The harlot of Babylon Revealed

[victorinus]

True that!


Well, for one it's not what I think. It's what I know. And I do provide proof for my arguments.

so exactly what constitutes proof?

 

[Douggg]

I see greece as the 2nd beast defeated by rome, the 3rd beast
-btw I was just reading the rules about naming beasts
-how does that limit you?
-does that include islam and mohammed?

I think the rule is not to say some person is the Antichrist - like Barak Obama (for example only. I do not think Barak Obama is the Antichrist). But I haven't actually read the rule myself - so I could be wrong.

You can slam Islam and Mohammed all you want. I don't think anyone here is going to complain.

 

[victorinus]

I think the rule is not to say some person is the Antichrist - like Barak Obama (for example only. I do not think Barak Obama is the Antichrist). But I haven't actually read the rule myself - so I could be wrong.

You can slam Islam and Mohammed all you want. I don't think anyone here is going to complain.

thank you very much but rules should not depend on whether or not someone complains
-catholics know that

 

[Douggg]

so exactly what constitutes proof?

I think you can look at Daniel 8 as the medes-persians precede the greek empire.

20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

The four kingdoms would be the four heads and four wings on the third beast of Daniel 7. Historically, the four break up kingdoms of the Greek Empire.

6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

 

[victorinus]

I think you can look at Daniel 8 as the medes-persians precede the greek empire.

I will have to get back to you on this one
-little weak on dan 8
-have you identified the king of the south?

 

[Douggg]

I will have to get back to you on this one
-little weak on dan 8
-have you identified the king of the south?

vitorinus, if you are speaking about the king of the south in Daniel 11:40, none of those kings in 11:40-11:45 are connected to the Ptolemy's and Selucid's of the earlier verses in Daniel 11, before 11:36.

The king in 11:36 is the beast of Revelation 13, and the battles in 11:40 and 11:45 are the three global powers attacking him at the very end of the seven years. The beast is the King of the West, and is the "him" in those verses.

The King of the South will be the leader of the Africa nations. Those armies will attack the King of the West, the beast first.

When the King of the North, sees that taking place, the King of the North, will seize the opportunity and attack him from the north, which will be the Russian and "stan" countries which will have a fresh crop of soldiers after the devastation of their Gog/Magog invasion 7 years earthier.

So the beast will be battling on two fronts. Then some really bad news hits him - because the Kings of the East, the Asian countries begin to march to the middle east, against him, in a wave of destruction through India and Pakistan, destroying a third of the world's population at the time.

The king of the West will have an awesome army though, high tech, because although his base kingdom will be the EU, the Western nations of the U.S. and Canada will be aligned with him.

What it comes down to in those verses and battles is God is bringing all nations into the middleeast in a prelude to Armageddon when they will unify to try and stop Jesus from returning to this earth to execute judgment on them. Because they will all be guilty of heinous acts during the great tribulation.

 

[precepts]

so exactly what constitutes proof?

What you find in the opening post.

 

[precepts]

vitorinus, if you are speaking about the king of the south in Daniel 11:40, none of those kings in 11:40-11:45 are connected to the Ptolemy's and Selucid's of the earlier verses in Daniel 11, before 11:36.

The king in 11:36 is the beast of Revelation 13, and the battles in 11:40 and 11:45 are the three global powers attacking him at the very end of the seven years. The beast is the King of the West, and is the "him" in those verses.

The King of the South will be the leader of the Africa nations. Those armies will attack the King of the West, the beast first.

When the King of the North, sees that taking place, the King of the North, will seize the opportunity and attack him from the north, which will be the Russian and "stan" countries which will have a fresh crop of soldiers after the devastation of their Gog/Magog invasion 7 years earthier.

So the beast will be battling on two fronts. Then some really bad news hits him - because the Kings of the East, the Asian countries begin to march to the middle east, against him, in a wave of destruction through India and Pakistan, destroying a third of the world's population at the time.

The king of the West will have an awesome army though, high tech, because although his base kingdom will be the EU, the Western nations of the U.S. and Canada will be aligned with him.

What it comes down to in those verses and battles is God is bringing all nations into the middleeast in a prelude to Armageddon when they will unify to try and stop Jesus from returning to this earth to execute judgment on them. Because they will all be guilty of heinous acts during the great tribulation.

Why don't you stop giving out false information? The reading comprehensive fact is that the entire chapter 11 is about the 3rd beast kingdom of Greece, and Rome is not mentioned anywhere in both Dan 11 and 8. Ask somebody and stop assuming.

 

[precepts]

No, I ask you to copy and paste the exact verses you claim to be a parable, in your statement...

"The Olivet discourse of seeing Shalem surrounded by armies, great tribulation after, and then seeing the son of man coming on the clouds is a parable, the reason Christ, the disciples, and Paul preached "watch" for his return thru out the NT so that it was recorded that some fell away and mocked of his returning.. Because it was/is a parable. Remember the wise and unwise virgins."

I don't have to copy and paste anything because I told you God speaks in parables. Most, if not all, prophecies and visions are given in parable form.

Your argued that I didn't know what a parable was, to which I told you to do the bible search because the word parable was another word that I also found to have taken on a different meaning in the new than in the old. You have yet to comment on the fact even though I know you read the difference.

So, for you to know want me to clarify which prophecy and/or vision is a parable just because the word parable isn't used in Daniel is ridiculous. A parable in the OT was a prophecy.

 

[Douggg]

Your argued that I didn't know what a parable was, to which I told you to do the bible search because the word parable was another word that I also found to have taken on a different meaning in the new than in the old. You have yet to comment on the fact even though I know you read the difference.

Why don't you post a link to the exact page which you found parable to have taken on a different meaning in the new testament than the old ?

 

[Douggg]

Why don't you stop giving out false information? The reading comprehensive fact is that the entire chapter 11 is about the 3rd beast kingdom of Greece, and Rome is not mentioned anywhere in both Dan 11 and 8. Ask somebody and stop assuming.

Your communication skills and interaction with others could stand some improvement......

 

[victorinus]

The King of the South will be the leader of the Africa nations.

so you have the king of the south in the future
-how do you determine that?
-is it because you haven't found anything in history that fits?

 

[victorinus]

The scriptures specifically points to the seven hills of Rome as the beast the woman rides on and the woman as the city,

-how do you know that?
-how do you explain mystery, many waters, trade, fallen, found no more?

 

[Douggg]

so you have the king of the south in the future
-how do you determine that?
-is it because you haven't found anything in history that fits?

Hi vitorinus, I want to make sure that I am communicating properly. Parts of Daniel 11 are historic and cover the conflicts that arose due to the breakup of the Greek Empire. The king of the North in those passages is the Seleucid's king. The king of the South is the Ptolemy's king.

The last king of the North in that series is Antiochus IV, who was going down to Egypt to remove the King of Egypt, a Ptolemy, who Rome had supported as becoming king. On his way down, he and his army were intercepted by a Roman ambassador - who gave him the ultimatum, that if he continued toward Egypt - Antiochus IV would be at war with Rome. Antiochus IV told the ambassador - I'll get back with you with my reply.

The Roman ambassador was having none of that and took his sword and drew a line in the sand circling Anitochus, and said okay, give me your decision before you step across that line. Which is where the famous saying "draw a line in the sand" came from. Antiochus caved, and was forced to retrun the way he came, and in his anger took out his frustration on the Jews. He had a statue of Zeus set up in the temple - which that act is described as the Abomination of Desolation - which the end times act will be in similitude.

The Maccabees, a Jewish group rebelled against Antiochus and drove him out of the country. Antiochus later died somewhere else.

Okay, that takes us to 11:35, which that verse covers the timeframe covering Jesus, the disciples, apostles, and spreading the gospel, which many Christians have gone through difficult trials during that period - all the way to present the time of the end, because "it is yet a time appointed", i.e future events.

35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

So that gets us to the end times, and the beast, the person claiming to be God in Revelation 13. He is just called "the king" in 11:36. It doesn't say king of the north, south, east, or west. That he is king of the west has to be deduced from other parts of the bible regarding the person who becomes the beast - who meets his end when Jesus returns.

Once Daniel 11 turns to the end times and the beast, the king in 11:36, the history of the Seleucid's and Ptolemy's in the earlier verses is long gone. The remainder of Daniel 11 from 11:36 to 11:45 is end times, and is in a global framework. So the king of the South (of Jerusalem, as that is how all the directions are to be referenced) is the leader of the African nations.
It may not even be a single king, but represent the collective armies of those nations.

The king of the north, likewise. As also the kings of the east (not mentioned in Daniel 11, only as news coming out of the east, but implied from Revelation 16:12.) Those kings marching from the East in Revelation 16:12 are a prelude to nations gathering their armies at Armageddon to make war on Jesus. "of the whole world". That's how we know the king of the south, north, west (implied), and east (implied) is in a global framework

14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

When Jesus descends from heaven he will destroy those armies gathered to make war on him.

Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

 

[victorinus]

The king of the north, likewise. As also the kings of the east (not mentioned in Daniel 11, only as news coming out of the east, but implied from Revelation 16:12.)

thank you
-do you agree that the king of the north sets up the abomination of desolation that Jesus mentioned?
-what is in the holy place now?

 

[precepts]

Why don't you post a link to the exact page which you found parable to have taken on a different meaning in the new testament than the old ?

Are you trying to tell me that when you posted the exact amount of verses containing the word "parable" when you did the BLB search, you didn't read any of them? Please! That's why you didn't comment on the fact after you did the search, because you knew that I was right and those verses were the proof.

 

[precepts]

Your communication skills and interaction with others could stand some improvement......

Try your reading comprehension skills and interaction with others.

 

[precepts]

-how do you know that?
-how do you explain mystery, many waters, trade, fallen, found no more?

The answer is context. Daniel and Revelation is the history of what was going to happen to Israel in the last days of Israel as a nation. The context is Rome. The 'great city" that reigns over the kings of the earth and sits on 7 hills is Rome. Context is key.

The "many water, nations, peoples, and tongues" she sits on simply means she is reigning over many waters, nations, peoples, and tongues, the ruler of the then known world.

It is the context and the sequence of the beast kingdoms that rule over Israel that Daniel and Revelation is about.

Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The ten horns on the 4th beast, which is Rome, are kings, not kingdoms. It is because they can't comprehend how God establishes his kingdom during the reign of Rome's first scriptural 11 emperors is why they add to scripture and change the fact the 10 kings are kings to be 10 kingdoms to form from the breaking up of the Rome empire, hence denying the fact Christ preached his kingdom was "AT HAND" 2,000 yrs ago and the fact he instructed that generation to "watch" for his return. All tied in to "that generation" not tasting death until seeing him returning on the clouds.

These things are too high for them to understand, but the wise will.

Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Dan 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
Dan 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

This is Rev 4:2 when God sets his throne in heaven. It is also where the 10 horns/kings in Rev 17:9-14, more specifically vs. 12, get their thrones cast down when they "receive power as kings one hour with the Beast." The 11th horn being slain and given to the flame is Rev 19:20, proving the Beast is the 8th horn on the 4th beast in Dan 7 though it's not mentioned because these are the same kings and beast kingdom in Revelation 13 and 17. He is the false prophet, the 2nd beast in Revelation, and the 5th beast kingdom in Dan 2 - Rome.

Doug's theory is full of reading comprehension errors. He's lost when it comes to understanding the context of Dan 8 and 11.

 

[precepts]

thank you
-do you agree that the king of the north sets up the abomination of desolation that Jesus mentioned?
-what is in the holy place now?

"Every tongue that rise up against me in the the judgement, I will condemn."

The king of the north being Greek did not set up an AOD that Christ spoke about.

If you're knowledgeable of scripture, you would know that either Matthew or Mark renders the verse "stand in the holy place" and not "standing in the holy place."

For you to accept the one translation while ignoring the other only proves you're in error, and the scriptures aren't without fault either.

There is only one AOD and it's done by the Greek little horn, not the Roman little horn, in Dan 8:11-12 and in Dan 11:31

 

[victorinus]

"Every tongue that rise up against me in the the judgement, I will condemn."

The king of the north being Greek did not set up an AOD that Christ spoke about.

If you're knowledgeable of scripture, you would know that either Matthew or Mark renders the verse "stand in the holy place" and not "standing in the holy place."

For you to accept the one translation while ignoring the other only proves you're in error, and the scriptures aren't without fault.

There is only one AOD and it's done by the Greek little horn, not the Roman little horn, in Dan 8:11-12 and in Dan 11:31

-so what Jesus spoke of has not happened yet?
-what is in the holy place now?
-what did the king of the north set up?