John's First Phrase of 1 John 2:18

[veteran]

I Jn 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
(KJV)


When Apostle John said that phrase in bold, he was reminding them how they had already heard that antichrist shall come. The antichrist in that phrase is singular, not plural. That's why the early Church fathers also made a distinction between 'the' Antichrist, and his followers or forerunners ("many antichrists" latter phrase).



Polycarp was a disciple of Apostle John, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus.


Polycarp of Smyrna

"Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7]; whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, such a one is the firstborn of Satan" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1 [A.D. 135]).

Polycarp defines an antichrist also as the "firstborn of Satan". That makes Satan 'the' Antichrist with that explanation.



Irenaeus

"By means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ" (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).

"Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of the Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number] when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him as supposing him not to be the expected
one. . . . It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy than to be making surmises and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned, and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved" (ibid., 5:30:2-3).

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire" (ibid., 5:30:4).

Irenaeus is specific that the Antichrist that's to come is a singular entity, a king even, which means he linked the Antichrist to the false one Daniel was given to prophesy of. He makes it plain with phrases like "the expected one" and "this Antichrist". He even affirms the Antichrist sitting in a literal temple in Jerusalem for 3 and 1/2 years, and by that links all the prophecies about the same false one in Daniel 11, and by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 24, and by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. And remember, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Apostle John.



Hippolytus

"Now as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision [i.e., the Jewish race], and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem" (The Antichrist 6 [A.D. 200]).

Hippolytus even well understood what the Antichrist is coming to try and do, i.e., "liken himself in all things to the Son of God." He also asserts that the Antichrist will come in the role of a king in Jerusalem to sit in a temple in Jerusalem.


From the Church fathers above, they got their understanding about the coming of the Antichrist from Apostle John.

===============================================================



Tertullian

"[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ the forerunners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator" (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).

Tertullian refers to "the ancient and the new prophecies" about the coming of the Antichrist, keeping what John said later separate. Those prophecies about the coming of the Antichrist originate in the Book of Daniel and Christ's Olivet Discourse, and by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. Tertullian calls the "many antichrists" of John "forerunners of Antichrist". Just in case some do not know what a 'forerunner' is, it means someone who comes prior to the main one they follow; in this case 'the' Antichrist is who they are forerunners for.



Lactanitius

"[A] king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself. . . . But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave his course, and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word. . . . Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people" (Divine Institutes 7:17 [A.D. 307]).

Lactanitius also recognized the Antichrist as a specific king, and will seek to exalt himself in the place of The Father, and even demand "to be worshipped as the Son of God". And the Antichrist is to "do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him." He was simply following the prophecies in the Book of Daniel and our Lord Jesus' own prophecy about a specific false one coming to play Him per His Olivet Discourse (Matt.24; Mark 13).



Cyril of Jerusalem

"This aforementioned Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by the evil craft of his magic shall seize upon the Roman power. Of the kings who reigned before him, three shall he humble [Dan. 7:24], and the remaining seven he shall have as subjects under him. At first he shall feign mildness—as if he were a learned and discreet person—and sobriety and loving kindness" (Catechetical Lectures 15:12 [A.D. 350]).

"Having beguiled the Jews by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall he be the perpetrator of such things; and then he shall be destroyed by the glorious second coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ, who shall destroy him with the breath of his mouth [2 Thess. 2:8], and deliver him over to the fire of Gehenna" (ibid.).

Cyril puts the coming of the Antichrist at a time when "the end of the world is drawing near." He calls the coming Antichrist "an eleventh" king. He directly refers to the false one in the Daniel prophecy as that Antichrist. And that is also pointing to the false beast king of Revelation 17 as that 'eleventh' king.


And if you're a Catholic, here's one from Augustine

Augustine

"Daniel prophesies of the last judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come and to carry on his destruction to the eternal reign of the saints. For when in prophetic vision he had seen four beasts, signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth conquered by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man, that is to say, of Christ" (The City of God 20:19 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine also agreed with the early Church fathers that the coming Antichrist will be a "certain king", and after this event Christ's Kingdom will come.


So who are the false prophets going around today preaching the lie that there is no singular Antichrist entity coming in the role of king to mimic our Lord Jesus Christ? They are liars, deceivers, the "forerunners of Antichrist" like Tertullian also showed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now that you have provided the doctrines of men maybe we should look at what Scripture says!

1John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In the KJV the word antichrist is not selectively capitalized, and there was no upper/lower case in the original Greek. Clearly, from the verses above, antichrist is a SPIRIT, or THE spirit, that lives in the heart of anybody that denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or denies that Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh, or denies that Jesus is the Christ (anointed one). Every man that denies the Son has not the Father and is antichrist, and also is an antichrist.

The following verse is sometimes understood to suggest an individual past or future "Antichrist", but Scripture shows us how to understand this verse perfectly:

1John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

How could the above verse make any sense if the first use of the term antichrist were supposed to be an individual person as "The" "Antichrist", when six words later we learn there are many antichrists? This is the only verse of those above that is generally construed to indicate a single individual as such. Let's develop our understanding by looking to another verse that also uses the term antichrist in a singular fashion:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

You can see the singular "that", "spirit", "it" in this sentence and singular "antichrist", just like the singular "antichrist" in 1 John 2:18. The translators gave us a little extra push in 1 John 4:3 by inserting the word [spirit] a second time, further clarifying that the spirit of antichrist is this singular entity. Now look at how this makes the "little children" verse make perfect sense if, when you get to the first use of term antichrist, you understand it as THE SPIRIT OF antichrist:


1John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Finally look also at how beautifully parallel these two verse snippets are:
"ye have heard that antichrist shall come"
"ye have heard that it should come"

Look at the fruit of misunderstanding. Some say "The" "Antichrist" was Nero. Perhaps suggesting "he" is over and done with. Futurists are looking for some future individual "Antichrist" of the silver screen yet to come. Others you can find on the Internet, of which there is no shortage, proffer guesses from the leader of Spain, to the Pope, to Ronald Reagan.
Meanwhile there are 1.5 billion antichrists in Islam alone. This doesn't even count the atheist neighbor down your block where your kids go to hang out. The Church has been deceived into looking in the wrong place. Has the Church's looking for some individual "Antichrist", past or present, also made it look like a bunch of superstitious clowns to those outside of the Church?

But here is how Satan succeeded the most through this concept. The term antichrist has been removed from the Christian vocabulary except when used to describe some individual boogeyman. Who would casually refer to the atheist that lives down the block as an antichrist, yet wouldn't this be correct? How much more soul searching might that individual do if we did? Who have you heard refer to the 1.5 billion Muslims as antichrists?

Consider also that God likely had John write so much later than the others so that he could address the myriad of heresies that had already infiltrated the Church, even in John's day. Consider all of the "overcommeth"ing of Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. The above verses in effect saying "you've heard that antichrist is coming, but it's already here!". Even if there had been such a concept of a single antichrist in the Church, consider the wording: "ye have heard". Perhaps like "ye have heard that toads give people warts", but that doesn't mean that it's true.
Consider a similar verse:

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 4 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton

“Those things of God which are now dark and obscure will hereafter be made clear, and easy to be understood. Truth is the daughter of time. Scripture prophecies will be expounded by the accomplishment of them; therefore they are given, and for that expectation they are reserved. Therefore they are told us before, that, when they do come to pass, we may believe”. - Matthew Henry

I think time will demonstrate that those who try to tell the future with prophecy are just promoting fallacy. Many of those will join the ranks of those who came before them and failed. You know people like Edgar C Wisenant or Harold Camping.

 

[veteran]

Obviously, you don't care to listen to those early disciples which got their understanding about the singular Antichrist vs. the forerunners of the Antichrist from Apostle John. What you're espousing is actually the doctrines of men designed to misled brethren away from understanding about the final Antichrist false messiah/king that's coming in our times.

 

[revturmoil]

This isn't all that difficult to figure out. There is the spirit of anti-christ and there is one we call the end-time anti-christ. He is the man of sin, the little horn, the lawless one, the king of fierce countenance, the king of Babylon, the Assyrian, the beast that was and is not, and yet lives, and he speaks like a dragon!

Some people make a big deal out of nothing!

 

[veteran]

This isn't all that difficult to figure out. There is the spirit of anti-christ and there is one we call the end-time anti-christ. He is the man of sin, the little horn, the lawless one, the king of fierce countenance, the king of Babylon, the Assyrian, the beast that was and is not, and yet lives, and he speaks like a dragon!

Some people make a big deal out of nothing!

There's are actually some of today's Church system organizations that specifically teach there is no... singular end-time Antichrist coming, which is going against all those Scriptures you're pulling from. I see their thinking as a major, major, delusion, blatant even.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Obviously, you don't care to listen to those early disciples which got their understanding about the singular Antichrist vs. the forerunners of the Antichrist from Apostle John. What you're espousing is actually the doctrines of men designed to misled brethren away from understanding about the final Antichrist false messiah/king that's coming in our times.

ROFL look at what you said, you quote men (doctrines of men) while ignoring the fact that in Scripture John told us exactly who the antichrist they heard should come was when he said “this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The hypocrisy of your statement has been exposed. Follow the doctrines of men if you choose just don’t expect others to follow you in your belief that the words of Polycarp, Ireneus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactanitus, Cyril and Augustine trump what Scripture actually states.

This isn't all that difficult to figure out. There is the spirit of anti-christ and there is one we call the end-time anti-christ. He is the man of sin, the little horn, the lawless one, the king of fierce countenance, the king of Babylon, the Assyrian, the beast that was and is not, and yet lives, and he speaks like a dragon!

Some people make a big deal out of nothing!

And some people continue to ignore the fact that the unchannging Word/God tells us beasts are kingdoms (not the Antichrist) in order to stand by their belief the boogeyman aka “the Antichrist” is the beast in Rev13.

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
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

If the unchanging Word/God tells us beasts are kingdoms in Daniel then a beast in Revelation will still be a kingdom.

 

[revturmoil]

A beast can be a kingdom. and it can also mean a man. A horn is more appropiate for kingdom though.

The word beast in Revelation 13 and 17 is Strongs #2342 and it can indicate a man.

it means...

1)
an animal

2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast

3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

You would have a hard time to convince me that the beast of Revelation 13 and 17 are only kingdoms! Kingdoms usually have a king! Has common sense gone right out the window these days?

Revelation 13:1 ¶And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Your theory has failed and is...DEBUNKED!

And you have the nerve to say...

And some people continue to ignore the fact that the unchannging Word/God tells us beasts are kingdoms (not the Antichrist) in order to stand by their belief the boogeyman aka “the Antichrist” is the beast in Rev13.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You would have a hard time to convince me that the beast of Revelation 13 and 17 are only kingdoms! Kingdoms usually have a king! Has common sense gone right out the window these days?

Rev 17:9-11 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 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. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the
seven, and goeth into perdition.

And yet Scripture tells us there are only 7 kings but 8 beasts. The final (8th)
beast/kingdom is united by the spirit of antichrist not an earthly king.

Believe the unchanging Word/God or follow mans doctrines, your choice.

 

[revturmoil]

Rev 17:9-11 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 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. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the
seven, and goeth into perdition.

And yet Scripture tells us there are only 7 kings but 8 beasts. The final (8th)
beast/kingdom is united by the spirit of antichrist not an earthly king.

Believe the unchanging Word/God or follow mans doctrines, your choice.

NO! It say's there is one beast with seven heads and seven kings!

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

Notice the word HE! He is a person...not only a kingdom.

I believe in the unchanging Word of God. And the word beast in Revelation 13 and 17 means a man...WHO IS KING OVER A KINGDOM!

1)
an animal
2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

 

[Believerway]

Notice the word HE! He is a person...not only a kingdom.

I believe in the unchanging Word of God. And the word beast means a man...NOT A KINGDOM!

1)
an animal
2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

If you believe in the unchanging Word of God then you would know that Scripture tells us that Beasts are Kingdoms, Daniel 7:23.
It appears that you are willing to disregard God's definition of what a beast is and prefer to follow man's definition of what a beast is.
If we listen to what the Word of God tells us it will lead us to a better understanding of Scripture.
If we listen to man, it will lead us to a faulty exegess of Scripture and bring forth false doctrine.
Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

 

[revturmoil]

If you believe in the unchanging Word of God then you would know that Scripture tells us that Beasts are Kingdoms, Daniel 7:23.
It appears that you are willing to disregard God's definition of what a beast is and prefer to follow man's definition of what a beast is.
If we listen to what the Word of God tells us it will lead us to a better understanding of Scripture.
If we listen to man, it will lead us to a faulty exegess of Scripture and bring forth false doctrine.
Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

I never said beast are not kingdoms. I said beast are both symbolic of a kingdom and a person. In some verses a peson is implied more and in some verses a kingdom is implied more. The definition of the word beast (Strong's #2342) in the New Testament shows that it is symbolic of a man. The context shows that it is symbolic of a multi nation kingdom.

The beast of Daniel 7 also shows a man is involved....But you refuse to see it because it debunks your false teaching!

Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

If denial were electricity you would be a walking power plant!

Believerway said,

It appears that you are willing to disregard God's definition of what a beast is and prefer to follow man's definition of what a beast is.

It's you who disregards God's definition of what a beast is...NOT ME

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2342&t=KJV
1)
an animal
2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

He also said,

If we listen to what the Word of God tells us it will lead us to a better understanding of Scripture.
If we listen to man, it will lead us to a faulty exegess of Scripture and bring forth false doctrine.

Maybe you should listen to the Word of God and it will lead you to a better understanding!

You're false teachings have been exposed!

A beast is a king that has a kingdom! Clear and simple!

 

[Ridgerunner]

NO! It say's there is one beast with seven heads and seven kings!

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

Notice the word HE! He is a person...not only a kingdom.

I believe in the unchanging Word of God. And the word beast means a man...NOT A KINGDOM!

Maybe you should reread Rev17:9-11 it positively tells us there are 7 kings and 8 beasts. Are you denying what Scripture says?

Kingdoms are commonly referred to in Scripture as a he or she (third person pronoun). Would you say Israel is a person just because Israel is called she or that Judah is a person because it is called her?
Jer 3:6-7 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen
that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and
under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done
all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister
Judah saw it.

Just because a kingdom is referred to as a third person pronoun does not prove it is a
person.

Can you show us where the unchanging Word/God changed the definition of a beast from a kingdom to the antichrist? Doesn’t Scripture itself tell us 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.
Doesn’t history prove Scripture true? Wasn’t Daniels lion kingdom Babylon, the bear Medo-Persia and the leopard Greece?

 

[revturmoil]

Maybe you should reread Rev17:9-11 it positively tells us there are 7 kings and 8 beasts. Are you denying what Scripture says?

Kingdoms are commonly referred to in Scripture as a he or she (third person pronoun). Would you say Israel is a person just because Israel is called she or that Judah is a person because it is called her?
Jer 3:6-7 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen
that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and
under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done
all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister
Judah saw it.

Just because a kingdom is referred to as a third person pronoun does not prove it is a
person.

Can you show us where the unchanging Word/God changed the definition of a beast from a kingdom to the antichrist? Doesn’t Scripture itself tell us 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.
Doesn’t history prove Scripture true? Wasn’t Daniels lion kingdom Babylon, the bear Medo-Persia and the leopard Greece?

Now come the fabricated complications!

This is the definition of the word beast in Revelation 13 and 17. A kingdom isn't mentioned.

1) an animal

2) a wild animal, wild beast, beast

3) metaph. a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

Educate yourself and get out of denial!

Good luck with your beliefs. They have misled you quite well!

Why do you always omit verse 24-26???
Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

Doesn’t history prove Scripture true? Wasn’t Daniels lion kingdom Babylon, the bear Medo-Persia and the leopard Greece?

The lion can't be Babylon.

First problem.

The vision occurs in the first year of Belchazzar who was the last king of the Babylonian Empire and Babylon only lasted a few years after that.
Daniel sees the lion rise out of the sea.
Babylon was already an Empire for over 50 yeatrs when Daniel had the vision. Why would Daniel have a vision of an Empire that was already in existence for several decades and on it's way out?
Was there something lacking or insufficient about Daniel 2 where God found it necessary to repeat it in Daniel 7?

Second problem.

....and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

The word before means in front of.

Example.
God's hand is "stretched out before Him" meaning in front of Him. These four beast of Daniel 7 are all end time kingdoms as they are in front of the ten horned beast. All four kingdom's are all in existence at the same time.

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

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now come the fabricated complications!

Jer 3:6-7 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen
that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and
under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done
all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister
Judah saw it.

So now Scriptural proof that kingdoms are sometimes referred to in the third person
pronoun is a fabricated complication? It may be a complication for you because it shows that just because a third person pronoun is used to describe the beast/kingdom does not prove that the use of a third person pronoun proves Scripture is referring to a person, but it is far from fabricated.

This is the definition of the word beast in Revelation 13 and 17. A kingdom isn't mentioned.

1) an animal

2) a wild animal, wild beast, beast

3) metaph. a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

Educate yourself and get out of denial!

Good luck with your beliefs. They have misled you quite well!

So once again you choose to use man’s definition instead of the definition scripture itself provides. Is that because the definition the unchanging Word/God provides does not fit the doctrine you espouse?
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.

So once again I ask can you show us where the unchanging Word/God changed the Scriptural definition (as used in prophecy) has changed from a beast to the antichrist? No you can’t but yet you expect us to blindly follow your belief even though it contradicts the definition Scripture itself gives.

Why do you always omit verse 24-26???
Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

None of this changes the definition of what a beast is per the unchanging Word/God. So why should we complicate the issue by discussing things that have no bearing on the meaning of what a beast is per Scripture?

The lion can't be Babylon.

First problem.

The vision occurs in the first year of Belchazzar who was the last king of the Babylonian Empire and Babylon only lasted a few years after that.
Daniel sees the lion rise out of the sea.
Babylon was already an Empire for over 50 yeatrs when Daniel had the vision. Why would Daniel have a vision of an Empire that was already in existence for several decades and on it's way out?

Prophecy is not always about the future. Prophetic Scriptures can include past, present and future as the following verse from Revelation demonstrates.
Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter
Now if you don’t want to believe that Daniel’s lion was Babylon despite the preponderance of evidence demonstrating it is, then by all means believe as you are led.

Was there something lacking or insufficient about Daniel 2 where God found it necessary to repeat it in Daniel 7?

Do you understand bifids and chiasms (a Jewish writing style). If not then may I suggest you gain an understanding of bifids and chiasms as they are essential in understanding Daniel.

Do you understand that 2 languages were used by Daniel when he wrote the book of Daniel? Do you even have a clue as to why he chose to use 2 languages? Chapter 2 and chapter 7 were written in different languages. It might help if you would gain an understanding of why he wrote the same things twice, once in one language and a second time in a different language.

Second problem.....and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

The word before means in front of.

Example.
God's hand is "stretched out before Him" meaning in front of Him. These four beast of Daniel 7 are all end time kingdoms as they are in front of the ten horned beast. All four kingdom's are all in existence at the same time.
http://www.bluelette...ngs=H6925&t=KJV

LOL seriously you jest, if the other three kingdoms came before the fourth it proves they do not all exist at the same time. There is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that these four kingdoms exist at the same time in the end. Can you provide Scriptural support or will you continue to rely on guesswork theology that is easily shown to be in error?

 

[revturmoil]

I know what languages Daniel was written in and why. Hebrew was written for the Jews. Aramaic was written for gentiles. And the third person pronoun doesn't mean a kingdom instead of a person. It's a foolish hermeneutical blunder and an outright fabrication to believe such a thing. A beast can be a man according to the true definition of the word. Why would Daniel see a beast 'RISING' out of the sea if Babylon had already risen some 50 years before!

And why would God have Daniel receive another vision that has the same message as Daniel 2? Maybe you should look at the word 'before!' You might learn something.

Go back to school!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know what languages Daniel was written in and why. Hebrew was written for the Jews. Aramaic was written for gentiles.

Yes it was because there were 2 different audiences, so the same prophecies were given in two different manners once for each audience in the language they understood..

And the third person pronoun doesn't mean a kingdom instead of a person. It's a foolish hermeneutical blunder and an outright fabrication to believe such a thing.

As I have demonstrated just because the beast/kingdom is spoken about in the third person pronoun does not prove it is a man as you insist. By your line of reasoning then Israel and Judah were women, not kingdoms. The fact that the beasts/kingdoms of Rev are referred to as he does not prove they are people, any more then the fact that Israel is referred to as a she proves Israel is a person.

A beast can be a man according to the true definition of the word.

According to man’s definition’s, but when dealing with prophecy we should use the definitions Scripture provides and history has proven true. If you want to ignore the definition Scripture provides and use man’s so you can cling to faulty doctrine it is certainly your choice, as you are led friend as you are led.

Why would Daniel see a beast 'RISING' out of the sea if Babylon had already risen some 50 years before!

That was so Daniel would understand the chronological order of those beasts. The llion/Babylon came first, then the bear/Medo-Persia, then the leopard/Greece and then the great and terrible beast Rome.

And why would God have Daniel receive another vision that has the same message as Daniel 2?

The answer lies in the fact that it was written for 2 different audiences. The vision was given once for the Jews and once for the Gentiles each in the appropriate language. This is where understanding the bifidic and chiasmic nature of the books of prophecy is important. May I suggest you take the time to gain an understanding of bifids and chiasms. It will certainly help when it comes to understanding the book of Daniel (as well as other books).

Maybe you should look at the word 'before!' You might learn something.

Go back to school!

LOL very productive and this helps the discussion how? Criticizing the messenger does not change the facts, nor does it lead to productive discussion. May God bless your studies!

 

[revturmoil]

As I have demonstrated just because the beast/kingdom is spoken about in the third person pronoun does not prove it is a man as you insist. By your line of reasoning then Israel and Judah were women, not kingdoms. The fact that the beasts/kingdoms of Rev are referred to as he does not prove they are people, any more then the fact that Israel is referred to as a she proves Israel is a person.

First of all we aren't talking about Israel. Isreal is clearly infered to as 'she' but that doesn't mean that that's a universal truth throughout scripture. But you seem to think it is!

I said,

A beast can be a man according to the true definition of the word.

Then you replied,

According to man’s definition’s, but when dealing with prophecy we should use the definitions Scripture provides and history has proven true. If you want to ignore the definition Scripture provides and use man’s so you can cling to faulty doctrine it is certainly your choice, as you are led friend as you are led.

What do you mean, "according to man's definition???

You are the one expressing "MANS DEFINITION!!!

I GAVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD USED IN THE TEXT in the original language!

YOU HAVE CHANGED IT'S MEANING TO FIT YOUR FALSE TEACHING!

THE WORD FOR BEAST IS 'THERION' AND IT MEANS...

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2342&t=KJV
1)
an animal
2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT BEAST METAPHORICALLY MEANS A MAN???

Do I have to speak any louder!

I'm very impressed how some Christians read something and just accept it with little or no research. What do you do? Read something and say, "that sounds right" and just accept it line hook and sinker? What you and Waldo need are a sensible hermeneutic. You two really don't have one.

You say that I follow doctrines of men because I utilize tools like Strongs, Thayers, Gesenius, Vines, and Wuest as part of my hermeneutic. You call that doctrines of men because it debunks your beliefs! The word beast in Revelation 13 and 17 denote a man in the original language. But again that's meaningless to you because it debunks your teaching! So you accuse Veteran and I of FOLLOWING DOCTRINES OF MEN! Like I said. Get out of denial and go back to school!

YOU'RE NOT ONLY MISLED BUT YOU'RE A VICTIM OF SELF-DECEPTION. Follow Waldo. He'll get you there! Do I ever regret posting his link!

I don't think you have any idea what a hermeneutic is! Maybe you just don't know any better. Maybe you're just in denial.

You are not much different that the illustrious "Teleiosis."

He has the same disability you have. He say's the last trump isn't the last trump and has a lengthy fabricated mess of complications to support his false teaching just like the pre-tribulationist do. The word last in the text is the same word Christ uses when He said, "I am the first and the last." Neither of you utilize a dictionary of the original text. You do the same and even worse! You seem to think that the word temple always infers our bodies. It's true that our body is the temple of God but that's not a constant. That's not a universal truth throughout the bible. The same is true with your misinterpretational blunder about a kingdom. A kingdom has a king and a system and that is clearly depicted in God's Word. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND! Yet you have perverted His Word all in the name of denial and loyalty to Waldo.

I just want to give you an idea how foolish it sounds when the words he, his, and him always infer a kingdom and not a person.

Revelation 13:1 　¶And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 　And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Kingdoms don't have feet, Kings do! Kingdoms don't have mouths, Kings do! Kingdoms don't have 'a seat'! Kings do!

3 　And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Kingdoms don't have heads. Kings do!

4 　And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

People don't worship kingdom's. People worship kings and people etc.

5 　And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Kingdoms don't have a mouth given to them. Kingdoms don't speak. Kings do!

6 　And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Kings have mouths. Kingdoms do not. The same is true with the rest of the chapter

18 Here is wisdom. (something you are certainly lacking)

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Do you realize how foolish your beliefs makes you and Waldo look?

Truth obviously matters less to you than admitting a mistake!

I said,

Why would Daniel see a beast 'RISING' out of the sea if Babylon had already risen some 50 years before!

And your foolish reply,

That was so Daniel would understand the chronological order of those beasts.
The llion/Babylon came first, then the bear/Medo-Persia, then the leopard/Greece and then the great and terrible beast Rome.

And I mean foolish! What a cop out. You have no answer. Daniel must have been a false prophet since he prophecied about something that already occured...just so he would understand the chronological order?!???

Daniel 2 and 7 are two different visions with two different meanings.

Daniel said he saw the beast (lion) rise out of the sea. Babylon had already risen some 50 years before and was near the end of it's reign when Daniel wrote chapter 7! And Daniel 7 was written about 35 years after Daniel 2.

How much sense does it make for him to prophesy about something that has already occured! That would make Daniel a false prophet. Atheist have picked up on these "Protestant blunders' of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 and have used them to debunk the bible! (Kyle Williams)

You need to study Daniel 7 on your own. You've accepted Waldo's teaching on it.
If you look at the word 'before' in the text of Daniel 7. You'll see that all four kingdoms are end time kingdoms and all are in a struggle for dominance of the area around the "Great Sea" i.e. the Mediterranean Sea.

The word before in Daniel 7 is similar to the word before in Revelation 13.

It means in front of or in the presence of. Not historically 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.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6925&t=KJV

Revelation 13:12 　And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1799&t=KJV

I don't believe that chapter 7 depicts four divisions of history like chapter two does. But because chapter 7 follows the same general patern of chapter 2 interpreters believe they depict the same divisions of history. I disagree.

In chapter 2 the only kingdom that's an end time kingdom is the fourth kingdom. In chapter 7 all four beast are end time kingdoms because Daniel said that the fourth beast was different than all the beast in front of it. (in the presence of)

You also have the sequence of kingdoms in Daniel 2 wrong. Rome is omited from it. The correct sequence is Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/13457-daniel-2-and-nebus-vision-of-the-statue/#entry102837

I said about Daniel 2 and 7,

And why would God have Daniel receive another vision that has the same message as Daniel 2?

You said,

The answer lies in the fact that it was written for 2 different audiences. The vision was given once for the Jews and once for the Gentiles each in the appropriate language. This is where understanding the bifidic and chiasmic nature of the books of prophecy is important. May I suggest you take the time to gain an understanding of bifids and chiasms. It will certainly help when it comes to understanding the book of Daniel (as well as other books).

Maybe you should take the time to learn the truth by using the original language rather than make up your own definitions. That's a good start for a novice interpreter like you. And do your own homework and check the homework of others esp. Waldo!

You said,

LOL very productive and this helps the discussion how? Criticizing the messenger does not change the facts, nor does it lead to productive discussion. May God bless your studies!

I say,

He does bless my studies. I can tell He hasn't blessed yours! God doesn't bless false teachings!

 

[Ridgerunner]

First of all we aren't talking about Israel. Isreal is clearly infered to as 'she' but that doesn't mean that that's a universal truth throughout scripture. But you seem to think it is!

I said,



Then you replied,




What do you mean, "according to man's definition???

You are the one expressing "MANS DEFINITION!!!

I GAVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD USED IN THE TEXT in the original language!

YOU HAVE CHANGED IT'S MEANING TO FIT YOUR FALSE TEACHING!

THE WORD FOR BEAST IS 'THERION' AND IT MEANS...

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2342&t=KJV
1)
an animal
2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT BEAST METAPHORICALLY MEANS A MAN???

Do I have to speak any louder!

I'm very impressed how some Christians read something and just accept it with little or no research. What do you do? Read something and say, "that sounds right" and just accept it line hook and sinker? What you and Waldo need are a sensible hermeneutic. You two really don't have one.

You say that I follow doctrines of men because I utilize tools like Strongs, Thayers, Gesenius, Vines, and Wuest as part of my hermeneutic. You call that doctrines of men because it debunks your beliefs! The word beast in Revelation 13 and 17 denote a man in the original language. But again that's meaningless to you because it debunks your teaching! So you accuse Veteran and I of FOLLOWING DOCTRINES OF MEN! Like I said. Get out of denial and go back to school!

YOU'RE NOT ONLY MISLED BUT YOU'RE A VICTIM OF SELF-DECEPTION. Follow Waldo. He'll get you there! Do I ever regret posting his link!

I don't think you have any idea what a hermeneutic is! Maybe you just don't know any better. Maybe you're just in denial.

You are not much different that the illustrious "Teleiosis."

He has the same disability you have. He say's the last trump isn't the last trump and has a lengthy fabricated mess of complications to support his false teaching just like the pre-tribulationist do. The word last in the text is the same word Christ uses when He said, "I am the first and the last." Neither of you utilize a dictionary of the original text. You do the same and even worse! You seem to think that the word temple always infers our bodies. It's true that our body is the temple of God but that's not a constant. That's not a universal truth throughout the bible. The same is true with your misinterpretational blunder about a kingdom. A kingdom has a king and a system and that is clearly depicted in God's Word. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND! Yet you have perverted His Word all in the name of denial and loyalty to Waldo.

I just want to give you an idea how foolish it sounds when the words he, his, and him always infer a kingdom and not a person.

Revelation 13:1 　¶And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 　And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Kingdoms don't have feet, Kings do! Kingdoms don't have mouths, Kings do! Kingdoms don't have 'a seat'! Kings do!

3 　And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Kingdoms don't have heads. Kings do!

4 　And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

People don't worship kingdom's. People worship kings and people etc.

5 　And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Kingdoms don't have a mouth given to them. Kingdoms don't speak. Kings do!

6 　And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Kings have mouths. Kingdoms do not. The same is true with the rest of the chapter

18 Here is wisdom. (something you are certainly lacking)

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Do you realize how foolish your beliefs makes you and Waldo look?

Truth obviously matters less to you than admitting a mistake!

I said,



And your foolish reply,

That was so Daniel would understand the chronological order of those beasts.
The llion/Babylon came first, then the bear/Medo-Persia, then the leopard/Greece and then the great and terrible beast Rome.

And I mean foolish! What a cop out. You have no answer. Daniel must have been a false prophet since he prophecied about something that already occured...just so he would understand the chronological order?!???

Daniel 2 and 7 are two different visions with two different meanings.

Daniel said he saw the beast (lion) rise out of the sea. Babylon had already risen some 50 years before and was near the end of it's reign when Daniel wrote chapter 7! And Daniel 7 was written about 35 years after Daniel 2.

How much sense does it make for him to prophesy about something that has already occured! That would make Daniel a false prophet. Atheist have picked up on these "Protestant blunders' of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 and have used them to debunk the bible! (Kyle Williams)

You need to study Daniel 7 on your own. You've accepted Waldo's teaching on it.
If you look at the word 'before' in the text of Daniel 7. You'll see that all four kingdoms are end time kingdoms and all are in a struggle for dominance of the area around the "Great Sea" i.e. the Mediterranean Sea.

The word before in Daniel 7 is similar to the word before in Revelation 13.

It means in front of or in the presence of. Not historically 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.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6925&t=KJV

Revelation 13:12 　And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1799&t=KJV

I don't believe that chapter 7 depicts four divisions of history like chapter two does. But because chapter 7 follows the same general patern of chapter 2 interpreters believe they depict the same divisions of history. I disagree.

In chapter 2 the only kingdom that's an end time kingdom is the fourth kingdom. In chapter 7 all four beast are end time kingdoms because Daniel said that the fourth beast was different than all the beast in front of it. (in the presence of)

You also have the sequence of kingdoms in Daniel 2 wrong. Rome is omited from it. The correct sequence is Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/13457-daniel-2-and-nebus-vision-of-the-statue/#entry102837

I said about Daniel 2 and 7,

And why would God have Daniel receive another vision that has the same message as Daniel 2?

You said,



Maybe you should take the time to learn the truth by using the original language rather than make up your own definitions. That's a good start for a novice interpreter like you. And do your own homework and check the homework of others esp. Waldo!

You said,


I say,

He does bless my studies. I can tell He hasn't blessed yours! God doesn't bless false teachings!

Yawn do you have anything productive to add or are you going to continue with the same old Scripturally bankrupt drivel that has already been proven to be in error?
Be blessed my friend maybe someday you will decide to accept the fact God's unchanging Word tells us beasts are kingdoms(Dan7:23). Keep looking for your rebuilt temple even though Scripture clearly states we have a new covenant and a new temple (Heb8:1-2 and 8:13) and that God does not dwell in temples made with hands (Acts7:48 and 17:24). Keep up the trash talking it only shows the spirit that leads you. Be blessed my friend and may God bless your studies!

 

[Believerway]

It's you who disregards God's definition of what a beast is...NOT ME

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2342&t=KJV
1)
an animal
2)
a wild animal, wild beast, beast
3)
metaph.
a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious

When God’s Word defines certain things for us we should not look to man’s definition. Notice how God’s Word defines beast in the following verse.

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.

It becomes unwise to look to man’s definition of certain things when God’s Word defines it for us. And as you have proven you disregard the fact that the Word of God says a beast is a kingdom as shown in Daniel 7:23.

By applying your metaphoric definition of beast you ignore the truth of God’s Word and turn to man’s precepts to promote your false doctrine.

"God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not dependent on how artfully he can defend his doctrines, but on his willingness to seek out and follow the truth." - Ellis Skolfield.

 

[revturmoil]

I've been criticize at church and on forums for studying prophecy and for utilizing study tools like Vine's Exposotory Dictionary of New Testament Words or Strong's Exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Both books I've had for 38 years.

When studying God's Word I must ask you about your beliefs. "How have you arrive at you conclusions." What reliable methods did you use to form your beliefs and attain what you hope is "the truth". "Jesus said, I am truth."

Do you approach the scriptures and study them the with purpose of understanding the truth? Or do you approach them thinking you already have the truth looking to support what you already believe. I have to wonder if most Christians even question what they believe or the works of others like all the promminent prophecy experts. Too many people think they already have things all figured out.

For now I will call a hermeneutic a sensible and reliable method of interpretation.

I have about seven pillars of interpretation in my hermeneutic.

The first and most important part of my hermeneutic is to study God's Word in the language it was written in. Why do I do that? Two main reasons.

1. Both Greek and Hebrew are very different than English and much was lost in the English translation. They are more detailed and descriptive languages than English. There are over 100 mistakes in the KJV and some accuracy and truth was lost in the translation. That's why there are often several different Greek words for one English word. Sometimes the English translation just doesn't do justice to God's Word.

2. More important is this.

Every Christian believes in the inspired Word of God. Well what does inspired mean?

Timothy 3:16 　All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

In 2 Timothy 3:16 It means...

1) inspired by God
a) the contents of the scriptures

That meaning is derived from another word which means...To breath. So to say all scripture is given by inspiration of God can be understood a few different ways. One way is to understand it as, "God Spoke."

2 Peter 1:21 　For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now think about this.

We know that in the book of Revelation (as well as many other places) Jesus spoke directly to John. John spoke and understood Greek. So it's only logical that Jesus spoke to him in Greek when he was in the Spirit. And who knows, maybe Aramaic. Now if I want to understand something Jesus said through the author (John in this case), and if I want to know what John (and Jesus) original intended to mean, the wise thing to do is to look at the language Jesus spoke it in, the language John heard it in, and the language he wrote it in! That's why I look at Gods Word from that perspective.

So now we have people on the forum who say that because I look at the original language I'm relying on "MAN'S DEFINITION"

One said that the using the Greek is man's definition. and also said...

"This is part of the problem when we rely on man’s definition instead of God’s definition"

OR

"the definition Scripture itself gives."

So these guy's just look at the bible in English and call that God's definition.
They don't utilize any of the reliable study tools and methods I've described above.

Well scripture itself was written in Greek! Not English! How foolish and hypocritical of them to say I'm using "man's definition. That's why I say these guys have absolutely no clue how to interpret prophecy. They don't have a reliable method of interpretation. The extent of their studies come only from the English translation of God's Word. These guys adamantly refuse to study God's Word in it's original language, yet they have no problem quoting people like Ellis Skolfield.

I know a guy who has a page on his site entitled, "stupid Christians!" I think I'm going to do the same on mine under a different title. Maybe something like, "foolish Christian's." And I have a couple of great examples right here from the forum!

My final thoughts.

I actually have an unfavorable view of Christians. I've had some bad experiences in several churches with pastors, clergy, and people in general. My biggest disturbance comes from the overwhelming number of false teachings about prophecy. Most of what Christians believe will come in the last days will never come to pass. And I blame it all on the long list of so called bible prophecy experts. People would rather adhere to a false teaching even when there's a mountain of scriptural evidence against them because "I was wrong" is a phrase not found in the vocabulary of most Christians.

As far as this debate goes. I'm done with it.

As far as interpretation goes. Here's a message for ridgerunner and believerway.

Romans 1:22 　Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

When God’s Word defines certain things for us we should not look to man’s definition. Notice how God’s Word defines beast in the following verse.

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.

It becomes unwise to look to man’s definition of certain things when God’s Word defines it for us. And as you have proven you disregard the fact that the Word of God says a beast is a kingdom as shown in Daniel 7:23.

By applying your metaphoric definition of beast you ignore the truth of God’s Word and turn to man’s precepts to promote your false doctrine.

"God is truth, so how well a person serves the Lord is not dependent on how artfully he can defend his doctrines, but on his willingness to seek out and follow the truth." - Ellis Skolfield.

The word kingdom...

1) royal power, kingship, dominion, rule

a) not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather the right or authority to rule over a kingdom

Vines says about the word kingdom,

A concrete noun, denoting the territory or people over whom a king rules.

Vine's say's about beast..
...in the sense of wild beast, is used in the Apocalypse for two antichristian potentates who are destined to control the affairs of the nations with Satanic power in the closing period of the present era.

Let me spell it out for you.

King dom

Enough said!