Whore of Babylon

[kaoticprofit]

Dear Peg,
The Aramaic translation is not "camel" but rope. Regardless it would be difficult, but all things are possible with God.(Mt 19:26) As for ripping out the eye, it is said that it would be "better", if they ripped out the eye. It is like the hiker who got stuck between two rocks in the desert mountains, and decided it was better to cut off his arm with a pocket knife, to free himself, than to die. One instance may be hyperbole, but the other is simple the way things are.

I don't know how you come up with that. The word for camel in the text is the word 'kamelos' which is literally translated 'CAMEL'.

Greek Lexicon :: G2574 (KJV)

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't know how you come up with that. The word for camel in the text is the word 'kamelos' which is literally translated 'CAMEL'.

Greek Lexicon :: G2574 (KJV)

2ndpillar is talking about the Pe****ta, which is a Syriac textual tradition of the New Testament, not the Greek manuscripts. The Pe****ta text does in fact say "rope" and not "camel," which admittedly makes more sense in the context of an "eye of a needle".

 

[kaoticprofit]

2ndpillar is talking about the Pe****ta, which is a Syriac textual tradition of the New Testament, not the Greek manuscripts. The Pe****ta text does in fact say "rope" and not "camel," which admittedly makes more sense in the context of an "eye of a needle".

It doesn't make more sense to me.

Beside the great gate that enters Jerusalem through which traffic went there was a little gate just wide and high enough for a man to get through. It is said that this little gate was called the needle's eye, and the picture is that of a camel trying to struggle through that little gate....

Mathew 19 and Mark 10 are passages that talk about the difficulty a rich man has getting to heaven. I suppose both ideas are plausible but in my view there's more reason to believe the word in the text is actually 'camel'.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Btw kaoticprofit, in case you have another view, I would be very interested to hear of your understanding of Revelation 17 concerning the correlation of the the seven heads of the beast with respect to the seven relevant Kingdoms of the beast, and the name of the capital city of the sixth Kingdom?

Now it is true that Jerusalem is also historically known as the city of seven hills (btw, there are no mountains in Jerusalem, just hills...think about it)...and btw so was Constantinople, but what positively identifies Rome as being the City of the Whore of Babylon is this reference in Revelation 17:10 concerning the symbolism of the seven heads of the beast on which the whore sits..."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."

Probably the most difficult thing for Christians to do is unlearn what they already believe and CHANGE THEIR MIND! The idea that Rome is the whore of Babylon was born out of prejudism.

I don't know what translation you're using but it's flawed.
The text reads as follows....

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.

The text doesn't read, "five have fallen." Look at it in the interlinear and you'll see that it should actually read, "There are five kings five fallen."

And G2532 there are G1526 seven G2033 kings.

The word ARE is a THIRD PERSON PLURAL PRESENT INDICATIVE!

The are seven kings five fallen.... is the correct translation. The word ARE is a third person plural present indicative. "and one is." The word IS is a third person singular present indicative. I believe these 5 beast are in the presence of the one that IS.

ARE...

1526. eisi i-see' 3d person plural present indicative of 1510; they are:--agree, are, be, dure, X is, were.

The text clearly states that the ten horns will make war with the lamb indicating they are ALL future. The text also indicates that both the 7 heads and 10 horns "are kings." The text really doesn't imply that it's speaking about their empire. Or even that they have an empire at all!

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.

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

One king of the original 7 WAS.... and then 'was not.' The word 'he' is used to identify HIM. HE is a personal pronoun. To me this means that one of the seven kings seems to die and then returns.

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.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

How can past empires have 'one mind'? How can past empires 'receive power as kings one hour with the beast?' How can past empires 'give their power and strength unto the beast?'

There really is no indication from the text that these KINGS actually have empires. Neither does the text indicate that they don't! One thing for sure is that the 7 heads and ten horns ARE KINGS! AND! According to the grammar they ARE all end-time kings!

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

How can past empires, 'make war with the lamb?'

The only religion capable of making war with the Lamb is Islam. These kings are part of the ten nation Islamic empire of the beast. They will battle Christ when He returns. Muslim's will fall for "The Muslim jesus."

According to what you and most people believe, 5 of the heads are ancient empires thousands of years old. That means that John was prophesying about empires that have already risen. That doesn't jive with me since prophesying about past kingdoms really is a false prophesy!

I accept the text that the 5 heads are all end-time kings that fall, one remains (is), and the other who was, and is not, and part of the 7 is the eighth. The ten horns are clearly future because "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords..."

Since the horns are future, then that means the heads they're upon are also. Otherwise, it really makes no sense to say that 5 of the heads are past empires but the horns upon them are future.

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The words 'sit upon' means to occupy. This indicates that "Babylon the Great" will be the dominate religion of this 7 headed 10 horned beast. The two horned beast of Revelation 13 represents Islam, otherwise known as Babylon the Great. The two horns are the two major sects of Islam. Sunni and Shia.

Babylon is Babylon. The reformers believed that Babylon is Rome but that was their prejudiced interpretation. Babylon can only be associated with two things. Literal Babylon and false religion since Babylon gave birth to false religion.

Babylon the Great is ISLAM. The harlot is her jihadist sects especially the Shia sect of Iran. Iran is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world. I believe that Iran gets nuked by the beast!

Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

The Shia sect of Islam i.e. Babylon the Great IS the whore of Babylon!

The 7 headed ten horned beast is a complete end-time entity. The grammar of the text does not support a progression of world empires. Had you not been taught this "succession of world empires theory" by the so called prophecy experts, you wouldn't even consider it in your interpretation.

The Islamic dajjal is the Islamic anti-Christ, who I believe is the biblical anti-Christ. His ten nation kingdom will hate "the whore of Iran" and her jihadist sects. Her abominations are bringing too much heat to the region. They blow one another up on a daily basis anyway. The dajjal and his ten nation empire will burn her up.

"So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns."

John is taken into the 'wilderness' which is actually translated 'desert'.

Islam has been called 'the desert religion. Islam resides in the desert which means John is in the land of Mecca and Medina.

Greek Lexicon :: G2048 (KJV)

 

[2ndpillar]

The Protestant interpretation of Daniel 2 is a colossal blunder.

Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

The only thing said about the second kingdom is that it's inferior to Babylon. What kingdom was inferior to Babylon? Was Medo-Persia the inferior kingdom? Absolutely not!

The word inferior in this passage is "arah" which means earth, world, and ground. This is the only place the word land is translated 'inferior.' So if inferior means land or 'land inferior', that rules out the Medo-Persian empire as the second empire since it was about three times the size of Babylon! It wasn't 'land inferior' to Babylon. The Median Empire was not only short-lived but it was also much smaller making it the 'inferior kingdom'.

Daniel 5 quotes Darius the Mead as the one who "took" Babylon at the age of 62. Not Cyrus like the secularist would have you believe.

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes.

Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath
raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against
Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance
of his temple.

Another Protestant blunder about Daniel 2 is the belief that Rome is the legs of iron and toes 'mingled' with iron and clay.

I would like someone on the forum to explain how the word mixed can denote an Italian when the word is the Chaldean word 'arab!'

The iron and clay better describes the Arabs and Muslims. Rome and Europe is unified. The Arabs are divided, not cleaved to one another, and mixed with the seed of men. The Arabs are the most intermarried people in the world.

Daniel 2 - BLACKSHEEPPROPHECIES.COM

Dear kao,
You were kind of all over the place to make a direct response. I can just give a general overview. Daniel's beast has to do with Jerusalem. Daniel 2 is paralleled in Dan 7. It also is paralleled in Rev 17. You first have Nebuchadnezzar conquer Jerusalem (head of gold). Then you have Cyrus the Great of Persia rebuild Jerusalem (Breast of Silver). Then you have Antiochus IV, of Macedonia, the thighs of bronze, desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, then you have Pompey of Rome, desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, then you have the Roman Titus, desecrate the Temple site, then you have Hitler of the 3rd Reich (Holy Roman empire) meeting with the Arab grand Mufti of Jerusalem. What you would call a mixing of the Roman and Arab. HITLER AND* MUFTI OF JERUSALEM - Official Transcript of Meeting
Then you have Hitler kill 6 million jews and start the restoration of Jerusalem. (Joel 3:2)

The kingdom doesn't reign on earth the until toes of iron and clay are totally crushed with the stone cut without hands. (Dan 2) The 1948, 67, and 73 Israel wars were the stamping on the 5 surrounding Arab countries, which were mixed with the Roman Czar's country of Russia. At that time Judah and Jerusalem were restored according to Joel 3:2. It is now according to Psalms 83, that those nations gathered around Jerusalem will conspire to wipe out "Israel". Among the conspirators are the Pontifex Maximus, the pope and the Muslim messiah Hussein Obama.

 

[2ndpillar]

It doesn't make more sense to me.

Beside the great gate that enters Jerusalem through which traffic went there was a little gate just wide and high enough for a man to get through. It is said that this little gate was called the needle's eye, and the picture is that of a camel trying to struggle through that little gate....

Mathew 19 and Mark 10 are passages that talk about the difficulty a rich man has getting to heaven. I suppose both ideas are plausible but in my view there's more reason to believe the word in the text is actually 'camel'.

Dear kao,
The little gate does sound good, but the evidence is against such a gate ever existing. Like the "Rapture" fable of the 17th century, it sounds good, but that doesn't make it so. Whether a camel or a rope, the conclusion of the story was that it was hard to do, but anything is possible with God. Eye of a needle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaoticprofit]

Dear kao,
You were kind of all over the place to make a direct response. I can just give a general overview. Daniel's beast has to do with Jerusalem. Daniel 2 is paralleled in Dan 7. It also is paralleled in Rev 17. You first have Nebuchadnezzar conquer Jerusalem (head of gold). Then you have Cyrus the Great of Persia rebuild Jerusalem (Breast of Silver). Then you have Antiochus IV, of Macedonia, the thighs of bronze, desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, then you have Pompey of Rome, desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, then you have the Roman Titus, desecrate the Temple site, then you have Hitler of the 3rd Reich (Holy Roman empire) meeting with the Arab grand Mufti of Jerusalem. What you would call a mixing of the Roman and Arab. HITLER AND* MUFTI OF JERUSALEM - Official Transcript of Meeting
Then you have Hitler kill 6 million jews and start the restoration of Jerusalem. (Joel 3:2)

The kingdom doesn't reign on earth the until toes of iron and clay are totally crushed with the stone cut without hands. (Dan 2) The 1948, 67, and 73 Israel wars were the stamping on the 5 surrounding Arab countries, which were mixed with the Roman Czar's country of Russia. At that time Judah and Jerusalem were restored according to Joel 3:2. It is now according to Psalms 83, that those nations gathered around Jerusalem will conspire to wipe out "Israel". Among the conspirators are the Pontifex Maximus, the pope and the Muslim messiah Hussein Obama.

Daniel 2 and 7 are not duplicate prophecies. Why would God find it necessary for Daniel to repeat a prophecy with the same author? Was there something lacking in Daniel 2 that required another vision in Daniel 7 that prophesy's the same thing?

The sequence of kingdoms that I accept is this one. From WIKI...

Another view has been more popular among Jewish scholars, at least as far back as Flavius Josephus, and has support from 20th century Biblical scholars such as H. H. Rowley, as well as conservative Christian scholars such as Gurney, Lucas, and Walton.[4][5][6] The proposed sequence is:
The gold head - Babylon
The silver breast and arms - Media
The copper belly and thighs - Persia
The iron legs - Greece

Did you read my earlier reply on this?
First. If you believe that Daniel 2's fourth kingdom is Rome then you have some serious questions to answer.

1. The only thing said about the arms of silver is that it would be inferior to Babylon.

How can the Medo-Persian empire be 'land inferior' to Babylon when it was about 3 times the size of Babylon?

The only empire 'inferior to Babylon' was the Median empire as it was not only smaller but it was also short lived. ALSO! The word inferior is the word 'arah' which means earth, world, ground.

Hebrew Lexicon :: H772 (KJV)

I've had people tell me it's a cultural or a spiritual inferiority. The problem is easily solved by looking at the word inferior. The bible quotes Darius and the Medes as the ones who 'took' Babylon! Not the Persians! SO I REPEAT!

Daniel 5 quotes Darius the Mede as the one who "took" Babylon at the age of 62. Not Cyrus like the secularist would have you believe.

Daniel, Isaiah's, and Jeremiah's prophecies ascribe the conquest and destruction of Babylon to the Medes.

Daniel 5:31
"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, ie.(Babylon)

Jeremiah 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath
raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against
Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Daniel 8 perfectly describes "the inferior kingdom!"
_____________________________________________________
2. How can the fourth empire...the legs of iron and toes mingled with iron and clay, be Rome when the word 'mingled' used to describe them is the Aramaic word 'arab'! How can the word 'arab' denote a Roman!

Hebrew Lexicon :: H6151 (KJV)

Daniel 2 and 7 are not duplicate prophecies!

Daniel chapter 7 was written about 35 years after Daniel's vision of the great statue in chapter 2. Daniel 7 was written in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon. Chapter 7 depicts four end-time beast.

Most interpreters seem to think chapter 7 depicts the same empires as those in Daniel 2 but I completely disagree! They think that the first three beast of chapter 2 and 7 are a historical and that only the fourth beast is a future beast.

I say chapter 7 isn't a historical repeat of chapter 2. Why would God find it necessary to repeat any vision by the same author? Why repeat the same sequence of kingdoms of Daniel 2 in chapter 7? Were there shortcomings in Daniel 2 that required repetition?

Interpreters say that the Lion of Daniel 7 is Babylon.

How can the lion be Babylon when the Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end?

A prophet cannot prophesy about a kingdom rising when it had already risen some 50 years before! That would make Daniel a false prophet! Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence.

The vision of chapter 7's four beast are figurative of 4 end time kingdoms competing for dominance of the area around the Mediterranean. The word before in 7:7 says that this beast "was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns."

The Hebrew word for "before" in this text is ‘qodam’ which means "in front of, in the presence of, not "historically before" as is commonly interpreted. This means the first three empires will be in the presence of (or stand before) the anti-Christ kingdom when it emerges. They are all end-time kingdoms.

http://www.blacksheepprophecies.com/index.html

 

[2ndpillar]

Dear kao,
Apparently Daniel used two parables to confuse the "wise and intelligent" Mt 11:25. Daniel used Daniel 7 to fill out the parable of Dan 2, just as Yeshua use multiple parables so that "you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive". (Mt 13:14) The same type of multiple parables was used in Revelations. Revelation 17 was written during the period of the 6th head of the beast, with two heads to come. The 8th being one of the 7. It covers the same period of Daniel 2, which was to cover the history from Nebuchadnezzar to the crushing of the feet of iron and clay.
What I can do for you is tie in the actual history with the Daniel 7 parable, which coincides with Daniel 2. If necessary, I can show how Revelation 17 fits the same period of time.

Head of Gold (Babylonian Empire)
DANIEL 7:4 "AND FOUR GREAT BEAST CAME UP OUT OF THE SEA. THE FIRST LIKE A LION AND HAD EAGLES WINGS. THEN AS I LOOKED ITS WINGS WERE PLUCKED OFF, AND IT WAS LIFTED UP FROM THE GROUND AND MADE TO STAND ON TWO FEET LIKE A MAN; AND THE MIND OF A MAN WAS GIVEN TO IT." DANIEL 4:33 "IMMEDIATELY THE WORD CONCERNING NEBUCHADNEZZAR WAS FULFILLED; AND HE WAS DRIVEN AWAY FROM MANKIND AND BEGAN EATING GRASS LIKE CATTLE, AND HIS BODY WAS DRENCHED WITH DEW OF HEAVEN, UNTIL HIS HAIR HAD GROWN LIKE EAGLES' FEATHERS AND HIS NAILS LIKE BIRDS' CLAWS. BUT AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD I, NEBUCHADNEZZAR, RAISED MY EYES TOWARD HEAVEN, AND MY REASON RETURNED TO ME, AND I BLESSED THE MOST HIGH AND PRAISED AND HONORED HIM WHO LIVES FOREVER;.... DANIEL 2:28 NEBUCHADNEZZAR.. YOU ARE THE HEAD OF GOLD.

Breast of Silver (Persian Empire)
DANIEL 7:5 AND BEHOLD, ANOTHER BEAST, A SECOND ONE, LIKE A BEAR. IT WAS RAISED UP ON ONE SIDE; IT HAD THREE RIBS IN ITS MOUTH BETWEEN ITS TEETH; AND IT WAS TOLD, ARISE, DEVOUR MUCH FLESH." (Cyrus founded the Persian Empire. The three bones in his mouth were Croesus of Lydia, Nabonidus of Babylon, and Tomyrius of Scythian.)

Thighs of Bronze (Macedonian Empire)
DANIEL 7:6 "LIKE A LEOPARD, WITH FOUR WINGS OF A BIRD ON ITS BACK; AND THE BEAST HAD FOUR HEADS; AND DOMINION WAS GIVEN TO IT." (Alexander the Great with respective armies of 30,000 and 45,000 men defeated armies of 600,000 and l,000,000 men with an order of battle called a phalanx. 'With four wings of a bird on its back', might aptly describe the order of battle called a phalanx. The four generals of Alexander's army who became the governors of the provinces of the empire can be described as four heads. The generals later took kingship of their respective provinces following Alexander’s' death.) (one province included Jerusalem)

Legs of Iron (Roman Empire)
DANIEL 7:7 "AFTER THIS I KEPT LOOKING IN THE NIGHT VISIONS, AND BEHOLD, A FOURTH BEAST, DREADFUL AND TERRIFYING AND EXTREMELY STRONG, AND IT HAD LARGE TEETH (Roman Empire). IT DEVOURED AND CRUSHED, AND TRAMPLED DOWN THE REMAINDER WITH ITS FEET AND IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE BEAST THAT WERE BEFORE IT, AND IT HAD TEN HORNS. WHILE I WAS CONTEMPLATING THE HORNS, BEHOLD, ANOTHER HORN, A LITTLE ONE, CAME UP AMONG THEM, AND THREE OF THE FIRST HORNS WERE PULLED OUT BY THE ROOTS BEFORE IT; AND BEHOLD, THIS HORN POSSESSED EYES LIKE THE EYES OF A MAN, AND A MOUTH UTTERING GREAT BOASTS... I KEPT LOOKING UNTIL THE BEAST WAS SLAIN.... ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN WAS COMING, AND HE CAME UP TO THE ANCIENT OF DAYS AND WAS PRESENTED BEFORE HIM. AND TO HIM WAS GIVEN DOMINION, GLORY AND A KINGDOM.... AND HIS KINGDOM IS ONE WHICH WILL NOT BE DESTROYED (Kingdom of Heaven)

 

[kaoticprofit]

If you're so wise and intelligent then why didn't you answer my questions?

Why is it that the bible ascribes the taking of Babylon to Darius the Mede AND NOT CYRUS THE PERSIAN?

How can the Persian empire be 'land inferior' to Babylon when it was 3-4 times the size of the Babylonian empire?

How can the word MIXED THAT DESCRIBES THE IRON AND CLAY which is the word 'arab' denote a Roman?

How can the first three empires depicted in Daniel 7 be past empires when the word BEFORE means "in front of" or "in the presence of?"

6925 qodam kod-awm' (Aramaic) or qdam (Aramaic) (Daniel 7:l3) {ked-awm'}; corresponding to 6924; before:--before, X from, X I (thought), X me, + of, X it pleased, presence.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6925&t=KJV

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=before

Any answers?

Notice how the word 'qodam' or 'before' is used elsewhere in the book of Daniel alone!

Daniel 2:9 But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you: for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can shew me the interpretation thereof.

Daniel 2:24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.

Daniel 2:25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation.

Daniel 2:31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

Daniel 2:36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

Daniel 3:3 Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

Daniel 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king.

Daniel 4:6 Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.

7 Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.

8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying,

Daniel 4:6 Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.

Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

Daniel 5:13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?

Daniel 5:17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.

Daniel 5:19 And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.

Daniel 5:23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee,....

Daniel 6:10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

11 Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.

12 Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree,....

13 Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.

Daniel 6:18 Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.

Daniel 6:22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.

Daniel 6:26 I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.

If Daniel wanted to indicate 'before in time' he had several other words he could have used.

Like this one...

865 'ethmowl eth-mole' or tithmowl {ith-mole'}; or methmuwl {eth- mool'}; probably from 853 or 854 and 4136; heretofore; definitely yesterday:--+ before (that) time, + heretofore, of late (old), + times past, yester(day).

Or this one...

6927 qadmah kad-maw' from 6923; priority (in time); also used adverbially (before):--afore, antiquity, former (old) estate.

Or this one...

7223 ri'shown ree-shone' or riishon {ree-shone'}; from 7221; first, in place, time or rank (as adjective or noun):--ancestor, (that were) before(-time), beginning, eldest, first, fore(-father) (-most), former (thing), of old time, past.

Or this one...

8032 shilshowm shil-shome' or shilshom {shil-shome'}; from the same as 8028; trebly, i.e. (in time) day before yesterday:--+ before (that time, - time), excellent things (from the margin), + heretofore, three days, + time past.

Or this one...

8543 tmowl tem-ole' or tmol {tem-ole'}; probably for 865; properly, ago, i.e. a (short or long) time since; especially yesterday, or (with 8032) day before yesterday:--+ before (-time), + these (three) days, + heretofore, + time past, yesterday.

 

[2ndpillar]

Dear kia,
I don't think you get the gist of what Yeshua said in Mt 11:25. He said the "wise and intelligent" would not know what was going on, and he praised God, because God revealed things to "babes".

As for all your questions, most of them are just silly. Daniel's message concerns Jerusalem. As for why God would deemed Persia as Silver versus Nebuchadnessar as Gold, you will have to ask God. I don't think land area was a factor.

As for the timing of prophesy, you have to be kidding. Your question doesn't even make sense. Daniel listed all the world powers from Nebuchadnessar to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

As for iron and clay, only iron represents Rome, common clay represents common man. How you think you can leave out Rome in the history of man, is beyond my comprehension.

As for Darius versus Cyrus, it was Cyrus who ordered the building of the Temple. Darius the Great was the 3rd Persian king, who dedicated the Temple. I am not sure who you are referring to. Darius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia History doesn't really identify your Darius the Mede, except to link him with Cyrus, and the Mede title maybe from the fact that Cyrus was married to a Mede, had a Mede mother and grandfather. Darius can be considered a misread of name of Cyrus. Darius the Mede - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Regardless, it was Cyrus who gave the order to rebuild the Temple. Daniel didn't write about a flood in China, or an earthquake in Brazil, his message was in regards to Jerusalem.

 

[kaoticprofit]

I don't think you get the gist of what Yeshua said in Mt 11:25. He said the "wise and intelligent" would not know what was going on, and he praised God, because God revealed things to "babes".

I know quite well what the gist of Mt. 11:25 is. My perception is that YOU DON'T!

As for all your questions, most of them are just silly. Daniel's message concerns Jerusalem. As for why God would deemed Persia as Silver versus Nebuchadnessar as Gold, you will have to ask God. I don't think land area was a factor.

Sorry to make my reply so long but it's necessary to debunk your beliefs and expose your denial.

We can't ask God for answers. He already gave them to us. AND! You obviously don't have a good hermeneutic since you just keep 'saying so' WITHOUT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

Land was a factor. This is the word inferior. It's the only place in the bible where it is translated 'inferior.'

Hebrew Lexicon :: H772 (KJV)

The word is 'ara.' It means...
earth, world, ground

In both Greek and Hebrew inferior means,
to make less,
inferior,
to fall short,
below

You're obviously unaware that Daniel's message in chapter 2 is directed to gentile nations and NOT JERUSALEM! Chapters 2-7 are written in Aramaic. All the other chapters are written in Hebrew. ALL GOOD INTERPRETERS ARE AWARE OF THIS!

As for the timing of prophesy, you have to be kidding. Your question doesn't even make sense. Daniel listed all the world powers from Nebuchadnessar to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

You don't want my questions to make sense because they are too simple and you can't answer them! So rather than simply accept the correct interpretation and change your mind, which Christians simply don't do on public forums since they would have to admit they were wrong. AND! The words "I was wrong" doesn't often exist in a Christians vocabulary.

Daniel listed didn't list ALL THE WORLD POWERS from Nebuchadnessar to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

Daniel only listed the three kingdoms that followed Babylon. There were other world empires that followed Greece like Rome and the Ottomans. The legs of iron and toes mingled with iron and clay are where the final kingdom would emerge.

As for iron and clay, only iron represents Rome, common clay represents common man. How you think you can leave out Rome in the history of man, is beyond my comprehension.

Comprehension comes from unbiased study and the willingness to accept the information obtained in those studies "even if it goes against what you already believe!"

It's not my doing to leave out Rome. It's the conclusion I and many others have arrived at considering the wording of the text. You obviously don't utilize a sensible hermeneutic in your studies other than "just saying so!"

The fourth kingdom, symbolized by the legs of iron, (Greece) and it's end-time offspring, "the toes mingled with iron and clay", doesn't come from Rome but from the Grecian Empire. And of course you disregard the word mixed which is used to describe the toes mingled with iron and clay. Why would Daniel use the Aramaic word "arab" to describe it?! The word 'arab' does mean mixed but according to Gesenius it denotes an Arabian or Arabia. I would like to know how people associate this word with ROME, ITALY.

Take a look at the word mixed here....

Hebrew Lexicon :: H6151 (KJV)

...and scroll down to Gesennius and notice it says..."An Arabian!" My Strong's with Greek and Hebrew lexicon in book form says....Arabia!"

Things that are said about the iron and clay are....

Daniel says the kingdom of iron and clay is, divided, partly strong and partly broken, mixed with the seed of men, (intermarried) and not cleaved to one another, and subdues all things. This perfectly described the Arabs as they are a very divided people. They are not "cleaved to one another." Arabs have broken up into a zillion tribes and clans. I can give a list of the many tribe and clan in Iraq alone and you would be surprised! Northern Africa has over 250 of them alone!

Just so you know the words "cleaved, divided, broken, seed, strength, miry, (v. 41, 43.) and potter are only used one time in the Old Testament HERE in Daniel 2!

The NLT actually uses the word 'intermarried' to describe the iron and clay!

The feet and toes you saw that were a combination of iron and clay show that this kingdom will be divided. Some parts of it will be strong as iron, and others as weak as clay. This mixture of iron and clay shows that these kingdoms will try to strengthen themselves by forming alliances with each other through intermarriage. But this will not succeed, just as iron and clay do not mix.

Rome and the EU are united and have cohesive alliances with one another. They are a united peaceful coalition of nations. They're more unified than the Arab World by far. Both iron and clay are brittle and they don't mix. Arab/Islamic countries have historically been divided and have had fragile alliances. Rome is not divided or not cleaved to one another, and Rome, Italy is not intermarried like the Arabs! History also tells us that the Roman Empire was actually more unified than the Grecian Empire.

Not only do the Arab's have mixed, crossed, and broken up into hundreds of different tribes and clans, they are scattered across the entire Mid-East including Northern Africa. The two major sects of Islam have also divided themselves into several different sub-divisions. Besides being divided, the toes of iron and clay are said to subdue all things. Arab Muslim's have also subdued nearly all religions in the region.

ALSO!

Today the word 'Arab' is a variation of the word 'CROSSED!'

I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT THERE VERY LITTLE IF NO SECULAR HISTORY ON DARIUS. AND THE BIBLE DOES ASCRIBE THE TAKING OF BABYLON TO HIM!

You completely disregard Isaiah 13 where God says He would stir up the Medes against Babylon. Not the Persians!

You completely disregard Daniel 5:31 where God say's Darius 'took' Babylon at age 62!

"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, (Babylon) being about threescore and two years old."

You completely disregard Jeremiah 51:11 where God say's He would raise up the spirit of the Medes against Babylon!

Let me explain something about the Medes and Persians...

The Medes were superior warriors compared to the Persians. But the Persians were better engineers and nation builders than the Medes. They were confederate. Cyrus married Darius' sister. But Darius is the one who went into battle as it was the custom of that day for the elder to be first in battle. He also had help from some help from Persian troops but mostly in the form of logistics. The Median kingdom occupied Babylon for only a few years (about 4-6) before the Persian's under Cyrus had what I would call a family coup where only about 100 people died for the Persians take over the kingdom, and where Darius became a vassal. Then they combined their efforts under Cyrus where the kingdom became the 'Ram' or the Persian empire who is the third kingdom of brass that was conquered by Greece.

Daniel 8 explains "the inferior kingdom!"

Daniel 8:19-21
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be]. The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.

(Read Daniel 8:3)

The higher horn that came up last is the Persian Empire. The other horn, the one that was not as high (smaller/inferior) that came up first is the Medes. This means that the Medes are the smaller kingdom that emerged first as the inferior kingdom of Daniel 2.

Darius......are you going to disregard what God says about him!

Daniel 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

Daniel 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

Daniel 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

Ezra 4:24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Ezra 5:7 They sent a letter unto him, wherein was written thus; Unto Darius the king, all peace.

Ezra 6:1 Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon.

Ezra 6:15 *And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

Your derogatory remarks that my questions are silly and that I'm kidding are a typical 'cop out' remarks that I get from people who have been out done, debunked, and have no answer.

You have no answer to my question because they are legit and literally prove you wrong and they DEBUNK THE REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE THEORY!

 

[kaoticprofit]

Originally Posted by RND
The Bible says it's Rome. I believe the Bible.

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY IT'S ROME???

I've been asking since I've been here for people to quote one verse where Rome is specifically stated in end-time prophecy and nobody has yet quoted ONE! It really is sad that people just believe what the 'protestant prophecy experts' have to say on the subject!

 

[Shiranui117]

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY IT'S ROME???

I've been asking since I've been here for people to quote one verse where Rome is specifically stated in end-time prophecy and nobody has yet quoted ONE! It really is sad that people just believe what the 'protestant prophecy experts' have to say on the subject!

For that matter, where does the Bible say it's Islam?

It honestly doesn't affect the validity of the Roman Catholic Church one little bit if the city of Rome is the Whore of Babylon. It would make perfect sense, given that Rome was the seat of the pagan Roman Empire that killed and persecuted so many Christians for centuries; St. John survived long enough to see the horrors wrought by Nero, including what happened to his close friends the rest of the Apostles, and wanted to give the churches encouragement to stay strong in the face of persecution, just as Christ encouraged us during His ministry.

If the Whore of Babylon also has a future eschatological meaning (and I do believe that a large part of Revelation has a double meaning to it), then just because pagan Rome was the Whore 2,000 years ago doesn't mean in the slightest that Rome (i.e. the Vatican or the RCC as many anti-Catholics would like to think) will necessarily be the beast in the end times. I don't think you need to defend the idea that Rome wasn't the Whore 2,000 years ago; it doesn't affect the validity of your Roman Catholic Church, nor should you have any reason to think that it does. It just means that old, pagan, pre-Constantinian Rome was the Whore who slaughtered Christians. Not the Roman Catholic Church, the pagan city of Rome. There's a massive difference.
Islam could very well be the Beast, and Mecca could be the Whore in the end times. It could be the US. We don't know. But it's very safe to assume that Rome was characterized as the Whore by St. John.

 

[2ndpillar]

For that matter, where does the Bible say it's Islam?

It honestly doesn't affect the validity of the Roman Catholic Church one little bit if the city of Rome is the Whore of Babylon. It would make perfect sense, given that Rome was the seat of the pagan Roman Empire that killed and persecuted so many Christians for centuries; St. John survived long enough to see the horrors wrought by Nero, including what happened to his close friends the rest of the Apostles, and wanted to give the churches encouragement to stay strong in the face of persecution, just as Christ encouraged us during His ministry.

If the Whore of Babylon also has a future eschatological meaning (and I do believe that a large part of Revelation has a double meaning to it), then just because pagan Rome was the Whore 2,000 years ago doesn't mean in the slightest that Rome (i.e. the Vatican or the RCC as many anti-Catholics would like to think) will necessarily be the beast in the end times. I don't think you need to defend the idea that Rome wasn't the Whore 2,000 years ago; it doesn't affect the validity of your Roman Catholic Church, nor should you have any reason to think that it does. It just means that old, pagan, pre-Constantinian Rome was the Whore who slaughtered Christians. Not the Roman Catholic Church, the pagan city of Rome. There's a massive difference.
Islam could very well be the Beast, and Mecca could be the Whore in the end times. It could be the US. We don't know. But it's very safe to assume that Rome was characterized as the Whore by St. John.

Dear Shira,
Actually, the head of the beast at the end, would be "the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction."(Rev 17:11) And of course, he has 10 horns.
"BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.(Rev 17:5)" who rode upon the beast with seven heads, is a woman who rode on the beast with all the heads. This would include the kings ranging from Nebuchadnezzar, king of BABYLON, to Caesar, the 8th head of the beast who was one of the 7, but was slain but whose "fatal wound was healed". (Rev 13:3)
The 7 heads of the beast are not the 7 hills of Rome, which the woman sat, but on the 7 kings of the kingdoms of the world since Nebuchadnezzar until the end.
As far as the common clay mixed with the iron, Edom is one of the nations camped around Jerusalem now. Esau's descendants are occupying the Palestinian refugee camps as foretold in Psalms 83, "in which the tents of Edom" would be conspiring to "wipe out" "Israel". Edom stands for "pottage" or red earth. Red earth is called clay, which is made into clay pots. There are also 5 other Arabic nations camped around Jerusalem. Yeah, it is a play on words, but it isn't the first time that has happened.

 

[kaoticprofit]

For that matter, where does the Bible say it's Islam?

I believe I can prove that it is Islam because there's a mountain of geographical, social, religious, and scriptural evidence to support that Islam is Babylon the Great. But that's a thread and even more of it's own.

The text should read,

Islam, Babylon the Great, mother of jihadist and abominations of the earth.
Babylons mystery is no longer a mystery.

It honestly doesn't affect the validity of the Roman Catholic Church one little bit if the city of Rome is the Whore of Babylon.

Of course it affects the validity of the Catholic church. Look at all the horrible things that are attributed to her. For one thing the Catholic church is not anti-Christ, and the end-time abominations of the earth are attributed to her.

It would make perfect sense, given that Rome was the seat of the pagan Roman Empire that killed and persecuted so many Christians for centuries; St. John survived long enough to see the horrors wrought by Nero, including what happened to his close friends the rest of the Apostles, and wanted to give the churches encouragement to stay strong in the face of persecution, just as Christ encouraged us during His ministry.

It doesn't make any sense to me at all because the evidence just isn't there. AND!

That's exactly what the reformers believed. They were convinced that Rome would re-emerge as the end-time beast since it persecuted Christians and Jews, crucified Christ, destroyed the temple, and again persecuted people during the reformation. It was the best guess about the harlot at the time to them even though the reformation happened AFTER the Crusades. But the real questions are....are the reformers right? Is their any scriptural evidence that Rome would emerge as the end-time beast(s)? Are there any current events in our time that support Rome as fulfilling all the evil things attributed to the harlot of the end-times?

I say that there's not one shred of any kind of evidence that Rome would in any way with any of the end-time beast!

 

[Shiranui117]

Of course it affects the validity of the Catholic church. Look at all the horrible things that are attributed to her. For one thing the Catholic church is not anti-Christ, and the end-time abominations of the earth are attributed to her.

It doesn't make any sense to me at all because the evidence just isn't there. AND!

That's exactly what the reformers believed. They were convinced that Rome would re-emerge as the end-time beast since it persecuted Christians and Jews, crucified Christ, destroyed the temple, and again persecuted people during the reformation. It was the best guess about the harlot at the time to them even though the reformation happened AFTER the Crusades. But the real questions are....are the reformers right? Is their any scriptural evidence that Rome who emerge as the end-time beast(s)? Are there any current events in our time that support Rome as fulfilling all the evil things attributed to the harlot of the end-times?

It seems both you and the Reformers are making the same logical error that the pagan city of Rome pre-Constantine, which slaughtered Christians and crucified Christ and persecuted the Church, is the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church.

The two are not the same.

No matter what way you want to try and split it, the pagan city of Rome has no equivalency to the Church which was founded there and was--get this--persecuted by the city of Rome itself. If you need any more proof that the pagan city of Rome is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church, I honestly don't know what else I can use to convince you that the pagan city of Rome=/=the RCC.

As an Easterner, I shouldn't need to explain to a Roman Catholic that the city in which their church was founded was heavily persecuted by the same city and the emperors and rulers who lived therein, and that this means the city of Rome and the Church of Rome are separate entities. As soon as the city of Rome became Christian, they ceased to be the Whore of Babylon. The Whore of Babylon that is to appear in the end times is likely something else.

If people wish to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, then they're going to have to interpret the relevant passages in Revelation differently to arrive at that conclusion. But it's a logical error to equate the city of Rome to the Church of Rome; as I said, they're two different things.

I believe I can prove that it is Islam because there's a mountain of scriptural, geographical, social, religious, and scriptural evidence to support that Islam is Babylon the Great. But that's a thread and even more of it's own.

The text should read,

Islam, Babylon the Great, mother of jihadist and abominations of the earth.
Babylons mystery is no longer a mystery.

If you can prove that Islam is the end times' Whore of Babylon, then by all means, please.

 

[kaoticprofit]

In a nutshell...

Revelation 17:1 *And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

One thing I would like you to keep in mind. Babylon can only be associated with two things. Literal Babylon and false religion, because Babylon gave birth to false religion.

This is how I would explain and interpret this passage at this time.

The word sit and sitteth means "to occupy." This means that this false religion (Islam) 'occupies,' or is the dominate religion of this 10/7 empire. The beast itself also indicates that this empire will be limited and not worldwide. A global dictator or empire is absolutely not implied in the text.

The judgement of the harlot comes after the dispensation of the vials. At this point after receiving the vials, Muslims will begin to wonder about the god they believe in. Interesting is that her judgement doesn't appear in the text until verse 16 where she is burned by fire by the beast she once "occupied." This is Iran's judgement by her Islamic Sunni counterpart.

3 *So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

God takes John into the desert to show him the judgment of the Great harlot. Rome doesn't reside in the desert. Mecca and Medina do.

Interesting about verse 3 is that in Revelation 12:3 *there's also a 7 headed and 10 horned beast that's also red or 'scarlet!'

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.

The dragon is a name for Satan.

Revelation 12:9 *And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

This indicates that the religion of "Babylon the Great" that occupies this 7/10 empire of the beast is of Satan.

Verse 16. *And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Iran produces more jihadist than any Islamic countries in the world. All the 'stan' countries and former soviet countries have radicalized like crazy in the last 10 years. The whore of Babylon is Shia Islam and all of Islam jihadist sects. In the end the Sunni dominated sect of the anti-Christ will destroy the Shia false prophet of Iran. They hate one another anyway. Or so it seems in the news. The Sunni anti-Christ burns her with fire her meaning Iran likely gets nuked. That's the way I see it, "right now."

A few more things to note about the harlot.

The abominations of the earth are attributed to her. This is Islamic terrorism in all of it's many forms. Biological and nuclear terrorism would be the worse.

Verse 5 *And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Only a harlot would have a religion that assures it's adherents a mansion with 72 bedrooms and 72 virgins in paradise. The amount of virgins they receive is dependent on the size of the desolation in the abomination they commit. Now that's a mother of harlots indeed!

So that you understand.

I think the false prophet will come from Iran. The man of sin will attempt to unite the region as well as unite the Shia and Sunni sects of Arab and Persians.

Thia beast, "that was and is not and yet lives," does have some historical significance. I believe that this is the head of Gold or Nebuchadnezzar. That's right. I believe that the Islamic dajjal who is the biblical anti-Christ is a resurrected Nebuchadnezzar! But that too is a thread of it's own.

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

The seven Mountains are the mountains that surround East Jerusalem. Mount Moriah is in the center. That happens to be the Dome of the Rock area. Think maybe there's some prophetic significance there? That's the former home of Solomon's and Herod's temple and today's wailing Wall. There's a complex of Islamic buildings that "occupies" this "holy place" right now. This is where the Shia false prophet and the Sunni anti-Christ will authenticate themselves.

Muslims want to and many believe they will dominate the world, and East Jerusalem will become the Islamic capital of the world.

Verse 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.

This seven kings, five of which are fallen, could be dictators that have recently fallen in the Arab/Illamic world. And one is??? I believe that to be "ASSAD!" The one who is not yet come??? Well that would be????

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

Ok Ok. This is what it is and I know it sounds crazy but...

The beast that was is Nebuchadnezzar. The beast that is to come is a resurrected Nebuchadnezzar reincarnated into the body of Saddam Hussein!

Verse 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.

Past empires cannot have power with an end-time beast. These kings are all contemporary end-time kings because the word are is a third person plural present indicative.

Verse 13 *These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Past empires cannot give their power to an end-time beast.

Verse 14 *These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Past empires cannot make war with the returning Messiah.

This is just a few things of what I believe and why I believe them......RIGHT NOW!

 

[kaoticprofit]

It seems both you and the Reformers are making the same logical error that the pagan city of Rome pre-Constantine, which slaughtered Christians and crucified Christ and persecuted the Church, is the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church.

The two are not the same.

No matter what way you want to try and split it, the pagan city of Rome has no equivalency to the Church which was founded there and was--get this--persecuted by the city of Rome itself. If you need any more proof that the pagan city of Rome is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church, I honestly don't know what else I can use to convince you that the pagan city of Rome=/=the RCC.

As an Easterner, I shouldn't need to explain to a Roman Catholic that the city in which their church was founded was heavily persecuted by the same city and the emperors and rulers who lived therein, and that this means the city of Rome and the Church of Rome are separate entities. As soon as the city of Rome became Christian, they ceased to be the Whore of Babylon. The Whore of Babylon that is to appear in the end times is likely something else.

If people wish to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, then they're going to have to interpret the relevant passages in Revelation differently to arrive at that conclusion. But it's a logical error to equate the city of Rome to the Church of Rome; as I said, they're two different things.

I agree with that. It wasn't Papal Rome that did the persecuting. It was the political factions of Rome. The Revived Roman Empire theory also extends itself into Europe. That's why for many years and even today people think the anti-Christ would come from Europe and the false prophet from Rome. But the fact that political Rome was the main aggressor has no bearing as to it re-emerging as an end-time beast. If it was prophesied to be the harlot the scriptural evidence would be there. But it but it's not.

You are also saying that the Whore of Babylon has a two fold fulfillment. I can agree that some passages of prophecy certainly appear to do just that. But this is not one of them. Most if not all possible "dual prophecy type passages" are in the old Testament. But in the case of Revelation 17 I see it as a completely end-time passage.

Just so you know the nutshell post is not the scriptural evidence I have for Islam. It's just what I think of Revelation 17.

I'll post it sometime in the future. But you can go here to see just a couple of good reasons...

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...prophecies-concerning-rome-3.html#post3667161

 

[Pegg]

If the Jehovah's Witnesses really did rely on the Bible alone for their doctrine, then we would have seen the same trend among them as we do among every single other denomination that at least claims to rely on the Bible alone for doctrine--they would be fracturing and splitting seven ways to Sunday. It's just the nature and end result of the Sola Scripturist position.

perhaps the reason why we dont fracture and splinter is because we do us the bible as the basis of our teaching.

In other churches, the problem comes from having teachers who present their own ideas and interpretations...and you can see how this happened in the writings of the church fathers. Eventually they get a following and this causes yet another divide in the congregation. They break apart with some believing this teacher and others believing a different teacher.

that doesnt happen with us because we have but 1 teacher....the bible.

But this view also overlooks the evolution of Biblical thought on the nature of the afterlife.

the bible doesnt evolve. It doesnt change and hasnt changed since it was written. What doest change are the religious teachers....they are the ones who evolve and change their ideas.

What that means is, in earlier books, the Jehovah's Witnesses position of man only consisting of a physical body is espoused, and that when we die, we're just dead, like what an atheist would say. But in later books, however, the body and soul are shown as being fully distinguished from one another,

No, not in our books. Our teaching about the body has been the same. The human body is a living soul. Adam was not a soul until God breathed life into him...when he came to life, he was a soul. That was our teaching in the 1800's and its still our teaching today.

and Sheol (or Hades in the Greek Septuagint) is shown as not just being where your body gets thrown in, but is instead shown as being a dwelling-place and realm of the dead, whose spirits still exist as shades, and where the spirit does indeed have an existence independent of the body.

no, not in our teachings. The 'sheol' and 'hades' is the grave. The grave is the place for the dead....not for anything living. Spirit is breath... its the lifeforce which was powered by God and comes to an end when the person dies. That has been our teaching since we started and its still our teaching today.

Likewise, in earlier parts of the Bible, death is described as being eternal; i.e. there is no resurrection of the dead according to earlier parts of the Bible. This can be contrasted, of course, with later writings such as Hosea and the New Testament.

Its believed that Moses wrote the book of Job.... that book does speak of the resurrection:
Job 14:14 If a man dies, can he live again?
I will wait all the days of my compulsory service
Until my relief comes.
15 You will call, and I will answer you.
You will long for the work of your hands.

Job 19:25 For I well know that my redeemer is alive;
He will come later and rise up over the earth

Further, in the earliest parts of the Bible, henotheism (the teaching that there are many gods, but that only one should be worshipped) is stated as a fact (whence the "god of gods" reference in many of the Psalms of David). Only much later in books such as Isaiah is strict monotheism affirmed (see especially the latter chapters of Isaiah) and the existence of any other "gods" is flat-out denied, instead being called "worthless idols" or "demons".

Moses wrote the laws of God which stated that only God alone should be worshipped... this is monotheism being expressed right at the outset of the bible.

What the doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks is that we need the historical, social and theological context to understand such things about the Bible and how it evolves as God gave more revelation to the people of Israel. Otherwise, you'll start using the wrong passages of the Bible to interpret the rest of it, not understanding the progressive revelation given by God to Israel that makes up the evolution of Biblical ideas.

this could work the other way too... someone could use the bible and claim that things change hence we dont practice this anymore but rather we believe this.

A progressive understanding should 'add' to our understanding, not change it completely.

 

[Shiranui117]

perhaps the reason why we dont fracture and splinter is because we do us the bible as the basis of our teaching.

In other churches, the problem comes from having teachers who present their own ideas and interpretations...and you can see how this happened in the writings of the church fathers. Eventually they get a following and this causes yet another divide in the congregation. They break apart with some believing this teacher and others believing a different teacher.

that doesnt happen with us because we have but 1 teacher....the bible.




the bible doesnt evolve. It doesnt change and hasnt changed since it was written. What doest change are the religious teachers....they are the ones who evolve and change their ideas.



No, not in our books. Our teaching about the body has been the same. The human body is a living soul. Adam was not a soul until God breathed life into him...when he came to life, he was a soul. That was our teaching in the 1800's and its still our teaching today.



no, not in our teachings. The 'sheol' and 'hades' is the grave. The grave is the place for the dead....not for anything living. Spirit is breath... its the lifeforce which was powered by God and comes to an end when the person dies. That has been our teaching since we started and its still our teaching today.



Its believed that Moses wrote the book of Job.... that book does speak of the resurrection:
Job 14:14 If a man dies, can he live again?
I will wait all the days of my compulsory service
Until my relief comes.
15 You will call, and I will answer you.
You will long for the work of your hands.

Job 19:25 For I well know that my redeemer is alive;
He will come later and rise up over the earth



Moses wrote the laws of God which stated that only God alone should be worshipped... this is monotheism being expressed right at the outset of the bible.




this could work the other way too... someone could use the bible and claim that things change hence we dont practice this anymore but rather we believe this.

A progressive understanding should 'add' to our understanding, not change it completely.

I will respond to this, but most likely not for a week while I'm on vacation/pilgrimage in the UK.