They tried hard, but they got it wrong.

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

They tried hard, but they got it wrong.

The theory was that the king list in Revelation 17 was referring to the final seven popes, after the Lateran council of 1929, when the Vatican gained temporal power again. The sixth king was Pope John Paul II, five have fallen, one is, and so on. When I heard their assumption that the ‘one is’ is John Paul II, I thought, that isn’t right, as the ‘one is’ would have been ‘is’ when the text of Rev. was written, not projected forward to the reign of John Paul II, which was an assumption. They continued the speculation that Cardinal Ratszinger (King Pope 7) would have a short reign, which was correct, but that the eighth pope would be one of the previous seven, and specifically John Paul II, as a fallen angel, posing as John Paul II. This theory has led to speculation that John Paul II would be resurrected, and would be the beast of Revelation. Didn’t happen. So, I suspect that the ‘one is’ was a Roman emperor, possibly Nero, but I really don’t know.

Over the years, I have studied Daniel, in relation to Revelation, and have drawn some conclusions, which are unorthodox, and has led to some people becoming so upset, that they have told me to leave the forum, because I have posted what my conclusions are. So, I believe that the little horn of Daniel was Antiochus IV, and the ten horns were the ten Greek kings, from Alexander to Antiochus. I believe that most of Daniel was written in retrospect, after the facts, made to resemble prophesy. However, I have developed a theory, that God can make use of an imperfect book, to create true prophesy, and hence my acceptance of the Daniel Timeline.

The various beasts described in Daniel, does not end with the Roman Empire, or any reformed Roman Empire, the last empire was the Seleucid Empire. The book was not prophetic in that respect. So people like Hal Lindsey, become rather desperate, to see a reformed ten-state Roman Empire in the EU, didn’t happen, no ten horns/kings/whatever, wasn’t about that. Revelation drew on Daniel and created a ten horned system, ten kings, beast and all that. I have believed for a long time, that the information given in Daniel is information pertaining as an archetype, about an individual who would have particular relevance to Israel in the latter days, and not an exact repeat of the activities of Antiochus, some of which never happened anyway, it was a failed prediction. So people can draw out the information given in Daniel and can set it next to the antichrist figure, and match up the traits, and I think that is correct.

The temple isn’t going to be rebuilt. Obama is not going to declare that he is God, sitting in the temple of God. In my opinion, that is about something else altogether.

 

[SaintN8]

believe that most of Daniel was written in retrospect, after the facts, made to resemble prophesy. However, I have developed a theory, that God can make use of an imperfect book, to create true prophesy, and hence my acceptance of the Daniel Timeline.

The historian, Josephus, recorded that Alexander the Great received a copy of Daniel when he annexed Jerusalem in the fall of 332 BC (see "Antiquities of the Jews" XI, chapter VIII, paragraphs 3-5). Daniel is not an imperfect book. It is God-breathed Scripture, containing prophecies that were written not after-the-fact, but well before, in details that point to the inspiration of an all-knowing author.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The historian, Josephus, recorded that Alexander the Great received a copy of Daniel when he annexed Jerusalem in the fall of 332 BC (see "Antiquities of the Jews" XI, chapter VIII, paragraphs 3-5). Daniel is not an imperfect book. It is God-breathed Scripture, containing prophecies that were written not after-the-fact, but well before, in details that point to the inspiration of an all-knowing author.

i'll have to check that. I am saying that the core of the book goes back to an earlier time, but the very detailed prediction parts were added later, during the Maccabean revolt of about 164 BC. I have read a lot about it by secular scholars and I've yet to find anyone who doesn't think that.. to me it's just obvious.
the end bit where they make a prediction about the king of the north and south, and the demise of the king of the north, is a continuation from the rest of the detailed account before, and it's about Antiochus, and he was supposed to end up ruined in Palestine.. that didn't happen, Antiochus was killed in Persia, if I remember right.

they also say that the various beasts predict the Roman Empire.. I don't think so, the beast vision was derived from an ancient belief system, and the final beast was the Seleucid Empire. I've repeatedly stated, in these forums, that the final beast, assumed to be Rome, did not conquer Parthia, which was Persia, so it cannot be Rome. When I established that as a hard fact, then I realised that the book did not predict Rome, or a revived Roman Empire.. it was a book of its time.

They are still waiting for the EU to form ten kingdoms, but Daniel states that the ten horns are ten kings, not kingdoms; which means that they were the ten Greek kings prior to Antiochus, the little horn. The three horns plucked up by roots were three princes, who Antiochus usurped, to gain the rule.
It all works out, recorded in history. The implication though, is that the writer of Revelation, drew his data from Daniel, and also misinterpreted what the ten horns were, and added them to his apocalyptic scenario. And if that's true, it means that Revelation is not inspired scripture.
That is too much for any Christian to consider, and that's why it is not considered by anyone, except sceptics, but there are no sceptics that examine Revelation, they are not interested, and no critique of Revelation has been written by anyone.