PDA

View Full Version : Seven Mountains



Partaker of Christ
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:12 AM
A lot of people associate this with being Rome (Babylon).

It is said tha Mecca is also a city of seven mountains.

Since Babylon is destroyed by an army from the north, would not this be more inline?

Also;
Eze 38:13 Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?

Sheba, (south west) and Dedan (norh west) of Saudi Arabia.

I will have to ge back tomorrow, but I would be interested in others views.

ross3421
Jan 3rd 2009, 03:22 AM
A lot of people associate this with being Rome (Babylon).

It is said tha Mecca is also a city of seven mountains.

Since Babylon is destroyed by an army from the north, would not this be more inline?

Also;
Eze 38:13 Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?

Sheba, (south west) and Dedan (norh west) of Saudi Arabia.

I will have to ge back tomorrow, but I would be interested in others views.

Are the seven mountains literal? Or are they in reference to power? Since the mountains are referenced in conjuction with kings I would say that the mountains symbolize power in seven parts whereby a king oversees a part.

Re 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Re 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.
Re 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 number 7 should raise an alert to another meaning or parrallel. We see there are 7 candelsticks and an eighth which is the head. These seven candlesticks are the seven churches with Christ as the head. Likewise these seven mountains are a parrellel the the churches with an eighth as the head.

Kingdom of God.

Re 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Kingdom of Satan

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

Partaker of Christ
Jan 4th 2009, 01:12 AM
Are the seven mountains literal? Or are they in reference to power? Since the mountains are referenced in conjuction with kings I would say that the mountains symbolize power in seven parts whereby a king oversees a part.

Re 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Re 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.
Re 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 number 7 should raise an alert to another meaning or parrallel. We see there are 7 candelsticks and an eighth which is the head. These seven candlesticks are the seven churches with Christ as the head. Likewise these seven mountains are a parrellel the the churches with an eighth as the head.

Kingdom of God.

Re 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Kingdom of Satan

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

Hi Ross3421!

What is literal and what is symbolic, I am still trying to work out for myself. I am still a young learner as far as eschatology goes. I try and read from both view points.

Now the problem I have, with seven mountains being seven powers, is that this could then be most any seven powers, as none would particularly or specifically stand out.

ross3421
Jan 4th 2009, 01:31 AM
Now the problem I have, with seven mountains being seven powers, is that this could then be most any seven powers, as none would particularly or specifically stand out.

Could you further explain your point, thanks.

Mark F
Jan 4th 2009, 04:20 AM
Re 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.


Daniel 2:34-35
34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

and verse 44
And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.


The head is a mountain is a kingdom.

markedward
Jan 4th 2009, 05:19 AM
A lot of people associate this with being Rome.In my opinion:

It is virtually unthinkable for anyone to claim that the seven heads don't represent Rome in some fashion or another, for the following reasons.

1. John wrote the Revelation during the time period that the Roman Empire was in power. Rome was known throughout the world as "The City of the Seven Hills". It's absurd to claim that John would speak of seven hills during the rule of The City of the Seven Hills and for us to expect that he wasn't referring to that city.

2. John further tells us that there were seven heads which also represented seven kings and that the sixth king was in power at that time. What kings were in power over the Jews and Christians during the time wrote except the Roman Emperors?

John146
Jan 5th 2009, 10:23 PM
In my opinion:

It is virtually unthinkable for anyone to claim that the seven heads don't represent Rome in some fashion or another, for the following reasons.

1. John wrote the Revelation during the time period that the Roman Empire was in power. Rome was known throughout the world as "The City of the Seven Hills". It's absurd to claim that John would speak of seven hills during the rule of The City of the Seven Hills and for us to expect that he wasn't referring to that city.Unthinkable and absurd? I think you're going a bit overboard there with your choice of words. As Mark F showed in his post, a mountain in scripture can symbolically refer to a kingdom. There are seven mountains/hills and seven kings. I believe it is not absurd at all to believe that the seven mountains refer to the seven kingdoms over which the seven kings rule(d). Five of the kingdoms were fallen and one existed at the time Revelation was written. That was Rome. There is nothing unthinkable or absurd about believing that the five previous heads/mountains do not refer to Rome but rather refer to empires that preceded the Roman Empire.

Consider that the woman is said to not only sit upon the seven mountains/hills but also upon many waters (Rev 17:1). The many waters are not literal but refer to "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (Rev 17:15). Similarly, I believe the seven mountains/hills are also symbolic and represent kingdoms that the woman rules over: five of which had fallen, one that existed at the time (Rome) and one that had not yet come.

Since the woman sitting upon many waters is symbolic for ruling over many nations and people then why shouldn't the woman sitting upon the seven mountains also be symbolic for ruling over something rather than literally sitting upon something?

markedward
Jan 6th 2009, 12:15 AM
Unthinkable and absurd?Unthinkable, I believe, because claiming otherwise requires for us to pretend as if the kings in power at that very moment ruled from "The City of the Seven Hills" didn't exist, or at least that the entire original audience wouldn't have immediately made the connection between "seven hills" and The City of the Seven Hills (Rome). Likewise, in that chapter one depicts Christ holding seven stars in His hand, which would have been interpreted by the original audience as an attack on the nature of the emperor, who was depicted as holding seven stars in his hands on his coinage; meaning, the original audience had many points throughout the book to make connections between the then-in-power Roman Empire/Emperor. And absurd, I believe, to claim that the Revelation was irrelevant to the original audience when it precisely had so many easy connections to make.


As Mark F showed in his post, a mountain in scripture can symbolically refer to a kingdom. There are seven mountains/hills and seven kings. I believe it is not absurd at all to believe that the seven mountains refer to the seven kingdoms over which the seven kings rule. Five of the kingdoms were fallen and one existed at the time Revelation was written. That was Rome. There is nothing unthinkable or absurd about believing that the five previous heads/mountains do not refer to Rome but rather refer to empires that preceded the Roman Empire.The book of Daniel (the Revelation's OT "predecessor") only depicts five kingdoms total. It explicitly identifies four of them to us: (1) Babylon. (2) Media-Persia. (3) Greece. (5) The Kingdom of God. It doesn't directly identify the fourth kingdom, but the identity to us is obvious, because it was the kingdom to rule of Judea after Greece did, but before John the Baptist and Christ and His disciples began to claim that the Kingdom of God was about to come around: Rome. The Revelation relies heavily upon Daniel's imagery. And since Daniel identified only five kingdoms total (the last being the Kingdom of God), we shouldn't assume that the Revelation would stretch Daniel and claim there are more than just those five. (The Revelation even goes so far as to reinforce Daniel's imagery by specifically reusing his four bestial kingdoms in chapter 13.) Since the beast of the Revelation is easily identified with the fourth beast of Daniel's four kingdoms, the only assumption we can make without stretching any of the given contexts is that the Revelation's beast is Daniel's fourth beast, being Rome.


Similarly, I believe the seven mountains/hills are also symbolic and represent kingdoms that the woman rules over: five of which had fallen, one that existed at the time (Rome) and one that had not yet come.Revelation 17 does not say that the seven mountains/hills were a procession of kingdoms. It says that the seven heads of the beast represent seven hills and seven kings. It does not equate the hills with the kings as you are doing here. So, when it says that five kings had fallen and that the sixth king was currently in power, you can't re-interpret that to mean that the kings are the same things as the hills, and that five hills had fallen and that the sixth hill was currently in power. In that case, the angel could just as easily have told John that the seven heads stood for seven kingdoms and skipped over the hills to begin with.

This is what I don't understand: you're claiming that John saw a vision of a beast with seven heads, and that the angel, when trying to clarify things for John, told him that the seven heads were symbolic of seven hills. Meaning, you're claiming that the symbols were symbolic of symbols.

This would be like Daniel having a vision of four beasts of the sea, and when he asked for help deciphering it, he was told that the four beasts of the sea were symbolic of four metals of a statue. Which got him... nowhere.

danield
Jan 6th 2009, 03:40 AM
Revelation 13:17 7 And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name.

I know this verse is not directly associated with the kingdoms laid out in Daniel or in Revelation, but please bear with me. When Rome was in power the Emperors made citizens sign a letter of divinity each year and pay a tax which is quickly associated with this verse. Many people were able to side step the signature of divinity to the creasers by paying an added tax or not paying the tax all together. Let me explain, this tax was like paying your property tax. If you do not pay your property tax, your property goes into receivership and is owned by the state. It happened once a year. However you did not have to sign the letter of divinity just as you do not have to pay your property tax. You could have easily just given up your property, and you could still work and buy food and housing of some sort (rent). There was also the possibility that you could bribe the tax collector because most of the time Rome was just interested in collecting taxes to fund their projects. Collectors would at times forgo the signature of divinity if enough money was offered. There are well documented cases of this in “ In Search of Paul”. I do want to mention there were times when some of the emperors did kill some of the Jewish and Christian followers out of cruelty, and I am not diminishing those who were martyred for the sake of Christ. So please do not think I am discounting the glory of those people. I am just saying that there were avenues around the divinity signature.

Now we all know about Rome’s rise to power, but did they rule over all? Absolutely not! What about the Asia population, or the central and south America population. How about those who were in Russia and Germany? They all were substantial population centers. So those kingdoms are being discounted in everyone’s synopsis of end time’s views. Does God limit himself just to those who were born around the Mediterranean Sea? You know when Christ was in the desert being tempted by satan, he showed him all the kingdoms in the world, not just the kingdom’s under Rome’s rule. So the Bible distinguishes that the world was not limited to Rome’s territory. So If we are to try and prove that Revelation 13:17 is isolated to Rome’s kingdom does that not try and prove that this passage is a lie? In a day where deception is the rule of thumb, I have often found comfort reading the many age long truths in the Bible, and still to this day I can not find anything that makes me want to question it. It is just one of the many reasons I am a Christian. (BTW I am not saying ANYONE is trying to disprove any passage in any way. I am just saying that I find delight when I see the truth shine brightly in its pages.)

I think John knew that Rome was called a city of seven hills, but God knew that his plan would come to fruition when the Gospel had time to reach all the inhabitants of the world. My contention is that the Roman rulers did not rule over the entire world, and even though there are similarities to some passages in reflection to that period. It has much more reflection to what could occur in the future. Take for instance the passage above, in today’s time we do have the capacity to bar code every purchase and limit who has the authority to buy and sell any and every day of the year. With the age of computers, this is possible. To me, I think much of the symbolism that is written in Revelation is there to throw people off from what is to occur. If God unfolded his plan all too soon then there is a chance that someone could alter history before his plan is fulfilled. I also think so much will come to light under the sixth king where Christians everywhere will stand up and take notice of the riddles of revelation. It is under the sixth king that the angel shows John the “Seven kings and the seven hills which they rule over.” People who believe in the bible will be able to point to those scriptures and understand the literal interpretation of God’s word. Anyway I fully believe that there will be seven kings that rule over seven hills/mountains, and that all the other prophesy’s will come true just as the bible foretells.

markdrums
Jan 6th 2009, 03:49 AM
Quick interjection-

Why is "throughout the whole world" being taken hyper- literally?
As if, it hasn't happened yet in conjunction with scripture being preached / spread over the whole world?

Why did Paul write:??

Rom 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=1&v=8&t=KJV#8) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.


Wait..... How could...... back in Romans.....? before John wrote Revelation...... Faith spoken throughout the whole world....... what?

We have to keep in mind that "whole world" may not necessarily mean "entire planet"... in every neighborhood of every jungle...... and so on.

danield
Jan 6th 2009, 03:54 AM
Mark, Is this God's world or is it Paul's world?

markedward
Jan 6th 2009, 03:54 AM
In addition to what markdrums said, in the Greek of the New Testament, the word oikoumene is what is commonly translated as "the whole world". In that era (the first-century) the word oikoumene was most commonly used to refer to "the known world" or even more specifically the world of the Roman Empire. This is evident in both the Bible and non-Scriptural sources as well.


Mark, Is this God's world or is it Paul's world?danield, is Greek God's language or Paul's language? You can't reinterpret a word to mean what you want it to mean. You have to take the language and the words of the first-century Christian Scriptures into account when reading them. If a Greek word during the first-century was most commonly used to refer to "the Roman world", that's how it ought to be translated if the context permits it. Since the context makes perfect sense when translated as such, then that's how it needs to be read. We can't arbitrarily change the definitions to force a passage to fit what we think it should be saying.

danield
Jan 6th 2009, 04:49 AM
I think God inspired Revelation to be written for events that will affect the entire world. I also think God inspired the Bible to be written in a language so that all mankind could read it, and follow Christ.

Romans 1:5-8 5 Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name. 6 And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 ¶ I am writing to all of you in Rome who are loved by God and are called to be his own holy people. May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace. 8 ¶ Let me say first that I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith in him is being talked about all over the world.

If you were with buddy at lunch, and you had heard an interesting tidbit of news that was popular, have you ever used the phrase in describing that event, “well everyone around town is talking about such and such.” When in actuality many people in town had not heard of your “topic” including your friend. Do you think this is what Paul was meaning? It would defiantly fit the expression, and it is well documented that Paul established churches in places where the gospels were not well known at all. I also do not understand how you can take this passage and interpret Revelation especially in the light of the wording we see in


Revelation 9:16 16 I heard the size of their army, which was 200 million mounted troops.

Quite a few more troops that Rome had ever imagined.


Revelation 9:18 8 One-third of all the people on earth were killed by these three plagues-- by the fire and smoke and burning sulfur that came from the mouths of the horses.

Explicit language that claims that 1/3 of the earth will be killed not Rome.


Revelation 10:11 1 Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages, and kings

Also, explicit language about a global event.


Revelation 13:7 7 And the beast was allowed to wage war against God's holy people and to conquer them. And he was given authority to rule over every tribe and people and language and nation.

This passage talks about every single village on earth because he even denotes tribe. The list goes on and on about how Revelation is a global event not a Roman event. If you like I can list a ton of other passages that will support this view. But I think you know the passages better than I do.

markdrums
Jan 6th 2009, 04:55 AM
I think God inspired Revelation to be written for events that will affect the entire world. I also think God inspired the Bible to be written in a language so that all mankind could read it, and follow Christ.

Romans 1:5-8 5 Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority as apostles to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name. 6 And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 ¶ I am writing to all of you in Rome who are loved by God and are called to be his own holy people. May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace. 8 ¶ Let me say first that I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith in him is being talked about all over the world.

If you were with buddy at lunch, and you had heard an interesting tidbit of news that was popular, have you ever used the phrase in describing that event, “well everyone around town is talking about such and such.” When in actuality many people in town had not heard of your “topic” including your friend. Do you think this is what Paul was meaning? It would defiantly fit the expression, and it is well documented that Paul established churches in places where the gospels were not well known at all. I also do not understand how you can take this passage and interpret Revelation especially in the light of the wording we see in



Quite a few more troops that Rome had ever imagined.



Explicit language that claims that 1/3 of the earth will be killed not Rome.



Also, explicit language about a global event.



This passage talks about every single village on earth because he even denotes tribe. The list goes on and on about how Revelation is a global event not a Roman event. If you like I can list a ton of other passages that will support this view. But I think you know the passages better than I do.


I can already hear the word being typed on markedward's keyboard to describe the context of the passages you gave.....
AND...... I'd have to agree with him.

"Hyperbole".

danield
Jan 6th 2009, 05:07 AM
In addition to what markdrums said, in the Greek of the New Testament, the word oikoumene is what is commonly translated as "the whole world". In that era (the first-century) the word oikoumene was most commonly used to refer to "the known world" or even more specifically the world of the Roman Empire. This is evident in both the Bible and non-Scriptural sources as well.

danield, is Greek God's language or Paul's language? You can't reinterpret a word to mean what you want it to mean. You have to take the language and the words of the first-century Christian Scriptures into account when reading them. If a Greek word during the first-century was most commonly used to refer to "the Roman world", that's how it ought to be translated if the context permits it. Since the context makes perfect sense when translated as such, then that's how it needs to be read. We can't arbitrarily change the definitions to force a passage to fit what we think it should be saying.

Marke, I understand what you are saying about how translation can change, and I can appreciate your in depth study of all the scripture and their original meaning. We can even see how the English translation can change from generation to generation. Look at the 60’s and someone who would say man that is heavy, well you and I would think it would weigh a lot, but someone from that era would think it is groovy.

In my synopsis, I have not vacillated back and forth to suit my interpretation. I think I have taken the literal view in most every case I have supported with the exception of explicit deviations’ from the norm.

In any event, I think both of you are extremely smart men. It is just that I think God is smarter than us all. In my case, I am not as smart as a 5th grader and I freely admit it!

markdrums
Jan 6th 2009, 05:52 AM
Marke, I understand what you are saying about how translation can change, and I can appreciate your in depth study of all the scripture and their original meaning. We can even see how the English translation can change from generation to generation. Look at the 60’s and someone who would say man that is heavy, well you and I would think it would weigh a lot, but someone from that era would think it is groovy.

In my synopsis, I have not vacillated back and forth to suit my interpretation. I think I have taken the literal view in most every case I have supported with the exception of explicit deviations’ from the norm.

In any event, I think both of you are extremely smart men. It is just that I think God is smarter than us all. In my case, I am not as smart as a 5th grader and I freely admit it!


Hey, don't sell yourself short, and put ME in a higher class than I deserve.... LOL! ;)

Seriously though, You really do understand the principles to interpret scripture in context. You hit it with the translational thing.

Think of it this way. Scripture is a collection of writings. Many of which are letters written to certain people for a particular reason.

Writings in general, personal letters, even verbal dialogue / conversation, movies, etc...... are ALL examples of communication.

People wonder, "How do I know what to take literally & what to take metaphorically?"
The answer is, how would you interpret ANY form of communication on a daily basis?
Once you're familiar with the liguistics of a genre, or whatever..... you can easily pick up when something is being described other than "literally".

Sooooo..... the best way to understand the liguistic form of the New Testament, is to get familiar with the OLD Testament.

Too many people start their learning process & interpretation of the Bible backwards.... meaning they start with Revelation, and try to force the rest of the Bible to correspond with it.

BUT...... what if????
What if we started with the Old testament, & built a good familiar foundation there? Then we progress to the N.T.

What we'll find is that the NT repeatedly refers back to the OT.
(Revelation alone has 404 verses that reference OT passages.)

Anyway, to keep from rambling I'll wrap this up.
To get the context of The Seven Mountians in Revelation, and keep this thread on the original track......
.....If you "learn the Old School lingo" and it's meanings..... the "new school chattter" will actually make sense.
;)

?????? did THAT make sense ??????

danield
Jan 6th 2009, 06:27 AM
Yes it did make sense. And we are defiantly on the same page! However, what I need help with is how to interpret explicit meanings that can not be skewed in any language. For instance, the passage I brought to light about a 200,000,000 army.


I heard the size of their army, which was 200 million mounted troops.

In John’s time the entire world did not have 200 million people in it. This numerical representation is well above any known army for generations. It is only now that we can envision an army of that size. But more importantly it is only now that a huge formation of tanks and equipment could make the noise of an army of 200 million mounted troops. My point is this. Math has transcended language barriers for generations. This is an explicit connotation to the size of the conflict that will take place at some point. It did not exist in John’s day. So I can only assume that Revelation will occur when an army can be brought to the field that will sound like an army of 200 million mounted troops. This passage should not create a hyperbole effect because as I said before math does transcend language barriers.
God bless

forum lurker
Jan 6th 2009, 12:41 PM
A lot of people associate this with being Rome (Babylon).

You mean hills? ;)


Revelation 17 does not say that the seven mountains/hills were a procession of kingdoms. It says that the seven heads of the beast represent seven hills and seven kings. It does not equate the hills with the kings as you are doing here. So, when it says that five kings had fallen and that the sixth king was currently in power, you can't re-interpret that to mean that the kings are the same things as the hills, and that five hills had fallen and that the sixth hill was currently in power. In that case, the angel could just as easily have told John that the seven heads stood for seven kingdoms and skipped over the hills to begin with.

This is what I don't understand: you're claiming that John saw a vision of a beast with seven heads, and that the angel, when trying to clarify things for John, told him that the seven heads were symbolic of seven hills. Meaning, you're claiming that the symbols were symbolic of symbols.

This would be like Daniel having a vision of four beasts of the sea, and when he asked for help deciphering it, he was told that the four beasts of the sea were symbolic of four metals of a statue. Which got him... nowhere.

Rev 17:10 talks about 7 kings.

Rev 17:12 talks about 10 kings.

Now, that I find confusing, unless one of these group of kings should be read as kingdoms, or empires. Is there any basis for that? Yes:

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

Daniel 7:23: "23Thus 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."

Lumping 7 kings, kingdoms and heads together in my opinion makes Rev 17 easier to approach.

One of the beast's heads was wounded to death, but the wound healed. Either a deathly wounded former (Roman?) king is going to be healed, or a disintegrated former empire regains power. To me the latter option seems much more likely.

John146
Jan 6th 2009, 06:13 PM
The book of Daniel (the Revelation's OT "predecessor") only depicts five kingdoms total. It explicitly identifies four of them to us: (1) Babylon. (2) Media-Persia. (3) Greece. (5) The Kingdom of God. It doesn't directly identify the fourth kingdom, but the identity to us is obvious, because it was the kingdom to rule of Judea after Greece did, but before John the Baptist and Christ and His disciples began to claim that the Kingdom of God was about to come around: Rome. The Revelation relies heavily upon Daniel's imagery. And since Daniel identified only five kingdoms total (the last being the Kingdom of God), we shouldn't assume that the Revelation would stretch Daniel and claim there are more than just those five. (The Revelation even goes so far as to reinforce Daniel's imagery by specifically reusing his four bestial kingdoms in chapter 13.) Since the beast of the Revelation is easily identified with the fourth beast of Daniel's four kingdoms, the only assumption we can make without stretching any of the given contexts is that the Revelation's beast is Daniel's fourth beast, being Rome.Yes, Daniel depicts five beasts. But we're talking about the seven heads here, not the beasts. I wasn't saying that there are eight beasts. The beast that was, and is not, is also the eighth head (Rev 17:11), not the eighth beast (there is no eighth beast).


This is what I don't understand: you're claiming that John saw a vision of a beast with seven heads, and that the angel, when trying to clarify things for John, told him that the seven heads were symbolic of seven hills. Meaning, you're claiming that the symbols were symbolic of symbols.

This would be like Daniel having a vision of four beasts of the sea, and when he asked for help deciphering it, he was told that the four beasts of the sea were symbolic of four metals of a statue. Which got him... nowhere.I understand what you're saying, but didn't you read what I said about what it meant for the woman to sit upon many waters? Does it mean the woman literally sat upon something or does the sitting mean something else like ruling? That's my point about the woman sitting upon the seven mountains/hills. You interpret it as if the sitting is literal, but I don't see it that way. If the woman sitting upon the many waters is symbolic for Babylon ruling over many nations and people then I believe the woman sitting upon the seven mountains/hills is also symbolic for the woman ruling over something, which in this case is kingdoms.

Again, I believe your use of words like "unthinkable" and "absurd" was not appropriate. You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither is unthinkable or absurd and we each have valid reasons for believing as we do.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 7th 2009, 01:02 AM
The seven heads are seven mountains.

Why would John interpret "seven heads are seven mountains", and then leave us to interpret "seven mountains" as seven powers or nations, or whatever?

Is there any examples in scripture were this rule has applied before?

ross3421
Jan 7th 2009, 02:16 AM
The seven heads are seven mountains.

Why would John interpret "seven heads are seven mountains", and then leave us to interpret "seven mountains" as seven powers or nations, or whatever?

Is there any examples in scripture were this rule has applied before?

You stated the answer in your question........ seven heads ARE seven mountains.

What are the seven heads? Are there mountains sitting a top of the beast? Were the crowns on top of literal mountains?

Re 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven MOUNTAINS? and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Rather seven heads are kingdoms and kings with crowns.

forum lurker
Jan 7th 2009, 09:45 AM
The seven heads are seven mountains.

Yes, it does say mountains. However it seems that no-one calls the seven hills of Rome "the seven mountains of Rome." in normal language.


Why would John interpret "seven heads are seven mountains", and then leave us to interpret "seven mountains" as seven powers or nations, or whatever?

Is there any examples in scripture were this rule has applied before?

In these verses the Babylonian empire is referred to as a mountain:

Jeremiah 51:24-25:
''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.''

Mark F
Jan 8th 2009, 03:17 AM
The difference between Daniel and Revelation is in Daniel they are looking forward and he does not include the two that were in the past. John is giving a complete panorama of all time from beginning to end.

We know that Daniel ties into this "beast" because John included the description in Rev 13 "like a leopard, feet of a bear, mouth of a lion".
Notice also that the order of the above is also in reverse, Greece, Persia, and then Babylon.

Dan 2:44 tells us that the satatue is concerning the end times,
"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."

Also this qualifies the interpretation of a mountain as a kingdom.

Daniel 7 as well tells us that these beasts/kingdoms not only give the people in Daniel's time the info on what is to come in their time, but clearly states that these visions are primarily concerning the last kingdom.

You can chase your tails and say that this is "hyperbole" all you want, but all the things concerning Christ's first advent were literally fulfilled, why should we think that it will change with His second advent?

Partaker of Christ
Jan 9th 2009, 12:04 AM
You stated the answer in your question........ seven heads ARE seven mountains.

What are the seven heads? Are there mountains sitting a top of the beast? Were the crowns on top of literal mountains?

Re 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven MOUNTAINS? and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Rather seven heads are kingdoms and kings with crowns.

Thanks!

But why not say the seven heads are seven kingdoms?

Partaker of Christ
Jan 9th 2009, 12:11 AM
Yes, it does say mountains. However it seems that no-one calls the seven hills of Rome "the seven mountains of Rome." in normal language.



In these verses the Babylonian empire is referred to as a mountain:

Jeremiah 51:24-25:
''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.''

Thanks forum lurker!

I know scripture will say that a mountain can be interpreted as a nation, but is there an example were something is interpreted twice to get the meaning? A=B=C

I agree that it can be hills!

The seven hills of Istanbull :hmm: