The Beast Revelation

[Spiritual Israelite]

 

[TribulationSigns]

"Lake of fire" ( Revelation 20:10) indeed sounds like magma (moulten rock beneath the earth's surface, common in the Far East, not so common in the U.S.).

Humm... The lake of fire is a physical magma of the Earth that will last forever?

 

[William Barton]

Zao is life noted:

>in what land will the beast arise>

Jerusalem is an ancient city. The etymology of its name is:
Jeru = Hebrew יךו = city
salem,= Hebrew שלם = peace
City of Peace

I assume the beast will arise in Jerusalem, or close by.

I don't know what the mark of the beast is but IMO you are correct about the meaning of Revelation 13:12's "the earth" - wherever that "the land" is (I don't know where it is).

1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth [erets] are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world [tebel] upon them.

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before him, all the earth [erets]! The world [tebel] is established, it cannot be moved.

The Hebrew uses word [erets] for "land" (not the planet earth, but the land) throughout the flood narrative:

Genesis 6:12
12 And God looked upon the earth [erets] (the land), and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth [erets] (the land).
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth [erets] (the land) is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth [erets] (the land).

"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth [erets] (the land)."

2 Peter 3:5-7
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens (ouranós) were of old, and the earth [gē] standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world (o kósmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

The word Kosmos in the Greek = "world" - it does not mean "universe" or "Cosmos" ("the heavens") (as it does in English).

Matthew 2:6
And thou Bethlehem, in the land [ge] of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

So yes, the word ge is talking about the land, not the whole world - wherever that "the land" is (I don't know where it is).

There is also this difference between a beast rising from 'the sea' and a beast rising from 'the earth'

r

IMO:
Mark of the "beast" (a.k.a. "antichrist") is a physical mark/object on the hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18). My impression is that it is a chip, like the chip on a credit card. Without the chip it will be difficult to buy necessities. Revelation 13:12 says "την γην και τους εν αυτη" ("the land and those in it") referring to the Middle East. There was no concept of planet earth in biblical times.

"Making fire come down from heaven" (Revelation 13:13) is not described, hence its meaning is not clear, could be missiles.

 

[MonoBiblical]

"Making fire come down from heaven" (Revelation 13:13) is not described, hence its meaning is not clear, could be missiles.

After nuclear holocaust, all 4 corners of the supercontinent will be burned.

 

[TribulationSigns]

"Making fire come down from heaven" (Revelation 13:13) is not described, hence its meaning is not clear, could be missiles.

Oh, so Revelation 13:13 is about missiles now? That sounds like pure speculation—especially after admitting you don’t actually know what the Lord meant. Not surprising.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Oh, so Revelation 13:13 is about missiles now? That sounds like pure speculation—especially after admitting you don’t actually know what the Lord meant. Not surprising.

Few understand the New Testament as the same stuff. It isn't new, but it does tell you what happened to Israel.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Few understand the New Testament as the same stuff. It isn't new, but it does tell you what happened to Israel.

I can tell that you really do NOT understand what the whole book of Revelation 13 is about, anyway. You just assumed and make speculations here as far as I can see what you wrote lately.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I can tell that you really do NOT understand what the whole book of Revelation 13 is about, anyway. You just assumed and make speculations here as far as I can see what you wrote lately.

I have a semi-preterist eschatology. But the idea that Israel was destroyed in its war with Rome, or that it continued in Rabbinic Judaism; I find just as ridiculous as the anthropomorphic visions of Valentinus the heretic.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I have a semi-preterist eschatology. But the idea that Israel was destroyed in its war with Rome, or that it continued in Rabbinic Judaism; I find just as ridiculous as the anthropomorphic visions of Valentinus the heretic.

Well... okay. Semi-preterist and partial preterist are basically the same view. Still wrong no matter how hard they try.

Not interested in dealing with proven false doctrine.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Well... okay. Semi-preterist and partial preterist are basically the same view. Still wrong no matter how hard they try.

Not interested in dealing with proven false doctrine.

Not interested in the 2nd coming happening post-Israel. He came like a thief in the night. Get over it.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Not interested in the 2nd coming happening post-Israel. He came like a thief in the night. Get over it.

What Israel?

 

[MonoBiblical]

What Israel?

The original Israel.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The original Israel.

I see that you haven't cited Scripture to support your answers which is not surprising. And you’ve also misrepresented (or even know) my view—I’m not teaching about a physical “original Israel,” whether in 70 AD or the modern state of Israel. Both interpretations are incorrect.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I see that you haven't cited Scripture to support your answers which is not surprising. And you’ve also misrepresented (or even know) my view—I’m not teaching about a physical “original Israel,” whether in 70 AD or the modern state of Israel. Both interpretations are incorrect.

He didn't say I am coming in the far future. I am not interested in what you have to say either, but these aren't doctrine because they are not instructions moral or otherwise.

 

[ewq1938]

Impossible if you believe the Scriptures. both the AC and the FP will be dealt with simultaneously as they are cast alive into the lake of fire.

The FP is the AC. He is cast into the LOF with his ten horned kingdom signifying it is destroyed. Same basic thing is found in Daniel 7 where there is one specific end times leader not two. It's the same in Rev.

 

[Zao is life]

Zao is life noted:

>in what land will the beast arise>

Jerusalem is an ancient city. The etymology of its name is:
Jeru = Hebrew יךו =
שלם

r

"Making fire come down from heaven" (Revelation 13:13) is not described, hence its meaning is not clear, could be missiles.

I believe everything in the Revelation has an Old Testament basis. The passage in Revelation 20 has to do with the worship of the image of the beast, and of the beast.

"Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house. And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD’S house." (2 Chronicles 7:1-2).

"And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." (Revelation 15:8)

"And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever." (2 Chronicles 7:1-3).

In Revelation 13:15 the image of the beast is being worshiped. The false prophet causing fire to come down from God out of heaven is meant to cause all to worship the beast and his image.

The fire coming down is to do with worship IMO, not with military weapons. I've wondered about a "3rd temple" in Jerusalem possibly being the image of the beast, if such a thing is ever built - but I do not believe in speculating and then believing my own speculation.​

 

[Zao is life]

I have a semi-preterist eschatology.

But the idea that Israel was destroyed in its war with Rome, or that it continued in Rabbinic Judaism; I find just as ridiculous as the anthropomorphic visions of Valentinus the heretic.

- and like the ridiculousness of the semi-Preterist idea that the Old Covenant was reserved till 70 AD so that "Israel" could be judged by the law.

 

[MonoBiblical]

- and like the ridiculousness of the semi-Preterist idea that the Old Covenant was reserved till 70 AD so that "Israel" could be judged by the law.

That is why I am semi-preterist.

 

[Davy]

IMO:
Mark of the "beast" (a.k.a. "antichrist") is a physical mark/object on the hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18). My impression is that it is a chip, like the chip on a credit card. Without the chip it will be difficult to buy necessities. Revelation 13:12 says "την γην και τους εν αυτη" ("the land and those in it") referring to the Middle East. There was no concept of planet earth in biblical times.

I believe there will be something in relation to buying and selling, but the Rev.13 mark that says it is in the forehead (where your brain is), and 'in' the right hand, (which can symbolize doing work), the real mark is being deceived and following the beast.

 

[Luther7]

Christian films often portray that all those who have not received the mark of the beast will be killed, this is a symbolic truth. The circumstances are true, but they missed the real meaning due to some failed interpretations. All those who have not taken the mark are killed, this part is true, but those who have not taken the mark are Hamas. The mark was given during the elections for the president of the Palestinian authority, which was boycotted by Hamas. Hamas has never received the mark. Films like to portray all people as subject to the mark. This part is wrong. It only affects those Palestinians who did not take the mark, and not the whole world. It is only Hamas. This makes the mark as what the letter indicates. It was the indelible ink brand given to those who voted in the Palestinian elections.​

You funny.