems they can’t answer, and religion, unlike science, doesn’t claim to be able to provide proof. And though science and religion seem to be on entirely different levels, science is very far off from being able to disprove religion. In my own religion, the Lord has stated that “in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things; things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.” At times it seems there’s no end to the carrot stick promises of future resolutions by religion, but that’s what Christianity has always promised: Atonement. Not only man to God, but science to religion. And though it seems that the two are forever irreconcilable, now, Christians have faith that this will not always be the case.
Jeffro: Since Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE, it's unsurprising that it's accurate about World Powers up until that time.
Sorry...I don’t buy it. Methodist scholar Margaret Barker has written that Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel all have more in common in their outlooks on the political situation and the temple than later writings. Apocalypses were never popular among the elite ruling classes and even among Christians, the Apocalypse of John barely made it. To this day many scholars don't think it should be included. In Europe, it's despised. Critical reviewers, so called, believe that any prophetic book that turns out to be accurate must have been post-dated because, after all, we all know prophecy is impossible. Also, a number of traditional biblical scholars have been openly critical of the way the Wikipedia has recounted, as facts, theories “imposed by militant atheists” regarding its section on the book of Daniel.
One notable error in Daniel is the story that it was Nebuchadnezzar who went mad for seven years. Historically, this did not fit with what is known about Nebuchadnezzar. But it does fit Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, a statement attributed to Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar:
The words of the prayer which Nabonidus (Nbny), king of Assyria and king of Babylon, the great king spoke when he was smitten with a severe inflammation by the command of the Most High God in the city of Teiman (error for Tema): I was smitten for seven years and I was put far from men. But when I confessed my trespasses and sins he left me a seer. He was a Jew from the exiles of Babylonia. He gave his explanation and wrote that honor should be given and glory to the name of the Most High God.
This seer most assuredly was Daniel. At least there is a strong reason for thinking so, as it was Daniel who made the prophecy. It’s thought that a scribe replaced the name of Nabonidus with the more popular name of Nebuchadnezzar. This does not mean, however, that Daniel did not minister to Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniel 2:40 bears little resemblance to the claimed interpretation of “Rome, divided into East and West”, which is just as spurious as the claim that a mixture of ‘clay and iron’ represents ‘nation states’ that are in some way different to previous nations.
Books have been devoted to this topic. I believe the interpretation you proffer is not in the least credible. It was contrived and pushed by those who wanted to place the establishment of the Kingdom of God (the stone) to an earlier date so it would correspond to the days of Jesus.
You say Daniel 2:40 bears little resemblance to Rome. Well, you’re entitled to your view, but to me it sounds exactly like Rome, which was associated with iron for more than five hundred years: “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.”
If this isn’t a prophecy about Rome, it certainly will do until one comes along. Of all the empires, Rome was clearly the greatest, most powerful, most technologically developed and had the greatest legal system. It ruled by iron, not bronze. After it was divided into two empires, it split into nation states, some strong, some weak. It was during those kings that the Lord would set up a kingdom that would never be destroyed and would not be governed by men. It will eventually break up all the other nations of the earth. Besides the prophecies in Chapter 2, there are also the prophecies regarding the “little horn,” which was identified as the Antichrist, the one described by Ezekiel in chapters 38-39 and by other prophets, including John. This leader has not yet made his appearance, but if Daniel is correct, he will manifest himself within the next several decades. So only time will tell.
