How Many Antichrist Objects in 1 John 2:18?

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, veteran.

I see you're deceived as to the identity of "that old serpent" of Genesis! The serpent of Gen.3 was NOT a literal snake!

Rev 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(KJV)

Rev 20:2
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
(KJV)


God was NOT talking to a literal snake in Gen.3. It was NOT a literal snake that deceived Eve. God was talking directly to Satan with Satan AS... "that old serpent" of Genesis! The serpent in Genesis is a euphamism for the devil.

Naturally it would have meant a real literal snake in Genesis 3, IF... Christ had not revealed in Rev.12:9 and 20:2 that Satan was really "that old serpent" that deceived Eve. Thus, we are not to be deceived about the real identity of that old serpent of Genesis.

But, you're not being careful as to the details! Was "Satan" said to be that "old serpent," or was that "old serpent" said to be "Satan?" I'm not deceived; I know that the "original snake" is related to "haSatan"; HOWEVER, why did the authors, Yeshua` and Yochanan, call him a "Dragon" (Greek: "drakoon" meaning "lizard" or "reptile")? See, in English (or in Greek), "is" does not really mean "=." It actually is closer to "Ì " (is a subset of) and unless it is said in BOTH directions, A "is" B and B "is" A, they are not truly equivalent! One merely CONTAINS the elements of the other, but not necessarily vice versa!

Because the Hebrew word 'saraph' of later Scripture (like "fiery serpent" of Num.21:8) can also mean an angelic being like in Isaiah 6:2 when Isaiah saw a Heavenly vision, that should reveal to you all the more how God used that as a symbol for Satan as "that old serpent" per Rev.12:9.

But the word for "serpent" in Genesis 3 is NOT... 'saraph'. It's simply Hebrew 'nachash', i.e., a snake, and is used symbolically for Satan like Rev.12:9 and 20:2 does reveal.

Again, you're not being careful enough; order IS important! Which came first, the "saaraaf" or the "nachash?" Angelology, a branch of theology, would tell us that the "saaraaf" came first, but what is the order in the Scriptures? Since all "angels" (Greek: "aggeloi" = "messengers") are "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:13-14), then what purpose would they have served before those "who shall be heirs of salvation" came on the scene? Did God need "angels" before He created mankind? I'm trying to get you to see that haSatan HAD an origin, and it is clearly marked in Genesis 3, reflecting back to Genesis 1 and 2. Why insist on getting the Scriptures BACKWARDS?

Therefore, Satan as "that old serpent" of Gen.3 is pointing to how God symbolically applied the snake as a 'beast' cursed above all animals of the field, lowly to crawl upon its belly in the dust, directly to Satan himself. That's a very fitting association for Satan because of what he did against God in wanting to be God. And because of those who follow "that old serpent", they also were labeled as serpents and vipers (asps) by our Lord Jesus and John the Baptist...

Matt 23:29-33
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
(KJV)

Matt 3:7
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(KJV)

And thus the locust army of Rev.9 have tails like serpents, but "faces of men" per Rev.9:7.

I'm just trying to get you to turn your thinking around 180 degrees. God didn't use the "serpent" to "represent symbolically" haSatan. HaSatan WAS the literal, original serpent! Yes, I believe that Yeshua` and Yochanan the Immerser were using metaphors in the verses you quoted to show the P'rushiym how closely they were related in attitude to the original serpent.

(You should leave out the locust army of Rev. 9, however; they had tails (abdomens) like SCORPIONS, not serpents.)

 

[veteran]

With all the construction going on by our government, instead of enacting laws protecting, promoting and defending queers... our government should instead build more closets.

That's cute.

These kind of events show us just how short... the times now are. Time to put the Gospel Armour on and make a stand for Christ.

Shabbat shalom, veteran.

But, you're not being careful as to the details! Was "Satan" said to be that "old serpent," or was that "old serpent" said to be "Satan?" I'm not deceived; I know that the "original snake" is related to "haSatan"; HOWEVER, why did the authors, Yeshua` and Yochanan, call him a "Dragon" (Greek: "drakoon" meaning "lizard" or "reptile")? See, in English (or in Greek), "is" does not really mean "=." It actually is closer to "Ì " (is a subset of) and unless it is said in BOTH directions, A "is" B and B "is" A, they are not truly equivalent! One merely CONTAINS the elements of the other, but not necessarily vice versa!

The grammar doesn't change the various titles for the devil given in God's Word. The dragon and serpent titles are merely metaphorical references independent of the grammar, whether in Hebrew, Greek, or English, or in another language of the world.
The 'dragon' symbol in its most ancient form was about a water serpent (snake). Only through later ideas of mythology was it given legs in appearance to a lizard.

Again, you're not being careful enough; order IS important! Which came first, the "saaraaf" or the "nachash?" Angelology, a branch of theology, would tell us that the "saaraaf" came first, but what is the order in the Scriptures? Since all "angels" (Greek: "aggeloi" = "messengers") are "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:13-14), then what purpose would they have served before those "who shall be heirs of salvation" came on the scene? Did God need "angels" before He created mankind? I'm trying to get you to see that haSatan HAD an origin, and it is clearly marked in Genesis 3, reflecting back to Genesis 1 and 2. Why insist on getting the Scriptures BACKWARDS?

Wait a minute. You're saying that only when God's Word first mentions the existence of something, that's when its existence first began? Not so. John said the devil sinned from the beginning, so when was that, during the time of Adam and Eve in God's Garden? No. It was before the time of Adam and Eve, because "that old serpent" was already in his role as tempter in the time of Adam and Eve in God's Eden. So how is it that the idea of the devil having sinned from the beginning had to wait to be revealed all the way in the New Testament through Apostle John? Likewise in Ezekiel 28 with God comparing the prince and king of Tyrus (rock) to a heavenly cherub that God originally created perfect in his ways in the beginning, we had to wait for that to be given through His prophet Ezekiel. So your 'order in the Scriptures' idea doesn't really work for everything, and especially not in relation to Satan's time of origin.

I'm just trying to get you to turn your thinking around 180 degrees. God didn't use the "serpent" to "represent symbolically" haSatan. HaSatan WAS the literal, original serpent! Yes, I believe that Yeshua` and Yochanan the Immerser were using metaphors in the verses you quoted to show the P'rushiym how closely they were related in attitude to the original serpent.

Rev.12:9 and 20:2 is a 'revealing', which is what our Lord Jesus' Book of Revelation is actually about. It has many, many direct parallels to the Book of Genesis, which is why Revelation serves as the end-Book of God's Word. That revealing about the Devil is that he was "that old serpent" of Genesis tempting Adam and Eve. It was not a literal garden snake talking to Eve. If it was an event like Balaam's ass tempting Eve, then Christ would not have revealed in Rev.12:9 and 20:2 "that old serpent" as merely a title for Satan himself. See, if you treat "that old serpent" phrase of Rev.12:9 as anything other than just another title for the Devil, or Satan, then you have to do the same thing for all the other titles given there along with it, like "the Devil" (traducer), "Satan" (adversary or accuser), and "dragon" (great serpent).

(You should leave out the locust army of Rev. 9, however; they had tails (abdomens) like SCORPIONS, not serpents.)

I beg to differ on that...

Rev 9:19
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
(KJV)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

LOL! Regarding Revelation 9:19, that verse is about the HORSEMEN, not the locusts! The locusts' description ends in verse 12!

Revelation 9:1-21
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.

13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
KJV

Like I said, you need to be careful of details! Being a computer programmer by trade, I know the imperative for attention to detail! We have all sorts of little sayings for such a need: "Garbage in, garbage out." "A computer does only what you tell it to do - EXACTLY what you tell it to do and when you tell it to do it!" "The worst computer bug is the programmer!" "Be wary of computer programmers carrying screwdrivers!" (That last one is a reference to a computer programmer who convinces himself that HIS program is not at fault; therefore, it "MUST be a hardware error!")

Now, as far as the dragon or the serpent is concerned, I've said my piece; there's really nothing more to say. I understand well the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. I would only ask you two questions:

First, is haSatan (the Enemy) a seraph (saaraaf = a "burning one") or a cherub (k'ruwv = an "ox-like creature with wings") or something else?

Second, since when is a saaraaf, a "burning one," a flying, burning serpent, like a WATER snake?!

 

[veteran]

Shalom, veteran.

LOL! Regarding Revelation 9:19, that verse is about the HORSEMEN, not the locusts! The locusts' description ends in verse 12!

....

Like I said, you need to be careful of details! Being a computer programmer by trade, I know the imperative for attention to detail! We have all sorts of little sayings for such a need: "Garbage in, garbage out." "A computer does only what you tell it to do - EXACTLY what you tell it to do and when you tell it to do it!" "The worst computer bug is the programmer!" "Be wary of computer programmers carrying screwdrivers!" (That last one is a reference to a computer programmer who convinces himself that HIS program is not at fault; therefore, it "MUST be a hardware error!")

And you need to go back to the Book of Joel and read it again, for the idea of "horsemen" is related to the locust army as given there (see Joel 2). It's something you've obviously missed, because the locust idea is a symbolic metaphor only. It's not about actual locusts, it's about a certain group of men in the last days. Also, I have a Microsoft Certified Professional Developer certification in programming, but that's not the field I work in. Although attention to detail is important, it's also important to be able to see the whole forest instead of only the trees. Those horsemen in the latter part of Rev.9 is that same locust army described in the first part, of which the Book of Joel gives more details. God calls them "a nation" per Joel 1.

Now, as far as the dragon or the serpent is concerned, I've said my piece; there's really nothing more to say. I understand well the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. I would only ask you two questions:

First, is haSatan (the Enemy) a seraph (saaraaf = a "burning one") or a cherub (k'ruwv = an "ox-like creature with wings") or something else?

Second, since when is a saaraaf, a "burning one," a flying, burning serpent, like a WATER snake?!

You're simply using your fleshy mind about the symbolic titles God's Word gives for Satan. He is a heavenly created being, not flesh, never been born in the flesh anywhere per God's Word, nor ever will be. And there's nothing to all the Jewish mysticism ideas of 'elementals', 'elves', 'satyrs' and spirit monsters with literal horns, ptichforks and such. Those ideas originate from ancient paganism which the Canaanites brought into Jewish traditions. It's that kind of stuff that would lead you to actually believe that Satan as "that old serpent" in God's Garden could appear as an actual garden snake.


SERAPHIM

Isa 6:2-3. God's attendant angels. Seraphim in Num 21:6 means the fiery flying (not winged, but rapidly moving) serpents which bit the Israelites; called so from the poisonous inflammation caused by their bites. Burning (from saraph to burn) zeal, dazzling brightness of appearance (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17; Ezek 1:13; Matt 28:3) and serpent-like rapidity in God's service, always characterize the seraphim. Satan's serpent (nachash (OT:5173)) form in appearing to man may have some connection with his original form as a seraph of light. The serpent's head symbolized wisdom in Egypt (2 Kings 18:4). Satan has wisdom, but wisdom not sanctified by the flame of devotion. The seraphim with six wings and one face differ from the cherubim with four wings (in the temple only two) and four faces (Ezek 1:5-12); but in Rev 4:8 the four living creatures (zooa (NT:2226)) have each six wings.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft)

 

[xBluxTunicx82]

HEY! WHO ARE THE BIGGEST CHRIST DENIERS TODAY?? You were warned 2000 years ago, and to this day, most still believe a lie!

 

[revturmoil]

HEY! WHO ARE THE BIGGEST CHRIST DENIERS TODAY?? You were warned 2000 years ago, and to this day, most still believe a lie!

Muslims!

 

[xBluxTunicx82]

Muslims!

Haha, yeah, but they don't consider Him to be "boiling in a vat of human excrement for eternity either. And or course, Islam doesn't dominate the world banking system OR the international media.

 

[revturmoil]

Sometimes I think people make too big of a deal about the term 'anti-christ'.

And sometimes people don't make a big enough deal about who or what they believe and why they believe it!

Anti-christ is a spirit which can develop into an attitude. It can be an attitude, a demonic system, a kingdom, and a person...... and can be a person who can become a beast that rules a kingdom. A 'beast' is a kingdom which requires a political system which typically needs a king. i.e. a person.

Ridgerunner said,

Once again per the inspired word of God beasts are kingdoms.
Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
And history has proven God’s word true. Daniel’s lion beast was Babylon, the bear was Medo-Persia and the leopard was Greece. Can you show us where the definition of a beast in prophetic language has changed from a beast to "the Antichrist"? If not then wouldn’t we be better served to use the definition God’s inspired word has given us for a beast?


These verses are in reference to a beast God’s inspired word defines beasts as kingdom’s and history proves God’s word true with Daniel’s lion beast from prophecy having been Babylon, the bear was Med-Persia and the leopard was Greece. Sound hermeneutic principles require us to use the definitions God provides in Scripture if we want to correctly interpret prophecy. Normaly we don’t gpo to the Old Testament for New Testament terms unless there is no definition in the New Testament. Can you show us where in the New Testament the definition of a beast has changed from a kingdom to "the Antichrist"? It hasn’t so proper exegesis requires using a kingdom.

Be careful who and what you believe when it comes to prophecy since so many people interpret things different. And don't be afraid to change your mind.
You have accepted an incorrect interpretation of Daniel 7. Many have accepted the interpretation you provide but some people have moved away from it since it has a lot working against it.

The first 'hermeneutical' blunder of your interpretation is the dating of Daniel 7. The vision of the four beast in Daniel 7 came after Nebuchadnezzars' Babylon had already risen. The vision in Daniel 7 came about 35 years after Daniels dream of the great statue!
The vision in Daniel 7 is a picture of 4 empires (maybe three) just preceeding the Lord's return. It's not the same as the vision in Daniel 2 which describes to us a succession of world empires as well as 'the origin' of the final beasts!

SO!
How can this 'lion' of Daniel 7 be a prophecy of Babylon rising out of the sea when Babylon had already been in existence for some 50 years! Nebuchadnezzar had already gone mad and was already restored to the throne! The date this vision occured is the 1st year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon. Daniel sees this beast (lion) rising out of the sea. Babylon had already risen and was toward the end of it's reign. Daniel's prophecy of the lion can't be about Babylon because it was already in existence. And why would God find it necessary to give Daniel two different visions that have a duplicate interpretation?

Another issue with your interpretation is the word 'before'.
Daniel 7:7 　After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

My good friend D. McGee said....

"Daniel 7:7b which reads in the King James Version, "it (the fourth kingdom) was different from all the beasts (kingdoms) that were before it." The Hebrew word for "before" in this text is ‘qodam’ which means "in front of, in the presence of," not "historically before" as is commonly interpreted. This means the first three empires will be in the presence of (or stand before) the antichrist kingdom when it emerges. They will be current and contemporary with the emerging of the final evil empire. In fact, in Revelation 13:2, the first three beasts are essentially incorporated into the final entity, as if it were a global merger of sovereign empires. "And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion."

Look at how the word before/'quodam' is used in other verses.

http://www.bluelette...ngs=H6925&t=KJV

"The Lord's hand is stretched out before Him", and means in front of Him.

A sensible and unbiased method of interpretation or 'hermeneutic' is a good thing. It provides us with what we hope is a correct theory of interpretation and looking at dates are a vital part of a good hermeneutic.
I have my own 'hermeneutic' or method and process of interpretation. It's also good to remain unbiased and let go of our pre-conceived ideas in our studies. Too many of us formulate our opinions around what we already believe. I think that common sense, simplicity, and being objective are some of the most basic virtues of a good hermeneutic.

So my view of Daniel 7 (esp. the first 3 beast) is a picture of a 'power struggle' for the mastery of the area around the Mediterranian Sea. And I believe, and have said several times, that what's occuring in the Arab/Islamic world today is the prophecied apostasy. You may see more than one alliance emerge from the poitical unrest and voids left in the region and this will give rise to the 'antichrist!'

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

And you need to go back to the Book of Joel and read it again, for the idea of "horsemen" is related to the locust army as given there (see Joel 2). It's something you've obviously missed, because the locust idea is a symbolic metaphor only. It's not about actual locusts, it's about a certain group of men in the last days. Also, I have a Microsoft Certified Professional Developer certification in programming, but that's not the field I work in. Although attention to detail is important, it's also important to be able to see the whole forest instead of only the trees. Those horsemen in the latter part of Rev.9 is that same locust army described in the first part, of which the Book of Joel gives more details. God calls them "a nation" per Joel 1.




You're simply using your fleshy mind about the symbolic titles God's Word gives for Satan. He is a heavenly created being, not flesh, never been born in the flesh anywhere per God's Word, nor ever will be. And there's nothing to all the Jewish mysticism ideas of 'elementals', 'elves', 'satyrs' and spirit monsters with literal horns, ptichforks and such. Those ideas originate from ancient paganism which the Canaanites brought into Jewish traditions. It's that kind of stuff that would lead you to actually believe that Satan as "that old serpent" in God's Garden could appear as an actual garden snake.


SERAPHIM

Isa 6:2-3. God's attendant angels. Seraphim in Num 21:6 means the fiery flying (not winged, but rapidly moving) serpents which bit the Israelites; called so from the poisonous inflammation caused by their bites. Burning (from saraph to burn) zeal, dazzling brightness of appearance (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17; Ezek 1:13; Matt 28:3) and serpent-like rapidity in God's service, always characterize the seraphim. Satan's serpent (nachash (OT:5173)) form in appearing to man may have some connection with his original form as a seraph of light. The serpent's head symbolized wisdom in Egypt (2 Kings 18:4). Satan has wisdom, but wisdom not sanctified by the flame of devotion. The seraphim with six wings and one face differ from the cherubim with four wings (in the temple only two) and four faces (Ezek 1:5-12); but in Rev 4:8 the four living creatures (zooa (NT:2226)) have each six wings.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright ©1998 by Biblesoft)

What is it with you?! Is it vanity or stubbornness that won't allow you ever to be wrong?! YOU WERE WRONG THIS TIME, and you STILL have to come up with some lame excuse how "you're really right" in some ridiculous manner! And, in doing so, you paint yourself into a corner, giving some sort of reason that now you'll have to remember and stand by, regardless of what you know is the truth! And, you'll stick to your blank-shooting guns until it all blows over, and then someday down the road, you'll claim what you know is the truth and stand by that instead, as though you never took an opposite point of view!

The locusts are not men nor are they angels! THEY ARE A SPECIES OF LOCUSTS! That's what they were called; that's how they were described, and that's how they are going to be used to torment people for five months! They have NOTHING to do with the horsemen to follow! The only relationship that they have to them is their close proximity in time! This has nothing to do with Joel 2, either! That's a fictitious relationship you've concocted between Revelation and Joel.

Quote it if you want, but I've never been that impressed by Jamieson, Fausset or Brown. IMO, they are mere "yes-men" to the dichotomous thinking propaganda of the misled, shallow thinkers of the Dark Ages, flat earthers with heaven above and hell below!

And from Ezekiel 28:14, I've heard haSatan called "the anointed cherub that covereth," but I've NEVER heard him addressed as a seraph ... until Fausset! Of course, he is referring to 2 Corinthians 11:14 which talks about him being an "angel of light," but that's the Greek word "aggelos" and has NOTHING to do with the Hebrew word "saaraaf!"

And, you're just attacking the person instead of the topic! Ad hominem arguments, inuendos, accusations are all you know how to say: "You're simply using your fleshy mind about the symbolic titles God's Word gives for Satan." Is haSatan really "a heavenly created being, not flesh, never been born in the flesh anywhere per God's Word, nor ever will be"? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?!! Isn't it true that it is from someone's interpretation of obscure Scriptures and weak-minded theology?

Who said ANYTHING AT ALL about "Jewish mysticism ideas of 'elementals', 'elves', 'satyrs' and spirit monsters with literal horns, ptichforks and such"?!! That came out of YOUR computer, not mine! Furthermore, I'm not talking about "Jewish traditions!" NO! It's God's Word, specifically Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 (in the NT, btw) that led me "to actually believe that haSatan was 'that old serpent' in God's Garden appearing as an actual garden snake."

So, tighten up, bro!

 

[veteran]

Shalom, veteran.


What is it with you?! Is it vanity or stubbornness that won't allow you ever to be wrong?! YOU WERE WRONG THIS TIME, and you STILL have to come up with some lame excuse how "you're really right" in some ridiculous manner! And, in doing so, you paint yourself into a corner, giving some sort of reason that now you'll have to remember and stand by, regardless of what you know is the truth! And, you'll stick to your blank-shooting guns until it all blows over, and then someday down the road, you'll claim what you know is the truth and stand by that instead, as though you never took an opposite point of view!

No reason for you to go off the deep end just because I have no doubts that I'm correct on this Rev.9 - Joel locust topic.

The locusts are not men nor are they angels! THEY ARE A SPECIES OF LOCUSTS! That's what they were called; that's how they were described, and that's how they are going to be used to torment people for five months! They have NOTHING to do with the horsemen to follow! The only relationship that they have to them is their close proximity in time! This has nothing to do with Joel 2, either! That's a fictitious relationship you've concocted between Revelation and Joel.

The locusts of Rev.9 have 'faces of men' and crowns of gold upon their heads, and are like horses prepared for battle (Rev.9:7). So you're gonna' try and tell me that means real locusts? That's ludicrous. If you really believe they represent real natural locusts then much of Revelation must be one huge monster movie to you.

Rev 9:7
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
(KJV)

That above quote is the only one actually needed.