new theory re: the "7th king"

[randyk]

Islam is indeed the FEET of Iron and Clay.
I also like the reasoning about Ishmael, who is of Abraham.
Yet also we KNOW that the word Arab is in the Bible in Daniel 2. The word is translated as "mixed" which is what the Feet are described as.
I actually see the material as reflecting the TYPE of governance -
Gold - single leader
Silver - leader with alliance
Bronze - leader with nobles
Iron - leader with senate
Clay and Iron - leader with priests

However for me, what is more interesting is the question as to WHO the kingdom of Toes are.
There are 10 toes which speak of the 10 kings to come.
There is also the point that the Beast is NOT the 7th king, but the 8th.

SO I see a kingdom LIKE that of the Caliphate - a Theocratic Kingdom. One led by a single leader with a grouping of other nationalities all accepting this single leader as king. We see an example of this in the Commonwealth where multiple nations have the Queen of England as their head, even though they are there own nation with their own laws etc.

I have yet to find a single scripture which wouldn't fit Islam being the 7th kingdom as seen in the Dan 2 vision.

Now many also see the 4th horseman as Islam as the word translated as "pale" horse is actually the word "chloros" translated everywhere else in the Bible as Green.
Green is the colour of Islam, and the sword is also the symbol of Islam (along with the moon).
Islam is also the main religion in 1/4 of the world.

Very interesting. Thanks. More for me to consider....

[randyk]

Hi Randy, I Don't explain things the best, But I will try and convey how I see the 7th king who is also the eighth even though my next sentence will appear slightly nuts. I see Satan as ruler of the world and he rules as a man, by that I mean he literally indwells or enters into a human being.

So I see Alexander the great as Satan possessed, Alexander the man was the fifth king and was also indwelt by Satan so I see Satan as the fifth king yet being another entity also the eighth. When Isaiah prophesied to the king of Babylon he was talking to both the human and to Satan who was dwelling in him. So we have the third king a man and also Satan another entity the eighth ruling over Babylon.

Same example as when Ezekiel went to speak to the prince of Tyre, in ch 28 he was speaking to the human king but predominantly to Satan.

So Now to the future seventh head or king, the rapture has maybe taken place (sorry, I know your view is not for pre trib ) Antichrist has now set himself up as over the world, and now receives a fatal wound that the world sees, The beast aka Satan the prince of the world has now been released from the pit and assumes control of the world as its king again, and he temporarily enters into the Antichrist who is now miraculously healed in the sight of all.

Rev 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.
Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

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



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.

Rome the sixth kingdom that was ruling at the time of John, the one that is, the seventh yet to come that will be for a short time.


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

Satan who was, is not at the moment, is the invisible eighth head for he was/is the seven heads.

I sort of am leaning to towards marty's interpretation of mystery Babylon being Jerusalem and think Satan will set up his headquarters there.

And think revelation man makes good points, but of course I think the destroying angel is Satan.

It's ok if we disagree on Pretrib--your views on this particular point is my concern here. It sounds like you're looking at Alexander in the same way that I might look at Antiochus, as sort of a demonic precursor of the Antichrist? I've been looking at Antiochus 4 in Dan 8, and neglected to look at Alexander the Great, who is also in Dan 8!

If this is how you're looking at it, as a kind of reincarnation of Satan from Alexander to Antichrist, you may have something there. At least it's as feasible to me as Antiochus being reincarnated, demonically, as the Antichrist. Thanks for your thoughts.

[DurbanDude]

I like what you’re saying, but we still need to be consistent in how we apply the term, ‘beast.’ In every other case it is a kingdom, but in this case some of us are making him a person. Both ideas are right, but that is because the satanic kingdom is ‘personified’ at the top.

So, the 8th beast is an actual empire personified at the top in Antichrist.

Well said. I see this personification symbolised when a beast or horn is given human characteristics.

In Daniel 7 v4 the lion (Babylon) is given human feet and a human mind, an obvious reference to Nebuchadnezzar.

In Daniel 7:8 the little horn is given eyes of a human, thus Rome is expressed in a small kingdom (little horn) with the antichrist as leader.

In Daniel 8 we are specifically told when a horn represents a king rather than a kingdom.

In Rev 13 the beast is given a mouth in v5, this is obviously the final stage of that kingdom, when the antichrist takes power.

People seem to miss that truth, that a kingdom is normally in mind when beasts and horns are mentioned. Unless the Bible points to human characteristics, then the leader/king is in mind.

Using this logic, it is not a man that gets wounded and recovers in Rev 13. The kingdom is wounded and recovers in verse 3, yet the leader is only introduced in verse 5.

[boangry]

It's ok if we disagree on Pretrib--your views on this particular point is my concern here. It sounds like you're looking at Alexander in the same way that I might look at Antiochus, as sort of a demonic precursor of the Antichrist? I've been looking at Antiochus 4 in Dan 8, and neglected to look at Alexander the Great, who is also in Dan 8!

If this is how you're looking at it, as a kind of reincarnation of Satan from Alexander to Antichrist, you may have something there. At least it's as feasible to me as Antiochus being reincarnated, demonically, as the Antichrist. Thanks for your thoughts.

I think the Anti-Christ is going to be a very likable, moral upright guy, who will be very popular and champion peace and world security (well at the beginning anyways) So I don't really see any need for a reincarnation of any one in particular for in the end Satan will take control, I see Satan being in control, like when he entered Judas in the upper room, I think when the Lord said to Judas "what you do, do quickly" the Lord was actually talking to Satan, making sure Judas was going to hand Him over as he intended to do

[DurbanDude]

I think the Anti-Christ is going to be a very likable, moral upright guy, who will be very popular and champion peace and world security (well at the beginning anyways) So I don't really see any need for a reincarnation of any one in particular for in the end Satan will take control, I see Satan being in control, like when he entered Judas in the upper room, I think when the Lord said to Judas "what you do, do quickly" the Lord was actually talking to Satan, making sure Judas was going to hand Him over as he intended to do

True, Satan is in control. The fall of Satan and the start of the antichrist's reign occur at the same moment, 1260 days/42 months before the end. This is why the theory that the antichrist is possessed by Satan is so popular. I'm not sure of that possessed theory but yes the period of influence of the two characters coincide during the GT.

[ForHisglory]

Well said. I see this personification symbolised when a beast or horn is given human characteristics.

In Daniel 7 v4 the lion (Babylon) is given human feet and a human mind, an obvious reference to Nebuchadnezzar.

Not a lion, but a Gryphon. It was a Persian mythical creature and found in Persia. It is a reference to Cyrus, who God called His anointed one and His shepherd - a title otherwise used for Jesus.

In Daniel 7:8 the little horn is given eyes of a human, thus Rome is expressed in a small kingdom (little horn) with the antichrist as leader.

Not Rome, but the later expressin of the Beast empire - still to come.

In Daniel 8 we are specifically told when a horn represents a king rather than a kingdom.

Nope, a horn represents a king and a kingdom - especially as throughout scripture a king is used in place of a kingdom. In Dan 9:26 it is reversed with the kingdom's people in place of the king - who has not come.
Dan 8 has the Beast - the Goat IS the king, AND the horn is also the King - in this case the first king (v 21) However in verse 22 the four horns speaks of four kingdoms (NOT kings) which arise from the first kings nation.
So a horn is more than one meaning even within one vision. Every kingdom has a king - so yu can say the two meanings are intertwined.

In Rev 13 the beast is given a mouth in v5, this is obviously the final stage of that kingdom, when the antichrist takes power.

People seem to miss that truth, that a kingdom is normally in mind when beasts and horns are mentioned. Unless the Bible points to human characteristics, then the leader/king is in mind.

Using this logic, it is not a man that gets wounded and recovers in Rev 13. The kingdom is wounded and recovers in verse 3, yet the leader is only introduced in verse 5.

I agree it seems to be a kingdom, but the heads are referred to as being kings in Rev 17 UNLESS you wish to argue this is an entirely different beast to that in Rev 13?

[ewq1938]

Using this logic, it is not a man that gets wounded and recovers in Rev 13. The kingdom is wounded and recovers in verse 3, yet the leader is only introduced in verse 5.

Yes true about who gets wounded. Verse 5 isn't a singular person yet, that only is true of the second beast in verse 11. I have long been saying the AC is the second beast not the first.

[randyk]

After listening to all of the posts, I have to recant and dismiss my "new theory," that the 7th king is E. Rome, or the Byzantine Empire. I find it's untenable to think that the two iron legs of the 4th Kingdom would exist in separate kingdoms, in separate time periods. I have to admit that I now think the two legs had to have coexisted, and existed as two branches of the same Kingdom at the same time.

And so, I've returned to my earlier belief that the "7th Kingdom" is the Kingdom of the Antichrist, over which the Antichrist, as an "8th king," will reign. He is distinct from the 7th king only in the sense that the 7th king is a reestablished Roman Kingdom, while Antichrist will somehow be introduced as distinct from this Kingdom, ruling over it.

At any rate, the 7th Kingdom will be short-lived, because after only 3.5 years Antichrist will be destroyed at the 2nd Advent of Christ. Either that, or this 7th King will be short-lived because he is usurped by the Antichrist, who will defeat 3 of 10 European powers.

This will probably take place as some kind of destruction delivered upon Europe. I do believe that Europe will be at the heart of a future Roman Empire, dominant within the whole world. All it will take is an agreement between Russia and the rest of Europe, perhaps even including the US?

And it may be that a coalition of Asian powers, led by China, will challenge the supremacy of Europe under the Antichrist, resulting in a nuclear Armageddon? As we know, the Kings of the East march Westward towards Armageddon, crossing the Euphrates River. Perhaps this will consist of an agreement between Persia or Iraq with China and her allies?

One thing that is clear to me is that Rome has had a representative of her imperial tradition from ancient times almost to the present. And simultaneously Rome has had an Eastern branch that carried out its imperial tradition similarly, from ancient times until now.

We know that after Rome's fall in 476 AD the Roman imperial tradition was carried on under the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire. And in the East, the Byzantine Empire continued all the way up until 1453 AD, after which the Russian Empire came to succeed in this tradition.

Although I can see the Muslims inheriting some of the lands of the Eastern Roman Empire, I cannot see them inheriting the imperial tradition of Rome, which was based on Christianity, and not on Islam. No, the Roman Imperial Tradition has always been centered in Europe. Islam has largely been confined to the Middle East, whereas the Eastern Roman tradition migrated north towards Russia and towards Eastern Europe.

Please note the lingual divisions that bear this out in history....

The West: focused on Rome, Latin, and later German, and Western Catholicism.
The East: focused on Constantinople, Greek, and later Slav, and the Eastern Orthodox tradition, later including the Russian Orthodox tradition.

The Germans, Latin and German, in the West, and the Slavs, Greek and Russian, in the East. What united these two halves of the ancient Roman imperial tradition was the Christian Church, both East and West. And it manifested itself in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, which stood as a symbol of both East and West.

In fact, the Austro-Hungarian Empire existed right in the middle of these two traditions. Austria's fall was the time of Russia's rise, as well as the time of the U.S. rise. I have wondered, for a long time, if the U.S. and Russia could be the two *big* toes on the feet of Nebuchadnezzar's great image?

[gavriel]

Do you propose a relationship between Islam and any of the 4 horsemen?

I do indeed.

Revelation 6:7-8 (NASB)
7 When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come.” 8 I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.

The NASB version of the Bible refers to the fourth horse in Revelation 6:7 as an “ashen” horse. Many other versions of the Bible refer to the fourth horse as a “pale” horse. On the website watchmanbiblestudy.com, Steve Snider wrote an article called, “Meet the Pale Horse: Possible Identity of the 4th Seal”. In the article, Snider noted that the Greek word for “pale” is chlóros (χλωρός), and that word also means “green.” The primary use of the word chlóros or “green” in the Bible is like in the color of new growth on a plant. The same word chlóros is used in Revelation 8:7. Look how it is translated:

Revelation 8:7 (NASB)
The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.

In Revelation 8:7 the word chlóros is used to describe the “green” grass. In fact, the only verse where the word chlóros is translated as “pale” or “ashen” is in Revelation 6:8. English translators of the book of Revelation likely had a hard time accepting the idea of a “green” horse. So, they came up with the words “pale” or “ashen,” instead. The “green” in the “green” or “pale” or “ashen” horse is largely symbolic. And it is interesting to note that “green” is the color of Islam. Consider the following Islamic flag:

Flag of Islam.png

And as noted in Steve Snider’s article, at this point in time, one quarter of the world’s population is Islamic or Muslim, fulfilling the portion of the prophecy about being “given power over one fourth of the earth.” In fact, the Pew Research center confirms that Muslims represent “one-fourth” of the world population.

And as noted with the 7th empire of the beast, or the empire of iron and clay at the feet in Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, the Muslims have gone forth conquering. And the “sword” is a symbol of war or military conquest, not unlike the “great sword” held by the rider of the red horse. The various Muslim caliphates, sultanates, kingdoms, etc., reveals the constant conflict wrought by Muslims. Throughout its history, and in many parts of the world, the various Muslim wars and strife have caused great famines and plagues. The Second Sudanese Civil War that occurred from 1983 to 2005 is a very recent example of a war between Muslims and non-Muslims that caused an estimated two million deaths by war, famine, and disease. And again, this is just a more recent example. Throughout the history of the Muslims, million upon millions have died in the name of Islam.

But today there is an even more radical form of Islam. In times past, the Muslim world was more tolerant of non-Muslims, known by Muslims as the dhimmi, living within its border, particularly Jewish peoples, but Christians also. The Pact of Umar was a treaty between Muslims and Jews and Christians that allowed a protected status for non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Today this pact is largely ignored. When Claudius James Rich began his excavations at the site of Ancient Babylon in the early 1800’s he noted that there was a Jewish settlement nearby. There were still Jewish peoples living near Babylon. Today there are no Jewish settlements in Iraq. In Libya, at one time, the Jewish population was nearly 3% of the total population. There are virtually no Jewish populations in Libya today. The same is true for many Christians. Jews and Christians have been under attack in Muslim lands since the rise of Radical Islam, a more brutal, less-tolerant, form of Islam. A form of Islam that adheres to a far more literal translation of the Quran.

The headlines in the news have witnessed in recent times Christians being dragged into the streets and beheaded. In Libya, followers of the more radical form of Islam, dragged Coptic Christians, a sect of Christianity that has lived predominantly in Egypt since the early founding of Christianity, and had them beheaded. These brutal scenes are playing out all over the Muslim world.

Also, as noted in Steve Snider’s article, the term “wild beast” could also mean “bestial men.” The Greek word thérion (θηρίον), means beast, but can also mean “brutal,” as in “brutal men.” Osama bin Laden was the epitome of a “brutal man.” In an interview that can be seen in a YouTube video, Osama bin Laden said, “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us.” The prophecy of the 4th Seal says that its rider was named “Death.” Osama bin Laden’s statement is another exclamation point, but this time on the idea that Islam and its proponents are the 4th Seal. Death and conquest has followed Islam throughout history. Death is revered by them. Many followers of Islam believe that there are many virgins waiting for them in heaven upon their death. And often because of this belief, many Muslims have committed suicide as a method to strike out and harm innocent non-Muslim men, women, and children, in the name of their false god, Allah, in the hope of the virgins in wait. But there is no sex in heaven or virgins in wait. There will not be a physical body in Heaven that will crave earthly pleasure or receive earthly plagues and diseases.

Other headlines today are filled with Muslims, often in suicide attacks, bringing death to the innocents. And the events of September 11, 2001 are proof of the “brutal” nature of some of the men that follow Islam and its tenets. Many men were willing to commit suicide to create as much death and mayhem as possible. And the death and mayhem of September 11th, 2001 were truly of Biblical proportions.

I agree with Steve Snider concerning the 4th Seal. We have come to many of the same conclusions, but a “tip of the hat” and a thank you must be given to Mr. Snider as he provides greater clarity and understanding of the 4th Seal. But considering the totality of fulfillment revealed in Revelation and throughout other Bible prophecy, the use of the word “Possible” in the title of Steve Snider’s article is inappropriate. There is no “Possible” about it. The rise of radical Islam and its importance at this critical time in human history fulfills the prophecy concerning the 4th Seal. Nothing else before has ever fulfilled the specific elements of the 4th seal prophecy in the history of the world, and nothing ever will again. Islam in its current extreme radical form is not only the 4th seal, but it is also the culmination of the feet and ten toes of iron and clay in Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, and the last empire of the beast. And with its love of death, its control over one fourth of the world’s population, and the brutal actions of many within Radical Islam the 5th seal has likely a already been broken as well.

Revelation 6:9-11 (NASB)
9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.

Shalom,

Gavirel

[ForHisglory]

One thing that is clear to me is that Rome has had a representative of her imperial tradition from ancient times almost to the present. And simultaneously Rome has had an Eastern branch that carried out its imperial tradition similarly, from ancient times until now.

Here I cannot agree with you. It has NOT had a representative from ancient times NEITHER in the East or the West.
Other kingdoms have taken over the lands and title of the Roman kingdom, even as Rome took over the greeks, and the Greeks the Persians and the Persians the Babylonians.

We know that after Rome's fall in 476 AD the Roman imperial tradition was carried on under the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire. And in the East, the Byzantine Empire continued all the way up until 1453 AD, after which the Russian Empire came to succeed in this tradition.

Actually NOPE that didn't happen.
The HRE wasn't started until 400 years later.
The Russian Empire also didn't succeed the Byzantine. The two lands barely connected - the Clapihate conquered the Byzantine Lands AND after defeating the last Byzantine Emperor claimed the title.

Although I can see the Muslims inheriting some of the lands of the Eastern Roman Empire, I cannot see them inheriting the imperial tradition of Rome, which was based on Christianity, and not on Islam. No, the Roman Imperial Tradition has always been centered in Europe. Islam has largely been confined to the Middle East, whereas the Eastern Roman tradition migrated north towards Russia and towards Eastern Europe.

Weird thinking that the Roman BEAST kingdom was Christian.
ALL the Beast kingdoms are ANTI-CHRIST. They are against God and His people, though God allowed them due to the sins of Israel.
The Beast is NEVER Christian.
Some may take the name of Christ and claim it for themselves BUT they are NOT Christian.

Please note the lingual divisions that bear this out in history....
The West: focused on Rome, Latin, and later German, and Western Catholicism.
The East: focused on Constantinople, Greek, and later Slav, and the Eastern Orthodox tradition, later including the Russian Orthodox tradition.

Again incorrect.
Rome remains Latin, yet the languages have changed by peoples who were NOT IN those lands when Revelation was written.
Istanbul is now Turkish. It was originally Latin but was already strongly influenced by Greek.

The Germans, Latin and German, in the West, and the Slavs, Greek and Russian, in the East. What united these two halves of the ancient Roman imperial tradition was the Christian Church, both East and West. And it manifested itself in the form of the Holy Roman Empire, which stood as a symbol of both East and West.

The HRE NEVER represented the Slavs.

In fact, the Austro-Hungarian Empire existed right in the middle of these two traditions. Austria's fall was the time of Russia's rise, as well as the time of the U.S. rise. I have wondered, for a long time, if the U.S. and Russia could be the two toes on the feet of Nebuchadnezzar's great image?

I think you need to reread your history books.
The USA didn't truly rise UNTIL WWI when the rest of the world had worn itself out. It only asserted its power with WWII.
There are TEN Toes on TWO Feet. Not 2 toes.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the Hapsburg empire, and it existed from South America across to Hungary. It wasn't in the middle but firmly Catholic. Where the Hapsburgs ruled is Catholic (think Croatia and Hungary). Where the Byzantine Empire was, and then ruled by the Caliphate REMAINED Orthodox - given allegiance to each individual Patriarch. So Greek Orthodox does NOT see Russian Orthodox as having jurisdiction over them.

[gavriel]

Now many also see the 4th horseman as Islam as the word translated as "pale" horse is actually the word "chloros" translated everywhere else in the Bible as Green.
Green is the colour of Islam, and the sword is also the symbol of Islam (along with the moon).
Islam is also the main religion in 1/4 of the world.

I just read this after my previous post to a question that randyk had earlier.

WE AGREE! It is nice to see someone else sees this. To not see Islam as the final and ultimate manifestation of the beast, and how Radical Islam fulfills the fourth horseman, is truly beyond me. It is sad that so many are still looking for a rebuilt Roman Empire. It is not going to happen!

Shalom,

Gavriel

[randyk]

I do indeed.
Gavirel

Islam is certainly a major antichrist in history, and certainly fits the 4th horseman. Whether that is what John meant or not I don't know? In Zechariah his horsemen seemed to represent specific powers acting in his day. I don't know if the 4 horsemen were powers acting in John's day, or successive movements throughout NT history?

One thing is certain: Islam has played a major role in history, and I don't doubt it fits in somewhere in the book of Revelation. Thanks!

[randyk]

Here I cannot agree with you. It has NOT had a representative from ancient times NEITHER in the East or the West.
Other kingdoms have taken over the lands and title of the Roman kingdom, even as Rome took over the greeks, and the Greeks the Persians and the Persians the Babylonians.

Yes, we look at this differently. I see the Roman Kingdom as an imperial tradition established in Europe and in the Meditereranean, continuing in other political entities, as you indicated. What unites them under a single banner is the fact that the tradition is Roman. The Roman Empire was Christianized, and the Roman Catholic Church continued to tie Europe to the Roman imperial tradtion.

All of the rising States of Europe had a relationship with the Catholic Church, which was centered in Rome. And as the old Latin tradition was gradually replaced by the Germanic tradition, the Roman imperial tradition simply continued under new political entities. This reflects the size and scope of the ancient Roman Empire, as well as its destiny in 10 different States.

Actually NOPE that didn't happen.
The HRE wasn't started until 400 years later.
The Russian Empire also didn't succeed the Byzantine. The two lands barely connected - the Clapihate conquered the Byzantine Lands AND after defeating the last Byzantine Emperor claimed the title.

You're not telling me anything I don't know. I'm generalizing. The Latin tradition was ultimately supplanted in the West by the Germanic tradition. Rome expanded initially into the area we now call France. But upon the breakup of Charlemagne's kingdom, German kingdoms began to take dominance.

Russia, after the defeat of Constantinople, retained the Orthodox tradition. After approx. 1000 AD Russia was Christianized and became part of the Eastern Roman tradition, obtaining a metropolitan bishop. After the fall of Constantinople Moscow became a kind of "3rd Rome."

Weird thinking that the Roman BEAST kingdom was Christian.
ALL the Beast kingdoms are ANTI-CHRIST. They are against God and His people, though God allowed them due to the sins of Israel.
The Beast is NEVER Christian.
Some may take the name of Christ and claim it for themselves BUT they are NOT Christian.

The thing that held back the appearance of Antichrist was Roman government. And as Roman government was Christianized, it even more restrained the rise and appearance of Antichrist. The secular kingdoms of Europe, including Russia, were clearly brutal at times. But they were held together by a Christian thread. There's no debate about that.

Again incorrect.
Rome remains Latin, yet the languages have changed by peoples who were NOT IN those lands when Revelation was written.
Istanbul is now Turkish. It was originally Latin but was already strongly influenced by Greek.

You're not correcting anything I said. You simply misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that what began in the West as a *Latin tradition* ended up being supplanted by a *German tradition.* Otto 1 of Germany ended up becoming the Holy Roman Emperor. Latin control passed to German control, gradually, through the centuries.

The HRE NEVER represented the Slavs.

You have a penchant for reading too much into what I say. Rather than try to "correct" me, why not ask what I mean by something? I didn't say that the HRE represented the Slavs except in the sense that later in history the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was sort of the last bastion of the imperial tradition in the West, was centered at the boundary between West and East, including Hungary--a more Slavic, Eastern country.

My point was not that the HRE was ever Eastern in the Roman tradition! I think I have been making the opposite point! The thing I'm indicating here is that there is a relationship between East and West in the Roman tradition, with the HRE having a close connection to the East via *Christianity.*

I think you need to reread your history books.
The USA didn't truly rise UNTIL WWI when the rest of the world had worn itself out.

What about this isn't in the history books? The Austro-Hungarian Empire was short-lived, and ended in WW1. The US clearly played an important role in WW1!

It only asserted its power with WWII.

In the broad sweep of history, the period from WW1 to WW2 is just a blip on the radar. You seem utterly incapable of reading generalizations about history. You think you're "correcting" me, when all you're doing is being disagreeable. Try to understand what I'm saying before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

There are TEN Toes on TWO Feet. Not 2 toes.

This was a typing error. I meant to say that I've wondered if Russia and the US may be the two *big* toes on the feet of Nebuchadnezzar's image. I've considered this theory as possible for several decades, since the early 1980s.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the Hapsburg empire, and it existed from South America across to Hungary. It wasn't in the middle but firmly Catholic. Where the Hapsburgs ruled is Catholic (think Croatia and Hungary). Where the Byzantine Empire was, and then ruled by the Caliphate REMAINED Orthodox - given allegiance to each individual Patriarch. So Greek Orthodox does NOT see Russian Orthodox as having jurisdiction over them.

My point is that Austria was at the crossroads between East and West, having a connection with Hungary--an Eastern country.

[DurbanDude]

Yes true about who gets wounded. Verse 5 isn't a singular person yet, that only is true of the second beast in verse 11. I have long been saying the AC is the second beast not the first.

I can't agree with this. It is the first beast that matches the descriptions of the antichrist, being a boastful ruler over the final 3.5 years.

The second beast has a supportive role to the first beast.

[DurbanDude]

I just read this after my previous post to a question that randyk had earlier.

WE AGREE! It is nice to see someone else sees this. To not see Islam as the final and ultimate manifestation of the beast, and how Radical Islam fulfills the fourth horseman, is truly beyond me. It is sad that so many are still looking for a rebuilt Roman Empire. It is not going to happen!

Shalom,

Gavriel

I agree too that it is Islam. Yet I agree it is Rome as well.

Islam was at is most powerful during the Islamic caliphate under the Turkish/Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire inherited the title Caesar, and capital city of Istanbul from the Eastern Roman Empire.

So it will be this revived Islamic Ottoman Empire (Rome) that dominates the Middle East during the GT.

Yes the pale horse represents Islam. This is their plan:

https://www.turkishislamicunion.com