Maybe not to old?

This is the place for your Solana sound and video clips. Please use the "Clip Discussion Thread" for your comments. The forum's main purpose is to provide convenient first hand source information.

Maybe not to old?

Postby mrgravyard49 on Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:30 pm

mrgravyard49
 
Posts: 2855
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:51 pm
Location: Columbus Ohio

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:55 am

Nice video, facts, and supporting evidence. The man remains an extremely strong AC candidate, as long as the ENP is a viable "Covenant With Many."
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:56 am

For those who are not aware ...
The four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and the four kingdoms of Daniel 7 are not the same four kingdoms.
The video says they are the same; they are not the same.

In Chapter 2, the First Kingdom is Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (reign 605-562 BC).
In Chapter 7, the First Kingdom is Achaemenid Empire (The First Persian Empire) under Cyrus the Great (reign 559-530BC).

Dan 2:38 describes Nebuchadnezzar as the The Head of Gold ( the first of four Kingdoms in Dan 2) (reign 605-562 BC).
Dan 7:1 says the vision occurred during the first year of Belshazzar over Babylon (co-regent 553-543 BC).
Dan 7:17 says these four kings of Dan 7 shall rise. Therefore, not even the first of the four kings in Chapter 7 had yet risen.

Nebuchadnezzar passed in 562 BC, 9 years prior to Daniel's vision in Chapter 7.

Cyrus the Great began rising in 559 BC when he became King of Persia;
Cyrus finished rising in 539 BC when he conquered Babylon from Belshazzar's father, King Nabonidus.
King of Persia.....559 - 530 BC
King of Media.....549 - 530 BC
King of Lydia......547 - 530 BC
King of Babylon...539 - 530 BC

Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:10 am

keithareilly wrote:For those who are not aware ... The four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and the four kingdoms of Daniel 7 are not the same four kingdoms.The video says they are the same; they are not the same.


Hi Keith,

What I leaned from this video, as far as the Kingdoms are concern is that he was making a point of there being 4. He mentioned that Daniel 2 describes the Babylonian Kingdom - but states that the "Imagery mentioned in Daniel 7 matches the Empires described in Daniel 2."

He places emphasis on the 4th Empire - which is vitally important to the point he was trying to make identifying Javier Solana. The evidence, and facts he uses to back up his theory just cannot be ignored.

Something to keep in mind is that if the Roman Empire was the 4th Empire and it went away - then it certainly appears to be coming alive again in the EU - and in our time. Almost like it received a "mortal wound;" appeared to be dead or slain - and has come back to life in the EU. :mrgreen: - Revelation 13:3
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:22 am

Hi Mr Baldy.

As you said, The video was full of facts.
I am not trying to discredit the video. It was informative and interesting.
It provides a perspective that is certainly worth considering and monitoring.

Because the imagery of Chapter 2 matches the imagery of Chapter 7, people assume they are the same four kingdoms. The facts indicate the four kingdoms in Daniel 2 do not correspond with the four Kingdoms in Daniel 7; it is a definite mistake to say they are the same four kingdoms. We have four Kingdoms in Daniel 2 we have four Kingdoms in Daniel 7. We know for a fact one of the Kingdoms in Daniel 2 had already passed before the visions of four yet future kingdoms occurred in Daniel 7. So the facts indicate they are not describing the same four kingdoms. If the remaining three Kingdoms described in Chapter 2 correspond to three of the four Kingdoms of Chapter 7 then we are talking about five kingdoms. If none of the kingdoms in chapter 2 correspond to any of the Kingdoms in Chapter 7 then we are talking about eight kingdoms.


The Roman Empire is History. A revived Roman Empire is what many await. It is not unreasonable.
The following Dynasties are considered manifestations of the Persian Empire which began with Cyrus the Great.
Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) - First Beast of Daniel 7
Sasanian Empire (224–651 AD)
Safavid dynasty (1501–1736 AD)
Afsharid dynasty (1736–1796 AD)
Qajar dynasty (1785–1925 AD)


It is reasonable for Many to consider the EU a manifestation of the Roman Empire.
Considering the Roman Empire started as a republic before becoming an empire,
we might view the EU as having been in the republic phase for some time.
The currently leaderships attempts to eliminate nationalism could be viewed as the coming end of the republic phase and rise of empire phase. Or it could be viewed as the elimination of nations and finalization of the republic phase. Have to wait and see.

I posted what I posted because facts are important. I do not know if any of the Kingdoms in Chapter 2 correspond with any of the Kingdoms in Chapter 7. I do not consider the EU as corresponding with the historical Roman Empire.

It would be interesting if Christs visitation occurred during the Roman Empire and His return occurs during the EU.



Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:50 am

keithareilly wrote: If none of the kingdoms in chapter 2 correspond to any of the Kingdoms in Chapter 7 then we are talking about eight kingdoms.


Keith, you are correct :grin: - more on this as I close.

keithareilly wrote:It is reasonable for Many to consider the EU a manifestation of the Roman Empire. Considering the Roman Empire started as a republic before becoming an empire, we might view the EU as having been in the republic phase for some time. The currently leaderships attempts to eliminate nationalism could be viewed as the coming end of the republic phase and rise of empire phase. Or it could be viewed as the elimination of nations and finalization of the republic phase. Have to wait and see.


I happen to be one of those who considers the EU as a manifestation of the Roman Empire. I believe what has been going on with its ever continuing development shows very strong evidence that it is. One recent example is the "talks" of establishing an EU Army - and lets not forget the monetary system they went to as an Empire, and the elimination of passport requirements to enter various countries within.

keithareilly wrote:I do not consider the EU as corresponding with the historical Roman Empire.

keithareilly wrote: If none of the kingdoms in chapter 2 correspond to any of the Kingdoms in Chapter 7 then we are talking about eight kingdoms.


Lets add a little Scripture to the aforementioned comments that you've made:

Revelation 17:9-11 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9) Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10) and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11) The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.


I believe that the aforementioned passage of Scripture provides sufficient proof and tremendous evidence that what is occurring with the EU is actually fulfilling prophecy - and also describes what you have mentioned concerning 8 Kingdoms.

For those who do not see the current EU as corresponding with the historical Roman Empire - the perhaps its time to take a closer view.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:37 am

Hey Mr Baldy.

"Eighth" a very interesting correlation indeed.

Had not thought of that one.

I have wondered if one set of kingdoms are the thread of events and kingdoms for His visitation and the other are the thread of events and Kingdoms for His return. Not even speculation. Just a random thought.

Just FYI, I am not saying the EU is not a manifestation of the Roman Empire.
I provided an example of how the Persian Empire is considered to have multiple manifestations.
So, I do not have a problem with the EU being a manifestation of the Roman Empire.

The EU is not the historical Roman Empire and it never will be.
That does not mean it cannot be a manifestation of the Roman Empire.

Finally, eight kingdoms are eight kingdoms.
Perhaps the historical Roman Empire was one of the eight; but, it is not the eighth.
The EU maybe the eighth, but the historical Roman Empire is not.

If you are saying "the eighth, being one of the seven", is an expression of the EU being its own kingdom while also being a manifestation of the Roman empire, I am fine with that view.



Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:20 pm

keithareilly wrote:If you are saying "the eighth, being one of the seven", is an expression of the EU being its own kingdom while also being a manifestation of the Roman empire, I am fine with that view.



I'm not saying this Keith - Scripture very clearly states it. Here it is again:

Mr Baldy wrote: Revelation 17:9-11 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9) Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10) and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.

11) The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.


I don't believe that it gets any clearer than that. :grin:
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:44 pm

Well,

I guess I am having trouble with what you are saying.

When I read that verse I see a ruler who had power then lost it then regained it.
And I don't see that ruler as any older than a normal person.

So, I certainly do not see this as a reference to a revived roman empire.
As a matter of fact, a revived roman empire is not mentioned anywhere in scripture.
It is just peoples interpretation of what a scripture means.
Personally, I don't look for a revived roman empire.
But, some people do and I do my best to find some common ground to communicate with.

Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:20 pm

keithareilly wrote:I guess I am having trouble with what you are saying.


Keith.....let me see if I can explain this passage of Scripture the way that I am interpreting it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else - perhaps I am wrong.

First, I don't see this as a "ruler who has lost power then regained it."

This passage of Scripture mentions both King and Kingdom. The Kings are synonymous with Kingdoms. A King must have a Kingdom in order to be a King.

This passage of Scripture goes on to mention that "the other has not come" and when he comes - he "must remain a little while."

Verse 11 is KEY - It says that:

" The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction."

The Beast which was = The Roman Empire - now it "is not" but IS currently being reestablished in the EU.

The EU is the "Eighth" and "is one of the seven "or the "Roman Empire" which is "Revived" and will go into destruction at the Appearing of Christ.

The Books of Daniel & Revelation work in perfect harmony with each other when considering the Final Empire, and Final Antichrist.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:07 pm

Mr Baldy wrote ...
The Beast which was = The Roman Empire - now it "is not" but IS currently being reestablished in the EU.

The EU is the "Eighth" and "is one of the seven "or the "Roman Empire" which is "Revived" and will go into destruction at the Appearing of Christ.


Yea, I get that people interpret the EU as a revived roman empire. I don't; but, its not worth arguing over.
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:25 am

keithareilly wrote:Mr Baldy wrote ...
The Beast which was = The Roman Empire - now it "is not" but IS currently being reestablished in the EU.

The EU is the "Eighth" and "is one of the seven "or the "Roman Empire" which is "Revived" and will go into destruction at the Appearing of Christ.


Yea, I get that people interpret the EU as a revived roman empire. I don't; but, its not worth arguing over.


I dont see it as an argument at all. :grin:

I've never been dogmatic about my views - and I have stated many times that I could be wrong. But what's not wrong is the evidence at this time in history, has been overwhelmingly strong to indicate that the EU is the Revived Roman Empire.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:08 am

Hey Mr Baldy,

Rev 17:11
"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

Many people read this verse and and see an empire that was and is not and is yet to come. But, it does not say that. It says "himself" is one of the seven and is also the eighth. It says a person once was a ruler now is not and yet will come.

This phrase equates the beast with a person
The beast which was and is not, is himself

This phrase re-enforces an individual person who becomes the eighth ruler was also one of the seven rulers.
himself is also an eighth and is one of the seven

This verse is limited to the life span of an individual. It does not span centuries.
Consequently, I look for an EU ruler who holds office twice, non consecutively, thus, I have not ruled out the return of Javier Solana.


Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby 4givenmuch on Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:23 pm

The thing that I don't get with this scripture is that John wrote it while the Roman Empire was still a thing... how does that fit?
Seek Humility!
User avatar
4givenmuch
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:04 am

4givenmuch,

It does not fit the view of a returned Roman Empire.
It was never about the return of an empire, the Roman Empire, or any other empire.

It is a prophecy about eight consecutive terms of office, held by seven different people, during a future kingdom (nation, country, state, alliance, union). One of the seven people has multiple terms that are not consecutive terms. Hence the eighth is one of the seven.

The return of the beast is not the return of an empire, it the return of a man to a nation's leadership role.


Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:52 am

keithareilly wrote:Hey Mr Baldy,

Rev 17:11
"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

Many people read this verse and and see an empire that was and is not and is yet to come. But, it does not say that. It says "himself" is one of the seven and is also the eighth. It says a person once was a ruler now is not and yet will come.

This phrase equates the beast with a person
The beast which was and is not, is himself

This phrase re-enforces an individual person who becomes the eighth ruler was also one of the seven rulers.
himself is also an eighth and is one of the seven

This verse is limited to the life span of an individual. It does not span centuries.
Consequently, I look for an EU ruler who holds office twice, non consecutively, thus, I have not ruled out the return of Javier Solana.


Keith


Hi Keith,

I think that we partially agree on this. However, I want to further examine something that you have mentioned and get your thought on it.


keithareilly wrote:Rev 17:11"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. Many people read this verse and see an empire that was and is not and is yet to come. But, it does not say that. It says "himself" is one of the seven and is also the eighth. It says a person once was a ruler now is not and yet will come.


I have emboldened what you have mentioned to illustrate a different view. As I mentioned earlier, A King cannot be a King without a Kingdom. I believe that this verse can be interpreted as an Empire/Man because it states the Seventh - which was the Roman Empire and, "the Eighth and is one of the Seven." The Kingdom is synonymous with the King. Now we know that because of time - the original King of the Seventh Kingdom cannot be the King of the Eighth Kingdom- it has to be a different man. The "Beast" mentioned is an Empire and also a man.

Reading further in Revelation 19:20, we see that the Beast (Empire) and False Prophet (Antichrist) are both cast alive into the Lake of Fire.

Doom of the Beast and False Prophet

20) And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.


Now many will disagree with me here, but I don't believe that the "Beast" mentioned is a literal man - and I further believe that the "False Prophet" is the Antichrist. I say this because John who wrote the Book of Revelation never mentions a "False Prophet" or that there are Two End Time Players in any other of his writings. He does however mention that "Antichrist will come." (1 John 2:18) Also keep in mind that the Book of Revelation is written in both metaphorical and symbolic language. I think that sufficient evidence exists that Revelation 13 mentions both Beast Empire (from the Sea) and Beast Man (Antichrist) - who works behind the power of Satan.

keithareilly wrote:This phrase equates the beast with a person The beast which was and is not, is himself


Please keep in mind the metaphorical language used in the Book of Revelation. Daniel 7 is an excellent example in which the word "beast" equals Empires.

keithareilly wrote:This phrase re-enforces an individual person who becomes the eighth ruler was also one of the seven rulers. himself is also an eighth and is one of the seven


I agree in part - but it also identifies a Kingdom as well. This is why many believe that the Roman Empire will be revived.

keithareilly wrote:This verse is limited to the life span of an individual. It does not span centuries. Consequently, I look for an EU ruler who holds office twice, non consecutively, thus, I have not ruled out the return of Javier Solana.


We most definitely agree on this! :grin:
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:57 am

4givenmuch wrote:The thing that I don't get with this scripture is that John wrote it while the Roman Empire was still a thing... how does that fit?


Hi 4givenmuch,

This is why we have Prophecy. The events foretold will surely come to past. I believe that we are witnessing that in the EU.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:10 am

keithareilly wrote:4givenmuch,

It does not fit the view of a returned Roman Empire.
It was never about the return of an empire, the Roman Empire, or any other empire.

It is a prophecy about eight consecutive terms of office, held by seven different people, during a future kingdom (nation, country, state, alliance, union). One of the seven people has multiple terms that are not consecutive terms. Hence the eighth is one of the seven.

The return of the beast is not the return of an empire, it the return of a man to a nation's leadership role.


Keith


Hi again Keith,

Very respectfully, what you have mentioned doesn't add up. :humm:

Now I will explain why...….

First you mention this:

keithareilly wrote:It was never about the return of an empire, the Roman Empire, or any other empire


Then this:

keithareilly wrote: One of the seven people has multiple terms that are not consecutive terms. Hence the eighth is one of the seven


There appears to be a contradiction in your comments. How can the "eighth be one of the seven" if there is no Empire :humm: It most certainly cannot be the same individual.

You add this:

keithareilly wrote:The return of the beast is not the return of an empire, it the return of a man to a nation's leadership role.


Again, if the man returns - what is he returning to :humm:
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:14 am

Hi Mr Baldy,

Sorry I am not clear on this Mr Baldy.

The definition of a beast is a geopolitical entity under specific ruler(s) or head(s) of state.
So, a geopolitical entity under a particular head is a beast.
A beast can also describe a geopolitical entity with multiple heads.

I am saying there is geopolitical entity this prophecy describes.
Seven heads of this geopolitical entity have been prophesied.
One of those seven heads serves non consecutive terms, the eighth term.

Because a beast is both a geopolitical entity under a certain head or under multiple heads, when the prophecy refers to the return of a beast it could be referring to the return of the geopolitical entity or it could be referring to the return of a particular head of that geopolitical entity.


So which is the verse referencing, the return of a head? or the return of an entire geopolitical entity?

Rev 17:11
"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

The answer can be gleaned from the phrase The beast which was and is not is himself.
"is Himself" is talking about the person not the geopolitical entity.

This is reinforced by the phrase is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven

Himself is a person, the head of the beast. It is the head that was, is not, then returns. It is not describing the geopolitical entity portion of the beast as: was, is not, and yet to come. It is describing the ruler, "himself" was, is not, is to come. This is consistent with a beast being defined as a geopolitical entity under a specific ruler.

In summary:
This verse is describing seven rulers of a geopolitical entity, (the EU), one of those heads experiences multiple non consecutive terms; therefore, he is also the eighth head of state.

Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:50 pm

Hi Keith,

I am going to reflect on each of the points you make by separating your comments so that this matter can be properly addressed.

First you wrote:

keithareilly wrote:The definition of a beast is a geopolitical entity under specific ruler(s) or head(s) of state. So, a geopolitical entity under a particular head is a beast. A beast can also describe a geopolitical entity with multiple heads.


:humm:

Keith, very respectfully the aforementioned appears to be "double-talk." The term "geopolitical" is a relatively new term - and certainly not used when John wrote this particular Prophecy. You have identified "a beast" as a "geopolitical entity under specific ruler(s) or head(s) of state - further describing it as having the ability to have "multiple heads." What you have failed to identify is that these so-called "rulers or heads of state" are synonymous with each other - as without the entity or (Empire) you cannot have "specific ruler(s)" or "head of state(s) - (Antichrist), you have no Beast.

I have mentioned this...so I will repeat it again. Scripture has to work in complete harmony with other passages of Scripture. Revelation 17:11 works in perfect harmony with other passages of Scripture - in that it mentions BOTH man and Empire when describing the Beast or Antichrist; namely Daniel 7.

keithareilly wrote:I am saying there is geopolitical entity this prophecy describes. Seven heads of this geopolitical entity have been prophesied. One of those seven heads serves non consecutive terms, the eighth term.


:humm:

So are we talking about a man or an Empire? Most certainly in your aforementioned comments you cannot be talking of a man. Here is my point.....you write: "One of those seven heads serves non consecutive terms, the eight term." Well historically, the seven have gone - so how can "one of those seven heads serve a non consecutive term" specifically naming it the "eight term" and we have yet to see the Eight?

keithareilly wrote:Because a beast is both a geopolitical entity under a certain head or under multiple heads, when the prophecy refers to the return of a beast it could be referring to the return of the geopolitical entity or it could be referring to the return of a particular head of that geopolitical entity.


So are you identifying that it could be both Empire & Man :humm:

keithareilly wrote:So which is the verse referencing, the return of a head? or the return of an entire geopolitical entity?


keithareilly wrote:Rev 17:11"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.


keithareilly wrote:The answer can be gleaned from the phrase The beast which was and is not is himself. "is Himself" is talking about the person not the geopolitical entity.


:humm:

Keith...….again, very respectfully - you have left out a very KEY part of Revelation 17:11. In your aforementioned comment you have cherry picked the portion of the verse which identifies: "The beast which was and is not, is himself." And left out the part which very clearly states: "and is one of the seven."

Now, it would not be an improper interpretation to mention that it "is talking about the person and not the geopolitical entity." In order to properly interpret this passage of Scripture you MUST include what it mentions in it's entirety.

When it (Revelation 17:11) identifies "and is one of the seven" this absolutely cannot be talking about a man - or a "specific ruler(s) or head(s) of state as you have mentioned. This would be an improper interpretation, as you know with this verbiage - it would be impossible for it to be speaking of a man. This is indeed an Empire.

keithareilly wrote:This is reinforced by the phrase is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven


Keith, I have mentioned previously that the Book of Revelation uses both metaphorical language, and symbolic language. Keep in mind that when John wrote the Book of Revelation - he was mentioning events that were to happen in the Future. The points that I have made very clearly identify that the term "himself" is not identifying a man - but an Empire, as it would take an act of reincarnation to identify a man as "one of the seven."

keithareilly wrote:Himself is a person, the head of the beast. It is the head that was, is not, then returns. It is not describing the geopolitical entity portion of the beast as: was, is not, and yet to come. It is describing the ruler, "himself" was, is not, is to come. This is consistent with a beast being defined as a geopolitical entity under a specific ruler.


:humm:

I'm not getting your point here; you wrote: "Himself is a person the head of the beast" - So who is the beast? And how can he come back if "it is not the geopolitical entity portion of the beast" - Then what is he coming back to?

keithareilly wrote:In summary: This verse is describing seven rulers of a geopolitical entity, (the EU), one of those heads experiences multiple non consecutive terms; therefore, he is also the eighth head of state


:humm:

So, where does the EU get it's foundation - are you saying that it was one of the seven?
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:06 pm

Hi Mr Baldy,

A beast is defined as:
The dominion (power and geography) during a period of time in which a ruler or sequence of rulers of a geopolitical entity (kingdom, nation, state, empire, etc) hold power. You could call an empire a beast; but every ruler of that empire also is a unique beast. So, if you had an empire that had ten rulers you could describe it as one beast or you can describe it as 10 beasts or any number of beasts in between.

In the United States, if a John Doe was elected to office, served one term, then ran again 8 years later and won, then John Doe would be a beast that once was, is not, then returns.

Without the return of individual ruler(s), you do not have the return of a beast.
The reason this prophecy does not describe a revived Roman Empire is because the old emperors cannot return.


Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:15 am

keithareilly wrote:The reason this prophecy does not describe a revived Roman Empire is because the old emperors cannot return.


Just a couple of quick points here...….

First - I don't think that you are properly interpreting Scripture. You are singularly implying that an Empire can return, but an emperor from an prior Empire cannot - in which I agree. This is why I have made the points that I have made.

However, previously you commented this:

keithareilly wrote:Because a beast is both a geopolitical entity under a certain head or under multiple heads, when the prophecy refers to the return of a beast it could be referring to the return of the geopolitical entity or it could be referring to the return of a particular head of that geopolitical entity.


Keith - very respectfully, you can't have it both ways.

Revelation 17:11 -"The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.


Second - You keep insisting that because the word "himself" is used that it singularly implies a man. Let me say that there are other translations of Scripture that describes "himself" as "itself" or "it" when identifying the Beast - The ESV is one of them:

Revelation 17:11 - English Standard Version (ESV)

As for the beast that was and is not, IT is an eighth but ITbelongs to the seven, and IT goes to destruction.


I have put emphasis on the word "IT". I think that the point should become clearer now.

In closing, I think that we will have to agree to disagree.
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:39 am

Here is simpler perspective.

Scenario 1
A bear marks his territory, then decides to leave. A lesser strength bear comes in takes over some of the territory for a while. The first bear returns and drives off the second bear but does not regain dominion over all the original territory.
We have a beast that was, is not, then returns.

Scenario 2
A bear marks his territory, then decides to leave. A lesser strength bear comes in takes over some of the territory for a while. A third bear comes and drives off the second bear and marks his territory exactly the same as the first bear.
No Beast ever returned in this scenario.

The prophecy is about a particular Beast returning. Not rule over a particular territory returning.
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:12 pm

Keith - at this juncture, I believe that I have to respectfully disagree with your view regarding this matter.

God Bless :grin:
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby keithareilly on Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:55 pm

Hey Mr Baldy,

No Surprise we disagree.

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.

Thanks for honing in on this.

Keith
keithareilly
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Maybe not to old?

Postby Mr Baldy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:55 am

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.


:a3:
Mr Baldy
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:26 pm
Location: San Antonio, Tx


Return to Solana Sound & Video Clips

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest