Why America MUST fall

[BlindSeeker]

Bro,

Sorry for taking so long to reply but it appears that your are advocating the theory that America is Mystery Babylon. IMO, God set's up whom He will and God takes down whom He will for His purposes and His greater Glory and plan for mankinds Salvation.

Peace,

Dave

Agreed . . . and reveals it by His holy prophets and apostles.

From my studies I find there are actually 4 distinct divisions pertaining to the 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.

Here are the 4 divisions,

First - THE WOMAN - I believe she represents the false religious systems that have been here since the Nimrod and the tower of Babel. It is demonic in origin, but often comes as an angel of light to try and deceive to who would be seeking truth and righteousness.

Note that in Rev 13:1 that the beast rising out of the sea does not have the women riding it. I believe that is because the mutually consensual unholy union of the beast and the woman happens just prior to their destruction, and because of their union, they are thereafter referred to as the one and the same. Not unlike "and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

This whorish religious system goes all the way back to through the history of Israel. I personally believe after Christ death and the destruction of Rome it morphed into Catholicism, which after it became so blatantly contrary godliness with its persecutions and inquisitions, then gave birth to many of the harlot churches presently now as denominations which either clung to some of their mother churches errors or created their own brand of heresy.

I have always believe that the true church needed no reformation, but simple restoration. But that is another topic altogether . . .

Second - THE BEAST THAT CARRIETH HER - This is actually the final manifestation of the beast that has existed since the birth of the Nation of Israel. It is linked to Israel, for as Israel was, and then was not because Rome destroyed it, yet Israel is. The same is said therefore of the beast. "And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

Third - THE SEVEN HEADS - Are the historical progression of nations which have had a direct influence and effect upon the Israelites. The heads represent seven mountains (not hills) which represent seven empires ruled by seven kings. According to the angel said 5 were already fallen in Israel's then past.

They are:

• 1. Egypt
  2. Assyria
  3. Babylon
  4. Medes/Persia
  5. Greece

Daniel mentions the last three in his visions, including the next empire which then “was,” that being Rome. Therefore Rome is head #6. Daniel is silent about Egypt and Assyria two because they were already history before his time of ministry.

The 7th empire would have to of been those in possession of the land when the Israelites began to migrate back to their land after World War 2. That would have been the British Empire. Therefore the 7th is England.

Please note that in Revelation 17:9-11 the angels only mentions seven kings, which leaves room to believe the eight beast would not be under a monarchal rule, rather a different government system.

Re 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

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

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

Therefore, the mentioning of the SEVEN HEADS are just to give us "the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is [Rome], and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he [England] must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of [from] the seven, and goeth into perdition."

Therefore, it is the 8th beast that "goeth into perdition" that Rev. 13-19 is mainly dealing with.

Fourth - THE TEN HORNS - I believe represents the unification of Europe, a resurrection per se of the old Roman Empire. It is they who "shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

I think it is necessary to address all these when endeavoring to rightly divide the prophecy of John in Revelation.

[BlindSeeker]

What I am looking for is simply what was asked, "What is an acceptable scriptural foundation for the revolt of the settlers against the King of England . . . "

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against the Crown and it was those grievances that not only formed the basis of war with England, but each grievance is addressed in the Constitution.

There is no Scripture that we can claim as justification for war with England. However we can prove that it was a just war that we fought agasint England. We don't really even need the Bible to justify the Revolution against England.

However, the founding Fathers echoed the Scriptures in many of their documents and speeches. You can find repeated references from Scripture in the words of our founders at www.wallbuilders.com where you can find all kinds of historical documents and transcripts of speeches from our founders.

Ok.

Prove it then.

[BlindSeeker]

Could not the "seat" be established at this point? Or the power given at a time when the people are so distracted?

It is my belief that this nation was created for a time unlike any other. It rose against the tide, despite the odds, and survived to house some great orators of the faith. America sent out thousands to be "witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth." Yet I also acknowledge that it has created great atrocities. I don't discount the other nations, it's just that this one has played a special part in biblical history in that it housed many Jews, and was instrumental in establishing that nation. This nation was used for the fulfillment of prophecy. Would that not anger the enemy of Israel?

Our nation began it's fall into "chaos" in that time frame. But - that's all just my opinion.

I find it interesting that shortly after Revelation 13 starts, the deadly wound to the head is mentioned. Those familiar with my other threads and position know I understand that to be the provoked attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. It was was WWII that brought about three significant things, the decline of the British Empire, the catapulting of America into global supremacy and the re-birth of Israel.

However, consider in the Conspiracy Theories thread -

Let's say there was a "conspiracy" to draw Japan to attack Pearl Harbor just to get the American people on board with fighting WW2. One hand wants to say it was a wicked thing to do. The other hand wants to say what would have happened had the US not entered the war? If the president and whoever truly were guilty of a "conspiracy", would you go so far as to want to take back our defeat over Hitler?

In my opinion, Roosevelt provoked Japan and sacrificed thousands of innocent lives in order to rally the American populace behind him so he could enter the war. Truman later brought the war to an end with the killing over 140,000 with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I still find it prophetic the words in the Franck Report signed and given to Truman by all the scientists who worked on the development of the bomb warning him of the moral responsibilities that came with it and the consequences that would follow if they weren't heeded.

Scientists have often before been accused of providing new weapons for the mutual destruction of nations, instead of improving their well-being. It is undoubtedly true that the discovery of flying, for example, has so far brought much more misery than enjoyment or profit to humanity. However, in the past, scientists could disclaim direct responsibility for the use to which mankind had put their disinterested discoveries. We cannot take the same attitude now because the success which we have achieved in the development of nuclear power is fraught with infinitely greater dangers than were all the inventions of the past.

All of us, familiar with the present state of nucleonics, live with the vision before our eyes of sudden destruction visited on our own country, of Pearl Harbor disaster, repeated in thousandfold magnification, in every one of our major cities.

It never goes without my notice when Islamic extremest justify their actions of killing the innocent and women and children with America's use of "the bomb."

"Referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, he warned the US and Britain: "Wake up. Withdraw. Listen. All of us have a part to play in stopping the violence or the next 9/11 will take place in Britain, the next 7/7 could take place locally."

The meeting was also addressed by law lecturer Abu Saalihah and there was a live webcam link to Omar Bakri at his Lebanon hideout.

Yesterday unrepentant Bakri said he could not understand what moderate Muslims have against Bin Laden.

He also dismissed 9/11 as "just an event" which was neither good nor bad but comparable to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

This is a professed view of Osama Bin Laden as well . . .

"

The US

, bin Laden maintains,

is responsible for the ‘most reprehensible acts of world terrorism’, such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

, as also the bombing in Iraq."

[MorningGlory]

I find it interesting that shortly after Revelation 13 starts, the deadly wound to the head is mentioned. Those familiar with my other threads and position know I understand that to be the provoked attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. It was was WWII that brought about three significant things, the decline of the British Empire, the catapulting of America into global supremacy and the re-birth of Israel.

However, consider in the Conspiracy Theories thread -

Let's say there was a "conspiracy" to draw Japan to attack Pearl Harbor just to get the American people on board with fighting WW2. One hand wants to say it was a wicked thing to do. The other hand wants to say what would have happened had the US not entered the war? If the president and whoever truly were guilty of a "conspiracy", would you go so far as to want to take back our defeat over Hitler?

In my opinion, Roosevelt provoked Japan and sacrificed thousands of innocent lives in order to rally the American populace behind him so he could enter the war. Truman later brought the war to an end with the killing over 140,000 with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I still find it prophetic the words in the Franck Report signed and given to Truman by all the scientists who worked on the development of the bomb warning him of the moral responsibilities that came with it and the consequences that would follow if they weren't heeded.

Scientists have often before been accused of providing new weapons for the mutual destruction of nations, instead of improving their well-being. It is undoubtedly true that the discovery of flying, for example, has so far brought much more misery than enjoyment or profit to humanity. However, in the past, scientists could disclaim direct responsibility for the use to which mankind had put their disinterested discoveries. We cannot take the same attitude now because the success which we have achieved in the development of nuclear power is fraught with infinitely greater dangers than were all the inventions of the past.

All of us, familiar with the present state of nucleonics, live with the vision before our eyes of sudden destruction visited on our own country, of Pearl Harbor disaster, repeated in thousandfold magnification, in every one of our major cities.

It never goes without my notice when Islamic extremest justify their actions of killing the innocent and women and children with America's use of "the bomb."

"Referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, he warned the US and Britain: "Wake up. Withdraw. Listen. All of us have a part to play in stopping the violence or the next 9/11 will take place in Britain, the next 7/7 could take place locally."

The meeting was also addressed by law lecturer Abu Saalihah and there was a live webcam link to Omar Bakri at his Lebanon hideout.

Yesterday unrepentant Bakri said he could not understand what moderate Muslims have against Bin Laden.

He also dismissed 9/11 as "just an event" which was neither good nor bad but comparable to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

This is a professed view of Osama Bin Laden as well . . .

"

The US

, bin Laden maintains,

is responsible for the

[BlindSeeker]

I'm not sure what makes you think the attack at Pearl Harbor was 'provoked'. How was that accomplished? What did the U.S. do? A provocation by definition is an action of some kind.

What really bothers me about your post is that it just seems to be more of the 'blame America' drivel that I've been hearing for a long time now. Did we provoke 9/11 too? Is Bin Laden correct in saying the U.S. is guilty of the largest terrorist attacks of all time?

I am sorry you are so bothered. Maybe you should search out the answers for yourself.

I've studied Pearl Harbor's history, maybe you should too.

Here's some sites just to start . . .

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

That's just a quick search on google. They are not the resources I searched it out on, back then Al Gore didn't invent the internet yet when I first study the subject, but the Freedom of Information Act has made more info available. You should be able to research it all in a fraction of the time I initially invested. i

Here are some responses to our dropping the Bomb . . . you might recognizing some of their names . . .

"...the greatest thing in history."

-

Harry S. Truman

- President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing

Of course . . . he ordered it dropped . . .

Re 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men . . .

Re 13:4 . . . Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

More . . .

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

-

General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

Commanding General of the U.S. Army

Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "

-

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'

[Guest shiloh357]

What I am looking for is simply what was asked, "What is an acceptable scriptural foundation for the revolt of the settlers against the King of England . . . "

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against the Crown and it was those grievances that not only formed the basis of war with England, but each grievance is addressed in the Constitution.

There is no Scripture that we can claim as justification for war with England. However we can prove that it was a just war that we fought agasint England. We don't really even need the Bible to justify the Revolution against England.

However, the founding Fathers echoed the Scriptures in many of their documents and speeches. You can find repeated references from Scripture in the words of our founders at www.wallbuilders.com where you can find all kinds of historical documents and transcripts of speeches from our founders.

Ok.

Prove it then.

I already did. The 27 grievances listed in DOI. Those prove that our cause was a just one. Not only that, but in the light of those grievances we exhausted every peaceful measure available to us in appealing to King George and were brushed off.

[BlindSeeker]

What I am looking for is simply what was asked, "What is an acceptable scriptural foundation for the revolt of the settlers against the King of England . . . "

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against the Crown and it was those grievances that not only formed the basis of war with England, but each grievance is addressed in the Constitution.

There is no Scripture that we can claim as justification for war with England. However we can prove that it was a just war that we fought agasint England. We don't really even need the Bible to justify the Revolution against England.

However, the founding Fathers echoed the Scriptures in many of their documents and speeches. You can find repeated references from Scripture in the words of our founders at www.wallbuilders.com where you can find all kinds of historical documents and transcripts of speeches from our founders.

Ok.

Prove it then.

I already did. The 27 grievances listed in DOI. Those prove that our cause was a just one. Not only that, but in the light of those grievances we exhausted every peaceful measure available to us in appealing to King George and were brushed off.

I guess because you stated, "we can prove that it was a just war" and "We don't really even need the Bible to justify the Revolution" that you actually had something of substance you were willing to submit. Perhaps it would be a good thread for you to start where you could openly justify the colonists' actions without the Bible . . .

Nonetheless, we'll see how it stands up in a higher court one day.

[nebula]

Shiloh - I think BlindSeeker is wanting to know how rebelling against the governing body does not violate the Scripture about submitting to the governing authority over you.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh - I think BlindSeeker is wanting to know how rebelling against the governing body does not violate the Scripture about submitting to the governing authority over you.

Because the Bible only calls on us to obey just laws that are commisserate with being a good citizen. It does not call on us to live under tyrrany and be subject to unrighteous rulers. There is no prohibition in Scripture for the kind of war engaged by the colonists. The 27 grievances of the colonists presented in the Declaration of Independence provide sufficient cause for the need of independence and the refusal of England to even give audience to those grievances over several years of patient entreaties by the colonists and the exhaustion of every peaceble avenue which the colonists employed, is sufficient cause for the kind of war they engaged in agaisnt Britain.

The Bible commands us to pay our taxes (what the Bible calls "tribute) and to render proper respect and to obey the laws that are justly given. I don't think we have a point of refrenence for the type of tyranny that the colonists were living under.

For anyone to argue that the United States was born out of an unjust war borders on being a traitor.

[BlindSeeker]

Lu 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear;

not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward

.

19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.