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

[BlindSeeker]

9 minutes ago, Diaste said:

...It appears from what I read the deadly head wound that is healed signals the near beginning of the last week....

May I ask, where are you reading that this wound have a time correlation which "signals the near beginning of the last week?"

[Diaste]

Just now, BlindSeeker said:

May I ask, where are you reading that this wound have a time correlation which "signals the near beginning of the last week?"

It's deductive. Since the world cannot guarantee peace in Israel something extraordinary must occur to galvanize support. Every attempt at peace in the region has failed because no guarantees can be made, or no one believes the guarantees will stick. And no one in the world is viewed as strong enough, or close enough to make a treaty stick. After the beast is healed, the WHOLE world is in awe. The WHOLE world asks, "Who is like the beast? And who can make war with him?" This is rhetorical.  The world knows the answer is, "No one." This global capitulation allows the beast succeed where none could. The beast does not come to power through any earthly or human means. The beasts power is spiritual and the one act of resurrection vaults him to superhuman status.

[BlindSeeker]

31 minutes ago, Diaste said:

It's deductive. Since the world cannot guarantee peace in Israel something extraordinary must occur to galvanize support. Every attempt at peace in the region has failed because no guarantees can be made, or no one believes the guarantees will stick. And no one in the world is viewed as strong enough, or close enough to make a treaty stick. After the beast is healed, the WHOLE world is in awe. The WHOLE world asks, "Who is like the beast? And who can make war with him?" This is rhetorical.  The world knows the answer is, "No one." This global capitulation allows the beast succeed where none could. The beast does not come to power through any earthly or human means. The beasts power is spiritual and the one act of resurrection vaults him to superhuman status.

Oh, so it is like what ARGOSY said, if “no scriptural support which contradicts my view then my view remains a scripturally viable viewpoint.” But like you said, “personal perspective of scriptural truth is confusing. There are hundreds and thousands of personal views and they cannot all be correct. There is only one correct answer and that comes from scripture.”

So then your deductive statement is only speculation and not established upon any clear scriptural foundation and in your own eyes just doesn’t seem to conflict with the one’s you vaguely alluded to …

Thanks for clarifying.

[ARGOSY]

On 5/27/2016 at 3:47 PM, Diaste said:

I have no idea what view you hold. But I do think a personal perspective of scriptural truth is confusing. There are hundreds and thousands of personal views and they cannot all be correct. There is only one correct answer and that comes from scripture.

If I understand your statement, you believe that lack of opposing evidence confirms the truth of your position? That's not logical. Lack of evidence does not prove anything, pro or con. For instance, their is a lack of evidence in scripture condemning illicit drugs. I could hold the position that illicit drugs are good and everyone should be taking them because scripture doesn't condemn them. 

So....what is your view?

  You are the one who opposed my view so you obviously must have felt that you understood it. You said the following:

Daniel 2 and 7 indicate no such thing.  The five  who are fallen is also a fantasy. We all have been taught these things and they are false.

I don't feel that lack of opposing evidence confirms a view, but it certainly adds biblical strength to a view if it is not contradicted by scripture. In a good debate the views that remain unopposed by scripture are better. The views that strongly fit scripture instead of weakly fit scripture are the best. I feel your statement that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 do not support my view is a worthless statement if you are unable to back your statement up with scripture or discussion, or unwilling to even look back at why you even made the statement.

 

[Diaste]

On 3/3/2016 at 2:47 AM, ARGOSY said:

 

THE 5 WHO HAVE FALLEN:

1. Egypt

2. Assyria

3. Babylon

4. Media- Persia

5 Greece

THE ONE WHO IS: 

6. Rome

THE ONE WHO HAS YET TO COME

7.  SPLIT ROME when Rome split into  Papal Europe (now EU)  and   Byzantium Empire (now Turkey).  (two feet- divided kingdom of Daniel 2)

8.  New location Rome:   Turkey rapidly expands over ten countries. The two Roman capitals  (Istanbul/Rome) agree to relocate their capital to Israel/Jerusalem.

 

For prophecy to remain accurate, 6,7,8 all have to be Rome, in order to remain faithful to Dan 2 and Dan 7 which indicates Rome is the fourth empire, after Greece.  The 3 stages of Rome are symbolically represented in Daniel 2 by :

Iron legs  (Roman Empire)

Two feet of iron and clay (Split Empire with bad clay/bad religion inside it)

Ten toes  (ten horns/ten divisions of the final empire.

Here is where you say that Dan 2 and 7 indicate Rome is the 4th empire. Neither Dan 2 nor 7 indicate the 4th kingdom by name. Scripture only indicates three kingdoms by name, Babylon, Persia and Greece. The fourth is the Iron Kingdom, no name. Therefore there has to be evidence that the Roman Republic is the fourth. There is none. This conclusion that Rome is synonymous with the Iron Kingdom is assumed from a misinterpretation of Rev 17:10. From Rev 17:10 it is also assumed that the 7 kings must relate to the statue in Dan 2. There is no scriptural link to justify this assumption. Most prophecy teachers believe that Rome is identified by, Rev 17:10, "...one is,". This is not logical as it is only assumed that it must be Rome because Rome was a power at the time. Well, in that area so were the Parthians, and the Arabians, Islam was to arise only much later.

Also, the idea that we can simply force two empires in the interpretation of Dan 2 is unbiblical. The statue begins with Babylon and continues to the Iron Kingdom. There is no biblical evidence to justify placing two empires before Babylon, nor for relating Rev 17:10 with Dan 2. 

Rev 4 tells us that John is taken to heaven and shown things which must be hereafter. Rev 4:1, "...Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." This verse says, "must be" or in other words it's imperative the things John was about to be shown are for the future. So, what's an alternative to Rome and a better interpretation of Rev 17:10? I'm not yet fully convinced of the correct meaning to, "And there are 7 kings, five are fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come, but when he comes he will continue a short space." But even though I'm not yet fully convinced the truth is these 7 kings are directly related to Rev 17:11 and the eighth king that "was and is not".  The 8th is of the 7 says Rev 17:11. Therefore the lineage is in view. Or perhaps a royal succession. Maybe it's philosophy, behavior, religion, that define, "...of the 7..." It's possible it's all of the above. Strictly speaking the 8th is a member of the 7 and just like them. Read this from the New Republic:

"One of those scholars, the Bahraini cleric Turki al-Bin’ali, cites a saying attributed to Muhammad that predicts a total of twelve caliphs before the end of the world. Bin’ali considers only seven of the caliphs of history legitimate. That makes Baghdadi the eighth out of twelve—and in some Sunni traditions, the name of the twelfth and final caliph, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, has already been foretold."

https://newrepublic.com/article/119259/isis-history-islamic-states-new-caliphate-syria-and-iraq

This says that the current leader of ISIS is the 8th and of the 7. In fact Baghdadi claims descent from the same tribe as Muhammad, which is a must in the lineage of the Caliphs for a legitimate claim as Prophet of God. This fits far better with Rev 17:10, and in fact is nearly verbatim, than sketchy claims to Rome or a Caesar as the interpretation.

[Diaste]

On 5/27/2016 at 8:30 AM, BlindSeeker said:

Oh, so it is like what ARGOSY said, if “no scriptural support which contradicts my view then my view remains a scripturally viable viewpoint.” But like you said, “personal perspective of scriptural truth is confusing. There are hundreds and thousands of personal views and they cannot all be correct. There is only one correct answer and that comes from scripture.”

So then your deductive statement is only speculation and not established upon any clear scriptural foundation and in your own eyes just doesn’t seem to conflict with the one’s you vaguely alluded to …

Thanks for clarifying.

Absolutely not. This statement, “no scriptural support which contradicts my view then my view remains a scripturally viable viewpoint.” is exactly like saying, "If there is no evidence proving unicorns do not exist, then my view they do exist is correct." This of course is ludicrous. Nothing is proven due to lack of evidence. In the same vein lack of evidence does not prove a thing false. In either case nothing is proven true or false due to lack of evidence. No conclusion can be drawn. 

 

In fact the scenario I arrived at is clearly based on scripture and current and past events, to wit:

 

"It's deductive. Since the world cannot guarantee peace in Israel something extraordinary must occur to galvanize support.(this statement is true based on history and current events) Every attempt at peace in the region has failed because no guarantees can be made, or no one believes the guarantees will stick.(Again, in reading the news this statement is backed by scads of evidence) And no one in the world is viewed as strong enough, or close enough to make a treaty stick.(Based on the statements of Israeli PM's over the years.) After the beast is healed, the WHOLE world is in awe.(Rev 13:4"....and they worshipped the beast...") The WHOLE world asks, "Who is like the beast? And who can make war with him?"(Rev 13:4, "...Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?") This is rhetorical.  The world knows the answer is, "No one."(This is so clear no defense is necessary.) This global capitulation allows the beast succeed where none could.(Rev 13:8, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship the beast...) The beast does not come to power through any earthly or human means.(Rev 13:4, "4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast:)  The beasts power is spiritual(the dragon empowers the beast) and the one act of resurrection vaults him to superhuman status."

 

To finish the point I made earlier,

On 5/27/2016 at 7:33 AM, Diaste said:

...It appears from what I read the deadly head wound that is healed signals the near beginning of the last week....

 

What a meant by this is quite different from what many believe. Most think the beast is only going to arrive after there is some consolidation of a group power. This is not true as the 10 Kings only have power after the beast is healed and is empowered by the dragon(Rev 17:12, "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast...") The kings have no kingdom until the beast rises. Saying that a 10 nation power base is already established, and the beast rises to power by election through political acumen, intelligence or superior problem solving ability is not backed by scripture. Many also think the beast only appears at the middle of the week. But, the temple has to be rebuilt before that in order for the beast to profane the Holy Place at the midpoint. A rebuilt temple is only going to happen if Muslims can be held in check. That isn't going to happen unless there is someone so powerful that the world bows to him, or is afraid to war against him, or is in awe of him and the dragon.

Since the head wound and the power of the dragon are what catapults the beast to world domination this is likely going to occur before the beginning of the 70th week, or right at the beginning of the week.

 

Edited May 30, 2016 by Diaste

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

  You are the one who opposed my view so you obviously must have felt that you understood it. You said the following:

Daniel 2 and 7 indicate no such thing.  The five  who are fallen is also a fantasy. We all have been taught these things and they are false.

I don't feel that lack of opposing evidence confirms a view, but it certainly adds biblical strength to a view if it is not contradicted by scripture. In a good debate the views that remain unopposed by scripture are better. The views that strongly fit scripture instead of weakly fit scripture are the best. I feel your statement that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 do not support my view is a worthless statement if you are unable to back your statement up with scripture or discussion, or unwilling to even look back at why you even made the statement.

 

A lack of evidence for an alternative only reduces the viability of the alternative; it does not bolster a particular perspective or truth. That's a logical principle. Any premise must stand on supporting evidence and hence can lead to a logical conclusion. You would think I was crazy if I said, "There is no evidence to the contrary, so my claim that I was born on Alpha Centauri and arrived here through a worm hole is true." Your first question would be, "Where is the evidence that supports your claim?" Which is fact what you are doing right now. Which is good. I am quite willing to discuss this topic.

I did look back and found the original post and my reply. I do apologize for not remembering I posted a reply to you.

[douggg]

On 5/27/2016 at 8:57 AM, Diaste said:

It's deductive. Since the world cannot guarantee peace in Israel something extraordinary must occur to galvanize support. Every attempt at peace in the region has failed because no guarantees can be made, or no one believes the guarantees will stick. And no one in the world is viewed as strong enough, or close enough to make a treaty stick. After the beast is healed, the WHOLE world is in awe. The WHOLE world asks, "Who is like the beast? And who can make war with him?" This is rhetorical.  The world knows the answer is, "No one." This global capitulation allows the beast succeed where none could. The beast does not come to power through any earthly or human means. The beasts power is spiritual and the one act of resurrection vaults him to superhuman status.

In Revelation 13, which the mortally wounded and recovered head appears on the beast - there are 42 months left - not 7 years.     So the beast would not be at the beginning of the 7 years.       

The confirming of the covenant will have taken place roughly 3 1/3 year earlier.    It is not a peace treaty, but because the Jews will think they have entered the messianic age - it will be a time a false peace.

The world saying "who is like the beast?  and who can make war with him?  is talking about that he had just killed the two witnesses who were calling plagues on the world - so the world is rejoicing to see them killed by the beast.

Revelation 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.

 

 

[Diaste]

On 5/31/2016 at 1:05 AM, douggg said:

In Revelation 13, which the mortally wounded and recovered head appears on the beast - there are 42 months left - not 7 years.     So the beast would not be at the beginning of the 7 years.       

The confirming of the covenant will have taken place roughly 3 1/3 year earlier.    It is not a peace treaty, but because the Jews will think they have entered the messianic age - it will be a time a false peace.

The world saying "who is like the beast?  and who can make war with him?  is talking about that he had just killed the two witnesses who were calling plagues on the world - so the world is rejoicing to see them killed by the beast.

Revelation 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.

 

 

Well, not exactly. There is no time/space point signifying the point of recovery in Rev 13. What we know from Rev 13 is that there are 42 months where the beast acts out a murderous rampage and elevates himself to godhood. Rev 13 does not state the head wound occurs in conjunction with the commencement of a 42 month period; which you place in the 2nd half of the week. I agree the 42 month period in Rev 13 is the 2nd half of the week but I see no connection demanding the recovery is related to the beginning of the 2nd half. 

Rev 13 is stating circumstances surrounding the rise of the beast and the scope of his authority. Rev 13:1-4 are the circumstances and Rev 13:5-7 describe the scope of authority given to him. Because scripture states it was given to the beast to continue 42 months does not mean that the 42 months necessarily begins right then. In fact Rev 13 does not provide a timeline. It's simply a chapter relating circumstances of the rise of two beasts, the authority of those beasts and their actions. From Daniel 9 and Matt 24 we know the signal of the midpoint of the week is the A of D, not the healed head wound.

The Jews will not believe they have entered any messianic age. It fact the opposite is true. Isaiah 28:15 "Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:" The Jews all know what they have done, the same thing they have always done, commit adultery and rebel against God. As part of Jewish religious belief they have no need for a Messiah, they don't believe in one. They want to go into battle themselves and have "I am" fight for them or fight against the enemy. The Jews will never think a Messiah is coming to save them; it's not in their religious or national identity.

You also miss the point of the witnesses. What, or who, are they going to be preaching against? Why are people trying to hurt them? 

You are way off when you say, "The world saying "who is like the beast?  and who can make war with him?  is talking about that he had just killed the two witnesses who were calling plagues on the world - so the world is rejoicing to see them killed by the beast."

Scripture links the worship of the dragon and the beast with the head wound that is healed, Rev 13:3 " And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." They word 'and' links the previous action with the following action. The wound, the healing and the wonder all occur one after the other. The wonder of the world has nothing to do with the beast killing the witnesses. Rev 13:4 continues linking more action with Rev 13:3, "4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

What we know is true from scripture is the rise of the beast occurs at the 1st seal. I can only make the connection that the rider of the white horse in the 1st seal is the beast, and he arrives at the beginning of the week and begins to conquer. This rider is given a bow and a crown. He also goes forth conquering. Right away he begins the conquests. Scripture also says, "to conquer" this means some conquests are going to come later, or be ongoing at the proper times. The nature, timing and scope of the conquests are not clear. But the interesting part is the crown. Right away this rider, the beast, or antichrist, has power and authority. If this is indeed the beginning of the week then the beast has a prominent position in world affairs immediately.

 

[douggg]

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

On 5/31/2016 at 2:05 AM, douggg said:

 

Well, not exactly. There is no time/space point signifying the point of recovery in Rev 13. What we know from Rev 13 is that there are 42 months where the beast acts out a murderous rampage and elevates himself to godhood. Rev 13 does not state the head wound occurs in conjunction with the commencement of a 42 month period; which you place in the 2nd half of the week. I agree the 42 month period in Rev 13 is the 2nd half of the week but I see no connection demanding the recovery is related to the beginning of the 2nd half. 

It cannot be determined from the bible exactly what day the mortal wounding will take place.   But we can determine when the abomination of desolation takes place - which, in turn, would indicate the mortal wounding would have to take place before then.

Day 2520, the last day of the seven years - (minus) the 1335 days in Daniel 12:12 =   Day 1185.     So the mortal wounding and recovery would have to be sometime before Day 1185 on the 7 years timeline.      Day 1185 is before the second half begins.     During that time, the person as the beast will be making war on the two witnesses. 

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by douggg