666 Decoded

[Achilles6129]

No games have been played. It has simply been pointed out that the third "or" in Revelation 13:17 is specifically indicating that the name of the beast is something different than the number of his name. And this is also just common sense, for names and numbers are different things.

You mean the 2nd "or". As a matter of fact, Bible2, you might be unaware of this, but the Greek word "or" is missing in that verse (Rev. 13:17) from 60-79% of the manuscripts. Therefore, in 60-79% of the Greek manuscripts, the verse simply reads "the mark, the name of the beast, the number of his name." That is why in newer translations from the KJV, you will find that the versions present all of the terms as equating. Consider the following:

"17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." Rev. 13:17 (NIV)

"17and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the (A)mark, either (B)the name of the beast or (C)the number of his name. " Rev. 13:17

And yes, games have been played. The fact that the Greek word "or" is missing from 60-79% of all manuscripts is proof enough.

Revelation 14:11 doesn't prove that the mark of the beast will be only the mark of his name, for elsewhere we are shown that people will be given the option of receiving either a mark of his name "or" a mark of the number of his name (Revelation 13:17), just as people will be given the option of receiving the mark either on their right hand "or" on their forehead (Revelation 13:16)

I am not trying to say that it is only the mark of his name. I am saying the Rev. 14:11 proves that the terms are equating. The mark of his name = the mark of the number of his name.

[QUOTEIn Revelation 13:17, the original Greek word translated as "or" (G2228) is not an equating term, but a distinguishing term (as in "either"/"or"). That's why it is never translated as "even". ][/quote]

As I have already shown, that Greek word is not there in 60-79% of the manuscripts. Nonetheless, let's look at a definition of that word:

"2228. e ay a primary particle of distinction between two connected terms; disjunctive, or; comparative, than:--and, but (either), (n-)either, except it be, (n-)or (else), rather, save, than, that, what, yea. Often used in connection with other particles."

Note that the particle can be used in the comparative sense, and also note the words the particle can be rendered in English: and, but (either), etc., etc., which are comparative terms rather than distinguishing terms. Therefore, the particle can be used in either sense. Also, the word "either" can be a comparative term, rather than distinguishing.

But while the principle of Matthew 4:4 can be applied to every individual man, the number of the beast in Revelation 13:18 is not the number of every individual man, but the number of the name of the individual man who is the beast (Revelation 13:17-18, Revelation 15:2

Your opinion. The principle of Mt. 4:4 can also be applied to Rev. 13:17-28.

Regarding the Greek letter Stigma, it is not the same as the Greek word "stigma", just as, for example, the English letter "B" is not the same as the English word "be", and the English letter "Y" is not the same as the English word "Why".

I am obviously aware that the Greek letter stigma is not the same as the Greek word. I contrast the two in my first post. However, the fact that the Greek word Stigma has the meaning that it does is beyond mere coincidence.

The little horn in Daniel 8 is the individual man who is the beast (commonly called the Antichrist), who will stand up against the Prince of princes (Daniel 8:25, Revelation 19:19).

The little horn in Dan. 8 is no such thing. Antiochus IV also "stood up against the Prince of princes" by placing the "abomination that maketh desolate" in the Jewish temple. The entire chapter is a prophecy of Antiochus IV and his desolation of the Jewish temple/people/faith, and the subsequent rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus. Antiochus IV was also "broken without hand" as he died in Tabae, in Persia, through illness or accident.

The reason why Antiochus IV is described as a "little horn" in Daniel 8 is because he serves as a "type" for the antichrist (the little horn in Dan. 7). In other words, what Antiochus IV does is a FORESHADOWING of what another individual will do much later - aka, the antichrist. This is why Antiochus IV blends into the antichrist in Daniel 11.

The Greek word "stigma" can mean other than a tattoo; it can also mean a mark incised, a scar, as in a scar purposely placed on people through scarification. John the apostle doesn't use the Greek word "stigma" anywhere in Revelation to refer to the "mark", but always uses the Greek word "charagma" to refer to the "mark".

Ah, so the Greek word stigma can mean other than "a tattoo" but the Greek word "or" cannot be other than a distinguishing term, aye? Even though one of the uses of the Greek word "or" in Rev. 13:17, is "and", right? Vine's will tell you that the primary meaning of the Greek word Stigma is a tattoo mark/brand:

"denotes "a tattooed mark" or "a mark burnt in, a brand" (akin to stizo, "to prick" .

So it is superfluous to get hung up on the meaning of the Greek word "stigma", and it is downright dangerous to get hung up on it to the point where we reject the whole reason that we are given the number of the name of the individual man who is the beast, which reason is so that we can identify the individual man who is the beast early on in his world career by simply counting, or adding up, the gematrial numerical values of the letters in his name, and seeing that they add up to 666 (Revelation 13:17-18, Revelation 15:2).

What is incredibly "superfluous" (as you say) is to get hung up on definite articles and single syllable Greek letters that can mean "or"/"and", and by analyzing them to arrive at a totally different meaning than the plain reading of the text. Let's look further at that verse you quoted, Revelation 15:2:

"2And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God." Rev. 15:2

There is actually no Greek word for "and" in the above sentence, in fact the word "and" has been added by the translators. Therefore, the sentence should read: "...and over his mark over the number of his name", which equates the mark with the number of his name. The "mark of his name" is already equated with the mark in Rev. 14:11. Therefore, we can see by applying Rev. 13:17-18, Rev. 14:11, and Rev. 15:2, that the mark, the name of the beast, and the number of his name are all in fact equating.

 

[Bible2]

Achilles6129:
You mean the 2nd "or". As a matter of fact, Bible2, you might be unaware of this, but the Greek word "or" is missing in that verse (Rev. 13:17) from 60-79% of the manuscripts. Therefore, in 60-79% of the Greek manuscripts, the verse simply reads "the mark, the name of the beast, the number of his name." That is why in newer translations from the KJV, you will find that the versions present all of the terms as equating. Consider the following:

"17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." Rev. 13:17 (NIV)

The reason that "or" appears two times in the NIV of Revelation 13:17, the latter time between the name of the beast and the number of his name, is because even in the Greek manuscripts on which the NIV is based (the oldest manuscripts known) the Greek word translated as "or" (G2228) does appear two times, the latter time between the name of the beast and the number of his name. And this Greek word translated as "or" is not a term of equation, but a term of distinction. Just as the first Greek "or" in Revelation 13:17 (NIV) is not equating buying and selling, but distinguishing between them (because buying and selling are different things), so the second Greek "or" in Revelation 13:17 (NIV) is not equating the name of the beast and the number of his name, but distinguishing between them (because names and numbers are different things).

"17and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the (A)mark, either (B)the name of the beast or (C)the number of his name. " Rev. 13:17

This "either/or" translation you have quoted ("the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name") would be a good translation of the manuscript on which the KJV is based. For the original Greek word translated three times as "or" (G2228) in Revelation 13:17 (KJV) means "or" in the distinguishing sense of "either/or".

And yes, games have been played. The fact that the Greek word "or" is missing from 60-79% of all manuscripts is proof enough.

No games have been played. What is the proof that in most Greek manuscripts there is no "or" in Revelation 13:17 between the name of the beast and the number of his name? And why say "60-79%"? Why this range instead of a precise percentage?

I am not trying to say that it is only the mark of his name. I am saying the Rev. 14:11 proves that the terms are equating. The mark of his name = the mark of the number of his name.

Revelation 14:11 doesn't say that the name of the beast is the same as the number of his name, because names and numbers are different things. Instead, Revelation 14:11 is referring synecdochically to just the first of the two different options with regard to the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:17), just as Revelation 15:2 is referring synecdochically to just the second of the two different options with regard to the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:17).

As I have already shown, that Greek word is not there in 60-79% of the manuscripts.

It hasn't been shown, but merely asserted, that in most Greek manuscripts there is no "or" in Revelation 13:17 between the name of the beast and the number of his name. Nor has it been shown why the range of "60-79%" has been asserted instead of a precise percentage.

Nonetheless, let's look at a definition of that word:

"2228. e ay a primary particle of distinction between two connected terms; disjunctive, or; comparative, than:--and, but (either), (n-)either, except it be, (n-)or (else), rather, save, than, that, what, yea. Often used in connection with other particles."

Note that the particle can be used in the comparative sense, and also note the words the particle can be rendered in English: and, but (either), etc., etc., which are comparative terms rather than distinguishing terms. Therefore, the particle can be used in either sense. Also, the word "either" can be a comparative term, rather than distinguishing.

Even the comparative sense of G2228 retains the distinction between two terms: it is either a disjunctive distinction or a comparative distinction. There is no equating of the two terms. And no English usage of any of the English translations of G2228 can change its Greek usage.

The principle of Mt. 4:4 can also be applied to Rev. 13:17-28.

The principle of Matthew 4:4 cannot be applied to Revelation 13:17b-13:18, insofar as while the statement of Matthew 4:4 can be applied to every individual man, the statement of Revelation 13:17b-18 cannot be applied to every individual man, because every individual man is not the individual man who is the beast, nor is the name of every individual man the same as the name of the individual man who is the beast, nor is the number of the name of every individual man the same as the number of the name of the individual man who is the beast.

I am obviously aware that the Greek letter stigma is not the same as the Greek word. I contrast the two in my first post. However, the fact that the Greek word Stigma has the meaning that it does is beyond mere coincidence.

But still, knowing the meaning of the Greek word "stigma" is not required in order to know how the mark of the beast could be applied to people. That's why John the apostle never uses the Greek word "stigma" to refer to the "mark" of the beast. Instead, he always uses the Greek word "charagma" to refer to the "mark" of the beast. This Greek word "charagma" can mean a scratch or etching. So the mark of the beast could be applied to people via ritual scarification, for scarification is the scratching or etching of the skin just deep enough to leave a permanent mark.

The little horn in Dan. 8 is no such thing. Antiochus IV also "stood up against the Prince of princes" by placing the "abomination that maketh desolate" in the Jewish temple. The entire chapter is a prophecy of Antiochus IV and his desolation of the Jewish temple/people/faith, and the subsequent rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus. Antiochus IV was also "broken without hand" as he died in Tabae, in Persia, through illness or accident.

The reason why Antiochus IV is described as a "little horn" in Daniel 8 is because he serves as a "type" for the antichrist (the little horn in Dan. 7). In other words, what Antiochus IV does is a FORESHADOWING of what another individual will do much later - aka, the antichrist. This is why Antiochus IV blends into the antichrist in Daniel 11.

However Antiochus IV may have "type"-fulfilled Daniel 8:23-25 and Daniel 11:21-31, the individual man who is the beast (commonly called the Antichrist) will still "antitype"-fulfill all of Daniel 8:23-25 and all of Daniel 11:21-45. The individual man who is the beast will actually fulfill Daniel 11:31, because the church will see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15). And because the individual man who is the beast will actually fulfill Daniel 11:31, he will also actually fulfill all the rest of Daniel 11:21-45, for the entire passage is referring to the career of the same man. And the individual man who is the beast will actually fulfill the first part of Daniel 8:24, because he will be mighty, but not by his own power (Revelation 13:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:9). And he will actually fulfill the second part of Daniel 8:24, because he will prosper, and will destroy the mighty and the holy people (Revelation 13:7). And he will actually fulfill the first part of Daniel 8:25, because he will magnify himself (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). And he will actually fulfill the second part of Daniel 8:25, because he will stand up against the Prince of princes (Revelation 19:19), and he will be broken without hand (Revelation 19:20).

Ah, so the Greek word stigma can mean other than "a tattoo" but the Greek word "or" cannot be other than a distinguishing term, aye? Even though one of the uses of the Greek word "or" in Rev. 13:17, is "and", right? Vine's will tell you that the primary meaning of the Greek word Stigma is a tattoo mark/brand:

"denotes "a tattooed mark" or "a mark burnt in, a brand" (akin to stizo, "to prick" .

While the Greek word "stigma" can mean a mark incised, a scar, instead of a tattoo, the Greek word G2228 is only a distinguishing term, even when it is translated as "and", such as, for example in distinguishing between Sodom "and" Gomorrha (Mark 6:11), or in distinguishing between Jesus' right hand "and" his left hand (Mark 10:40). Even if the primary definition of the Greek word "stigma" is "tattoo" in a man-made dictionary, this still doesn't require that the mark of the beast will be a tattoo, because the Bible never uses the Greek word "stigma" to refer to the "mark" of the beast. Also, while Paul uses the Greek word "stigma" to refer to the "marks" of Christ on his body (Galatians 6:17), nothing requires that he meant that he had tattoos of Christ on his body, instead of scars from being persecuted for preaching Christ (2 Corinthians 11:24-25, Acts 16:23).

What is incredibly "superfluous" (as you say) is to get hung up on definite articles and single syllable Greek letters that can mean "or"/"and", and by analyzing them to arrive at a totally different meaning than the plain reading of the text.

Nothing in the plain reading of the original Greek text of the Bible says or requires that the mark of the beast will be a tattoo, instead of a scar. Also, nothing in the plain reading of the original Greek text of the Bible says or requires that the name of the beast and the number of his name are the same thing, instead of different things. Indeed, the plain reading of the original Greek text of Revelation 13:17 even explicitly distinguishes between the name of the beast and the number of his name.

Let's look further at that verse you quoted, Revelation 15:2:

"2And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God." Rev. 15:2

There is actually no Greek word for "and" in the above sentence, in fact the word "and" has been added by the translators. Therefore, the sentence should read: "...and over his mark over the number of his name", which equates the mark with the number of his name. The "mark of his name" is already equated with the mark in Rev. 14:11.

Revelation 15:2 was referenced precisely because there is no "and" in the original Greek between the "mark" and the "number of his name". There is no "and" there because one of the two options with regard to receiving the mark of the beast will be to receive a mark of the number of his name, the other option being to receive a mark of his name (Revelation 13:17, Revelation 14:11).

Therefore, we can see by applying Rev. 13:17-18, Rev. 14:11, and Rev. 15:2, that the mark, the name of the beast, and the number of his name are all in fact equating.

Nothing in Revelation 13:17-18, Revelation 14:11, or Revelation 15:2 equates the name of the beast with the number of his name. But Revelation 13:17 does explicitly distinguish between them, because names and numbers are different things.

 

[Duckybill]

Stimulus funds inspire relaunch of implantable chip


Stimulus funds inspire relaunch of implantable chip | Healthcare IT News

 

[zeke37]

 

[1whirlwind]

A few months ago I posted the thread...The Number of his name. This is an excerpt....


When the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the house of Judah) returned after their time in captivity to Babylon...all men were numbered! There is an extensive list of that numbering. Are any of the men numbered 666 or to put it another way....do they carry the number of his name?

Ezra 2:2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the People of Israel:
​

2:13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six.
​

Interestingly....in the book of Nehemiah this same man is numbered at 667. Which is correct? Remember, He told us to...."Beware of the scribes."

Nehemiah 7:18 The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven.

1 Chronicles 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Matthew 23:2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

​

The name Adonikam is also Adonijah and in [Nehemiah 10:16], he is numbered as one of the “chief of the people.” Who is this chief of the people being numbered at 666?

1 Kings 1:5 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, “I will be king:” and he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. (9) And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by En-rogel, and called all his brethren the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah the king’s servants: But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not.


​

Such a familiar story. He, for a short time, usurped the crown. This man, numbered at 666, "slew sheep, etc." during his great tribulation. In the future he will spiritually slay sheep, God's children, on the same stone. The "stone of Zoheleth" is...the Serpent Stone.

Six hundred sixty six…If six is the number of secular or human perfection, the sixty six is a more emphatic expression of the same fact, and six hundred sixty six is the concentrated expression of it; It is therefore the trinity of human perfection; the perfection of imperfection; the culmination of human pride in independence of God and opposition to His Christ.

The number, however, has to be computed, to reckon, to calculate, not merely to count or enumerate. Therefore it is not to be known by gematria merely, though, as we have said, that will be one of the factors in the calculation, just as the letters in the word Jesus amount to eight hundred eighty eight.

It will be seen from this that the number is very far reaching, and is filled with a meaning deeper, perhaps, than anything we have yet discovered. One thing, however is certain, and that is, that the triple six marks the culmination of man’s opposition to God in the person of the coming antichrist.

The duration of the old Assyrian empire was 666 years before it was conquered by Babylon. ~ Companion Bible, E.W. Bullinger


​

I believe that having victory over the "number of his name" is in knowing he and those with him are among us...as they were in the past so are they today.

 

[zeke37]

wow....not that I agree with the gematria aspect, but other than that....the numbers cannot be denied...

 

[Achilles6129]

Since Bible2's first response on this thread he has presented little to no new information whatsoever. Therefore, I will confine myself to addressing the few new points he does bring up in his most recent post. I will not go back and endlessly recycle things I have already said and proven. I will not go back and endlessly debate incorrect things that Bible2 keeps reiterating. These things have already been dealt with and summarily refuted by the Scriptures. If Bible2 cannot realize this, that is his prerogative, not mine.

And this Greek word translated as "or" is not a term of equation, but a term of distinction

You just aren't understanding. The Greek word translated "or" can be EITHER a term of DISTINCTION, OR a term of EQUATION. The very definition I just gave you in my most recent post proves this. It depends on how it's used. Here's another definition from another lexicon:

"1. to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other..." (From Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon#)

If you read further down, you will find that Thayer also mentions the comparative sense in which the word is used. You are basing your entire eschatological theology off of one tiny little Greek letter, and what you believe is the definition.

Here are a couple of examples of #2228 in verses:

"For 1063 verily 281 I say 3004 unto you 5213, Till 2193 302 heaven 3772 and 2532 earth 1093 pass 3928 , one 1520 jot 2503 or 2228 one 3391 tittle 2762 shall in no wise 3364 pass 3928 from 575 the law 3551, till 2193 302 all 3956 be fulfilled 1096 ." Mt. 5:18

"No man 3762 can 1410 serve 1398 two 1417 masters 2962: for 1063 either 2228 he will hate 3404 the one 1520, and 2532 love 25 the other 2087; or else 2228 he will hold 472 to the one 1520, and 2532 despise 2706 the other 2087. Ye cannot 3756 1410 serve 1398 God 2316 and 2532 mammon 3126." Mt. 6:24

As these two examples show (and there are many more) the term "or", #2228, is used to compare things which can take the place of one another. So it is in Rev. 13:17.

It hasn't been shown, but merely asserted, that in most Greek manuscripts there is no "or" in Revelation 13:17 between the name of the beast and the number of his name. Nor has it been shown why the range of "60-79%" has been asserted instead of a precise percentage.

This is like the pot calling the kettle black, as you do not even begin to show anything that you state, and then when I make one statement that I don't cite sources for you demand a source. The 61-79% comes from the Interlinear Bible. It does not state a precise percentage. Also, I misspoke, it is the SECOND (english) "or" that is missing in Rev. 13:17.

However Antiochus IV may have "type"-fulfilled Daniel 8:23-25 and Daniel 11:21-31, the individual man who is the beast (commonly called the Antichrist) will still "antitype"-fulfill all of Daniel 8:23-25 and all of Daniel 11:21-45

Completely untrue. Antiochus IV already fulfilled Daniel 8 (which I will discuss in a later post) and also Daniel 11:21 until about verse 36 (some say 40, but I go with 36). You give your incorrect reasoning for your above statement in the next sentence:

The individual man who is the beast will actually fulfill Daniel 11:31, because the church will see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15).

Wrong, although Daniel 11:31 is a FORESHADOWING of things to come. The "abomination of desolation" that Christ was referring to in Mt. 24 is not Dan. 11:31, as you have incorrectly stated, but found elsewhere in the book of Daniel:

"27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Dan. 9:27

This sentence is talking about the antichrist, not Antiochus IV, and it is this phrase that Jesus Christ is referring to in Mt. 24, not Dan. 11:31, which had been fulfilled hundreds of years previously (as you yourself have admitted). Here is the NIV translation in case some can't understand the KJV:

"In the middle of the 'seven' [j] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." Dan. 9:27 (NIV)

Due to the erroneous reasoning that you've used, you assert a further falsehood:

And because the individual man who is the beast will actually fulfill Daniel 11:31, he will also actually fulfill all the rest of Daniel 11:21-45, for the entire passage is referring to the career of the same man

Totally wrong. Antiochus IV fulfilled Dan. 11:21 onwards (up until about v. 36) thousands of years ago, and only Antiochus IV will fulfill it. The Antichrist morphs from Antiochus IV, and, as you have correctly stated elsewhere, is involved in a "type, anti-type" relationship with Antiochus IV. Although, the actions of Antiochus IV will serve as a foreshadowing for the reign of the Antichrist, the two are not the same and should not be confused as such.

And the individual man who is the beast will actually fulfill the first part of Daniel 8:24, because he will be mighty, but not by his own power (Revelation 13:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:9). And he will actually fulfill the second part of Daniel 8:24, because he will prosper, and will destroy the mighty and the holy people (Revelation 13:7). And he will actually fulfill the first part of Daniel 8:25, because he will magnify himself (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). And he will actually fulfill the second part of Daniel 8:25, because he will stand up against the Prince of princes (Revelation 19:19), and he will be broken without hand (Revelation 19:20).

I will post an article about Daniel 8 later and will show that Antiochus IV fulfills all of Daniel 8, and that it is not discussing the antichrist at all in that chapter. You are getting the two confused because of their similarities.

Nothing in the plain reading of the original Greek text of the Bible says or requires that the mark of the beast will be a tattoo, instead of a scar

Nor have I ever said any such thing. I said it could indicate that the mark of the beast is a tattoo.

Revelation 15:2 was referenced precisely because there is no "and" in the original Greek between the "mark" and the "number of his name". There is no "and" there because one of the two options with regard to receiving the mark of the beast will be to receive a mark of the number of his name, the other option being to receive a mark of his name

There is no "and" because the mark of the beast and the number of his name are the exact same thing. And (no pun intended), if you read it plainly it says exactly that.

 

[Achilles6129]

"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last." Dan. 8:3

This ram and his horns represent the empire of Medo-Persia. The fact that one horn is higher than the other shows the dominant position of Persia in the kingdom. This is also represented by the bear of Dan. 7, who "raises itself up on one side", which reflects the same idea.

"And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes." Dan. 8:5

This he goat is representative of the Greek empire, and the notable horn is symbolic of Alexander the Great. The fact that the goat did not touch the ground is indicative of the speed of Alexander's conquests. Indeed, this corresponds to the leopard in Dan. 7 who has "four wings" (also representing speed).

"And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand." Dan. 8:6-7

Alexander the Great, of course, was appointed captain of the Hellenic League (a league of Greek city-states, who met at Corinth), and charged with avenging Greece from the Persian invasion by Xerxes (which happened about 150 years beforehand):

"In theory, Alexander had been commissioned by the league to carry out a Greek war of vengeance against Persia, in retribution for the wrongs which Xerxes had done Greece a century and a half before." (From Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C., A Historical Biography, page 157. By Peter Green, published 1991 by University of California Press, paperback)

Alexander then defeated the Persians at the River Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. After Gaugamela, the Persian Empire was utterly defeated and Alexander took possession of Babylon, thus fulfilling the prophecy about the ram's two horns being broken:

"The oracle at Gordium had foretold that Alexander would become 'lord of Asia' - that is, king of the Persian Empire and Darius' legitimate successor. It was thus, somewhat prematurely, that he had bidden Darius address him when they exchanged letters. After Gaugamela the claim looked a good deal more plausible. As Plutarch says, 'the empire of the Persians was thought to be thoroughly dissolved'." (From Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C., A Historical Biography, page 297. By Peter Green, published 1991 by University of California Press, paperback)

"Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven." Dan. 8:8

Alexander died at the height of his power in 323 B.C. in Babylon from illness ("the great horn was broken"). His empire was divided into four parts by four generals: Cassander, ruling Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus, ruling Thrace/Asia Minor; Seleucus, ruling Syria (Seleucus was a naval commander for Ptolemy before he ruled Syria, which later became known as the Seleucid Empire); and Ptolemy, ruling Egypt/Palestine. Notice that this corresponds perfectly to the four headed leopard in Dan. 7:6. Notice also, that the antichrist comes out of the fourth beast, not the third, while the "little horn" in Dan. 8 comes out of the third beast, the leopard.

"And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Dan. 8:9

The "little horn", otherwise known as Antiochus IV, comes forth out of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus IV also attacked the south (king of the south in Dan. 11; also can refer to him attacking Israel) and east, and also "the pleasant land", meaning Israel.

Something of importance should also be noted. The fact is is that the book of Daniel is written in part Aramaic and part Hebrew. The Aramaic sections of Daniel are chapters 2-7, but the Hebrew sections of Daniel are chapters 1, and 8-12. The reason Daniel puts part of his book in Hebrew and part in Aramaic is because the Hebrew section has matters in it which deal specifically with the Jewish people, while the Aramaic section has events which deal with all peoples (including Hebrew). Daniel 8 is written in Hebrew because it prophesies of the future persecution against the Jews by Antiochus IV (the little horn), while Daniel 7 is written in Aramaic because it talks about the antichrist (the little horn) who will affect all peoples, not just the Jews. Note that Dan. 11 is also speaking of Antiochus IV, but that towards the end Antiochus morphs into the antichrist.

"As to the question of why half the book was written in Aramaic and half in Hebrew, the reason for the choice is fairly obvious. Those portions of Daniel's prophecy which deal generally with Gentile affairs (the four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the humiliation of that king in the episode of the fiery furnace and by his seven years of insanity, and the experiences of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede) were put into a linguistic medium which all the public could appreciate whether Jew or Gentile. But those portions which were of particularly Jewish interest (chaps. 1, 8-12) were put into Hebrew in order that they might be understood by the Jews alone." (From A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction, page 399, Revised Edition. By Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published 1974 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, paperback)

"Yet it should be recognized that considerable attention in Daniel is devoted to the coming events of the reign of Antiochus, for the very good reason that this period was to present the greatest threat in all of subsequent history (apart, of course, from the plot of Haman in the time of Esther) to the survival of the faith and nation of Israel." (From A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction, page 404, Revised Edition. By Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published 1974 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, paperback)

Once again, the fact that Dan. 8 is written in Hebrew and Dan. 7 in Aramaic substantiates this fact. In Daniel 8, the events are a prophecy that specifically concerns the persecution the Jewish people will go under, while Dan. 7 is affecting all peoples. This, along with the fact that the little horn in Dan. 7 and 8 arise from different empires (in Dan. 7 it's the fourth, in Dan. 8 it's the third) show that the two little horns are similar, but not the same:

"There can be no question that the little horn in chapter 8 points to a ruler of the Greek empire (actually Seleucid Empire - Achilles6129), that is, Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 8:9). The critics therefore assume that since the same term is used, the little horn in chapter 7 must refer to the same individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since the four-winged leopard of chapter 7, (i.e., 7:24) clearly corresponds to the four-horned goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek empire which is divided into four after Alexander's death. The only reasonable deduction to draw is that there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of them emerges from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth. It would seem that the relationship is that of type (Antiochus IV of the third kingdom) and antitype (the Antichrist who is to arise from the latter-day form of the fourth empire). This is the only explanation which satisfies all the data and which throws light upon 11:40-45, where the figure of the historic Antiochus suddenly blends into the figure of an Antichrist who is yet to come in the end time." (From A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction, page 406, Revised Edition. By Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published 1974 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, paperback)

 

[Achilles6129]

Indeed, in Daniel 11 Antiochus IV does blend into the antichrist. As Archer shows, Antiochus IV and his persecution/destruction of the Jewish faith is a symbol for what the antichrist will do in the last days:

"This prophetic emphasis was all the more warranted in view of the fact that Antiochus and his persecution were to serve as types of the final Antichrist and the great tribulation which is yet to come in the end time (according to Christ's Olivet discourse, recorded in Mt 24 and Mk 13). This is made evident from the startling way in which the figure of the Greek emperor Antiochus suddenly blends into the figure of the latter day Antichrist in Daniel 11, beginning with verse 40 (actually I would argue it's verse 36 - Achilles6129). (Note that the Little Horn is said in 11:45 to meet his death in Palestine, whereas Antiochus IV actually died in Tabae, Persia.)" (From A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction, page 404, Revised Edition. By Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published 1974 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, paperback)

Note also that this explains the angel's comment in Dan. 8:17, 19, where the angel talks about the vision concerning "the time of the end". Indeed it does, for this persecution against the Jews by Antiochus IV will serve as a foreshadowing for what the antichrist will do.

"And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered." Dan. 8:10-12

The little horn waxing great, unto the host of heaven and stamping upon them refers to the fact that he captured Jerusalem and put many holy people to death:

"The particular hasidim among whom we should seek the ancestors of the Qumran community are probably the people referred to in the book of Daniel as the maskilim, which may mean either 'the wise' or (more probably) 'those who impart wisdom'. They were people whose ambition was to understand and co-operate with the divine purpose, as they read it in the prophetic writings, and to impart to others the insight which they themselves acquired. On them the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes bore with exceptional severity. The part they played in that critical time is thus described in Dan. 11:33ff: 'the maskilim among the people shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days. When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end'. The 'little help' which they received is probably to be interpreted of the activity of Judas Maccaaeus and his brothers..." (From New Testament History, page 101. By F.F. Bruce, published by Doubleday-Galilee, 1980)

"The plural particle of this Hebrew conjugation, maskilim, is used in Daniel 11:33; 12:3 of those who bear the brunt of the attack when Antiochus Epiphanes attempts to abolish the Jews' religion,..." (From New Testament History, page 129. By F.F. Bruce, published by Doubleday-Galilee, 1980)

Notice also that Antiochus IV "magnifed himself even to the prince of the host." This was accomplished by his desolation of the temple and the fact that he took the name "Epiphanes", which is an attempt to make himself out to be a god (the Samaritans also addressed him as a god, see Josephus, Antiquities, 12.5.5, 258). Random House Dictionary defines epiphany as: "1. an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity." Antiochus IV's desolation of the temple and his abolishing of daily sacrifice is also recorded in Dan. 11, as well as Dan. 8:

"And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Dan. 11:31

"Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down." Dan. 8:11

"So he (Antiochus IV - Achilles6129) left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shewbread], and the altar [of burnt offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law." (From Josephus, The Complete Works, Antiquities 12.5.4, 250-251. Translated by William Whiston, published in 1998 by Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Antiochus IV also placed the "abomination of desolation" (Dan. 11)/the "transgression of desolation" (Dan. 8) in the temple. Here is the description in Dan. 8:

"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" Dan. 8:13

The transgression (or abomination) of desolation set up by Antiochus IV was an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies in the Jewish temple. Once set up, Antiochus IV slew swine upon the altar:

"And when the king (Antiochus IV - Achilles6129) had built an idol altar upon God's Altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars, in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction." (From Josephus, The Complete Works, Antiquities 12.5.4, 253-254. Translated by William Whiston, published in 1998 by Thomas Nelson Publishers)

"...was a quite different conduct from Antiochus Epiphanes, who, when he had taken the city, offered swine upon the altar, and sprinkled the temple with the broth of their flesh, in order to violate the laws of the Jews, and the religion they derived from their forefathers;..." (From Josephus, The Complete Works, Antiquities 13.8.2, 243. Translated by William Whiston, published in 1998 by Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Daniel next tells us of "2300 days" until the "sanctuary is cleansed" (it was cleansed by Judas Maccabeus). These 2300 days (actually, evenings and mornings) were fulfilled by Antiochus IV.

"...How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Dan. 8:13-14

"And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." Dan. 8:26

The "2300 days" actually refer to the morning/evening sacrifices offered on 1150 days. This, in fact, happened during the reign of Antiochus IV:

"There were two daily sacrifices for the continual burnt offering (9:21; Ex 29:38-42), representing the atonement required for Israel as a whole. The 2,300 evenings and mornings probably refer to the number of sacrifices consecutively offered on 1,150 days, the interval between the desecration of the Lord's altar and its reconsecration by Judas Maccabeus on Kislev 25, 165 B.C. The pagan altar set up by Antiochus on Kislev 25, 168, was apparently installed almost two months after the Lord's altar was removed, accounting for the difference between 1,095 days (an exact three years) and the 1,150 specified here." (From The NIV Study Bible, Daniel 8:14, 10th Anniversary Edition. Published 1995 by The Zondervan Corporation)

Indeed, Antiochus was in possession of the city for slightly over three years, which accounts for the difference between 1,095 days and the 1,150 Daniel prophesies of. Josephus notes that Antiochus IV was in possession of the city for slightly over three years:

"[For example, I shall relate] how Antiochus, who was named Epiphanes, took Jerusalem by force, and held it three years and three months,..." (From Josephus, The Complete Works, Wars Preface, 1.7, 19. Translated by William Whiston, published in 1998 by Thomas Nelson Publishers)

From this point on the vision ends and the angel begins to explain the vision to Daniel. The angel states that the vision concerns "the time of the end" (Dan. 8:17, 19). As has already been explained, this is because the vision is a direct foreshadowing of the time of the end. Just as Antiochus IV defiles the temple and places the abomination of desolation, so too will the antichrist. Just as Antiochus IV attempts to destroy all the people of God, so will the antichrist (he will attempt to destroy both Israel and the real Christians). A few things are to be noted about the angel's description of the vision:

"Now that (the great horn - Achilles6129) being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up." Dan. 8:22-23

Antiochus IV did indeed rise at the latter end of the dominance of the Seleucid Empire:

"The reign of Antiochus was the last period of real strength for the Seleucid Dynasty, but in some ways his rule was also fatal to the Empire." (From Wikipedia, Antiochus IV Epiphanes)

The "understanding dark sentences" part of this verse refers to Antiochus being "skilled at intrigues" (as some versions will translate it - for instance, my Interlinear). The reason why Antiochus IV is referred to this way is because he was not the rightful heir to the Seleucid dynasty, and acquired it through unscrupulous means. Daniel delineates this in Daniel 11 when talking about Antiochus IV:

"And in his estate shall stand up a vile person (Antiochus IV - Achilles6129), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." Dan. 11:21


The angel continues his description:

"And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, andby peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." Dan. 8:25

The "magnify himself in his heart" has already been explained, and of course refers to Antiochus' assuming godlike titles. Antiochus also used "peace" as a means of war:

"...the king (Antiochus IV - Achilles6129) came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery: at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it,..." (From Josephus, The Complete Works, Antiquities, 12.5.4, 248-249. Translated by William Whiston, published in 1998 by Thomas Nelson Publishers)

"He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time." Dan. 11:24

Antiochus IV's "standing up against the Prince of princes" is of course a reference to his idol altar on God's altar, and his commanding the Jews to build idol altars in their cities and sacrifice swine upon them, forsake the Law, etc. This has been documented elsewhere. As for being "broken without hand", Antiochus IV died in Tabae, in Persia (Archer mentioned this) of an illness.

We can see, then, that the little horn of Daniel 8 is indeed Antiochus IV, and is not the antichrist at all. Because of their similarities, however, the two are easily confused.

 

[Bible2]

Achilles6129:
The Greek word translated "or" can be EITHER a term of DISTINCTION, OR a term of EQUATION.

In Revelation 13:17, the Greek word translated "or" (G2228) in reference to "the name of the beast or the number of his name" is only a term of distinction, never of equation, in the sense of saying that one thing is the same as another.

The very definition I just gave you in my most recent post proves this. It depends on how it's used.

No definition given said that G2228 can be used as a term of equation, in the sense of saying that one thing is the same as another.

Here's another definition from another lexicon:

"1. to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other..." (From Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon#)

"One of which can take the place of the other" is not referring to equation, in the sense of one thing being the same as another, but is referring to two different options. "One of which can take the place of the other" does apply to the name of the beast and the number of his name, because when the mark is instituted, people will be given the option of receiving either a mark of the name of the beast "or" the number of his name (Revelation 13:17). The name of the beast is not the same thing as the number of his name. Names and numbers are different things.

If you read further down, you will find that Thayer also mentions the comparative sense in which the word is used. You are basing your entire eschatological theology off of one tiny little Greek letter, and what you believe is the definition.

Here are a couple of examples of #2228 in verses:

"For 1063 verily 281 I say 3004 unto you 5213, Till 2193 302 heaven 3772 and 2532 earth 1093 pass 3928 , one 1520 jot 2503 or 2228 one 3391 tittle 2762 shall in no wise 3364 pass 3928 from 575 the law 3551, till 2193 302 all 3956 be fulfilled 1096 ." Mt. 5:18

"No man 3762 can 1410 serve 1398 two 1417 masters 2962: for 1063 either 2228 he will hate 3404 the one 1520, and 2532 love 25 the other 2087; or else 2228 he will hold 472 to the one 1520, and 2532 despise 2706 the other 2087. Ye cannot 3756 1410 serve 1398 God 2316 and 2532 mammon 3126." Mt. 6:24

Just as Matthew 5:18 isn't saying that jots and tittles are the same thing, and Matthew 6:24 isn't saying that serving one master (God) and serving another master (mammon) is the same thing, so Revelation 13:17 isn't saying that the name of the beast and the number of his name are the same thing. Names and numbers are different things, just as jots and tittles are different things, and just as one master (God) is different than another master (mammon).

As these two examples show (and there are many more) the term "or", #2228, is used to compare things which can take the place of one another. So it is in Rev. 13:17.

Just as the fact that a jot can take the place of a tittle doesn't mean that jots and tittles are the same thing, and just as the fact that service to one master (mammon) can take the place of service to another master (God) doesn't mean that service to the one master (mammon) is the same as service to another master (God), so the fact that people will be given the option of receiving either a mark of the name of the beast "or" the number of his name (Revelation 13:17) doesn't mean that the name of the beast and the number of his name are the same thing.

... you do not even begin to show anything that you state

What has been stated and not shown?

Antiochus IV already fulfilled Daniel 8

Antiochus IV only typically fulfilled the little horn in Daniel 8; the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill the little horn in Daniel 8.

Dan. 9:27

This sentence is talking about the antichrist

Daniel 9:27 is indeed about the Antichrist, just as Daniel 11:31 is about the Antichrist. He will antitypically fulfill Daniel 11:31 just as Antiochus IV typically fulfilled Daniel 11:31. That's why Jesus said that the church will see "the" (not "a") abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15). And because the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill Daniel 11:31, he will also antitypically fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45, because the entire passage is referring to the career of the same man. This is not to say that Antiochus IV and the Antichrist are the same man, but that Daniel 11:21-45 is describing the career of the same man, not one man "morphing" or "blending" halfway through Daniel 11:21-45 into another man. Antiochus IV typically fulfilled Daniel 11:21-45 only up to Daniel 11:31, while the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45, because all of it is referring to the career of the same man.

There is no "and" because the mark of the beast and the number of his name are the exact same thing. And (no pun intended), if you read it plainly it says exactly that.

The mark of the beast will be the number of his name for some people (Revelation 15:2), but it will be his name for other people (Revelation 14:11), for people will be given the choice of receiving a mark of his name "or" the number of his name (Revelation 13:17).

Daniel 8 is written in Hebrew because it prophesies of the future persecution against the Jews by Antiochus IV (the little horn), while Daniel 7 is written in Aramaic because it talks about the antichrist (the little horn) who will affect all peoples, not just the Jews. Note that Dan. 11 is also speaking of Antiochus IV, but that towards the end Antiochus morphs into the antichrist.

Does Daniel 11 change from Hebrew to Aramaic after Daniel 11:31? If not, then the language has no bearing on who the passage relates to.

... the little horn in Dan. 7 and 8 arise from different empires (in Dan. 7 it's the fourth, in Dan. 8 it's the third) show that the two little horns are similar, but not the same:

There are two empires in Daniel 8, the ram and the goat: the ram is the empire of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 8:20), and the goat is the empire of the Greeks, beginning with Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:21). The fourth empire in Daniel 7 is Rome, which conquered the territory of the empire of the Greeks. The Antichrist will fulfill the "little horn" in both Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 by coming from a country the territory of which used to be part of both the Roman Empire and, before that, the empire of the Greeks.

 

[robinh500]

Fascinating stuff. Especially in the light of globalisation/NWO/world bank etc. These are tools of control in our days. Q is...who are the controlers?....Hmm.

 

[Bible2]

robinh500:
Q is...who are the controlers?

Ultimately, the controllers of the unsaved world are the devil and his angels (Ephesians 6:12, Ephesians 2:2). There could be secret cabals of human world leaders in politics, finance, industry, the media, the military, and religion who know this fact, and have secretly become Luciferians (devil-worshippers) in order to obtain and hold onto all of the world's power, wealth, and pleasures that they can (or they gained their current positions of world power and wealth from the devil because they were already secret worshippers of him, cf. Matthew 4:9). These Luciferians could have been working secretly together for some time to prepare the way politically, economically, and religiously for a single Luciferian human world leader (the Antichrist, the beast) to gain military and economic control over the entire earth and, along with his miracle-working false prophet, deceive the whole unelect world into the open worship of the devil (the dragon, Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 19:20). God will let them succeed in this, but only for three or four years (Revelation 13:5, Daniel 12:11-12) before Jesus returns and defeats them (Revelation 19:19-20:3) and sets up his own, 1,000-year, kingdom on the earth with the resurrected church (Revelation 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29).

 

[Achilles6129]

I must apologize for not responding for so long. Very busy, blizzards/no internet access, etc. Anyways, now that I have a few hours I will reply.

This post will be my final reply to Bible2 on this thread. I refuse to play a "Biblical Ferris Wheel" game where we go around and around and around making the same claims over and over again.

During this entire discussion, Bible2 has not cited one single source for any of his claims (which are untrue, btw). I'm sure that Bible2 believes that he has cited Scripture for his claims, but in reality what Bible2 has cited is HIS OWN OPINION OF SCRIPTURE. When I quoted one obscure statistic, Bible2 demanded a source. However, when Bible2 makes similar claims (such as his interpretation of various parts of the Bible, or counting the number of the name refers to gemetria, or the Greek word "or", or Antiochus IV only fulfilled up to v. 31, etc.) he cites zero sources (other than his own opinion).

That being said, let's move on and address some issues:

Bible2 states:

No definition given said that G2228 can be used as a term of equation, in the sense of saying that one thing is the same as another.

Notice what Bible2 has just said. He claims that no definition of G2228 can be given in the sense that one thing is the same as the other, and then directly after saying this Bible2 quotes a definition I gave him, which says...

"1. to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other..." (From Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon#)

Bible2 then argues that "one of which can take the place of the other" does not mean what it says. According to Bible2, this phrase means:

"One of which can take the place of the other" is not referring to equation, in the sense of one thing being the same as another, but is referring to two different options.

I see. So plain English no longer means what it says, right?

I then provided Bible2 with two examples, which I will not repost, that clearly show the word G2228 being used in the sense that one of the thoughts can take the place of the other - just as the number of his name can take the place of the name of the beast. I will show yet another example:

"13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or(G2228) an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Rom. 14:13

Notice that a stumblingblock IS an occasion to fall. Notice also that the word "or" (G2228) separates both of these thoughts, one of which can take the place of the other. Indeed, the same principle is applied in Rev. 13:17-18.

What has been stated and not shown?

Everything you have ever said. You have routinely cited your opinion of Scriptures and the Greek words behind them, which amounts to nothing. In my article on Daniel 8, for instance, I cited numerous sources which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Daniel 8 is entirely fulfilled by Antiochus IV. Your reaction to these numerous sources was to simply dismiss all of them with a sweep of the hand, and claim that "the antichrist will also fulfill Daniel 8", which, as I have already shown with NUMEROUS sources, is entirely false. Daniel 8 has already been fulfilled, and it has been PROVEN (with sources). The only source you have ever cited is your opinion.

Daniel 9:27 is indeed about the Antichrist, just as Daniel 11:31 is about the Antichrist. He will antitypically fulfill Daniel 11:31 just as Antiochus IV typically fulfilled Daniel 11:31. That's why Jesus said that the church will see "the" (not "a") abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15)

Oh, brother. Are we going to get into this again? Are you going to extoll the virtues of the Greek word "the" instead of the Greek word "a"? Daniel 11:31 was already fulfilled by Antiochus IV. When Christ is talking about the abomination of desolation, he is not referring to Daniel 11:31, because it was already fulfilled, but is instead referring to Daniel 9:27, which has yet to be fulfilled.

This is not to say that Antiochus IV and the Antichrist are the same man, but that Daniel 11:21-45 is describing the career of the same man, not one man "morphing" or "blending" halfway through Daniel 11:21-45 into another man. Antiochus IV typically fulfilled Daniel 11:21-45 only up to Daniel 11:31, while the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45, because all of it is referring to the career of the same man.

Daniel 11:21-45 is not describing the career of the same man, as has been recognized for millenia. Not only this, but I have cited sources to prove it true (F.F. Bruce, Archer, etc.). Even a common-sense reading of the passages will show it to any reasonable individual. Also, Antiochus IV's fulfillment did not stop at verse 31, but rather up to verse 36 (some say verse 40). I cited F.F. Bruce who talked about this, again.

The mark of the beast will be the number of his name for some people (Revelation 15:2), but it will be his name for other people (Revelation 14:11), for people will be given the choice of receiving a mark of his name "or" the number of his name (Revelation 13:17).

There is only one mark of the beast. But we've been through all this before, and I'm not going to re-hash it.

"20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." Rev. 19:20

Does Daniel 11 change from Hebrew to Aramaic after Daniel 11:31? If not, then the language has no bearing on who the passage relates to.

The language does have a bearing, and once again, I quoted you sources that proved this. The vast majority of Daniel 11 is referring to events that concern Israel, which is why it is written in Hebrew. Just because it is written in Hebrew does not mean that every last thing mentioned in the chapter must concern the Jews. However, Daniel 11 is based around the Jews. Obviously it does mention the antichrist from verse 36 on, but it also mentions his campaign (and ultimate destruction) into Israel.

The Antichrist will fulfill the "little horn" in both Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 by coming from a country the territory of which used to be part of both the Roman Empire and, before that, the empire of the Greeks.

As I have already proven, the little horn of Daniel 8 has already been fulfilled. Therefore, we can X out your claim that the antichrist must come from the "empire of the Greeks". Nor does the antichrist have to come from a territory that was of the Roman Empire, for nowhere in Daniel 7 does it specifically say that the antichrist will arise from this territory. Rather, the antichrist is the leader of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[zeke37]

ex13, Deut6, Deut11

 

[Duckybill]

Microchip implant (human)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Just after an operation to insert a RFID tag. Note that the yellow coloration comes from iodine used to clean areas before surgery, and is not related to the implant.


A human microchip implant is an integrated circuit device or RFID transponder encased in silicate glass and implanted into a human's body. A subdermal implant typically contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as personal identification, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information.

 

[Duckybill]

Or how about permanent, invisible ink tattoos?

"Invisible ‘Radio’ Tattoos Could Identify Soldiers"

"Somark Innovations announced biocompatible RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) ink, which can be used to tattoo cattle and laboratory rats and can be read through animal hair. It might even be used on humans eventually.

This is a passive RFID technology that contains no metals; the tattoos themselves can be colored or invisible."

"Humans next? Somark Innovations co-founder Mark Pydynowski noted that the RFID ink is fully biocompatible and was safe for use in humans. He noted that RFID ink tattoos could be used to track and rescue soldiers. “It could help identify friends or foes, prevent friendly fire, and help save soldiers’ lives,” Pydynowski said."

 

[zeke37]

ok...be honest and do me a favor

read Ex13, Deut6 and Deut11...

see if ya still think it is a "chip" after you read those chapters...

 

[Duckybill]

ok...be honest and do me a favor

read Ex13, Deut6 and Deut11...

see if ya still think it is a "chip" after you read those chapters...

I have read them, many times. Do you really think that this technology is a coincidence? They can potentially track and control nearly everyone on Earth with implanted microchips and permanent electronic tattoos. Coincidence? Nah

Revelation 13:7 (NASB)
7 ... and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

Did you happen to notice the dramatic increase in surveillance cameras? Do you think they are for our protection?

 

[Bible2]

Achilles6129:
I'm sure that Bible2 believes that he has cited Scripture for his claims, but in reality what Bible2 has cited is HIS OWN OPINION OF SCRIPTURE.

How has it been proven that scripture itself has not been cited?

When I quoted one obscure statistic, Bible2 demanded a source. However, when Bible2 makes similar claims (such as his interpretation of various parts of the Bible, or counting the number of the name refers to gemetria, or the Greek word "or", or Antiochus IV only fulfilled up to v. 31, etc.) he cites zero sources (other than his own opinion).

When the claim regarding differences in manuscripts was made, why shouldn't the source have been requested?

What interpretations of various parts of the Bible have not been supported by scripture itself?

Counting the number of the name (Revelation 13:17-18) refers to gematria because it refers to literally adding something up to arrive at a single numerical value (cf. Luke 14:28). Gematria is the means by which a series of letters (whether in a name or not) are converted into numbers and then added together to arrive at a single numerical value. The use of gematria is found in the scriptures itself: the three Greek letters at the end of Revelation 13:18 add up to 666 via gematria. The three Greek letters are Chi, Xi, and Stigma. They add up to 666 because under gematria Chi=600, Xi=60, and Stigma=6.

The Greek word translated as "or" (G2228) in Revelation 13:17 was not used in the Greek language to equate two different things in the sense of saying that they are the same thing. This is supported by scripture itself, for scripture never uses the word in that way.

Antiochus IV only fulfilled up to v. 31 of Daniel 11, because he only fulfilled the abomination of desolation (1 Maccabees 1:54), and never went on to magnify himself above every god (Daniel 11:36-37). Also, Antiochus IV only typically fulfilled Daniel 11:21-31, because the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill Daniel 11:21-45, because the church will see the abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31) occur in the future (Matthew 24:15), and the same man who will antitypically fulfill the abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:31) will antitypically fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45, because all of Daniel 11:21-45 is referring to the world career of the same man.

... the number of his name can take the place of the name of the beast.

Indeed, the number of his name can take the place of the name of the beast, insofar as the mark will consist of either his name "or" the number of his name (Revelation 13:17), meaning that people will receive either one or the other, just as they will receive the mark either on their right hand "or" on their forehead (Revelation 13:16). This is not the same as saying that his name and the number of his name are the same thing, because names and numbers are different things.

Notice that a stumblingblock IS an occasion to fall. Notice also that the word "or" (G2228) separates both of these thoughts, one of which can take the place of the other.

Romans 14:13 isn't saying that the only occasion to fall is a stumblingblock, because there are other occasions to fall besides stumblingblocks. For example, going up onto the pinnacle of the temple would be an occasion to fall (Matthew 4:5-6) without any stumblingblock being involved. So there is still a distinction between a stumblingblock and an occasion to fall.

Also, nothing in the original Greek requires any equation between the words translated as "stumblingblock" and "occasion to fall", in the sense of their being the same thing. The Greek word translated as "stumblingblock" literally suggests striking against something in the sense of stubbing; and while one can stumble when one strikes one's toe on something, for example, this doesn't require that one actually fall; one can instead remain unfallen but simply walk unsteadily or clumsily or hesitatingly or falteringly for a bit. So a "stumblingblock" need not be an occasion to fall.

Also, the Greek word translated as "occasion to fall" need not involve either falling or stubbing without falling, for it literally refers to a bent sapling used as a trap-stick. This image suggests that when someone tripped it with their foot their foot could be thrown up into the air, so that instead of falling to the ground, if the bent sapling was tall enough, when the trap was sprung and the sapling suddenly straightened itself, the one trapped could be left hanging there by his foot up off the ground. Quite a bit different than stubbing one's toe on something and stumbling around for a bit.

... claim that "the antichrist will also fulfill Daniel 8", which, as I have already shown with NUMEROUS sources, is entirely false. Daniel 8 has already been fulfilled

How does Antiochus IV fulfilling Daniel 8's "little horn" prove that the Antichrist won't fulfill Daniel 8's "little horn"? Antiochus IV typically fulfilled it while the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill it. Daniel 8's "little horn" won't be antitypically fulfilled until "the time of the end" (Daniel 8:17), "in the last end of the indignation" (Daniel 8:19), just as Daniel 11:21-45 won't be antitypically fulfilled until "the time of the end" (Daniel 11:35,40), "till the indignation be accomplished" (Daniel 11:36). Jesus said that "the end is not yet" (Matthew 24:6).

When Christ is talking about the abomination of desolation, he is not referring to Daniel 11:31, because it was already fulfilled, but is instead referring to Daniel 9:27, which has yet to be fulfilled.

When Christ is talking about "the" (not "a") abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15), he is referring to the Antichrist's future, antitypical fulfillment of Daniel 11:31, which antitypical fulfillment will be the same event as the Antichrist's fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

Daniel 11:21-45 is not describing the career of the same man, as has been recognized for millenia. Not only this, but I have cited sources to prove it true (F.F. Bruce, Archer, etc.). Even a common-sense reading of the passages will show it to any reasonable individual.

How has it been proven that Daniel 11:21-45 is not describing the career of the same man? A common-sense reading of the passage shows no change in person.

Also, Antiochus IV's fulfillment did not stop at verse 31, but rather up to verse 36 (some say verse 40).

By "up to verse 36", do you mean including verse 36? If so, when did Antiochus IV magnify himself above every god (Daniel 11:36)? When did he say that he was God above Zeus and all the other Greek gods? Also, how does a common-sense reading of Daniel 11:21-45 find a change in person between either Daniel 11:36 and Daniel 11:37, or between Daniel 11:40 and Daniel 11:41? Daniel 11:36-37 will only be fulfilled when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is fulfilled by the Antichrist, when he will sit in a third Jewish temple and proclaim himself God above all gods.

There is only one mark of the beast. But we've been through all this before, and I'm not going to re-hash it.

"20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." Rev. 19:20

Revelation 19:20 doesn't contradict that when people receive the mark of the beast they will receive either his name "or" the number of his name (Revelation 13:17).

Just because it is written in Hebrew does not mean that every last thing mentioned in the chapter must concern the Jews.

Just as Daniel 11's being written in Hebrew doesn't mean that it applies only to Jews, so Daniel 8's being written in Hebrew doesn't mean that it applies only to Jews.

Obviously it does mention the antichrist from verse 36 on

So you agree that the Antichrist will fulfill Daniel 11:36, even though you claimed that "Antiochus IV's fulfillment did not stop at verse 31, but rather up to verse 36 (some say verse 40)"? If you claim that both Antiochus IV and the Antichrist will fulfill Daniel 11:36, then why do you claim that both Antiochus IV and the Antichrist cannot possibly fulfill Daniel 11:31?

Nor does the antichrist have to come from a territory that was of the Roman Empire, for nowhere in Daniel 7 does it specifically say that the antichrist will arise from this territory. Rather, the antichrist is the leader of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.

The fourth beast in Daniel 7 (verse 7) is the Roman empire, the third beast (Daniel 7:6) being the preceding empire of the Greeks, the four heads of the third beast (Daniel 7:6) representing the division of the empire of the Greeks into four Greek Diadochian kingdoms after the death of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:21-22). Just as the Antichrist, the little horn, has to come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one of these four Greek kingdoms (Daniel 8:8-9), so the Antichrist, the little horn, has to come from a country the territory of which was also subsequently part of the Roman Empire, for the little horn will come up from the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8,20), not come up from some other beast and then be cut off and glued onto the fourth beast.

 

[zeke37]

I have read them, many times. Do you really think that this technology is a coincidence? They can potentially track and control nearly everyone on Earth with implanted microchips and permanent electronic tattoos. Coincidence? Nah

Revelation 13:7 (NASB)
7 ... and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

Did you happen to notice the dramatic increase in surveillance cameras? Do you think they are for our protection?

what ever you believe about the way the money will be controlled,
it is not the mark...

it may be incorporated into the mark in the hand...
living in the beasts system and using the beasts currency would certainly be part of the mark...

but it is not the mark itself...

the mark will be a free will choice...
either worship Satan or worship God.


God wants to see if you will accept the fasle one...
or be filled with The Word and overcome...


forcing a mark or tattoo on me would prove absolutely nothing at all. nothing.

it is what is in the MIND that matters.


that is why God uses the exact same symbolic language to describe both His mark, and Satan's.


and most definitely God's mark was not a tattoo or microchip implant.
it was what they did and thought...remembering God and worshiping Him

just like Satan's mark will be....
and if ya worship him, or use his NWO currency to live (not trust God)
then you'd have the mark


but it is not the chip itself.....see?