10 kings

[Serving]

 

I was in no way nor at any point anywhere near snarkyville I assure you bro ..

 

I saw this as being the junction to Snarkyville:

 

 

 

& not only that, do angels need / use money / riches to you Daze?

 

Just didn't want to go there.

 

I guess we interpret things differently.

 

Blessings.

 

 

Hi Daze,

 

 

That's the problem with communicating by text at times I suppose .. no tone .. no facial expressions to go by .. it was an honest question with no malice I promise you bro .. I was merely being blunt .. nevertheless, let me rephrase ..

 

 

That one of the 4 beasts was far richer than the kings before him .. wouldn't you say that this speaks of human kings rather than spirit kings considering that within the beast explanation we find the descriptive to do with wielding personal riches and an ongoing succession of kingship exactly as we see consistently represented throughout human reigns within the "human family" & within mankind's history?  

 

 

Yes .. I am challenging your discernment on this one subject brother .. I am only trying to get you to acknowledge that there are inconsistencies to the theory which when looked at critically BY YOU yourself, should be faced openly & honestly before God .. not me .. but before God .. it is not the sign of an enemy, but of a friend.

 

 

But now I will be blunt again .. not rude, blunt ..                 

 

 

You said there were no correlations with "the sea" representing humankind in the scriptures, I knew from reading the scriptures that that was wrong because I've read it many times for myself .. what was I to do .. ignore what I knew was wrong & keep silent? Even so, I didn't want to come out with all guns blazing in case I offended you .. so I tried explaining in a round about way .. that didn't work so in the previous post I brought the scriptures forth because I was left with no choice ..

 

 

As you can see .. they backed what I was saying all along  .. honestly, if somebody showed me those scriptures, I would admit my error, concede there was a problem, thank the person showing me, & knuckle down to correct the error to strive & find the right view .. I am not trying to cause a rift, but to harmonize the view more accurately with the scriptures .. if I didn't care, I wouldn't try to help & keep all my understanding to myself .. but that would be akin to burying my penny!!

 

 

Nevertheless, we can stop this discussion right now if you like, it's up to you, whatever you decide I will respect.

 

 

God bless brother.

[Serving]

 

... I just want to bring up something about the 10 kings of Daniel & Revelation regarding the views of whether they are human or angelic rulers ..

 

 

But first,

 

I'd like to confirm that I do understand & I do believe that every nation on earth is ruled over by demonic princes under one king .. Satan, & that Satan himself has allotted these fallen angels each their own dominions within their groups or units ...

This premise is incorrect. The spiritual princes of the nations are not demons, they are angelic beings. Demons are those earthly spirits which came out of the Nephilim when they died.

 

The angelic princes, while certainly being under the sway of Satan, have not yet been cast down: they still reign in heavenly places. When God arises in judgment on the Day of the Lord, he will first judge these angelic princes/principalities:

 

Ps. 82:1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty [literally, of El/God];

He judges among the gods.

 

...6 I said, “You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes.”

 

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;

For You shall inherit all nations.

 

Is. 24:21 It shall come to pass in that day

That the LORD will punish on high the host of exalted ones,

And on the earth the kings of the earth.

 

This was the same pattern established at God's last great judgment, when he also judged gods:

 

Ex. 12:12 ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

 

 

 

Thank you William,

 

 

As you'd notice I did say angelic before using "demonic" .. I used "demonic" because the majority of Christians link it with fallen angels, that is, it is was quicker to type & people would know what I meant .. I was being lazy I suppose .. my bad.

 

 

But you are correct & I agree .. specifically, demonic is for the "seed" of the fallen angel / human union .. it is the souls of the deceased giants & other creatures coming out of those unions which still persist here on earth since their souls do not go to God because they are not of God .. but of the fallen ones .. they belong neither "here" nor "there".

 

 

As to the fallen angels not being cast out yet .. I would disagree ..

 

 

 

Ps. 82:1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty [literally, of El/God];

He judges among the gods.

 

...6 I said, “You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes.”

 

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;

For You shall inherit all nations.

 

 

This is on the 2nd coming judgment on the rulers both physical & spiritual .. the angels aren't ruling in heaven where God is .. they are ruling here on earth .. they were cast into the very earth where they are still ruling today, like Satan said in Luke 4 .. it is his kingdom .. that being so, then it follows that it is in this place of office (earth) where their reign will be cancelled by God ..  

 

 

 

Is. 24:21 It shall come to pass in that day

That the LORD will punish on high the host of exalted ones,

And on the earth the kings of the earth.

 

 

And where are they being exalted? .. in heaven? .. or .. on earth? .. on earth of course.

 

Again, it is where they are being exalted as to where they are to be found .. on the earth .. thus they are already here, already cast out of heaven.

 

Please ponder this : Once mercy came to men, coming into effect after the testator dies (crucifixion), Satan's accusations no longer held any relevance, he was no longer justified to accuse .. and since Satan went out of his way to kill God's Son .. do you really think the Father would allow His Son's murderer to stay in heaven as though nothing had happened !!

 

Would you let one who killed your son stay in your house?

 

I wouldn't & neither did God.

 

Satan & his angels have been banished from heaven over 2000+ years now .. Rev 12 convinces me of that.

 

Blessings.

[Last Daze]

 

 

Serving,

 

 

Yes .. I am challenging your discernment on this one subject brother .. I am only trying to get you to acknowledge that there are inconsistencies to the theory which when looked at critically BY YOU yourself, should be faced openly & honestly before God .. not me .. but before God .. it is not the sign of an enemy, but of a friend.

 

You said there were no correlations with "the sea" representing humankind in the scriptures, I knew from reading the scriptures that that was wrong because I've read it many times for myself

 

 

Please try to understand what I'm saying before you set out to try and discredit me.  I never said that there were no correlations with "the sea" representing humankind in the scriptures.  You then proceed to discredit something I never said in the first place.  This is what I said:

 

 

The sea symbolically represents the abyss, not people, nations, tongues, multitudes.  That's where the harlot sits.  Is it ever called a sea?  Or just waters?  Here is an unmistakable direct correlation referring to the sea as the abyss:

 

Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea  Revelation 13:1

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.  Revelation 17:8

 

 

Please show me the inconsistency in my theory here.  The beast comes up out of the sea.  The beast comes up out of the abyss.  The sea symbolizes the abyss.  Did I say that the sea can only symbolize the abyss throughout the whole of scripture?  That seems to be your assumption.  Context please.

 

 

do angels need / use money / riches to you Daze?

 

it was an honest question with no malice I promise you

 

 

Somehow, I'm not convinced, but in case it was, the answer is no.

 

I'm not sure what your motives are for responding to me the way you did in this thread but I'm no longer interested.  Consider me disengaged.

[Serving]

Daze, 

 

 

Please try to understand what I'm saying before you set out to try and discredit me.  I never said that there were no correlations with "the sea" representing humankind in the scriptures.  You then proceed to discredit something I never said in the first place.  This is what I said:

 

 

Discredit you? Excuse me?  What?  .. sigh ..

 

 

LOOK again >>>

 

 

 

The sea symbolically represents the abyss, not people, nations, tongues, multitudes.  That's where the harlot sits.  Is it ever called a sea?  Or just waters?  Here is an unmistakable direct correlation referring to the sea as the abyss:

 

 

 "Is it ever called a sea? .. Or just waters?" .. "ever" means anywhere else in the scriptures Daze .. that IS the context I responded to .. this context >> can waters ever mean sea in the scriptures or not .. & the answer is yes.

 

 

So how is this me attempting to discredit you? I was responding to you.

 

 

 

 

Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea  Revelation 13:1

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.  Revelation 17:8

 

 

Please show me the inconsistency in my theory here.  The beast comes up out of the sea.  The beast comes up out of the abyss.  The sea symbolizes the abyss.  Did I say that the sea can only symbolize the abyss throughout the whole of scripture?  That seems to be your assumption.  Context please.

 

 

Daze, yes there is reference to the sea & the bottomless pit (abyss) .. I agreed earlier but said that there was more to it .. & when I brought forth my evidence you said this:

 

 

 

Did I say that the sea can only symbolize the abyss throughout the whole of scripture?  That seems to be your assumption.  Context please.

 

Again, YES you did say that .. look again at your usage / context  :  "Is it ever called a sea? .. Or just waters?" .. "ever" means anywhere else in the scriptures .. what else does it mean?

 

 

Other words, "can you show me "ever" where else in the scriptures where waters can mean seas" is the meaning I heard .. that is the context I responded to .. again .. this context >> can waters ever mean sea in the scriptures or not .. & the answer is yes ..  and this makes me someone who discredits?

 

 

To say I am disappointed to be accused of underhanded methods would be a slight understatement ..

 

 

 

Me: do angels need / use money / riches to you Daze?

 

it was an honest question with no malice I promise you.

 

You: Somehow, I'm not convinced, but in case it was, the answer is no.

 

I'm not sure what your motives are for responding to me the way you did in this thread but I'm no longer interested.  Consider me disengaged.

 

 

C'mon Daze .. really? 

 

 

Sigh ..  

 

 

Look >>

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your motives are

 

 

Okay .. MY motives ..

 

 

1) You said the 4 beasts in Daniel ONLY represent the spirit angels ..  I disagreed. (forget the "sea" argument for now)

 

 

2) You just agreed above that spirit angels do not need personal material riches .. therefore .. you conceded .. how? .. well, simply because, amongst that "4 beasts" descriptive there are kings who do use personal material riches which contradicts them "ONLY being spirit kings" .. 

 

 

3) Result : the 4 beasts descriptive therefore by your admittance in the above is not dealing with "ONLY spirit kings" after all .. otherwise they wouldn't be using personal material wealth which you admitted angels would not need.

 

 

4) My motive : Achieved .. I helped a brother on a small error see that there is more to the 4 beasts descriptive after all.

 

 

5) End result : I am now someone who "discredits" for my honest efforts which by necessity required questions and disagreement to be able to achieve what needed achieving in this text based environment in the first place !!     

 

 

6)  

 

 

All I can say is this .. I forgive you & am happy to "talk" with you whenever & wherever & hope you can now see what my intentions were all along .. to help you .. no hard feelings from this side of the fence brother ..

 

 

God bless you & uphold you.

 

 

Regards.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Serving

[Last Daze]

Daze, 

 

 

Please try to understand what I'm saying before you set out to try and discredit me.  I never said that there were no correlations with "the sea" representing humankind in the scriptures.  You then proceed to discredit something I never said in the first place.  This is what I said:

 

 

Discredit you? Excuse me?  What?  .. sigh ..

 

 

LOOK again >>>

 

 

 

The sea symbolically represents the abyss, not people, nations, tongues, multitudes.  That's where the harlot sits.  Is it ever called a sea?  Or just waters?  Here is an unmistakable direct correlation referring to the sea as the abyss:

 

 

 "Is it ever called a sea? .. Or just waters?" .. "ever" means anywhere else in the scriptures Daze .. that IS the context I responded to .. this context >> can waters ever mean sea in the scriptures or not .. & the answer is yes.

 

 

So how is this me attempting to discredit you? I was responding to you.

 

 

 

 

Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea  Revelation 13:1

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.  Revelation 17:8

 

 

Please show me the inconsistency in my theory here.  The beast comes up out of the sea.  The beast comes up out of the abyss.  The sea symbolizes the abyss.  Did I say that the sea can only symbolize the abyss throughout the whole of scripture?  That seems to be your assumption.  Context please.

 

 

Daze, yes there is reference to the sea & the bottomless pit (abyss) .. I agreed earlier but said that there was more to it .. & when I brought forth my evidence you said this:

 

 

 

Did I say that the sea can only symbolize the abyss throughout the whole of scripture?  That seems to be your assumption.  Context please.

 

Again, YES you did say that .. look again at your usage / context  :  "Is it ever called a sea? .. Or just waters?" .. "ever" means anywhere else in the scriptures .. what else does it mean?

 

 

Other words, "can you show me "ever" where else in the scriptures where waters can mean seas" is the meaning I heard .. that is the context I responded to .. again .. this context >> can waters ever mean sea in the scriptures or not .. & the answer is yes ..  and this makes me someone who discredits?

 

 

To say I am disappointed to be accused of underhanded methods would be a slight understatement ..

 

 

 

Me: do angels need / use money / riches to you Daze?

 

it was an honest question with no malice I promise you.

 

You: Somehow, I'm not convinced, but in case it was, the answer is no.

 

I'm not sure what your motives are for responding to me the way you did in this thread but I'm no longer interested.  Consider me disengaged.

 

 

C'mon Daze .. really? 

 

 

Sigh ..  

 

 

Look >>

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your motives are

 

 

Okay .. MY motives ..

 

 

1) You said the 4 beasts in Daniel ONLY represent the spirit angels ..  I disagreed. (forget the "sea" argument for now)

 

 

2) You just agreed above that spirit angels do not need personal material riches .. therefore .. you conceded .. how? .. well, simply because, amongst that "4 beasts" descriptive there are kings who do use personal material riches which contradicts them "ONLY being spirit kings" .. 

 

 

3) Result : the 4 beasts descriptive therefore by your admittance in the above is not dealing with "ONLY spirit kings" after all .. otherwise they wouldn't be using personal material wealth which you admitted angels would not need.

 

 

4) My motive : Achieved .. I helped a brother on a small error see that there is more to the 4 beasts descriptive after all.

 

 

5) End result : I am now someone who "discredits" for my honest efforts which by necessity required questions and disagreement to be able to achieve what needed achieving in this text based environment in the first place !!     

 

 

6)  

 

 

All I can say is this .. I forgive you & am happy to "talk" with you whenever & wherever & hope you can now see what my intentions were all along .. to help you .. no hard feelings from this side of the fence brother ..

 

 

God bless you & uphold you.

 

 

Regards.

 

Response sent via private message.

[missmuffet]

Question: "What is the whore of Babylon / mystery Babylon?"

Answer:Revelation 17:1-2tells us, “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.’”Revelation 17:5goes on to say, “And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Who is this “whore of Babylon” and what is “mystery Babylon”?

Revelation 17:3gives this description: “Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.” The beast mentioned in this verse is the same beast as in Revelation chapter 13:1, “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.” The beast in Revelation chapter 13 is understood to refer to the Antichrist, the man of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4;Daniel 9:27). So, the whore of Babylon, whoever it is, is closely affiliated with the end-times Antichrist.

The fact that the whore of Babylon is referred to as a mystery means that we cannot be completely certain as to her identity. The passage does give us some clues, however.Revelation 17:9explains, “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.” Many commentators link this passage with the Roman Catholic Church because in ancient times, the city of Rome was known as “the city on seven hills” because there are seven prominent hills that surround the city. However, verse 10 goes on to explain that the seven hills represent 7 kings or kingdoms, five of which have fallen, one that is and one that is to come. Therefore, the "whore of Babylon" cannot refer exclusively to Rome.Revelation 17:15tells us, “Then the angel said to me, ‘The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.’” The whore of Babylon will have great worldwide influence over people and nations. Verses 10-14 describe a series of eight and then ten kings who affiliate with the beast. The whore of Babylon will at one time have control over these kings (Revelation 17:18), but at some point the kings will turn on her and destroy her (Revelation 17:16).

So, can the mystery of the whore of Babylon be solved? Yes, at least partially. The whore of Babylon is an evil world system, controlled by the Antichrist, during the last days before Jesus’ return. The whore of Babylon also has religious connotations – spiritual adultery with the beast being the focus of an ungodly, end-times religious system.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/whore-Babylon-mystery.html#ixzz3dYmkOU2P