PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Seven heads of the beast



DurbanDude
Dec 23rd 2008, 12:43 PM
Many do not understand the symbolism of the beast with seven heads and ten horns mentioned in Daniel 7 , Revelation 13, and Revelation 17. This leads to misunderstandings about the antichrist and other confusion.

Rev 17:
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The heads of the beast of Rev 17 are consecutive , not simultaneous. People often think that these are seven "kings" , but symbolic language often associates kings with empires.

So to understand these heads better we need to understand that five empires existed before Revelation was written, one existed at that time , and one more was to come. Strangely worded is the description of the beast itself as the 8th empire.

This is the easiest possible mystery to solve if you are a historian. Since the flood of Noah there were only a limited number of empires that dominated the middle east and they are simple to define and completely consecutive , each empire being directly involved with the destruction of the previous one:

1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ONE MORE - REMAINS A WHILE
8)then the BEAST!

Which empire existed directly after Rome , remained for longer than the rest, and dominated the Middle East. Some say it was Islam , but Islam came a few hundred years later and the origins of Islam are under dispute. The only empire which gained immediate power at the fall of Rome was the Holy Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome suddenly came to the fore , using his influence over the Christian tribes to create peace for Rome, and gained prominence internationally. He soon had a whole empire going under the Pope.

7) Holy Roman empire - had regular dominance over the middle east , with many wars with Islam.

Now please note , the 8th empire is identified with the beast itself, it is not identified with ONE OF THE HEADS of the beast.

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.
13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The only empire of the seven consecutive empires that has recovered from a deadly wound is the Holy Roman Empire. All others never recovered. The Holy Roman Empire received two wounds by the sword and I am not sure which one of the two wounds the bible is referring to here. The one wound was by the sword of the word of God. During the reformation it was Martin Luther and the breakaway Christian countries and the printing of the bible that brought the Holy Roman Empire to its knees. It lost its steel grip on Europe. This weakened Rome and paved the way for another sword , Napoleon , to actually physically conquer Rome , annex papal states and arrest the Pope.


Pope Pius VII is arrested as a result of defying Napoleon. Despite signing the Concordat (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide18/timeline09.html) with Napoleon in 1801 and conducting his coronation (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide18/timeline15.html) in 1804, the pope's relations with the French emperor have never been good. Pius refused to sign up the papal ports to Napoleon's Continental System (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide18/timeline23.html) against the British, leading to Napoleon's occupation of Rome and, in May 1809, the annexation of the Papal States. Pius issued a bull of excommunication against the 'despoilers of the Church'. This infuriated Napoleon, although Pius had not dared to name him personally, and led to the pope's arrest.

Currently the Vatican has immense power , and although it is not currently known as the Holy Roman Empire, they control most world economies, the world bank, and most of the world's current finances. This is expected to become more visible , and the world will be amazed when they see how strong the Vatican is politically.


CONCLUSION: The seven heads are seven consecutive empires The seventh empire is the Holy Roman Empire , this is the head of the beast with the fatal wound, and this wound is healing even now.

Any comments are welcome.

wpm
Dec 23rd 2008, 04:13 PM
Many do not understand the symbolism of the beast with seven heads and ten horns mentioned in Daniel 7 , Revelation 13, and Revelation 17. This leads to misunderstandings about the antichrist and other confusion.

Rev 17:
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The heads of the beast of Rev 17 are consecutive , not simultaneous. People often think that these are seven "kings" but the Greek actually means seven "sovereign powers". Empires is a better translation.

So to understand these heads better we need to understand that five empires existed before Revelation was written, one existed at that time , and one more was to come. Strangely worded is the description of the beast itself as the 8th empire.

This is the easiest possible mystery to solve if you are a historian. Since the flood of Noah there were only a limited number of empires that dominated the middle east and they are simple to define and completely consecutive , each empire being directly involved with the destruction of the previous one:

1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ONE MORE - REMAINS A WHILE
8)then the BEAST!

Which empire existed directly after Rome , remained for longer than the rest, and dominated the Middle East. Some say it was Islam , but Islam came a few hundred years later and the origins of Islam are under dispute. The only empire which gained immediate power at the fall of Rome was the Holy Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome suddenly came to the fore , using his influence over the Christian tribes to create peace for Rome, and gained prominence internationally. He soon had a whole empire going under the Pope.

7) Holy Roman empire - had regular dominance over the middle east , with many wars with Islam.

Now please note , the 8th empire is identified with the beast itself, it is not identified with ONE OF THE HEADS of the beast.

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.
13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The only empire of the seven consecutive empires that has recovered from a deadly wound is the Holy Roman Empire. All others never recovered. The Holy Roman Empire received two wounds by the sword and I am not sure which one of the two wounds the bible is referring to here. The one wound was by the sword of the word of God. During the reformation it was Martin Luther and the breakaway Christian countries and the printing of the bible that brought the Holy Roman Empire to its knees. It lost its steel grip on Europe. This weakened Rome and paved the way for another sword , Napoleon , to actually physically conquer Rome , annex papal states and arrest the Pope.

.

Currently the Vatican has immense power , and although it is not currently known as the Holy Roman Empire, they control most world economies, the world bank, and most of the world's current finances. This is expected to become more visible , and the world will be amazed when they see how strong the Vatican is politically.


CONCLUSION: The seven heads are seven consecutive empires The seventh empire is the Holy Roman Empire , this is the head of the beast with the fatal wound, and this wound is healing even now.

Any comments are welcome.

Good study. Plenty to chew on. :)

RevLogos
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:13 PM
1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ONE MORE - REMAINS A WHILE
8)then the BEAST!

Which empire existed directly after Rome , remained for longer than the rest, and dominated the Middle East. Some say it was Islam , but Islam came a few hundred years later and the origins of Islam are under dispute. The only empire which gained immediate power at the fall of Rome was the Holy Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome suddenly came to the fore , using his influence over the Christian tribes to create peace for Rome, and gained prominence internationally. He soon had a whole empire going under the Pope.



Interesting theory. I think the idea of the 7 heads being sequential is well worth exploring and getting other thoughts on.

I would say off-hand that the Ottoman Empire should not be left out. It was the greatest of all of these empires, spanning 3 continents. It was the only empire to be a direct threat to Christianity since the Roman Empire of the first century. That threat led to the Crusades.

The Crusades didn't crush the Ottomans, but Christianity did. It was crushed by the Renaissance and the powerful economic stimulus caused by leaps in technology. The renaissance was unleashed in part by the loss of domination of the Roman Catholic Church caused by the Protestants and the printing of the Bible. Trade and economy eventually did what the Crusades and the Catholic church couldn't. The renaissance never took hold in the Ottoman Empire.

It could be argued that Christianity wounded the Ottoman Empire critically. But today it is returning. The Ottoman empire was of course, Muslim. And we see Islam rising again, and with the same goals of a global Islamic Caliphate. It is today, once again, a direct threat to Christianity. (And everybody else for that matter.)

Cyberseeker
Dec 23rd 2008, 07:26 PM
1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ONE MORE - REMAINS A WHILE
8)then the BEAST!


Good overview IMO. :)


Which empire existed directly after Rome , remained for longer than the rest, and dominated the Middle East? Some say it was Islam , but Islam came a few hundred years later.

That's because there was no Empire after Rome. The political configuration after the 6th empire was ten kingdoms. This is outlined in Daniel seven. The 7th empire (Islamic Empire) came after that.

wpm
Dec 23rd 2008, 08:10 PM
People often think that these are seven "kings" but the Greek actually means seven "sovereign powers". Empires is a better translation.

Could you furnish us with your findings on this?

Nihil Obstat
Dec 24th 2008, 02:31 AM
Interesting theory. I think the idea of the 7 heads being sequential is well worth exploring and getting other thoughts on.

I would say off-hand that the Ottoman Empire should not be left out. It was the greatest of all of these empires, spanning 3 continents. It was the only empire to be a direct threat to Christianity since the Roman Empire of the first century. That threat led to the Crusades.

The Crusades didn't crush the Ottomans, but Christianity did. It was crushed by the Renaissance and the powerful economic stimulus caused by leaps in technology. The renaissance was unleashed in part by the loss of domination of the Roman Catholic Church caused by the Protestants and the printing of the Bible. Trade and economy eventually did what the Crusades and the Catholic church couldn't. The renaissance never took hold in the Ottoman Empire.

It could be argued that Christianity wounded the Ottoman Empire critically. But today it is returning. The Ottoman empire was of course, Muslim. And we see Islam rising again, and with the same goals of a global Islamic Caliphate. It is today, once again, a direct threat to Christianity. (And everybody else for that matter.)

I agree with you that the seventh is the Ottoman Empire, but not because they were a threat to Christianity, but rather because these beasts were all noted specifically for their wickedness against the Jews and for their occupying the holy land. This is also the "purpose" of the eighth and final Beast Empire.

Blessings! - Astro

RevLogos
Dec 24th 2008, 03:09 AM
Could you furnish us with your findings on this?

Here is where KING is used:

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

All of these uses of King use the same word, including the use for Jesus which we know wouldn’t be an empire (he would have used kingdom instead).
G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.
If we look at this literally, I don’t see anything that would indicate an empire, especially as it is distinct from the use of word kingdom.

Kingdom is:
G932
βασιλεία
basileia
bas-il-i'-ah
From G935; properly royalty, that is, (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively): - kingdom, + reign.
Similar word but distinctly different. We'll have to see what other exegesis DD has.

Mark F
Dec 24th 2008, 03:54 AM
You have to put this side by side with Dan 2 & 7.

Rev 17 is giving a panorama of the kingdoms of "the world" from the Bibles's
perspective.

The "beast" is important. Rev 13 says it was like a leopard, feet like a bear,
mouth of a lion. Seven heads, ten horns. One of its heads is wounded and is healed.

Rev 17 tells us the seven heads are seven mountains. It's the same beast from Rev 13 with more detail.

Daniel 2 tells us that the stone that struck the image at the feet grew to be
a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This we know is Jesus and He
sets up a kingdom after He crushes all other kingdoms.

So Dan 2 tells us a mountain is a kingdom. Now back to Rev 17.

Rev 17:9; The seven heads are seven mountains, Dan 2 tells us a mountain is a kingdom. So there are seven kingdoms, there are also seven kings. Kings rule kingdoms. Five have fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.
Verse 11--The beast that was (3 through 5), and is not (#7) is also the 8th.

1)Egypt
2)Assyria
3)Babylon Head of Gold
4)Persia Arms and Chest of silver
5)Greece Belly and Thighs of bronze
6)Rome
7)
8)

An important thing to notice is Dan 2:44 says that
the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and the gold are crushed together. The only way for that to be possible if the people of those
kingdoms are all unified together under a new larger kingdom
that encompasses all the kingdoms from the past.

Now the beasts from Daniel 7 only mentions 5 kingdoms (beasts) verses 23-27 explains the 4th and 5th that comes out of the 4th.
Dan 7 is where we get the description in Rev 13, like a leopard, feet of a bear,
mouth of a lion. Added here is huge iron teeth.

1)Egypt
2)Assyria
3)Babylon---Like a Lion
4)Persia---Like a bear
5)Greece---Like a leopard
6)Rome
7)
8)

So now we need to figure out who the Iron is, (if I haven't completely confused you yet!!)

Daniel 2:40
"And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others."

1)Egypt
2)Assyria
3)Babylon--Head of gold
4)Persia--Arms chest of silver
5)Greece--Belly and thighs of bronze
6)Rome
7)Ottoman Empire--Legs of Iron---wounded/defeated 1924
8)Revived Islamic (Ottoman Empire)

Only the kingdoms mentiond in Dan 2 and Dan 7 are in the 7th kingdom
composite. Rome simply does not qualify, not to mention that "the people of
the prince to come" were indeed in the Roman Legions, but they were
mainly comprised of Arabs, Syrians, and Turks, very few actual Romans.

It's kinda late for me and I ran through this kinda quick, I'll try to clarify it if anyone is interested.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 08:02 AM
Here is where KING is used:

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

All of these uses of King use the same word, including the use for Jesus which we know wouldn’t be an empire (he would have used kingdom instead).

G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.
If we look at this literally, I don’t see anything that would indicate an empire, especially as it is distinct from the use of word kingdom.

Kingdom is:

G932
βασιλεία
basileia
bas-il-i'-ah
From G935; properly royalty, that is, (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively): - kingdom, + reign.
Similar word but distinctly different. We'll have to see what other exegesis DD has.

Revolvr, and wpm , this was something that I read about many years ago , and assumed was correct. But now that I'm researching it I see that you are right , it does mean royalty, or sovereign or king. So unfortunately I don't have further exegesis.

This does not change my view on the interpretation though , because the word "kings" often denotes empires in symbolic passages. I have had to edit the opening post accordingly.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 08:33 AM
I agree with you that the seventh is the Ottoman Empire, but not because they were a threat to Christianity, but rather because these beasts were all noted specifically for their wickedness against the Jews and for their occupying the holy land. This is also the "purpose" of the eighth and final Beast Empire.

Blessings! - Astro

Hi Astro,

The Holy Roman Empire has a worse history of Jewish and Christian slaughter than the Moslems. When the crusaders took over Jerusalem there was mass slaughter of Jews that had until then been living peacefully under Islamic rule. The Holy Roman Empire regularly occupied Israel.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 08:55 AM
You have to put this side by side with Dan 2 & 7.

Rev 17 is giving a panorama of the kingdoms of "the world" from the Bibles's
perspective.

The "beast" is important. Rev 13 says it was like a leopard, feet like a bear,
mouth of a lion. Seven heads, ten horns. One of its heads is wounded and is healed.

Rev 17 tells us the seven heads are seven mountains. It's the same beast from Rev 13 with more detail.

Daniel 2 tells us that the stone that struck the image at the feet grew to be
a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This we know is Jesus and He
sets up a kingdom after He crushes all other kingdoms.

So Dan 2 tells us a mountain is a kingdom. Now back to Rev 17.

Rev 17:9; The seven heads are seven mountains, Dan 2 tells us a mountain is a kingdom. So there are seven kingdoms, there are also seven kings. Kings rule kingdoms. Five have fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.
Verse 11--The beast that was (3 through 5), and is not (#7) is also the 8th.

1)Egypt
2)Assyria
3)Babylon Head of Gold
4)Persia Arms and Chest of silver
5)Greece Belly and Thighs of bronze
6)Rome
7)
8)

An important thing to notice is Dan 2:44 says that
the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and the gold are crushed together. The only way for that to be possible if the people of those
kingdoms are all unified together under a new larger kingdom
that encompasses all the kingdoms from the past.

Now the beasts from Daniel 7 only mentions 5 kingdoms (beasts) verses 23-27 explains the 4th and 5th that comes out of the 4th.
Dan 7 is where we get the description in Rev 13, like a leopard, feet of a bear,
mouth of a lion. Added here is huge iron teeth.

1)Egypt
2)Assyria
3)Babylon---Like a Lion
4)Persia---Like a bear
5)Greece---Like a leopard
6)Rome
7)
8)

So now we need to figure out who the Iron is, (if I haven't completely confused you yet!!)

Daniel 2:40
"And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others."

1)Egypt
2)Assyria
3)Babylon--Head of gold
4)Persia--Arms chest of silver
5)Greece--Belly and thighs of bronze
6)Rome
7)Ottoman Empire--Legs of Iron---wounded/defeated 1924
8)Revived Islamic (Ottoman Empire)

Only the kingdoms mentiond in Dan 2 and Dan 7 are in the 7th kingdom
composite. Rome simply does not qualify, not to mention that "the people of
the prince to come" were indeed in the Roman Legions, but they were
mainly comprised of Arabs, Syrians, and Turks, very few actual Romans.

It's kinda late for me and I ran through this kinda quick, I'll try to clarify it if anyone is interested.

I understand what you are saying , yet believe Daniel 2 points to an unbroken timeline of the fourth empire's control right until the second coming.

Daniel 2: 3 stages of ROME:
IRON
IRON AND CLAY
TEN TOES

Daniel 7: 2 stages of ROME:
Beast dominates earth
Ten horns with 3 of them dominated directly by the little horn.

Rev 17: 8 consecutive empires, last 3 are ROME:
6) Rome
7) Holy Roman Empire
8) the beast is another re-appearing country supported by the ten horns and ridden by the prostitute city (symbolic of ROME still in control)

There are always many confusions about what is supposed to be wounded and what is supposed to be re-appearing. Rome does not re-appear but remains forever in some form of power, there is an unbroken timeline of Daniel 2. The ten horns beast of Revelation is the final manifestation of the beast of Daniel, and relates only to the lttle horn of the beast of Daniel 7. Without this understanding its easy to believe that the Roman empire should somehow miraculously re-appear.

I believe the Ottoman empire is not under Rome's control and never destroyed the Roman empire therefore is not consistent with three qualities of these various prophecies:
1) Ongoing control of the fourth empire, ROME
2) Consecutive unbroken sequence of the 7 empires
3) complete dominance of the previous empire


17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rome is the only city that was ruling over the kings of the earth when this sentence was written , Rome will sit on the beast.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 10:09 AM
Only the kingdoms mentiond in Dan 2 and Dan 7 are in the 7th kingdom
composite. Rome simply does not qualify, not to mention that "the people of
the prince to come" were indeed in the Roman Legions, but they were
mainly comprised of Arabs, Syrians, and Turks, very few actual Romans.

.


I've heard this "Roman legions" argument before, have studied it, and it is actually not true. Those Roman legions were predominately Romans with a only one of the legions possibly, but doubtedly, having some Arab soldiers.

The Twelfth Legion was a Roman legion that had been established for more than 100 years.

The Legio XV Apollinaris was a European based Legion (Austria) that had only been in the Middle East for 9 years.

The Legio V Macedonia is often the one ascribed to having Arabic mercenaries , however this was a Greek legion and only came to the Middle east about 8 years before 70 AD. It went back to Greece soon after the 70 AD war.


By 100 BC, the Legions of the Roman Army (http://www.legionxxiv.org/legionshist/) were composed of about 130,000 legionaries. One Roman man in eight was a soldier, who was required to serve an enlistment of up to six years and after 20 some years of service, a career soldier could retire to a piece of land, generally in a conquered Roman territory

As far as I can gather Roman legions were traditionally soldiered by Romans.I could be wrong in that maybe ONE of the 3 legions that attacked Jerusaelm could have had middle eastern foreigners , but even if this is true the army was Roman controlled and predominately Roman, and I would like to hear conclusive evidence of any other viewpoint.

Mark F
Dec 24th 2008, 11:10 AM
Where does the Bible say that the statue of Daniel 2
represents only the 4th empire?


Flavious Josephus wrote about the Roman war against the Jews, if you
will read the pages I have linked below, you will find he states clearly the legions were Syrian, Dan 9 points to the "people" not the empire.


http://www.biblestudytools.net/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=War_2&chapter=15&s=

http://www.biblestudytools.net/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=War_2&chapter=16&s=

I was taught as well that Europe will be the kingdom to look for, it just dosen't fit if you study it out.

1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ROME REVIVED!!!
8)ROME FOR THE THIRD TIME


Rome 3 times??

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 03:19 PM
Where does the Bible say that the statue of Daniel 2
represents only the 4th empire?




Dan 2:40 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.
2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

This is subject to interpretation, but when I read the description above it speaks of the fourth kingdom being of iron , then being divided. I tend to think if this was speaking of a fifth kingdom the language would be clearer.

Veretax
Dec 24th 2008, 03:33 PM
I understand what you are saying , yet believe Daniel 2 points to an unbroken timeline of the fourth empire's control right until the second coming.

Daniel 2: 3 stages of ROME:
IRON
IRON AND CLAY
TEN TOES

Daniel 7: 2 stages of ROME:
Beast dominates earth
Ten horns with 3 of them dominated directly by the little horn.

Rev 17: 8 consecutive empires, last 3 are ROME:
6) Rome
7) Holy Roman Empire
8) the beast is another re-appearing country supported by the ten horns and ridden by the prostitute city (symbolic of ROME still in control)

There are always many confusions about what is supposed to be wounded and what is supposed to be re-appearing. Rome does not re-appear but remains forever in some form of power, there is an unbroken timeline of Daniel 2. The ten horns beast of Revelation is the final manifestation of the beast of Daniel, and relates only to the lttle horn of the beast of Daniel 7. Without this understanding its easy to believe that the Roman empire should somehow miraculously re-appear.

I believe the Ottoman empire is not under Rome's control and never destroyed the Roman empire therefore is not consistent with three qualities of these various prophecies:
1) Ongoing control of the fourth empire, ROME
2) Consecutive unbroken sequence of the 7 empires
3) complete dominance of the previous empire


17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rome is the only city that was ruling over the kings of the earth when this sentence was written , Rome will sit on the beast.




Not to dispute, but when the Capital of Rome moved to Constantinople and later the empire split, was the eastern one no longer considered Rome? I'm just trying to get my head around this.



Dan 2:40 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.
2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

This is subject to interpretation, but when I read the description above it speaks of the fourth kingdom being of iron , then being divided. I tend to think if this was speaking of a fifth kingdom the language would be clearer.

Did this not happen when the empire split into an Eastern and Western half? Constantinople stood for a VERY long time because though the turks tried they could not sack the city easily.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 03:50 PM
Where does the Bible say that the statue of Daniel 2
represents only the 4th empire?


Flavious Josephus wrote about the Roman war against the Jews, if you
will read the pages I have linked below, you will find he states clearly the legions were Syrian, Dan 9 points to the "people" not the empire.


http://www.biblestudytools.net/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=War_2&chapter=15&s=

http://www.biblestudytools.net/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=War_2&chapter=16&s=


I looked at those links and there is a lot of information there, but couldn't find what you referred to. I only saw one reference to the fact that there were Syrians who accompanied the Legions, could you please quote the appropriate sentences, they are difficult to find.

4 Legions:
-Legion X Fretensis had been based in Syria for some time. This could be the Syrian legion referred to.
-The Twelfth Legion was a Roman legion that had been established for more than 100 years.
-The Legio XV Apollinaris was a European based Legion (Austria) that had only been in the Middle East for 9 years.
-The Legio V Macedonia is often the one ascribed to having Arabic mercenaries , however this was a Greek legion and only came to the Middle east about 8 years before 70 AD. It went back to Greece soon after the 70 AD war.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 04:03 PM
Not to dispute, but when the Capital of Rome moved to Constantinople and later the empire split, was the eastern one no longer considered Rome? I'm just trying to get my head around this.




Did this not happen when the empire split into an Eastern and Western half? Constantinople stood for a VERY long time because though the turks tried they could not sack the city easily.

It could easily be interpreted that way, the East and West being the two legs of the earlier United Rome, the two legs of the statue. However I believe the iron and clay part of the interpretation is the mix of religious and military in one empire. Both "legs" of Rome had this strange mix of religion and Military. Rome became religiously and militarily stronger than the eastern Empire, so I prefer to keep the focus on Rome.

DurbanDude
Dec 24th 2008, 04:16 PM
I was taught as well that Europe will be the kingdom to look for, it just dosen't fit if you study it out.

1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ROME REVIVED!!!
8)ROME FOR THE THIRD TIME


Rome 3 times??

I didn't refer to Europe, I believe Rome has already trampled and broken the world into bits through its financial might and political manipulation, and is busy setting up the ten regions of earth at the moment.

So we are currently in the latter stage of the 7th Empire.

Yes, it has to be Rome three times because the statue of Daniel 2 refers to the 3 stages of the fourth empire:

Iron
Iron and Clay
Ten toes


And Revelation refers to the final 3 stages of the 8 consecutive empires:

6th empire is defined as Rome (5 were and one IS)
7th empire (I believe to be the Holy Roman Empire)
8th empire (this is the beast, the bible says the city of Rome sits on the beast)

This is the only way to reconcile the various predictions about the fourth empire.

John146
Dec 24th 2008, 05:40 PM
Here is where KING is used:

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

All of these uses of King use the same word, including the use for Jesus which we know wouldn’t be an empire (he would have used kingdom instead).
G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.
If we look at this literally, I don’t see anything that would indicate an empire, especially as it is distinct from the use of word kingdom.

Kingdom is:
G932
βασιλεία
basileia
bas-il-i'-ah
From G935; properly royalty, that is, (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively): - kingdom, + reign.
Similar word but distinctly different. We'll have to see what other exegesis DD has.Every kingdom has a king and every king rules over a kingdom. There are seven mountains, which are kingdoms, with seven kings over them. At the time Revelation was written, five were already fallen, one existed at the time (Roman empire), one was to come and exist for a "short space" and the final one, I believe, is yet to come and it will be Satan's worldwide kingdom of spiritual darkness and mass deception that he sets up when he is loosed (no longer restrained).

Notice that it says the beast that was and is not is the eighth king/kingdom and will ascend out of the bottomless pit (Rev 17:8,11), the same place that Satan is bound. I believe the eighth is of the seven (Rev 17:11) because it comprises the whole world. I don't believe it's saying the eighth is of one of the seven but is of all of the seven.

RevLogos
Dec 24th 2008, 05:42 PM
Revolvr, and wpm , this was something that I read about many years ago , and assumed was correct. But now that I'm researching it I see that you are right , it does mean royalty, or sovereign or king. So unfortunately I don't have further exegesis.

This does not change my view on the interpretation though , because the word "kings" often denotes empires in symbolic passages. I have had to edit the opening post accordingly.

It may very well be possible that John is using a metaphor here: a king to represent an entire empire. One way to tell might be to look at other passages using the same term and see if empires could be meant, as you suggest. What other passages are you thinking of?

Mark F
Dec 24th 2008, 05:43 PM
DurbanDude,

So why are all the nations that are mentioned literally in Scripture
are 1) currently Islamic, and 2) in the 3 regions of Babylon, Persia, and Greece?

Sure the eastern portion of Rome is included.

Rome never conquered Persia or Babylon.

I would check a few different translations on Dan 2:40, decide for yourself on that.

One other thing to consider, the Scripture mentions as I said above,
literal nations, in their "old names" being in judgment, of those Rome is not
included. Those that are in the eastern part are, but if you are going to say
Rome, what do you do with the western portion?

The statue had two legs, the belly and thighs were bronze, Greece. The legs of iron would be say from the knees down because the bronze was belly
and thighs. The two legs as I understand it one would be the eastern
parts of what was Rome and Greece. The other leg would be what was
Babylon and Persia.

You seperated the feet and toes, I don't see that in the text. The feet and
toes are the revival of the two legs of iron.

Read Ezekiel 25-32, there is nation after nation mentioned in judgment,
they are all in the regions of ancient Babylon, ancient Persia, and ancient
Greece.

If Rome is included, it would stand to reason that it all would be included.
Greece encompasses the eastern parts of Rome.

DurbanDude
Dec 25th 2008, 02:26 PM
It may very well be possible that John is using a metaphor here: a king to represent an entire empire. One way to tell might be to look at other passages using the same term and see if empires could be meant, as you suggest. What other passages are you thinking of?

Here is one example , the fourth beast is described as a king and then a kingdom:

7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces

DurbanDude
Dec 25th 2008, 02:47 PM
DurbanDude,

So why are all the nations that are mentioned literally in Scripture
are 1) currently Islamic, and 2) in the 3 regions of Babylon, Persia, and Greece?

Sure the eastern portion of Rome is included.

Rome never conquered Persia or Babylon.

I would check a few different translations on Dan 2:40, decide for yourself on that.

One other thing to consider, the Scripture mentions as I said above,
literal nations, in their "old names" being in judgment, of those Rome is not
included. Those that are in the eastern part are, but if you are going to say
Rome, what do you do with the western portion?

The statue had two legs, the belly and thighs were bronze, Greece. The legs of iron would be say from the knees down because the bronze was belly
and thighs. The two legs as I understand it one would be the eastern
parts of what was Rome and Greece. The other leg would be what was
Babylon and Persia.

You seperated the feet and toes, I don't see that in the text. The feet and
toes are the revival of the two legs of iron.

Read Ezekiel 25-32, there is nation after nation mentioned in judgment,
they are all in the regions of ancient Babylon, ancient Persia, and ancient
Greece.

If Rome is included, it would stand to reason that it all would be included.
Greece encompasses the eastern parts of Rome.

Rome included babylon and bits of Persia at its zenith:

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:CLSiY3jHnixNPM:http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T014461A.gif (http://images.google.co.za/imgres?imgurl=http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T014461A.gif&imgrefurl=http://encarta.msn.com/media_461517866/roman_empire_ad_117.html&usg=__LBpiN9LYGsl-0_eNHOAD2Avrgyk=&h=334&w=499&sz=23&hl=en&start=24&tbnid=CLSiY3jHnixNPM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRoman%2Bempire%2Bzenith%26start%3D18% 26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)

Rome couldn't be named at the time of writing of the OT , because the empire did not exist. However it is mentioned many times

eg Daniel 9:26 says that people of the ruler who will come will destroy the sanctuary , and Rome destroyed the sanctuary.(still to see proof that the army was predominately Arabic)

Rev 17:18 speaks of the city that rules the earth. This was Rome at that time, the descriptions of Rev 17 and 18 match only Rome.

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 speak of the fourth kingdom , in context we see that the first was Babylon, second is Greece, third is Persia , fourth is Rome.

If you read the bible carefully , you find that the antichrist takes over Israel EARLIER in his reign, this is why he is crowned there , it is his base. He is dwelling in Israel when the Arabic countries attack Israel. The attacking countries are Arabic , but this does not mean they are the beast , because they are ATTACKING the beast.

wpm
Dec 27th 2008, 05:50 PM
Many do not understand the symbolism of the beast with seven heads and ten horns mentioned in Daniel 7 , Revelation 13, and Revelation 17. This leads to misunderstandings about the antichrist and other confusion.

Rev 17:
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The heads of the beast of Rev 17 are consecutive , not simultaneous. People often think that these are seven "kings" , but symbolic language often associates kings with empires.

So to understand these heads better we need to understand that five empires existed before Revelation was written, one existed at that time , and one more was to come. Strangely worded is the description of the beast itself as the 8th empire.

This is the easiest possible mystery to solve if you are a historian. Since the flood of Noah there were only a limited number of empires that dominated the middle east and they are simple to define and completely consecutive , each empire being directly involved with the destruction of the previous one:

1)Egypt - the first empire
2)Assyria - second
3)Babylon - third
4)Persia - fourth
5)Greece - fifth (FIVE WERE)
6)Rome - (ONE IS - Rome existed during the writing of Revelation)
7)ONE MORE - REMAINS A WHILE
8)then the BEAST!

Which empire existed directly after Rome , remained for longer than the rest, and dominated the Middle East. Some say it was Islam , but Islam came a few hundred years later and the origins of Islam are under dispute. The only empire which gained immediate power at the fall of Rome was the Holy Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome suddenly came to the fore , using his influence over the Christian tribes to create peace for Rome, and gained prominence internationally. He soon had a whole empire going under the Pope.

7) Holy Roman empire - had regular dominance over the middle east , with many wars with Islam.

Now please note , the 8th empire is identified with the beast itself, it is not identified with ONE OF THE HEADS of the beast.

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.
13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The only empire of the seven consecutive empires that has recovered from a deadly wound is the Holy Roman Empire. All others never recovered. The Holy Roman Empire received two wounds by the sword and I am not sure which one of the two wounds the bible is referring to here. The one wound was by the sword of the word of God. During the reformation it was Martin Luther and the breakaway Christian countries and the printing of the bible that brought the Holy Roman Empire to its knees. It lost its steel grip on Europe. This weakened Rome and paved the way for another sword , Napoleon , to actually physically conquer Rome , annex papal states and arrest the Pope.

.

Currently the Vatican has immense power , and although it is not currently known as the Holy Roman Empire, they control most world economies, the world bank, and most of the world's current finances. This is expected to become more visible , and the world will be amazed when they see how strong the Vatican is politically.


CONCLUSION: The seven heads are seven consecutive empires The seventh empire is the Holy Roman Empire , this is the head of the beast with the fatal wound, and this wound is healing even now.

Any comments are welcome.

I don't think the 7th kingdom has to be Rome. I feel what you are proposing re the healing of the head of one of these kingdom only occurs with the 8th beast kingdom at the end. You are attributing that to the 7th kingdom, which is a bit premature.

forum lurker
Dec 27th 2008, 06:26 PM
Which empire existed directly after Rome , remained for longer than the rest, and dominated the Middle East. Some say it was Islam , but Islam came a few hundred years later and the origins of Islam are under dispute. The only empire which gained immediate power at the fall of Rome was the Holy Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome suddenly came to the fore , using his influence over the Christian tribes to create peace for Rome, and gained prominence internationally. He soon had a whole empire going under the Pope.

7) Holy Roman empire - had regular dominance over the middle east , with many wars with Islam.

Now please note , the 8th empire is identified with the beast itself, it is not identified with ONE OF THE HEADS of the beast.

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.
13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

The only empire of the seven consecutive empires that has recovered from a deadly wound is the Holy Roman Empire. All others never recovered. The Holy Roman Empire received two wounds by the sword and I am not sure which one of the two wounds the bible is referring to here. The one wound was by the sword of the word of God. During the reformation it was Martin Luther and the breakaway Christian countries and the printing of the bible that brought the Holy Roman Empire to its knees. It lost its steel grip on Europe. This weakened Rome and paved the way for another sword , Napoleon , to actually physically conquer Rome , annex papal states and arrest the Pope.


Hi, I think that's a pretty good analysis but the Roman Empire cannot be the revived beast:

''And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.'' (Rev 17:11)

At the time John recieves the revelation, the beast to be revived was already gone (was) and at that time wasn't in power. However, The Roman Empire was very much in power, so it cannot be the correct one.

wpm
Dec 27th 2008, 06:40 PM
Hi, I think that's a pretty good analysis but the Roman Empire cannot be the revived beast:

''And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.'' (Rev 17:11)

At the time John recieves the revelation, the beast to be revived was already gone (was) and at that time wasn't in power. However, The Roman Empire was very much in power, so it cannot be the correct one.






I believe there is the possibilty that the Roman Church could be the healed head/kingdom in the 8th kingdom. Revelation 17:8 says, “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.”

forum lurker
Dec 27th 2008, 06:50 PM
I believe there is the possibilty that the Roman Church could be the healed head/kingdom in the 8th kingdom. Revelation 17:8 says, “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.”

Ok. Do you have scriptual support for this theory?

(Other than the verse above, which seems to debunk it?) ;)

Thanks!

DurbanDude
Dec 27th 2008, 07:30 PM
I don't think the 7th kingdom has to be Rome. I feel what you are proposing re the healing of the head of one of these kingdom only occurs with the 8th beast kingdom at the end. You are attributing that to the 7th kingdom, which is a bit premature.


The beast has seven heads, one of its heads has a fatal wound. the beast is the 8th kingdom. The beast is not a head.

13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Far from being premature , it is the only way to interpret Rev 13:3. The beast is not one of the seven heads but is the 8th empire. One of the seven heads has a deadly wound.

Please do not confuse this with the beast (the 8th kingdom) who was and is and is to come. This ceasing to exist and then re-appearing is a quality of the 8th empire. However the head that is injured and recovers is a quality of one of the seven empires. On both these points the bible is clear, it is interpreters who confuse the two.

DurbanDude
Dec 27th 2008, 07:54 PM
Hi, I think that's a pretty good analysis but the Roman Empire cannot be the revived beast:

''And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.'' (Rev 17:11)

At the time John recieves the revelation, the beast to be revived was already gone (was) and at that time wasn't in power. However, The Roman Empire was very much in power, so it cannot be the correct one.


forum lurker,

What you say is absolutely correct!

This is the difficulty with associating the ten horns beast of Daniel with the ten horns beast of Revelation. By sheer accurate deduction we know that they are the same beasts, yet the beast of Daniel continues to grow in power and dominates the whole earth. YET the beast of Revelation DOES NOT EXIST at the time of writing of Revelation. The bible reconciles the two positions easily by showing us that Rome is the fourth kingdom in Daniel, yet Rome is SITTING on the Revelation beast.

17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns

17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth

At the time Revelation was written Rome was ruling. Now the bible tells at that at the end times Rome will be sitting on the 8th empire. The 8th empire is a country that existed, yet CEASED to exist at the time of the writing of Revelation. Then it will re-appear to amaze the whole world.

I have no proof but it is logical for me to associate the "little horn" of Daniel 7 with the 8th empire (the beast) of Revelation, because both are the final manifestation of this evil empire. Both empires are given human qualities, referring to their final leader. Both are closely associated with Rome, and the ten horns.

If you agree with this association, then we get more clues about this 8th empire, it is a small country that has a lot of influence over 30% of earth. 3 of the ten regions are directly controlled by the little horn of Daniel 7.

I believe the beast is Israel , a small country that has huge international influence. It ceased to exist and then re-appeared to amaze the world. The bible indicates the final ruler will take over Israel, be crowned there, and will live there. I believe Rome will be instrumental in creating a world state under Israel.

forum lurker
Dec 27th 2008, 08:20 PM
forum lurker,

What you say is absolutely correct!

This is the difficulty with associating the ten horns beast of Daniel with the ten horns beast of Revelation. By sheer accurate deduction we know that they are the same beasts, yet the beast of Daniel continues to grow in power and dominates the whole earth. YET the beast of Revelation DOES NOT EXIST at the time of writing of Revelation. The bible reconciles the two positions easily by showing us that Rome is the fourth kingdom in Daniel, yet Rome is SITTING on the Revelation beast.

17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns

17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth

At the time Revelation was written Rome was ruling. Now the bible tells at that at the end times Rome will be sitting on the 8th empire. The 8th empire is a country that existed, yet CEASED to exist at the time of the writing of Revelation. Then it will re-appear to amaze the whole world.

I have no proof but it is logical for me to associate the "little horn" of Daniel 7 with the 8th empire (the beast) of Revelation, because both are the final manifestation of this evil empire. Both empires are given human qualities, referring to their final leader. Both are closely associated with Rome, and the ten horns.

If you agree with this association, then we get more clues about this 8th empire, it is a small country that has a lot of influence over 30% of earth. 3 of the ten regions are directly controlled by the little horn of Daniel 7.

I believe the beast is Israel , a small country that has huge international influence. It ceased to exist and then re-appeared to amaze the world. The bible indicates the final ruler will take over Israel, be crowned there, and will live there. I believe Rome will be instrumental in creating a world state under Israel.

Thanks, I have to confess though I didn't make the 'discovery' personally.. seems that not many have considered that verse.

I agree with you about Daniel 7, but I don't think Rome or Roman Empire have necessarily anything to with the 8th empire, although there seems to be a few clues pointing to that direction (I used to agree with this theory for a rather long time.)

I think the "Beast" is indeed an empire, not a single country. I'll try to put my ideas together tomorrow with better time.

forum lurker
Dec 28th 2008, 10:29 AM
Alright, in short I agree with Mark F about the 7 first heads, but the 8th head must come from the 5 first empires, since it "was" at the time of John (Rev 17.) 4 of these empires, the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires covered nearly the same geographical areas and I think also Daniel 8 refers to these empires (The goat's horn brake into 4 pieces, just like the Grecian empire.)

I agree that the woman who rides the beast could refer to Vatican/Rome, but at the time she rides, the beast is not crowned yet. (She is not part of the final beast).

DurbanDude, do you really think that Israel could be the beast? :eek: Any support for this?
I believe the leader of the beast empire is an Assyrian, but Israel will not be a part of the empire:

Micah 5:

''2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

4And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

5And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.''

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 03:32 AM
Alright, in short I agree with Mark F about the 7 first heads, but the 8th head must come from the 5 first empires, since it "was" at the time of John (Rev 17.) 4 of these empires, the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Grecian empires covered nearly the same geographical areas and I think also Daniel 8 refers to these empires (The goat's horn brake into 4 pieces, just like the Grecian empire.)

I agree that the woman who rides the beast could refer to Vatican/Rome, but at the time she rides, the beast is not crowned yet. (She is not part of the final beast).

DurbanDude, do you really think that Israel could be the beast? :eek: Any support for this?
I believe the leader of the beast empire is an Assyrian, but Israel will not be a part of the empire:

Micah 5:

''2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

4And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

5And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.''

Think about it , the antichrist is a false Christ. Jesus warns about false Christs at the end. He was speaking to Jews at the time. A "Christ" is a Messiah, a Jewish leader to unite the twelve tribes of Israel and bring peace to the world and put Israel above the other nations.There have already been a few false Messiahs accepted by some fringe Jews as their Messiah. The antichrist will be the ultimate false messiah, he will appear to have succeeded.

11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
11:44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles (tents) of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

The antichrist takes over Israel earlier. We know from Thessalonians that he is crowned in Jerusalem. We know he is a false Messiah to deceive the Jews. He sets up his dwelling place in Israel.

We know that armies of Gog (the land of the far north) with their Arab allies of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Assyria will attack Israel at the end. Yet at this time the antichrist is troubled by reports from the east and the north. If he is attacking Israel from the east of Israel , and the north of Israel , why do these reports trouble him? If the antichrist armies are Gog and the Assyrian, then is Norway and China attacking the antichrist while the antichrist is attacking Israel? (rhetorical question).

He plants the tents of his palace in Israel. this symbolism is not confusing at all, it means he makes Israel his temporary dwelling place. Ths is where he defends his world empire from the defectors. Watching current events and understanding Islamic prophecy, I believe these are the countries that have been deceived into supporting the antichrist, and all armies will gather in Israel for that final war and God himself intervenes in that war.

Other than this evidence of the antichrist's involvement with Israel, the beast was and is not and is to come.

Rev 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.

Only the Christians were expecting the re-establishment of Israel. The rest of the world was astonished at the re-appearing of Israel , the country that was , then ceased , then rose up again. However Israel's rise to international dominance will only occur when the woman rides the beast , when Rome starts pulling the strings and manipulating the antichrist into power in Israel.

The strange thing about world politics is that it is dominated by 3 major religions, Secular Christianity , Judaism, Islam. The only way to unite the world is to convince the Christians that Jesus is back, Muslims that their Mahdi has arrived , and Jews that the Messiah is here. I believe the antichrist will do all this at once. Just speculating about the end after reading some other's posts about Islam , I believe the Muslims will feel deceived at the end , because they do not believe that their Mahdi can be God, and this antichrist will declare himself God. Therefore they will revolt , and manage to catch the antichrist and Israel by surprise. Speaking of Gog, and its allies, the bible says in Ezekiel:

38:8 After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
38:9 Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee.
38:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
38:11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 03:41 AM
Alright, in short I agree with Mark F about the 7 first heads, but the 8th head must come from the 5 first empires, since it "was" at the time of John (Rev 17.)

There is nothing in Revelation to indicate that the beast must be from the first five empires. All that is required is that it ceased to exist by the time of John.

RevLogos
Dec 29th 2008, 04:05 AM
The strange thing about world politics is that it is dominated by 3 major religions, Secular Christianity , Judaism, Islam. The only way to unite the world is to convince the Christians that Jesus is back, Muslims that their Mahdi has arrived , and Jews that the Messiah is here. I believe the antichrist will do all this at once. Just speculating about the end after reading some other's posts about Islam , I believe the Muslims will feel deceived at the end , because they do not believe that their Mahdi can be God, and this antichrist will declare himself God. Therefore they will revolt , and manage to catch the antichrist and Israel by surprise. Speaking of Gog, and its allies, the bible says in Ezekiel:





In Islamic eschatology, the Mahdi is aided by the return of Jesus Christ. This Jesus - the Muslim version that is, will stamp out Christianity and Judaism leaving only Islam.

This Jesus would very literally be a false Jesus, an anti-Jesus, or a false prophet.

This False Jesus will say Follow me! I lead you to a peaceful new world order - one world religion, on earth. Just follow me. Or else its curtains for you.

The second beast of Rev 13 is described as having 2 horns like a lamb, suggesting this false prophet may try to pass himself off as Jesus.

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 04:43 AM
The second beast of Rev 13 is described as having 2 horns like a lamb, suggesting this false prophet may try to pass himself off as Jesus.

If you read various chapters of Daniel, you can gain a better understanding of the symbolism of beasts and horns. Beasts represent large empires , horns represent regional powers. The beast with two horns is an empire with two seats of power. Because these horns are small (like lamb's horns) we know that that the horns themselves are just two regional powers (basically two countries) that have an influence over an empire. I believe these two unified countries that support the antichrist are representative of the two central countries of Islam, Iran and Iraq. As additional support for this , we can look at the description of the ten horns beast:

Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

We know from Daniel 7 that the lion repesents Babylon , the bear represents Persia, and the leopard represents Greece. These three are part of the final beast , representing the fact that the beast controls them all. Yet the beast has the "mouth of a lion". This is representative of the vocal support of the Babylon region , Iraq. The beast has the feet of the bear, this is representative of "doctrinal spreading" or the spreading of a philosophy, also vocal support of the Persian region, Iran.

To interpret symbolism does not involve absolute proof, for example no-one can prove to you what your dreams mean. But the symbolism must make sense and your heart must confirm it, so all this is not absolute proof, just impressions that I am comfortable with.

Conclusion: I personally believe that Islamic countries will initially be in full support of the antichrist being established in Israel.

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 04:52 AM
In Islamic eschatology, the Mahdi is aided by the return of Jesus Christ. This Jesus - the Muslim version that is, will stamp out Christianity and Judaism leaving only Islam.

This Jesus would very literally be a false Jesus, an anti-Jesus, or a false prophet.

This False Jesus will say Follow me! I lead you to a peaceful new world order - one world religion, on earth. Just follow me. Or else its curtains for you.

The second beast of Rev 13 is described as having 2 horns like a lamb, suggesting this false prophet may try to pass himself off as Jesus.

The Koran also says that no man can be God, therefore the Koran is NOT predicting the Mahdi in the same way as the bible is predicting the antichrist. The two books are not opposites in perfect unison as some try to infer. The bible states that the antichrist will declare himself as God in Israel. The bible warns us of false Christs, pretenders who will try to pass themselves off as the Jewish Messiah.

I believe end-time events are going to happen the way the bible says they will unfold, not the way the Koran or Islamic prophecies predict.

forum lurker
Dec 29th 2008, 09:38 AM
DurbanDude, thanks for the reply. You seem to have considered the alternatives, I was maybe a little hasty with my response. I'm sorry about that. Israel being the beast is really an an alternative I haven't thought about. I think that the scripture indicates that Israel will remain to be the chosen land and people. Israel has been severely punished for her transgression and I believe is going to punished in the future, but it is not going to be destroyed like the beast's empire. Jesus' return to Jerusalem and Israel and the destruction of Babylon in my opinion indicates that.



11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
11:44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
11:45 And he shall plant the tabernacles (tents) of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.


I'm not sure if the KJV is the correct translation of 11:41. NIV translation:



41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand.The version I often use says "he will attack the Beautiful Land" and to me it looks like Israel is not part of the empire that attacks her. Also it seems that Israel won't accept the antichrist from other verses.

It's interesting that you mentioned these verses, as verse 11:45 is what brought me to the standpoint where I'm now. In the Bible I often use the beginning of 11:45 is translated like this:

"He will pitch his tent palace between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain"

If you think this translation might be correct, it's easy to draw a few conclusions. The beautiful holy mountain of course refers to the Temple Mount. What about the tent palace? Could this refer to the Dome of the Rock? If you forget the dome on the top, and think about the shape - doesn't it look like a big tent? It does to me.

I think it's interesting that the inside of Dome of the Rock is decorated with verses from Koran such as "God has no companion" and "In the name of the One God (Allah) Pray for your Prophet and Servant Jesus son of Mary".


There is nothing in Revelation to indicate that the beast must be from the first five empires. All that is required is that it ceased to exist by the time of John.

There isn't, but I don't think it's that far-fetched to think that Daniel 7's 10-horned beast is the same as the one in Revelation, and therefore it's possible to gather information about him from Daniel.

I do also think that the Islamic eschatology Revolvr mentioned is worth noting, you might find this copypaste interesting what is expect of Mahdi, Islam and Islamic Empire:

· Bible: The Antichrist is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will that emerge in the last-days.
· Islam: The Mahdi is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will emerge in the last-days.

· Bible: the False Prophet is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days who will support the Antichrist.
· Islam: the Muslim Jesus is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days to support the Mahdi.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet together will have a powerful army that will do great damage to the earth in an effort to subdue every nation and dominate the World.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will have a powerful army that will attempt to control every nation of the earth and dominate the World.

· Bible: The False Prophet is described essentially as a dragon in lamb’s clothing.
· Islam: The Muslim Jesus literally comes bearing the name of the one that the world knows as “The Lamb of God: Jesus Christ.” Yet the Muslim Jesus comes to murder all those who do not submit to Islam.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet establish a New World Order.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus establish a New World Order.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet institute new laws for the whole earth.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus institute Islamic law all over the earth.

· Bible: The Antichrist is said to “change the times.”
· Islam: It is quite certain that if the Mahdi established Islam all over the earth, he would discontinue the use of Saturday and Sunday as the weekend or days of rest but rather Friday, the holy day of Islam. Also, he would most certainly eliminate the Gregorian calendar (A.D.), and replace it with the Islamic calendar (A. H.) as is used in every Islamic country.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will both be powerful religious leaders who will attempt to institute a universal world religion.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will institute Islam as the only religion in the earth.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will execute anyone who does not submit to their world religion.
· Islam: Likewise, the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will execute anyone who does not submit to Islam.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will specifically use beheading as the primary means of execution for non-conformists.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will use the Islamic practice of beheading for executions.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will have a specific agenda to kill as many Jews as possible.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will kill as many Jews as is possible until only a few are left hiding behind rocks and trees.

· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will attack to conquer and seize Jerusalem.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will attack to re-conquer and seize Jerusalem for Islam.

· Bible: The Antichrist will set himself up in the Jewish temple as his seat of authority.
· Islam: The Mahdi will establish the Islamic Caliphate from Jerusalem.

· Bible: The False Prophet is said to do many miracles to deceive as many as possible into supporting the Antichrist.
· Islam: The Mahdi himself is said to control the weather and the crops. His face is said to glow. We can also assume that since Jesus is viewed as having been empowered by Allah to work miracles when he was here on earth the first time, he will most likely be expected to continue to do so when he returns.

· Bible: The Antichrist is described as riding on a white horse in the Book of Revelation
· Islam: The Mahdi is described as riding on a white horse (ironically from the same verse).

· Bible: The Antichrist is said to make a peace treaty with Israel for seven years.
· Islam: The Mahdi is said to make a peace treaty through a Jew (specifically a Levite) for exactly seven years.

· Bible: Jesus the Jewish Messiah will return to defend the Jews in Israel from a military attack from a vast coalition of nations led by the Antichrist and the False Prophet.
· Islam: The Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist will gain a great Jewish following and claim to be Jesus Christ and fight against the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus.

· Bible: The antichrist spirit specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.
· Islam: Islam doctrinally and spiritually specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.

· Bible: The primary warning of Jesus and the Apostle Paul was to warn Christians of the abundance of deceit and deception in the last-days.
· Islam: Islam is perhaps the only religion in the earth that practices deceit as one of its tools to assist its own ascendancy. It actually has a specific doctrine which allows and even calls for deception to be used to achieve its desired end.

· Bible: The specific nations pictured in the Bible as being part of the final empire of the Antichrist are all Islamic nations.
· Islam: All Muslims are commanded to give their allegiance to The Mahdi as the final Caliph and Imam (leader) of Islam.

· Bible: From the Bible and History we learn that the final Antichrist empire will be a revived version of the Empire that succeeds the Roman Empire
· Islam: The Empire that succeeded the Roman/Byzantine Empire was the Islamic Ottoman Empire

· Bible: When Antichrist emerges, there will already be some form of system in place that will be poised to receive him as a Savior and to give allegiance to him.
· Islam is already the second largest religion and will at present growth rates become the largest religion within a few decades. Islam is awaiting the coming of the Mahdi with a universal anticipation.

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 10:09 AM
DurbanDude, thanks for the reply. You seem to have considered the alternatives, I was maybe a little hasty with my response. I'm sorry about that. Israel being the beast is really an an alternative I haven't thought about. I think that the scripture indicates that Israel will remain to be the chosen land and people. Israel has been severely punished for her transgression and I believe is going to punished in the future, but it is not going to be destroyed like the beast's empire. Jesus' return to Jerusalem and Israel and the destruction of Babylon in my opinion indicates that.


No reason to apologise, I understand that considering Israel as the beast is not a common perception. I believe the scripture speaks for itself.

Please read Joel for God's attitude towards Israel at the end. If you meditate on this , it is definitely not a faithful Israel that is attacked by the northern army:
2:10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

2:17 Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?
2:18 Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people.
2:19 Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen:
2:20 But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.

God only intervenes when there is a great repentance and calling out to the Lord. I also believe that they remain a chosen people but there is this one last judgment. The judgement will not be complete because this time Israel will truely repent just in time and God will intervene. This is their calling, the last to get saved will be first, and the first last. We can never point to them and say that they only served the Lord for a moment before the second coming, because of the parable of the labourers, we all get the same wage, eternal life for faith in our Lord.


The antichrist controls the whole world at his crowning as God over earth in Israel, THEN 3.5 years later Israel is being attacked. Now why would the antichrist be doing any attacking anywhere when he already controls the whole earth. The idea that the antichrist rules the whole earth including Israel for 3.5 years and then suddenly tries to take over his own territory at the end just doesn't make any sense to me. And I find no supporting scripture for the antichrist not having control of Israel during the antichrist's reign over earth. Is there an Israeli rebellion? Why would the antichrist attack Israel when he owns the world? Why is he troubled by the end-time attack that comes from the same direction (north and east of Israel) as the attack he is supposedly leading against Israel (from the north and the east)?This all makes no sense to me. If there is biblical support for all this then I would consider it.

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 10:39 AM
There isn't, but I don't think it's that far-fetched to think that Daniel 7's 10-horned beast is the same as the one in Revelation, and therefore it's possible to gather information about him from Daniel.

I believe they are the same beasts , just described from different perspectives. I don't think I said anything to indicate that they are not the same. The beast of Rev is the final moment of the beast of Daniel, when the little horn is reigning. This is when a little country controls the ten regions of earth. We gain a lot of information about the Rev beast from the Daniel beast, but there is nothing in Daniel that even hints that the fourth beast , or the little horn, is somehow from the first 3 beast or any previous empire. So I don't understand why you keep thinking along those lines.

forum lurker
Dec 29th 2008, 12:15 PM
I believe they are the same beasts , just described from different perspectives. I don't think I said anything to indicate that they are not the same. The beast of Rev is the final moment of the beast of Daniel, when the little horn is reigning. This is when a little country controls the ten regions of earth. We gain a lot of information about the Rev beast from the Daniel beast, but there is nothing in Daniel that even hints that the fourth beast , or the little horn, is somehow from the first 3 beast or any previous empire. So I don't understand why you keep thinking along those lines.

Rev. 17:



10And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
From these verses I gather, that there are 8 empires, 5 fallen, one currently in power and 2 to come. The beast to become the 8th beast already existed once while the 6th empire was in power. Therefore, the 8th beast must be one of the 5 first empires.

Regarding Daniel 8, Notice that Daniel was in his vision standing on the shore of the river Ulai, which is currently in eastern Iraq if I'm not mistaken. Here Daniel sees the goat attack the ram. I think the goat symbolizes Grecian empire and this event gives us a geographical clue where the beast was, and will be in the future.

I might be wrong though ;)

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 12:36 PM
I actually agree with what you are saying about the role of the Mahdi as the antichrist, its just a few subtle differences that I have:

I believe Rome will be in ultimate control as the fourth empire as per Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. I have heard some people try to classify the Ottoman empire as that fourth empire, but this just doesn't hold up in a detailed debate.

I believe Rome is in ultimate control according to Rev 17 and 18. Only Rome can fit this description of the city that was ruling the earth and that rides (sits on) the final 8th empire (beast).

I believe the final ruler will come from Rome according to Daniel 9:26, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. Some have tried to claim that the Roman armies had predominately Arab soldiers but this argument does not hold under scrutiny. Only 1 of 4 legions had predominately Syrian soldiers. This was a Rome controlled , Rome soldiered attack on Jerusalem with a few Syrians.

In light of the current Arab threat we may be correctly learning more about the Moslem role, but let's not go overboard seeing Arabs instead of Romans unless there is clear evidence about the fourth empire , about the woman, about the Roman army being Arabic in 70 AD. At the moment it is clutching straws based on current events, the bible however is timeless. There was the same type of excitement over the European Union being the beast, everyone was talking abut the "ten horns". And when Russia was a major threat, there was a focus on Gog from the far north.



· Bible: The Antichrist is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will that emerge in the last-days.
· Islam: The Mahdi is an unparalleled political, military and religious leader that will emerge in the last-days.


True




· Bible: the False Prophet is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days who will support the Antichrist.
· Islam: the Muslim Jesus is a secondary prominent figure that will emerge in the last-days to support the Mahdi.


True, but maybe the Pope will convince Islam that his candidate is the Mahdi. Maybe the Pope's candidate will be Arabic. And then maybe Islam will support the antichrist in the role of the false prophet. (their religion is the only one based on a prophet, we know Islam is the religion of the false prophet)




· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet together will have a powerful army that will do great damage to the earth in an effort to subdue every nation and dominate the World.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will have a powerful army that will attempt to control every nation of the earth and dominate the World.


True, but maybe the Pope will convince Islam that his candidate is the Mahdi. Maybe the Pope's candidate will be Arabic. Maybe the Armies that the antichrist can muster will be western with eastern backup. And then maybe Islam will support the antichrist in the role of the false prophet. (their religion is the only one based on a prophet, we know Islam is the religion of the false prophet)





· Bible: The False Prophet is described essentially as a dragon in lamb’s clothing.
· Islam: The Muslim Jesus literally comes bearing the name of the one that the world knows as “The Lamb of God: Jesus Christ.” Yet the Muslim Jesus comes to murder all those who do not submit to Islam.


Disagree here , the symbolism of beasts and horns refers to countries. these will be two small countries (small horns like a lamb's horns) that are central to a certain empire. I believe they are the two countries of Iran and Iraq that are central to Islamic power.




· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet establish a New World Order.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus establish a New World Order.


??




· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet institute new laws for the whole earth.
Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus institute Islamic law all over the earth.


True





· Bible: The Antichrist is said to “change the times.”
· Islam: It is quite certain that if the Mahdi established Islam all over the earth, he would discontinue the use of Saturday and Sunday as the weekend or days of rest but rather Friday, the holy day of Islam. Also, he would most certainly eliminate the Gregorian calendar (A.D.), and replace it with the Islamic calendar (A. H.) as is used in every Islamic country
.

True




· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will both be powerful religious leaders who will attempt to institute a universal world religion.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will institute Islam as the only religion in the earth
.

Yes, the religion of worship of the beast. Islam could easily be the false prophet here because to us Christians the wording gives us immediate reference to Islam. To us, Islam is based on Mohamed, by definition Islam is the religion and the empire of the false prophet. If the Pope organises a Mahdi to be antichrist and world ruler, Islam would obviously support their Mahdi. Who is in ultimate control , Rome. Who do we define as the false prophet pointing to the antichrist --- Islam. Who does Islam define as Jesus pointing to the Mahdi , the Pope , Christ's self proclaimed representative on earth.



· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will execute anyone who does not submit to their world religion.
· Islam: Likewise, the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will execute anyone who does not submit to Islam.


True





· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will specifically use beheading as the primary means of execution for non-conformists.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will use the Islamic practice of beheading for executions.


True




· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will have a specific agenda to kill as many Jews as possible.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will kill as many Jews as is possible until only a few are left hiding behind rocks and trees.


Not true. The Jews have a special protection during the last 3.5 years, read the protection of Israel in Rev 12. For some reason the Jews will be so protected that even after 3.5 years many of them will not have even received the mark of the beast. We know this because according to Joel and Rev (the sealing of the 144 000 - sealing means receiving the Holy Spirit) salvation will still be available to the Jews right until the second coming, the last will be first. Therefore they don't receive the mark and yet are not Christians right until the end.




· Bible: The Antichrist and the False Prophet will attack to conquer and seize Jerusalem.
· Islam: The Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus will attack to re-conquer and seize Jerusalem for Islam.


True , but the antichrist rules for 3.5 years. After this another army attacks Israel. Why are these Islamic countries attacking Israel at the end when their Mahdi has been ruling there for 3.5 years? They are obviously not too happy with their Mahdi anymore. Maybe because their Mahdi was not supposed to declare himself as God when their belief is no man can be their god. Seems as if the Romans (RCI) have the last say until the Islamic rebellion of Gog and the Arabic countries do a surprise attack on Israel. And destroy Rome in the process.




· Bible: The Antichrist will set himself up in the Jewish temple as his seat of authority.
· Islam: The Mahdi will establish the Islamic Caliphate from Jerusalem.


True




· Bible: The False Prophet is said to do many miracles to deceive as many as possible into supporting the Antichrist.
· Islam: The Mahdi himself is said to control the weather and the crops. His face is said to glow. We can also assume that since Jesus is viewed as having been empowered by Allah to work miracles when he was here on earth the first time, he will most likely be expected to continue to do so when he returns.


True,like I said before, Islam is the false prophet to us, yet the Pope most likely will be the Mahdi's supporter to them.

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 12:37 PM
[quote]
· Bible: The Antichrist is described as riding on a white horse in the Book of Revelation
· Islam: The Mahdi is described as riding on a white horse (ironically from the same verse).
[quote]
I didn't know that white horse has been identified as the antichrist, can you back this up?



· Bible: The Antichrist is said to make a peace treaty with Israel for seven years.
· Islam: The Mahdi is said to make a peace treaty through a Jew (specifically a Levite) for exactly seven years.


I believe the bible says 3.5 years, that's for another debate.



· Bible: Jesus the Jewish Messiah will return to defend the Jews in Israel from a military attack from a vast coalition of nations led by the Antichrist and the False Prophet.
· Islam: The Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist will gain a great Jewish following and claim to be Jesus Christ and fight against the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus.


True, my personal belief is that these nations will be fighting eachother, two huge coalitions that are evil, the antichrist defending Israel from the hordes of nations from the north and the east (Gog/Assyria/Iran/Iraq/Turkey). The implication is that the antichrist's main base of support is the west, Europe and the Meditteranean. When Jesus comes all armies gathered there will recognise their true enemy.



· Bible: The antichrist spirit specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.
· Islam: Islam doctrinally and spiritually specifically denies the most unique and central doctrines of Christianity, namely the trinity, the incarnation and the substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross.


True

·

Bible: The primary warning of Jesus and the Apostle Paul was to warn Christians of the abundance of deceit and deception in the last-days.
· Islam: Islam is perhaps the only religion in the earth that practices deceit as one of its tools to assist its own ascendancy. It actually has a specific doctrine which allows and even calls for deception to be used to achieve its desired end.


Not completely true, the RCI has a history of being even more ruthless and more deceptive than the Islamic religion could ever hope to be. The Jesuit organisation is based on the creed that the ends justifies the means. They have their own secret service complete with assassins. They create wars and bring up and take down governments at will. The Holy Roman Empire is not as clearly visible as in the past, not because of lack of control over countries, but because of a desire for less visibility , resulting in increased deceit. Never underestimate them.



· Bible: The specific nations pictured in the Bible as being part of the final empire of the Antichrist are all Islamic nations.
· Islam: All Muslims are commanded to give their allegiance to The Mahdi as the final Caliph and Imam (leader) of Islam.


Not true, Israel, Greece and Rome are included. The specific nations that attack the empire of the antichrist are Islamic. This is subject to interpretation.



· Bible: From the Bible and History we learn that the final Antichrist empire will be a revived version of the Empire that succeeds the Roman Empire
· Islam: The Empire that succeeded the Roman/Byzantine Empire was the Islamic Ottoman Empire


Not true, I don't know where you get this idea from the bible. One of the 7 heads has a wound and is healed. Then the final 8th empire is a country that ceased to exist and yet re-appears. How is this in any way referring to a revived version of the empire that succeeds Rome? Rome is the fourth empire, and only one of the seven empires recovers from a wound. The 8th empire is a country that did not exist during late first century AD, then will re-appear to amaze the world. Someone once tried to debate with me that Rome is an extension of the Greek empire and therefore not the fourth empire, absolutely not true and I would love to have that debate again. Sorry, you can see that I enjoy a good debate, its not personal I just like the truth.



· Bible: When Antichrist emerges, there will already be some form of system in place that will be poised to receive him as a Savior and to give allegiance to him.
· Islam is already the second largest religion and will at present growth rates become the largest religion within a few decades. Islam is awaiting the coming of the Mahdi with a universal anticipation
.


True

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 12:45 PM
Rev. 17:

From these verses I gather, that there are 8 empires, 5 fallen, one currently in power and 2 to come. The beast to become the 8th beast already existed once while the 6th empire was in power. Therefore, the 8th beast must be one of the 5 first empires.

Regarding Daniel 8, Notice that Daniel was in his vision standing on the shore of the river Ulai, which is currently in eastern Iraq if I'm not mistaken. Here Daniel sees the goat attack the ram. I think the goat symbolizes Grecian empire and this event gives us a geographical clue where the beast was, and will be in the future.

I might be wrong though ;)

Thanks for admitting that, I am also not 100% sure of the role of Islam yet, but as you can see , I have strong opinions :hmm:

I still don't get it, just because the 8th is one that re-appears, this does not mean it was one of the first five. If the bible states that it was a full-blown empire back then , then I would think twice, but I think that it would qualify even if it was your average everyday nation that disappeared and then re-appeared. What about Israel which was an empire under David and Solomon, although admittedly not quite in the category of the seven wordly consecutive and longer lasting empires.

forum lurker
Dec 29th 2008, 01:12 PM
No reason to apologise, I understand that considering Israel as the beast is not a common perception. I believe the scripture speaks for itself.

Please read Joel for God's attitude towards Israel at the end. If you meditate on this , it is definitely not a faithful Israel that is attacked by the northern army:
2:10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

2:17 Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?
2:18 Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people.
2:19 Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen:
2:20 But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.

God only intervenes when there is a great repentance and calling out to the Lord. I also believe that they remain a chosen people but there is this one last judgment. The judgement will not be complete because this time Israel will truely repent just in time and God will intervene. This is their calling, the last to get saved will be first, and the first last. We can never point to them and say that they only served the Lord for a moment before the second coming, because of the parable of the labourers, we all get the same wage, eternal life for faith in our Lord.


The antichrist controls the whole world at his crowning as God over earth in Israel, THEN 3.5 years later Israel is being attacked. Now why would the antichrist be doing any attacking anywhere when he already controls the whole earth. The idea that the antichrist rules the whole earth including Israel for 3.5 years and then suddenly tries to take over his own territory at the end just doesn't make any sense to me. And I find no supporting scripture for the antichrist not having control of Israel during the antichrist's reign over earth. Is there an Israeli rebellion? Why would the antichrist attack Israel when he owns the world? Why is he troubled by the end-time attack that comes from the same direction (north and east of Israel) as the attack he is supposedly leading against Israel (from the north and the east)?This all makes no sense to me. If there is biblical support for all this then I would consider it.

I agree with you 100% here (unfortunate as it is..)

I think Israel will rebel, once they see the true face of the AC. I haven't yet pondered much about what might make him worried, I think it could possibly be China & Russia who don't like his dominance (just speculating again..) :)

Anyway, I haven't studied about it yet much. (Israel + ac)

DurbanDude
Dec 29th 2008, 01:29 PM
I agree with you 100% here (unfortunate as it is..)

I think Israel will rebel, once they see the true face of the AC. I haven't yet pondered much about what might make him worried, I think it could possibly be China & Russia who don't like his dominance (just speculating again..) :)

Anyway, I haven't studied about it yet much. (Israel + ac)

Its refreshing to be agreed with occasionally :D

I personally believe its the Islamic nations rebelling against the deception of Rome, when they attack Israel. The AC is surprised by the rebellion, but is losing the war. This is when the Jews that were not deceived by the antichrist and did not take the mark of the beast turn to Jesus and recognise their true Messiah. This ushers in the second coming, when their false messiah was unable to defend Israel from the attacking nations their true Messiah will intervene personally.

Romulus
Dec 30th 2008, 08:05 PM
Here is the scripture:

Rev 17:
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

First off the scripture states that it is Kings, not empires. The Beast is a single entity made up of rulers. It would not make sense that the beast is 8 different empires throughout history. The language that is used in verse 10 includes that one King “is”. This clearly puts this beast entity in the time of the audience hearing it. One King was currently reigning when Revelation was written. The conclusion I agree with is that this beast goes hand in hand with Nebuchadnezzars statue in the book of Daniel. Four great empires were to come in succession. We know that the head was Nebuchadnezzar or more appropriately, Babylon. We then can see through history the other three empires:

1) Head of Gold=Babylon
2) Chest of Silver=Medo-Persia
3) Belly of Bronze=Greece
4) Legs and Feet of Iron=Rome
a) Feet of Iron mixed with clay (still same empire but something is together with this empire.)

Many believe that the mixture of clay with the legs/feet of Iron is another empire, I don’t believe so. The mixture of Iron clearly still shows the fourth empire (Rome.) What is the clay then? To find the answer we simply must look to scripture for the other nation. There is only one nation in scripture referred to as clay and here is the scripture:

Jeremiah 18

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Does not this picture of Rome and Israel match clearly the scene in the entire New Testament? Were not the greatest persecutors of the early Church Rome and Israel? This is a first century of picture of what was to happen. All we need to do is read the letters of Paul to see the persecution against martyrs such as Stephen who was stoned for his faith in Christ. I believe Rome is who the beast is referring to and it is only Rome that we must see who the identity of the Kings are. Let us look at the clear succession of Roman emperors:

1) Julius Caesar (Fallen/Dead)
2) Augustus (Fallen/Dead)
3) Tiberius (Fallen/Dead)
4) Caligula (Fallen/Dead)
5) Claudius (Fallen/Dead)
6) Nero (Is=Currently reigning when Revelation was written)
7) Galba (reigned only for 3months)

Revelation was written in Greek which was the language used by the 1st century. The Greek spelling of Nero Caesar in Hebrew equaled 666 just as scripture noted. Hebrew has no numeric system but Gematria (each letter equaled a number.) Those Jews that had “wisdom” could calculate the number. Those that knew Hebrew would have understood who John was writing about. Was he not writing as a Jew? With Nero as the current King reigning “is” we see that the 1st century prior to the fall of the temple is being addressed with Revelation. This now makes sense with the first few verses of Revelation:

Revelation 1

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

The 21st century is not in view here. It was in the time of Nero that this was heard, probably around 63-65 A.D. If we throw this prophecy 2000+ years later the terms of “soon”, “time is near” would make no sense to those that heard it. The persecuted Church who first heard it was who John was addressing. Not us. We must not ignore the first century.

Revelation 17

17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Again, staying with a 1st century audience we have the above scripture. The language used is strange since it would be normal to assume that the eighth king would normally succeed after the 7th King but the scripture goes out of it’s way to note that the 8th King is of the seven. Why is that? I believe because the 8th King was not in clear line of succession after the 7th King. After Nero’s suicide Rome was thrown into turmoil and the threat of civil war loomed in the year of the four emperor’s. Galba, Otho, Vitellius reigned after each for only a short period of time due to assasinations and unrest. As scripture notes that the beast had a head wound but that wound would be healed. This is noting the time when the empire looked like it would collapse. After Nero the Claudian line ended. It was only until Vespasia from the flavian line did the Rome resurrect or become the great world power it held during Nero. The head wound of the Beast(Rome) was healed. I believe Vespasian who was the 10th King in succession was the 8th King. He was the Emperor who ordered the siege(tribulation) of Jerusalem that lasted 3.5 years or 42 months. Vespasian was the King that scripture states very strangely as being the eighth and belonging to the seven other emperor’s(Kings.)

I believe scripture is clear that these heads of the beast are Kings and not empires. Staying with the audience that first heard the prophecy is vital in interpreting who these Kings are.

God Bless.

John146
Dec 30th 2008, 10:09 PM
Here is the scripture:

Rev 17:
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

First off the scripture states that it is Kings, not empires. The Beast is a single entity made up of rulers. It would not make sense that the beast is 8 different empires throughout history. The language that is used in verse 10 includes that one King “is”. This clearly puts this beast entity in the time of the audience hearing it. One King was currently reigning when Revelation was written. The conclusion I agree with is that this beast goes hand in hand with Nebuchadnezzars statue in the book of Daniel. Four great empires were to come in succession. We know that the head was Nebuchadnezzar or more appropriately, Babylon. We then can see through history the other three empires:

1) Head of Gold=Babylon
2) Chest of Silver=Medo-Persia
3) Belly of Bronze=Greece
4) Legs and Feet of Iron=Rome
a) Feet of Iron mixed with clay (still same empire but something is together with this empire.)

Many believe that the mixture of clay with the legs/feet of Iron is another empire, I don’t believe so. The mixture of Iron clearly still shows the fourth empire (Rome.) What is the clay then? To find the answer we simply must look to scripture for the other nation. There is only one nation in scripture referred to as clay and here is the scripture:

Jeremiah 18

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Does not this picture of Rome and Israel match clearly the scene in the entire New Testament? Were not the greatest persecutors of the early Church Rome and Israel? This is a first century of picture of what was to happen. All we need to do is read the letters of Paul to see the persecution against martyrs such as Stephen who was stoned for his faith in Christ. I believe Rome is who the beast is referring to and it is only Rome that we must see who the identity of the Kings are. Let us look at the clear succession of Roman emperors:

1) Julius Caesar (Fallen/Dead)
2) Augustus (Fallen/Dead)
3) Tiberius (Fallen/Dead)
4) Caligula (Fallen/Dead)
5) Claudius (Fallen/Dead)
6) Nero (Is=Currently reigning when Revelation was written)
7) Galba (reigned only for 3months)

Revelation was written in Greek which was the language used by the 1st century. The Greek spelling of Nero Caesar in Hebrew equaled 666 just as scripture noted. Hebrew has no numeric system but Gematria (each letter equaled a number.) Those Jews that had “wisdom” could calculate the number. Those that knew Hebrew would have understood who John was writing about. Was he not writing as a Jew? With Nero as the current King reigning “is” we see that the 1st century prior to the fall of the temple is being addressed with Revelation. This now makes sense with the first few verses of Revelation:

Revelation 1

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

The 21st century is not in view here. It was in the time of Nero that this was heard, probably around 63-65 A.D. If we throw this prophecy 2000+ years later the terms of “soon”, “time is near” would make no sense to those that heard it. The persecuted Church who first heard it was who John was addressing. Not us. We must not ignore the first century.

Revelation 17

17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Again, staying with a 1st century audience we have the above scripture. The language used is strange since it would be normal to assume that the eighth king would normally succeed after the 7th King but the scripture goes out of it’s way to note that the 8th King is of the seven. Why is that? I believe because the 8th King was not in clear line of succession after the 7th King. After Nero’s suicide Rome was thrown into turmoil and the threat of civil war loomed in the year of the four emperor’s. Galba, Otho, Vitellius reigned after each for only a short period of time due to assasinations and unrest. As scripture notes that the beast had a head wound but that wound would be healed. This is noting the time when the empire looked like it would collapse. After Nero the Claudian line ended. It was only until Vespasia from the flavian line did the Rome resurrect or become the great world power it held during Nero. The head wound of the Beast(Rome) was healed. I believe Vespasian who was the 10th King in succession was the 8th King. He was the Emperor who ordered the siege(tribulation) of Jerusalem that lasted 3.5 years or 42 months. Vespasian was the King that scripture states very strangely as being the eighth and belonging to the seven other emperor’s(Kings.)

I believe scripture is clear that these heads of the beast are Kings and not empires. Staying with the audience that first heard the prophecy is vital in interpreting who these Kings are.

God Bless.How convenient to just kind of toss the 8th and 9th kings aside and declare the 10th king to be the 8th. :rolleyes:

Also, how exactly did Vespasian ascend out of the bottomless pit?

Rev 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.
11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The bottomless pit is the same place where demonic locusts ascend out of in Rev. 9 and where Satan is bound in Rev. 20. How could that be a place where a mortal man comes from when it seems to clearly be the domain of spirit beings only?

Also, it says the beast that would ascend out of the bottomless pit "was, and is not". How does that apply to Vespasian?

danield
Dec 31st 2008, 01:08 AM
I have missed a lot of this thread, but in response to the op, I just completely disagree. You see I think people are just cutting our God short. I think people are trying to fit scripture into a scenario that could plausible be true when all the while God is fixing to bring his glory to all. I mean think about it, is God limited to bringing about one the greatest events mankind has ever seen only though symbolism which could create doubt on many people for generations to come? My case in point, when God wanted to make an impact on the world as in the days of Noah, he brought about a flood to cover the earth. I mean this was as clear of an event as you could get. The bible is filled with events that are direct fulfillment of what he said would come to pass. Look at Abraham, his descendants do number the stars above. Joshua’s seven year famine came completely true. Jesus came and became the savior to all even though the cornerstone was rejected. Mosses brought his people out of Egypt and God actually feed them while in the desert. God brought seven plagues on Egypt, and each time he harden Pharaoh’s heart in order for all to see who was God. When God does something, he usually leaves no stone unturned. And one of the biggest foretold prophesy in scripture should not have to be pieced together for only historians to understand. A first grader will understand who is God after the seven seals are broken.

I think the seven Kings are seven kings. It is not like the Greeks and Hebrews did not know what a king was. So I am taking God’s word on it. I personally think these events will come true so that one generation will be able to witness it all clearly.

DurbanDude
Dec 31st 2008, 09:17 AM
I have missed a lot of this thread, but in response to the op, I just completely disagree. You see I think people are just cutting our God short. I think people are trying to fit scripture into a scenario that could plausible be true when all the while God is fixing to bring his glory to all. I mean think about it, is God limited to bringing about one the greatest events mankind has ever seen only though symbolism which could create doubt on many people for generations to come? My case in point, when God wanted to make an impact on the world as in the days of Noah, he brought about a flood to cover the earth. I mean this was as clear of an event as you could get. The bible is filled with events that are direct fulfillment of what he said would come to pass. Look at Abraham, his descendants do number the stars above. Joshua’s seven year famine came completely true. Jesus came and became the savior to all even though the cornerstone was rejected. Mosses brought his people out of Egypt and God actually feed them while in the desert. God brought seven plagues on Egypt, and each time he harden Pharaoh’s heart in order for all to see who was God. When God does something, he usually leaves no stone unturned. And one of the biggest foretold prophesy in scripture should not have to be pieced together for only historians to understand. A first grader will understand who is God after the seven seals are broken.

I think the seven Kings are seven kings. It is not like the Greeks and Hebrews did not know what a king was. So I am taking God’s word on it. I personally think these events will come true so that one generation will be able to witness it all clearly.


Then who do you think the seven kings are, the five that were (before John's revelation) , the one that was,and the one that was to come. When I believed in the seven kings, 5 that were, as hard as I tried there were just no set of 5 kings that could possibly fulfil those verses.

Also, what about this:

Daniel 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

If you are taking this at face value, then you would see the four beasts of Daniel 7 as four kings. But then Daniel says this:

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth

As usual , Daniel gives clues how to interpret Revelation. Here is a clear clue, when the word "kings" is used in symbolic language this CAN mean kingdoms, the bible has no problem with using the word "kings" to mean kingdoms,I don't see why we should have a problem with it, especially since Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 have so many paralells.

forum lurker
Dec 31st 2008, 12:24 PM
9And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.


The seven heads are seven mountains, and there are also seven kings. If the heads represent only kings, the woman would sit on the kings. Maybe they wouldn't mind that, but the horns coming out of the kings seems unlikely. This would mean, that the kings would have to get pregnant or be some kind of mutant-kings to produce the horns. :spin:

To me the more plausible explanation is, that these 2 sevens, the seven mountains and the seven kings both represent the head. Otherwise it would seem that the beast is missing bodyparts. Here the Babylonian empire is compared to a mountain:

''And I will render unto Babylon and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea all their evil that they have done in Zion in your sight, saith the LORD. Behold, I [am] against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.'' (Jeremiah 51:24-25)

John146
Dec 31st 2008, 04:26 PM
The seven heads are seven mountains, and there are also seven kings. If the heads represent only kings, the woman would sit on the kings. Maybe they wouldn't mind that, but the horns coming out of the kings seems unlikely. This would mean, that the kings would have to get pregnant or be some kind of mutant-kings to produce the horns. :spin:

To me the more plausible explanation is, that these 2 sevens, the seven mountains and the seven kings both represent the head. Otherwise it would seem that the beast is missing bodyparts. Here the Babylonian empire is compared to a mountain:

''And I will render unto Babylon and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea all their evil that they have done in Zion in your sight, saith the LORD. Behold, I [am] against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.'' (Jeremiah 51:24-25)I agree. I believe the seven mountains refer to the seven kingdoms/empires that the seven kings rule over and not to the seven hills of Rome as some suggest.

Mark F
Dec 31st 2008, 05:50 PM
This is crazy-complicated but it does become clear with study.

Rev 13
1 Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. 2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.


This is a composite of the beasts of Daniel 7, by reading that account it is clear that Dan 7 is end-time seeing as the kingdom of God defeats it and sets up and everlasting kingdom.

Dan 2 is speaking also of end-times as it says the God of heaven will in the time of these kings set up and everlasting kingdom.

They do tell the people from Daniel's time a near prophecy as these kingdoms develope, but it is primarily concerned with end-times.

Notice in Rev 13 above that the 7 headed and ten horned beast has charachteristics of the beasts from Dan 7, like a leopard..Greece, feet of a bear...Babylon, mouth of a lion...persia. They are in reverse order from Daniel's account as we are looking backward.

Why does the beast have the same descriptions as the 3rd, 4th, and 5th kingdoms of the past?

The 4th beast of Daniel 7 is the one with ten horns...very important, our beast from Rev 13 also has ten horns.

John himself rules out the 6th kingdom as forum lurker pointed out as well.

Rev 17:10b
The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.

So this is critical.

1) Egypt--was
2) Assyria--was
3)Babylon--was
4) Medo-Persia--was
5) Greece--was

6) Rome--is not

7) The 4th from Daniel 7, The legs of iron from Daniel 2. The wounded head from Rev 13.

8) The "healed" wounded head the revived kingdom. This is the kingdom with ten horns

Dan 7:23-25
23 “Thus he said:
‘ The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute[d] the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.

Remember, John said the beast was....but at his time was not. Yes, the parts that Rome occupied that the previous 5 were made up of is included, but Rome is not the 6th, 7th, and 8th.

DurbanDude
Jan 2nd 2009, 06:55 AM
1) Egypt--was
2) Assyria--was
3)Babylon--was
4) Medo-Persia--was
5) Greece--was

6) Rome--is not

7) The 4th from Daniel 7, The legs of iron from Daniel 2. The wounded head from Rev 13.

8) The "healed" wounded head the revived kingdom. This is the kingdom with ten horns
.

Your timeline is not making sense, the 6th empire exists at the time of writing of Rev(five were, one IS). Rome existed at that time therefore cannot be the empire that IS NOT.

1) Egypt--was -------------------Israel is an empire under David and Solomon
2) Assyria--was ----------------- Israel is a minor state in the Middle east compared to Assyria
3) Babylon--was -----------------Israel is nearly destroyed and is a minor state of Babylon, the temple is destroyed
4) Medo-Persia--was -------------Israel is rebuilt under the Persian reign
5) Greece--was ------------------Israel becomes an independent state for a few years
6) Rome - IS ---------------------Israel is destroyed - Israel ceases to exist
7) Holy Rome - remains -----------Israel is re-established
8) Rome city sits on the beast of Rev 17 (the little horn of the fourth beast of Daniel 7)
At this time Israel is the ruling country of earth under the false Messiah-the antichrist

4th Beast of Daniel = empires 6,7,8 of Rev 17 = ROME
Empire 8 of Rev=little horn of Daniel 7
Beast of Revelation 17 = Israel (Rome rides Israel - sets up the antichrist as world leader from Israel) = the country that was , and is not , and is to come.
Two different perspectives of the same empire. Any other explanation of Daniel 7 and Rev 17 contradicts itself.

forum lurker
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:02 AM
Your timeline is not making sense, the 6th empire exists at the time of writing of Rev(five were, one IS). Rome existed at that time therefore cannot be the empire that IS NOT.

Isn't it the beast, that is not (and was), not the empire? ;)

Rome exists (empire)
Beast exists not

-> Rome is not the Beast

DurbanDude
Jan 2nd 2009, 08:24 AM
Isn't it the beast, that is not (and was), not the empire? ;)

Rome exists (empire)
Beast exists not

-> Rome is not the Beast

The beast is an empire, this defines the beast. Only when human attributes are given to the beast can we see the beast as the antichrist, the final ruler of the fourth empire.

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.


The beast of Daniel and the beast of Revelation have subtle differences , if you mix them up it can be very confusing. The beast of Daniel exists at the time of writing of Revelation (Rome), the beast of Rev 17 does not. Whichever country you believe to be the beast must reconcile this apparent contradiction with clarity. What country do you feel is the beast of Revelation?

The beast of Daniel relates to the 6th , 7th, and 8th empires of the beast of Revelation.

The beast of Revelation 17 relates to the little horn of the beast of Daniel 7, and is the 8th empire of Rev 17

Romulus
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:58 PM
How convenient to just kind of toss the 8th and 9th kings aside and declare the 10th king to be the 8th.


Also, how exactly did Vespasian ascend out of the bottomless pit?

Rev 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.
11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The bottomless pit is the same place where demonic locusts ascend out of in Rev. 9 and where Satan is bound in Rev. 20. How could that be a place where a mortal man comes from when it seems to clearly be the domain of spirit beings only?

Also, it says the beast that would ascend out of the bottomless pit "was, and is not". How does that apply to Vespasian?

Hi John,

It is not convenient to throwout a clear succession, especially when the first 7 Kings was one after the other. The language in the scripture notes something different then clear succession for the 8th King. Of course it should be assumed that the 8th King comes directly after the 7th King. My point is that the language used notes that a clear succession just as with the other 7 kings is not the case. Why does the scripture note the phrase:

even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Why does scripture have to mention that this 8th king is of the seven and more importantly that "he is the eighth"? If he clearly was the eighth in succession, scripture would not have gone to such lengths to to mention that he is who he is.

If the beast is not literally a beast then the symbolism warrants that we question if an actual bottomless pit will appear as well. Also, the bottomless pit is noted as the place of demons. Is it that hard to believe the symbolism that evil comes from the same place?

I explained how the year of the four emperors after the suicide of Nero left Rome in turmoil. This event also applies to the Beast(Rome):

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition

1) The beast that was-before and during Nero (Claudian Dynasty)
2) The beast is not-Nero's suicide "year of the four emperors"
3) The beast that shall ascend-Vespasian (not occurred yet)


This is all describing the beast(Rome) and what was happening in the years prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Any chance you read the rest of my post on the who the 7 kings were? We kind of skipped the entire question given in the beginning. I didn't hear anything about the 7 emperors of Rome who fit exactly into what was spoken about the beast who I believe is Rome. Starting with Julius and ending with Galba. Five were fallen, one is (Nero), the other has not yet come (Galba.) Nero also fits with the audience who heard the prophecy and that Nero using gematria is 666.

third hero
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:34 AM
For the record, I have read some of the other posts, and so that my opinion doesn't get meshed up in with the others, I have decided to directly answer the OP. :eek::crazy::wave:

1. The seven-headed beast is represents two separate and distinct symbols.
a) The seven heads represents seven kings
b) they also represent seven hills.

2. The dual-symbolism is meant to identify both the city of Babylon, and the man called the Beast.

Notice the description of the Beast in Revelation. In every instance, the beast has seven heads. As chapter 17 describes, the beast's heads represent both the hills on which the woman sits, and the kings who are part of the Beast.

Because I am a simpleton, I have to bring this version to light.

I believe that the seven kings are actually seven kings. As far as whether they are in fact Roman emperors or actual dynasties in the world throughout history, I can not comment, other than to say that it is much easier to think that these kings are indeed emperors of Rome. I can't sufficiently back that up, but that's all I know on that subject.

Well, after doing some research, it seems to me that the only two places thast would fit the bill as being the city on seven hills that can be seen from the sea when on fire are Mecca and Rome. However, since the city that ruled the nations at the time John wrote the prophecy was Rome, I am inclined to believe that Rome has to be the city that is identified as Babylon. Jerusalem is eliminated because of Zechariah 14:12, and Mecca wasn't even a city when John wrote Revelation.

So, there you have it. A simpleton's version of the seven heads of Babylon.

forum lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:33 AM
I have one more point why I believe Rome doesn't fit the description: It isn't surrounded by 7 mountains, it's surrounded by 7 hills. The Bible is familiar with the word 'hill' and makes the distinction between the two.

The seven mountains isn't a vision, it's what the angel tells him.

DurbanDude
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:43 AM
2. The dual-symbolism is meant to identify both the city of Babylon, and the man called the Beast.


I agree with this statement, except that the beast is an empire, and is given the attributes of a man (the antichrist) because the antichrist is the leader of that beast or empire.


I believe that the seven kings are actually seven kings. As far as whether they are in fact Roman emperors or actual dynasties in the world throughout history, I can not comment, other than to say that it is much easier to think that these kings are indeed emperors of Rome. I can't sufficiently back that up, but that's all I know on that subject.
There are no set of five kings , Roman or otherwise that fit Rev 17. This sequence would also mean that the king AFTER the moment that Revelation was written is the beast, the 8th king. We know that the beast is rather a future empire, not a past king. I tried to believe the 7 kings theory and only when I could not fit any sequence of 7 kings , did I realise that these are 7 empires.

Daniel 7 gives us a lot of understanding of the symbolism of Revelation. In Daniel 7 we learn that beasts are represented by kingdoms, that horns represent regional powers. We also learn that kings represent kingdoms:

7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.



Well, after doing some research, it seems to me that the only two places that would fit the bill as being the city on seven hills that can be seen from the sea when on fire are Mecca and Rome. However, since the city that ruled the nations at the time John wrote the prophecy was Rome, I am inclined to believe that Rome has to be the city that is identified as Babylon. Jerusalem is eliminated because of Zechariah 14:12, and Mecca wasn't even a city when John wrote Revelation.
Agreed!

DurbanDude
Jan 3rd 2009, 09:45 AM
I have one more point why I believe Rome doesn't fit the description: It isn't surrounded by 7 mountains, it's surrounded by 7 hills. The Bible is familiar with the word 'hill' and makes the distinction between the two.

The seven mountains isn't a vision, it's what the angel tells him.

Most translations say 7 hills.

forum lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 11:16 AM
Most translations say 7 hills.

Ok, my bad then. The Bible I use and KJV say mountains. Have to stick with the other inconsistencies ;)

forum lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 04:22 PM
The beast is an empire, this defines the beast. Only when human attributes are given to the beast can we see the beast as the antichrist, the final ruler of the fourth empire.

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.


The beast of Daniel and the beast of Revelation have subtle differences , if you mix them up it can be very confusing. The beast of Daniel exists at the time of writing of Revelation (Rome), the beast of Rev 17 does not. Whichever country you believe to be the beast must reconcile this apparent contradiction with clarity. What country do you feel is the beast of Revelation?

The beast of Daniel relates to the 6th , 7th, and 8th empires of the beast of Revelation.

The beast of Revelation 17 relates to the little horn of the beast of Daniel 7, and is the 8th empire of Rev 17

Why do you think the fourth beast of Daniel has to be Rome?

I don't see the beast as a single country, I think it as a geographic area in the Middle East and the heads represent different empires in that area, focusing in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

I don't think the Roman Empire is a part of the beast, only the Middle Eastern geographic area which once was a part of the Roman Empire.

third hero
Jan 3rd 2009, 06:39 PM
I agree with this statement, except that the beast is an empire, and is given the attributes of a man (the antichrist) because the antichrist is the leader of that beast or empire.

I really se no difference between the man who runs the kingdom, and the kingdom itself. In my opinion, the kingdom rises and falls at the same time that the man of sin rises and falls. So, they are both interchangable and synonymous.


3H, simpleton version doesn't fit :eek::rolleyes::crazy:, there are no set of five kings , Roman or otherwise that fit Rev 17. This sequence would also mean that the king AFTER the moment that Revelation was written is the beast, the 8th king. We know that the beast is rather a future empire, not a past king. I tried to believe the 7 kings theory and only when I could not fit any sequence of 7 kings , did I realise that these are 7 empires.

You see, the simpleton approach is the easiest method of understanding the seven kings, although I do not believe that it is the most accurate. In truth, I have no idea what the seven kings stand for. They could mean seven empires, and they could mean seven significant emperors of the old Roman empire. I really don't know.


Daniel 7 gives us a lot of understanding of the symbolism of Revelation. In Daniel 7 we learn that beasts are represented by kingdoms, that horns represent regional powers. We also learn that kings represent kingdoms:

7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Actually, I believe that Daniel 7's four beasts are the four components of the Beast in Revelation. Using the description of the Beast in REvelation 13:1 gave me this thought:

The first three beasts in Daniel 7 are three three nations that had power right before the "Beast" (Man of sin), decides to overthrow them all and annex them into his kingdom, which would be the fourth beast. It would also, in a weird sense, signify a progression of the rise of the Beast, (both the kingdom and the man of sin who rules it). But, I know that this idea is new, and most of what I have state is just my thoughts, without a whole lot of collaboration in scripture.

Other than that, I now agree with your thought concerning the term "king" representing kingdoms and not just kings. I guess I have some work to do in finding out what those eight kings actually represent.

As to forumlurker, I have the Interlinear Greek to English version of the New Testament, and the translation there is "hill" and not mountain. It's one of the mistakes that the translators of the KJV have done, which includes the color of the fourth horseman, which is pale green, and not just pale. It's minute, but important. Seven Mountains changes everything, and brings into discussion a myriad of cities that could qualify. However, seven hills brings things into focus. Rome was always known in antiquity as the "city of seven hills".

forum lurker
Jan 3rd 2009, 07:12 PM
As to forumlurker, I have the Interlinear Greek to English version of the New Testament, and the translation there is "hill" and not mountain. It's one of the mistakes that the translators of the KJV have done, which includes the color of the fourth horseman, which is pale green, and not just pale. It's minute, but important. Seven Mountains changes everything, and brings into discussion a myriad of cities that could qualify. However, seven hills brings things into focus. Rome was always known in antiquity as the "city of seven hills".I assume the word you looked is not "hora"? I google-searched to find the original word. Here are 2 copypastes what I found:


The word "mountain" which we see in the King James Version and the New American Standard Version refers to the original Greek word "hora". The most scholarly of Greek lexicons tell us that the word in its most basic form refers to a large land mass. It usually was used for mountains. But it could also refer to a desert. Now, remember deserts are flat. So you might ask what does this have to do with the idea that Rome is being referred to? The answer is that most other newer English translations use the word "hill". Why these new versions choose to use the word "hill" is something of a mystery to me. Strong's Concordance dictionary does mention it in passing because elsewhere the KJV sometimes uses "hill" in reference to that Greek word "hora".

What we do know is that there was a different word in the Greek language that was generally used for "hill". It was the word "bounos". This word was actually a word of Roman origination. The Romans used this word exclusively for the 7 hills of Rome. The Greeks simply had borrowed this word from the Romans. Thus in the first century AD, anyone who was writing in the Greek and referred to Rome's 7 hills would use the word "bounos". To use any other word, like "hora" would be inaccurate. The Greeks and Romans both used the word "bounos" exclusively in referring to the 7 hills of Rome.

The above passage is most often used by those who would like to identify end-times Babylon with the Roman Catholic Church. It is well known that at one time Rome was built over seven hills. However, the Greek word that the NIV translates as "hill" is the word hora. This word is more accurately interpreted by the KJV and other versions as "mountain." The Greek word for "hill" is the word bounos. This word is one that was borrowed from Latin after the Roman conquests specifically to refer to the "hills" of Rome. To my knowledge there is no reference in ancient Greek literature that describes the hills of Rome as "seven hora," and they are always referred to as "the seven bounos of Rome." There is no precedent whatsoever to use the word hora to describe the seven hills of Rome.

third hero
Jan 4th 2009, 06:40 AM
Your source please? I wouldn't mind seing if the source you quoted is actually credible, or just another comment from another person with an agenda. I do not know if your reference is actually a unbiased source, although the wording leads me to believe that it is not.

Honestly, the quote that you have posted seems to be an opinion of someone who is biased, which would be the same as if I had quoted someone with a bias towards what I believe. Neither sources would be credible. It's only fair to reveal your source, as everyone else does the same thing.

forum lurker
Jan 4th 2009, 07:21 AM
Those were the 2 first pages that came up. I agree with you, they may be biased opinions. However, I didn't find a site that would suggest the original word would be other than the mentioned "hora" with a different meaning.

I found only 3 pages with my google skills:

(I haven't looked at the other stuff on these pages, should maybe be taken with a grain of salt)

http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-6.htm (http://www.apocalypsesoon.org/xfile-6.html)
http://cuttingedge.org/AmericathebabylonExerpts.htm

http://www.coyhwh.com/
Remnants%20walk%20news%20(Jan-Feb).doc (http://www.coyhwh.com/papers/remnantsWalk/Remnants%20walk%20news%20%28Jan-Feb%29.doc)

Young's & Green's Literal Translations translates it to "mountains" as well.

(http://yahushua.net/babylon/liberty/catholic.htm)

DurbanDude
Jan 4th 2009, 10:46 AM
I really se no difference between the man who runs the kingdom, and the kingdom itself. In my opinion, the kingdom rises and falls at the same time that the man of sin rises and falls. So, they are both interchangable and synonymous.

".

True. I agree with you here.



You see, the simpleton approach is the easiest method of understanding the seven kings, although I do not believe that it is the most accurate. In truth, I have no idea what the seven kings stand for. They could mean seven empires, and they could mean seven significant emperors of the old Roman empire. I really don't know.


I hope others don't think I initiated the phrase "simpleton approach" on my own. I only used this phrase because this is how you described your own approach, am sure you didn't take this up the wrong way :). I am just saying this because others may think I'm ripping your opinions but for the record I enjoy your posts and mainly agree with what you say. I would never rip off someone's opinions with a phrase like that, but was amused by your description of your own theory. I myself prefer the simple literal way of interpreting, but sometimes the symbolic approach just is more accurate.




Actually, I believe that Daniel 7's four beasts are the four components of the Beast in Revelation. Using the description of the Beast in REvelation 13:1 gave me this thought:

The first three beasts in Daniel 7 are three three nations that had power right before the "Beast" (Man of sin), decides to overthrow them all and annex them into his kingdom, which would be the fourth beast. It would also, in a weird sense, signify a progression of the rise of the Beast, (both the kingdom and the man of sin who rules it). But, I know that this idea is new, and most of what I have state is just my thoughts, without a whole lot of collaboration in scripture.


I basically agree with what you are saying here, my theory that I'm still developing at the moment goes something like this:
The final beast will rule the whole earth, therefore will encompass the three previous empires as well. The roles of the three previous empires in this final empire are as follows:

The beast empire will have the mouth of a lion, ie the vocal support of the Muslim country of the lion/Babylon/Iraq
The beast empire will have the feet of a bear, ie feet represent going forth of a philosophy, the doctrinal support of the Muslim country, the bear/Persia/Iran
The beast empire will resemble the Leopard ie it will be a similar Meditteranean based empire to Greece.



Other than that, I now agree with your thought concerning the term "king" representing kingdoms and not just kings. I guess I have some work to do in finding out what those eight kings actually represent.


Always nice to be agreed with!

DurbanDude
Jan 4th 2009, 11:26 AM
Why do you think the fourth beast of Daniel has to be Rome?


Daniel describes 4 consecutive empires, the fourth which rules the earth.

The first rules at the time of writing of Daniel - BABYLON
The second was obviously Persia , because Persia conquered Babylon.
Supporting this is the fact that it is described as a lopsided alliance, the bear is lopsided. There was muchintermarriage between the Medes and the Persians, both having regular leaders of the empire, but Persia dominated the alliance, and it is commonly known as one empire , but it is known as the Medo-Persian Empire because its leaders came from two separate tribal groups.
7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.

The third was simply the Grecian empire. We know it is the third kingdom quite simply because Greece was the empre that conquered the Persian Empire. When Alexander the Great died his empire was split between his four generals , and became 4 seperate empires, each having Greek influence in their regions because their leaders were Greek and not locals.
The description of the third empire confirms this:
7:6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

The fourth is Rome quite simply because Rome was a separate empire that was developing outside the borders of Greece and was the next empire, the one that conquered Greece. Some on this site have tried to claim that Rome is somehow a continuation of Greece because of cultural similarities. Tell this to a historian, that they have it wrong , and the Roman empire is the Greek Empire!? Rome was outside the borders of Greece and conquered Greece in battle, the fourth empire. Daniel 7 says that this fourth empire is the final empire.

Add to this the fact that Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and Daniel 9 says that the ruler who will come will come from the people who destroy Jerusalem, and you get another confirmation that this final ruler will be Roman. Some have tried to distort this point by saying that the soldiers were predominately Syrian that destroyed Jerusalem,but only one of the 4 legions was predominately Syrian, the other 3 were European legions.

Also the description of the city that rules over cities in Rev 17:18 fits only Rome if you place importance on the use of the present tense of the verse. Rome was ruling at that time.
17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

forum lurker
Jan 4th 2009, 01:44 PM
Daniel describes 4 consecutive empires, the fourth which rules the earth.

The first rules at the time of writing of Daniel - BABYLON

Agreed


The second was obviously Persia , because Persia conquered Babylon.
Supporting this is the fact that it is described as a lopsided alliance, the bear is lopsided. There was muchintermarriage between the Medes and the Persians, both having regular leaders of the empire, but Persia dominated the alliance, and it is commonly known as one empire , but it is known as the Medo-Persian Empire because its leaders came from two separate tribal groups.
7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.

Agreed


The third was simply the Grecian empire. We know it is the third kingdom quite simply because Greece was the empre that conquered the Persian Empire. When Alexander the Great died his empire was split between his four generals , and became 4 seperate empires, each having Greek influence in their regions because their leaders were Greek and not locals.
The description of the third empire confirms this:
7:6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

Agreed


The fourth is Rome quite simply because Rome was a separate empire that was developing outside the borders of Greece and was the next empire, the one that conquered Greece. Some on this site have tried to claim that Rome is somehow a continuation of Greece because of cultural similarities. Tell this to a historian, that they have it wrong , and the Roman empire is the Greek Empire!? Rome was outside the borders of Greece and conquered Greece in battle, the fourth empire. Daniel 7 says that this fourth empire is the final empire.

Disagreed. :saint:

Let's look at Daniel 2

39 "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. (Daniel 2:39-40)

Did The Roman Empire crush and break all the others?

If we look at The Roman Empire at its greatest extent, it never reached beyond the Euphrates River. It didn't even come close to conquer the previous empires. It certainly didn't crush the Medo-Persian empire, its center being in Iran.

Also Daniel 2:34-35:

''Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.''

The 4 kingdoms, which are represented in the statue, are going to be destroyed together. 3 of these kingdoms ruled in the past. How could they be destroyed, if the don't exist anymore? The only way this could happen, is if the empires represented in the statue are in fact one and the same continuos empire. If you look at the 3 first empires, they covered nearly identical areas. The 4th empire must be from the same area as the 3 previous empires.

To me it seems that The Roman Empire doesn't qualify here.


Add to this the fact that Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and Daniel 9 says that the ruler who will come will come from the people who destroy Jerusalem, and you get another confirmation that this final ruler will be Roman. Some have tried to distort this point by saying that the soldiers were predominately Syrian that destroyed Jerusalem,but only one of the 4 legions was predominately Syrian, the other 3 were European legions.

According to this source: http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar04.html

The temple was destroyed by Legion X Fretensis which was Syrian.

http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html

Who were the Roman Syrians? This document might give the right answer:

:http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrianidentity.pdf

a short clip:


In Armenian, Parthian and Egyptian sources of the Roman period, Roman Syria is consistently and unmistakably referred to as "Assyria" (Asorik', 'swry'; 'Išr; see Frye 1992; Steiner 1993).

DurbanDude
Jan 4th 2009, 02:46 PM
Disagreed. :saint:

Let's look at Daniel 2

39 "After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. (Daniel 2:39-40)

Did The Roman Empire crush and break all the others?

If we look at The Roman Empire at its greatest extent, it never reached beyond the Euphrates River. It didn't even come close to conquer the previous empires. It certainly didn't crush the Medo-Persian empire, its center being in Iran.

Also Daniel 2:34-35:

''Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.''

The 4 kingdoms, which are represented in the statue, are going to be destroyed together. 3 of these kingdoms ruled in the past. How could they be destroyed, if the don't exist anymore? The only way this could happen, is if the empires represented in the statue are in fact one and the same continuos empire. If you look at the 3 first empires, they covered nearly identical areas. The 4th empire must be from the same area as the 3 previous empires.

To me it seems that The Roman Empire doesn't qualify here.

FL , the main misunderstanding that you have concerning my point of view is that I believe the fourth empire to be an empire that will never end right until the second coming. The Roman Empire changes form but never stops ruling until it dominates the whole earth and completely crushes all before it. Daniel 2, Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 all indicate various stages of this fourth empire:

Daniel 2 describes the fourth "iron" kingdom, but this kingdom has 3 phases:
Iron phase
Split phase , iron and clay
Ten toes, iron and clay

Daniel 7 describes two phases of Rome:
Beast dominates and crushes earth
Little horn controls 3 horns directly , but also rules earth

Revelation 17 describes 3 phases of the final empire (if read in conjunction with the fourth empire that starts at the same time as the 6th head of the 7 consecutive empires.

6th kingdom existed during the writing of Revelation(has to be Rome)
7th kingdom follows (I believe to be the Holy Roman Empire)
8th kingdom is not Rome, but is ridden by Rome
(we know the 8th kingdom, the beast of Rev17 is not Rome, because it ceased to exist at that time)


So all that destroying and crushing is still happening and going to happen.




According to this source: http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar04.html (http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar04.html)

The temple was destroyed by Legion X Fretensis which was Syrian.

http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html (http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/x_fretensis.html)

Who were the Roman Syrians? This document might give the right answer:

:http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrianidentity.pdf (http://www.aina.org/articles/assyrianidentity.pdf)

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

The city and the sanctuary were destroyed by four Roman legions. One of these four had Syrian soldiers within it. It was a Roman army with predominately Roman soldiers. If one of these legions was destroying the sanctuary and the rest destroying the city, all four legions were still involved. This was no Arab army destroying the city, that is a complete exaggeration. The two links don't add any facts to this debate as far as I can see.

Your view also ignores the fact that Rome was in fact the empire that destroyed the Greek empire, dominating all four of the regions of the Greek Empire. You can't ignore Rome.

forum lurker
Jan 4th 2009, 03:48 PM
The city and the sanctuary were destroyed by four Roman legions. One of these four had Syrian soldiers within it. It was a Roman army with predominately Roman soldiers. If one of these legions was destroying the sanctuary and the rest destroying the city, all four legions were still involved. This was no Arab army destroying the city, that is a complete exaggeration.

I only checked for that particular legion. This page suggests the majority of the Roman soldiery were Syrian:

http://www.bibleweb.com/content/josephus1templefall.htm

"the Roman soldiery, levied chiefly in Syria, took part with their countrymen."

According to this page http://www.livius.org/vi-vr/vitellius/vitellius4.html

the legion XII Fulminata was also Syrian.

I might look for more sources if I can find better ones.

DurbanDude
Jan 4th 2009, 04:07 PM
I only checked for that particular legion. This page suggests the majority of the Roman soldiery were Syrian:

http://www.bibleweb.com/content/josephus1templefall.htm

"the Roman soldiery, levied chiefly in Syria, took part with their countrymen."

I might look for more sources if I can find better ones.


I couldn't find that sentence in the link and need more detail to know what this means, can you quote the whole passage, the link is too long to read in detail.

I already tried to find more information but all I could find is that 2 of the legions had only recently arrived from Europe, they had European soldiers. The third had been there a bit longer in the Middle East, yet was known as a Roman based legion. Only the 4th had a Syrian base.

forum lurker
Jan 4th 2009, 06:03 PM
FL , the main misunderstanding that you have concerning my point of view is that I believe the fourth empire to be an empire that will never end right until the second coming. The Roman Empire changes form but never stops ruling until it dominates the whole earth and completely crushes all before it. Daniel 2, Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 all indicate various stages of this fourth empire:

I never said the fourth empire was already gone, did I?


Daniel 7 describes two phases of Rome:
Beast dominates and crushes earth
Little horn controls 3 horns directly , but also rules earth

Revelation 17 describes 3 phases of the final empire (if read in conjunction with the fourth empire that starts at the same time as the 6th head of the 7 consecutive empires.

6th kingdom existed during the writing of Revelation(has to be Rome)
7th kingdom follows (I believe to be the Holy Roman Empire)
8th kingdom is not Rome, but is ridden by Rome
(we know the 8th kingdom, the beast of Rev17 is not Rome, because it ceased to exist at that time) I don't see other major issues with this, except Rev17 which states, that at time of the 6th empire the beast empire was, it already had existed once. (You seemed not to agree with this idea, may I ask why?)


So all that destroying and crushing is still happening and going to happen.Are you talking about Daniel 8 here and the goat? It clearly finished its job, while the fourth beast has still some stamping to do. I never said the beast already performed its stamping.


Your view also ignores the fact that Rome was in fact the empire that destroyed the Greek empire, dominating all four of the regions of the Greek Empire. You can't ignore Rome.Roman Empire existed on completely different areas than the 3 previous empires, therefore it doesn't fit with Daniel's statue. I have also brought several other contradictions up, which have been ignored.

Roman Empire:

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:FxpiOGE8DOYZ-M:http://www.thejournal.org/studylibrary/maps/roman-empire.gif

Grecian Empire:

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:GdDuz5gEK2pFcM:http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/Image2.gif

DurbanDude
Jan 4th 2009, 08:23 PM
I never said the fourth empire was already gone, did I?

I don't see other major issues with this, except Rev17 which states, that at time of the 6th empire the beast empire was, it already had existed once. (You seemed not to agree with this idea, may I ask why?)

Are you talking about Daniel 8 here and the goat? It clearly finished its job, while the fourth beast has still some stamping to do. I never said the beast already performed its stamping.

Roman Empire existed on completely different areas than the 3 previous empires, therefore it doesn't fit with Daniel's statue. I have also brought several other contradictions up, which have been ignored.

Roman Empire:

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:FxpiOGE8DOYZ-M:http://www.thejournal.org/studylibrary/maps/roman-empire.gif

Grecian Empire:

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:GdDuz5gEK2pFcM:http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/Image2.gif

FL, I thought that your basic problem with Rome being the 4th empire, is that Rome has not taken over the full Persian territory. I am just saying that Rome will still do this. Instead of just looking at what Rome did do when it had emperors, modern Rome is still expanding even today. The various stages of Rome show that there is more to come. None of the empires took over the entire full territory of the previous immediately. That is why I thought you were stuck on looking at ancient Rome.

I think that this point covers your objections, I'm happy to discuss any points that you feel I've missed.

ph33r
Jan 4th 2009, 09:14 PM
I believe in the 7 headed kingdom being russia, germany, Great britan and the 10 kingdom all forming a new world order. It seems to make allot of sense and tie in better with the current world situation.

third hero
Jan 5th 2009, 06:32 AM
I hope others don't think I initiated the phrase "simpleton approach" on my own. I only used this phrase because this is how you described your own approach, am sure you didn't take this up the wrong way :). I am just saying this because others may think I'm ripping your opinions but for the record I enjoy your posts and mainly agree with what you say. I would never rip off someone's opinions with a phrase like that, but was amused by your description of your own theory. I myself prefer the simple literal way of interpreting, but sometimes the symbolic approach just is more accurate.

Why would I get upset with the phrase I named? Of course I wouldn't get offended, because I understand that what I believe is both the simplest method of understanding the riddle of the seven heads. I also said that it is very possible to not be the most accurate. Anyway, I thought all of you would enjoyt that! Glad to see I was right:D

forum lurker
Jan 5th 2009, 08:44 AM
FL, I thought that your basic problem with Rome being the 4th empire, is that Rome has not taken over the full Persian territory. I am just saying that Rome will still do this. Instead of just looking at what Rome did do when it had emperors, modern Rome is still expanding even today. The various stages of Rome show that there is more to come. None of the empires took over the entire full territory of the previous immediately. That is why I thought you were stuck on looking at ancient Rome.

I think that this point covers your objections, I'm happy to discuss any points that you feel I've missed.

Yes, that would solve the problem with the statue, but I just don't see the crusades starting again any time soon.

The EU is the most static, stable and politically correct "empire" I could possibly imagine. When even many European countries have difficulties meeting the criteria to become a member, what are the chances for the Middle Eastern countries? How do EU's requirements for human rights and intolerance with corruption mix there?

And if you look at the EU, can you really say it's a modern Roman Empire? To me it's just as much a British, French, Spanish, German and a Greek empire. Italy is by no means a special member.

Maybe you'll disagree with this, this is just how I see it. ;)

DurbanDude
Jan 5th 2009, 10:56 AM
Yes, that would solve the problem with the statue, but I just don't see the crusades starting again any time soon.

The EU is the most static, stable and politically correct "empire" I could possibly imagine. When even many European countries have difficulties meeting the criteria to become a member, what are the chances for the Middle Eastern countries? How do EU's requirements for human rights and intolerance with corruption mix there?

And if you look at the EU, can you really say it's a modern Roman Empire? To me it's just as much a British, French, Spanish, German and a Greek empire. Italy is by no means a special member.

Maybe you'll disagree with this, this is just how I see it. ;)

I believe the RCI to be completely underestimated. Do you know that the Jesuit branch has undercover operatives and even assassins? When the Holy Roman empire was nearly completely destroyed by Napoleon the Jesuit organisation developed a code and an oath based on "the ends justifies the means", anything to keep the power of the "mother church". Since then they have been doing all manner of atrocities in the name of God. Do you know that much of current world finance is RCI controlled? Including the world bank? Jesuits have even been known to infiltrate the true church, imposters used to bring down the true church.

I never mention the EU, to me it is just another political pawn in the power game between the RCI and Jews. Each is financially powerful and just as manipulative, each desperately trying to out-manouevre the other in the political power struggle for earth. For both its a matter of their own survival. The Islamic threat, once a nuisance, now a third financial player on earth. Only a general truce will bring world peace, with us Christians being the lone voice against a man who is leader of all 3 religions and even secular christianity, the antichrist.

John146
Jan 5th 2009, 05:00 PM
Most translations say 7 hills.The Greek word used for mountains/hills is "oros" (Strong's G3735) which can refer to either a mountain or a hill. It doesn't matter if it's mountains or hills because it's symbolic. It says the woman sits "upon many waters" (Rev 17:1). The waters symbolically represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15). This means the woman rules over many people rather than literal sits on water.

Shouldn't the description of the woman sitting upon the seven mountains/hills be understood the same way? I believe so. This means the seven mountains/hills symbolically represent something else. The woman does not literally sit upon the many waters so why should we think that the woman literally sits upon the seven mountains/hills? Instead, we should see it the same way as the woman sitting upon the many waters which has to do with ruling over many people. The woman rules over the seven mountains/hills.

Elsewhere in scripture, mountains symbolically refer to kingdoms. So, the woman Babylon rules over seven kingdoms. And there are seven kings that rule(d) over those kingdoms. I think that makes a lot more sense than understanding the mountains/hills in a literal sense.

DurbanDude
Jan 6th 2009, 08:55 AM
The Greek word used for mountains/hills is "oros" (Strong's G3735) which can refer to either a mountain or a hill. It doesn't matter if it's mountains or hills because it's symbolic. It says the woman sits "upon many waters" (Rev 17:1). The waters symbolically represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15). This means the woman rules over many people rather than literal sits on water.

Shouldn't the description of the woman sitting upon the seven mountains/hills be understood the same way? I believe so. This means the seven mountains/hills symbolically represent something else. The woman does not literally sit upon the many waters so why should we think that the woman literally sits upon the seven mountains/hills? Instead, we should see it the same way as the woman sitting upon the many waters which has to do with ruling over many people. The woman rules over the seven mountains/hills.

Elsewhere in scripture, mountains symbolically refer to kingdoms. So, the woman Babylon rules over seven kingdoms. And there are seven kings that rule(d) over those kingdoms. I think that makes a lot more sense than understanding the mountains/hills in a literal sense.

I agree that it could have a wider meaning. It was forum lurker that was focussing on the need to translate this as literal mountains, as an argument against Rome being the woman. That's why I mentioned the hills. I normally don't use this as a supportive argument for Rome being the woman, even though Rome was known as the city of seven hills. My main argument is the present tense used in Rev 17:18, and the descriptions of this city.

As for the woman ruling over 7 kings, these kings are more likely consecutive , (five were, one is, and one is to come).

forum lurker
Jan 6th 2009, 09:21 AM
The Greek word used for mountains/hills is "oros" (Strong's G3735) which can refer to either a mountain or a hill. It doesn't matter if it's mountains or hills because it's symbolic. It says the woman sits "upon many waters" (Rev 17:1). The waters symbolically represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15). This means the woman rules over many people rather than literal sits on water.

If the correct word is "oros" some might find this interesting:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Then+shall+they+be gin+to+say+to+the+mountains+Fall+on+us+and+to+the+ hills+Cover+us.&t=KJV&sf=5

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=23&v=30&t=KJV#conc/30

Also the word "oros" seems to refer to a mountain.

forum lurker
Jan 6th 2009, 09:53 AM
I agree that it could have a wider meaning. It was forum lurker that was focussing on the need to translate this as literal mountains, as an argument against Rome being the woman. That's why I mentioned the hills. I normally don't use this as a supportive argument for Rome being the woman, even though Rome was known as the city of seven hills. My main argument is the present tense used in Rev 17:18, and the descriptions of this city.

As for the woman ruling over 7 kings, these kings are more likely consecutive , (five were, one is, and one is to come).

To me finding the best translation is important especially when trying to figure out verses which are hard to determine whether they are symbolic or not. I have a feeling, that I might be a minority here, others maybe rather hold to the common, more popular views. However, I have noticed, that there are several verses that have a completely different meaning depending on translation.

I'm not trying to translate scripture to meet my views, I rather construct my view depending what scripture really says, and my experience is that it really doesn't do much harm other than to the ego perhaps.

I would certainly look into it, if someone had evidence for "hills" being the better translation.

DurbanDude
Jan 6th 2009, 10:09 AM
To me finding the best translation is important especially when trying to figure out verses which are hard to determine whether they are symbolic or not. I have a feeling, that I might be a minority here, others maybe rather hold to the common, more popular views. However, I have noticed, that there are several verses that have a completely different meaning depending on translation.

I'm not trying to translate scripture to meet my views, I rather construct my view depending what scripture really says, and my experience is that it really doesn't do much harm other than to the ego perhaps.

Reading your posts, you seem more open minded than most, which I believe is a good thing. Its good to delve into the true meaning when different translations contradict eachother. Its good to think outside the box, sometimes you hit on something that other people haven't seen yet, or a translation of a verse that is more accurate and yet less common.