Who is The 7th Kingdom Beast (and 8th) of Rev?

[BlindSeeker]

49 minutes ago, douggg said:

The composite description of the first beast in Revelation 13 as a beast is in similitude the first three beasts in Daniel 7.     In Daniel 7 there is no scarlet colored beast.

True, there is no scarlet colored beast in Daniels 7. Neither is the composite beast scarlet colored.

49 minutes ago, douggg said:

In Revelation 17, the beast is scarlet colored because it identifies the power behind the beast is Satan, the great red dragon in Revelation 12.     

That, again, is your assertion of a thought into the text. The scripture never says the beast is the scarlet colored beast of Chapter 12, rather the one of Chapter 13 which recieved its "power, seat, and great authority" from the red dragon.

49 minutes ago, douggg said:

Satan is seen by John because in Revelation 17, timestamped the first century, and Revelation 12,

timestamped right before the 7 years - the actual beast, the ancient person is still in the bottomless pit which John cannot see into. 

Timestamped? More injection into the text?

49 minutes ago, douggg said:

It is not until Revelation 13, that the actual beast, the ancient person, as an unclean spirit, comes out of the bottomless pit to possess the mortally wounded and recovered man of sin (the former little horn).      Combined they make up the 8th king.

Satan himself is not the actual beast because he gives his power to the beast, Revelation 13:4.

The beast with seven heads which rises “up out of the sea” is not a person, it is an empire, even though it might appear to be personified. The sea represents peoples, multitudes, languages and tongues.

Consider these O.T. verses regard sea, water, or floods in prophetic reference to individual nations.

Isaiah 8:7 - Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

Isaiah 17:12 - Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters! 13 The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.

Jeremiah 47:2 - Thus saith the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north, and [Babylon] shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land, and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell therein: then the men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl.

However, the "person" who "exercises all the power of this beast before him” is a man, for he comes from the earth, as did Adam.

Revelation 13:11 - And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

[BlindSeeker]

48 minutes ago, douggg said:

Historically, the lion bear, leopard, and the dreadful terrible beast were four successive empires.      No, each one was not of seven kingdoms in the text.

  Yes, they were. They were part of the five which were "fallen." Just as Daniel’s fourth beast which, “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth” was the one that the angel told John was the one that “is.” Because Rome, “devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it” because I destroyed Israel as a functioning geographical nation with definitive boundaries.

In the same prophetic imagery and way Greece fell, when the Roman Empire fell it divided up into to smaller kingdoms which have been reckoned as follows. The “ten horns” on the forth beast were prophetic of Rome fall and division: JUST as were the four horns on Daniel’s vision of the third beast which represented Greece and its historic division into four minor empires under Alexander’s generals after his death.  The division of Rome as it declined and faded are as follows.

1.   The Roman senate.

2.   The Greeks, in Ravenna.

3.   The Lombards in Lombardy.

4.   The Huns in Hungary.

5.   The Alemans, in Germany.

6.   The Franks in France.

7.   The Burgundians in Burgundy.

8.   The Saracens in Africa, and a part of Spain.

9.   The Goths, in other parts of Spain.

10.  And the Saxons, in Britain.

However, that doesn’t mean they (the ten horns) wouldn’t rise again in the last days under different names as these "ten kings…”

[douggg]

10 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said:

True, there is no scarlet colored beast in Daniels 7. Neither is the composite beast scarlet colored.

exactly.

Quote

That, again, is your assertion of a thought into the text. The scripture never says the beast is the scarlet colored beast of Chapter 12, rather the one of Chapter 13 which recieved its "power, seat, and great authority" from the red dragon.

scarlet is a shade of red.   In Chapter 12, because the first five verses deal with the birth of Jesus and his being caught up to heaven - that Satan is seen and not the actual beast, indicates the actual beast was in the bottomless pit already before Jesus's first coming.

Quote

The beast with seven heads which rises “up out of the sea” is not a person, it is an empire, even though it might appear to be personified. The sea represents peoples, multitudes, languages and tongues.

That is the beast rises up out of the sea is the same as in Daniel 7:3.   In Daniel 7 those beasts are kingdoms, but are also said in the text to be kings in Daniel 7:17.    What that rising up out of the sea also indicates is that the person, the king, will come out of the nations, not Israel.

Quote

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

 

 

Quote

However, the "person" who "exercises all the power of this beast before him” is a man, for he comes from the earth, as did Adam.

I think the sea represents the gentile nations and the earth represents Israel.  

The second beast has an image made of first beast "which had the wound by a sword, and did live".   The number of the beast is the number of a man.   So, the first beast is also a king, a man.   

 

[douggg]

1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said:

Ok, let’s examine your assertion by first looking at verse 13 first which serves as introductory -

 

 

 

(KJV) These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

 

(DBY) These have one mind, and give their power and authority to the beast.

 

(YLT) these have one mind, and their own power and authority to the beast they shall give over;

 

(RSV) These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast;

 

(ASV) These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast.

 

(BBE) These have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

 

(TCNT) These kings are of one mind in surrendering their power and authority to the Beast.

 

(WEB) These have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

 

(Oracl) These have one mind, and shall deliver their own power and authority to the beast.

 

(MKJV) These have one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.

 

(MNT) These kings have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

 

(NKJV) "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.

 

(WNT) They have one common policy, and they are to give their power and authority to the Wild Beast.

 

Note, power and authority is singular too. So when we see “kingdom” in the singular it follows in the same pattern. For each (singular) king has his own “power and authority… and kingdom” to give.

 

Again, you have emphasized a point of singular to make it supportive of your position. For the same Greek word translated “kingdom” here was translated “kingdoms” earlier in Revelation.

 

Revelation 11:15 - And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms <basileia> of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

 

Revelation 17:17 - For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom <basileia> unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

 

See also:

 

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms <basileia> of the world, and the glory of them;

 

 Luke 4:5 - And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms <basileia> of the world in a moment of time.

 

 Hebrews 11:33 - Who through faith subdued kingdoms <basileia>, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

 

In light of these verses I see no reason to accept your assertion of their sharing a “kingdom” versus each of them having “their [own individual] kingdom” as valid or a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit implication.

 

The words you are looking at are transliterations of the root word - and it is not actual greek, because it is using English letters, not greek letters.    I don't think the translators of the KJV got it wrong.    It is Kingdom singular in Revelation 17:17.

Here is the Strong's Greek definition for kingdom in Revelation 17:17

http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=932

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by douggg

[BlindSeeker]

56 minutes ago, douggg said:

I think the sea represents the gentile nations and the earth represents Israel.  

Please reconsider you verse you quoted in like of the introductory its verse ...

Daniel 7:3 - And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

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

The kings are from the earth, their kingdoms from the sea....

[BlindSeeker]

52 minutes ago, douggg said:

The words you are looking at are transliterations of the root word - and it is not actual greek, because it is using English letters, not greek letters.    I don't think the translators of the KJV got it wrong.    It is Kingdom singular in Revelation 17:17.

Here is the Strong's Greek definition for kingdom in Revelation 17:17

http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=932

 

Me either, that's what I said. The grammar is correct in light of the whole prophetic passage -

“In light of these verses I see no reason to accept your assertion of their sharing a “kingdom” versus each of them having “their [own individual] kingdom” as valid or a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit implication.”

You are the one forcing into the text the idea of a solitary kingdom shared by ten kings, not the translators.

 

[douggg]

2 hours ago, BlindSeeker said:

  Yes, they were. They were part of the five which were "fallen." Just as Daniel’s fourth beast which, “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth” was the one that the angel told John was the one that “is.” Because Rome, “devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it” because I destroyed Israel as a functioning geographical nation with definitive boundaries.

 

In the same prophetic imagery and way Greece fell, when the Roman Empire fell it divided up into to smaller kingdoms which have been reckoned as follows. The “ten horns” on the forth beast were prophetic of Rome fall and division: JUST as were the four horns on Daniel’s vision of the third beast which represented Greece and its historic division into four minor empires under Alexander’s generals after his death.  The division of Rome as it declined and faded are as follows.

 

1.   The Roman senate.

 

2.   The Greeks, in Ravenna.

 

3.   The Lombards in Lombardy.

 

4.   The Huns in Hungary.

 

5.   The Alemans, in Germany.

 

6.   The Franks in France.

 

7.   The Burgundians in Burgundy.

 

8.   The Saracens in Africa, and a part of Spain.

 

9.   The Goths, in other parts of Spain.

 

10.  And the Saxons, in Britain.

 

However, that doesn’t mean they (the ten horns) wouldn’t rise again in the last days under different names as these "ten kings…”

 

The Roman Senate ?  Okay, you are reciting Adam Clarke.   He is wrong because the ten horns in Revelation do not have their crowns until 42 months before Jesus returns.   And since the beast has not come to power yet, they could not have given their kingdom to him.   

Adam Clarke also makes the error of making days into years.    Which he says the time, times, and half times is 1260 years... to end in AD 2015.   He did not live to see the proven error in his thinking.

http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=007

 

 

 

 

 

[douggg]

2 hours ago, BlindSeeker said:

Me either, that's what I said. The grammar is correct in light of the whole prophetic passage -

 

“In light of these verses I see no reason to accept your assertion of their sharing a “kingdom” versus each of them having “their [own individual] kingdom” as valid or a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit implication.”

 

You are the one forcing into the text the idea of a solitary kingdom shared by ten kings, not the translators.

 

 

In the text of the KJV, in Revelation 17:17 - kingdom is singular.    In the text of Daniel 8:23, kingdom is singular.  

Revelation 17:17 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.

Daniel 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.

 

The EU has parts of it strong like iron, and other parts weak like clay.     What does Adam Clarke have to say about the EU ?    Nothing..... because he lived in the 1800's.     The understanding of Daniel is sealed until the end times, which is our generation, not Adam Clarke's

 

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by douggg

[BlindSeeker]

2 hours ago, douggg said:

The Roman Senate ?  Okay, you are reciting Adam Clarke.   He is wrong because the ten horns in Revelation do not have their crowns until 42 months before Jesus returns.   And since the beast has not come to power yet, they could not have given their kingdom to him.   

Adam Clarke also makes the error of making days into years.    Which he says the time, times, and half times is 1260 years... to end in AD 2015.   He did not live to see the proven error in his thinking.

http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=007

Oh, I see you had a "Ah-hah!" moment... you know, the kind when someone thinks they found the justification to claim or dismiss a thing?

True, Adam Clarke mentions the same list of ten as I have submitted, but if you read his note he openly acknowledges it as not being his own list, though it has indeed become a historical one among many theologians.

It had ten horns] The ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire was afterwards divided. Calmet says, ten Syrian kings: and he finds them thus:-1. Seleucus Nicator. 2. Antiochus Soter. 3. Antiochus Theos. 4. Antiochus Callinicus. 5. Seleucus Ceraunus. 6. Antiochus the Great. 7. Seleucus, surnamed Philopater, brother of Antiochus Epiphanes. 8. Laomedon of Mitylene, to whom Syria and Phoenicia had been intrusted. 9. Antigone. And, 10. His son Demetrius, who possessed those provinces, with the title of kings. This is too much like forced work. There are different opinions concerning these ten kings; or rather which they were that constituted this division of the Roman empire. They are reckoned thus:-1. The Roman senate. 2. The Greeks, in Ravenna. 3. The Lombards in Lombardy. 4. The Huns in Hungary. 5. The Alemans, in Germany. 6. The Franks in France. 7. The Burgundians in Burgundy.. 8. The Saracens in Africa, and a part of Spain. 9. The Goths, in other parts of Spain. 10. And the Saxons, in Britain.

It makes no sense to edit such a list when it is in fact a common belief among many, especially since it attaches a geographical reference to each as there are many people today who do not recognize these different entities or know their place in history. Regardless, nowhere does Adam Clarke assert this to be his own perspective, he is simply submitting to the reader the common opinion of many others. However, I would acknowledge that based his comment, “This is too much like forced work,” that it would indeed seem probable that he too felt the latter to be more feasible than the notion of the ten Syrian kings.

But for you to run with it as you did and boldly assert Adam Clarke was all wrong because he speculated a plausible calculation of 2015, to which you dismiss as wrong and irrelevant, well, that may very well prove to be a significant marking of your own eschatological error. For was it not in 2015 that the final blood moon of the tetrad was seen over Jerusalem? See Wikipedia-

On September 27, 2015 and the remaining one took place on April 4, 2015, the third one on October 8, 2014, there was a total lunar eclipse which was the first of four consecutive total eclipses in a series, known as a tetrad; a second one took place on April 15, 2014.

However, for the open record regarding the date Adam Clarke concluded, he clearly stated the following, “But I neither lay stress upon nor draw conclusions from these dates." So I'd be careful telling everyone how wrong he is....

 

2 hours ago, douggg said:

In the text of the KJV, in Revelation 17:17 - kingdom is singular.    In the text of Daniel 8:23, kingdom is singular.  

Revelation 17:17 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.

Daniel 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. 

I notice you are continuing to overlook my submittal of the following verse where the same Greek word translated in the singular “KINGDOM” was used in the follow verse and translated in the plural, “KINGDOMS.”

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms <basileia> of the world, and the glory of them;

 Luke 4:5 - And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms <basileia> of the world in a moment of time.

 Hebrews 11:33 - Who through faith subdued kingdoms <basileia>, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

As well as my explaining to you multiple times now how the grammar is correct in light of the whole prophetic passage -

“In light of these verses I see no reason to accept your assertion of their sharing a “kingdom” versus each of them having “their [own individual] kingdom” as valid or a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit implication.”

So what if the KJV translated it in the singular? It doesn’t alter the fact they each had “their [own individual] kingdom” to give unto the beast. However, verse 13 explains it was the lending of their “power and strength” to the beast’s agenda. For you to assert it beyond that is to wilfully ignore the very insertion and context of that verse so you might apply a different intent to the latter.

 

2 hours ago, douggg said:

The EU has parts of it strong like iron, and other parts weak like clay.     What does Adam Clarke have to say about the EU ?    Nothing..... because he lived in the 1800's.     The understanding of Daniel is sealed until the end times, which is our generation, not Adam Clarke's

Funny thing is, I do recognize the EU as being part of the fulfillment of the 10 kings, but not limited to just them. For it is clear that old Rome encompassed the Middle East as well as all the way up to northern parts of the EU.

My disagreement with you isn’t about whether the EU is part of the 10 kings, however, it may very well be the only point of a partial agreement on anything here….

[BlindSeeker]

BT

3 hours ago, douggg said:

In the text of the KJV, in Revelation 17:17 - kingdom is singular.    In the text of Daniel 8:23, kingdom is singular.  

Revelation 17:17 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.

Daniel 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.

 

BTW, just for your information, the following translations did translate the Greek in the plural-

Twentieth Century Translation:

For God has put it into their minds to carry out his purpose, in carrying out their common purpose and surrendering their kingdoms to the Beast, until God's decrees shall be executed.

Oracle:

For God has given it into the hearts to execute his sentence, even to perform one purpose; and to give their kingdoms to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

Montgomery’s New Testament:

For God has put it into their hearts to execute his purpose, in executing their common purpose, and by giving over their kingdoms to the beast, until the words of God shall be accomplished.

Plus, Daniel 8:22 and 23 are excellent examples of how the grammar is correct in light of the whole prophetic passage, that the four kingdoms are clearly defined as each of them having “their [own individual] kingdom.”

Daniel 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.  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.

I pray you are not so blinded by your own theory and pride that you fail to see this simple truth here, that the plural of kingdoms continues in the word "their."