cure-real
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 238

Thread: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,601

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    Well, we began discussing the lostness of the 12 tribes.... I was simply trying to show you that that are indeed lost, not that they are eliminated, but that they remain among the nations, a Diaspora.

    There is this popular view that Israel is a legitimate ingathering, that the Zionists have somehow got a legitimate stake in saying that their nation consists of Jews, and that is my argument - they do NOT.
    I agree here. Imagine if us Christians focus on the fact that Christianity is a Jewish religion, and we have been grafted into Israel, and then make our own claim over Israel. We could gather together armies and take it for ourselves, we have just as much religious claim to Israel as the converted Khazars. Oh yes that's already been done! The Catholics already made their claim to Israel and invaded it during the Crusades......oh well the converted Khazars are trying it again, and then finally Jesus will do it properly.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,716
    Blog Entries
    14

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Okay, so where does this leave us with the respect to my theory that the Beast with Lambs horns is Zionist Israel.

    Beast being a military regime of some kind, empire.
    Diplomatically peaceful like a lamb (appearance), but acts with violence (speech)
    Enforces obedience to the Beast from the seafaring nations (Western "democracy")

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,601

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    Okay, so where does this leave us with the respect to my theory that the Beast with Lambs horns is Zionist Israel.

    Beast being a military regime of some kind, empire.
    Diplomatically peaceful like a lamb (appearance), but acts with violence (speech)
    Enforces obedience to the Beast from the seafaring nations (Western "democracy")
    We are close, but we are swapping the two beasts around in Rev 13. I believe Israel is the beast/bull country, and the beast with two horns is the country that supports Israel's growth in the region. The two horns represent Istanbul/Rome. Their unity creates Israel as supreme country on earth.

    I believe its Israel that arises from the great depths of the diaspora, to re-establish itself to the amazement of the world:
    17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


    ps please note that the beast is not like a lamb, it has two horns like lamb's horns. This is consistent symbolism that can be better understood by knowing the history that surrounds Daniel 8. Little horns are little countries, large horns are small countries that grow large. Lamb's horns are very very little horns, therefore they are tiny countries with vast influence , like the Vatican (Rome) and the Islamic Caliphate (Istanbul). This is consistent with the two feet of iron and clay, Turkey and Europe remain in power until the end of days.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,716
    Blog Entries
    14

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    In this light, the body of the two horned beast being burned is not the nation of Israel being burned but its beast nature, in other words, the military zionist regime is burned. This keeps in the symbolizm and doesn't condemn anything necessarily of the people of the nation, whether Jew or not.

    It points to the complete elimination of rule by many, rule by the military industrial complex, political corruption, etc....

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,716
    Blog Entries
    14

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    the beast is not like a lamb, it has two horns like lamb's horns. This is consistent symbolism that can be better understood by knowing the history that surrounds Daniel 8. Little horns are little countries, large horns are small countries that grow large. Lamb's horns are very very little horns, therefore they are tiny countries with vast influence , like the Vatican (Rome) and the Islamic Caliphate (Istanbul). This is consistent with the two feet of iron and clay, Turkey and Europe remain in power until the end of days.
    I like this, very fitting. I am not up to speed on what the Caliphate in Istanbul is... is it like the Vatican? A city state?

    This is interesting. But I cannot shake that this violates the symbilism of what it means to come from the land vs the sea. If Rome is from the sea, and Israel is from the land, this is just obvious.

    The sea represents many peoples and a geographical clue, the land represents the middle east and Palestine. How do you get around this?

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,716
    Blog Entries
    14

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    I dug into the text a bit more to see what else I could get out of it.

    the beast is not like a lamb,
    actually, i think that the text supports the opposite.

    Going back to 13 verse 2.....

    And 2532 the beast 2342 which 3739 I saw 3708 was 1510 like3664 a leopard 3917

    like is: homoios, "similar-to"

    and 2532 he had 2192 two 1417 horns 2768 like3664 a lamb 721

    So the verse could read two ways.

    1) he had two horns which were similar to a lambs horns.

    2) he had two horns similarly as a lamb

    Since the point of the description is to describe the beast, not simply the horns of the beast, the second interpretation is better.

    a) the beast has two horns
    b) it is similar to a lamb

    a+b > the beast is like a lamb with two horns

    If the beast is not somehow resembling a lamb, then the lamb confuses things. The lamb analogy connects very strongly in the readers' mind with the earlier picture of the Lamb With Seven Horns - Christ.

    So the two horned lamb in some fashion invokes a contrast with the Messianic figure of Christ.

    The lamb pointing toward and forcing worship of a larger and more powerful beast also agrees with Daniel 11's prophecy that the antichrist will honor a strange god of fortress, a god of humanly inspired technological advacement (Babel).

    A two horned lamb of Istanbul and Rome is odd for the reason that these nations are opposed to each other, and do not form a cohesive single beast. They are very separate entities, though I do agree, that a merger of these forces would be interesting for your theory. However, I see my two horned beast as present. yours is future.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,601

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    I dug into the text a bit more to see what else I could get out of it.



    actually, i think that the text supports the opposite.

    Going back to 13 verse 2.....

    And 2532 the beast 2342 which 3739 I saw 3708 was 1510 like3664 a leopard 3917

    like is: homoios, "similar-to"

    and 2532 he had 2192 two 1417 horns 2768 like3664 a lamb 721

    So the verse could read two ways.

    1) he had two horns which were similar to a lambs horns.

    2) he had two horns similarly as a lamb

    Since the point of the description is to describe the beast, not simply the horns of the beast, the second interpretation is better.

    a) the beast has two horns
    b) it is similar to a lamb

    a+b > the beast is like a lamb with two horns

    If the beast is not somehow resembling a lamb, then the lamb confuses things. The lamb analogy connects very strongly in the readers' mind with the earlier picture of the Lamb With Seven Horns - Christ.

    So the two horned lamb in some fashion invokes a contrast with the Messianic figure of Christ.

    The lamb pointing toward and forcing worship of a larger and more powerful beast also agrees with Daniel 11's prophecy that the antichrist will honor a strange god of fortress, a god of humanly inspired technological advacement (Babel).

    A two horned lamb of Istanbul and Rome is odd for the reason that these nations are opposed to each other, and do not form a cohesive single beast. They are very separate entities, though I do agree, that a merger of these forces would be interesting for your theory. However, I see my two horned beast as present. yours is future.
    Lol I think you are trying to convince yourself here.

    13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon

    Two horns like a lamb, simply means that the beast has two horns like a lamb. Both the Greek and the English read the same. The introduction of the lamb is related to the horns, not the beast itself. Its possible to see it different, but the more obvious is that the two horns similar to a lamb. A "beast" is already an ox/bull, and the animal symbolism always represents the religious animal of a country.

    Thus a bear represented Doniel, Persia's bear-God
    A leopard represented the favorite god of Macedonia, Dionysus
    A lion represented the Babylonian female goddess of Ishtar
    A beast represented the Middle-Eastern bull god of Baal/Zeus/Allah/Jupiter

    Thus the two-horned bull is a bull/ox (beast) not a lamb
    The ten horned beast is also a bull/ox (beast)

    Its possible the two-horned beast is a lamb, but I feel the more obvious view is that the two-horned beast is a bull/ox with lamb's horns.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,601

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    I like this, very fitting. I am not up to speed on what the Caliphate in Istanbul is... is it like the Vatican? A city state?

    This is interesting. But I cannot shake that this violates the symbilism of what it means to come from the land vs the sea. If Rome is from the sea, and Israel is from the land, this is just obvious.

    The sea represents many peoples and a geographical clue, the land represents the middle east and Palestine. How do you get around this?
    The Caliphate is not quite a city state, but is an Islamic country or region that is led by a supreme political leader backed by a supreme religious leader, who has the legal religious right over all Islamic nations who must submit to him. The main traditional base for this leader is Istanbul, and there are plans afoot to base the Caliph once more in Istanbul.

    Regarding the earth/sea it's a good question, here are some ideas:

    I believe the sea is simply the Meditteranean, and the new Middle Eastern ten-horned region rises up through the backing of nations of the west. Thus military power is flown in from Turkey and Europe to establish a new west-friendly superstate in the Middle East. Uk, French, USA, Italian, Turkey etc these armies are in Iraq, Afghanistan, airforce was in Libya etc Israel was established through these western allies conquering the Middle East in WW1.
    13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

    The Middle East (Kurds/Khazars/Kabbalism) influence Christianity (Rome) and Islam (Istanbul) to create a new religious prophet/superpower:
    13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon

  9. #144

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Comment:

    The symbolic beasts used in Daniel's visions are representative of human kingdoms and their human kings [in this case they were the Middle Eastern kingdoms of neo-Babylon, Persia, and the final form of Alexander's Asian holdings, Seleucid Syrio/Babylonia .... all consisting of Middle Eastern populations]

    The 4th "animal beast" kingdom in the visions has not yet been confederated by its coming king, the little human horn who will rise among the same populations who are still in the region but fragmented .... today these populations are of the same stock from ancient times, and they are primarily all adherents of Islam today

    The two Revelation beasts are not kingdoms, but something else .... human kingdoms are never referred to as "he" .... and human kingdoms do not go into and come out of the abyss like the first beast of Revelation does

    The first beast has been on the earth before ruling over the human kingdoms and associated human kings of the lion, bear, and leopard [all Middle Eastern kingdoms] .... this beast gets his power and ambition from Satan, and he is coming to rule there in the same region again

    Until you understand exactly who these two beasts of Revelation are you will not render the associated scriptures correctly

  10. #145

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Excellent weblog right here! Also your web site quite a bit up fast! What host are you the use of? Can I am getting your affiliate link to your host? I wish my website loaded up as quickly as yours lol
    Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you ever been blogging for? you make running a blog look easy. The full glance of your site is fantastic, well as} the content material!
    Keep working ,remarkable job!
    tai lieu sinh vien , gia su , cong ty , jav ,vietnam embassy ,

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,716
    Blog Entries
    14

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    A "beast" is already an ox/bull, and the animal symbolism always represents the religious animal of a country.
    Animals were used as god symbols, yes, but there is no evidence that the Bible always uses this same symbolism when using animal imagery. This would be simple enough if it were true, but the context of each prophecy should dictate the symbolism primarily and when there is some kind of confusion perhaps, let other prophecy be used as a guide for symbolism.

    Thus a bear represented Doniel, Persia's bear-God
    A leopard represented the favorite god of Macedonia, Dionysus
    A lion represented the Babylonian female goddess of Ishtar
    I disagree with all these because there is no historical proof of this symbolism. The only proof I have ever found is made by commentors who begin with the assumption that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 speak of the same kingdoms.

    Also, Ishtar was not a lion god, she was a fertility goddess. The bull God is the male principle/phallus, not female.

    A beast represented the Middle-Eastern bull god of Baal/Zeus/Allah/Jupiter
    Daniel 7's terrible beast is described as a combo of the other three, it is not a bull. This is direcly against the vision of Daniel. It is blatatly forcing the scripture into a view.

    Thus....The ten horned beast is also a bull/ox (beast)
    again, totally missing the actual text. The ten horned beast is not a bull, It has a leopard's body, bear's feet, and lion's mouth. It is NOTHING like a bull. A "beast" is a wild animal, a "beast of burden" is a bull.

    Thus the two-horned bull is a bull/ox (beast) not a lamb
    Not only is your logic bad, you've twisted the text to create this view.


    Two horns like a lamb, simply means that the beast has two horns like a lamb. Both the Greek and the English read the same
    Indeed, I agree, they read the same.

    If I saw a creature that was somewhat like another creature, lets say a lizard-like creature... I could say..."It had a tail like a lizard". You might say that my only statement is about the description of the tail.

    But if you consider for a minute why I may have used the idea of a lizard, it may be because of the impression that i got from the entire creature. If it was simply a reptile, but did not give the impression of a lizard, I might have said "it had a reptilian tail". ie. without further context or impression it could have been a mammal, but with a reptilian tail.

    So "had a tail like a lizard" may mean it was similar to a lizard, but not a lizard. This is in keeping with very normal speech in any language.

    Let's go nice and easy, there is no reason to "convince myself" of anything - nice jab though .

    And I saw another beast coming up out of the land, and it had two horns, like a lamb, and it was speaking as a dragon, (YLT)
    The Greek and English agree, which is nice, so it should be hard to see what is intended by "lamb". The comma after "horns" is important.

    If the horns are all that is in mind, then the text should say:
    > It was a beast with horns that were like a lamb's.
    so that the horns are the subject.

    But the horns are not the subject - the beast is the subject.

    As further proof that the beast is the subject and that the overall impression of the beast's image is that of a Lamb, the last part of the verse contrasts the beast's appearance with his speech.

    a) + b) A beast with two horns - similar to a lamb in appearance
    c) does not speak as a lamb speaks.

    The first beast is like a leopard/bear/lion in appearance, the second beast is like a lamb in appearance but speaks like a dragon.

    The second beast is the actual beast-antichrist!

  12. #147

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Comment:

    Again understanding just who these two beasts are is essential .... I have not seen anyone on this post who seems to know

    At any rate the second beast will operate in the presence of the first beast, both are contrivances of Satan

    The second looks like a lamb, but speaks like a dragon

    The cult [religion] of the first beast will seem to be one of peace, while at the same time preaching hatred and insult against the Lord, against those who dwell in heaven, and against Israel [Revelation 11; 12]

    There will be two human operators [horns] who will lead the cult of the first beast

    These two clerics will operate under the control and influence of the second beast who is Satan's false prophet

    My next statement is speculative, but most likely

    This cult religion claiming to be peaceful, yet filled with hatred and rejection of the Son of God is displayed by Islam today in the open

    It is my opinion that it will be these followers of "Allah" [the crescent moon "god" of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians], worship a fictitious "god" who is a cover for Satan himself

    The two human clerics involved [horns]? ..... the leaders of the two major sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia, who will unite this religion upon the arrival of the human little horn of Daniel's visions associated with the first beast of Revelation's unfolding

    I believe that it is possible for the Koranic "Mahdi" [12th Imam] to be the same as the biblical "antichrist", the first beast of Revelation

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,716
    Blog Entries
    14

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    My belief is that Islam is a false beast.

    Also, you didn't seem to take any note of what Daniel is saying about the antichrist's background. He will not claim authority based on any previous religion, or from any ancestry. This is clear in Daniel 11:37.

    He will not be either Christian, Muslim or Jew by religion. He will support tolerance of all, and claim supremacy over all religion by his secular and popular support.


  14. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,601

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    Quote Originally Posted by Aijalon View Post
    Animals were used as god symbols, yes, but there is no evidence that the Bible always uses this same symbolism when using animal imagery. This would be simple enough if it were true, but the context of each prophecy should dictate the symbolism primarily and when there is some kind of confusion perhaps, let other prophecy be used as a guide for symbolism.


    I disagree with all these because there is no historical proof of this symbolism. The only proof I have ever found is made by commentors who begin with the assumption that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 speak of the same kingdoms.

    Also, Ishtar was not a lion god, she was a fertility goddess. The bull God is the male principle/phallus, not female.

    Daniel 7's terrible beast is described as a combo of the other three, it is not a bull. This is direcly against the vision of Daniel. It is blatatly forcing the scripture into a view.


    again, totally missing the actual text. The ten horned beast is not a bull, It has a leopard's body, bear's feet, and lion's mouth. It is NOTHING like a bull. A "beast" is a wild animal, a "beast of burden" is a bull.


    Not only is your logic bad, you've twisted the text to create this view.
    Regarding the animal imagery, its just something I noticed that those four consecutive kingdoms also just happened to use the animals most associated with their primary religion. I agree the text itself does not require that the animals relate to their religion are prominent in those countries, I feel the four consecutive kingdoms are obvious both historically and symbolically without that fact. ADDING strength to them being Babylon/Persia/Greece is the fact that the respective animals are also strongly represented in their religions.

    You are right, Ishtar is not a lion god, I never said she was, but she is associated with a lion: "This relief of a lion, the animal associated with Ishtar, goddess of love and war" http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/31.13.2
    Same as Dionysus, the favorite Greek god of the Macedonians, he is associated with a leopard, but is certainly not a leopard-god.

    I checked up the word for ox/bull and in fact you are correct, I was getting confused with the word "showr" for bull/ox but the Greek/Hebrew words for beast mean an animal, not necessarily a bull. Sometimes associated with a wild/savage animal, thus all 3 are "beasts" as per Daniel 7. The Baal god is also associated with a wild bull/beast/aurochs.

    I never "twisted the text", thanks for the counter-jab, lol
    I enjoy discussing these things with you, no hard feelings intended.

    Indeed, I agree, they read the same.

    If I saw a creature that was somewhat like another creature, lets say a lizard-like creature... I could say..."It had a tail like a lizard". You might say that my only statement is about the description of the tail.

    But if you consider for a minute why I may have used the idea of a lizard, it may be because of the impression that i got from the entire creature. If it was simply a reptile, but did not give the impression of a lizard, I might have said "it had a reptilian tail". ie. without further context or impression it could have been a mammal, but with a reptilian tail.

    So "had a tail like a lizard" may mean it was similar to a lizard, but not a lizard. This is in keeping with very normal speech in any language.

    Let's go nice and easy, there is no reason to "convince myself" of anything - nice jab though .
    Hmm, if I hear the words "tail like a lizard" my assumption is that the rest of the animal is not like a lizard. Oh well, you haven't convinced me, am I wrong to say that you have convinced yourself? Haha rhetorical question, we may have to just agree to disagree here.


    The Greek and English agree, which is nice, so it should be hard to see what is intended by "lamb". The comma after "horns" is important.

    If the horns are all that is in mind, then the text should say:
    > It was a beast with horns that were like a lamb's.
    so that the horns are the subject.

    But the horns are not the subject - the beast is the subject.

    As further proof that the beast is the subject and that the overall impression of the beast's image is that of a Lamb, the last part of the verse contrasts the beast's appearance with his speech.

    a) + b) A beast with two horns - similar to a lamb in appearance
    c) does not speak as a lamb speaks.

    The first beast is like a leopard/bear/lion in appearance, the second beast is like a lamb in appearance but speaks like a dragon.

    The second beast is the actual beast-antichrist!
    The word "but" is incorrectly used in some translations, the majority translations correctly used the word "and" which is from the Greek word "kai".

    ie there is no contrast between the lamb and the dragon in the Greek:
    He had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon.

    This is a wild beast, with lamb's horns, and a dragon's voice. We will have to agree to disagree here.

  15. #150

    Re: BEAST WITH LAMB's HORNS

    "My belief is that Islam is a false beast.

    Also, you didn't seem to take any note of what Daniel is saying about the antichrist's background. He will not claim authority based on any previous religion, or from any ancestry. This is clear in Daniel 11:37."


    Good questioning Aijalon .... I will address

    Daniel is describing the behavior of this little horn and king of the north who will honor Satan, by which he will receive his power and authority as explained further

    Satan regards himself as "god" .... and it is this one who is hiding behind the false "god" of Islam

    Islam is looking for a manifestation of their "Mahdi" who is to come and restore their dominance upon the earth as a people

    Allah is an impersonal "god" by their thinking ..... and Allah actually does not exist

    The Muslims do not understand who they are actually following, but when their "Mahdi" actually shows they will follow

    Their "Mahdi" will be Satan's beast, the angelic king of the abyss who will completely possess the human little horn of Daniel's visions

    It is the populations of the Middle East that are described in the prophetic visions surrounding Israel who will follow this mimic of Satan's contrivance

    These are the same populations today whose ancestry of the ancient Assyrian/Babylonian cultures .... and they are predominantly Muslim

    If you can discover that the related prophecies for the time of the end are primarily focused upon the Middle East proper and not upon other geographics, you will have a better understanding of the same

    This focus is upon a regathered Israel and the Muslim states of the Middle East "round about" [Ezekiel 36; Zechariah 12]

    Not to mean that the entire earth will not be affected by what is going to take place there .... it will be

    But if you want to understand the related prophecies, you must know the focus

    Reformation and reconstruction theologies developed in the past have been a misleading influence upon many today .... their leaders simply did not understand the visions of the Bible prophets sufficiently and they missed the focus by applying the same to a western setting including the Pope, RCC, and a contemporary European dominance

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 20 horns - Rev. 17?
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 25th 2011, 12:59 PM
  2. Replies: 64
    Last Post: Mar 6th 2011, 05:55 AM
  3. Rev 13:11 he had two horns like a lamb
    By Caleb in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Nov 8th 2010, 01:14 PM
  4. 10 Horns of the Antichrist Beast
    By Joyfulparousia in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Mar 14th 2009, 06:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •