Gog/Magog

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Can we study this? I know we've talked about it before, but I would like to go through it.

When is it? What needs to happen for it to take place? Who is involved?

[CoreIssue]

Start with who Gog and Magog are. That is tripping some people up.

Gog's direct tribal statements, in the Bible, make him Russia.

But Magog's lineage makes him pretty much all of Europe and Asia, thus by default, the whole world.

This trips many up because they ONLY see it referring to Russia. Thus they end up trying to force all the prophecies into one event at one time.

But, in fact, there are Mid, Second Coming and Short Time after the MK prophecies using these names.

And two, not one, Rapture events in association with them.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Okay, gotcha so far!

Here we go.....

Ezekiel 38:8-9

8 "After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them.

9 "And you will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you."


So, according to these verses, Gog will be summoned to Israel... in other Words, it is ordained that they will come up against Israel. Yes?

Ezekiel 38:11-12

11 and you will say, 'I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls, and having no bars or gates,

12 to capture spoil and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places which are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired cattle and goods, who live at the center of the world. '

Verse 12 I get, and part of verse 11. But one part of verse 11 stumps me. It says "I will go up against the land of unwalled villages." Isn't Israel building a retaining wall? :scratch: What does it mean "unwalled villages?"

I'll stop here and wait for a response before I go on.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Ezekiel 38:8-9

8 "After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them.

9 "And you will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you."


So, according to these verses, Gog will be summoned to Israel... in other Words, it is ordained that they will come up against Israel. Yes?
Yes.

Quote:

Ezekiel 38:11-12

11 and you will say, 'I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls, and having no bars or gates,

12 to capture spoil and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places which are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired cattle and goods, who live at the center of the world. '

Verse 12 I get, and part of verse 11. But one part of verse 11 stumps me. It says "I will go up against the land of unwalled villages." Isn't Israel building a retaining wall? :scratch: What does it mean "unwalled villages?"

I'll stop here and wait for a response before I go on.
Wrong meaning.

Walls meant military defenses. And were manned by archers and swordsman.

Unwalled means unarmed and undefended. No military.

Part of the treaty has to be Israel ceasing to be a military threat to the Muslim nations. With the EU standing for them militarily.

[CoreIssue]

In you continued reading remember a Biblical tool and concept. A prophecy is often not limited to one issue and one time. Each part shares a common theme and purpose, but are distinct from each other in key aspects.

Like the King prophecied against containing the history of the fall of Satan. Two very similar scenarios but about two distinct times and persons.

Here the subject, Gog and Magog, and their condemnations, are the issues. But is it speaking of one or two time frames? Or one time frame with two events and not just one?

[Jessie]

Start with who Gog and Magog are. That is tripping some people up.

Gog's direct tribal statements, in the Bible, make him Russia.

But Magog's lineage makes him pretty much all of Europe and Asia, thus by default, the whole world.

This trips many up because they ONLY see it referring to Russia. Thus they end up trying to force all the prophecies into one event at one time.

But, in fact, there are Mid, Second Coming and Short Time after the MK prophecies using these names.

And two, not one, Rapture events in association with them.

would that mean the whole world will come up against them? or only those in
the areas?

glad you brought this up Chrystal!
2 rapture evens in association? could you explain this?

I'm totaly lost in this, as I only knew russia .

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Okay, just making sure I'm getting this....

Gog = Russia

Maggog = EU???


Yes???

[CoreIssue]

Okay, just making sure I'm getting this....

Gog = Russia

Maggog = EU???


Yes???
No. Gog is Russia. Magog is the offspring and descendents of Gog.

So, at Mid, it refers to those nations that fight with Russia. But at the Second Coming it refers to all the nations that fight with the AC. And, after the MK and at the end of the Short Time Gog and Magog represent every nation that attacks Jerusalem again.

Remember the Hebrew concept of a part representing a whole.

Like Egypt being used to represent the ungodly world when obviously the whole world is not Egypt.

Or Babylon being the ancient real kingdom and Mystery Babylon being a figurative kingdom name.

[CoreIssue]

]would that mean the whole world will come up against them? or only those in
the areas?

At Mid it means those who are the allies of Russia. Not the whole world.

At the Second Coming it means all the allies of the AC who send armies. But again, not the whole world.

At the Second Coming it means the whole world, I believe. But am not absolutely sure. A minimum being all the allies of Satan.
2 rapture evens in association? could you explain this?
There is one thief in the night event before the MK. We are all aware of that one.

But, in 2 Peter, when it says the earth and heavens are destroyed, it says there is a thief in the night event there as well.

Many try to twist that around to being the same Pre-Trib Rapture. But it cannot be as the passage clearly says this is when the earth is completely destroyed.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

The offspring and descendants of Gog? Okay, now I'm confused. :scratch:

[CoreIssue]

The offspring and descendants of Gog? Okay, now I'm confused. :scratch:
Magog was a son of Gog. And from Magog came the peoples of Europe and at least part of Asia.

Meaning he was the father of the Caucasian race.

[Brandli5]

Gog is told to be "the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal," from the north "the land of Magog" (Ezekiel 38:2-3). The prophet Ezekiel describes Gog attacking Israel with a powerful force (Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

According to this prophesy of Ezekiel, Gog will be defeated by God Himself on the mountains of Israel. The slaughter will be so great it will take seven months to bury all of the dead (Ezekiel 39:12).

Magog was a grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:2).

The descendants of Magog settled to the far north of Israel, likely in Europe and northern Asia (Ezekiel 38:2).

Magog seems to be used to refer to "northern barbarians" in general, but likely also has a connection to Magog the person. The people of Magog are described as skilled warriors (Ezekiel 38:15; 39:3-9).

The Book of Revelation uses Ezekiel's prophesy about Magog to portray a final end times attack on the nation of Israel (Revelation 20:8-9). Many Bible prophesy teachers identify Gog and Magog as Russia and/or China. This is possible, but not explicitly clear in the Bible.

I was looking this up because I did not understand at all what you were talking about, I found this information. I am going to find some more to make it a bit more understandable.

[CoreIssue]

Gog is told to be "the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal," from the north "the land of Magog" (Ezekiel 38:2-3). The prophet Ezekiel describes Gog attacking Israel with a powerful force (Ezekiel chapters 38-39).
That is Russia.

He attacks along with Persia, Germany and some other countries. But this is not the AC at Armageddon. Gog is not the AC.

And you are not dealing with him attacking an unarmed and peaceful Israel in a battle before Armageddon. Israel most assuredly is not a peaceful land at the Second Coming. 2/3 of the Jews are dead by the command of the AC and Satan. Israel is a raped, murdered and plundered land at the Second Coming.

There are two attacks in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Not just one.

You find the Mid attack in Daniel 11. Two battles, not one, in Ezekiel 38 and 39.
According to this prophesy of Ezekiel, Gog will be defeated by God Himself on the mountains of Israel. The slaughter will be so great it will take seven months to bury all of the dead (Ezekiel 39:12).
That is Armageddon at the Second Coming. And it is by the hand of Christ they are destroyed, at the command of God.

That fact is also not stated in Ezekiel 38 and 39.


Magog was a grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:2).

The descendants of Magog settled to the far north of Israel, likely in Europe and northern Asia (Ezekiel 38:2).

Magog seems to be used to refer to "northern barbarians" in general, but likely also has a connection to
Magog the person. The people of Magog are described as skilled warriors (Ezekiel 38:15; 39:3-9).

The Book of Revelation uses Ezekiel's prophesy about Magog to portray a final end times attack on the nation of Israel (Revelation 20:8-9). Many Bible prophesy teachers identify Gog and Magog as Russia and/or China. This is possible, but not explicitly clear in the Bible.


It actually is a fact it is referring to Russia. Those three names for Magog are traceable to the ancient settlers of Russia.

So, when those 3 names are used, it is explicit.

And China is an enemy of Russia. Not an ally. As is the EU under the AC.

And it is not the final attack on Israel. There is another after the MK and ending the Short Time of Satan. At which time there is another Thief in the Night event.


I was looking this up because I did not understand at all what you were talking about, I found this information. I am going to find some more to make it a bit more understandable.
I am long aware of this site.

The statements are incomplete. They do not deal with every facet of Ezekiel. And neglect statement in 2 Peter showing another attack on Israel at end of time.

[Jessie]

so will china and russia go at it?

and where you saying that russia along with some other countrys will attack isreal,
but we wont know for sure which ones will be involved?

I still dont understand the extra raptures....
only this one, I know about.

[CoreIssue]

so will china and russia go at it?

and where you saying that russia along with some other countrys will attack isreal,
but we wont know for sure which ones will be involved?

I still dont understand the extra raptures....
only this one, I know about.
Pop doctrine has painted a picture of peace and tranquility for the world during the first half of the Trib. Which is utter nonsense.

Only Israel is said to have that peace. The rest of the world is getting slammed by the Seals. We see in Daniel, in example, constant warfare outside of Israel.

It is a real mix up. One place China is against Russia. And as far as being at Armageddon, it is never said China will or will not be there. Another bad assumption by those reading the verses incorrectly.

Note, it says the nations that went against Israel will have to go there every year or be punished. It does not say all the nations of the world will have to go each year.

The AC will never establish a One World Government.

As for the Raptures, you are fully aware of the Pre-Trib one.

Consider these passages. What happens to the saints at this time? Are they consumed in the destruction or does Christ Rapture them out?


2 Peter 3
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-30517a)]


Revelation 20
7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

Sure looks like another Trib like period where Satan is called god again. Another AC in the mix? Probably. Another FP? Probably. Another Thief in the Night? Yes.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I always thought there would be war during the first half of the trib per scripture. China and Russia, to be more exact. From reading scripture, I realized that the AC is never able to bring world peace. He makes a peace deal with Israel (which is only temporary), but War will dog his entire reign. He never achieves complete and utter peace.

[CoreIssue]

I always thought there would be war during the first half of the trib per scripture. China and Russia, to be more exact. From reading scripture, I realized that the AC is never able to bring world peace. He makes a peace deal with Israel (which is only temporary), but War will dog his entire reign. He never achieves complete and utter peace.
Only God can bring world wide peace.

And to do so he has to glorify his chosen and put the rest in the Lake. ;)

[Brandli5]

THanks core.

I have asked my pastor to have more bible studies and of course there will not be any. I am glad I do have this site to come and learn. I have asked my own pastor questions like this, and he does not know the answers. I hope I can find a good church that has in detail studies like I used to have.

THanks for answering.

[CoreIssue]

THanks core.

I have asked my pastor to have more bible studies and of course there will not be any. I am glad I do have this site to come and learn. I have asked my own pastor questions like this, and he does not know the answers. I hope I can find a good church that has in detail studies like I used to have.

THanks for answering.
That is a common problem.

Many denominations get these kinds of doctrinal teachings from the denomination. They never studied it themselves so they do not even know where to begin when questions come up.

Or, will not even conceive of going against anything the denomination teaches.

[Jessie]

Pop doctrine has painted a picture of peace and tranquility for the world during the first half of the Trib. Which is utter nonsense.

Only Israel is said to have that peace. The rest of the world is getting slammed by the Seals. We see in Daniel, in example, constant warfare outside of Israel.

It is a real mix up. One place China is against Russia. And as far as being at Armageddon, it is never said China will or will not be there. Another bad assumption by those reading the verses incorrectly.

Note, it says the nations that went against Israel will have to go there every year or be punished. It does not say all the nations of the world will have to go each year.

The AC will never establish a One World Government.

As for the Raptures, you are fully aware of the Pre-Trib one.

Consider these passages. What happens to the saints at this time? Are they consumed in the destruction or does Christ Rapture them out?



Sure looks like another Trib like period where Satan is called god again. Another AC in the mix? Probably. Another FP? Probably. Another Thief in the Night? Yes.

wow I'm learning a lot here on this. I've always had the feeling the AC would not be able to set up a one world gov. although I think he trys.

the verse in 2 peter, I took that to be its all over. done with.
sounds like a world wide nuke.

the verse in Rev. will Jesus sit idly by just letting satan do it all over again? although this in in the millinium? and then just finally end it?

this is getting interesting.

humm and only those nations who went up against isreal have to go up every yr.
did'nt know that either. I thought all nations would have to go.

[CoreIssue]

the verse in 2 peter, I took that to be its all over. done with.
sounds like a world wide nuke.

Actually, it is more of God withdrawing his power that hold the universe together at the most basic levels. Chaos, now uncontrolled, allows everything to fly apart in its most basic components.

Definitely has not happed get.
the verse in Rev. will Jesus sit idly by just letting satan do it all over again? although this in in the millinium? and then just finally end it?
It isn't in the MK. It is immediately after the MK. When Christ, the Church as such leaves Satan is released.

humm and only those nations who went up against isreal have to go up every yr.
did'nt know that either. I thought all nations would have to go.
[/QUOTE]
That is what it says. A qualified statement.

[Jessie]

so when Jesus takes His people and leaves after the millineum,
is that when the judgement takes place? I'm lost in this :confused:

and which scriptures is that the portion in 2 peter?

[CoreIssue]

so when Jesus takes His people and leaves after the millineum,
is that when the judgement takes place? I'm lost in this :confused:

and which scriptures is that the portion in 2 peter?
Time Line
Now
Rapture/First Resurrection Begins
Trib/Wedding Supper of the Lamb/Judgement of Rewards/
Second Coming
MK
Short Time
First Resurrection Ends/Destruction current Heavens and Earth
New Heavens and Earth
Second Resurrection/White Throne Judgement

[Sid]

The offspring and descendants of Gog? Okay, now I'm confused. :scratch:


Russia plays a pivotal role in end-times prophesy. Maybe this link can help dispel the fog and get the discussion going:



Ezekiel 37-39 describes a time when Israel has been restored to her land but will then face an invasion force from a country in the north and her allies after God puts hooks in their jaws.


Those countries are listed by names we don't recognize today but it is not hard to trace where those people groups were once from. The following are the most common interpretations for those countries:


MAGOG is modern-day Russia and should also include Kazakhstan (the area north of the Caspian Sea).


Russia is no longer the superpower it once was and while it may be hard to see such a scenario happening today, it is no more difficult for God to accomplish than He did the recreation of Israel as a nation in 1948.

Ezekiel 39 would also seem to indicate the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict as specific instructions are given on burying the dead, including specialists who do this.

We will continue to monitor Russia's relations with Israel. Iran, one of the nations mentioned is also important to keep an eye on in light of its mutual assistance treaty with Russia. Israel has threatened to attack Iran if it continues with is nuclear program - this very well could be the hook in the jaws that draws Russia down.

Another nation to keep an eye on is Turkey as it is currently Israel's ally. If Turkey is to be involved in this invasion it would be a great dupe on Israel or things could change quickly in this Muslim country. The nuclear arms race in the Middle East continues and could play a factor in this conflict.


More. . . (www.prophecynewswatch.com/magog.html)

[Sid]

Russia plays a pivotal role in end-times prophesy. Maybe this link can help dispel the fog and get the discussion going:


Russia has successfully avoided public blame for the situation in the Middle East, but its ability to control and hide finances and intellectual property transfer has resulted in a steady supply of weapons, finances and technology to Syria and Iran, which in turn, empower Hezbollah and Hamas.

These are the foreshadows of the invasion of Israel led by Russia and Iran as prophesied in Ezekiel 38. The United States should give no ground to Russia, but rather should expose and condemn its clandestine support of terrorism and international chaos.



More. . . (watch.org/showart.php3?idx=80829&rtn=/index.html&showsubj=1&mcat=1)

[Centurion]

My belief is that the current turmoil in the Mideast is setting up the fulfillment of Isaiah 17.
Once Damascus is destroyed, I see the world coming down hard on Isreal and demanding peace in the region. Israel will capitulate, a semi peace will be enforced (not the covenant, but the "unwalled villages" stage) and quickly following will come the Gog-Magog invasion led by Russia and Iran, partially for revenge, partially for spoil. Once God deals with Gog-Magog and decimates them on the mountains of Israel, there will be a power vacuum of sorts. Europe will be shaking, so will the Far East. Into this vacuum steps the AC with his treaty and the covenant is enforced and the AC begins consolidating his power.

I believe that the Rapture precedes Ezekial 38, but not necessarly Isaiah 17, mostly because it is the Gog-Magog event that causes God to refocus His attention on Israel, meaning that the Church age will be over. I do believe it is possible that before the Rapture we could witness Isaiah 17.

I do not place Ezekiel 38-39 mid-Trib for a few reasons, one being that the outcome of the battle will result in Isreal burning the weapons of war for fuel for 7 years (Ezekiel 39: 9 - 15). I do not see there being a need for this during the Kingdom age, and if Ezekiel 38 happened mid-Trib, that would only give Israel 3.5 years to accomplish the burnings. Also, at mid-Trib is the abomination of desolations and after that event, Israel is pretty much on the run, suffering intense persecution. This time does not allow for the business as usual type actions descibed in Ezek. 39: 9-15.

[CoreIssue]

My belief is that the current turmoil in the Mideast is setting up the fulfillment of Isaiah 17.
Once Damascus is destroyed, I see the world coming down hard on Isreal and demanding peace in the region.

The wording demands it is at Second Coming. It cannot be now or before.

Israel will capitulate, a semi peace will be enforced (not the covenant, but the "unwalled villages" stage) and quickly following will come the Gog-Magog invasion led by Russia and Iran, partially for revenge, partially for spoil. Once God deals with Gog-Magog and decimates them on the mountains of Israel, there will be a power vacuum of sorts. Europe will be shaking, so will the Far East. Into this vacuum steps the AC with his treaty and the covenant is enforced and the AC begins consolidating his power.
The passages show that the AC invades Israel after this war.

Israel is never invaded by Russia, Iran and such. The AC cuts them off outside the borders of Israel and defeats them.

He then goes east, but is stopped by the fleets from the Island nations. Then he turns back and enters Israel.

When are you placing the invasion of Israel by the AC? Bible says Mid.

The Time of the Two Witnesses is a time of peace for Israel. The GT is not. Malachi 4 makes this pretty clear.

I believe that the Rapture precedes Ezekial 38, but not necessarly Isaiah 17, mostly because it is the Gog-Magog event that causes God to refocus His attention on Israel, meaning that the Church age will be over. I do believe it is possible that before the Rapture we could witness Isaiah 17.
So, you are a post-Tribber or Pre-Wrath?

When does the 70th Week of Daniel begin? How long is it?

When the 70th Week begins, the Church is gone.

I do not place Ezekiel 38-39 mid-Trib for a few reasons, one being that the outcome of the battle will result in Isreal burning the weapons of war for fuel for 7 years (Ezekiel 39: 9 - 15). I do not see there being a need for this during the Kingdom age,

It says they will. And Christ does not slay the army until they are gathered, which is not until the 6th Bowl.

The destruction of the army, the splitting of land allowing the water to enter, and such, are most assuredly at the Second Coming.

and if Ezekiel 38 happened mid-Trib, that would only give Israel 3.5 years to accomplish the burnings.

Facts are facts. Christ does the splitting. Christ destoys the army when he is physically present. That is Second Coming.

The burninig is indeed in the MK. Nothing hints at any loss of need for Man to not keep on maintaining the demands of every day life.


Also, at mid-Trib is the abomination of desolations and after that event, Israel is pretty much on the run, suffering intense persecution. This time does not allow for the business as usual type actions descibed in Ezek. 39: 9-15.

Yep. The woman flees at Mid. 2/3 of Israel is killed in the Great Trib.

So, there is not 7 years from the beginning of the Trib to burn the stuff.

Israel will not have a 7 year block of time to do these things until the Second Coming.

Sorry, not getting a clear picture here. Too many details conflict.

[Centurion]

I'm pre-trib, and believe that the 70th week begins once the covenant is confirmed. From my understanding of what you wrote, I see the battle of Ez. 38-39 as a seperate event at the beginning of the Trib, whereas (and I could be wrong) I think you are placing it as part of the many campaigns that comprise the actual battle of Armageddon.

[CoreIssue]

I'm pre-trib, and believe that the 70th week begins once the covenant is confirmed. From my understanding of what you wrote, I see the battle of Ez. 38-39 as a seperate event at the beginning of the Trib, whereas (and I could be wrong) I think you are placing it as part of the many campaigns that comprise the actual battle of Armageddon.
OK. Stil hazy on your time line. So, see where we agree and don't.

The 70th Week/Trib is 7 years long. The Charts link at the top contains a very complex look at the issues.

Here is a general outline.
Rapture/Two Witnesses/First Seal (AC)/Removal of the Restrainer begins the Trib.

Immediately befor Mid, Russia, Iran and such attack Israel, but they have a false sense of security from the AC and get cut to shreds. AC finishes with them and turns east ot eliminate more enemies, but the ships of the Islands force him to turn back. He now looks to Israel.
5th/6th/7th Seal day 1,260 First day of Mid. Woman flees
All Trumpets/3 Woes/invasion of Israel by AC/Woman reaches place of safety (probably Petra)/FP kills Two Witnesses
Bowls begin

7th Bowl is destruction of Rome, ending the Trib.
Second Coming/Armageddon

MK.


Ezekiel 38
10 " 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. 11 You will say, "I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars.

Unarmed and unsuspecting.

There is no way in the world this describes anything Pre-Trib or opening the Trib.

It will take the AC Treaty to get them to disarm. And they most assuredly will have to have been living in peace for years to become unsuspecting.

Even at the beginning of the AC treaty they are going to be suspecious of everything.

Further, as of right now, Russia just does not have the military muscle to even try this. But they are rebuilding.

Plus, the AC breaks the Treaty after 3.5 years of enforcing it.

This is Bowls

21 I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Not God's sword. But a sword he summons.

Remember, Gog and Magog are not terms limited to Russia. They include all the peoples of Europe.
18 This is what will happen in that day: When Gog attacks the land of Israel, my hot anger will be aroused, declares the Sovereign LORD. 19 In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. 20 The fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, every creature that moves along the ground, and all the people on the face of the earth will tremble at my presence. The mountains will be overturned, the cliffs will crumble and every wall will fall to the ground. 21 I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign LORD. Every man's sword will be against his brother. 22 I will execute judgment upon him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. 23 And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD.'
Day is not a single day. It is a period of time.

The plagues, bloodshed, hailstones, sulfer and so on can be found in the Bowls.

God and Magog are defeated by the AC. And when the AC enters Israel, God's wrath lashes out in Bowls again all, including Israel, who just rejected the Two Witnesses' message.

As Malachi says, then God's curse false on them.

It proceeds to the Feast of God at the Second Coming.

It is not one event. But a 3.5 year series of events.

It is impossible for Israel to be that unarmed, peaceful and unsuspecting nation at the beginning of the Trib. And God does not send the plagues, fire and such listed until the Bowls.

And Isaiah 17 is the Second Coming.

7At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.

Not before then will this happen.

[Centurion]

Unarmed and unsuspecting.
There is no way in the world this describes anything Pre-Trib or opening the Trib.
It will take the AC Treaty to get them to disarm. And they most assuredly will have to have been living in peace for years to become unsuspecting.
Even at the beginning of the AC treaty they are going to be suspecious of everything.
I am curious how you arive at this. The Hebrew betach implies a feeling of safety from false confidence, or carelessness. I do not see where it implies that Israel must be unarmed and unsuspecting. These are two completely different meanings. Israel could very well be armed and relying on their own strength have a false security.

The false peace that exists in Ezk 38 is not the same as the one during the 70th week. I think it will be the complete shock from the world at the events of Ezek 38 that brings the AC onto the world stage and allows his covenant to be enforced.

Another argument can be made for Ezek. 38 preceding the 70th week is that one of the results of God wiping out the Gog-Magog forces is a return to God by Israel. This will also see a return to Levitical worship which requires the temple be built. The abomination of desolations occurs mid-Trib and the temple is defiled. There has to have been a temple in place already for this to occur.

[CoreIssue]

I am curious how you arive at this. The Hebrew betach implies a feeling of safety from false confidence, or carelessness. I do not see where it implies that Israel must be unarmed and unsuspecting. These are two completely different meanings. Israel could very well be armed and relying on their own strength have a false security.
That is a massive read in onto the passage. Simple not stated.


Eze 38:11 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=eze+38:11&version=nas&st=1&sd=2&new=1&showtools=1) and you will say (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0559&version=nas), 'I will go (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05927&version=nas) up against (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05921&version=nas) the land (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0776&version=nas) of unwalled (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06519&version=nas) villages (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06519&version=nas). I will go (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05927&version=nas) against those who are at rest (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08252&version=nas), that live (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03427&version=nas) securely (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0983&version=nas), all (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03605&version=nas) of them living (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03427&version=nas) without (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0369&version=nas) walls (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02346&version=nas) and having (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0369&version=nas) no (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0369&version=nas) bars (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01280&version=nas) or gates (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01817&version=nas), Here it is, again, in the NASB.

Without walls


Strong's Number: 369 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=0369&version=nas) Original WordWord Origin!yaas if from a primitive root meaning to be nothing or not existTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0369&version=nas#Legend) Entry'ayinTWOT - 81Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechah'-yin http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0369h) Neuter Definition
nothing, not, nought n
nothing, nought neg
not
to have not (of possession) adv
without w/prep
for lack of
Strong's Number: 2346 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=02346&version=nas) Original WordWord Originhmwxact. participle of an unused root apparently meaning to joinTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02346&version=nas#Legend) EntryChowmahTWOT - 674cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechkho-maw' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=2346h) Noun Feminine Definition
wall
Clearly says without walls.

Having no bars or gates.
Strong's Number: 369 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=0369&version=nas) Original WordWord Origin!yaas if from a primitive root meaning to be nothing or not existTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0369&version=nas#Legend) Entry'ayinTWOT - 81Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechah'-yin http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0369h) Neuter Definition
nothing, not, nought n
nothing, nought neg
not
to have not (of possession) adv
without w/prep
for lack of
Negative declaration. Not having.

They have no wall, bars or gates for defense. Very clearly said.
The false peace that exists in Ezk 38 is not the same as the one during the 70th week.
That is not in harmony with the Bible to theorize this. There is no indication of 2 peaces. Only one.
I think it will be the complete shock from the world at the events of Ezek 38 that brings the AC onto the world stage and allows his covenant to be enforced.
Sorry, but that is speculation not supported by the verses.

The escalation of what is happening now is more than enough to set the stage for the AC. And his coming up with actual peace will most assuredly shock the world.
Another argument can be made for Ezek. 38 preceding the 70th week is that one of the results of God wiping out the Gog-Magog forces is a return to God by Israel.
Sorry, but the sulfer, firey hail and such do not occur until after Mid. Which again places the timing as beginning at Mid.

This will also see a return to Levitical worship which requires the temple be built. The abomination of desolations occurs mid-Trib and the temple is defiled. There has to have been a temple in place already for this to occur.

Correct. But the needed pieces for the Temple already exist. Ready to be put up.

And remember, the services can begin in a tent, even, as they did in the OT, until the Temple is finished.

The Two Witnesses are in the Temple Inner Court area for 3.5 years prior to Mid. So the Temple issues begins at the same time as the appearance of the Two. Which is at the Pre-Trib Rapture.

The time line is actually very firm. Two Witnesses followed by AC in Temple.
Two Witnesses and priests in Temple for 3.5 years.
7 year treaty with Israel at peace for 3.5 years.

The peace comes to Israel by the AC. Not before.

[DeeLeeKay]

This has me more confused then ever. Gog/Magog has many people's with them, do they not?
Gog/Magog also comes against Israel at the end of the MK, which would make the prince Gog a name for Satan would it not?

[CoreIssue]

Gog/Magog is talking about a people, not just a nation.

Ancient Gog through Magog was the father of a people. Those people settled much or Europe and even parts of the Far East.

But, in lineage, the straight line descendants settled Russia.

So, when referring to a nation, it is Russia. When referring to a people, it covers lot of Europe.

Remember the ancient concept of a nation was the people who descended from someone of note. Not specific borders. The people remained the people. The borders could move.

[DeeLeeKay]

Ezekiel 38-39 also have a multiple of nations, right?

Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:

[CoreIssue]

Ezekiel 38-39 also have a multiple of nations, right?

Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
Right. At Mid.

And you also see Gog/Magog after the MK and Short Time when the earth is destroyed.

Revelation 20
7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Which corresponds to 2 Peter 3 where you see another thief in the night event as well.

[DeeLeeKay]

Ezekiel 38-39 also have a multiple of nations, right?

Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:

[CoreIssue]

Ezekiel 38-39 also have a multiple of nations, right?

Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
Yep. More than Gog/Magog.

As does Armageddon.

[DeeLeeKay]

What is the difference between Gog/Magog and Armegeddon

[CoreIssue]

What is the difference between Gog/Magog and Armegeddon
One is at Mid, when Russia is defeated and destroyed followed by the AC invading Israel. The other is at Mediggo, outside of Jerusalem at the Second Coming, when the AC now goes down in defeat.

So, Mid is headed by Russia, along with Germany, Iran and some others. Armageddon is headed by the AC and has the AC armies, his allies and other nations.

There is 3.5 years between the two.

[DeeLeeKay]

Where does the Gog/Magog battle take place?

[CoreIssue]

Where does the Gog/Magog battle take place?
Outside the borders of Israel. Not within.

Ezekiel must be read in combination with Daniel. In Daniel you see Russia and such attacking, but the AC intervening and destroying them, turning to the east for more conquest, being stopped and then turning back and invading Israel at a time they are at peace and unarmed, which is Mid, not Second Coming.

Note Ezekiel begins with the invasion when Israel is at peace and ends with the destruction at the Second Coming. it is talking about the full 3.5 years, not a single event or or single time.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Does the Gog/Magog battle happen in the Mountains of Israel?


Eze 39:2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:
Eze 39:3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand.
Eze 39:4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that [is] with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and [to] the beasts of the field to be devoured.

[Jessie]

is this the same battle as of armegedon?

[Jessie]

One is at Mid, when Russia is defeated and destroyed followed by the AC invading Israel. The other is at Mediggo, outside of Jerusalem at the Second Coming, when the AC now goes down in defeat.

So, Mid is headed by Russia, along with Germany, Iran and some others. Armageddon is headed by the AC and has the AC armies, his allies and other nations.

There is 3.5 years between the two.

this is confusing as I was not taught about this.. :scratch: although it answers my other question.

so russia gets destroyed mid trib....is that so the ac can rule without
problems at that point from russia?

and armageddon what is that war for?

separating these is confusing :scratch: :aah:

[CoreIssue]

DLK, you are missing the point.

There are 2, not one, battles involving Gog. You are pointing to the end of the Trib at the Second Coming, where it is in the valley of Mediggo.

Remember at that time the AC and his armies have already been in Jerusalem for 3.5 years. So as the soldiers run for it from the field and city, many do fall on the mountains in their efforts to escape from the battle field on the plains of Mediggo.

But chapter 38 opens at Mid.

This is a 3.5 year time frame, not a one day one event one.

[CoreIssue]

Jessie, when you read in Daniel you see the AC engages in many wars during the first half of the Trib.

He betrays his supposed allies and lures them into a position where he can destroy them at Mid.

Meaning, allies with him to defeat his other enemies and then he destroys them, leaving him the last man standing.

Deceit is how he comes to power, rules, turns the EU into the reformed Roman Empire and ends up invading Israel by breaking the treaty.

[Jessie]

for some reason I'm having a hard time grasping all this.
although I did tonight go back and re read it all.
and I posted on it too... I get some of it.

I understand the AC will destroy many thru peace. (the last man standing thing)

on another post of mine you replied to, you mentioned it sounded like another
trib, and all the rest. this is off topic but do you think it will be another 6000 yr period?
then finally satan gets cast into hell?

[Jessie]

Jessie, when you read in Daniel you see the AC engages in many wars during the first half of the Trib.

He betrays his supposed allies and lures them into a position where he can destroy them at Mid.

Meaning, allies with him to defeat his other enemies and then he destroys them, leaving him the last man standing.

Deceit is how he comes to power, rules, turns the EU into the reformed Roman Empire and ends up invading Israel by breaking the treaty.

I think what you are trying to say is going right over my head.
I got some of it now, just clicked. :swoon: please brain kick in! :sob:

[CoreIssue]

for some reason I'm having a hard time grasping all this.
although I did tonight go back and re read it all.
and I posted on it too... I get some of it.

I understand the AC will destroy many thru peace. (the last man standing thing)

on another post of mine you replied to, you mentioned it sounded like another
trib, and all the rest. this is off topic but do you think it will be another 6000 yr period?
then finally satan gets cast into hell?
I don't know the length of time. But have wondered about it many times.

Satan is released when Christ leaves.

I imagine those who didn't like Christ will immediately begin maneuvering for power. Satan will do his best to egg them on and disrupt everything.

After 1,000 years Man will probably be pretty 'bored' with it all. Satan will be a powerful alternative many will jump at.

Somehow I think it will be a few centuries at most. Just a gut feeling.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16589#post16589)
Jessie, when you read in Daniel you see the AC engages in many wars during the first half of the Trib.

He betrays his supposed allies and lures them into a position where he can destroy them at Mid.

Meaning, allies with him to defeat his other enemies and then he destroys them, leaving him the last man standing.

Deceit is how he comes to power, rules, turns the EU into the reformed Roman Empire and ends up invading Israel by breaking the treaty.

I think what you are trying to say is going right over my head.
I got some of it now, just clicked. :swoon: please brain kick in! :sob:

It is far from the simple picture most try to paint.

The more Christians a country had the bigger impact the Rapture will have. They will change big time as countries.

The AC will be out of the gate immediately with the peace plan and filling the void the Church left.

His treaty will trigger off a number of wars. Those that signed with him against those that oppose it.

For 3.5 years it will be war after war after war. We see the results in the Seals.

That will largely leave the US, EU, China and Russia as the power boys on the block. But the US will have been weakened in resolve and ablity to respond due to the Rapture and first half of the Trib.

To pacify its allies Russia will move on Israel, thinking the EU will not interfer, but the AC pins them and destoys them, thus eliminating a huge enemy.

From that China will move, as we see in the 2 million man army marching. But I think they will get slaughtered by the AC, due to the terrain, the locusts and other factors.

Now the AC is the man. Now he begins slaughtering Saints and Jews in earnest.

After all, who is around to challenge him now?

But God is angry at Israel, beginning at Mid as seen in Malachi. The curse falls on Israel via the AC. And angry at the AC and the world for killing his saints and invading Israel, so we see the Bowls.

All of this is Christ's cleansing and taking of the earth so only those worthy to enter the MK are left, which is only 1/3 of Man, including only 1/3 of Israel.

The time of testing where the weeds and the wheat are determined for burinng and harvest.

[DeeLeeKay]

The way I understand it is this way.

Rapture
Beginning of th trib
The two witnesses are in Israel 42 months
when this time is over(Mid Trib) the AC or beast from the bottomless pit overcomes the witnesses and the rest of God's people and rules over the world for 42 months.
Mid trib the AC takes over Jerusalem(Gog?!?!)
End of Tribulation - Jesus returns and the battle of Armegeddon commences.

[CoreIssue]

The way I understand it is this way.

Rapture
Beginning of th trib
The two witnesses are in Israel 42 months
when this time is over(Mid Trib) the AC or beast from the bottomless pit overcomes the witnesses and the rest of God's people and rules over the world for 42 months.
Mid trib the AC takes over Jerusalem(Gog?!?!)
End of Tribulation - Jesus returns and the battle of Armegeddon commences.
Only a correction on one point.

The AC is the First Beast. He appears in the First Seal and is active, but hidden, even before the Trib. He is revealed with the Holy Spirit (Restrainer) is removed.

The Second Beast rises at Mid. That is the demon that enters the False Prophet and who then kills the Two.

5th Trumpet contains First Woe, the casting down of Satan.
6th Trumpet contains the Second Woe, the rise of the Second Beast demon into the FP.
7th Trumpet contains the Third Woe, the formation and empowering of the False Trinity for 42 months.

Satan enters the image giving it the appearance of life by the hands of the FP. Being the image of the AC Satan receives worship through it.

You see evil spirits coming out of the mouths of the AC, FP and dragon in the 6th Bowl. Since Satan is the Dragon and an evil spirit, he as to be in something to comeout of it. So the Dragon is in the dragon (image).

[DeeLeeKay]

The AC or beast from the bottomless pit is given power for only 42 months to make war against the Saints. It is this beast that overcomes the two witnesses. The 2nd beast or false prophet forces the worship of the 1st beast. To me this suggests that the 2nd beast is a religious system with a religious leader who is the false prophet.

[CoreIssue]

The AC or beast from the bottomless pit is given power for only 42 months to make war against the Saints. It is this beast that overcomes the two witnesses. The 2nd beast or false prophet forces the worship of the 1st beast. To me this suggests that the 2nd beast is a religious system with a religious leader who is the false prophet.
No. The AC is revealed in the First Seal. Thes says he is revealed when the Restrainer is removed. Daniel say he does the treaty beginning the Trib.

The First Beast rises from the sea of people. The Second Beast rises from the earth, the Pit. Clearly stated.
Revelation 13

1And the dragon[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30894a)] stood on the shore of the sea.
</H4>Satan is the Dragon.


The Beast out of the Sea

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"

5The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. 6He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

9He who has an ear, let him hear.
10If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30903c)] with the sword,
with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.



The AC is the First Beast and rises from the people.


The Beast out of the Earth

11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

The False Prophet is the Second Beast and rises from the earth, meaning the Pit.


Revelation 11
7When they have finished their testimony, (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30881R))the beast that comes up out of the (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30881S))abyss will (T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30881T))make war with them, and overcome them and kill them.

The Beast from the Pit/earth/Abyss kills them. Not the First Beast, the AC.

The FP is the High Priest, a single male, of the godking AC. Rome is the capital of his empire and religion.

The FP is not a religious system.


Revelation 16
13And I saw coming out of the mouth of the (AH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30969AH))dragon and out of the mouth of the (AI (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30969AI))beast and out of the mouth of the (AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30969AJ))false prophet, three (AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30969AK))unclean spirits like (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30969AL))frogs;
14for they are (AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30970AM))spirits of demons, (AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30970AN))performing signs, which go out to the kings of the (AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30970AO))whole world, to (AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30970AP))gather them together for the war of the (AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2016;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30970AQ))great day of God, the Almighty.

There are 3 evil spirits in three personages at the 6th Bowl.

We know the dragon is Satan coming out. Coming out of what? The statue.

We know the AC is the 8th King who is indwelt by the demon of the 5th King because John says he was, is not but will be the 8th King.

The 5th King was Alexander over the Greek Empire, the 3rd Beast of Daniel and the Brass of the Statue.

We know the Ten Toes reform the Roman Empire and surrender their rule to the AC.

The Pagan Roman religion was emporer worship. The AC is a godking.

The Pagan Romans had a High Priest to the Emporer. Before that power was assumed into the AC that High Priest's titlle was Pontificus Maximus. What now is held by the RCC Pope.

The AC, FP and Satan are the False Trinity. AC is false Christ, Satan is False Father and the FP is False Holy Spirit. That cannot be formed if the FP or AC are systems, not persons.

Nothing in the Bible justifies saying the FP is a system. The Harlot is the RCC that will be destroyed and reverted to the Pagan Roman system. Her colors are both Romes and the RCCs.

Revelation 19

20 But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshipped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulphur. 21 The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

The FP is cast alive into Hell. People, not systems, are cast into Hell.
Beast means a person, not a system, who is brutal and like an animal.
[B]Strong's Number: 2342 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=2342&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originqhrivondiminutive from the same as (2339 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2339&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2342&version=kjv#Legend) EntryTherion3:133,333Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechthay-ree'-on http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=2342g) Noun Neuter Definition

an animal
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
metaph. a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious
No. There is no way to get the FP to be a system Biblically. Nothing even hints at it.

[CoreIssue]

Add, the AC is killing Trib Saints in the first half of the Trib. We see them under the Alter. The 5th Seal is at Mid, day 1,260, closing out the first half of the Trib.

In the 42 months the pace of slaughter sky rockets, but that does not mean the saints were not touched until after Mid.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

We are gonna have to agree to disagree here.

The beast from the bottomless pit is also discribed as a 7 headed ten horned beast.

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
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.

[CoreIssue]

We are gonna have to agree to disagree here.
You are missing it, DLK.
The beast from the bottomless pit is also discribed as a 7 headed ten horned beast.
Read Revelation 13 again. It says the Second Beast, FP only has 2 horns. The First Beast has 7 heads, etc.

Now note, Revelation 13 says the Second Beast rises at Mid. That is the Second Woe.

It says the First Beast rises from the people. Absolutely no mention of any First Beast demon at Mid. Only the Second Beast demon.

There are two Beasts, not one. The same description does not apply to both, as you are trying to do.
Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
Per chapter 13 this is the First Beast. The Second only has 2 horns.
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.
This cannot be the Second Beast. The Second only has two horns per chapter 13.

Note how this is resolved.

The Second Beast demon is stated to rise at Mid in Chapter 13. The First comes out of the people. Therefore the First Beast demon is already there and not rising at Mid.

17:8 states that demon will rise from the Pit, but it does not state when.

But it tells you that it is the 8th king, the 5th king who was, is not but will be the 8th, the AC. The AC is the First Seal and the treaty author kicking off the 70th Week of Daniel, but not revealed until the Holy Spirit is revealed.

That means he is already risen and in the human AC before the Trib begins. And already carrying the Harlot.

That has to be for him to have the treaty already written. Has to be for him to be hidden to be revealed at the Rapture/First Seal.

You are trying to take the attributes of the First Beast in chapter 13 and transfer them to the Second in Chapter 17. Cannot do that.

There are 2, not one, Beasts. First has 10 horns on 7 head, Second has 2 horns on one head. Second serves the First.

You cannot reconcile what you are saying with chapters 13 & 17 when viewed in totality of what is said. The AC does not begin at Mid, he is probably very active on the earth right now.

The First is godking, the Second is High Priest. The image Satan indwells is erected by the Second Beast and looks like the First.

The 6th Bowl clearly states 3 persons, not 2 and a system. The FP and AC are clearly persons tossed into the Pit, not a system.

What you are saying is contradictiory, DLK. Simple cannot be reconciled.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core, I am not missing it.


The 7 headed 10 horned beast is the first beast as well as the beast from the bottomless pit.

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
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.

Rev 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.

This beast is given power to overcome the saints for 42 months.

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months.Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.


Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.


When the two witnessesw are finished(at Mid Trib) the beast(from the bottomless pit-the 1st beast) over comes them.

[CoreIssue]

Come on, DLK. Stop skipping verses and words.
Revelation says:

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns,

For the Trib he rises out of the sea, the people.

At Mid, here is who rises from the Pit. Clearly stated:
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb,
He comes out of the Pit at Mid. And is not the Beast with 7 Heads and Ten Horns.

There is absolutely no statement in Revelation that the AC demon rises out of the Pit during the Trib. He is absolutely the First Seal and who is revealed by the removal of the Holy Spirit.

You cannot avoid the direct declaration the Second Beast, with 2 horns, rises at Mid. The FP, not the AC.

The FP kills the Two Witnesses. Not the AC.

You keep avoiding what Revelation 13 states. First Beast, not Second, has the 7 heads and 10 horns. Second has 2 horns and 1 head. Second Beat comes out of the Pit at Mid, not the First.

Clearly stated in chapter 13.

Yes, the demon of the AC comes out of the Pit. No, it does not come out at Mid. But before the Trib begins.

You have to deal with chapter 13 in its entirity. Not just the parts you want.

The one who kills the Two ascends present tense, not past tense. So that makes it the FP Beast.

[CoreIssue]

The FP is not a system that ascends out of the Pit at Mid. He is a man, possessed by a demon that ascends at Mid.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

The Beast from the bottomless pit arises at mid trib to over take and kill the 2 witnesses. You are missing it, Core, not me.

There are two beasts.

1) 7 headed 10 Horned= Beast from the Sea
2) 2 Horned = Beast from the Earth

Revelation 17 states it is the 7 headed 10 Horned beast that is the Beast from the Bottomless Pit not the 2 horned beast.


Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
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.

[CoreIssue]

Another thing that takes away from chapter 13 is how the KJV translates it. It leaves Satan out.


1And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:1;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30911A))beast coming up out of the sea, having (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:1;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30911B))ten horns and (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:1;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30911C))seven heads, and on his horns were (D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:1;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30911D))ten diadems, and on his heads were (E (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2013:1;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30911E))blasphemous names.

You see Satan, the AC and the FP in chapter 13. That gives a whole lot clearly picture of what is going on.

Satan is cast down in the First Woe, the FP demon rises as the Second and the form the False Trinity as the Third.

Satan cast down from heven onto the shores of Man, AC rising from the sea of Man in the First Seal and the FP rising from the earth/Pit. Then Satan empowers them and they are the False Trinity.

[CoreIssue]

DLK, chapter 13 says this:
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns,

11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb,

Which Beast did he see rise from the earth at Mid? The one with 7 heads or the one with 1?

Chapter 17 sets no timing for the rising of the demon of the First Beast.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

I see the 7 headed 10 horned beast asending out of the pit at mid trib to over take the two witnesses.

The two witesses are over taken at mid trib, right?

[CoreIssue]

You didn't answer my question.

Chapter 13. Which Beast is stated to rise out of the earth/Pit?

Quote:
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns,


Quote:
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb,

One point at at time to get this resolved.

[DeeLeeKay]

The False prophet arises from the earth. It is NOT called the beast from the bottomless pit.

[CoreIssue]

The False prophet arises from the earth. It is NOT called the beast from the bottomless pit.
Neither is the First Beast here.

Sea, as seen in the picture of Heaven and such are people.

The Pit is in the earth, is it not?

This is what happens at Mid. This is the key.

Chapter 17 sets absolutely no time frame for when the demon of the First Beast rises from the Pit. Nor does Chapter 13.

But Chapter 13 does set the time of the rising of the demon of the Second Beast.

Plus, we know Rome, the Harlot, is riding the Beast long before Mid. We know the AC is around before the First Seal and is revealed in the First Seal.

Not one word of the AC, 7 Heads, gaining a demon at Mid anywhere. But most assuredly the FP does.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Earth does not have to mean bottomless pit. In fact Revelation 17 makes it impossible. For REVELATION 17 SAYS the 7 headed 10 horned beast is the BEAST FROM THE BOTTOMLESS PIT.

[CoreIssue]

Also note that Mid is the absolute first mention of the FP at all.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Earth does not have to mean bottomless pit. In fact Revelation 17 makes it impossible. For REVELATION 17 SAYS the 7 headed 10 horned beast is the BEAST FROM THE BOTTOMLESS PIT.
You are not thinking, DLK.

There is no statement of when the AC demon rises. None.

But we absolutely know the demon of the AC existed in the 5th king, the king who was, is not and will be the 8th. We know the AC becomes king at the First Seal/Treaty/Rapture, not mid.

So the AC demon MUST be there before the Trib even begins.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

There is a statement of when it rises. When are the two witnesses overcome?

[CoreIssue]

Core,

There is a statement of when it rises. When are the two witnesses overcome?
So you are saying the AC does not become king until Mid. That the Holy Spirit is here to Mid?

That is Mid Trib rapture doctrine.

[CoreIssue]

By the way. Post the verse that states when the 7 headed Beast demon rises from the Trib.

Don't post when the Two are killed at Mid. That most assuredly does not say which Beast rises then.

You are assuming it is the First Beast there and you are assuming the statement of the Harlot riding the Beast means Mid. Never said and as stated is impossible.

And, you are are assuming rising from the earth does not mean Pit. So what else could it mean?

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

The only thing I said was that the beast from the bottomless pit/AC is allowed to over come the saints for 42 months. The 42 months start mid trib. The timing of this event is spelled out in the judgements when the Angel with the keys lets this beast loose. It is the 5th trumpet. Also Revelation 11 says it is when the 2 witnesses finish.

Rev 9:1 ¶ And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.


Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit

Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.

[DeeLeeKay]

Don't post when the Two are killed at Mid. That most assuredly does not say which Beast rises then.


It most assuredly does say that the beast from the bottomless pit over comes them.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Tell me which beast is this from the context?

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
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

[CoreIssue]

The only thing I said was that the beast from the bottomless pit/AC is allowed to over come the saints for 42 months. The 42 months start mid trib. The timing of this event is spelled out in the judgements when the Angel with the keys lets this beast loose. It is the 5th trumpet. Also Revelation 11 says it is when the 2 witnesses finish.
It never says the AC demon is loosed then or rises from the Pit then.

The only Beast stated directly as rising from the earth at Mid is the Second Beast. And it is stated to rise.

Rev 9:1 ¶ And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit

Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.
Satan is the king of the Pit.

Satan is the First Woe.

The FP Beast rises in the 6th Trumpet, Second Woe, at Mid, and kills the Two Witnesses.

It never says the AC kills them.

The AC is there for the full 7 years. A fact you are not dealing with. The FP does not appear until Mid, nor does Satan. The AC Beast is the only one of the 3 there the first 3.5 years. Thus the reason no Trib time is set for his rising.

We a direct time statement for Satan appearing, and how he appears. Cast down at Mid. We see a direct statement for when the Second Beast demon, the FP appears, from the earth at Mid. We see a direct statement for when the AC appears. The First Seal. But we see no timing for when the AC demon appears, only that John says at some time he will rise from the Pit.

That is because he is with the AC before the Trib begins.

But note the 6th Bowl states all three are bodies have evil spirits in them.

Under your thinking there is no comment about the FP demon rising at any time, but he is there. Under what I said, all 3 evil spirits are seen and their origin is told.

Really, DLK, you don't have the AC as king until Mid, since the demon is what makes him the king who was and is the 8th.

At least think about it. And the fact the FP is not a system, but a man.

[CoreIssue]

It most assuredly does say that the beast from the bottomless pit over comes them.
Yes, but it most assuredly does not say it is the AC.

The ONLY demon rising at Mid is the Second Beast from the earth.

Again, no mention of the FP prior to his rising from the Pit. No mention of Satan until he is cast down. But the AC is there the full 7 years with no mention of is demon rising during the Trib.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Tell me which beast is this from the context?

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
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
The AC. The First Beast.

Now you tell me when the AC appears in the Trib, in Revelation, First Seal or Mid? When does Satan appear? When does the FP appear?

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

I have always questioned the current prevailent wisdom. Why? It never matched up for me. I think after talking to you this evening I am no longer pre trib. For me the Bible says that the AC not the FP is the beast from the bottomless pit. I am definately pre wrath not post tribulation.

[DeeLeeKay]

The AC. The First Beast.

Now you tell me when the AC appears in the Trib, in Revelation, First Seal or Mid? When does Satan appear? When does the FP appear?


I do not believe that the timing of the FP is stated. Whereas Satan is there all the time. He is kicked out of Heaven midtrib. The AC appears at the 5th Trumpet. Does this mean the 5th trumpet is mid trib? I dunno. The AC overcomes the saints at mid tribulation.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

I have always questioned the current prevailent wisdom. Why? It never matched up for me. I think after talking to you this evening I am no longer pre trib. For me the Bible says that the AC not the FP is the beast from the bottomless pit. I am definately pre wrath not post tribulation.
Hmmmm. Now you have the problem of the 24 Elders sitting at the First Seal glorified and rewarded. And the issues of the 6th and 7th Church. Rev 3:10 says we won't be there for the time of testing, which is the whole 7 years.

I don't see your issue with the Second Beast being the FP, who rises from the Pit. Does not make sense unless you are trying to insist the Second Beast is some kind of religious system and not a person.

And that thinking is in deep trouble right off whith the 6th Bowl, who is cast into the Pit at the Second Coming and so on.

1/3 of the earth dies during the first half of the Trib. You have the saints in the middle of it and being Raptured after the Woman is taken to safety for 42 months and Satan is on the earth killing saints.

Pre-Wrath is loaded with problems. As is Mid Trib and Post.

[DeeLeeKay]

My issue is that the FP is not the beast from the pit according to the Bible.

[CoreIssue]

My issue is that the FP is not the beast from the pit according to the Bible.
You are assuming.

And like it or not, you still have to deal with the 24 Elders, Rev 3:10, Daniel stating the whole 70th Week is Israel, not Church, the AC being the First Seal and a ton of other things.

The FP is from the earth where the Pit is. Happens at Mid. So what does from the earth mean then?

Your hanging up on a point you cannot prove and disregarding a ton of info you cannot explain.

Not good study habits there. The 24 and the rest are not going to go away.

[DeeLeeKay]

The Bible tells me that the AC is the beast from the pit. I do not need anyone else to tell me I have to do this or that. It is the beast from the BP that overcomes the witnesses and then has a 42 month reign.

[DeeLeeKay]

I have taken Daniel and revelation and always use the two when I get stumped. The Beast from the Sea is from amoung the Earth's inhabitance according to Daniel. There is not much in the bible about the FP. Only mentioned in Revelation and maybe 3-4 times. The False prophet is Satan's high priest causing the world to worship Satan and the AC. Symbolically what does earth mean and what does sea mean? These are good questions. I have yet to find a satifactory answer. Sea could mean any number of things. Coming from the Mediterrean Sea, the Euphrates River, or the sea of humanity. The only thing Daniel tells us here is that there are 4 beasts that arise from the sea. I have heard that the Earth means the land of Israel itself. My gut feeling(and I have nothing to base this on other then this beast does force the worship of Satan and the AC, which is a connection to religion) is that the earth has something to do with what happens on the earth as opposed to heaven and earth.

[CoreIssue]

I have taken Daniel and revelation and always use the two when I get stumped. The Beast from the Sea is from amoung the Earth's inhabitance according to Daniel.
Agree. The AC, king.
There is not much in the bible about the FP. Only mentioned in Revelation and maybe 3-4 times.
Agree again.
The False prophet is Satan's high priest causing the world to worship Satan and the AC.
Agree again. A man, not a system.
Symbolically what does earth mean and what does sea mean?
Sea we know. It is always used in this context to mean from huge numbers of people.

Earth has no symbolic meaning in the Bible. It is always used to mean from dirt of the ground to the earth as a whole. But always in the context of ground/dirt/planet.

And you do have a clarification of meaning given in the Bible. When Saul went to the medium she summoned the prophet. He is stated to have risen from the earth. Come out of the earth.

Paradise, where he was, is a chamber off of the Pit.

Therefore, to rise from the earth is to come from the Pit.

It is never used in any other way. So it does mean from the Pit.
These are good questions. I have yet to find a satifactory answer.
The ones I gave are the ones that apply.
Sea could mean any number of things. Coming from the Mediterrean Sea, the Euphrates River, or the sea of humanity.
More pin pointed than that. From the sea of people in the Ten Toes reformed Roman Empire, the EU.
The only thing Daniel tells us here is that there are 4 beasts that arise from the sea.
Actually, the 4 Beasts are quite well defined in the OT. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Together Mystery Babylon.
I have heard that the Earth means the land of Israel itself.
A totally foundationless idea.

My gut feeling(and I have nothing to base this on other then this beast does force the worship of Satan and the AC, which is a connection to religion) is that the earth has something to do with what happens on the earth as opposed to heaven and earth.

Sorry, no basis for that.

The Bible gives meaning to the earth and I showed you an example of what someone rising from the earth means in the Bible.

Christ rose from the Pit, also called the grave. Both of which are defined as in the earth.

The OT prophet's spirit rose from the earth.

Hell is in the earth. The Pit is in the earth. OT Paradise is in the earth. The grave is in the earth.

There is no other application for being in the earth. And it clearly says the Second Beast comes from out of the earth.


11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth.

Not from on the earth, but from within the earth. What alternative is there to being the Pit?

Really, you can show no other possibility as given in the Bible. This is the Beast that comes from the Pit.

[DeeLeeKay]

Actually, the 4 Beasts are quite well defined in the OT. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Together Mystery Babylon.


Babylon-Yes/Agreed
Media/Persia/Yes/Agreed
Grecian/Macedonian- Yes/Agreed
Rome-No/Disagree

[CoreIssue]

Rome-No/Disagree

Revelation 17
Five have fallen, one is,

Rome was most assuredly the king who was when John spoke.

Rome split later, thus 2 kings.

Rome broke apart into ten smaller empires when it collapsed. Those are the Ten Toes.

Lay a map of the EU over a map of when Rome broke into the Ten, and you have a match.

The Roman Emporers and the Pope wear the colors and such of the Harlot. Rome is the city on 7 Hills.

Rome, both as Pagan and RCC, slaughtered millions of saints.

It is Rome.

[DeeLeeKay]

I tried everything I could do to make Rome fit historically and biblically. It just does not fit.

[CoreIssue]

I tried everything I could do to make Rome fit historically and biblically. It just does not fit.
DLK, it is the ONLY empire that fits.

Look at the Statue
Babylon (the founder of Mystery Babylon) - 2 kings
Medo-Pesia - 2 kings
Greece - 1 king.
Rome - 2 kings

Here are the 7 kings and dead on with John.

There are 5 empires in the statue. Head of Gold, chest of silver, belly of bronze and hips/legs of iron.

John says one king is. Who was the empire and king of John's time? Rome.

John says 1 is and one will be. That leave 5 kings.

He says the AC will be an 8th king who was of the 5 that were. And etc. leaving on Alexander, the 5th King to fit the bill for the king that was. NO other king fits all of the demands.

John lived during the iron part of the statue. Where the 2 kings are found in Daniel.

Now look at the Beasts
1st Beast - Babylon
2nd Beast - Medo-Persia
3rd Beast - Greece
4th Beast - Rome

The parts of the statue and the beasts are the same.

Now look at the AC beast. His body is a composite of the 4. His body is Mystery Babylon.

7 heads are the 7 kings of the Statue. The one that was, is dead and will be the 8th is the demon of Alexander, since Alexander himself is not coming back.

Ten Crowns. That is the Ten Toes of the Statue. The Roman Empire DID break down into 10 Empires. Which is what Daniel is describing.

The EU is the absolutely the same geographical area of the Ten Toes, the broken up Roman Empire.

It says those Toes will reunite and give their power to the AC.

Look at the Greek Federation. Very much like the EU. Alexander rose to power, united them from a Federation into an Empire and conquered many by peace, which the AC does to open the 70th Week of Daniel and is shown as the king of the horse with a bow without arrows in the First Seal.

The Harlot sits on the Beast. The 7 heads are also 7 hills. Rome is the city of 7 Hills.

Look at the blood on the Harlot. Rome, pagan and RCC have slaughtered milliions of saints.

Look at her colors. The colors of the Roman Emporer, the Roman Pontificus Maximus, the head of the ancient College of Pontifs of Rome, the Pope and or the RCC at Rome.

RCC is apostate Christianity that took over pagan Rome. The AC will return Rome to Pagan emporer worship.

A perfect match.

There absolutely is no other candidate. Babylon, as in Iraq, isn't a candicate. Nothing to do with the Ten Toes. Nothing to do with the Harlot. No 7 kings, no ten crown, no 7 hills, nothing.

There is no other candidate.

And Rome most assuredly fits historically. They envied the Greek Empire and copied it. The king John says who is, at his time, was Rome. Rome did form the Ten Toes, Rome does contain the city Rome, the house of 7 hills. Via the Ten Toes you can see her history all the way into today. They practiced godking worship, which continues to this day in the Pope.

Exactly what do you see they don't fit? I can find nothing that does not point to them.

[DeeLeeKay]

First of all Daniel 8 tells me it is from the 4 divisions from the Macedonian empire that this final beast arises.

Next the original city of Babylon literally sits upon the first 3 beasts. Where does it tells us that this last beast moves the city?

Finally if this last beast is ROME we end up with a 6 headed beast rather then a 7 headed beast.

[CoreIssue]

First of all Daniel 8 tells me it is from the 4 divisions from the Macedonian empire that this final beast arises.
Yes. And Greece was part of the Roman Empire and is a member of the EU.

Thus, absolurely harmony with the 8th King being from Greece out of the Ten Toes.

Next the original city of Babylon literally sits upon the first 3 beasts. Where does it tells us that this last beast moves the city?

The Harlot sits on 7 Hills. The city of Babylon is out of the running immediately.

The Harlot is drunk on the blood of saints she killed. Babylon is gone again.

Mystery Babylon is not the literal city of Babylon. It fits none of the descriptions for it in the Trib.

We are told the 4th Beast breaks into two parts with two kings and later into ten nations and kings.

Rome did that. Babylon did not. Ever.

We are told those ten kings will turn over their rule of their ten nations to the AC. The EU is the geography if the Ten Toes, is a federation, of sorts, and is working to centralize and unite all the countries.

There is no other candidate for the Ten Toes or the prophecies. None.
Finally if this last beast is ROME we end up with a 6 headed beast rather then a 7 headed beast.
No, we don't.

John says 5 kings were, one is and one will be. The will be happened when Rome split in two. The legs of the statue are still iron.

There are 4 segments to the statue. John was during the united hips.

2 kings found in Babylon
2 in Medo-Persia
1 in Greece
2 in Rome (is and will be)

Only 4 beasts. John is during the 4th beast.

Try to make it not Rome, and John's king who is cannot be correct. You cannot have a king outside of the beasts/statue segments.

Try to make it the city of Babylon, and you make the 7 hills and drenched in the blood of saints false.

Not to mention you have left us void of any understand who the king that is could be, since he must be of the iron.

The 4th Beast is not the AC Beast. It must rise from the Ten Toes, which demands the 4th Beast has existed and fallen into Ten. Ten that you cannot find any empire, other than Rome, falling into.

[DeeLeeKay]

There are more cities then Rome which have 7 hills. Jerusalem comes to mind here as well as Istanbul. Futher we are told in Revelation that the "seat of Satan" is in Modern Day Turkey, not Rome.

[DeeLeeKay]

The Macedonian Empire divided into 4 kingdoms. Some of these were part of the Roman Empire, Some was not part of the Empire. The City of Babylon was not part of the Empire at John's time, which disqualifies it as a beast. The Beast empire "was not" in John's time, which again disqualifies it as the 4th beast. Rome is no more, which again disqualifies it.

[DeeLeeKay]

4 beasts were left at the time of Daniel.

5 of the beasts had fallen prior to John.

1
2
3. Neo Babbylonian-1st beast
4. Media/Persian- 2nd beast
5. Greece/Macedonian- 3rd Beast
6. Not a beast but still in power at John's time-The Ptolemy, Grecian and Selucid Empires had already fallen. Which left the Parthinian Empire which was at the time of John.
7. The 4th beast-yet to come with 10 horns, which are 10 kings that come from the East of the Euphrates River, which dries up so they can make war against Jesus.

[Jessie]

There are more cities then Rome which have 7 hills. Jerusalem comes to mind here as well as Istanbul. Futher we are told in Revelation that the "seat of Satan" is in Modern Day Turkey, not Rome.

but they are not drenched in the blood of Gods people.
rome is.

[CoreIssue]

There are more cities then Rome which have 7 hills. Jerusalem comes to mind here as well as Istanbul. Futher we are told in Revelation that the "seat of Satan" is in Modern Day Turkey, not Rome.
Really? I don't see that in Revelation anywhere.

Please post the verse that says that.

Turkey is not anywhere in the Statue or Beasts of Daniel.

What is the one and only city on the face of the earth called the City on 7 Hills that was called that 2,000 years ago, at the time of John? Rome.

[CoreIssue]

4 beasts were left at the time of Daniel.

5 of the beasts had fallen prior to John.

1
2
3. Neo Babbylonian-1st beast
4. Media/Persian- 2nd beast
5. Greece/Macedonian- 3rd Beast
6. Not a beast but still in power at John's time-The Ptolemy, Grecian and Selucid Empires had already fallen. Which left the Parthinian Empire which was at the time of John.
7. The 4th beast-yet to come with 10 horns, which are 10 kings that come from the East of the Euphrates River, which dries up so they can make war against Jesus.
DLK.

It does not say Beasts are kings. Anywhere.

You are talking kings here and trying to reach back to Egypt and such for the first two. Going before the First Beast and the Head of the Statue.

The First Beast listed is Babylon. The head of the statue is Babylon. The first king listed by Daniel is Neb.

You are trying to introduce kingdoms that are never mentioned in the Statue or Beast, anywhere.

Here (http://www.christiantalkzone.com/book/beasts/ETCbeasts_frames.htm) are the 7 kings listed in Daniel.

East of the Euphrates is China. Never in the Statue anywhere.

The AC Beast is a composite, Mystery Babylon, not a new Beast

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeLeeKay http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16755#post16755)
There are more cities then Rome which have 7 hills. Jerusalem comes to mind here as well as Istanbul. Futher we are told in Revelation that the "seat of Satan" is in Modern Day Turkey, not Rome.

but they are not drenched in the blood of Gods people.
rome is.

Exactky.

No Empire or city in the history of man comes close to Rome in the killing of saints. None.

The Inquistion, alone, killed over 50 million.

[DeeLeeKay]

Are both you saying that Islam is not drenched in blood of the saints?

[DeeLeeKay]

Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;


Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even]where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

[DeeLeeKay]

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

Dan 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.


Daniel tells us that the 4 beasts are kings and kingdoms.

[CoreIssue]

Are both you saying that Islam is not drenched in blood of the saints?
Not as much as Rome.

You HAVE to stay within the parameters given. You cannot match Istanbul up with either John or Daniel.

The Ten Toes come from the Roman Empire. That is a historical fact Rome broke into Ten. Modern fact the EU and map of Rome, at its final collapse overlay each other.

Fact RCC has preserved the Pagan Roman ways cloaked in Christianity. Fact the colors of the Harlot are the colors of Rome. Fact Rome has been the greatest persecutor of Christians in history, pagan plus RCC.

The Harlot is called the Harlot because it is adulterous Christianity. Islam is not Christian, apostate or otherwise. So it cannot be called Harlot.

You have nothing Biblical to show Istanbul or Islam as the Harlot, the AC Empire or any such thing.

Islam does not have godkings. The AC is a godking. Islam kills anyone who says they are a god.

Isa, in Islamic history and prophecy is not a god. He is a superior prophet only.

The AC sits in the Holy of Holies and declares himself god. No Islamic would conceive of doing such a thing.

The FP sets up and image of the AC in the Holy of Holies and it becomes a place of his worship. Muslims would wipe the Temple off the face of the earth in their beliefs and end time prophecies.

There is no way to get Islam, Istanbul or Turkey into this scenario.

[CoreIssue]

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

Dan 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.


Daniel tells us that the 4 beasts are kings and kingdoms.

And Daniel tells you the first beast king is Neb.

And Daniel specifies 7 kings, as I showed you in the link. John references these 7 kings. And that link shows you each of them Biblically.

You are fogetting in ancient times a kingdom was refered to by its king and a king was the kingdom.

So either there is a contradiction or Daniel meant kingdom in verse 17 and then went on to spell out the 7 kings. Just as nation can be a country or a unique group of people.

Turkey and Istanbul ain't one of the Beasts.

It states the 4th kingdom will break into Ten. It did.

Rome did devour the earth.

John is during the 4th Beast and 6th king. So your logic here is already out the window.

The AC is not the 7th King. All 7 kings are dead by the time he comes around. He is an 8th king who was one of the 7. Specifically the 5th, Alexander the Great, demon of, in the 3rd Beast.

There are 8 kings, but one is seen twice, as the 5th and 8th king.

The AC never rules the whole earth. So you cannot go there with that.

You are not dealing with all said about these beasts.

Yes, the AC beast will break down and tread nations. That is the aspect of the 4th Beast within it. As the 3rd is sleek, fast, uses treaties to conquer, is a slick talker and so on. As the 2nd is hard, stead and strong and as the first is rich, good looking and godly.

[DeeLeeKay]

Some of the things are interpretations that you have given, which I have studied and rejected based on the scripture itself. The bible tells me that there will be 4 kingdoms from the earth. It also tells me that after the 3rd kingdom the beast "is not". This tells me that the beast is not Rome, for when Rome ruled the beast "is not". Therefore Rome can't be the 4th kingdom.

A+B = C. Basic logic, not hard at all.

A-Rome is + B-Beast "is not" = Rome is not beast

[CoreIssue]

Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;


Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, [even]where Satan's seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
Revelation tells you Satan will be in the Temple in Jerusalem receiving worship. He is not in Pergamos.

Pergamos was Greek, not Turkish. The AC will be Greek. Which does not mean his capital will be there.

Pergamos was where the main Temple of the Caesar cult was. There is the Roman godking thing again.

Put it the correct historical context and you again see Greece, Rome, godking and all the rest that lines up with Rome and the 8th king.

[CoreIssue]

Some of the things are interpretations that you have given, which I have studied and rejected based on the scripture itself. The bible tells me that there will be 4 kingdoms from the earth. It also tells me that after the 3rd kingdom the beast "is not". This tells me that the beast is not Rome, for when Rome ruled the beast "is not". Therefore Rome can't be the 4th kingdom.

A+B = C. Basic logic, not hard at all.

A-Rome is + B-Beast "is not" = Rome is not beast
There is no logic in that statement at all.

Rome was an extension of Greek culture.

John did not say the 4th Beast was not, he said the 5th King was not, and he wasn't. Any more than the 5th King was part of the 1 or 2 beasts.

It isn't interpretation where I laid out the 7 kings. I gave literal verses deliniating them.

You are just turning a blind eye to them.

And it does not mean 4 kings. It means 4 kingdoms. Using your intepretation then there were already 5 kings down.

And not, before you say beasts, again, John didn't. He said 4 Beasts and 7 kings.

Rome was the 4th Beast. Per prophecy the 4th Beast shattered into Ten.

I see no offering of any other empire, after Greece, that shattered into Ten.

I see no offering of a current 'Ten' alliance that the AC can rise from.

You said he comes from Greece. Greece is in the EU, the Ten Toes Rome crumbled into.

You keep saying what cannot be, but I don't see any offering of what is, other than saying Turkey. You have to deal with the rest of the demands as well, including showing the king that was at the time of John.

Who was that king or kingdom? Sure not Turkey.

[DeeLeeKay]

John did not say the 4th Beast was not, he said the 5th King was not, and he wasn't. Any more than the 5th King was part of the 1 or 2 beasts.


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, whe


Was = Was past for John
Is Not = Present for John

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Turkey/Thrace was from one of the kingdoms that came from the Greek/Macedonian Empire.
This empire broke into four. Alexander's 4 generals took over. Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus.

Cassander- Greek proper
Lysimachus - Thrace where Satan's seat was at John's time.
Ptolemy - Eqyptian
Seleucus- Middle East/Syrian

[CoreIssue]

Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest [b]was, and is not;[/red] 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, whe


Was = Was past for John
Is Not = Present for John
Sigh.

Now you are trying to have it both ways.

The 3rd Beast Kingdom was Greece. Greece, in Daniel, contains only ONE king, Alexander.

So this is the 5th King, not a kingdom.

The Beast here is the First Beast of chapter 13. Not the Forth Beast of Daniel. They are NOT the same.

You are totally ignoring John told you the 6th King was when he lived. The 6th King is of the 4th Beast, as shown in the Statue of Daniel.

John tells you that one head of the 7 heads, the kings of Daniel, is dead and back to life. That is the king who was, is not and will be the 8th.

But all 7 kings have lived and died. All 4 Beasts have lived and died.

The AC Beast is the summation of the 4 that comes before. The 7 kings are those found in Daniel. The description of the First Beasts show it is a composite.

7 kings listed in 4 Beasts in Daniel. All are part of ONE Beast in Revelation.

Daniel shows the Statue ending up as Ten Toes. All Ten toes are shown in the First Beast, as are the 4 Beasts, 7 kings and so on.

This is a composite Beast, not the 4th one. It is not different from the 3 that comes before. It is all the 4 combined into one.

Says it when you read the full passage, instead of the single verse you posted.

9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
12"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.

All 7 kings from all 4 Beasts, the Ten toes, the 7 Hills of Rome and so on combined into one beast. Not a beast different from the rest, but rest merged.

One king while John was there. Who is it?

You called each king a beast. Well, you have 3 Beasts dead and one at the time of John. You are out of beasts.

What you are saying does not work. You have too many Beasts. You have a Beast that is suppose to be different not being different, but being the 3 merged.

How can the 4th Beast be the AC Beast while Daniel says it will collapse into ten from which the AC will rise? It has to have existed and crumbled into ten already.

What empire other than Rome did that?

I just want to see your answers to the full issues presented. If a legit argument, show me.

If you are going to demand Beast = King you have to be consistant. And 4 Beasts do not add up to 7 kings.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Turkey/Thrace was from one of the kingdoms that came from the Greek/Macedonian Empire.
This empire broke into four. Alexander's 4 generals took over. Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus.

Cassander- Greek proper
Lysimachus - Thrace where Satan's seat was at John's time.
Ptolemy - Eqyptian
Seleucus- Middle East/Syrian
Does not work.

John said one of the kings was there when he lived. Rome did come out of Greece.

And I don't see the Ten Daniel shows the 4th breaks down into in the Toes, from which the AC rises.

Where are the Ten? Who is the king that was, at the time of John?

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

I have to go to dinner, will be back later to go into this. Your interpretations are not mine. I do hold that Daniel's 4th beast and the 1st beast of Revelation are the same. Why? They both are sea beasts. The symbolism used in Revelation is the same as Daniel's first three beasts.

You can't chop up Daniel and Revelation to conform to your interpretation. Your interpretation must conform to the Bible.

Nebbie
Darius
Alexander
All consecutive
There is a break and then the 4th/1st comes at the end of the age.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

I have to go to dinner, will be back later to go into this. Your interpretations are not mine. I do hold that Daniel's 4th beast and the 1st beast of Revelation are the same. Why? They both are sea beasts. The symbolism used in Revelation is the same as Daniel's first three beasts.

You can't chop up Daniel and Revelation to conform to your interpretation. Your interpretation must conform to the Bible.

Nebbie
Darius
Alexander
All consecutive
There is a break and then the 4th/1st comes at the end of the age.
No where does it say the 4th Beast of Daniel is a Sea Beast. It says they are Beasts from the earth.

You cannot have the 4th Beast collapsing into the Ten Toes and the AC Beast rising form it if the 4th Beast is the AC Beast.

That is a massive contradction and impossible to pull off.

Further, as shown in the link, you are disregarding the identities of the 7 kings to make 1 Beast = 1 King.

Daniels shows 2 kings for the First Beast of Daniel, 2 for the Second and one for the 3rd. That most assuredly matches John with the 5 that were, and kills your argument flat.

Only one Beast shows one king. That one king historically wore a lot of white on an white horse. He was a godking, a homosexual, conquered more by treaty than by the sword, moved like a leopard in his conquests, died suddenly by murder and so on.

Alexander really fits the bill.

Neb cannot rise out of the Ten Toes because Babylon never collapsed into ten units. Ever.

Just piecemeal statements that are not shown in a unified whole don't really show any support for your position.

I can for mine.
Rome rose out of the Greek Empire.
6th King of the 4th Beast was the Roman Emporer. Alive at the time of John, as John says he is alive.
Rome shattered, at the end, into ten nations. As Daniel said it would.
AC is th 5th king, from Greece.
Greece is part of the EU.
Greece was part of the Roman Empire.
Little horn is shown coming out of part of the 3rd Beast, which it does via the Ten Toes.
Rome has been the City on Seven Hills for over 2,000 years.
Rome has slaughtered more saints than any other city in history.
Rome has the colors of the Harlot.
Harlot means apostate and adulterous 'church,' Rome most assuredly is.
And on and on. Fit for fit.

Now, you say Turkey and Istanbul.
Istanbul is not known as the City on Seven Hills.
Istanbul is not a Harlot.
Turkey is not drenched in the blood of saints as Rome is.
Turkey never had an empire that collapsed into ten units.
Turkey never is listed in Daniel as a Beast.
Turkey just simple has nothing backing it.

For the First Beast of Revelation to rise the 4th Beast of Daniel must have collapsed into Ten.
The AC is in the First Seal. So he cannot rise at Mid. He is already there.
The Second Beast is clearly stated to rise at Mid, not the Second.

What you are saying isn't working, DLK.

Present a whole package putting the elements together. A simple list will do.

Then we can look to see if it flows and takes in ALL the issues and requirements.

[CoreIssue]

Well, I asked CTZ if he still had the maps showing the overlay. I lost mine in a computer crash.

But here is a list of the Ten groups that came after the collapse of Rome.

These were the Lombards, the Alemanni, the Anglo-Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Brugundians, the Franks, the Suevi, the Vandals, the Visigoths, and the Heruli. This was the beginning of the modern nations of Europe; some strong, some weak. Seven of them still exist today in Europe. For example, the Anglo-Saxons became the English, the Franks became the French, the Alemannians became the Germans, and the Lombards became the Italians.

And the land they encompassed can be seen by looking at a map of the EU.

[Jessie]

Not as much as Rome.

You HAVE to stay within the parameters given. You cannot match Istanbul up with either John or Daniel.

The Ten Toes come from the Roman Empire. That is a historical fact Rome broke into Ten. Modern fact the EU and map of Rome, at its final collapse overlay each other.

Fact RCC has preserved the Pagan Roman ways cloaked in Christianity. Fact the colors of the Harlot are the colors of Rome. Fact Rome has been the greatest persecutor of Christians in history, pagan plus RCC.

The Harlot is called the Harlot because it is adulterous Christianity. Islam is not Christian, apostate or otherwise. So it cannot be called Harlot.

You have nothing Biblical to show Istanbul or Islam as the Harlot, the AC Empire or any such thing.

Islam does not have godkings. The AC is a godking. Islam kills anyone who says they are a god.

Isa, in Islamic history and prophecy is not a god. He is a superior prophet only.

The AC sits in the Holy of Holies and declares himself god. No Islamic would conceive of doing such a thing.

The FP sets up and image of the AC in the Holy of Holies and it becomes a place of his worship. Muslims would wipe the Temple off the face of the earth in their beliefs and end time prophecies.

There is no way to get Islam, Istanbul or Turkey into this scenario.


:nod:

[DeeLeeKay]

I will state for the record here that I will make my case based on Daniel 7-8 and Revelation 13 and 17. I use both books because I believe they are both discribing the same beast king/kingdom. You get a more complete picture from using both books.


Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 both start off with a vison of beast/beasts arising from the Sea.


Dan 7:1 ¶ In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, [and] told the sum of the matters.
Dan 7:2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
Dan 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

Rev 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.

At this point they seem to be different beasts being discussed, because seemingly it looks like Revelation has a 7 headed beast whereas Daniel has only 4 different beasts. But a closer examination of the beasts in Daniel show something very simular to the 1st beast of Revelation. Lets look at these simularities.

____________Daniel----------------------1st beast of Revelation
1st beast------looks like a lion-----------head of a lion
2nd beast-----looks like a bear----------has the feet of a bear
3rd beast-----looks like a leopard-------has the body of a leopard

[DeeLeeKay]

Post Continued:

There seems to be some simularities between Daniel's sea beast and the sea beast of Revelation. There is one more beast in Daniel. Let's look to see if Daniel's 4th beast has anything in common with the 1st beast in Revelation. Oh My Goodness! there is something there. Daniel's 4th beast has 10 horns and Revelation's 1st beast has 10 horns.

____________Daniel----------------------1st beast of Revelation
1st beast------looks like a lion-----------head of a lion
2nd beast-----looks like a bear----------has the feet of a bear
3rd beast-----looks like a leopard-------has the body of a leopard
4th beast-----has 10 horns---------------has 10 horns

But we still have a problem here. Even if we make Daniel's beast into a composite we still only have a 4 headed 10 horned beast, not the 7 headed 10 horned beast of the 1st beast of Revelation. However, and most people skip over the part of Daniel that talks about the 3rd beast having 4 heads.

Dan 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.

If we make Daniel's 4 beasts a composite we end up with a 7 headed 10 horned beast.

1-1-4-1 = 7 heads

[DeeLeeKay]

Now lets look at it more closely.


____________Daniel----------------------1st beast of Revelation -------# of heads
1st beast------looks like a lion-----------head of a lion--------------------1
2nd beast-----looks like a bear----------has the feet of a bear------------1
3rd beast-----looks like a leopard-------has the body of a leopard-------4
4th beast-----has 10 horns---------------has 10 horns---------------------1


It looks remarkably like the same beast to me. So to me these scriptures taken side by side look like Revelation has made a composite of Daniel's 4 beasts. It almost has to be the same beast.

[DeeLeeKay]

I have not even attempted to deal with what these heads/horns, beasts or king/kingdoms could be today or historically. I have not yet even suggested what they could be literally or symbolically. The only thing I have done is to show how much these two chapters/books almost word for word discribe these two SEA BEASTS. It is almost impossible to convince me they are different beasts. There is too many simularities and not enough differences for them to be different beast/s.

[DeeLeeKay]

Oh, there is also more more point of simularity between the two.

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

[DeeLeeKay]

After all this could Daniel's 4th beast be the 1st beast of Revelation? This person says, YES!

[CoreIssue]

The problem with what you are doing is that you do not even look at all the evidence. As in the Statue, for example.

The Statue shows the beasts in a different way. One that cannot be conformed to what you are saying

Head - 1st Beast - Babylon 2 kings
Shoulders - 2nd Beast - Medo-Persia 2 kings
Belly - 3rd Beast - Greece - 1 king, the king that was, is not and will be the 8th
Hips & legs - 4th Beast - Rome - 2 kings - hips were the king that was when John lived
Toes - Ten Toes/Horns - What the 4th Beast collapses into and the First Beast of Revelation rises from

You are trying to change the order and facts given. For the Ten to exist, the 4th must exist for the collapse into the Ten to occur. You have the toes between the belly and the hips.


Revelation 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.

4th Beast is iron.
41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom;
It says AS the toes are mixed so will this kingdom be. Not that the Toes ARE this kingdom.

yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

Will not remain united. The AC kingdom, The First Beast of Revelation, is united until its destruction.

It says the 4th Beast will collapse into the Ten Toes. And Rome most assuredly did. It began coming apart by civil war and other issues caused by divisions from within it. It spit into 2 and then into 10. Historical fact.
44 "In the time of those kings,
At the time of those KINGS, plural. Not at the time of the 4th Beast, AC.

The Ten give their authority to the AC. To do so they must exist first. The Ten Toes/Horms must exist prior to First Beast. And the Statue shows the 4th Beast must exist prior to the Toes.

the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.


Chrsit, the Rock strikes the Toes, not the legs or hips, where the 4th Beast is. He strikes the AC Kingdom, which is the Empire formed by the Ten Toes reuniting.

The AC is shown rising out of one division of the 3rd Beast, Greece. But he is then also show as rising out of the 4th Beast and the Ten Toes, again Greece.

Greece is in the 3rd, 4th, Ten Toes and First Beast of Revelation. He is shown coming out of all but the First Beast, which he is shown as being in Revelation. Rises out of the others and is in the First.

Now look at Daniel 7:

23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%207;&version=31;#fen-NIV-21959a)]

Right there It says exactly what I have been saying and is in complete harmony with the statue. It lays out the flow.
4th Beast
Ten Toe/Horns come from this kingdom
AFTER them the AC will come. At that time the saints will be handed over. Not during the time of the 4th Beast.

The 4th Beast (Rome) is the hips. Splits into to kings, the legs. Then falls apart into the Ten, as also shown here.

The Ten reform, the EU, and turn their power over the AC.

So, Rome is reformed, but it is different. It is now all 4 Beasts merged into one, the First Beast of Revelation.

You cannot have the First Beast until you have the Ten Toes. You cannot have the Ten Toes until the 4th Beast collapses and ends.

It states in one way in Revelation another in Daniel. But Daniel clearly says in 23-25 the 4th Beast is not the AC kingdom, but that the AC kingdom rises from the Ten nations that result in the collapse of the 4th Beast.

The EU is the Ten Toes/horns of Daniel and John.

What I have been saying is clearly laid out by Daniel.

[DeeLeeKay]

The ten toes line up with the ten horns on the 4th beast. And I am not finished. The Biggest problem with Rome is that it does not nor did it have the literal city of Babylon sitting on it.

[CoreIssue]

The ten toes line up with the ten horns on the 4th beast. And I am not finished. The Biggest problem with Rome is that it does not nor did it have the literal city of Babylon sitting on it.
There is no literal city with Babylon sitting on it.

And it states the 4th Beast collapses into the 10. You cannot have the AC Kingdom rise without the 4th Beast having already collapsed into the Ten.

Impossible.

You are not dealing with Daniel 7 where it says the AC comes from the Ten AFTER the collapse of the 4th Beast. That is quite literally stated.

Making the First Beast of Revelation impossible to be the 4th Beast of Daniel.

Greece did not literally sit on the city of Babylon, either.

Mystery Babylon is NOT a the literal physical Babylon of Neb. No way. It is a system.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core, correction, Babylon did sit upon Alexander the Great's empire.

[DeeLeeKay]

You can't discount the 4 beasts of Daniel as the 1st beast of revelation. If you can't see this, I might as well leave. We will get no where fast.

[CoreIssue]

Core, correction, Babylon did sit upon Alexander the Great's empire.
Really? How?

If figuratively then you just lost the right to exclude Rome.

[CoreIssue]

Also, Rome was called the Iron Monarchy. Rome means strength and iron was the strong metal of the day.

[DeeLeeKay]

Did you not know that Alexander the Great did in fact take over the city of Babylon?

The city of Babylon surrendered, and Alexander easily captured the Persian cities of Susa and Persepolis. These cities yielded him vast treasures of gold and silver. All the inhabitants of Persepolis were either killed or sold into slavery. Alexander burned Persepolis in revenge for the Persian burning of Athens in 480 B.C.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8740/Alexander.htm

[CoreIssue]

You can't discount the 4 beasts of Daniel as the 1st beast of revelation. If you can't see this, I might as well leave. We will get no where fast.
I cannot. And I gave the verses from Daniel to prove the point.

Why won't you deal with Daniel stating the 4th Beast collapses into the Ten and the AC comes from the Ten AFTER the collapse? It is very plainly stated.


Daniel 2
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. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle

Made up of Ten peoples who were partially strong and partially weak.
. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
They will not remain together united as a country.

44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

The Time of the Ten Kings, plural. Not the one united 4th Beast under one King.

Just as shown in the statue. The iron breaks into Ten Toe Nations.

And Revelations says the Ten will give their power to the AC.

4th Beast is stated to break into Ten. The Ten are stated to give their power to the AC.

The 4th Beast MUST collapse for the Ten to be formed. Else there is no Ten to give their power to the AC.

Rome didn't get its power over the Ten by them giving it to a king. They conquered the ten during their day and time.

You are not dealing with the statement the Ten will not remain united. Nor that that the AC will come from the Ten and his Empire as well. Given to him. Not conquered.

Just as Alexander did not conquer the Greek Alliance to become Emporer. But they make him emporer.

Same thing is going to happen to the EU.

So tell me how the AC can be the 4th Beast/First Beast, when it states the 4th Beast must break into Ten before the AC can rise?

That is impossible to justify.

[CoreIssue]

Did you not know that Alexander the Great did in fact take over the city of Babylon?



http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8740/Alexander.htm
Yes, I did. So what? Rome conquered Babylon as well.

Conquering Babylon does not have Babylon sitting on them, it has them sitting on Mystery Babylon.

Which is exactly what the Harlot shows. Mystery Babylon is the whole of the statue.

[DeeLeeKay]

Rome did not conquorer Babylon. It was in the process, but never did.

[CoreIssue]

Let me clarify.

Mystery Babylon is a complete system of religion, state and commerce. Each of the Beasts developed and carried that system. It is complete in the First Beast of Revelation.

So it is carried on the history that developed it. And mature in Rome.

Rome is not Mystery Babylon, in that sense. It is the capital and center or Mystery Babylon.

Mystery Babylon is not a physical location, thus why it is described as resting on the Beast, 7 kings and so on.

[CoreIssue]

Rome did not conquorer Babylon. It was in the process, but never did.
You are not getting it. Mystery Babylon is not physical Babylon.

[CoreIssue]

In 116 AD, the Roman emperor Trajan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan) invaded the Parthian empire and conquered all the way to Babylon. The Parthians were in disarray at this time, due to civil wars, and unable to offer much resistance. But in 117 , just a year later, Trajan's successor Hadrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian) gave up most of the land that Trajan had conquered.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_Empires)
They didn't have it long. Nor was Babylon any longer a prized catch.

[CoreIssue]

Add, the Babylonian religions and ways entered Rome. So, Babylon, the system, was in the Roman Empire.

[DeeLeeKay]

I think I am done here. I will talk to you later. This is not getting us anywhere. I can't discount much of scripture to see something I have tried to for years, yes years and can't do it. You want Rome to be Daniel's 4th beast and I can't see it. I can't see Rome even in the Statue.
You want the two legs to be the two divisions of the Roman Empire. The 10 horns of Revelation 13 and 17 all rule at the same time, not consecutively, like you want the kingdoms that came from the Roman Empire. The Statue and the Beast of Revelation is not the same. The Sybolism falls as does the so called timing of the horns/kings.

Additonally you have not addressed the 4 heads on Daniel's 3rd beast and how it applies to the Statue. In short what you have done is effectively discount Daniel's statue and 4 beasts as being relevant to any of Revelation's beasts. To discuss the beasts of Revelation you have to throw out Daniel and I can't do that. I find Daniel and Revelation to dovetail one another.

[CoreIssue]

I think I am done here. I will talk to you later. This is not getting us anywhere. I can't discount much of scripture to see something I have tried to for years, yes years and can't do it. You want Rome to be Daniel's 4th beast and I can't see it. I can't see Rome even in the Statue.
I believe because you refuse to deal with all that is said.
You want the two legs to be the two divisions of the Roman Empire.
You have offered no alternative explanation.
The 10 horns of Revelation 13 and 17 all rule at the same time, not consecutively,
No they don't. They are kings who surrender the kingships to the AC. There are not 11 kings.
like you want the kingdoms that came from the Roman Empire.
That is what it says. You have offered no alternative and will not even deal with the fact it says the 4th Beast collapapses into the ten from which the First Beast rises. You somehow feel you can ignore that collapse statement.
The Statue and the Beast of Revelation is not the same.
Read. It says at the time of the Ten Toes Christ will destroy the whole statue. Most assuredly it is the First Beast of Revelation he destoys, the Beast who rises from the Ten Toes of the Statue.
The Sybolism falls as does the so called timing of the horns/kings.
No. it doesn't.

Daniel and John lay it out. You have yet to show a problem. You just keep saying it isn't true. No reasons given.
Additonally you have not addressed the 4 heads on Daniel's 3rd beast and how it applies to the Statue.
Actually, I did.

The 4 heads are given to show the rise of the Little Horn from the Ten. There is your connection.

The Ten Horns are the Ten Toes of the Statue and the Ten Horns of the First Beasts. You also see the 7 kings.

From the Ten Horns the AC rises. Also stated he rises from the Ten Toes. And states he is the king who was, is not and will be, the 5th king.

Now, unless you have more than one AC rising, they are all refering to the same AC, which demands you find the unity in the imageries.

Ten Horns of the 4th Beast are the Ten Toes of the Statue and the Ten Horns of the First Beast of Revelation.

Daniel says the 4th Beast collapses and the Ten become independent. Later, the Ten give their power to the First Beast.

You do not deal with the statement of the collapse and the future surrender. You totally skirt that issue.

The verses do not allow for the initial union of the Ten to be in the First Beast of Revelation. Daniel tells us they must be in the 4th Beast and the 4th Beast must collapse.
In short what you have done is effectively discount Daniel's statue and 4 beasts as being relevant to any of Revelation's beasts. To discuss the beasts of Revelation you have to throw out Daniel and I can't do that. I find Daniel and Revelation to dovetail one another.
That is pure nonsense. Means you have not looked at what I said, at all, and are merely looking for ways to defend your position.

Statue Beasts First Beast Second Beast
Head 1st Beast Merged part n/a FP
Chest 2nd Beast Merged part n/a
Belly 3rd Beast Merged part n/a
Thighs & Legs 4th Beast Merged part n/a
Ten Toes Horns 4th Beast Horns n/a

All there in flow.

The empires flow down the statue, head to toes. Flow through the Beasts, 1-4. Merge in the First Beast of Revelation.

Second Beast is the FP, not of the Statue or Beast.

Head/1st Beast/Babylon/aspect of the First Beast
Chest/2nd Beast/Medo-Persia/aspect of the First Beast
Belly/3rd Beast/Greece/aspect of the First Beast
Thighs & Legs/4th Beast/Rome/aspect of the First Beast

the 7 kings
2 from Babylon
2 form Medo-Persia
1 grom Greec
2 From Rome
7 Total

John states the 6th is the king that is while he spoke. Rome.

Ten Toes/Horns
Conquered by Rome, the 4th Beast.
Rome split into two kings and then into Ten. Historical fact.
Daniels stated they would split and from them the AC and his empire would rise.

First Beast of Revelation
Ten kings give their power to him. They are the Ten Toes/Horns
This shows the Roman Empire lands will reunite and from the AC empire. EU contains the Ten and a map of the EU shows it is the same land as when Rome fell into the Ten historically.

Statue, 4 Beasts and First Beast of Revelation all in harmony. None neglected and full relationships shown.

Harlot perfect match for Rome. Colors, slaughter of saints, on 7 Hills, old capital of the pagan emporer worship, apostate RCC, part of the Statue, 4th Beast and all the rest. No contradicitons anywhere.

4th Beast cannot be the First Beast simply because the 4th Beast must collapse into the Ten before becoming the First Beast. Also, 4th Beast is shown, in the Statue, as splitting in two and then into Ten. Historical fact for Rome and no one else.

Tons of evidence there, DLK. There are no contradictions or issues.

You are not looking at the full picture, just as in you saying you think you are Pre-Wrath neglects the 70th Week of Daniel is 7 covenant years on Israel, no Church allowed, and the 24 Elders are sitting there resurrected and glorified at the First Seal.

I agree it is complicated. It took me a lot of years to get it together conflict free. A lot of years.

But, after 45 years of sorting, listening, debating and discussing, I cannot find any weakness in what I said.

If you don't want to discuss anymore, that is okay. Plenty of other discussions to take part in, and fellowship. Just move on to them for awhile. No need to disappear, my old friend. :tiphat:

Just don't dismiss the points in your studies. Think them through on your own.

You are along time friend, and a I value that.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

The ten horns are given power for one hour only and that is to give their power to the beast to make war against Jesus. They have not shown up yet in human history. In addition you have to spiritualize Babylon to make your theory work. This makes your theory unbiblical. It is a house of cards. This house of cards falls cause the foundation(Spiritualized Babylon) is faulty. That Rome has sat on 7 hills for 2000 years is true. However, The City of Babylon has been around far longer. Zechariah tells us that Wickedness will be put back on her base, on the plains of Shinar, and there she will be judged. For your theory to work Rome(The City) would have had to sit upon all the beasts and it doesn't. It is not about religion, for it is the 2nd beast of revelation that forces the worship of the first beast. Could Rome be the 2nd beast with the Pope in the place of the false prophet? It could be, but I do not think so. For Rome didn't kill by beheadings.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

You have not adequately addressed any of my problems that I can see. You have diminished my objections, you have basically called me stupid and stubborn. I have these objections through long years of prayer and study, and I have come up with a different interpretation.

It takes to with open minds to study. And it appears that one of us if not both have closed minds as to what the Bible says. I tried, for years I prayed and cried to God to show me how Rome fit. Then one day I was reading Revelation 17 and then it clicked. Rome was not the city talked about in Revelation 17. Revelation has some stern warnings to those who would add to or subtract from Revelation. Revelation calls Babylon a city. Nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing in Revelation that adds to that statement or subtracts from it. Babylon, the great city that rules over the kings of the earth. It is not a code name, it is not a religious system, it is just simply the GREAT CITY, that sits on the banks of the River Euphrates on the plains of Shinar.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.


I refuse to be part and parcel of a belief that adds to the words of this book. I refuse to also be part of a belief system that subtracts from the words.

Revelation calls Babylon a city no less then 3 times.

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

Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast [it] into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

In addition to these scriptures there are a few more scriptures that say great city without mention of Babylon, but implying that it is the "great city".

[Jessie]

how about the vatican. which is a city inside rome...

[CoreIssue]

Core,

The ten horns are given power for one hour only and that is to give their power to the beast to make war against Jesus.
Agree. The EU is a new blip on history. A mere moment in time. And not fully implimented yet.
They have not shown up yet in human history.
I disagree. The 4th Beast, Rome, split in half and fell into Ten. How much more accurate can it be?
In addition you have to spiritualize Babylon to make your theory work. This makes your theory unbiblical.
No it doesn't. Is Christ literally a rock rolling down a hill to smash the statue? Are the Beasts literally animals?

No. Figurative language having a literal meaning is used in many places in the Bible.
It is a house of cards. This house of cards falls cause the foundation(Spiritualized Babylon) is faulty.
Really? Not spiritualized by symbolized. Babylon, the Head, is the symbol of all that comes after.
That Rome has sat on 7 hills for 2000 years is true. However, The City of Babylon has been around far longer.
And does not sit on 7 hills who are also 7 kings. Don't forget details here.
Zechariah tells us that Wickedness will be put back on her base, on the plains of Shinar, and there she will be judged.
Yes. And Babylon will be judged. It says that the surrounding countries will make her a desolation. But the Babylon of the 7th Bowl is destoyed by God, not surrounding countries.
For your theory to work Rome(The City) would have had to sit upon all the beasts and it doesn't.
But it does. Babylon set a system in motion that is used throughout the world, in different aspects, to this day. Bring back in the godking and such and you have the Babylonians system.

Nor does it say the Harlot sits on the Beasts. It sits on the First Beast, which is the mature Mystery Babylon, embracing all the beasts before it.

It doesn't call her Babylon, it calls her Mystery Babylon. And Babylon practiced Mystery Relgions as does the RCC and as did Pagan Rome. The Babylonian relgions were adopted in mass by Pagan Rome and survive, in many aspects, in the RCC.
It is not about religion, for it is the 2nd beast of revelation that forces the worship of the first beast. Could Rome be the 2nd beast with the Pope in the place of the false prophet? It could be, but I do not think so. For Rome didn't kill by beheadings.

But it is about religion. The Roman Emporers were godkinds. Their high priest's title was Pontificus Maximus. They slaughtered saints in mass, wored the colors of the Harlot and Rome was most assuredly built upon Greece who came out of such a Neb's Babylon.

Babylon is laced throughout the statue and Beasts. Completely inherent to every one of them and the Ten Toes.

And for Rome, beheading was the ultimate death. Headless in the underworld.

Now to disprove what you said even further.

You said the 4th Beast is the First Beast of Revelation, the First Beast of Daniel. That is not Biblical. Daniel says the First is gold and 4th is iron and

Daniel 7
It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns

State different, DLK. Different cannot be the same.

Therefore if the First Beast of Revelation is the 4th of Daniel, it cannot be the First Beast of Daniel.

And the Harlot of Revelation is called Mystery Babylon, not Babylon. Babylon was an empire of Mystery Relgions that ended up in Rome.

So, if the 4th Beast cannot be the First Beast of Daniel, it cannot be the First Beast of John.

And if the First Beast of John is literal Babylon it further shows it cannot be the 4th Beast.

Your own arguments defeat you here.

It fits the statue perfectly.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

You have not adequately addressed any of my problems that I can see.

What is the problem here? The ultimate death in the Roman Empire was beheading. It made the person headless in the Under World. A fate reserves for the worst of the criminals of Rome.

Where did you ever get the idea Rome didn't behead people?
You have diminished my objections,
No. I merely pointed out problems with them.
you have basically called me stupid and stubborn.
I have known you too long to ever call you stupid. But sorry, you are among the most stubborn around. And you know it.
I have these objections through long years of prayer and study, and I have come up with a different interpretation.
And I have merely pointed out what you have not included in your thinking.
It takes to with open minds to study. And it appears that one of us if not both have closed minds as to what the Bible says.
I am always open. But you have not dealt with the collapse of the 4th Beast, the 4th Beast being different from the First, the First Beast of Revelation rising from the Ten Toes or any of that.

You have a picture of the 4th Beast that fits the history or Rome. John states the 6th King is present when he is alive.

That king has to be of the 4th Beast because John says all the prior kings and beasts are gone. He gives a lineage of the 7 kings that show 5 complete through the 3rd Beast and shows the 6 and 7 as in the 4th.

That demands the king who is be of the 4th Beast.

There is no conflict with the history and identity of Rome when compared to the 4th Beast or the Harlot.

DLK, Daniel states the 4th Beast divides. It happened. States the divisions further collapse into Ten. it happend. John states the 6th King is when John is, it happened and Rome was what John was under.

I don't see the issues here. I truly don't.

Literal Babylon is not on 7 hills. That alone takes it out of consideration.
I tried, for years I prayed and cried to God to show me how Rome fit.
I truly believe you. I struggles with the verses a long time myself.
Then one day I was reading Revelation 17 and then it clicked. Rome was not the city talked about in Revelation 17.
Sorry, but I see no other city that fits ALL the requirements.
Revelation has some stern warnings to those who would add to or subtract from Revelation.
I agree and it cannot be taken lightly.
Revelation calls Babylon a city.
Correction. It does not call the Harlot Babylon. It calls her Mystery Babylon.

The Harlot is figurative of apostate Christianity. The Beast is figurative of the AC and his empire. Now why would you suddenly be unable to see Mystery Babylon as figurative as well?

If literal Babylon, then why is it called Mystery Babylon?

You cannot get 7 hills there, no matter what you try. But, if you look at the Beasts, you do see 7 hills in the 4th Beast and in a part of the Ten Toes.

The whole thing, Head to Toe to First Beast of Revelation is Mystery Babylon. Not a literal country or city, but a total system seen in the Trib in Rome and the Roman Empire, restored, of course.

Nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing in Revelation that adds to that statement or subtracts from it. Babylon, the great city that rules over the kings of the earth. It is not a code name, it is not a religious system, it is just simply the GREAT CITY, that sits on the banks of the River Euphrates on the plains of Shinar.

But does not sit on 7 hills, as demanded.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

I have added nothing or taken away nothing. I have no problems finding the issues defined via John and Daniel.

Where are the 7 Hills, DLK, that Mystery Babylon sits on?

You cannot say Istanbul. That is not the city of Babylon.

If you are going to demand the literal city of Babylon then you have test that setting against the literal description. And there are no 7 hills.
I refuse to be part and parcel of a belief that adds to the words of this book. I refuse to also be part of a belief system that subtracts from the words.
Revelation calls Babylon a city no less then 3 times.
Agree. But they all key off of the description of the Harlot. Where she is Mystery Babylon, not just Babylon.

In addition to these scriptures there are a few more scriptures that say great city without mention of Babylon, but implying that it is the "great city".

Agree there as well. But it is Mystery Babylon, not Babylon. And mystery means a hidden in fact or meaning. Thus it cannot be literal Babylon. Really, it would not be a mystery then.

[CoreIssue]

how about the vatican. which is a city inside rome...
The Vatican was created as a separate nation pretty recently, history wise.

Looking back to Pagan Rome and it is was the center of Roman life, religious and such wise.

The ancient pagan stuff is still there. In fact, more was added.

An easy conversion back.

The eagle on the Pope's staff is an example of the god each legion carried with it. Their legiions god.

And many other pagan sybols and such.

Many don't understand how much of the Babylonian mystery religions ended up in Rome.

[CTZonEdit]

Well, I asked CTZ if he still had the maps showing the overlay. I lost mine in a computer crash.

But here is a list of the Ten groups that came after the collapse of Rome.

These were the Lombards, the Alemanni, the Anglo-Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Brugundians, the Franks, the Suevi, the Vandals, the Visigoths, and the Heruli. This was the beginning of the modern nations of Europe; some strong, some weak. Seven of them still exist today in Europe. For example, the Anglo-Saxons became the English, the Franks became the French, the Alemannians became the Germans, and the Lombards became the Italians.

And the land they encompassed can be seen by looking at a map of the EU.

Here are the maps in question...


http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH_05_111.gifhttp://www.ezilon.com/eu_map_europe.jpg

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Like I said I am done here. You have just rehashed the same old arguments that are meaningless to me. Why? Spiritualize or Sybolise, same difference. You take what the BIBLE SAYS and impart your own interpretation to them twist them into something that the BIBLE does not. To get technical the Bible says "7 MOUNTAINS" not hills, but then of course we go back to the greek to make it say what you want it to. You have not proven anything. Cause my objection is not adequately addressed. You have to show me where Revelation, not Daniel, Revelation calls Babylon anything but a city. In cities you have many things including culture. Babylon flung her culture to the 4 corners of the Earth. And Rome is not the mother of Babylon. You have to prove to me BIBLICALLY that the literal city of BABYLON is NOT THE CITY of Revelation 17. You tell me it is the only thing that makes sense. So WHAT!

You say the mystery is that Babylon is somehow symbolic for Rome. This is not what the CONTEXT of REVELATION 17 says.

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

Mysterycomma Babylon The Greatcomma The Mother of Harlots



Let's take this scripture and analyse it.

The Term "mystery" is typically used by the NT and primarliy by Paul to mean something God had kept hidden in ages past. If that is the case then one would expect new Revelation in regard to Babylon. What is this new revelation? Does the bible tell us or do we have to guess? The Bible tells us that we are given the "mystery".

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.


The Angel tells us that he will give the New Revelation and that we should pay attention. The Mystery entails not only the women, but the 7headed 10 horned beast as well. At the end of the Chapter the angel tells us that the women is the "GREAT CITY BABYLON"

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

There is nothing to suggest that the "mystery" is a spiritualization or sybolization of the city of Babylon. There is nothing in the text to even suggest it. To spiriualize or symbolize Babylon is to do misjustice to the text. Why? Revelation 17 itself at least three times explains it symbolism so there is no doubt to their meaning. The lack of an emplination of Babylon being a symbol for something is extremely important in this text. Here are the three symbols and what the text tells us these symbols mean.

Women- Defined as "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
Waters- Defined as "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."
Horns- Defined as "ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

The lack of this type of definition within the context of the chapter makes for symbolising Babylon into something other then the literal city problematic at best and intellectual dishonesty at worse. There is nothing in Chapter 17 which defines Babylon as anything other then what it's literal meaning suggests.

You can't take the scripture " the 7 heads are 7 mountain on which the women sits", change mountain into hill just because the greek is not clear enough, and then claim it has to be Rome because Rome has been known as the "city on 7 hills" for the last 2,000 years. So what? Is Rome the ONLY city on 7 hills/mountains? This is of course if this literally means hills rather then mountains.

I can take you to Daniel 2, which you so love to shove down my throat, and say that the symbolism used in Daniel 2 calls a mountain an empire. I can also go to Daniel 7 and say that the sybolism in Daniel 7 calls a head kings and kingdoms. This is allowing the Bible to interpet the Bible, what a novel concept. Daniel 7 also states that the

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

Another clue here? We know that the women rules over the kings of the earth.

But, I can't be dogmatic, cause again the text itself does not tell us which way to interpret the text. The only thing I will say is that you can't be dogmatic in identifing Rome as the 7 hilled city cause it is not the only 7 hill/mountain city in the World. There are at least 2 maybe more 7 hill/mountain cities in the Middle East.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Like I said I am done here. You have just rehashed the same old arguments that are meaningless to me.
As yours a totally incomplete to me. Whether you see it or not, DLK, you are refusing to deal with any more than a hand picked set of verses. Not even dealing with other verses in the same passage.

Your option, but not something you can use to refute others who bring those other verses in. They do apply, whether you can make them fit or not.
Why? Spiritualize or Sybolise, same difference. You take what the BIBLE SAYS and impart your own interpretation to them twist them into something that the BIBLE does not.
And you are not? Come on! You demand the statement of the Harlot being Mystery Babylon is a literal statement when everything else immediately around it is figurative, including the Harlot iteself. Stunning you cannot see that.
To get technical the Bible says "7 MOUNTAINS" not hills, but then of course we go back to the greek to make it say what you want it to.
So now literal is something you reject because it does not fit your thinking.
NIV
9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.

Hill or Mountain, often meaning the same thing, but not always, I grant.

Fact still remains Babylon, the city, sit on 8 of neither.

So, where did literal go for you on this point?
You have not proven anything.
And you have? No, DLK, you have created a lot of contradictions with the Bible. Just in the 7 Mountains point alone, is one.
Cause my objection is not adequately addressed.
You have presented no case at all. All you keep saying is Mystery Babylon is the city of Babylon, literally. That is no argument when, right off the bat, it says Mystery Babylon sits on 7 Mountains, which literal Babylon does not.
You have to show me where Revelation, not Daniel, Revelation calls Babylon anything but a city.
It calls it a city in Revelation. Which is the captial of the AC kingdom's commerce, religion and rulership.

In the ancient times, they didn't go around saying Roman Empire. They said Rome, which stood for the Roman Empire.

You really don't have an argument in going that direction. Further, the Ten Horns show the Empire.
In cities you have many things including culture. Babylon flung her culture to the 4 corners of the Earth. And Rome is not the mother of Babylon.
But Babylon is the mother of Rome, in a sense. We live is what is called Greco-Roman society. Where do you think the foundation for that society came from? Babylon. Babylon lives through Rome is what is being said.

No where, via Daniel or Revelation, can you bring in the literal site of Babylon. Just will not fit anything.

Babylon is a dead city. It will not rise again.

You just keep disregarding the fact Rome did break in half and then into the Ten Toes of the Statue and Ten Horns of the First Beast of Revelation.

So, I have proven nothing to you. But in fairness, you have presented noting but one claim repeated over and over as if it overwhelms Daniel. It doesn't.

Just saying the 4th Beast hasn't existed yet is meaningless. Especially when John said the 6th king was there at his time, meaning the 4th Beast was there at his time.

That being a fact, show me who that king was and what Ten it broke apart into.
You have to prove to me BIBLICALLY that the literal city of BABYLON is NOT THE CITY of Revelation 17. You tell me it is the only thing that makes sense. So WHAT!
Negative proof claim. Show me it is literal Babylon. Show me the 7 Mountains of Babylon.

I have the lineage of the Statue, the Beasts, the Ten Toes in history, the history of Rome and so on.

What do you have? A claim without proof.
You say the mystery is that Babylon is somehow symbolic for Rome. This is not what the CONTEXT of REVELATION 17 says.

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

Mysterycomma Babylon The Greatcomma The Mother of Harlots

Yep. Babylon was the mother of many bad things.

Not the city itself, but the culture, society and people within it. And if those none physical things get passed along then it lives on in its descendents.

And that is what the Statue and Beasts show.
Let's take this scripture and analyse it.

The Term "mystery" is typically used by the NT and primarliy by Paul to mean something God had kept hidden in ages past. If that is the case then one would expect new Revelation in regard to Babylon. What is this new revelation? Does the bible tell us or do we have to guess? The Bible tells us that we are given the "mystery".

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.


The Angel tells us that he will give the New Revelation and that we should pay attention. The Mystery entails not only the women, but the 7headed 10 horned beast as well. At the end of the Chapter the angel tells us that the women is the "GREAT CITY BABYLON"

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

There is nothing to suggest that the "mystery" is a spiritualization or sybolization of the city of Babylon. There is nothing in the text to even suggest it. To spiriualize or symbolize Babylon is to do misjustice to the text. Why? Revelation 17 itself at least three times explains it symbolism so there is no doubt to their meaning. The lack of an emplination of Babylon being a symbol for something is extremely important in this text. Here are the three symbols and what the text tells us these symbols mean.

What lack? You keep saying something here that I totally disagree with. Right off the bat being a woman is a symboll

It is also demanded to not be literal because she is on 7 mountains. There ARE not 7 mountains in physical Babylon.

A reality YOU refuse to deal with.
Women- Defined as "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
Yep, Rome did that.
Waters- Defined as "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."

Rome did that.
Horns- Defined as "ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."
Not part of Babylon, but part of the 4th Beast and what it falls apart into. Which Rome DID historically.

Horns and 7 mountains literally fit Rome. Impossible to fit into Babylon.
The lack of this type of definition within the context of the chapter makes for symbolising Babylon into something other then the literal city problematic at best and intellectual dishonesty at worse. There is nothing in Chapter 17 which defines Babylon as anything other then what it's literal meaning suggests.

Nonsense, DLK. It is described as a woman right off the bat. The IS sybolizing it. The horns are symbols. Don't go there that there is no symbolizing.

Mystery Babylon, not literal Babylon.

7 Mountains. No such thing at literal Babylon.

10 horns are the Ten Toes, shown both in the Statue and Beasts as what the 4th Beast falls apart into and the 8th King and First Beast rise out of.

4th Beast is different from the first 3, thus cannot be Babylon.
You can't take the scripture " the 7 heads are 7 mountain on which the women sits", change mountain into hill just because the greek is not clear enough, and then claim it has to be Rome because Rome has been known as the "city on 7 hills" for the last 2,000 years. So what? Is Rome the ONLY city on 7 hills/mountains? This is of course if this literally means hills rather then mountains.

And you cannot put literal Babylon on 7 mountains that never exists.

What is with the half baked arguments that don't recognize what rejects your statements.

Babylon cannot be put on either 7 hills or 7 mountains. So arguing the size is a pretty silly argument when there are none at literal Babylon.
I can take you to Daniel 2, which you so love to shove down my throat,
Not shoving. But neither am I totally disregarding it as you are.
and say that the symbolism used in Daniel 2 calls a mountain an empire.
Close. Christ brings his kingdom with him and destroys Mystery Babylon. But has nothing to do with seeing what the statue itself says.
I can also go to Daniel 7 and say that the sybolism in Daniel 7 calls a head kings and kingdoms. This is allowing the Bible to interpet the Bible, what a novel concept. Daniel 7 also states that the

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

And of course you fail to give a complete thought or presentation here.

The Beasts are shown as 4 Empires contain 7 kings in Daniel 7. Which is EXACTLY what we see in the First Beast of Revelation. What comes AFTER the 4 Beasts.
Another clue here? We know that the women rules over the kings of the earth.
Yes. And Both Babylon and Rome are said to have done this. As the AC restored Roman kingsdom will.

All you are doing is actually backing what I said.

4th Beast rules the earth, is of iron and is different from the first 3. So it cannot be the First returning.

Nor is it shown as such. States if falls into 2 part and then into 10, Historical fact.

States the ten willing give their kingdoms over the AC. The EU. Check the maps.

Identifies the capital. Capital of the Roman Empire was Rome. Harlot is Rome. Fits hand in glove with every detail given.
But, I can't be dogmatic, cause again the text itself does not tell us which way to interpret the text. The only thing I will say is that you can't be dogmatic in identifing Rome as the 7 hilled city cause it is not the only 7 hill/mountain city in the World. There are at least 2 maybe more 7 hill/mountain cities in the Middle East.
Jerusalem can be tossed out immediately. Never one of the 7 kings or Beasts.

Istanbul also can be tossed. Again, never a beast or one of the kings.

Rome cannot be tossed out. It was the 4th Beast and John stated the 6th king was there at his time. It is on 7 hills/mountains. The Ten Toes came from it and will reform it. The EU are those Ten Toes.

Finally, if it is literal Babylon, as you claim, that tosses every city with 7 hills out because none of them were literal Babylon.

Your own demands leave you empty handed on possible cities. You cannot say it is literal Babylon and then go fishing for cities elsewhere. Either it is literal Babylon or it is not.

[DeeLeeKay]

Good bye! I am done.

[CoreIssue]

Good bye! I am done.
OK. Your choice.

Not fair that you threw all the challenges at me while refusing to reply to mine.

This is the simple one.

You said it is the literal city of Babylon.
It states the city is on 7 hills/mountains.
The literal city of Babylon was not on 7 hills/mountains.
How do you deal with that if it is the literal city of Babylon?

[Jessie]

how does rome not fit?

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Rome sits on seven hills.


The Seven Hills of Rome east of the Tiber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber) form the heart of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome). The Seven Hills of early Rome were the Cermalus, Cispius, Fagutal, Oppius, Palatium, Sucusa, and Velia, figuring prominently into Roman mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mythology), religion, and politics; the original city was held by tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition) to have been founded by Romulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus) on the Palatine Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_Hill) (Collis Palatinus). The other six are now the Aventine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventine_Hill) (Collis Aventinus), the Capitoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Hill) (Capitolinus), the Quirinal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinal_Hill) (Quirinalis), the Viminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viminal_Hill) (Viminalis), the Esquiline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquiline_Hill) (Esquilinus), and the Caelian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelian_Hill) (Caelius).

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome


Just throwing that out there as a conversation piece. :tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

Good post.

The old saying was 'All Roads lead to Rome.' Rome was the heart of the Roman Empire, in all aspects of commerce, politics, society and religion.

In Revelation we see it still in the role.

Harlot describes Pagan Rome and the RCC.

And so much more.

I don't see the room for doubt Rome is the Harlot. No one else comes any where close to the descriptions of John and Daniel.

[DeeLeeKay]

I have been thinking and I am going to take you up on your offer. Let's start with Daniel 2. The discription of the 4th kingdom does not match the Roman Empire.

When one thinks of the Roman Empire one thinks of a single rule, not one strong but broken empire. During the apex of Rome's rule, it was ruled by as you said God Kings. They had absolute power.

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.
Dan 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.
Dan 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.
Dan 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.

During Roman Rule these discriptions are not what I think of when I think of Rome. The last verse there says that "they shall not cleave one to another". Like Iron does not mix with clay, so to these people will not cleave one to another.

Sense the word for "cleave" is used only once in the OT, it is hard to discern what the real meaning is here. Rome did hold the empire totally together until it's power waned. The Idea I also get is that this beast ruled all together, not at different times. The term here is that it was "divided, but ruled with iron", "the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron". While I can discribe Rome's rule as with an Iron Grip, it was not divided while it ruled. Once it broke up it didn't rule with it's previous power. You can't claim that when divided, it was still this empire, it wasn't. It broke into basically the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. These empires together did not rule with the might and power of Rome.

[CoreIssue]

I have been thinking and I am going to take you up on your offer. Let's start with Daniel 2. The discription of the 4th kingdom does not match the Roman Empire.
OK.
When one thinks of the Roman Empire one thinks of a single rule, not one strong but broken empire. During the apex of Rome's rule, it was ruled by as you said God Kings. They had absolute power.

In general I agree. But a history student sees more than just its apex. I know I do.
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.
Dan 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.
Dan 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.
Dan 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.

During Roman Rule these discriptions are not what I think of when I think of Rome. The last verse there says that "they shall not cleave one to another". Like Iron does not mix with clay, so to these people will not cleave one to another.

OK. No student of history sees Rome as you do.

Rome was not a big happy family. It was composed of the strong who ruled and oppressed the weak.

Cities that tried to rebell were destroyed to make examples to others. Others were for forced to pay heavy tribute. Many only were in the Empire by the force of the legion that kept it subdued.

And Rome came apart, at the end from the inside and outside. Inside decadence began pulling it apart. Rebellions began succeeding. Invaders began winning.

That is not, I agree, the picture many have, but it is the true picture.

You had two kinds in the Roman Empire, the Roman citizen and all others. Big chasm between them.
Sense the word for "cleave" is used only once in the OT, it is hard to discern what the real meaning is here.
It is actually used 30 times in the OT. And always in the sense of union, as in marriage or clinging to something in some kind of union. to join to.
Rome did hold the empire totally together until it's power waned.
It fell apart over centuries. It divided into 2 Empires, one collapsing before the other.
The Idea I also get is that this beast ruled all together, not at different times. The term here is that it was "divided, but ruled with iron", "the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron". While I can discribe Rome's rule as with an Iron Grip, it was not divided while it ruled.
It actually was. There were numerous rebellions, internal wars, arguments and more. An internal division. But nothing that said it was not a singular empire. It was the iron fist that kept it an empire.
Once it broke up it didn't rule with it's previous power. You can't claim that when divided, it was still this empire, it wasn't. It broke into basically the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. These empires together did not rule with the might and power of Rome.

Actually, we can claim it was still the empire. Loss of land makes it no less the same empire as gains in land did.

Nor did changes of government. Rome began in one form, became a Republic, then became a dictatorship, under the Caesars and then ended up under Pope Emporers.

It is erroneous to think the government form did not change until towards the end. it changed, also, while still a powerful and growing empire.

The fact remains, the 4th Beast is of Iron, Rome was called the Iron Empire, the Statue says the Iron will split it half, which Rome did, and then it says the Iron would collapse into Ten nations, some iron and some clay, which Rome also did.

Those are facts that apply to no other empire that has ever existed. And it will not apply to the First Beast, because that Beast remains until Christ destroys it. It rises from the Ten, it never divides into the Ten, as shown in the Statue.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

All you say maybe true. But, the context suggests that they ruled together at the same time, but divided. Now I am going to add Daniel 8.

It is my opinion that Daniel 2,7,8 all discribe the same 4 empires. In Daniel 8 the bible tells us that 4 kingdoms come from the Goat that is Greece. While I agree that the geographical location of succeeding empires is suggestive of the next empire, I disagree that the geographical location of Rome is what is suggested by the Bible.

Daniel 8 tells us specifically that the Goat is Greece. It then goes on to tell us that when the
first king is broken 4 kingdomes shall stand up out of this nation. In the latter time of these 4 kingdoms reign, a king will come that makes war against the "Prince of Princes".


Dan 8:21 And the rough goat [is] the king of Grecia: and the great horn that [is] between his eyes [is] the first king.
Dan 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
Dan 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
Dan 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
Dan 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Historically the Greek/Macedonian Empire broke in to 4 upon Alexander the Great's Death. From these 4 empires in the "latter time" of these 4 kingdoms comes a king. Rome did not come from one of these kingdoms.

[CoreIssue]

DLK, It doesn't say they ruled together at the same time. It shows the ten are united into one under one king.

Sure, they may be allowed to continue as governors or such. Which was indeed the system Rome used.

As with Herod, he was King, but really more governor.

So, they never ruled with the Roman Emporer, but under him. They never had a say in the Empire as a whole, but were given flexibilities within the countries under the Emporers rule.

But that was also true under Babylon, Greece, Medo-Persia and many other ancient nations and empires. It was nothing unique.

We have something like that in the US in the Fed - State - County - City setups we have.

The EU is being set up along those lines.

I would see no issue in that being true, as well, under the AC. As long as we remember that in all of the Beasts and such, they answered to the godking, they did not co-rule with him.
It is my opinion that Daniel 2,7,8 all discribe the same 4 empires.
Agree.
In Daniel 8 the bible tells us that 4 kingdoms come from the Goat that is Greece. While I agree that the geographical location of succeeding empires is suggestive of the next empire, I disagree that the geographical location of Rome is what is suggested by the Bible
The problem there, for me, is not that the 4 from the 3rd Beast suggest location of the 4th. I see them as stating source of the AC.

The AC rises from one of the heads of the 3rd who is indeed one of the Ten Horns of the 4th and Ten Toes of the Statue.

Kings, not kingdoms, is the issue there.

When you look at it that way it fits. Greece is part of Beast 4 and the First Beast of Revelation plus a Toe of the Ten Toes. And it shows the AC rising as a Little Horn, from a Toe and is the head that returns to life on the First Beast. All refering to the AC from Greece.

Historically the Greek/Macedonian Empire broke in to 4 upon Alexander the Great's Empire. From these 4 empires in the "latter time" of these 4 kingdoms comes a king. Rome did not come from one of these kingdoms.

But it isn't talking about the rise of the 4th Kingdom. or the First Beast of the AC, as a kingdom. It is talking about the rise of the AC.

And that theme is stated in the 3rd Beast, rising from one head, in the 4th Beast, as the Little horn, from the Ten Toes and from the Ten Head so the First Beast of Revelation.

It is a mistake to look for the kingdom in that information. It is the king spoken of.

There are two lineages given by Daniel. One for king and one for kingdom. The Statue dwells mostly on the kingdoms. The Beasts mostly on the kings. The First Beast is where both become reality.

Neb got the Mystery Babylon system going. Alexander gave it the AC king. Rome gave it the physical empire. Put them together and you have the full First Beast and mature Mystery Babylon, as shown in the composite First Beast Body of Revelation.

That is why it is called Mystery.

The 4 kingdoms and 7 kings built Mystery Babylon. None are exclusively Mystery Babylon. You can see each one coming out of the last.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Daniel 8 tells they are kingdoms not just kings.

Dan 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

I do not see this in the Statue.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Geographically speaking Greece primarily ruled the Middle East, as did Daniel's other beasts, Babylon and Media/Persia. Rome primarily ruled Europe. In addition Daniel 8 does suggest a Middle Eastern Origin of the Last King. To make Rome fit one has to piece meal the scriptures into this and that. You have so many rules about this is that and that is this, I am getting dizzy.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Daniel 8 tells they are kingdoms not just kings.

Dan 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

I do not see this in the Statue.
Correct.

But we have to be careful of the context to determine when Dan 2 & 8 are speaking of king, kingdom or both at the same time. Ancient thoughts about them are not as clear cut as modern thought.

No, you don't see that in the Statue any more than you see the 4th Beast breaking into the Ten.

The Statue is an overview of the 4 major empires, not the kings. The Beasts are a major overview of the kings, not the kingdoms.

You clearly see the 4 Beasts and Ten Toes that compose empire of the First Beast of Revelation's body in the Statue. You clearly see the 7 kings of the head of the First Beast of Revelation in the Beasts.

The statue dwells on kingdoms. The Beast dwells on kings. It is two descriptive views of one historical flow of Mystery Babylon.

The Kingdoms flow Babylon - Medo-Persia - Greece - Rome - Ten Toes in the Statue.

The kings flow Babylon -2 kings - Medo-Persia-2 kings - Greece-1 king - Rome-2kings, giving 7 - Ten Toes-10 kings

Now blend them, as much as possible. Then the picture comes out. That is where the mystery is solved.

One cannot resolve the First Beast of Revelation unless one sees Mystery Babylon described in two ways by Daniel. Then it just is so clear.

Rome was the Iron Empire, it did split into two and then Ten. The AC will rise out of the Ten, which, via the Beasts, we can identify as Greece, who is only shown as one king, Alexander. Alexander fits the description of the First Beast in vairous chapters of Daniel.

We can see, via the Beasts, the AC also rises out of the 4th Beast and out of the Statue the Ten Toes.

There is no conflict between the Statue and the Beasts. The sum of their pictures is greater than them separately.

You cannot find Rome via the Beasts, alone. But you can find Rome in the Statue, which description, when blended with the Beasts becomes powerful and defining.

Add 7 mountains/hills, Rome becomes more powerful. Add the 7 kings and you have the AC as the 5th and 8th king.

It will not come out until one sets the Statue, Beasts, First Beast and Harlot side by side and look at them for statements of king and kingdom. Delete any part of that formula and you end up scratching your head.

One has to remember in ancient times king and kingdom were pretty interchangable terms, sometime meaning one, the other, or both.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

You have a western kingdom being the last, and the Bible calls the last kingdom eastern.

Rev 16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.
Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.


Now this next verse has Jesus arriving to battle these kings of the east.

Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed [is] he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

The beast is given power along with the 10 kings to make war against the Lamb.

[CTZonEdit]

Strip all the rules away then.

The fact is only one city on the entire planet has been known as the City of Seven Hills for over 2000 years now. That city is Rome.

How can it be any simpler?

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

You want to take the 7 hills as literal hills and yet symbolize everything else. Could they be symbolic rather then literal?

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Geographically speaking Greece primarily ruled the Middle East, as did Daniel's other beasts, Babylon and Media/Persia. Rome primarily ruled Europe. In addition Daniel 8 does suggest a Middle Eastern Origin of the Last King. To make Rome fit one has to piece meal the scriptures into this and that. You have so many rules about this is that and that is this, I am getting dizzy.
You are dwelling on physical land. Not the issue here. There is no such demand as the AC kingdom being located Middle East. Impossible to conform to scriptures and geographical demand.

Rome conquered both Greece, babylon and lot of the Middle East. There is demand the AC comes from the Middle Eastern. Dan 8 is about Greece. And Greece is not Middle Eastern.

Greece was part of both the 3rd and 4th Beasts. It is the head that was dead, a Toe of the Ten, a horn of the 4th Beast and a division of the 3rd Beast.

That nails down the source of the AC himself. But not his empire.

That is nailed down by the Ten Toes.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Revelation 16 demands that the Beast, Dragon, and False Prophet come from the East rather then West.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

You want to take the 7 hills as literal hills and yet symbolize everything else. Could they be symbolic rather then literal?
Good question.

The Heads are the symbols, not the kings or hills. John gives the literal meaning of the 7 Heads as 7 literal hills and 7 literal kings. Just as Christ gave literal meanings to symbolic parables.

Symbols are not defined by offering other symbols as explanations. So the Heads are 7 literal kings and 7 literal hills. The kings are defined in the 4 Beasts. The Hills by history and geography.

The ONLY city on 7 hills known as that both 2,000 years ago and today is Rome. Not literal Babylon.

Again, Rome was symbolized by Iron even in the days of John. The 6th King lived in the days of John. The 4th Beast thus existed in the days of John.

Daniel tells us that Iron nation slit and then collapses into 10. That is historical fact duplicated by no other empire.

There is no other Empire that fits the demands of both Daniel and John. It had to exist at the time of John because John, fully knowing what Daniel said, state the 6th King lives at the moment he made his statement. Thus, the 4th Beast could not be future and could not be the First Beast of John. Literally impossible unless John totally was wrong saying the 6th king was alive then.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Alexander the Great Ruled from Greece east ward to India, that is not the Middle east?

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

If the "kings from the east" are not the 10 horns and the beast as the scripture suggests then who are they, the kings from the east?

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Revelation 16 demands that the Beast, Dragon, and False Prophet come from the East rather then West.
Absolutely false.

John tells us the Dragon, Satan, was cast down from Heaven, as the 3rd Woe. He didn't come from anywhere on the earth, originally.

The First Beast is the AC, the 5th King, and that will be from Greece, as part of the EU. There is no hint at the origin of the man who becomes the FP.

The three are defined as the 3 from which the demons come. To try to make them kings of the East is totally foundationless, since they have been in Jerusalem since Mid and this is toward the end of the Trib, altogether.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

Alexander the Great Ruled from Greece east ward to India, that is not the Middle east?
Alexander was a Greek. He did not come from the Middle East. His empire did not originate in the Middle East.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

If the "kings from the east" are not the 10 horns and the beast as the scripture suggests then who are they, the kings from the east?
China and such.

The Ten are the lands the 4th Beast collapased into. The EU of today. The old Roman Empire. History plus modern day reality are in total harmony of that point.

Check the maps CTZ posted. They show clearly what is going on.

You need to check some maps. There never were ten nations east of the Euphrates that were part of the Greek Empire. Or the Roman.

All those empires laid mainly west of the Euphrates.

[DeeLeeKay]

Alexander the Great Ruled most of the Middle East.

And Revelation 16 demands that the Beast come from the East.

[DeeLeeKay]

Where does the bible tell us that China ect... make war against the Lamb? Which kings make war against Jesus?

[CoreIssue]

Greece is Mediterranean, not Middle Eastern.

[CoreIssue]

Where does the bible tell us that China ect... make war against the Lamb? Which kings make war against Jesus?
200 million man army, the colors given and such define China. They have been able to field that for a long time now and are the only nation that can do so. Those are their colors.

No, there is no exacting list of every nation that is at Armageddon.

[DeeLeeKay]

I do not care where Greece started, I care what the bible says about this empire. And you have not dealt with Revelation 16.

[DeeLeeKay]

Are you now Saying that the beast of revelation is China?

[CoreIssue]

Are you now Saying that the beast of revelation is China?
No. I am telling you that the Beast does not come from east of the Euphrates in the 6th Bowl.

The Trib is almost over at that time. The armies are gathering to Armageddon.

[DeeLeeKay]

Are you saying this?

China - Dragon
Beast - Europe
False Prophet - Middle Eastern?

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

According to the bible who is gathering their armies for the battle of Armegeddon?

[CoreIssue]

I do not care where Greece started, I care what the bible says about this empire. And you have not dealt with Revelation 16.
It says, the evil spirits who are in the dragon, FP and AC come out of their mouths in the 6th Bowl to gather the armies of the earth.

It says nothing about forming the empire since the AC has been ruling since the First Seal, Satan joined him at Mid and the FP had already been with him prior, but was empowered at Mid.

There is no statement of 10 kings from east of the Euphrates, nothing to justify such a statement and every reason to reject it, since Revelation clearly shows the AC already as king, having invaded Israel at Mid and been conducting wars prior to Mid, as king.

The Seals, Trumpets and Bowels do not parallel each other. They happen one after the other, all seals, then Trumpets and then Bowels.

If you think otherwise you don't even have Satan cast down until almost the end of the Trib, leaving no room for the 42 months following the 7th Trumpet.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

According to the bible who is gathering their armies for the battle of Armegeddon?
The evil spirits within the dragon (statue seemingly brought to life at Mid by Satan, the Dragon), FP, whose demon rises at Mid, 2nd Woe and the AC, whose demon has been with him since before the Trib began.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

Who is gathering their armies according to the bible to make war against Jesus/Lamb?

[DeeLeeKay]

So it is the FP, AC and Satan. Who gathers their army when The Euphrates is dried up?

[CoreIssue]

Are you saying this?

China - Dragon
Beast - Europe
False Prophet - Middle Eastern?
You are not paying attention, DLK.

Dragon - Satan. Satan enters the statue of the AC at Mid.
AC - A MAN indwelt the the demon who was also with Alexander.
FP - A MAN indwelt by the demon who rose at Mid.

Not systems, not nation, but persons.

[DeeLeeKay]

And sense it is the Beast and 10 horns that make war against Jesus/Lamb. Why can't the Beast and 10 horns be east of the Euphrates. Unless of Course we symbolize that as well.

[CoreIssue]

So it is the FP, AC and Satan. Who gathers their army when The Euphrates is dried up?

The human AC and FP are still very much alive and able to comman the AC armies to go to Armageddon.

In fact, they have had armies their since Mid.

The demons can move a lot faster and more effectively to get other nations and allies on the move.

No where is it every presented the AC will make the whole world one single kingdom. Rule by threat is still rule, even if you don't directly rule others.

And the OT prophecy doesn't say every nation attacked Israel and has to go annually to Jerusalem. It says those nations that did, meaning some didn't.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

This is all why I say Rome does not fit.

The difference between us is that you started with a belief system and conformed the bible to it. I started with the Bible and conformed my belief from the Bible.


The Bible tells me that the Final Beast comes from the 4 heads of Daniel's 3rd beast.
The Bible tells me that the final beast comes from the East of the Euphrates River.
The Bible tells me that Babylon is that Great City Babylon.

None of Which Rome aligns itself. So, for me Rome does not fit the discriptions.
Rome did not come from Greece's 4 kingdoms. Rome is not east of the Euphrates River. The City of Babylon never really sat upon Rome. We can symbolize it all into something other then what the Bible tells us. In doing so we can make Rome fit. But, taken literally for what it says, Rome does not fit.

[CoreIssue]

And sense it is the Beast and 10 horns that make war against Jesus/Lamb. Why can't the Beast and 10 horns be east of the Euphrates. Unless of Course we symbolize that as well.

Because Daniel tells us they are not.

The AC is the 5th King, who is from Greece, not East of the Euphrates.

None of the Ten Toes are East of the Euphrates. We are told the Ten are what the 4th Beast collapses into. And the 4th Beast is identified as Rome.

It isn't 11 kings working together. It is one king ruling ten nations unified into one Empire. And that Empire is defined as Rome.

Who is the king from the 4th Beast that John said was when he lived, DLK?

[DeeLeeKay]

Good question.

The Heads are the symbols, not the kings or hills. John gives the literal meaning of the 7 Heads as 7 literal hills and 7 literal kings. Just as Christ gave literal meanings to symbolic parables.

Symbols are not defined by offering other symbols as explanations. So the Heads are 7 literal kings and 7 literal hills. The kings are defined in the 4 Beasts. The Hills by history and geography.

The ONLY city on 7 hills known as that both 2,000 years ago and today is Rome. Not literal Babylon.


Using your own logic and criteria, Babylon can't be symbolic of Rome.


In Revelation 17 there is a women who is symbolic of something else. The women is a symbol for a city the text says.

Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.


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

Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.


The women is a symbol of "the great city, Babylon". Just as the heads are symbols of "kings and mountains". By your own criteria this would mean that a symbol was used as a symbol of something else. At this point you said that the definition has to be taken literally. That the women is not a symbol of Rome, but rather a symbol of Babylon. This is what it would have to literally be.

[DeeLeeKay]

Who is the king from the 4th Beast that John said was when he lived, DLK?


This would have to come from the 4 heads would it not?

[CoreIssue]

Using your own logic and criteria, Babylon can't be symbolic of Rome.

In Revelation 17 there is a women who is symbolic of something else. The women is a symbol for a city the text says.
Yes. And Rome is the City of 7 Hills, the capital of the Roman Empire.
Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Which does not elimiate Rome.
Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Yes, destoyed in the 7th Bowl with the Second Coming of Christ the very next event.

Does not eliminate Rome.
The women is a symbol of "the great city, Babylon".
No. It does not say that. It says Mystery Babylon, not just Babylon.

And it says the City sits on 7 hills. Rome does, Babylon does not.
Just as the heads are symbols of "kings and mountains". By your own criteria this would mean that a symbol was used as a symbol of something else. At this point you said that the definition has to be taken literally. That the women is not a symbol of Rome, but rather a symbol of Babylon. This is what it would have to literally be.
You are not paying attention to what John says.

The Harlot is presented as symbol that John literally defines as 7 hills the city sits on and 7 kings. You are now trying to turn the explanation of the symbol into even more symbols.

Christ, in example, sets the pattern with the parables. Figurative parables follows by literal explanations. You have figurative explained by more figurative. Which breaks the set pattern and renders it all meaningless, because now it can mean anything anybody wants it to.

But wait, even then, you still have Daniel saying the AC rises out of the Ten Toes, which comes from the division of the 4th Beast into two parts.

Hmmm. That is Rome.

I don't see you offering any other place that fits the description. You are just bent on saying not Rome because Mystery Babylon is stated.

What other empire split in 2 and then into ten, DLK?

Greece didn't. It split into 4.

Medo-Persia didn't. It was conquered.

Babylon didn't. It was conquered.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Who is the king from the 4th Beast that John said was when he lived, DLK?

This would have to come from the 4 heads would it not?

No.

Medo-Pesia didn't come from the lands of Babylon. it conquered the lands of Babylon.

Greece didn't come from the lands of Medo-Persia, it conquered them.

Rome didn't come from the lands of Greece, it conquered the lands.

There is no demand the 4th Beast king came from the land of the 3rd.

The demand is the 8th king comes from the lands of the 3rd and 4th, which Greece was. It was a division of the 3rd and a Toe of the 4th.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

I have to go do something right now. You have made a liar out of your self with the preceeding post. Revelation 17 and 18 shows the judgement of the Whore, Women, City of Babylon.

[CoreIssue]

Core,

I have to go do something right now. You have made a liar out of your self with the preceeding post. Revelation 17 and 18 shows the judgement of the Whore, Women, City of Babylon.
Liar means deliberately stating a falsehood. Sure you want to go there?

The only one at error, here, is you with your thinking the First Beast of John is the 4th Beast of Daniel.

Until you can get that straight in your head you will never get it right.

And try reading again until you see the words. Mystery Babylon, not the literal city of Babylon.

Babylon does not sit on 7 hills, literally, nor are the 7 kings figurative.

You cannot even put together 10 nations that were of Greece that are east of the Euphrates to even propose as the 10 of the AC.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core, I will talk to you later. I have to go to my daughter's house.


And by your Criteria, Revelation 17-8 Literally discribe the women, whore as THAT GREAT CITY, BABYLON.

You have done nothing to prove that it is Rome. According to Daniel 8 the AC comes from the 4 divisions(Which is what the Statue tells us, the kingdom is divided) of 3rd Beast of Daniel 7. It may have conquored some of the empire geographically speaking. It did not conquorer all of it. Also, the Greek empire divided long before Rome was on the picture.

[DeeLeeKay]

Maybe I spoke in haste with the term "liar". However there is a double speak going on here. You say one thing then back track. Very babylonianish.

Prove to me that Babylon is not what is meant in revelation 17-18. That is right, one can't prove a negative. I am doing the impossible in trying to prove that Rome is not one of the empires.

I am being frustrated here, cause you are not proving your points and additionally you are not listening to me.


ROME DOES NOT FIT.

[DeeLeeKay]

I have to go now.

[CoreIssue]

Core, I will talk to you later. I have to go to my daughter's house.

OK. Have a good visit.
And by your Criteria, Revelation 17-8 Literally discribe the women, whore as THAT GREAT CITY, BABYLON.
No. Not by my criterion it doesn't.

Mystery Babylon does not mean literal Babylon. Babylon is not on 7 Hill. Babylon was not drenched in the blood of saints. Babyon didn't wear the colors of Rome.

A symbolic statement followed by a literal explanation is not all literal and not all symbolic. No matter how many times you say that.

Christ did symbolic followed by literal, on the same point, over and over. I don't think you have any problem seeing that reality there, so it is some other reason for not being able to see it here.
You have done nothing to prove that it is Rome.
In reading so far, it appears you are either not reading what I said or considering the meanings. Just looking for a way to defend your position.

I have given extensive reasoning. Your whole argument is summed up in Mystery Babylon is literal Babylon. Not much of a argument there when viewed in the light it is also called a Harlot, not a literal city. But literally stated to be on 7 hills, which literal Babylon is not. Or what is left of it, which isn't much.
According to Daniel 8 the AC comes from the 4 divisions
Agree. But he also says he comes from the ten horns of the 4th Beast and the Ten Toes. Facts you keep disregarding.
(Which is what the Statue tells us, the kingdom is divided)
Nope. It doesn't. The 3rd part of the Statue is undivided bronze. The 4th part is iron and it divides. Now you are trying to merge 2 parts of the Statue into one.
of 3rd Beast of Daniel 7.
Nope. 4th Beast is of Iron. The divided part of the Statue is the 4th part and is or iron.

A totally easily seen erroneous statement by you here.

It may have conquored some of the empire geographically speaking. It did not conquorer all of it. Also, the Greek empire divided long before Rome was on the picture.
Meaningless. You are adding requirement not found in the statue, 4 beasts or First Beast of John.

3rd Beast divided into 4 pieces. 4th Beast, 4th part of the Statue divided into to 2 and then 10. Isn't the same.

Both Greece and Rome conquered the city of Babylon.

You are skipping over so many issues to repeat the same arguments over and over.

Name the literal city on 7 literal hills. You cannot name Babylon.

Name the ancient empire known as Iron. Rome.

And so on.

You have given me nothing to show who Mystery Babylon is. But it is not the literal unpopulated and wasted city of Babylon. No 7 hills, no matter how hard to try to talk around it.

And I am still waiting for you to name that 6th King who lived at the time of John.

[DeeLeeKay]

Core,

We can't agree on the basics here. I do not see a point in continuing. We do not agree on anything. How can we find a basis to come to an common agreement?

Revelation has two beasts. Daniel has 4 which are discribed in 3 different ways. If you do not think that Daniel's 4th beast is the beast of Revelation, not the false prophet, the beast, then there is no place else for us to go. There is no way to prove a negative, so you can't prove to me Daniel's 4th beast IS NOT the beast of Revelation. The best we can do is to both present our arguments, but we have been doing that and have gotten no where.

I am sorry for any offense I may have commited. I am sorry I have wasted your time. I thought maybe I could learn something. But, you and I are so fundementally different in our approach to scripture here that neither of us has something to offer the other. I dunno, I am truely sorry, but I thought I could ask a simple question about Gog/Magog and get a simple answer. If you can come up with some way for us to try and reach an agreement then I am open, but as it stands now there is nothing for me to learn here.

I am sorry, Core, but you have brushed aside my concerns like they didn't matter. Because of these concerns I went to other possible interpretations and found them to be more biblical. I am sorry, Core, but any more discussion is not possible.

[CoreIssue]

DLK, don't apologize. We strongly disagree. Very strongly. That does not make us enemies.

I have not brushed aside what you said or your concerns. I simply see you have so hard focused on a couple of verses many others are not getting through in meaning.

So, I dsagree you have found a more Biblical way as you disagree I have.

You are a long time friend, even though we don't talk nearly as often as we should. Don't be a stranger.

[MHz]

The Bible tells me that the Final Beast comes from the 4 heads of Daniel's 3rd beast.
Wouldn't that rule about being diverse from the others, relatives are not usually diverse from each other.

The Bible tells me that the final beast comes from the East of the Euphrates River.
If one of the vials dries up the river for the kings of the East there would have to be some 'time leeway' for them to gather. There is none given before the next vial is poured out. In this case the kings would most likely be those from the nations who are alive after the sword of Christ has come and gone.

The Bible tells me that Babylon is that Great City Babylon.
I thought we agreed it was probably Nineveh.

None of Which Rome aligns itself. So, for me Rome does not fit the discriptions.
Rome did not come from Greece's 4 kingdoms.
Oh, from Jerusalem who would be 'in the way';
Da:8:8:
Therefore the he goat waxed very great:
and when he was strong,
the great horn was broken;
and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
Da:8:9:
And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great,
toward the south,
and toward the east,
and toward the pleasant land.

Rome is not east of the Euphrates River. The City of Babylon never really sat upon Rome. We can symbolize it all into something other then what the Bible tells us. In doing so we can make Rome fit. But, taken literally for what it says, Rome does not fit. No it doesn't, Jerusalem is a more likely candidate than Rome.

[frankDH]

A little history might resolve some of your differences. Alexander is the he goat and great horn of Dan 8:8. Alexander had no heir to pass his empire on to. On his death bed, Alexander said that his empire would fall to his strongest general. The 4 most prominent generals of the time were thus pitted against each other. Each established an area under there influence.

Antiochus III was one of these generals. He established himself in southern Syria and Mesopotamia [Babylon]. His aspirations were to revive Alexander's empire under his reign.

As a step in expanding his influence, Antiochus III admitted Hannibal into his court as an advisor. This brought him disfavor in the eyes of Rome. Against the advise of Hannibal, Antiochus III made an alliance with the Aetolian league who were battling against Roman control. Antiochus III was defeated at Magnesia.

Under the surrender conditions, Antiochus had to give up a vast portion of the territories he had siezed during his rise. He also had to give his son, Antiochus Epiphanes as hostage to Rome to insure he would stay in line.

The effect being Antiochus III continued to rule under Rome's permission, effectively bringing Babylon into the Roman influence.

Antiochus Epiphanes was raised in Rome, where he learned Roman government and war tactics. At some point, Antiochus IV [Epiphanes] escaped and returned to take over his father's empire. It is through this sequence of events that the little horn in Dan 7 and 8 can describe the same entity. He came up through the empire established by Alexander but was raised as a Roman throughout his youth.

In essence, Babylon was the middle eastern seat of Roman influence during this period.

Anitiochus IV became the partial fulfillment of the prophesies in Daniel. However, no 3 of the ten divisions of the Roman empire ever fell to himleaving open the total future fulfillment in the 70th week.

[CoreIssue]

The point missed, by most, in reading about Anitiochus IV is that it is dual statement. A historical one and a prophetic one.

He indeed was an example used for the AC, but, contrary to what many want the think, he was not the AC.

Antiochus Epiphanes was of royal birth, this eliminating him as being the AC, who will not be of royal birth.

[frankDH]

The point missed, by most, in reading about Anitiochus IV is that it is dual statement. A historical one and a prophetic one.

He indeed was an example used for the AC, but, contrary to what many want the think, he was not the AC.

Antiochus Epiphanes was of royal birth, this eliminating him as being the AC, who will not be of royal birth.

I can't say with any certainty that the AC will not be of royal birth or not. I don't see anything prohibiting it or indicating it. My point was Antiochus IV is just a type of the antichrist in the future.

[CoreIssue]

The point missed, by most, in reading about Anitiochus IV is that it is dual statement. A historical one and a prophetic one.

He indeed was an example used for the AC, but, contrary to what many want the think, he was not the AC.

Antiochus Epiphanes was of royal birth, this eliminating him as being the AC, who will not be of royal birth.

I can't say with any certainty that the AC will not be of royal birth or not. I don't see anything prohibiting it or indicating it. My point was Antiochus IV is just a type of the antichrist in the future.
I was agreeing with your point and adding another point.

Daniel 11
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty.
The AC simply will not be born royal.

I know, there are those who will argue this point.

But we both have shown that this was not fulfilled historically.

Antiiochus was the son of the king, thus royal.

[frankDH]

The point missed, by most, in reading about Anitiochus IV is that it is dual statement. A historical one and a prophetic one.

He indeed was an example used for the AC, but, contrary to what many want the think, he was not the AC.

Antiochus Epiphanes was of royal birth, this eliminating him as being the AC, who will not be of royal birth.

I can't say with any certainty that the AC will not be of royal birth or not. I don't see anything prohibiting it or indicating it. My point was Antiochus IV is just a type of the antichrist in the future.
I was agreeing with your point and adding another point.

Daniel 11
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty.The AC simply will not be born royal.

I know, there are those who will argue this point.

But we both have shown that this was not fulfilled historically.

Antiiochus was the son of the king, thus royal.

I understood the pointswe agree on. And I don't find the proof to argue the royalty issue. I mentioned that in the hope you would present the indicators you find that would prohibit it.

[CoreIssue]

The points are that there is no mention of royalty in any reference to the AC, anywhere.

And Daniel says he is not royal, while the historical guy was the king's son.

To me, that says he is not of royal birth.

Otherwise, what Daniel is saying is confusing, at best.

[frankDH]

The points are that there is no mention of royalty in any reference to the AC, anywhere.

And Daniel says he is not royal, while the historical guy was the king's son.

To me, that says he is not of royal birth.

Otherwise, what Daniel is saying is confusing, at best.

I do have cause for doubt.

Rev 6:2, And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat upon him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: anf he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

BTW, as you know I don't type. How do you paste here? I've had all the arguements so I've already typed things once.

[CoreIssue]

The word for crown there does not demand royalty. It can mean several things.
Strong's Number: 4735 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=4735&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originstevfano�from an apparently primary stepho (to twine or wreathe)Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4735&version=kjv#Legend) EntryStephanos7:615,1078Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechstef'-an-os http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4735g) Noun Masculine Definition
a crown
a mark of royal or (in general) exalted rank
the wreath or garland which was given as a prize to victors in public games
metaph. the eternal blessedness which will be given as a prize to the genuine servants of God and Christ: the crown (wreath) which is the reward of the righteousness
that which is an ornament and honour to one
When viewed against what Daniel said, I see it as meaning 1c.

As for copy and paste, try copying your material and try a test post in the test forum. See if it needs to be cleaned up, won't work or works just fine.

[frankDH]

The word for crown there does not demand royalty. It can mean several things.
Strong's Number: 4735 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=4735&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originstevfano�from an apparently primary stepho (to twine or wreathe)Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4735&version=kjv#Legend) EntryStephanos7:615,1078Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechstef'-an-os http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4735g) Noun Masculine Definition
a crown
a mark of royal or (in general) exalted rank
the wreath or garland which was given as a prize to victors in public games
metaph. the eternal blessedness which will be given as a prize to the genuine servants of God and Christ: the crown (wreath) which is the reward of the righteousness
that which is an ornament and honour to one When viewed against what Daniel said, I see it as meaning 1c.

As for copy and paste, try copying your material and try a test post in the test forum. See if it needs to be cleaned up, won't work or works just fine.

You are making my point. It can go either way. I don't find a clear indication that I can base a position on.

[CoreIssue]

You are making my point. It can go either way. I don't find a clear indication that I can base a position on.

Hmm. Clarify for me how Daniel saying not royal can mean royal?

I don't see what he said having any room for being royal. :scratch:

[frankDH]

You are making my point. It can go either way. I don't find a clear indication that I can base a position on.
Hmm. Clarify for me how Daniel saying not royal can mean royal?

I don't see what he said having any room for being royal. :scratch:

It's a matter of methodology for me. Daniel makes no direct statement "not royal". You come to understand this is so through the lack of mention of royalty. I believe no mention means no information given. I believe using the lack of mention of some detail is not areliable hermeneutic.

Case in point:If you read the accounts of Jesus baptism, in Mark, there is no indication that John balked at baptizing Jesus or that Jesus made any statement that changed his mind. If you were to apply the principle of no mention to this passage, in the same manner you view daniel, you would have to conclude that Mark said John didn't object and Jesus didn't respond, the same way you state Daniel says not royal.

This would conflict with Jesus' baptism account in Mt 3:14-15, and only because of an unreliable hermeneutic. No mention isn't license to read inference into the gap. daniel never says not royal. He just fails to mention if royalty applies or not. We are to be guided by every word out of the mouth of God. Not the pauses between them.

[CoreIssue]

Well, Frank, I see a very clear declaration by Daniel he was not royal.

And crown does not demand royalty.

Nor is the AC ever called royal in Revelation or anywhere else.

Sure, we can disagree on that one. But I don't see any allowance for being royality by Daniel.

Being a ruler does not make one royal.

Nor do I think your example applies. John, in the one account does not say he either balked or not, initially. But the other does.

So, to harmonize, he balked and then baptized.

Daniels takes away that issue. He says not royal.

Revelation is not in conflict, since crown does demand being royal, just being empowered.

I don't see the issue.

[frankDH]

Well, Frank, I see a very clear declaration by Daniel he was not royal.

And crown does not demand royalty.

Nor is the AC ever called royal in Revelation or anywhere else.

Sure, we can disagree on that one. But I don't see any allowance for being royality by Daniel.

Being a ruler does not make one royal.

Nor do I think your example applies. John, in the one account does not say he either balked or not, initially. But the other does.

So, to harmonize, he balked and then baptized.

Daniels takes away that issue. He says not royal.

Revelation is not in conflict, since crown does demand being royal, just being empowered.

I don't see the issue.

I know you don't. LOL. It always happens like that with us. We just don't speak the same language. I don't know of any dictionary, anywhere that defines a declaration as something omitted from what is written. What you are describing as a declaration, in my language, would be an implication.

You see something that leaves you with an impression. If it were declared, you could underline it in the text. If it was said, you could underline it in the text. We just have different preceptions as to what words mean and how to use them. It's like your speaking Chinese and I'm speaking French. We can say plenty but never communicate.

[CoreIssue]

I understand what you are saying, Frank.

Maybe this will help, maybe it won't.

When I read things like this I gather the word meanings, grammar and context together and look at all possible alternatives.

I eliminate what it cannot mean and see if only one answer is left.

I this case, I believe only one is left. As in a logic statement.

If not royal in Daniel, then royal in Revelation.
Cannot be because if and then disagree.

If not royal in Daniel, the a reward in Revelation.
Cannot be because God is not rewarding the AC, but using him.

If not royal in Daniel, then empowered in Revelation.
Bingo! Being empowered with being royal works.

No other possible combinations left.

Or maybe that just confused it more. :aah:

[frankDH]

I understand what you are saying, Frank.

Maybe this will help, maybe it won't.

When I read things like this I gather the word meanings, grammar and context together and look at all possible alternatives.

I eliminate what it cannot mean and see if only one answer is left.

I this case, I believe only one is left. As in a logic statement.

If not royal in Daniel, then royal in Revelation.
Cannot be because if and then disagree.

If not royal in Daniel, the a reward in Revelation.
Cannot be because God is not rewarding the AC, but using him.

If not royal in Daniel, then empowered in Revelation.
Bingo! Being empowered with being royal works.

No other possible combinations left.

Or maybe that just confused it more. :aah:

I wouldn't find fault with that if there were a word to have a meaning, context or grammar, in Daniel 7 to use to determine which option of definition for crown in Revelation was likely. But there isn't. You proceed on the assumption that if daniel didn't address the topic of royalty that it is as good as stating that royalty is impossible. Yet you see a partial fulfillment in the type, Antiochus IV. And admit he was royalty. It's contradictory logic.

I have learned much in scripture by comparing verses where one provides more detail than the other. They wouldn't agree in the sense you are demanding. Agreement in the sense you use must be confirmed in both locations. Marks account of Jesus baptism doesn't address comments made by John or Jesus. Just like daniel doesn't comment on royalty. The only difference in my analogy and the one in daniel is Matthew provides definate info and Revelation offers options in the definition of crowns. Nothing in Daniel 7 proves or disproves either definition. And the fact that Daniel can be applied to Antiochus as a type keeps both defintions viable options. But now you have me thinking about it. Answer these questions.

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

Is the horn in Dan 7:21 the little horn in this verse?

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

If so, is the little horn in Dan 8:9 the king in this verse?

Dan 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

[CoreIssue]

Daniel did address royalty. Antiochus was royal, thus the statement was not about him exclusively.

I cannot dismiss that fact.

[frankDH]

Daniel did address royalty. Antiochus was royal, thus the statement was not about him exclusively.

I cannot dismiss that fact.

I don't dismiss it either. That's why I said from the beginning that it could go either way. There is more than one possibility in Daniel and more than one possibility in the definition of crown. Nothing says the AC has to match everything in the type. If it did, the type would be a complete fulfillment instead of partial. The AC may be of common birth or royal birth. There isn't sufficient info given to be certain.

[CoreIssue]

19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-21981b)] 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power. 23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power


OK.

Who came after Greece?

Rome, not the AC. And the Iron Beast was stern, cruel and wicked.

Rome destroyed, Jerusalem and the Temple. Rome is the is the Harlot and will go to its destruction in the 7th Bowl, not by human hands.

Rome established the RCC. And how much deceit, death and destruction have they been responsible for?

So, much is wrapped up in this passage. From ancient Rome to Rome as the capital of the AC Empire.

Rome felt secure against Christ and his Church. And were destroyed.

The AC, at Armageddon, with his army, will not feel secure and superior.

I am sure you will disagree. But I don't want you to think I am missing anything.

Daniel states a king here, but says not royalty when comparing to Antiochus, who was royal.

Revelation still does not demand royalty.

I see no conflict in what I am saying.

[frankDH]

Daniel states a king here, but says not royalty when comparing to Antiochus, who was royal.

What words does Daniel use to say the part in bold? What does the word "says" mean to you? This is how we are different. If you think it, you believe it is said. I believe it is said when it is written. Our different approaches will always lead to different conclusions and no amount of discussion will make any difference at all.

[CoreIssue]

I agree.

But why do you say the king that Daniel says comes next is the AC? Rome came after Greece, followed by the Ten Toes and then the AC.

I see you missing a whole kingdom there.

[frankDH]

I agree.

But why do you say the king that Daniel says comes next is the AC? Rome came after Greece, followed by the Ten Toes and then the AC.

I see you missing a whole kingdom there.

Rome came after Greece. But Antiochus, the type of the AC came out of Greece and Rome. One by birth and the other by captivity. Rome can't be the little horn in Dan 7 & 8, and neither can Greece. Antiochus, because of the circumstances of his life, was uniquely suited to the fulfillment of all those passages , with exceptrion of the ones yet to be fulfilled. The RCC doesn't come close.

As near as I can tell, the AC will be based out of Syria, in control of Babylon, rule at the permission of Rome and have some Greek linage through his father. He will have some direct link to each of the seven kingdoms. He is the eighth and of the seven [Rev 17:11]. I just haven't been able to establish every link in scripture yet. But Rev 17:11 establishes they are there.

[CoreIssue]

Cannot be Syria. Syria is in none of the information Daniel gave regarding the Kingdoms and Kings that counted.

In the Statue, the AC rises out of the Ten Toes, which is what the Roman Empire broke into.

Also, in the Beasts, he rises from Greece.

You are missing another qualifier John gave. He must be from the 5 that were. That eliminates Rome.

The Statue gives 5 kings.
Babyon - 2
Medo-Persia - 2
Greece - 1
Rome - 2

So, 4 Empires, matching the 4 Beasts, and holding 7 total kings.

Greece is the Ram, is in the Ten Toes and was of the 5.

Alexander is a one for one match to the description of the AC.

It isn't Babylon, but Mystery Babylon. Physical Babylon isn't in the picture, at all.

[frankDH]

Cannot be Syria. Syria is in none of the information Daniel gave regarding the Kingdoms and Kings that counted.

In the Statue, the AC rises out of the Ten Toes, which is what the Roman Empire broke into.

Also, in the Beasts, he rises from Greece.

You are missing another qualifier John gave. He must be from the 5 that were. That eliminates Rome.

The Statue gives 5 kings.
Babyon - 2
Medo-Persia - 2
Greece - 1
Rome - 2

So, 4 Empires, matching the 4 Beasts, and holding 7 total kings.

Greece is the Ram, is in the Ten Toes and was of the 5.

Alexander is a one for one match to the description of the AC.

It isn't Babylon, but Mystery Babylon. Physical Babylon isn't in the picture, at all.

As I said, things are still under investigation. I haven't the scripture to defend it all yet or make it mine. Any thoughts that come your way are welcome here.

[CoreIssue]

I understand. No problem.

[cbressler1976]

You all have taught me a lot here...thanks!

[cbressler1976]

I am not as knowledgeable as you all are on the subject.....but I do remember a theory...and that theory was that he was talking about Rome...some people believe that he was actually talking about his time...and that it was to give the christians of his time hope that Rome would fall...I don't believe this....but I do see a trend amoung a lot of different revelation studiers...that he was talking about Rome...

[CoreIssue]

I am not as knowledgeable as you all are on the subject.....but I do remember a theory...and that theory was that he was talking about Rome...some people believe that he was actually talking about his time...and that it was to give the christians of his time hope that Rome would fall...I don't believe this....but I do see a trend amoung a lot of different revelation studiers...that he was talking about Rome...
Not quite sure where you are coming from here.

The thigh and legs of the statue were Roman Empires.

Rome divided into two Rome, the legs.

The legs split into ten small empires when Rome collapsed. That is historical fact.

The Ten Toes are recombining, the EU. Law a map of the Ten after the collapse over a map of the EU and it is almost a perfect match.

Rome is the city on 7 Hills. It has been called that since before John wrote Revelation.

It is the capital of the RCC.

The RCC is Pagan Roman religion cloaked in Christianity.

The Harlot is the religion of Rome, past, present and future.

[cbressler1976]

You know....I learned that in a church I was visiting...i'm learning little by little lol....
....but I was referring to the book of Revelations....I watched a special on that on the dreaded discovery channel...<----there are a lot of shows on that channel that try and disprove Jesus and it upsets me...anyway, they were trying to say that the Revelations was a coding for the christians of the time to help them deal with the Romans....that is what I was referring to...and the fact that you keep saying Rome and they also at least said the Romans means maybe that point is right....are you saying that the AC is going to come from the Roman catholics?? please forgive me if I ask ignorant questions....

[CoreIssue]

You know....I learned that in a church I was visiting...i'm learning little by little lol....
....but I was referring to the book of Revelations....I watched a special on that on the dreaded discovery channel...<----there are a lot of shows on that channel that try and disprove Jesus and it upsets me...anyway, they were trying to say that the Revelations was a coding for the christians of the time to help them deal with the Romans....that is what I was referring to...and the fact that you keep saying Rome and they also at least said the Romans means maybe that point is right....are you saying that the AC is going to come from the Roman catholics?? please forgive me if I ask ignorant questions....
Yea. They do a lot of Gnostic stuff.

No. Not from the RCC.

When the beginnings of the RCC took over the place of the Emporer, they assumed his power and slowly his titles, such as Pope.

The College of Pontiffs became the College or Cardinals. The Roman Eagle God became the Pope's staff. He wears the colors, style of clothes and more of the Pagan religious leaders of Rome.

The AC will convert Rome back into the Pagan godking ways.

The Roman, at Rome, religions remain unbroken from ancient Roman times until the Second Coming. Just changed names and appearences, but never truly left it roots.

[cbressler1976]

I see... :-)
Thank you for saying or rather writing it in a way that I can understand!
I am starting to understand some things that I have read....
I have prayed for some understanding....
God loves me... :nod:

[Jessie]

reading on page 8,

what exactly is the pit?

[CoreIssue]

reading on page 8,

what exactly is the pit?
The Pit can be thought of as a straight down tunnel with Hell as a chamber at the bottom and Paradise, now empty, as a chamber somewhere off the Pit as well.

We know it opens during the Trib to let demons out, as in the 200 mil army. We know the AC and FP are cast alive into it at the Second Coming. So we know it accomodates both physical and spirit passage. We know it has a lid/door of some nature that seals things in. We know the river Euphrates covers it and it will not be open until the river is drained away from it.

So, it seems to have both a physical and spiritual composition. Or one or the other that God will enable to accomodate the other as well.

Nailing it down solidly just cannot be done.

[Jessie]

the demons would'nt be coming out of hell right? but the other place?

creepy.

[CoreIssue]

the demons would'nt be coming out of hell right? but the other place?

creepy.
I think they are just imprisoned in the Pit itself, not in any chamber thereof.

[InTheWind]

reading on page 8,

what exactly is the pit?
The Pit can be thought of as a straight down tunnel with Hell as a chamber at the bottom and Paradise, now empty, as a chamber somewhere off the Pit as well.

We know it opens during the Trib to let demons out, as in the 200 mil army. We know the AC and FP are cast alive into it at the Second Coming. So we know it accomodates both physical and spirit passage. We know it has a lid/door of some nature that seals things in. We know the river Euphrates covers it and it will not be open until the river is drained away from it.

So, it seems to have both a physical and spiritual composition. Or one or the other that God will enable to accomodate the other as well.

Nailing it down solidly just cannot be done.


I thought the 200 man army was from China and the kings of the east.
I also thought demans were angles not men?????

[CoreIssue]

reading on page 8,

what exactly is the pit?
The Pit can be thought of as a straight down tunnel with Hell as a chamber at the bottom and Paradise, now empty, as a chamber somewhere off the Pit as well.

We know it opens during the Trib to let demons out, as in the 200 mil army. We know the AC and FP are cast alive into it at the Second Coming. So we know it accomodates both physical and spirit passage. We know it has a lid/door of some nature that seals things in. We know the river Euphrates covers it and it will not be open until the river is drained away from it.

So, it seems to have both a physical and spiritual composition. Or one or the other that God will enable to accomodate the other as well.

Nailing it down solidly just cannot be done.


I thought the 200 man army was from China and the kings of the east.
I also thought demans were angles not men?????
:swoon:I meant the demons who come out and cause them to march!

Sorry and thanks for catching that one, ITW. :tiphat:

[wiselady]

zekiel 38

A Prophecy Against Gog

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him 3 and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.

Son of man actually means Son of God born through man, God calls his prophets this as you can see

Gog is an individual as you can see in this text, prince is used in a variety of ways through the scriptures, considering this is a problem, it would signal a bad prince, prince of demons, this would be in context to beezlebub, who is prince of demons.

He has a habit of using peoples bodies like the King of Tyre

Revelation 20:8 (New International Version)



8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves.

This is about more then one area of the world, notice it says breadth of the earth.

This would be a spiritual battle. Good vs evil.

The demons are going to surround the camp of Gods people. They know their time is coming to an end, so during the end days, they are going to try to drag people to the pit with them.

Deceiving them can be a variety of ways

false teaching
reading horoscopes and thinking that is holy when it is witchcraft
divinators ( who think it is God telling them the info)
tempatations from satan-like an example a happily married man who has never had lustful situations, all of a sudden beezlebub will send over a demon to go inside a woman and TEMPT HIM,

these are forms of deceit.

[CoreIssue]

zekiel 38

A Prophecy Against Gog

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him 3 and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.

Son of man actually means Son of God born through man, God calls his prophets this as you can see
False. It means son of Adam which we all are. Plus this was spoken to a then living man, Ezekiel, a son of man, ben'adam.
Gog is an individual as you can see in this text, prince is used in a variety of ways through the scriptures, considering this is a problem, it would signal a bad prince, prince of demons, this would be in context to beezlebub, who is prince of demons.
Nope. It meant the Tribe a Gog. Gog was a literal man of ancient times who became a nation of people.
He has a habit of using peoples bodies like the King of Tyre
But the King of Tyre was not a possession reference.
Revelation 20:8 (New International Version)
8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
Yep. There are nations that track back to the literal men Gog and Magog.
9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves.

This is about more then one area of the world, notice it says breadth of the earth.
OK. The armies of many nations of the earth are gathered to Medigo, where Armagedon occurs.
This would be a spiritual battle. Good vs evil.
It is a a literal battle caused by spiritul issues.
The demons are going to surround the camp of Gods people. They know their time is coming to an end, so during the end days, they are going to try to drag people to the pit with them.
Nope. Literal army of of literal men.
Deceiving them can be a variety of ways

false teaching
reading horoscopes and thinking that is holy when it is witchcraft
divinators ( who think it is God telling them the info)
tempatations from satan-like an example a happily married man who has never had lustful situations, all of a sudden beezlebub will send over a demon to go inside a woman and TEMPT HIM,

these are forms of deceit.
Nothing literal stated and totally without literal foundation. That is the only way Preterism can argue.