So the answer to this thread is this; The United Nations is not the 8th king, not yet anyway...

 

You know, I've wondered how to respond to your latest's posts here on E-jw.org, and this is what I've come up with. The charter of this forum pretty much answers for its purpose. Now, you've called out the Administrators here and have suggested and I quote, "You are as bad as D**** when it comes to speculation and private interpretation. You are a deceiver." As well you opened a thread attempted to warn others of this as well.

Now, I don't know if you have noticed here or not but, just in case you haven't there are 303 posts here on this thread with many discussing different ideas as to what each entity is, and none of us agree to any great extent. So let me ask you, of what authority do you judge others? By who's authority do you point your finger at someone else to claim error on their part? And as well may I ask who appointed you the know it all?

This forum's purpose is for a peaceful gathering of our brothers and sisters to openly discuss scripture with each other when we do not have a platform elsewhere, and we do so respectfully and with all do respect for others ideas. I haven't addressed your recent posts, but I will do so now. If you continue to bring descent in morality and disrespect for others, your membership on this forum will be restricted until such time as you wish to respect others without judging and attempting to degrade others characters as is disallowed in this forum.

Now as to your most recent comment. Let me quote Jehovah himself at Gen 40:8; "Do not all interpretations belong to God?" So therefore Cisco, hang around, sit back, wait awhile, because Jehovah also says; "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Mat 5:18) So don't worry, nothing you can say, nor anything I can say that will change what is coming. All things will be revealed in their time. All things will be revealed. And there will be nothing that has been covered that will not be uncovered.

However, what I am concerned with at the moment as it pertains to this forum is this. This DB has my name and as well Utuna's as Administrators, and Wallflower as moderator, and we will not have others feel uncomfortable coming here because we have someone who disrespects members here. So choose a Christlike approach to the friends here, or kindly request removal...

 

Well said Joshua and BTG.

Christo, I like you my friend, but we have to just agree to disagree about some things don't we?

Nobody on this planet completely agrees about spirituality, prophecy, etc.

YES, there is truth. But NO, none of us have it 100%

So .. I don't know, maybe just chill I guess


(Joshua, I've been on vacation and haven't been online in awhile, catching up on reality now)

 

Anyone care to tell me why it's the beast out of the abyss that kills the two witnesses and not the one from the sea that acts 42 months? If these two events of coming out of the sea and abyss are suppose to be the same moment, why does Rev 11:7 say that it's the beast out of the "abyss" that kills the two witnesses, yet it's the beast from the "sea" that acts 42 months?

"When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them" (Rev 11:7)

"And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea," (Rev 13:1) and "It was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and it was given authority to act for 42 months." (Rev 13:5)

Hmm, could it be that when the beast starts to act at the beginning of the 42 months it's from the sea, but buy the time it goes into the abyss and comes out the two witnesses work is over and it's at that time they are killed?

Anyone thinking the beast in Rev 13 kills the two witnesses has a big problem because that beast is from the sea, the beast that kills the two witnesses is from the abyss. Can you prove scripturaly that the sea and the abyss are the same???? I don't think so...

What say you?

 

Because the beast coming out of the sea are the nations which derived from the Mediterranean, Babylon / Persia / Greece.

These nations permuted into Rome, which transitioned into the 'clay/iron' Western World, which is about to go into the abyss

[now we're talking Daniel 2]

So: out of the sea == Origin, beginning || abyss == death stroke, approaching conclusion

This overview is proven by compiling Daniel 7, 8 and Revelation 13, 17, 18 into a cohesive framework, connecting the various dots. (not adding anti-types)

Revelation 13:1-2 covers a period of 2600 years.

 

Another interesting note:

Babylon, Persia, Greece are named explicitly in prophecy.

Rome is not.

Revelation 13:1-2 repeats this by leaving Rome out of the picture, however, unlike ~600 BCE when Daniel was written, Rome DID exist when Revelation was written.

Why is that?

 

So tell me why the scripture clarifies the beast from the abyss kills the two witnesses and not the beast from the sea?

There is no way to separate the fact that the beast comes out of the sea with the death stroke healed. You are trying to say the beast has no death stroke when it comes from the sea, but receives the death stroke later after entering and exiting the abyss, you are in error, Rev 13 clearly states the beast comes from the sea with the death stroke healed. Going beyond that is adding more then what is there, you must agree, no?

Again, it is said the two witnesses are killed by the beast out of the abyss, not the sea.

 

Can you quote the scripture you are referencing about 'coming out of the sea' being the rise from the abyss?

(because that strikes me as interpretation of Rev 13, rather than explicit statement - the events can easily be separated)

Edit:

Rev 13:1-2 == origin, marker of origination used to authenticate the empire in question

Rev 13:3-10 == conclusion

Rev 13:11 == timeline reset, right after the deathstroke -> conclusion

 

O course... It is quite simple. Rev 13:1; "And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea," And Rev 13:3; "I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been fatally wounded, but its mortal wound had been healed,"

[FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, serif]These scriptures clearly say that the beast comes out of the "sea" with the death stroke healed, not the abyss. If anyone says that the beast does not come out of the sea with a healed death stroke you are obviously giving some kind of interpretation and understanding contrary to what is written.

At the beasts creation, at it's birth, it has a healed death stroke out of the "sea". One can say that is what creates it. There is no way to say the abyssing of Rev 17 is what gives the beast in Rev 13 it's death stroke because it comes out of the sea already having a death stroke healed. There is simply no way around this unless you want to go beyond what is written.

Which goes back to my question about the two witnesses. These two are killed by the beast from the abyss, although the beast from 13 comes from the sea. So therefore it is not the beast in Rev 13 that kills the two witnesses....[/FONT]

 

Is it possible that verse 3 is a timeline reset to the present?

Just like verse 11 when the timeline resets to immediately after the deathstroke.

On the surface, the sea is either spiritually understood as 'out of mankind' or literally understood as the Mediterranean, in this case, given the marker of Babylon / Persia / Greece, I side towards Mediterranean, which makes 1-2 an authenticator for the nation we're talking about (post-Roman system).

IMO going beyond what is written would be something like inserting ideas which don't occur in Revelation into the text, rather than looking for a framework to understand what IS there.

In this case, I see 3 sections of Rev 13, which correlate perfectly with what Daniel 2, 7, 8 are telling us. I also think it's a 'clue' that Rome is not mentioned.

So, what do you suggest is the reason for the missing (and most important empire) Rome in Rev 13?

 

No.... Let me explain. There is nothing to say that John isn't simply continuing his description of the beast he sees coming out of the sea. In verse one he sees the beast coming from the sea, in verse three he is simply continuing to describe the beast he sees coming out of the sea. To say that there is any jump in time or any other events occur in between verses 1 & 3 is adding to what is there.

It's quite simple, John is describing the beast coming out of the sea, and that beast comes out of the sea with a healed death stroke.

Again, I believe you have this event wrong as well. The coming out of the earth occurs the same moment as the beast coming out of the sea. These two events occur at the same moment.

Let me explain by giving you my explanation of the players. First beast is the UN formed in 1946, the death stroke is to the 6th king Britain after WWII, that forms the 7th king which is the 2nd beast with two horns of Rev 13, Anglo-America. Therefore the beast from the sea and from the earth come on the scene at the same moment. This is still before the first beast of Rev 13 goes into the abyss, and before the second beast from the earth losses it's throne at the fifth bowl.

Regardless, as I said, one cannot separate the time period between Rev 1 and 3 because John is describing the beast from the sea as coming from the sea with a healed death stroke. Rev 1:3 "I saw that one of its heads" It doesn't say "after this", it doesn't say "then later I saw". It clearly says that John saw it's head as it was coming out of the sea.

Brother regardless, this all comes down to the 42 months the first beast comes against the courtyard. Dan 7:11 says the 7th beast losses it's throne 450 days before the new world comes in, therefore the beast from the sea cannot have come from the abyss yet. That is the main factor here, besides Rev confirms this anyway. The 8th king will come on the scene years after the 42 months begin.

Again as I've said, this beast makes up all the beasts of Dan 7, and every beast from Dan 7 has a modern fulfillment. Therefore the combined collection of these modern countries is the United Nations.

Agreed, but the only way to understand what each event is in scripture is to first understand what event comes before or after the other. That is the most important work in understanding prophecy.

 

I see no reason why we can't place Rev 13:1-2 here:

"The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss,+ and it is to go off into destruction.

And Rev 13:3 here:

The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction.

Also note that Rev 13: 2 is breaking from the metaphor and telling us that Satan rules this beast, so right there is an 'idea shift' that breaks outside the timeline.



What does the sea have to do with the abyss? That is mixing the proverbial metaphor and invalidating their meaning.

The sea is either mankind (the waters) or the Mediterranean sea it would seem, I see no reference to the abyss as equaling the sea, so we have no precedence for that understanding to draw upon.

(presuming you are suggesting that the coming out of the sea with the healed deathstroke == the abyss)


Similar question:

How can it be said that Babylon / Persia / Greece represent the UN? - that is ignoring the indicators, and saying "it represents a bunch of nations"

The metaphors are explicit: stanced like Persia, composed like Greece, speaks like Babylon - this cannot be ignored, it MUST have direct implication, otherwise it's just 'fluff'

 

Well number one, the beast in Rev 13 has only one of it's heads with a healed death stroke. Rev 17 says the whole beast goes into the abyss and then comes out. That would have to mean that all the heads would have had a death stroke then healed. Also the sea and the abyss are not the same thing. Coming from the sea is the creation of the beast in Rev 13. The "whole" beast goes into the abyss, the "Whole" beast not just one head. The beast is created with a healed death stroke to one head, there is simply no way around that. There is no way to say that the "whole" beast going into the abyss and then coming out is the same thing as its creation from the sea with only one healed head.

Also the lion of of the beast of Rev 13 is Babylon, and it's not till after the beast of Rev 17 comes out of the abyss is Babylon destroyed. However the lion is still part of the beast in Rev 13.

Again brother, in Rev 17 the whole beast goes into the abyss, and that is after we saw it. When Rev 17 says "the beast you saw" it means the beast that had the healed death stroke. Does it mean the beast you saw from rev 13:1-2 only? No, it means from Rev 13:1-10. You have to agree with that, it's the only thing that makes sense. That alone debunks the death stroke to one head being the abyssing in 17. Now after that, that whole beast goes into the abyss. Rev 13 says only one head had a death stroke.

Now let's talk about exact wording for a second. Does Rev 13 ever say that the head went into the abyss? So therefore that head in Rev 13 never went into the abyss. That head is never said going into the abyss. Besides it was only one head, and the whole beast, all the heads, all of them go into the abyss in Rev 17.

I would have to disagree, I don't see any timeline change here. It simply says the dragon gave the beast it's throne when it came from the sea, at it's creation. So now you are telling me there are three different time periods? One when the beast comes from the sea, one when Satan hands it it's power, and one when it comes out of the abyss? Some argue that the coming out of the sea and the abyss are the same event, that is impossible because you say there is a time period between Rev 13:1 and 13:3, impossible. Now as to there being a time period between 13:1 and 13:3, where is the proof. Where is the time frame? How long is it? It's not there, John is clearly describing the beast in Rev 13:3 as it looks coming out of the sea. You are trying to force the abyss in between these scriptures because it fits a theory that you have, but you need to think for a second, what if your wrong? Rev 13:1-3 are the same moment and event.

The sea and the abyss are two separate things and the beast in Rev 13 comes from the sea with the death stroke, there is simply no way around that, John clearly says, "I saw that one of its heads" That is a clear indication that John is continuing on the description from verse one. What does he mean by one of it's heads? Well that's in verse one, it has seven heads, so it can only be talking about one of the head in verse one as it is is seen in verse one, not that head somewhere in some future time. End case...

There is no way to put the abyssing in between the coming from the sea and the death stroke unless you simply are trying to prove something that is not there. Why not put in between there the scriptures of throwing the beast and false prophet into the lake of fire at Rev 19:20 in between Rev 13:1 and 13:3? At that point you could put in anything you want to try and prove any theory there is. One could say at that point that the beast and false prophet would be coming back from the abyss after being thrown into the lake of fire by Christ. Who's to say at that point that Rev 19:20 couldn't be the abyssing and the beast and false prophet would be raised after Christ throws them into the abyss at Armageddon?

It has to be simple, cut and dry, John is describing the beast as he seas it coming out of the sea. And Rev 17 says "the beast you saw" not from verse 1-2 and skip a scripture here or there, it means the beast you saw, and he saw it with a healed head.

All of this is irreverent unless you know the chronology anyway. I keep saying that it's the chronology of Daniel that proves the order of events. The beast of Rev 13 act 42 months, but the beast that kills the two witnesses only lives 15 months.

You have yet answered my question as to why it's the beast out of the abyss that kills the two witnesses and not the beast from the sea, yet it's the beast from the sea that acts 42 months....

These entities have modern fulfillment. Babylon of Dan 2 = Lion Dan 7 = Lion Rev 13 = Babylon Re 17...

 

Not necessarily. I subscribe to the 'heads over time' theory, which can be shown in Rev 17:10.

So the active head-beast-system goes into the abyss, and comes out.

There is precedence for this:- the statue in Daniel 2 shows 5 empires contained in one 'body', which are collectively destroyed when the 'feet' are struck by the stone.

Edit: I thought you also subscribed to the heads over time framework?

 

Yes, I would suggest there are three time periods in Rev 13

1 = formation of the beast (Babylon -> Persia -> Greece -> XXX -> XXX, this authenticates with Daniel 7 and 8)

3 - 10 = post death-stroke events leading to the end period, dealing with the first beast

10 - end = post death-stroke, rise of the second beast and image events, into the end period

However, I'm not suggesting that 13:2 is a timeline reset, just saying that its a transition from 1 to 3, not relating to timeline, but 'who controls the beast'.

Giving impetus to say that 3 is a timeline reset.

 

No, the death-stroke IS the abyss'ing. To insert the DESTRUCTION of the beast into :3 would be a mistake, I agree.

[hence, it comes out of the abyss and goes into destruction]

Coming out of the abyss is the same event as the healing from the death-stroke.

Coming out of the sea is the formation of the beast predicated on Babylon/Persia/Greece and specific attributes of those empires.

 

The answer: because the beast out of the sea and the beast out of the abyss are the same beast at different times.

The eight king is the healed death-stroke beast. The Anglo-American-European system which is about to collapse under it's own weight will rise and become the eighth king.

The second beast [two-horned-lamb-dragon] (maybe UK-US, or possibly an overtly "Christian" duo) props up the Anglo-American-European system.

The image is the UN, or something like it, which is used as a moniker of the first beast, to force allegiance. (the 66 ft. golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar)

Why do these entities have a modern fulfillment? Isn't that overt speculation rather than letting the Bible interpret itself?

I still don't understand your reasoning for why Babylon/Persia/Greece are mentioned as attributes of the beast, that must mean something, explicitly, or it wouldn't be there.

 

Why would Rev 13 describe a beast in one verse if everything after does not pertain to anything having to do with that verse? Why wouldn't Jehovah just have described the beast after coming out of the abyss? What is the purpose of Rev 13:1?