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

[douggg]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

How this can be? According to many sources the Revelation was written between 60 AD and 95 AD.  Revelation 4:1 says, " After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." That means Revelation 17:10, " 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.", must occur after the 35 year period when scholars generally agree Revelation was penned.  Many scholars think John received the Revelation around 90 AD and from what I read that seems like the correct date. This would demand that Nero was long dead(suicide in 68 AD) and the current Caesar was Domitian.  All of the above would then exclude all the Roman emperors. Again, the evidence is the date of the writing and the fact Jesus says these things must be hereafter; meaning Revelation from chapter 4 to 22 all occur after the vision was given.  Which in turn means Rev 17:10 does not refer to any past empires, kings or tyrants.

Even if the Revelation was given to John in 60 AD this would still exclude all the Caesars mentioned above. Nero reigned from 54-68 AD and could not therefore come, hereafter.

 

Not Nero for certain as the beast.   Nero was king 6, ruling at the time of John, which would have been around 60 AD, assuming the earlier date for Revelation.

There is difference of opinion among those who have dug into the matter as to when Revelation was experienced by John.  Some say around 90 AD, others say around 60 AD.      Nero was the last of the historic Julio Claudians - the Caesar family dynasty.     The next family dynasty were the Flavians - which Domitian was of.

This information can be found at   http://roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm

Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor, but the bible doesn't say emperors but kings.    Julius Caesar was the first in the series of the Julio-Claudian family.

"hereafter" applies to the one king "yet to come" of the seven kings.    Which that king - 7 - will be the end times little horn - descended from the Julio-Claudians.

In Revelation 12, the seven heads have crowns - which that chapter has the 7 years contained 12:6 the 1260 days plus 12:14 the time, times, half times.     The seven heads have crowns indicating that the prophecy of the 7 kings is fulfilled by king 7 being in power before the 7 years start.

In Revelation 13, the seven heads have no crowns and one head mortally wounded - which that chapter has 42 months left in the seven years.    The no crowns indicates that the prophecy of the 7 kings is over at that point with king 7 killed.    After being killed king 7 is brought back to life as king 8, possessed by the unclean spirit that ascends out of the bottomless pit.

All the kings are of the fourth empire - the Roman Empire - of which 7 and 8 are of the end times Roman Empire, the EU before the 7 years begin - and the EU which is the kingdom pledged to the beast for the second half of the 7 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by douggg

[Diaste]

26 minutes ago, douggg said:

 

Not Nero for certain as the beast.   Nero was king 6, ruling at the time of John, which would have been around 60 AD, assuming the earlier date for Revelation.

There is difference of opinion among those who have dug into the matter as to when Revelation was experienced by John.  Some say around 90 AD, others say around 60 AD.      Nero was the last of the historic Julio Claudians - the Caesar family dynasty.     The next family dynasty were the Flavians - which Domitian was of.

This information can be found at   http://roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm

Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor, but the bible doesn't say emperors but kings.    Julius Caesar was the first in the series of the Julio-Claudian family.

"hereafter" applies to the one king "yet to come" of the seven kings.    Which that king - 7 - will be the end times little horn - descended from the Julio-Claudians.

In Revelation 12, the seven heads have crowns - which that chapter has the 7 years contained 12:6 the 1260 days plus 12:14 the time, times, half times.     The seven heads have crowns indicating that the prophecy of the 7 kings is fulfilled by king 7 being in power before the 7 years start.

In Revelation 13, the seven heads have no crowns and one head mortally wounded - which that chapter has 42 months left in the seven years.    The no crowns indicates that the prophecy of the 7 kings is over at that point with king 7 killed.    After being killed king 7 is brought back to life as king 8, possessed by the unclean spirit that ascends out of the bottomless pit.

All the kings are of the fourth empire - the Roman Empire - of which 7 and 8 are of the end times Roman Empire, the EU before the 7 years begin - and the EU which is the kingdom pledged to the beast for the second half of the 7 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. When the scripture says,"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." then everything that follows from that point comes after.  That means EVERYTHING from Rev 4:1 to Rev 22:21 comes AFTER. In other words, NOTHING in the PROPHECY can come before the prophecy was given.  Rev 1:3 says "...the words of this PROPHECY...." How can it be a prophecy when some verses were already fulfilled? Answer: It cannot. It would be history, not prophecy.

[douggg]

8 minutes ago, Diaste said:

No. When the scripture says,"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." then everything that follows from that point comes after.  That means EVERYTHING from Rev 4:1 to Rev 22:21 comes AFTER. In other words, NOTHING in the PROPHECY can come before the prophecy was given.  Rev 1:3 says "...the words of this PROPHECY...." How can it be a prophecy when some verses were already fulfilled? Answer: It cannot. It would be history, not prophecy.

I think you need to look at the context of the particular passages.   In Revelation 12, these verses are obviously about Jesus, who had already been born, and caught up to heaven.

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, douggg said:

I think you need to look at the context of the particular passages.   In Revelation 12, these verses are obviously about Jesus, who had already been born, and caught up to heaven.

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

We are not talking about Rev 12, but we will in a sec. I'm saying scripture points out that everything that comes after Rev 4:1 is HEREAFTER.

The Greek

Strong's Concordance

meta: with, among, after

Original Word: μετά
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: meta
Phonetic Spelling: (met-ah')
Short Definition: with, after
Definition: (a) gen: with, in company with, (b) acc: (1) behind, beyond, after, of place, (2) after, of time, with nouns, neut. of adjectives.

HELPS Word-studies

3326 metá (a preposition) – properly, with ("after with"), implying "change afterward" (i.e. what results after the activity). As an active "with," 3326 (metá) looks towards the after-effect (change, result) which is only defined by the context.

Obviously meta cannot refer to previous or before. Since this is true then Rev 17:10 can only be 'after' and not 'before' in any sense. So the Caesars can have nothing to do with this prophecy and neither can Egypt, Syria, Babylon, Persia, or Greece.

This is what we are dealing with. Now to Rev 12. 

Clearly the man child is Jesus. Scripture here is not referring to an event or players that are going to come to pass by leveraging past events or people. Rev 12:1-5 is an identification of the two major players in the last days. The description of the woman can leave no mistake about her identity. Only Israel gave birth to the man child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron.  Rev 12:1-5 is telling us that Israel, clearly identified, is going to undergo future events and Rev 12:6 commences the prophecy. Rev 12:1-5 is not a prophecy it's a wonder, an awe inspiring truth on a grand scale that is an element of identification inside a prophecy and in no way compares with Rev 17:10.

Rev 17 is clearly a prophecy of future events but also requires identity of the players and symbols.

⁸ The beast that thou sawest was(Past tense), and is not(Present tense); and shall(Future tense) 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.All the verb tenses in this verse  can occur after 90 AD and still be valid. There is nothing to suggest this had to occur before the Revelation was given to John. Even if the beast 'was' several millennia ago that shouldn't lead us to think there is a past prophetic fulfillment in a prophecy written centuries later.

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,(Same here. Nothing says this is related to the statue in Dan 2, Rome, or the Caesars. Another fact we have to notice is this. The verse says, "There ARE seven kings.." Not that there 'were' 7 kings.  These 7 kings either exist at the time of the prophecy, soon after, or some time in the future.) and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Since this is all part of the prophecy we again cannot think there is a past fulfillment of a future prophecy. That would make the entire prophecy suspect as it all could have been written after the fact.

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

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.

 

 

[douggg]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

 

Clearly the man child is Jesus. Scripture here is not referring to an event or players that are going to come to pass by leveraging past events or people. Rev 12:1-5 is an identification of the two major players in the last days. The description of the woman can leave no mistake about her identity. Only Israel gave birth to the man child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron.  Rev 12:1-5 is telling us that Israel, clearly identified, is going to undergo future events and Rev 12:6 commences the prophecy. Rev 12:1-5 is not a prophecy it's a wonder, an awe inspiring truth on a grand scale that is an element of identification inside a prophecy and in no way compares with Rev 17:10.

Rev 17 is clearly a prophecy of future events but also requires identity of the players and symbols.

⁸ The beast that thou sawest was(Past tense), and is not(Present tense); and shall(Future tense) 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.All the verb tenses in this verse  can occur after 90 AD and still be valid. There is nothing to suggest this had to occur before the Revelation was given to John. Even if the beast 'was' several millennia ago that shouldn't lead us to think there is a past prophetic fulfillment in a prophecy written centuries later.

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,(Same here. Nothing says this is related to the statue in Dan 2, Rome, or the Caesars. Another fact we have to notice is this. The verse says, "There ARE seven kings.." Not that there 'were' 7 kings.  These 7 kings either exist at the time of the prophecy, soon after, or some time in the future.) and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Since this is all part of the prophecy we again cannot think there is a past fulfillment of a future prophecy. That would make the entire prophecy suspect as it all could have been written after the fact.

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

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.

 

 

I don't disagree with you that Revelation 12:1-5 is a preamble (my discription) to the rest of Revelation 12, to identify the woman is Israel.   I do disagree with you excusing it from being a violation to your rule of everything being hereafter (90 AD).

Quote

⁸ The beast that thou sawest was(Past tense), and is not(Present tense); and shall(Future tense) 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.All the verb tenses in this verse  can occur after 90 AD and still be valid. There is nothing to suggest this had to occur before the Revelation was given to John. Even if the beast 'was' several millennia ago that shouldn't lead us to think there is a past prophetic fulfillment in a prophecy written centuries later.

In Revelation 17:8a and 17:8b, the two are not equivalent.   8a  "and shall" (future tense).   8b "and yet is" (present tense).    The two 8a and 8b are not interchangeable.    One person as the beast died in the past (of John's time), still is in the bottomless.       A different person as the beast dies in the future, but comes back alive to them who witness him die...

8b doesn't say they behold the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit.   Only that they wonder at the beast who was alive, then died, then came back to life.     What it boils down to is that the world is going to see the person killed and come back to life, in an undeniable fashion.

Quote

. ¹⁰ And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is,(Same here. Nothing says this is related to the statue in Dan 2, Rome, or the Caesars. Another fact we have to notice is this. The verse says, "There ARE seven kings.." Not that there 'were' 7 kings.  These 7 kings either exist at the time of the prophecy, soon after, or some time in the future.) and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

I'll finish the sentence with what is implied.... "There are seven kings associated with seven mountains where the woman sittith.

Which is a referral to Rome.     The seven kings are related to Rome.

One of the kings was in existence at the time of Revelation.     The five other had already fallen.    One yet to come.

 

Quote

 

Since this is all part of the prophecy we again cannot think there is a past fulfillment of a future prophecy. That would make the entire prophecy suspect as it all could have been written after the fact.

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

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.

 

 

What it means is that the prophecy of the seven kings was incompletely fulfilled at the time Revelation was given, which is why the heads have no crowns in Revelation 17.      There is still the one king to go - king 7.

 

 

[Diaste]

3 minutes ago, douggg said:

I don't disagree with you that Revelation 12:1-5 is a preamble (my discription) to the rest of Revelation 12, to identify the woman is Israel.   I do disagree with you excusing it from being a violation to your rule of everything being hereafter (90 AD).

In Revelation 17:8a and 17:8b, the two are not equivalent.   8a  "and shall" (future tense).   8b "and yet is" (present tense).    The two 8a and 8b are not interchangeable.    One person as the beast died in the past (of John's time), still is in the bottomless.       A different person as the beast dies in the future, but comes back alive to them who witness him die...

8b doesn't say they behold the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit.   Only that they wonder at the beast who was alive, then died, then came back to life.     What it boils down to is that the world is going to see the person killed and come back to life, in an undeniable fashion.

I'll finish the sentence with what is implied.... "There are seven kings associated with seven mountains where the woman sittith.

Which is a referral to Rome.     The seven kings are related to Rome.

One of the kings was in existence at the time of Revelation.     The five other had already fallen.    One yet to come.

 

 

What it means is that the prophecy of the seven kings was incompletely fulfilled at the time Revelation was given, which is why the heads have no crowns in Revelation 17.      There is still the one king to go - king 7.

 

 

I'm not excusing anything.  It's clearly not part of the prophecy. There are other examples as well. Anytime we see John speaking to angels, or being carried away to some other place. Anytime we see satan or the dragon we already know they were preexisting the prophecy. Not the same with Rev 17:3-18. This is all prophecy as it's about events on earth that are coming to pass and did not already exist at the time of the prophecy.  Like Rev 17:1. It would be wrong to assume this verse comes hereafter and is part of the prophecy. I don't think it's implied that seven kings are associated with seven mountains. Mountains and kings are separate verses and complete thoughts. The conjunction 'and' is 'in addition' Or 'There are also..."The heads represent the mountains. The angel simply adds that there are 7 kings. It really has nothing to do with the heads. Finally, someone who knows that a man is going to be killed and brought back to life! And I do appreciate the poetic turn, "in undeniable fashion."

About Rome:

 

First of all we need to step away from Rome as a possible candiate for the final empire and here's why:

A revived Roman Empire is not the last dominating empire. In fact, Rome has little to do with the final empire, other than maybe bowing to the beast and encouraging all good Catholics to do likewise. Rome has no place in the statute seen in the book of Daniel. There are many reason for this but four are really evident. First, the three empires from the statue were ruled by a king. Rome was a republic from it's inception. The leaders of the three nations that are identified by Daniel all ruled their empires from Babylon. Rome did not. Related to this, all three empires occupied the same territory in terms of geography. Rome did not. Further, the leaders of these nations that ruled the same area in succession changed the culture of the conquered people to the worship of their own gods. Again, Rome did not. This is well documented in the bible and secular histories. We have very different facts concerning the Gold, Brass and Silver empires and Rome: The precious metals ruled toward the east, Rome was west and north; The precious metal capitols were in Babylon, Rome's capitol was not; The precious metal empires changed the culture of the conquered nations where Rome embraced the different cultures and traditions, as long as those cultures valued commerce and peace.

There is also an idea that the empires of the statue all persecuted the people of God. In this way end of the age teachers can force several former empires in to a statue that only has four empires, as clearly revealed by the interpretation of the dream. In a search of the history this is not true. The Jews were in Egypt for decades under the rule of Joseph, a son of Israel, and were not persecuted. Only after a pharaoh came to power that didn't know Joseph were the Jews then viewed as possible allies to the enemies of Egypt. They had their own land in Goshen and were a part of daily life, academia and government in Egypt and were only persecuted towards the end of their time in Egypt. This was due to their larger population and the fear of Pharaoh they may become an enemy, but not because of their belief in God.

The same goes for Rome. The Jews were a part of Roman life much like they were in Egypt. Rome was a progressive republic that valued peace, commerce and expansion. They knew that peace and fair laws promoted commerce and there more productive the empire, the more revenue there was for expansion and excess. The truth is it was the Jews that were persecuting christians in the first century, with the backing of the local Roman rulers. Remember how Pilate wanted to show the Jews a kindness and ordered Jesus to be beaten and put to death? That was at the behest of the Jews; Pilate originally found no fault in Jesus.  Honestly no ruling power is going to show a kindness to a persecuted people. Also, the Jews were worshiping God in the Temple in Roman controlled Israel. The first type of persecution should have been on religious grounds but that was not happening to the Jews in Rome. 

Many relate the verse "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while." Rev 17:10, with the great statue from Daniel 2. First, there are only 4 empires in the statue and as such two empires must be forced into the interpretation of Rev 17:10. Second, Rev 4:1 says, "After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." This means everything spoken from this point occurs hereafter. The only conclusion is that the 7 kings from Rev 17:10 are yet future from the moment the prophecy was spoken. That leaves Assyria, Egypt and Rome orphaned as they do not fit the very distinct profile of the precious metal kingdoms, nor do they come hereafter. They are not a part of either Daniel 2 or Rev 17:10.

In a study of the history of the precious metal kingdoms and the Roman Empire there are great differences. So great in fact Rome must be excluded from consideration as a prophecy related end of the age empire.

Here is an interesting news bit from Graeme Wood in the New Republic:

ISIS almost certainly has a successor in mind. But the supply of caliphs is not infinite, according to some Baghdadi-aligned Islamic scholars studied by Bunzel. 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(emphasis mine)—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

Even he is the eighth, and is of the seven and goes into perdition. The above article is as telling as it gets. A clear reference to a man that is the eighth in the line of succession. Baghdadi is of the first 7 as he can prove lineage from the correct tribe where in the Muslim world descent is a must for a Caliph. There you have it, prophecy fulfilled exactly as foretold. We are all looking at the final empire and it's leader. Don't worry that ISIS is small and seems to be on the run. The beast will be empowered by Satan and come to dominate the world. The beast will come to power through supernatural means only. In fact that will be the beginning of the time when gods walk the earth again, just like in the time of Noah.

 

 

[douggg]

18 hours ago, Diaste said:

I'm not excusing anything.  It's clearly not part of the prophecy. There are other examples as well. Anytime we see John speaking to angels, or being carried away to some other place. Anytime we see satan or the dragon we already know they were preexisting the prophecy. Not the same with Rev 17:3-18. This is all prophecy as it's about events on earth that are coming to pass and did not already exist at the time of the prophecy.  Like Rev 17:1. It would be wrong to assume this verse comes hereafter and is part of the prophecy. I don't think it's implied that seven kings are associated with seven mountains. Mountains and kings are separate verses and complete thoughts. The conjunction 'and' is 'in addition' Or 'There are also..."The heads represent the mountains. The angel simply adds that there are 7 kings. It really has nothing to do with the heads. Finally, someone who knows that a man is going to be killed and brought back to life! And I do appreciate the poetic turn, "in undeniable fashion."

About Rome:

 

First of all we need to step away from Rome as a possible candiate for the final empire and here's why:

A revived Roman Empire is not the last dominating empire. In fact, Rome has little to do with the final empire, other than maybe bowing to the beast and encouraging all good Catholics to do likewise. Rome has no place in the statute seen in the book of Daniel. There are many reason for this but four are really evident. First, the three empires from the statue were ruled by a king. Rome was a republic from it's inception. The leaders of the three nations that are identified by Daniel all ruled their empires from Babylon. Rome did not. Related to this, all three empires occupied the same territory in terms of geography. Rome did not. Further, the leaders of these nations that ruled the same area in succession changed the culture of the conquered people to the worship of their own gods. Again, Rome did not. This is well documented in the bible and secular histories. We have very different facts concerning the Gold, Brass and Silver empires and Rome: The precious metals ruled toward the east, Rome was west and north; The precious metal capitols were in Babylon, Rome's capitol was not; The precious metal empires changed the culture of the conquered nations where Rome embraced the different cultures and traditions, as long as those cultures valued commerce and peace.

There is also an idea that the empires of the statue all persecuted the people of God. In this way end of the age teachers can force several former empires in to a statue that only has four empires, as clearly revealed by the interpretation of the dream. In a search of the history this is not true. The Jews were in Egypt for decades under the rule of Joseph, a son of Israel, and were not persecuted. Only after a pharaoh came to power that didn't know Joseph were the Jews then viewed as possible allies to the enemies of Egypt. They had their own land in Goshen and were a part of daily life, academia and government in Egypt and were only persecuted towards the end of their time in Egypt. This was due to their larger population and the fear of Pharaoh they may become an enemy, but not because of their belief in God.

The same goes for Rome. The Jews were a part of Roman life much like they were in Egypt. Rome was a progressive republic that valued peace, commerce and expansion. They knew that peace and fair laws promoted commerce and there more productive the empire, the more revenue there was for expansion and excess. The truth is it was the Jews that were persecuting christians in the first century, with the backing of the local Roman rulers. Remember how Pilate wanted to show the Jews a kindness and ordered Jesus to be beaten and put to death? That was at the behest of the Jews; Pilate originally found no fault in Jesus.  Honestly no ruling power is going to show a kindness to a persecuted people. Also, the Jews were worshiping God in the Temple in Roman controlled Israel. The first type of persecution should have been on religious grounds but that was not happening to the Jews in Rome. 

Many relate the verse "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while." Rev 17:10, with the great statue from Daniel 2. First, there are only 4 empires in the statue and as such two empires must be forced into the interpretation of Rev 17:10. Second, Rev 4:1 says, "After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." This means everything spoken from this point occurs hereafter. The only conclusion is that the 7 kings from Rev 17:10 are yet future from the moment the prophecy was spoken. That leaves Assyria, Egypt and Rome orphaned as they do not fit the very distinct profile of the precious metal kingdoms, nor do they come hereafter. They are not a part of either Daniel 2 or Rev 17:10.

In a study of the history of the precious metal kingdoms and the Roman Empire there are great differences. So great in fact Rome must be excluded from consideration as a prophecy related end of the age empire.

Here is an interesting news bit from Graeme Wood in the New Republic:

ISIS almost certainly has a successor in mind. But the supply of caliphs is not infinite, according to some Baghdadi-aligned Islamic scholars studied by Bunzel. 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(emphasis mine)—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

Even he is the eighth, and is of the seven and goes into perdition. The above article is as telling as it gets. A clear reference to a man that is the eighth in the line of succession. Baghdadi is of the first 7 as he can prove lineage from the correct tribe where in the Muslim world descent is a must for a Caliph. There you have it, prophecy fulfilled exactly as foretold. We are all looking at the final empire and it's leader. Don't worry that ISIS is small and seems to be on the run. The beast will be empowered by Satan and come to dominate the world. The beast will come to power through supernatural means only. In fact that will be the beginning of the time when gods walk the earth again, just like in the time of Noah.

 

 

I'm not excusing anything.  It's clearly not part of the prophecy.

I was meaning that you are excusing Revelation 12:1-5 as showing that your rule for interpretation is invalid.  

Quote

 I don't think it's implied that seven kings are associated with seven mountains. Mountains and kings are separate verses and complete thoughts. The conjunction 'and' is 'in addition' Or 'There are also..."

But the 7 mountains are relevant to where the woman sitteth - Rome.    And there are 7 kings associated with that place - Rome.

Quote

"The heads represent the mountains. The angel simply adds that there are 7 kings. It really has nothing to do with the heads.

Actually, it does.    As one of the heads appears to have been mortally wounded in Revelation 13, with 42 months left before Jesus returns.    Which would have no bering on a mountain, but to a king.    King 7.

Quote

The precious metals ruled toward the east, Rome was west and north;

west and north, is the direction the little horn will wax strong from toward Israel.    Daniel 8:9

Quote

Many relate the verse "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while." Rev 17:10, with the great statue from Daniel 2. First, there are only 4 empires in the statue and as such two empires must be forced into the interpretation of Rev 17:10.

Only one empire, the Roman Empire, the fourth empire, which in the end times has some parts of it weak represented by the clay.

Quote

That leaves Assyria, Egypt and Rome orphaned as they do not fit the very distinct profile of the precious metal kingdoms, nor do they come hereafter. They are not a part of either Daniel 2 or Rev 17:10.

Well, the rule for interpretation that you are applying in too much of a rigid sense is invalid, as I have shown with the obvious case of Revelation 12:1-5.     Step away from that self imposed rule, and read the verses in Revelation 17 with the timestamp provided in the text as  being when the sixth king was ruling.

Also, Egypt never was part of the Daniel 2 prophecy, so it is irrelavent, as is Assyria to the Daniel 2 prophecy, and to the seven kings in Revelation 17.

Quote

Even he is the eighth, and is of the seven and goes into perdition. The above article is as telling as it gets. A clear reference to a man that is the eighth in the line of succession

None of the kings in Revelation have anything to do with Islam.    In Ezekiel 39, with God's destruction of Gog/Magog, Islam is defeated and destroyed as a religion.    Following Gog/Magog is the 7 years of Daniel 9:26-27, which of that 7 years the world will initially think it has entered the messianic age of peace and safety.

King 7 will be perceived by the Jews as their messiah and anointed the King of Israel, making him the Antichrist.    Later, when he betrays them, by becoming convinced in his heart that the has achieved God-hood, and commits the transgression of desolation, stopping the daily sacrifice, going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God - they disavow him as continuing as their king.

God has him killed for his act, and in disdain for the person brings him back to life, which he is the beast in Revelation 13 for the remaining 42 months in the 7 years as the 8th king.... as his buddies the ten leaders of the EU will go along with his claim of having achieved God-hood.

They will destroy the Vatican, burning it to the ground, as a vestige that Jesus is God and Lord.

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by douggg

[Diaste]

On 5/16/2016 at 10:15 AM, douggg said:

 

I was meaning that you are excusing Revelation 12:1-5 as showing that your rule for interpretation is invalid.  

Re: I knew what you meant. I also gave examples as to why some verses in Rev are not 'prophetic'(future telling) such as when John is transported to the wilderness.

But the 7 mountains are relevant to where the woman sitteth - Rome.    And there are 7 kings associated with that place - Rome.

Actually, it does.    As one of the heads appears to have been mortally wounded in Revelation 13, with 42 months left before Jesus returns.    Which would have no bering on a mountain, but to a king.    King 7.

Re: Whether or not there are 7 kings of Rome has little to do with the identity of the beast or the last kingdom. Rome is not the last kingdom neither is a Caesar the last king. The little horn is the beast(antichrist). The little horn comes from one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire, to wit: Dan 8:8-9 

 ⁸ The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

⁹ Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land.

The Goat is Greece as interpreted later in the chapter. The four notable horns are the four notable Generals that divided the Grecian Empire, as recorded by history. The little horn comes from one of the Generals, none of which ruled Rome. Rome has nothing to do with the last empire as proven by scripture.

west and north, is the direction the little horn will wax strong from toward Israel.    Daniel 8:9

Re: Dan 8:9 from above says the little horn waxes strong toward the east, south and toward the beautiful land. That's three points of the compass. This puts the little horn in between the east and Israel which fits the prophecy of Dan 11.

Only one empire, the Roman Empire, the fourth empire, which in the end times has some parts of it weak represented by the clay.

Well, the rule for interpretation that you are applying in too much of a rigid sense is invalid, as I have shown with the obvious case of Revelation 12:1-5.     Step away from that self imposed rule, and read the verses in Revelation 17 with the timestamp provided in the text as  being when the sixth king was ruling.

Re: It is a time stamp. For the future.  Rev 17 is all future except for verses where it's clear John or the angel is speaking, or John is being transported, or there is an interpretation. Obviously that's clear by the context. Nothing in the context suggests we should assume the 'one is' as a present tense. I know that sounds odd but let me explain: The beast and the woman are future. This means that all the related elements are future as well. Such as: the 10 horns receiving power, the beast rising, the wonder of those on the earth, etc. There is no indication that the five are past either. What we are looking for at some point is: A series of 7 kings where one is ruling after five previous kings, and another who only rules for a short time, then an eighth that is either the same as the previous 7 or comes from the same lineage, and in fact turns out to be the beast. Rome is out as Domitian was on the throne in AD 90 and there were 12 before him. Even if Rev was penned in 65 AD, it still doesn't fit with the prophecy. Nero would have been emperor in 65 AD. He was the sixth Roman Emperor. In order for Roman emperors to fit the 7th must continue a short space and then the eighth is the beast. Well the next three Roman emperors lasted less than a year and one only lasted 4 months.  This means the 7th, 8th and 9th emperors all continued a short space. Plus, from Julius Caesar to Trajan in 98 AD there were 15 Roman emperors. It's not a good fit.

Also, Egypt never was part of the Daniel 2 prophecy, so it is irrelavent, as is Assyria to the Daniel 2 prophecy, and to the seven kings in Revelation 17.

Re: Sorry. Most who think Rome is the Iron Kingdom force Egypt and Assyria into the Dan 2 statue.

None of the kings in Revelation have anything to do with Islam.    In Ezekiel 39, with God's destruction of Gog/Magog, Islam is defeated and destroyed as a religion.    Following Gog/Magog is the 7 years of Daniel 9:26-27, which of that 7 years the world will initially think it has entered the messianic age of peace and safety.

Re: I think there are more indications that Gog and Magog occur in the millennial kingdom and not before. I haven't done enough study on that so you could be right.

But in fact Islam is the only good fit for the Iron Kingdom. Besides the historic evidence I posted earlier the bible says the little horn comes from the divisions of the Grecian Empire. That alone rules out Rome. Dan 11 shows us a series of kings from the Mideast in the area of Mesopotamia. The willful king(antichrist) is a descendant of these kings. This again rules out Rome.

King 7 will be perceived by the Jews as their messiah and anointed the King of Israel, making him the Antichrist.   

Re: Do you mean Galba? This doesn't fit very well either. The 7th is not the beast. The 8th is the beast that 'was, and is not, and yet is'. According to your list of Roman leaders you would assume Nero was the 6th and then Galba, who lasted just under a year should be the perceived Messiah.

Later, when he betrays them, by becoming convinced in his heart that the has achieved God-hood, and commits the transgression of desolation, stopping the daily sacrifice, going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God - they disavow him as continuing as their king.

God has him killed for his act, and in disdain for the person brings him back to life, which he is the beast in Revelation 13 for the remaining 42 months in the 7 years as the 8th king.... as his buddies the ten leaders of the EU will go along with his claim of having achieved God-hood.

They will destroy the Vatican, burning it to the ground, as a vestige that Jesus is God and Lord.

Re: I think all this false messiah talk is way off. I have heard it many times and I just don't see it. The beast doesn't even receive power until he's killed and brought back to life.

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.

Re: The world only wonders after the beast AFTER the wound is healed. And they said:

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

Re: The worship of the beast comes AFTER the wound us healed as well, not before.

⁴ And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, 

Re: The world, not just Israel, will only see the power of the beast after the deadly head wound is healed. 

 

[douggg]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

Re: Whether or not there are 7 kings of Rome has little to do with the identity of the beast or the last kingdom. Rome is not the last kingdom neither is a Caesar the last king. The little horn is the beast(antichrist). The little horn comes from one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire, to wit: Dan 8:8-9 

It doesn't mean that the break up kingdom is in existence when little horn comes to power.    It is identifying the region, the territory where his army will wax strong from - which of the former break-up kingdoms - is current day Greece.

The vision of the little horn's stopping the daily sacrifice in the text is for the end times.       The kingdom he comes from is that of the "transgressors" when they have come to a full - that is, the ten leader form of government of the EU.   8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom (that of the transgressors), when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

"stand up" is an idiom for prepares to fight, to go to war, to thwart - the Gog/Magog threat on the horizon to invade Israel

Quote

Re: It is a time stamp. For the future.  Rev 17 is all future except for verses where it's clear John or the angel is speaking, or John is being transported, or there is an interpretation. Obviously that's clear by the context. Nothing in the context suggests we should assume the 'one is' as a present tense.

The verb "is" is a present tense verb.
 

Quote

 

Re: I think there are more indications that Gog and Magog occur in the millennial kingdom and not before. I haven't done enough study on that so you could be right.

But in fact Islam is the only good fit for the Iron Kingdom. Besides the historic evidence I posted earlier the bible says the little horn comes from the divisions of the Grecian Empire. That alone rules out Rome. Dan 11 shows us a series of kings

 

 

Islam is not a good fit at all.   The Mahdi in Islam does not make any claim of being God.    So there is no corresponding theology to the man of sin, nor to the beast.  

It is from the territory of one of the former break up empires, not the greek empire.

Quote

Re: Do you mean Galba? This doesn't fit very well either. The 7th is not the beast. The 8th is the beast that 'was, and is not, and yet is'. According to your list of Roman leaders you would assume Nero was the 6th and then Galba, who lasted just under a year should be the perceived Messiah.

No, king 7 has not come to power yet.    King 7 becomes the beast as King 8.      The eighth king it says in the text is of the seven.

Nero was the last of the Julio Claudians family.    You can read this from Roman Emperors.org site on Nero.

Quote

Re: I think all this false messiah talk is way off. I have heard it many times and I just don't see it. The beast doesn't even receive power until he's killed and brought back to life.

I think you don't grasp the concept that the person goes through stages.

 

 

 

 

[BlindSeeker]

21 minutes ago, douggg said:

The verb "is" is a present tense verb.

and "five are FALLEN" is a pastense....