Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Beast Empire—More "Was" and "Is" Dilemmas: Part 8

Continuing from the last post, but remaining within the same subject, we must face another dilemma. It's very clear that the king of Rome was a contemporary of John’s and that this king was the king that the angel described to John as the king that “is.” But if we say that the beast that “was, and is not and will come” is also spoken of from the perspective of John we have the future beast, or Antichrist, as one that lived before John and was dead during John’s life. This king would then be alive once again sometime in the future during the 70th Week.

Many teach this and conclude that Antiochus Epiphanes from the second century BC (167-164), who caused great terror to the Jews only to come to his ruin during the Maccabean revolt, is the beast that will come. I cannot say that this is impossible, or that some other historical figure couldn't be a possible candidate, but I think that it's unlikely.

This Antiochus Epiphanes idea brings us back to square one, and is similar to the problem I have with thinking that the world will be amazed at an empire being reborn. This once again causes me to wonder how the whole world will be amazed at someone coming back from the dead that has been dead for over 2000 years. How on God’s green earth would one be able to convince the world that he used to be Antiochus Epiphanes or any other former dead person?! He would be a laughing stock. At the very least he would be considered a quack and a possible date for Shirley McClain! There’s no way that I can see that the beast could be able to pull this off in a way that could convince the world to follow and worship him. Even if we view the beast as strictly the beast that comes from the abyss in a spirit form, and not the man/Antichrist, how could it be conveyed to the masses that he “was” at one time, ie. was dead or locked in the abyss and is once again alive and free from the abyss? Who would believe it enough to be amazed, and who would care besides a few nutty conspiracy-minded folks that are likely to get sucked into any crazy cult that wanders their way?

If the Beast is Viewed From the Perspective of Those Alive During the 70th Week

If we view the beast that "was, is not and will come" from the perspective, or time period, of those that are alive in the 70th week there are once again problems if we also conclude that the beast is not only a king, but an empire, as well. If the beast that "was" is viewed from the perspective of those living in the 70th Week, and is viewed as an empire, and that empire was Rome, then we have a seventh, unnamed, head in the beast system.

It's clear that the beast that "was, is not and will come" is the eighth and one of the seven. If it's one of the seven, and is Rome, it must be the sixth and eighth empire. So who is the seventh, then? Muhammed’s empire? Hitler’s empire? And why would the scripture be so kind to answer itself by giving us all of the names of the beast empires of those previous six empires so that we can know who each head is (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo/Persian, Grecian, Roman) but briefly pass by the seventh and give absolutely no indication as to who it is. This just doesn't seem plausible or complete to me when I consider the great details that have been provided for us. Plus, it gives leeway for just about anything to be possible.


But if a man (not an empire) during the 70th Week was killed and revived before the eyes of the world, well, that would be amazing and would cause true beast worship! I know, some of you are rolling your eyes, and some of you are wondering why I’m being inconsistent in my interpretation. How can I say that the king that “was, is not and will come” is not viewed from John’s perspective and lifetime period when only a few verses away the king of Rome was viewed from John’s perspective? It sounds like very inconsistent hermeneutics.

But I think that this post, and the last post, has become long and laborious enough for the average reader. I have to wonder if any of you were even able to make it to this point without placing a gun to your head to put a stop to my miserable, mind numbing confusion! So I will once again have to continue this at another time. Baby steps, my detailed prophecy friend, baby steps. Stay tuned.


Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

How can a man be killed and revived? That is impossible.

PWTribune said...

How do you figure? Within the last few days the news has been reporting like crazy about a man that was dead for 3 hours and came back to life. In reality, this happened back in 1993 but the media didn't really get ahold of it until recently.

My wife just happened to be the one that helped teach this man how to do some basic skills as he recovered. She was pretty amazed at him coming back to life after being dead for 3 solid hours.

Why couldn't there be a similar occurrence in the end times, but with a little more drama involved? Would you rather the head (KING) that was slain and revived be an empire?

The Orange Mailman said...

Dave B.-

Possible typo. I'm pretty sure you mean the Assyrian Empire, not Syrian. Syria was a country at the time, but Assyria was the Empire.

I'm sure you guess, I'm not quite on board with everything you are setting forth. I see the heads as empires. You asserted this early on especially in part 6 and your six headed empire chart. But now with part 7 on one particular point, you have to change gears in order to show the viability that the heads could refer to individuals as well.

The seven heads are seven mountains. Mountains are a fairly consistent symbol of a kingdom, empire, or a throne. The following verse states that there are seven kings, but the seven heads are not said to be seven kings, but seven mountains. Now bear with me as I point out a phrase that you have read a thousand times before.

"seven mountains, ON WHICH THE WOMAN SITS." Also, "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her." You see, the seven headed, ten horned beast is said to be carrying the woman. The woman is riding on the seven heads and ten horns. What we see in Revelation is the final climactic view of the seven headed ten horned beast. But the beast has been carrying this woman for a long time.

You don't have to try to convince me that the beast is also a man, as I see that truth. But, when referring to one head of the beast, it could be referring to one king over one of the empires, or it could be referring to one of the empires. I think it's interesting that there are only seven heads on the beast, and yet the angel refers to an eighth king. This leads me to believe that the seven heads cannot be the eight kings. The seven heads are the seven mountains, or empires, on which the woman rides. At the time of John, the woman inhabited Rome. In the end, the woman will inhabit a city not yet known, probably ancient Babylon in modern day Iraq, but will wind up in Jerusalem.

It is just a detail as we will probably wind up in the exact same place even though we see this from a differing perspective.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

PWTribune said...


I think you may have read part 5 one of the first few days it was up. A few days later I was thinking while working and it hit me. There's no way the mountains can be referring to empires. I then quickly went back to the original and typed in my new thoughts about the mountains in red lettering so that all would catch my ERROR. :)

You can go back and see it if you like, but I'll post it here.

Part 5 Edit
After I wrote this entry I had a new thought that I had previously overlooked and I thought that I should amend this post for accuracy. I think that the seven mountains may not be speaking of the empires of the kings as I suggested above.

Here's why:
The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits and they are seven kings... (Rev 17:9-10)

The seven heads are the SYMBOLIC message. The symbolic is made clear and interpreted to be seven kings. It doesn't make sense that a symbolic message would be interpreted to be a literal seven kings only to give another symbolic answer in "the mountains." I think the mountains must be literal, and not another symbolic answer that came from the original symbolic vision.

You saw it here first. Someone that writes a prophecy blog admitting that they were probably wrong about something!

What do you think about that, Darrin?


PWTribune said...

And thanks for the "Assyrian" heads up!

The Orange Mailman said...

Dave B.-

I read that post, but I still think you are straddling the line. There are some issues where you need the empire application and some where you need the king application. But to try to be exclusive about it either way will affect your ability to defend the other.

KJV and NKJV do not directly connect the two phrases in Revelation 17:9-10. They have that the seven heads are seven mountains - and there are seven kings. ESV and NASB connect the two stating that the seven heads are seven mountains and THEY are also seven kings. If it's a case of majority text versus minority text, I'm going with majority text.

If the newer translations have it right, that doesn't discount the common interpretation for mountain being kingdom, empire, or throne, as in a seat of power for a kingdom or empire. Also, the woman who is responsible for the blood of the saints (from Abel to our day) is still riding that same seven headed beast.

Here's a question, what do the seven heads represent on the dragon in Revelation 12? Same thing, or something different? Satan has been granted seven empires to oppress Israel with. As of right now, the crowns are still on the heads of the dragon, not on the horns of the beast of Revelation 13. Once the ten kings give their power to the beast (both empire and antichrist) then the crowns will be on the horns.

I will say that once the beast is given a mouth, that pretty much shows that one man is now the representative of the entire beast. I'm still mulling some of these issues over, so I look forward to the rest of your series.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

PWTribune said...

Orange said> There are some issues where you need the empire application and some where you need the king application.

ME>Can you give me an example of this?

Orange>KJV and NKJV do not directly connect the two phrases in Revelation 17:9-10. They have that the seven heads are seven mountains - and there are seven kings. ESV and NASB connect the two stating that the seven heads are seven mountains and THEY are also seven kings. If it's a case of majority text versus minority text, I'm going with majority text.

ME> I'm going with the NASB over the KJV almost every time. Maybe every time. But that's where things get ridiculous in these matters. IF the KJV is correct it changes everything, and thus, we just can't be dogamtic about much of this. There are so many ifs.

Orange>If the newer translations have it right, that doesn't discount the common interpretation for mountain being kingdom, empire, or throne, as in a seat of power for a kingdom or empire.

ME> But it does IF the head are mountains AND kings. It makes NO sense that the SYMBOLIC heads would be interpreted clearly for us as LITERAL kings. But then the SYMBOLIC heads are interpreted to be SYMBOLIC mountains which then become LITERAL empires. I can't buy that.

But what I really want to hear is your reasoning for saying this:

"There are some issues where you need the empire application and some where you need the king application."

Thanks for the thoughts!


Lawofthespirit said...

The joy in discussing scripture, is eventually having to agree on what is scripture... Whatever we appeal to as our final authority, must be THE final authority, otherwise, we have nothing.

After doing some extensive reading into the history of our bible, the Catholics and the majority/minority texts; I chose the majority text... on which the 1611/1769 KJV bible is wholly based... thousands of preserved Greek texts.

The majority text (Sarcastically called the 'Paper Pope' by the Jesuits.) was paid for with the lives of millions of our spiritual brothers and sisters; at the hands of the Jesuit inquisitions and papal grasp for world domination.

We were called "protestant" because we 'protested'. We were 'protest-ant' against the claims of papal infallibility, papal bulls and many other crimes, in the name of God against humanity. We were protest-ant, because our bible was different, so we could!

To my knowledge, no blood was shed over the minority text. Not even a paper cut. (They were written on velum and stored in dusty archives.)

All modern translations (post 1800s) are based on the minority texts, Vaticanus and Siniatic.

Our spiritual enemies do not have to attack us, or burn our bibles in the town square, or even confiscate them like they used to.

No need for such theatrics any more. The bible has been quietly subverted over the last 200 years. The modern bible is now as harmless as a kitten.

Unlike the bible used by someone still famous...
"The bible is like a lion, it needs no defense, just turn it loose and it will defend itself!" - Martin Luther King.

The greatest fear our spiritual enemies had, was that the bible was loose in the streets!

Need I say more?

Do your homework. There are some good books and web sites about this topic.

I believe this one is worth being right about. So much is at stake.

PWTribune said...

LOTS said>Our spiritual enemies do not have to attack us, or burn our bibles in the town square, or even confiscate them like they used to.

No need for such theatrics any more. The bible has been quietly subverted over the last 200 years. The modern bible is now as harmless as a kitten.<

Pretty weak argument, LOTS. It has NOTHING to do with the bibles, but has everything to do with the culture. Concerning the bibles that were burned, and the ones that people died for, there are still plenty of those around NOW. Are people burning them? Are people dieing for them? Nope, therefore it's clearly not a translation or content issue. It's a cultural issue.

If your statements were strong enough to be true, then people wouldn't be dieing ANYWHERE due to the "watered down" bibles. But as we know, many are being tortured and killed no matter what bible they carry or believe to be truest. Go to certain areas carrying Eugene Peterson's "Message" and you're toast.

Have you ever read the 1611? It has ridiculous errors, so to say that the KJV we now have MUST be correct in this Rev. 17 issue is silly. The KJV can have just as many issues as the NASB. NONE are perfect. But let's not turn this into a KJV debate. I don't want to waste good space here for that. :)


The Orange Mailman said...

Hey Dave B.-

Since you posted your chart

well after your correction, I'm assuming you still hold to Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome as interpretations for the first six heads. Of course, that's what your last post stated as well. So your basic interpretation is empires first, individuals second.

If the heads are individuals, not empires, then a better approach would be to believe that the individual who was Ceasar at the time of John's writing was the sixth head, then count backward from there with individuals, not empires. There would be no need to come up with two previous empires to Daniel's vision since they don't line up anyway. That is, five previous heads/mountains compared with three previous empires in Daniel 7. There are people who count the previous five Ceasars, I forget how that whole line of thinking goes.

If you count the heads as one individual within one empire, you would have to have one leader of every single empire. With Egypt you could make a great case that the Pharoah that said "no" to Moses was that head. With Assyria, you would have a tougher time. I would have a tough time deciding between Tiglath-Pileser who took Galilee captive, Shalmaneser who dispersed Samaria (Israel), and Sennacherib who stood against Jerusalem and Judah only to be divinely judged since Hezekiah turned the people's hearts toward God in revival. With Babylon you could make a good case for Nebuchadnezzar. With Medo-Persia it would be impossible since it was a two kingdom empire with the Medes in greater domination at the beginning and the Persians in greater dominion toward the end. Greece could be Alexander the Great. But Rome? Big problems.

It would be better to view the mountain as a throne (of an empire or kingdom), whoever occupies the throne is an individual but they represent the kingdom. Two classic passages referring to the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 both mention a mountain in reference to God's authority. God is the only one who can sit on His throne and represent His kingdom, that's why there was no more place for Satan when he wanted to sit on the mountain beside God.

So once the man of sin is empowered by Satan at the midpoint, it seems that he has the authority to represent the entire seven headed ten horned beast. He occupies the throne (of the mountain/empire), but before that point in time, a head is just a head. Hence my view that the wounding of the head may be one of the territories within the empire being wounded unto death by a sword, or war. And since the Roman Empire amalgamated previous empires into its being, the territory could be Egypt, Persia, Greece, Babylon (Iraq)????

But it's not something I'm going to be dogmatic about. There's a lot that needs explaining. Hence the reason why I'm going to be reading your future posts. Especially concerning "was, and is not, and yet is".

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

PWTribune said...

I haven't made it past your first few sentences, Darrin. But I have to straighten things out before I go to bed. I won't be able to get to the rest of it for at least a day.

I never said the heads were empires. You're misreading the paragraph in this post. Notice I'm presenting an argument that I disagree with. I am disagreeing with the thought that the heads are empires, and I show why I don't think it works to view them as empires if one views the beast that "was, is not and will come" from the perspective of those alive during the 70th Week. Pleas re-read it.

AND I didn't mean to indicate in my chart that the heads were empires either. Why would I have done that? It was the post previous to the chart that I changed my view on and began feeling that the text didn't allow for empires because of the "mountain" issue. Notice the chart clearly says, "Five kings have fallen," and then the brackets simply show the empires of those kings. I specifically didn't mention names of kings because, as you mentioned, it seems impossible to do so!

Ah, I'm remembering why I have never written about Revelation 17!


PWTribune said...

And, again, aren't you turning symbolism into MORE symbolism by saying a symbolic head is a symbolic mountain? That would be like me saying the ten horns are ten kings, but the kings are actually symbolic for cars. It seems that if the heads are said to be mountains, well, they must be mountains if we're going to be consistent and say that the 10 horns are actually 10 kings. Can you explain to me why you don't think that's a problem? Am I missing something?


The Orange Mailman said...

Dave B.-

Sorry if I misunderstood. Are you now attempting to completely refute any connection that the heads have with empires? Or does the sixth head have a connection with Rome? The minute you mention Rome, you are mentioning an empire.

You ask a fairly valid question. How can the meaning for a symbol be given which is also symbolic? My answer: A mountain could be symbolic or literal. In the spiritual realm, I believe that mountains are seats of power, or empires. God's seat of power in heaven is a mountain. What is that mountain symbolic of? His throne? Or is it a literal mountain just in a way that we can't comprehend? My other answer: How should I know?

I look forward to an explanation of exactly what these five heads that have fallen are with no connection to empires. And why the crowns are on the heads of the dragon but on the horns of the beast of Rev. 13.

The dragon of Revelation 12 is utilizing the Roman Empire in his attempt to gobble up the Christ. At that point the crowns are on the heads, meaning that the authority Satan has vested is still in the empire.

Here's a good question? Why are there two differing symbols of heads and horns if they both represent the exact same thing? There must be a difference. And the fact that it does not specify how many horns are on how many heads could lead us to the conclusion that all ten horns are on one of the heads. It doesn't say that, but why would all ten kings receive power together at one time and be split up on several different heads? The iron beast of Daniel 7 has ten horns, but no multiple heads are mentioned. Does it have one head? Or more than one head but they aren't mentioned? If there is only one head, this must be the one head that all ten horns occupy on the beast in Revelation 13. This is slightly speculative, but hopefully you see the value in it.

I agree that this is a complex issue that none of us have completely figured out. I see the value in pointing out the human identity of the beast, but the entire beast with seven heads and ten horns is beyond just one man in description.

Enjoying the dialogue...

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

The Orange Mailman said...

Hey Matthew-

If you are following this, I thought you might enjoy a clip from B.W. Newton's "Thoughts on the Apocalypse" concerning what the seven heads represent. To Newton, they are differing types of governments over the ages that have ruled over men.


The beast by whom the woman is sustained has ten horns, which indicate a sphere not less extensive than the whole Roman earth: and when, since the power of secular Rome crumbled, have we seen any system that has thus borne sway over the West and East together, or when have we seen any individual like him that is described, sustaining such a system? Morever, the seven mountains occupied by the woman is the symbol that all and every form of concentrated governmental influence - in a word, all authority belongs to her; and, as we might expect, her sustainer and instrument is invested with the same - in him, symbolized by seven heads - in her, by seven mountains on which she sitteth. This complete possession of all authority has never yet been found in any system that has heretofore acted in the earth.

The native monarchy of Nimrod, the theocracy of Israel, the despotic authority of Nebuchadnezzar, the aristocratic monarchy of Persia, and the military monarchy of Alexander and his successors, had all passed away when John beheld this vision. All these methods had been tried - none had been found to answer even the purposes of man; and now another had arisen, the half military, half popular monarchy of the Caesars - the iron empire of Rome. "Five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh he must continue a little space."

The native monarchy of Nimrod - the theocracy of Israel - the systematic despotic monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar, which was, in a peculiar sense, established by God - the aristocratic monarchy of Persia - the military monarchy of Alexander - the empire of the Caesars, which arose out of democracy - and the clay-iron or constistutional monarchies of modern Europe, are the seven forms which have already appeared. The sixth, viz. that of the Caesars, was existent when the Revelation was given; the seventh, though it has appeared, has not yet been perfected; the eighth, which is reserved for Antichrist, closes the scene.

End quote.

Interesting, huh?

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

PWTribune said...

Orange> Are you now attempting to completely refute any connection that the heads have with empires?<

Of course not. Without empires there's no such thing as kings. But like I said in part six, "In verse ten of chapter seventeen the interpretation of the seven heads is said to be seven kings, and I think there's a reason why only kings are specified rather than kings and empires." Since that point I've been discussing why this particular passage doesn't seem to be speaking of both (kings and empires).

The reason is...I don't think it works! It seems the vision is focusing in on the individual for a reason. To specifically identify him. Why need to identify that a head is a kingdom, as well? We all know that IF there's a king there's a kingdom. If there's no kingdom he's not a king.

You keep asking ME questions, but in order to inform me how the heads could flip flop from kings to empires and have no contradictions you need to present a way that there are actually no contradictions. So can you? So there's YOUR question. :) I'll gladly accept it if it doesn't contradict the text like your mountain theory does. wink.

Orange>but the entire beast with seven heads and ten horns is beyond just one man in description.<

Obviously. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been on this aspect. ?


Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Yeah, interesting point.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

This is hard to follow.

Dave, is the beast with seven heads an individual?

Are the seven heads individuals?

Robert said...

pwtribune & orangeman > on a side note it is so resfreshing to see a discussion with some disagreements on a topic without mud slinging and with maturity in which we can all learn and also be edified .

PWTribune said...

I'm out of town for a couple of days. So play nice.


The Orange Mailman said...

Hey Dave B.-

I'm asking a lot of questions because I'm trying to get you to think. I know you are analytical and will come to your own conclusions so I'm just trying to get you to contemplate possibilities. I'm not satisfied with my views to be perfectly honest.

For a break to this little debate, I'll present a thought to you that I've never shared with anyone else till now. Here is something I have mulled over and can't see why it can't be so.

The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. Then there are seven kings. The seven kings are not connected to the seven mountains. Since we are primarily viewing Babylon, we must see things from the perspective that we are looking at Babylon _first_, and getting details about the seven headed ten horned beast _second_.

With that in mind, we are looking at a beast which is carrying the prostitute. This is Babylon in her prime. This is after the establishment of the city which controls the entire world's commerce. And it is just before antichrist appears on the scene. The seven headed ten horned beast carries Babylon, but once the man of sin appears, he hates her and wants all the glory for himself.

So our picture of Babylon is at a point in time just before antichrist is empowered at the midpoint. Once he is empowered by Satan, it won't be long before the prostitute is toast, that is, burned with fire. Less than three years in my view. Here is where you can apply some "was, and is not, and yet is" logic that you have been writing about. Am I correct in reading that you may be applying this as a way of John seeing things from inside Daniel's seventieth week instead of from his temporal viewpoint?

If that is so, we could have the secret to exactly who the antichrist will be once Babylon the Great is carried by the seven headed ten horned beast to her status as ruler of the world's commerce. The seven kings, from the perspective of the harlot at her prime, are described in 17:10. These would be individuals and not empires. Five kings, that is, rulers within this empire, will have fallen. Five men of power who have held the same position of power will have fallen, but the sixth will be concurrent with the prostitute in her prime. The seventh is future, but will only be in power for a short time. The eighth in succession is one of the seven, since there are only seven kings total.

So, just to flesh this out. We have the creation of a ten nation confederacy. We have the creation of a position of power within that ten nation confederacy. This confederacy establishing a city to be the center of trade. The first man to hold the position of power within the confederacy will not be the antichrist. Then there will be the second, and so on to the sixth. At this point in time we get a snapshot of the woman drunk on the blood of the saints.

But the seven mountians, in my view, would either be seven empires, or be the seven mountains of Rome, Pergamos, or Jerusalem.

Whaddaya think?

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

Overcomer said...

Hi Dave and Everyone,

Kathy Hall here. I just wanted to drop in and say that I rewrote my prewrath testimony and posted it to a new blog. I think I explain the prewrath position more clearly. You are welcome to drop by and tell me what you think.

(My head is swimming with all the heads. I think I'll just let you guys figure it out.) =)

PWTribune said...


It sounds very interesting, and is certainly different than the road I've been going down. AND it would solve the dilemma about the 8th being one of the seven because the previous seven could still be alive. But what about the head wound to death? How does this fit in with your thoughts?

I have to give this some more thought. As you can tell, I haven't posted in almost two weeks, but hopefully I can find time to finish this topic and move on to easier thoughts!


PWTribune said...

Matthew asked> Dave, is the beast with seven heads an individual?

Are the seven heads individuals?<

I think that the beast with seven heads is NOT an individual, but the entire beast system as a whole. What I'm trying to convey is that it appears to me that in 17:8 the text shifts and begins speaking of all the different aspects of the entire beast system. The beast spoken of in 17:8 doesn't appear to be the system as a whole, but THE individual beast (the antichrist). The other aspects of the beast empire as a whole are then explained from that point on ie. the seven heads, ten horns, etc.

Similarly, in Rev 13:3-4 it appears to me that the text shifts from the beast system as a whole and begins speaking of the ONE aspect of that system. THE beast. The antichrist individual. THAT individual beast is the beast that I think is referred to in chapter 17:8 when it says, "The beast that you saw, was, is not and will come." Therefore the beast/antichrist was, is not and will come via the fatal wound. From the perspective of those during the 70th Week, he "was" (alive), is not (slain) and will come (wound healed).

That help clarify what I'm trying to say?


Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Yes. Thanks.

The Orange Mailman said...

Hey Dave B.-

About the head wound-

Since the sevens heads are seven mountains and not connected to the seven kings in my humble view, we could have "one of the heads" being mortally wounded with a miraculous recovery. The wound is inflicted by the sword. The result of the miraculous recovery is that people worship the dragon and believe that nobody can make war against the beast.

Now here is where some of the pop lingo breaks down. It is assumed that the beast is just a regular guy, then gets assasinated, brought back to life but at that point becomes empowered by Satan. No can do. Satan gives the beast his power, his throne, and great authority before the head wound. The entire kingdom is empowered by Satan when this catastrophe occurs.

So my theory, and it is just a theory, is that the head wound represents some type of war disaster to the point where the army, or country, or territory which is represented by this head is to the point where it cannot survive. But by some miracle during this war, the wound on this one head of the beast is supernaturally healed. The world is overcome with awe and wonders how war against this ten kingdom confederacy is even possible in light of such a stunning against-all-odds victory.

But once the beast receives a mouth and begins speaking, the imagery shifts to reflect that we are viewing the leader, or little horn.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

PWTribune said...


OK, you know my problem with the mountains, but here's my problem with the translation, "And there are seven kings."

It seems very inconsistent to divorce the seven kings from the seven heads, and to say they are separate. "The heads are seven mountains AND they are seven kings," to me, seems like the only correct translation. EVEN IF the other is a correct TRANSLATION I don't think we can say that the heads are not kings.

The whole point of the description in verses 8-13 is just that, a description. John is told, "Why do you wonder. I will show you the mystery of the woman and the beast that carries her."

So we have every part of the beast and woman explained to us. The heads are this, the horns are that, etc. But now we have 7 kings that are NOT a part of the beast? 7 kings that are NOT shown in the vision of the beast and woman? It seems that the heads MUST represent mountains AND kings so that the kings actually fit the vision.

Maybe I misunderstood you?


The Orange Mailman said...

Nawww, you got me dead to rights. Hey, I looked up on Crosswalk the references for the original Greek and it shows something interesting. It doesn't prove anything about what we are debating as far as if the kings of verse 10 are another explanation for the mountains or not. But I think it shows something significant.§ion=0&version=str&new=1&oq=&NavBook=re&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6

The page I'm providing a link to is one that has links to the Greek words in the majority text. If you notice some words are not underlined and have no link. Those are words where there is no word in the Greek. Now notice the end of verse 9 and there is a little asterisk. That means there is a word in the Greek that is not translated. That word is hopou and means where.

Now note this. The word translated "which" in verse 9 is "auto" or something like that. It can be translated "himself" or "herself" and is translated "him" in verses 10 and 11 referring to the beast. So....

If we follow the majority text, we could have a phrase in verse 9 that reads something like this, "The seven heads are seven mountains, on him the woman sits where (he is)."

But as to your point about the seven kings not being a part of the beast, hear this little tidbit. When verse 11 comes in, we have a refocus on the beast. Why? If verse 10 has already been talking about the beast, why would verse 11 come in and say that the beast is the eighth and is only ONE of the seven. If all seven kings are a part of the beast, why would the verse specify that the beast has identification with only ONE of the kings?

So the woman is sitting on the beast, wherever he is at. There are also seven kings. The beast is the eighth in a succession of those seven kings being one of the seven. I suppose you and I are the only ones in the entire world who actually care about this debate, but it has been fun.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

mshipmate said...

regarding the "was" and "is" dilemma....
Rev. 17:8 says:The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; *and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:* and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

*and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:*

This tell us who the 'beast' is. There is only one 'being' that 'ascends out of the bottomless pit' and that is satan. There is also only one being that's already been sentenced to be destroyed i.e perish(See Ezek 28:18) and that is also satan. So the 'beast' is satan himself (not some 'man').

"was, and is not"; means he (satan) was the serpent in the garden of Eden, but is not the serpent at this moment in time.

v10:And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

These 7 'kings' represent 7 'offices' of satan: He was the serpent, he is the accuser, and the one 'yet to come' will be the office of antichrist for a 'short space' then his eighth office will come into play when he 'goes into perdition.

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


Strong Watchman said...

The answer to your dilemma of a seventh empire is and seventh head of the beast is shown in two ways.
1. What did all the beast empires have in common?
ANSWER: They all ruled over Jerusalem.

2. Who conquered Rome?
ANSWER: The Germanic Tribes conquered the Western half of Rome...and Rome moved it's capital to Constantinople...and ruled over Jerusalem as well...until the Turkish Ottoman Empire conquered them.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire was Islamic. It ended around well as the office of the Islamic Caliphate who united the Empire. The caliphate's seat of power was in Turkey. The Turkish Ottoman Empire also ruled over Jerusalem...even built the Dome of The Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque on the Jewish Temple Mount.

The people will be amazed when an Islamic Caliphate, Last Mahdi, 12th Imam...unifies the Islamic world into a bloc of nations...and brings a "false" peace to the Middle East.

Who else could bring peace to this region and Jerusalem except the all powerful Muslim Caliphate who reigns in the chaotic peoples of Islam?

Iran's Mahmoud Amadhinejad wants to usher in this time of the Last Mahdi. The seventh empire has died...and will be revived - into the 8th. We are seeing the destabilization right now in front of out eyes...someone must come along and stabilize the Middle East and it's chaotic Islamic Revolutionaries. ENTER The AntiChrist aka Islamic Caliphate.

You can read more about it here.

God Bless you as you continue to search out the scriptures.