The Beast Revealed

Introduction

The following is a presentation of an eschatological view that teaches the Islamic Caliphate as the last head of the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation. The purpose of this teaching is to present this theory as a possible interpretation that fulfills the prophecies regarding the seventh Beast on Earth, (actually the seventh and eighth kings spoken of by John). This Beast is an Islamic Empire and is said to be ruled by the Islamic Mahdi whose description uncannily matches the Antichrist spoken of in the Bible.

Seven Headed BeastThere are of course a number of popular end-time theories. Let’s first take a quick look at two popular eschatological views.

The Futurist View says that Europe is the Beast, the Antichrist a Jew, and the Mark of the Beast as a computer chip or bar-code implanted into people’s right-hand or forehead for the purposes of buying and selling.

The Preterite View interprets prophecies of the Bible as events that have already happened throughout history. This view usually features The Roman Empire, emperors, the Vatican, and popes as having fulfilled many end-time prophecies. I personally remain open minded on all the views out there and do think there is some merit with many of them, but obviously all cannot be right in their entirety.

An important thing to note before me move on to this new eschatological view is where other views place Islam. Many consider Islam to be important enough to play a part in the End Times, but they do not know where if at all it is mentioned in the Bible. This teaching places the Islamic Caliphate as the last head of the Beast.

The Islamic Beast Eschatological View

The Islamic Beast eschatological view for want of a better title is conjecture just like all other views. But it seems to tick all the boxes and is worthy of our consideration because the evidence is very compelling. Without further ado, I present the evidence that supports the Islamic Caliphate as the last Kingdom that belongs to the Beast that rises from the Great Sea headed by the Antichrist.

The AntiChrist

The Bible clearly states that antichrists deny the Father and the Son in 1 John 2:22-23:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist–denying the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son, the same doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

The Quran states clearly in Quran 2:116
Who says “Allah has begotten a Son”?

Quran 10.68
They say, “Allah hath begotten a son!” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!

To understand how central to the Islamic faith it is to oppose the view that God has a son, these words are inscribed in the mosque at the Dome of the Rock where the Jews formerly worshipped YHWH:
“Far be it from God that he should have a son!”
Thus Islam is an antichrist religion according to scripture.

Who conquered the Roman Beast?

Nebuchadnezzar Statue

Nebuchadnezzar Statue

In scripture and history we see that each head on the Beast (kingdom) was succeeded by the next, i.e., Babylon was conquered by Persia was conquered by Greece was conquered by Rome. So it would be logical to think then that whoever conquered Rome could be the next Beast if we follow this pattern. However, many remain confused about who conquered Rome because they believe that the Roman Empire just fell into decline rather than being conquered by a succeeding empire. What many do not consider is that the Roman Empire had two legs, the western leg and eastern leg and this is even pictured in the statue of Daniel’s vision in Daniel 2:32-33:

“The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

While the western leg did indeed decline over time, the eastern leg continued to exist for another thousand years. Think of Constantinople rather than Rome. So while we may view Rome as the center of the Roman Empire, in the last period of this empire, the capital was moved to Constantinople in the east which is now modern day Istanbul in Turkey. This period of the Roman Empire is often referred to as the Byzantine Empire hence why there is some confusion as to how the Roman Empire was conquered. Rest assure however that the Byzantine Empire was still the Roman Empire. It is called by this name to identify this phase of the Roman Empire. Historians do not consider the Eastern Roman Empire as being a different empire from the Roman Empire when its capital was Rome. The east did not conquer the west, instead the same empire just moved its capital from Rome to Constantinople. Both the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire terminology are terms created after the end of the realm. Its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire. and themselves as Roman citizens.

The Ottoman Empire in 1795

The Ottoman Empire in 1795

So who conquered the Roman (Byzantine) Empire? It was the Ottoman Empire which was actually the first Islamic Caliphate. So the seventh empire spoken of by John appears to have already been fulfilled, it was the Ottoman Empire. Known as a Caliphate, it initially took control of the region and it said to have reached empire status when it conquered the Roman capital of Constantinople. It subsequently became the capital of the Ottoman Empire and was renamed to ‘Istanbul’.

In case you think that the Ottoman Empire was not significant enough to be compared with the previous empires that make up the Beast, then know this. It reigned for a significant period of time, from 1299 to around 1924. It could be argued that the Ottoman Empire was more of a state until 1453 when it conquered Constantinople the capital of the Roman Empire. And at the height of its power, it controlled much of southeast Europe, the Caucasus, Western Asia, and North Africa, even as far south as the Horn of Africa.

More proof for the identity of the seventh kingdom

Revelation 17:9
Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. “The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

While the popular view of the Beast is a revived Roman Empire, the above scripture (Revelation 17:9) shows us that the Roman Empire was only the sixth kingdom because that was the empire that reigned when John gave the prophecy, (five have fallen, one is). We can clearly see that there is still a seventh kingdom to come and also an eighth which is of the seventh (or seven). We also know that each kingdom/empire was succeeded by the next and that the Ottoman Empire conquered the Roman Empire and took over its capital.

Another significant feature of  The Ottoman Empire was its length of rule. It reigned for 500 years or so over a huge swathes of land around the Mediterranean Sea. Its capital was Istanbul in Turkey which was called Constantinople during the reign of the Eastern Roman Empire. These two points are significant because Istanbul resides in modern day Turkey today and scripture itself actually tells us that Turkey is the location for the seat of the Antichrist and the Beast. It also says that the Beast arises out of the ‘Great Sea’ which is the Mediterranean Sea, we will read about this later. First take a look at Revelation 13:2:

The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

We can see that the Dragon (who is Satan) gave his throne to the Beast. So where is Satan’s throne located? Take a look at Revelation 2:12:

“To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘I know your works, and where you dwell… where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to my name, and did not deny my faith even in the days in which Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.  

So where is Pergamum? It is in Turkey, the very same country where both the capitals of the Roman Empire and Ottoman empires were located. Is it a coincidence then that both the late Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire had their capitals in the very same country as the location of Satan’s throne?

Other popular views today regarding the seventh head/kingdom include: the British Empire and or the American Empire. But there is one simple verse in Daniel that rules out any other empire outside of the Mediterranean as being part of the Beast. The verse is Daniel 7:1-3

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

According to most commentary on the term ‘great sea’, it is identified as the Mediterranean Sea. In fact if you google “The Great Sea” Google also tells you that it is the Mediterranean Sea. If this is correct, then we can see that the Beast or the last four empires are indeed from the Middle East and specifically around the Mediterranean, which by reason of this excludes empires outside of this region. In fact all seven empires had extensive coastline in the Mediterranean Sea, even Egypt.

Picture this. Just outside of Israel is a Beast that is ready to devour the Jews and occupy the promised land. It is not too hard to see what is happening here. God carves out a country for himself as we read in scripture, in order to demonstrate his power and existence to the Gentiles. Satan’s opposition to Israel (the promised land) is surrounded by a Beast that attacks and persecutes not only that nation, but all her offspring too.

Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born.

This is one of the signs of each head of the Beast. They persecuted the Jews and even captivated them. We cannot say the same about The British Empire or the American Empire.

The seven kingdoms

Let’s take a look at all seven gentile kingdoms that ruled the biblical world in succession:

  1. Egypt – 3100 to 677 BC (Genesis 12:10)
  2. Assyria – 677 to 626 BC (Genesis 2:14)
  3. Babylon – 626 – 539 BC (Daniel 1:1)
  4. Medo-Persia – 539 – 449 BC (Daniel 5:28)
  5. Greecia – 449 – 146 BC (Daniel 10:20)
  6. Rome – 146 BC-476 AD eastern leg / 1453 AD western leg or Byzantium (Daniel 9:26 & Romans 1-7)
  7. Ottoman – 1453 – 1924 AD (Future empire when Revelation was written, but historical empire today)

Note: Many of these empires existed at the same time, but the following empire defeated the previous empire in this list. The dates are approximate.

The Beast receives a deadly wound

Which of the heads then suffers a deadly wound?

“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.”

We also read that this beast is referred with the following description: “whose deadly wound was healed”.

Understanding this, we see the history of the Ottoman/Islamic Empire as fitting that description perfectly. It ceased to exist in the wake of WW1 meaning that the whole seven headed beast actually died because all the previous heads of the beast existed in succession. So the beast is officially gone today. Over a century later, we have seen the attempted rise of an Islamic Empire when ISIS declared its Caliphate. It failed as we all know,  but that is obviously not the end of the story. Many in the Islamic world long for an Islamic Caliphate.

ISIS caliphate projection

ISIS optimistic 5 year projection of new Caliphate

Revelation 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction.,

Next we read in Revelation 17:11:

The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

This perfectly describes the rise of a future Islamic Caliphate. If the Ottoman (Islamic) Empire was the seventh and the eighth comes from the seventh, then the rise of an Islamic Caliphate in modern times could indeed be the fulfillment of these scriptures. This means the Beast that once was will be again.

We further read in scripture that this whole Beast will be destroyed by a stone that struck the statue. That stone is the Kingdom of God and it will spread to the whole Earth. There are also a number of signs in scripture that also describe the nature of the Islamic Caliphate that we see on the rise today. If true, this means that Islam will be conquered by Christ and his kingdom.

What about a revived Roman Empire instead of an Islamic Caliphate

But what about the view that the Roman Empire will be the empire that comes back to life. This is a popular view and one that has been taught for many years. This of course is still possible and fits in the realm of this Islamic Eschatological view because most immigration to Europe is coming from the Islamic world. Also notice that the eighth king doesn’t necessarily mean it belongs to the seventh kingdom, but it could be all of the seven. Let’s read that verse again:

Revelation 17:11:
The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

Does this mean seventh or all seven? I don’t know.

It could turn out that Europe is still part of this resurrected kingdom. In Daniel 2:43 we read that the feet are not just clay, but iron mixed with clay.
You saw the iron mixed with clay–the peoples will mix with one another but will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with fired clay.

If the legs of iron were Rome and the two legs the East and West, then the last kingdom is a mixture of that iron but with clay.

Iron mixed with clay

Did you know that the word ‘mixed’ here is actually the word ‘arab‘ in Aramaic. Further, if the iron is the Roman Empire and the mixing of clay is infiltration or taking over by Arabs as we see with the Ottoman Empire’s takeover of the Roman Empire, then it could happen once again where Arabs/Muslims takeover parts of Europe and continue to hold the Middle East as they do today.

Perhaps those who predict a revived Roman Empire’ are correct. Accept it may not be ruled by Romans/Europeans, but Muslims who are immigrating and invading Europe in hordes. The Muslim population in Europe has a much higher birth-rate than the native Europeans who are in decline. It is immigration that bolsters Europe’s population and if Muslims in Europe become large enough, Europe or parts of it could become Islamic states in the future. If this were to happen, Israel could easily find itself surrounded by enemies much further afield too. Israel is of course already surrounded by enemies, but there may not be a sympathetic Europe to help protect them if the Islamic world were to invade Israel at some point. If Muslims could rule not only the Middle East but a future Europe too or large swathes of it, then that would only leave only the USA as a partner for Israel. While the USA could remain a friend of Israel in years to come, they may also reject Israel, or perhaps the USA itself could fall. The latter two would leave Israel on their own. Of course this is all speculation, but it is good to keep an open mind on this as there are many ways this could all play out.

Muammar Gaddafi once said:

We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.
Speech (10 April 2006), quoted in New York Sun (6 September 2009)

The Mark of the Beast

Islam MarkWhile traditional eschatology teaches that a computer chip or bar-code of some kind will be placed on/in the hand or forehead in the last days, Muslims already wear on their forehead their mark which is, “In the name of Allah”. Remember that the mark of the beast is not just a number, but is also both a name and a mark/symbol. See Revelation 13:16-17

“He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Allah in Arabic

Allah in Arabic

So what exactly does it mean when scripture says ‘name’? And could the creed of Islam really be the mark, the number, and the name. Scripture uses the word ‘name’ often to identify a person as you would well imagine, but scripture also uses that word to describe the essence or character of a person or thing. Just as the Old Testament says of the coming messiah that his name shall be called ‘Emmanuel’ (God is with us) he was not actually called by that name, rather its meaning or creed was used to describe the coming messiah. Likewise the creed or name of Islam is written on the foreheads of these radical Muslims. Islamic Mark 666

The term “In the name of Allah” in Arabic resembles 666 (χξς) in Greek. It is possible that John actually saw in his vision the mark or name of Allah and it reminded him of the number 666 or he just wrote the symbol down as he saw it and translators wrote it down as 666 as it was the closest thing to the symbol

This view also could explain a puzzle. While most ancient texts say the number is 666, some say ‘616’ and nobody knows why. So what was it about this part of the text that caused some manuscripts to copy it as 616? What if John saw the Arabic for “In the name of Allah”? That could explain the confusion because he didn’t see a Hebrew number, instead he saw what looked like a number but was actually a name, and also a mark/symbol. “…except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

In the future, it is not hard to imagine an Islamic leader or prophet forcing people to wear the symbol or name of Allah on their foreheads and further barring anyone not identifying their allegiance this way as being barred from buying and selling in society thereby denying basic things like food, shelter, and medicine. People would either wear this mark or reject it and face hardship even starvation by rejecting it. A visible wearing of this mark would identify whose side you were on. (You also have to wonder how the Futurist eschatological view of a computer chip, RFID tag, or barcode as the mark could also be a name or a symbol?)

The abomination that causes desolation

What about the abomination spoken of by the prophet Daniel? Well look no further than a The Dome of the Rock. Remember that written on the wall of this mosque is “Far be it from God that he should have a son!”. The mosque supposedly sits in the holy place where the Jewish Temple stood and given that Islam denies the son of God, then it could be said that it is an antichrist temple in the place of the Jewish Temple. Further, the Hadith (a compilation of oral reports after the death of Muhammad compiled by different authors) say that the Mahdi (Islamic messiah to come) will eye Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock as his home. Perhaps one day the Mahdi will sit in this temple as Islamic prophecy teaches. That could certainly qualify as the abomination in the holy place.

Jerusalem Temple Mount and Dome o the Rock

Jerusalem Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock Mosque

Who is beheading the Christians?

Revelation 20:4
…And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Can you imagine Italians, Romans, or the Vatican beheading Christians during the tribulation of the last days? To be fair the Vatican could have done this in the past. Today it is exclusively Muslims who are beheading Christians and others. Beheadings and even crucifixions are being performed today by radicals of Islam. Decapitations of course are a recurring theme during the 1,400 years of Islamic history. The earliest biographer of Muhammad recorded the decapitation of 700 men from the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina by order of Muhammad in 768 C.E. (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, The Life of Muhammad.) So why does Islam have a history of beheadings? You don’t have to look any further than their own so-called holy book.

Quran 47:4
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”

Quran 8:12
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

It seems that the Quran encourages the killing of non-Muslims and in particular Christians and Jews. This ties in with what the Bible says in John 16:2.

but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. “But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you.

Who in the world kills Jews and Christians and by doing so think they are doing service to God? Is this not a perfect description for Radical Muslims today?

Who worships the dragon?

If Islam is Antichrist, then can Allah be the true God? While some consider it a name which just means God (including Arabic Bibles), it has to be said that Satan is also a god according to scripture, i.e., the god of this age/world.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

So just because someone is called God or a god, that is not proof that it is the one true God because there are many so-called gods or false gods. So what kind of God are we talking about whose religion fits the Bible’s description of antichrist? And what is it that we see over 1 billion people doing before this God every day. In fact Islam required that Allah is worshipped five times a day with varying bodily positions performed including laying prostrate. In Revelation 13:4 we read:

they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?”

Here we see that men will worship the dragon. Scripture reveals the dragon as Satan in the same Book of Revelation. The word ‘satan’ means ‘adversary’. The word ‘worship’ has a number of associated meanings with one being ‘prostrate‘ which means ‘lying on the ground with one’s face downward’. A perfect description of those who worship Allah don’t you think? Also bear in mind that the heads of the Beast or kingdoms that have made up the Beast in history cover an area of the world that is predominantly Muslim. So the majority of the Biblical world today which is also where the Beast resides,  actually belongs to Islam. They deny outright that Jesus is the son of God which by biblical definition is how the Antichrist spirit reveals itself. They worship Allah five times a day and prostrate themselves before Allah. The question is begged, is Allah, Satan of the Bible? Well we know that the true God has a son, and Satan doesn’t have a son because he cannot procreate or begat. So if Allah doesn’t have a son, then he cannot be the true God because the true God has a son.

Who has declared war against the most terrible of nations?

Ezekiel 28:7-8
Therefore, behold, I will bring strangers upon you, the most ruthless of the nations and they will draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and defile your splendor. ‘They will bring you down to the pit, and you will die the death of those who are slain in the heart of the seas.

Many think the above verse is talking about Islam and the Mahdi/ Antichrist. It says that he will declare war against the most ruthless/terrible of nations. Who are the most ruthless of nations today? The word ‘ruthless’ is synonymous with ‘terrible’. Translations usually use one or the other word. Terrible and ruthless in other verses is talking about being ruthless in battle. See Ezekiel 30:10-11 for example:

“I will also make the hordes of Egypt cease by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. “He and his people with him, the most ruthless of the nations, will be brought in to destroy the land; and they will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain.

So who are the most powerful military powers today? Well that would have to be the USA and the West in general. And who today has declared war on the USA and the West? I can only think of one entity, The Islamic World.  And notice that it is a coalition of nations or more than one nation that defeats this enemy. This could be describing the West. If this view is correct, then we could certainly be near the end of this age as there is already a war against terror or Radical Islam vs Israel and the West or the West vs Radical Islam. However, I hesitate to include this idea because it is not certain that this verse is talking about the time of the end or some other time after the prophecy was given. I continue to investigate this opinion as it might be an important clue.

The Mahdi as the Antichrist

In the Islamic world, The Hadith is a compilation of oral reports after the death of Muhammad compiled by different authors over the centuries. They contain Islamic teachings and prophecies. The Mahdi prophesied in the Hadith is a person  whom Muslims await in a similar fashion as Christians awaiting the second coming of Christ. When you compare the descriptions and prophecies of the Mahdi with what is written in the Bible about the Antichrist, they seem to be talking about the same person or at least match the descriptions and prophecies of the Bible. Are they the same person?

  • Both are military leaders

Both the Mahdi and the Antichrist are described as a powerful political military leaders.

  • Both are stout

Both the Mahdi and Antichrist are described as being stout with unusual eyes. See Daniel 7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. The Hadith says: Mahdi translates to ‘guided one’. His appearance will be the first sign of the third period. The Mahdi will be looked upon to kill Al-Dajjal and prepare for the reign of Jesus who will rule for a time after. The physical features of Mahdi are described—he will be of Arab complexion and average height with a large belly, large eyes and a sharp nose. He will have a mole on his cheek, the sign of the prophet on his shoulder. He will rule for seven years. His name will be announced from the sky. He will bring the Ark of the Covenant to light. His banner will be black and unstitched, with a halo. He will be helped by angels and others that will prepare the way for him.
Notice that his banner will be black. This is what we see when ISIS overtakes a new territory. They raise black banners because they are trying to fulfill this Islamic prophecy.

  • Both sign seven year treaties

In the Hadith quoted above, you can see that the Mahdi will rule for seven years. Further, he will sign a seven year peace treaty Rasulullah [Muhammad] said: “There will be four peace agreements between you and the Romans [Christians]. The fourth agreement will be mediated through a person who will be from the progeny of Hadrat Haroon [Honorable Aaron – Moses’ brother] and will be upheld for seven years. (Tabarani, as related by Hadrat Abu Umamah, as quoted by Zubair Ali, p. 43 and Abduallah, p. 55) In Daniel 9:27 we read this: He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. In the Islamic world, it is acceptable to break a treaty, if you are advancing the cause of Islam. If the Dome of the Rock is the home of the Mahdi, (or even a rebuilt Jewish temple on this site) then him sitting in this temple could be the sign of the broken peace treaty which is the ‘abomination that causes desolation’ as mentioned by Daniel.

  • Both change laws and times

Makkah Clock Royal Tower

Makkah Clock Royal Tower

Daniel 7:25 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. Compare Daniel 7:25 with the obviously fact that Islam seeks to impose Sharia Law and the halal mark and you have a similar description. Further, there is also an increasing voice in Islam to change Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) to Mecca time. The world’s largest clock was unveiled in 2010 in Saudi Arabia. Its first official duty is marking time during Ramadan. The clock looks very similar to Big Ben (which keeps GMT) except it is six times taller making it the third tallest building in the world. The sheer size of this clock is meant to dwarf Big Ben in a symbolic move to make Islamic Time more prominent than Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).  Some have argued that GMT is the remnant of a colonial heritage, and it is time to turn over a new page. So the stage is already set for the Mahdi to move away from colonial laws and time to Islamic Sharia Law and Islamic Time.

  • Both target Christians, Jews, Israel, and Jerusalem

Radical Islam today targets all who do not accept Sharia Law, but especially persecutes Christians and Jews. It is not hard to accept that the Mahdi would take this to a new level such as what we read about the Antichrist in the Bible. Further, one of the main missions for Radical Islam is to wipe Israel off the map. This is why Hamas and other Palestinian authorities often refuse to agree to any deal to live alongside Israel or acknowledge her existence. Matthew 24:16-21:

then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Daniel 7:25:

“He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.”

  • Both honor a god of force/strongholds/war

It is clear that Radical Islam uses force or war to advance Sharia Law. It is justified in the Quran as a way to get people to worship Allah and obey Sharia Law. It would be assumed then that a future Mahdi would follow suit or take this to a new level. We read in the Quran the following: Quran 2:244 “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.” Quran 4:74 “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” Also, in Quran 4:76 “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…” In the Bible, we read in Daniel 11:38-39 But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures. “He will take action against the strongest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god; he will give great honor to those who acknowledge him and will cause them to rule over the many, and will parcel out land for a price. It also says that the will not regard the God of his fathers. This could mean he is an offspring of Abraham, but an Ishmaelite, thus the God that he does regard could be Allah, not YHWH who is the God of Abraham.

This same verse in the KJV and Webster’s Bible Translation says God of forces, while the Young’s Literal Translation says god of strongholds. I like the latter as it describes Satan’s works that Jesus came to destroy. We are told a number of times that we can bring down the enemy’s strongholds and certainly Islam is a stronghold. Further, Paul uses the word ‘fortresses/strongholds’ in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, which he uses metaphorically to describe the spiritual battle before us: , NASB – Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses or NIV – For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

  • Both do not honor the desire of woman

We all know about women’s rights in Islam. In Daniel 11:37 this trait is identified with the Antichrist: Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, … This verse seems to say that the Antichrist will not regard the desire of woman. While it is hard to know what that really means, taking it at face value seems to be the most accepted meaning. If that meaning is true, then it fits with the religion of Islam which has little regard for women in general.

The False prophet

We can see the connection between the Biblical Antichrist and the coming Islamic Mahdi, but scripture also mentions the false prophet. The Qur’an itself also prophesies the coming of the Islamic Jesus who is called “Isa Ibn Maryam”. Like the Bible, the Qu’ran says that he will return, but like all prophets in Islam, their Jesus is considered a Muslim.

According to the Hadith, the Islamic Jesus will descend in the midst of wars fought by the Mahdi, He will fight against the Dajjal who is called the Antichrist or False messiah according to Islam. The Islamic Jesus will descend east of Damascus dressed in yellow robes. He will join the Mahdi and help fight against the Dajjal. Then the Islamic Jesus will slay the Antichrist, and at this point the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) will believe in him and will become part of Islam.

If the Antichrist of the Bible is the Madhi of Islam, then it seems logical at least that the False Prophet of the Bible is the Islamic Jesus. The idea is that if the Jews and Christians can be convinced that their Jesus is the true messiah, then they will convert to Islam. Now lets read about the False Prophet in Revelation 13:11-12

Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. He exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed

Notice that this second beast who is the False Prophet is likened unto a lamb. This is important because Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. So the false prophet is one who tries to mimic Jesus Christ, except he has two horns and speaks like a dragon. Further we know that the dragon is Satan, so the Lamb speaks like Satan. Satan means adversary, so this lamb will be adverse to the true Lamb of God.

The Bible and the Quran

It seems that  after John wrote the Book of Revelation, Satan decided to counter the prophecies by raising up a false prophet who started a religion that was the counter of what we read in the Bible. It didn’t help Christianity that it had fallen into false doctrine and idol worship around this time. It was perhaps this falling away that helped Islam take hold. With consequent centuries, the Islamic influence grew and even ruled as an empire after it conquered the Roman Empire with the conquering of Constantinople which was considered Christian. From there, it was a matter of converting all the people of the Ottoman empire to Islam. Eventually the area become predominantly Muslim and even the original seven churches in Revelation became an area dominated by Islam. This was achieved by converting people and killing those who refused Islam.

The role of the Trinity

In Islam’s early days it may have appealed to people who were sick of idol and saint worship as well as the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. The Quran gives a clue in 004:171 Rashad:

O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, “Trinity.” You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master.

It seems that the Doctrine of the Trinity was one of the Christian doctrines that they opposed and even though this doesn’t make the doctrine wrong, the doctrine is in the least, completely unnecessary and has caused much harm and division for Christians.

Even today, Christians preach the Trinity as a foundational doctrine, yet there is nothing in the Bible that says that they should preach the Trinity to anyone. Even many teachers whose eschatology is similar to this one still preach the Trinity. This is sad because it helps alienate Muslims and Jews from the gospel. It is an unnecessary stumbling block. Instead we should be preaching that Jesus is the son of God, the messiah, and the Lord. Look at Peter’s answer as to who Jesus was and look at the response from Jesus.

Matthew 16:13-20
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Simply put, this is the truth that we should be preaching with regards to who Jesus is because this is what the Father has revealed about his identity. To truly convert Muslims or religious Jews to Jesus Christ, they need only to believe who Jesus is besides required repentance etc. Muslims already accept that Jesus is the messiah, but reject that he is the son of God. In my experience it is not as hard as you think for Muslims to be converted and accept Jesus as the son of God and as the one whom God made both Lord and Messiah, (see Acts 2:36). However, they rarely accept the Trinity Doctrine and for good reason. It is not part of the gospel, it is not part of the elementary teachings of the faith, instead it was a doctrine that came centuries after the last book in the Bible was written. It may even have been this doctrine that helped Islam gain a foothold in this part of the world in the first place. Sadly it is still preached as being a requirement by many Christians today. If we want to convert Muslims and Jews with the gospel, then do not put unnecessary stumbling blocks in their way. To learn more about the Trinity Doctrine feel free to read this page.

That wraps up this presentation of this eschatological view and while it is quite different to more traditional views, it does explain a lot of prophecies well, where some of these other views struggle. However, it is important to remember that we would do well to consider new information and ideas that might come along in the future that could change everything. The last thing we should do as Believers in Christ is believe this or any other eschatological view wholeheartedly leaving us free to accept a future RFID chip in our bodies for example because our eschatological view does not accept a computer chip as the Mark of the Beast. Simply put, be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. Further those who hold stubbornly to certain views can cause divisions over arguments regarding differing views. Remember, we should make every effort to be at peace with our brothers.

Facts to consider

To sum up this eschatological view here are some facts to consider.

  1. The antichrist spirit exhibits a number of traits, one being that they deny the Father and Son.
  2. Because Islam teaches that God has no son, they clearly and openly deny that God is a Father and that he has a son.
  3. Islamic Caliphates are not only political entities, but they are also religious with their own laws and times.
  4. The Ottoman Empire was the next empire after the Roman Empire. It conquered the Roman Empire.
  5. We are told that their will be an eighth kingdom which is of the seventh or seven. See Revelation 17:11.
  6. Rome was clearly the sixth kingdom. It was the one that was in existence, when John gave the prophecy. See Revelation 17:9-10
  7. Historians do not consider the Eastern Roman Empire as a different empire from the western empire. The east did not conquer the west. The capital moved from Rome to Constantinople. That period of the kingdom is called the Byzantine period.
  8. Both the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire terminology are historiographical terms created after the end of the realm. Its citizens continued to refer to their empire as the Roman Empire.
  9. Daniel sees the Beast rise out from the Great Sea. That is the name for the Mediterranean Sea in scripture, thus the kingdoms of the Beast are located around that sea.
  10. Islam gained ground partly because Christianity had fallen into idol & saint worship as well as false teachings.
  11. The Bible and Quran seem to teach the opposite of each other. It seems that one is the adversary of the other.
  12. The Book of Revelation tells us that Satan’s throne was in Turkey, the very country that the Ottoman Empire had its seat of government. It was also the seat of the Roman Empire during the Byzantine period.

Videos

Here are some videos containing teachings and evidence for this end-time eschatology. I do not necessarily support everything here or support the organisations behind the videos. Just food for thought in the context of this teaching.

The Islamic Beast

Soft Islamic Invasion of Europe

The Color of Islam


Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 621 through 640 (of 649 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #891408
    gadam123
    Participant

    So you think that the Ancient Roman Empire is still existing today?

    #891409
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Lol. I’ll let you answer that for me.

    #891420
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    The History of the Ottoman Empire (1299 – 1922)

    The Ottoman Empire was founded circa 1299 by Osman I in northwestern Asia Minor just south of the Roman (Byzantine) capital Constantinople. The Ottomans crossed into Europe in 1352, moving their capital to Adrianople in 1369.

    They conquered Constantinople in 1453, and then expanded deep into Europe, northern Africa, and the Middle East. The Ottoman territory increased exponentially under Sultan Selim I, who assumed the Caliphate in 1517 as the Ottomans defeated the Mamluks of Egypt and annexed western Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant. Within the next few decades, much of the North African coast became part of the Ottoman realm.

    #891421
    gadam123
    Participant

    Is the book of Daniel a prophetic book?

    The first part of the book is simply a story about a man called Daniel. The story is full of cultural and historical errors. The second part is the history of the Antiochene crisis of Maccabees in the second century BCE.  Jews did not see Daniel as a Prophet but as a visionary therefore they include it in their ‘writings’ and not in their ‘Prophets’ sections.

    The prophecies in the Book of Daniel were history to the extent that the Book of Daniel was set during the Babylonian Exile and early Persian period but actually written after the supposed prophecies had occurred—approximately 167-165 BCE.

    It is interesting to note that the book is historically inaccurate when it describes events and people of the exilic period, success of Darius the Mede a fictitious king etc. but the “prophecies” become increasingly accurate as they approach the time of writing.

    Historical inaccuracies

    Now such mistakes there seem to be, and not a few of them, in the pages of the Book of Daniel. One or two of them can perhaps be explained away by processes which would amply suffice to show that “yes” means “no,” or that “black” is a description of “white”; but each repetition of such processes leaves us more and more incredulous. If errors be treated as corruptions of the text, or as later interpolations, such arbitrary methods of treating the Book are practically an admission that, as it stands, it cannot be regarded as historical.

    I. We are, for instance, met by what seems to be a remarkable error in the very first verse of the Book, which tells us that “In the third year of Jehoiakim, King of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar”—as in later days he was incorrectly called—”King of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”

    It is easy to trace whence the error sprang. Its source lies in a book which is the latest in the whole Canon, and in many details difficult to reconcile with the Book of Kings—a book of which the Hebrew resembles that of Daniel—the Book of Chronicles. In 2 Chro 36: 6 we are told that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jehoiakim, and “bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon”; and also—to which the author of Daniel directly refers—that he carried off some of the vessels of the House of God, to put them in the treasure-house of his god. In this passage it is not said that this occurred “in the third year of Jehoiakim,” who reigned eleven years; but in 2 Kings 24: 1 we are told that “in his days Nebuchadnezzar came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years.” The passage in Daniel looks like a confused reminiscence of the “three years” with “the third year of Jehoiakim.” The elder and better authority (the Book of Kings) is silent about any deportation having taken place in the reign of Jehoiakim, and so is the contemporary Prophet Jeremiah. But in any case it seems impossible that it should have taken place so early as the third year of Jehoiakim, for at that time he was a simple vassal of the King of Egypt. If this deportation took place in the reign of Jehoiakim, it would certainly be singular that Jeremiah, in enumerating three others, in the seventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar, should make no allusion to it. But it is hard to see how it could have taken place before Egypt had been defeated in the Battle of Carchemish, and that was not till b.c.e 597, the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Not only does Jeremiah make no mention of so remarkable a deportation as this, which as the earliest would have caused the deepest anguish, but, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxxvi. 1), he writes a roll to threaten evils which are still future, and in the fifth year proclaims a fast in the hope that the imminent peril may even yet be averted (Jer. xxxvi. 6-10). It is only after the violent obstinacy of the king that the destructive advance of Nebuchadrezzar is finally prophesied (Jer. xxxvi. 29) as something which has not yet occurred.

    II. Nor are the names in this first chapter free from difficulty. Daniel is called Belteshazzar, and the remark of the King of Babylon—”whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god”—certainly suggests that the first syllable is (as the Massorets assume) connected with the god Bel. But the name has nothing to do with Bel. No contemporary could have fallen into such an error;[98] still less a king who spoke Babylonian. Shadrach may be Shudur-aku, “command of Aku,” the moon-god; but Meshach is inexplicable; and Abed-nego is a strange corruption for the obvious and common Abed-nebo, “servant of Nebo.” Such a corruption could hardly have arisen till Nebo was practically forgotten. And what is the meaning of “the Melzar” (Dan. 1: 11)? The A.V. takes it to be a proper name; the R.V. renders it “the steward.” But the title is unique and obscure. Nor can anything be made of the name of Ashpenaz, the prince of the eunuchs, whom, in one manuscript, the LXX. call Abiesdri.

    III. Similar difficulties and uncertainties meet us at every step. Thus, in the second chapter (2: 1), the dream of Nebuchadrezzar is fixed in the second year of his reign. This does not seem to be in accord with i. 3, 18, which says that Daniel and his three companions were kept under the care of the prince of the eunuchs for three years. Nothing, of course, is easier than to invent harmonistic hypotheses, such as that of Rashi, that “the second year of the reign of Nebuchadrezzar” has the wholly different meaning of “the second year after the destruction of the Temple”; or as that of Hengstenberg, followed by many modern apologists, that Nebuchadrezzar had previously been associated in the kingdom with Nabopolassar, and that this was the second year of his independent reign. Or, again, we may, with Ewald, read “the twelfth year.” But by these methods we are not taking the Book as it stands, but are supposing it to be a network of textual corruptions and conjectural combinations.

     

    #891424
    gadam123
    Participant

    Continued from previous post…..

    IV. When we reach the fifth chapter, we are faced by a new king, Belshazzar, who is somewhat emphatically called the son of Nebuchadrezzar.

    History knows of no such king. The prince of whom it does know was never king, and was a son, not of Nebuchadrezzar, but of the usurper Nabunaid; and between Nebuchadrezzar and Nabunaid there were three other kings.

    There was a Belshazzar—Bel-sar-utsur, “Bel protect the prince”—and we possess a clay cylinder of his father Nabunaid, the last king of Babylon, praying the moon-god that “my son, the offspring of my heart, might honour his godhead, and not give himself to sin.” But if we follow Herodotus, this Belshazzar never came to the throne; and according to Berossus he was conquered in Borsippa. Xenophon, indeed, speaks of “an impious king” as being slain in Babylon; but this is only in an avowed romance which has not the smallest historic validity. Schrader conjectures that Nabunaid may have gone to take the field against Cyrus (who conquered and pardoned him, and allowed him to end his days as governor of Karamania), and that Belshazzar may have been killed in Babylon. These are mere hypotheses; as are those of Josephus, who identifies Belshazzar with Nabunaid (whom he calls Naboandelon); and of Babelon, who tries to make him the same as Maruduk-shar-utsur (as though Bel was the same as Maruduk), which is impossible, as this king reigned before Nabunaid. No contemporary writer could have fallen into the error either of calling Belshazzar “king”; or of insisting on his being “the son” of Nebuchadrezzar; or of representing him as Nebuchadrezzar’s successor. Nebuchadrezzar was succeeded by—

    Evil-merodach circ. b.c.e  561 (Avil-marduk)
    Nergal-sharezer  559 (Nergal-sar-utsur).
    Lakhabbashi-marudu  555 (an infant).
    (Laborosoarchod)
    Nabunaid  554.

    Nabunaid reigned till about b.c.e 538, when Babylon was taken by Cyrus.

    The conduct of Belshazzar in the great feast of this chapter is probably meant as an allusive contrast to the revels and impieties of Antiochus Epiphanes, especially in his infamous festival at the grove of Daphne.

    V. “That night,” we are told, “Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was slain.” It has always been supposed that this was an incident of the capture of Babylon by assault, in accordance with the story of Herodotus, repeated by so many subsequent writers. But on this point the inscriptions of Cyrus have revolutionised our knowledge. “There was no siege and capture of Babylon; the capital of the Babylonian Empire opened its gates to the general of Cyrus. Gobryas and his soldiers entered the city without fighting, and the daily services in the great temple of Bel-merodach suffered no interruption. Three months later Cyrus himself arrived, and made his peaceful entry into the new capital of his empire. We gather from the contract-tablets that even the ordinary business of the place had not been affected by the war. The siege and capture of Babylon by Cyrus is really a reflection into the past of the actual sieges undergone by the city in the reigns of Darius, son of Hystaspes and Xerxes. It is clear, then, that the editor of the fifth chapter of the Book of Daniel could have been as little a contemporary of the events he professes to record as Herodotus. For both alike, the true history of the Babylonian Empire has been overclouded and foreshortened by the lapse of time. The three kings who reigned between Nebuchadrezzar and Nabunaid have been forgotten, and the last king of the Babylonian Empire has become the son of its founder.”

    Snatching at the merest straws, those who try to vindicate the accuracy of the writer—although he makes Belshazzar a king, which he never was; and the son of Nebuchadrezzar, which is not the case; or his grandson, of which there is no tittle of evidence; and his successor, whereas four kings intervened;—think that they improve the case by urging that Daniel was made “the third ruler in the kingdom”—Nabunaid being the first, and Belshazzar being the second! Unhappily for their very precarious hypothesis, the translation “third ruler” appears to be entirely untenable. It means “one of a board of three.”

    VI. In the sixth chapter we are again met by difficulty after difficulty.

    Who, for instance, was Darius the Mede? We are told (5: 30, 31) that, on the night of his impious banquet, “Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans” was slain, “and Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” We are also told that Daniel “prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (6: 28). But this Darius is not even noticed elsewhere. Cyrus was the conqueror of Babylon, and between b.c. 538-536 there is no room or possibility for a Median ruler.

    The inference which we should naturally draw from these statements in the Book of Daniel, and which all readers have drawn, was that Babylon had been conquered by the Medes, and that only after the death of a Median king did Cyrus the Persian succeed.

    But historic monuments and records entirely overthrow this supposition. Cyrus was the king of Babylon from the day that his troops entered it without a blow. He had conquered the Medes and suppressed their royalty. “The numerous contract-tables of the ordinary daily business transactions of Babylon, dated as they are month by month, and almost day by day from the reign of Nebuchadrezzar to that of Xerxes, prove that between Nabonidus and Cyrus there was no intermediate ruler.” The contemporary scribes and merchants of Babylon knew nothing of any King Belshazzar, and they knew even less of any King Darius the Mede. No contemporary writer could possibly have fallen into such an error.

    And against this obvious conclusion, of what possible avail is it for Hengstenberg to quote a late Greek lexicographer (Harpocration, c.e 170?), who says that the coin “a daric” was named after a Darius earlier than the father of Xerxes?—or for others to identify this shadowy Darius the Mede with Astyages?—or with Cyaxares II. in the romance of Xenophon?—or to say that Darius the Mede is Gobryas (Ugbaru) of Gutium—a Persian, and not a king at all—who under no circumstances could have been called “the king” by a contemporary (6: 12; 9: 1), and whom, apparently for three months only, Cyrus made governor of Babylon? How could a contemporary governor have appointed “one hundred and twenty princes which should be over the whole kingdom,” when, even in the days of Darius Hystaspis, there were only twenty or twenty-three satrapies in the Persian Empire? And how could a mere provincial viceroy be approached by “all the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains,” to pass a decree that any one who for thirty days offered any prayer to God or man, except to him, should be cast into the den of lions? The fact that such a decree could only be made by a king is emphasised in the narrative itself (6: 12: comp. 3: 29). The supposed analogies offered by Professor Fuller and others in favour of a decree so absurdly impossible—except in the admitted licence and for the high moral purpose of a Jewish Haggada—are to the last degree futile. In any ordinary criticism they would be set down as idle special pleading. Yet this is only one of a multitude of wildly improbable incidents, which, from misunderstanding of the writer’s age and purpose, have been taken for sober history, though they receive from historical records and monuments no shadow of confirmation, and are in not a few instances directly opposed to all that we now know to be certain history. Even if it were conceivable that this hypothetic “Darius the Mede” was Gobryas, or Astyages, or Cyaxares, it is plain that the author of Daniel gives him a name and national designation which lead to mere confusion, and speaks of him in a way which would have been surely avoided by any contemporary.

    “Darius the Mede,” says Professor Sayce, “is in fact a reflection into the past of Darius the son of Hystaspes, just as the siege and capture of Babylon by Cyrus are a reflection into the past of its siege and capture by the same prince. The name of Darius and the story of the slaughter of the Chaldean king go together. They are alike derived from the unwritten history which, in the East of to-day, is still made by the people, and which blends together in a single picture the manifold events and personages of the past. It is a history which has no perspective, though it is based on actual facts; the accurate combinations of the chronologer have no meaning for it, and the events of a century are crowded into a few years. This is the kind of history which the Jewish mind in the age of the Talmud loved to adapt to moral and religious purposes. This kind of history then becomes as it were a parable, and under the name of Haggada serves to illustrate that teaching of the law.”

    The favourable view given of the character of the imaginary Darius the Mede, and his regard for Daniel, may have been a confusion with the Jewish reminiscences of Darius, son of Hystaspes, who permitted the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel.

    If we look for the source of the confusion, we see it perhaps in the prophecy of Isaiah (13: 17; 14: 6-22), that the Medes should be the destroyers of Babylon; or in that of Jeremiah—a prophet of whom the author had made a special study (Dan. 9: 2)—to the same effect (Jer. 56: 11-28); together with the tradition that a Darius—namely, the son of Hystaspes—had once conquered Babylon.

    VII. But to make confusion worse confounded, if these chapters were meant for history, the problematic “Darius the Mede” is in Dan. 9: 1 called “the son of Ahasuerus.”

    Now Ahasuerus (Achashverosh) is the same as Xerxes, and is the Persian name Khshyarsha; and Xerxes was the son, not the father, of Darius Hystaspis, who was a Persian, not a Mede. Before Darius Hystaspis could have been transformed into the son of his own son Xerxes, the reigns, not only of Darius, but also of Xerxes, must have long been past.

    VIII. There is yet another historic sign that this Book did not originate till the Persian Empire had long ceased to exist. In 11: 2 the writer only knows of four kings of Persia. These are evidently Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspis, and Xerxes—whom he describes as the richest of them. This king is destroyed by the kingdom of Grecia—an obvious confusion of popular tradition between the defeat inflicted on the Persians by the Republican Greeks in the days of Xerxes (b.c.e 480), and the overthrow of the Persian kingdom under Darius Codomannus by Alexander the Great (b.c.e 333)…….(taken from The Expositor’s Bible: The Book of Daniel Author: F. W. Farrar)

    #891426
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    ADAM…….No Islam is not the Seventh Kingdom.  The fifth of today isn’t even over yet, then there will be A Sixth which is the “one that “IS”  mentioned in Rev 17.

    Between the prophesy of Daniel 2,  and Rev 17,  there exists a count of Eight kingdoms , Seven of which are kingdoms controlled by Satan, including the Fifth Kingdom which we are now in,  next comes the Sixth kingdom of Jesus Christ and the Saint’s,  Satan is placed into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, at the end of that time period Satan is released and goes out into the earth a raises up the Seventh Babylonian type kingdom, a resurrected Babylonian kingdom of rule,  then out of that kingdom comes ten kings which make up the eighth world ruling kingdom and only lasts a short time,  then  God Almighty Comes to this earth to rule himself and Jesus Christ,  Turns his kingdom over to God the Father,  and himself becomes subject to it also.
    It’s as simple as that,  wherever anyone places the Eight Kingdoms they must fit into that Frame work or they are simple not  of the prophesy of Daniel 2,  or  Rev 17.   These two prophesied verses work perfectly, if you understand that John was transported in time to the Day of the Coming Almighty God to this earth after the thousand year rule of Jesus ad the Saint’s.

    Why not try to make what you are saying fit that frame work, and see how it fits.  If no matter what anyone says doesn’t fit that framework it cannot be right.  Period.

    peace and love to you and yours Adam…,…..gene

     

    #891427
    Berean
    Participant

    Gene

    Satan is placed into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, at the end of that time period Satan is released and goes out into the earth a raises up the Seventh Babylonian type kingdom, a resurrected Babylonian kingdom of rule,  ….

     

    Me

    …raises up the Seventh Babylonian type kingdom, a resurrected Babylonian kingdom of rule, ….

    Gene, Where do You read That ?

    In the Bible WE CAN read:

    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
    [8] And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    [9] And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

    THAT IS NOT A KINGDOM, BUT

    AN ATTEMPT OF THE DEVIL TO TRAIN THE NATIONS AGAINST THE SAINTS IN THE HOLY CITY DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN.

    I AM WRONG?

     

    #891444
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Is the book of Daniel a prophetic book?

    The first part of the book is simply a story about a man called Daniel. The story is full of cultural and historical errors.

    What’s the biggest one in your opinion?

    #891460
    gadam123
    Participant

    It’s as simple as that,  wherever anyone places the Eight Kingdoms they must fit into that Frame work or they are simple not  of the prophesy of Daniel 2,  or  Rev 17.   These two prophesied verses work perfectly, if you understand that John was transported in time to the Day of the Coming Almighty God to this earth after the thousand year rule of Jesus ad the Saint’s.

    Why not try to make what you are saying fit that frame work, and see how it fits.  If no matter what anyone says doesn’t fit that framework it cannot be right.  Period.

    Hi brother Gene, I only study these ancient texts with a critical view. So I don’t see any of those later kingdoms like the Ottoman the Islamic or the modern British rule or Communist rules etc fit into theses texts.

    Dan 2 talks about four ancient kingdoms viz Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece as per the writer and Revelation 17 talks about first century Roman Empire. I don’t find any thing for the distant future in these two books. Rest are mere speculations by the Christianity.

    Please relook into your theory of Transport into Lord’s Day timeline by the writer of Revelation. There is no Seventh or Eighth kingdom mentioned in Rev 20 as rightly stated by Berean in his reply to you. Please understand these texts properly.

    Thank you………Adam

    #891461
    gadam123
    Participant

    gadam: Is the book of Daniel a prophetic book?

    The first part of the book is simply a story about a man called Daniel. The story is full of cultural and historical errors.

    Proclaimer: What’s the biggest one in your opinion?

    Please go through my full post for details on this. The biggest historical error can be anything as given below;

    In the Fifth and sixth chapters of Daniel we are met by difficulty after difficulty…..

    Who, for instance, was Darius the Mede? We are told (5: 30, 31) that, on the night of his impious banquet, “Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans” was slain, “and Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” We are also told that Daniel “prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (6: 28). But this Darius is not even noticed elsewhere. Cyrus was the conqueror of Babylon, and between b.c.e 538-536 there is no room or possibility for a Median ruler.

    The inference which we should naturally draw from these statements in the Book of Daniel, and which all readers have drawn, was that Babylon had been conquered by the Medes, and that only after the death of a Median king did Cyrus the Persian succeed.

    But historic monuments and records entirely overthrow this supposition. Cyrus was the king of Babylon from the day that his troops entered it without a blow. He had conquered the Medes and suppressed their royalty. “The numerous contract-tables of the ordinary daily business transactions of Babylon, dated as they are month by month, and almost day by day from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to that of Xerxes, prove that between Nabonidus and Cyrus there was no intermediate ruler.” The contemporary scribes and merchants of Babylon knew nothing of any King Belshazzar, and they knew even less of any King Darius the Mede. No contemporary writer could possibly have fallen into such an error.

    #891467
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    gadam suffers from bias.

    He knows deep down what the text says about the Kingdom of Babylon been given to the Medes and Persians.

    But ignorance is bliss as they say.

    Lol. You can actually deceive yourself.

    #891484
    gadam123
    Participant

    He knows deep down what the text says about the Kingdom of Babylon been given to the Medes and Persians.

    In fact the text says it was divided between two kingdoms Media and Persia. So you take this as proof for your combined kingdom by ignoring the verses that talk about independent Median kingdom which I quoted in my earlier posts. Persia never  was an inferior kingdom to Babylon, Media or Greece my friend. If you close your eyes to the texts it is your problem. The writer talks about the second kingdom as an inferior kingdom to the first and the third as a worldwide kingdom. So the scholars are wise enough to place Media in second place and Persia in the third place. Greece as the fourth which is detailed in Dan 11 which you want to avoid to imagine Rome as the fourth. No trace of your Rome is found in the entire book.

    #891486
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Pay attention gadam. Daniel says the kingdom is given to the Medes and Persians. All that matters is they are considered the next metal. And the second beast is clearly the Medes and Persians. Then the single goat with two horns is as well.

    If matters not that the Medes did this and the Persians that. Or that one was stronger than the other and then later the other was. All that history doesn’t change the statue, beasts, or goat.

    Stop deceiving yourself. You need to talk to yourself about how you are deceiving yourself. Lol. You are funny.

    #891487
    gadam123
    Participant

    Dan 5: 28 peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

    So I was only highlighting what this writer was narrating.

    There is nothing here to deceive oneself. We are only debating on these ancient books which are historically unreliable as I have stated in my previous posts.

    So you don’t want to consider the history?

     

    #891490
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Berean…..Yes you are wrong brother,  I have laid it all out for anyone who has eyes to see it clearly.  You must realize John Was indeed transported to the Day of the coming of  God the Father at the end of the Millennium rule of Jesus and the Saint’s and pick it Rev 17 from that timeline.  or you or no one can ever get it right.  That is what was meant by the words “here is the mind that has wisdom”. that’s the key that unlocks the whole thing from Dan 2. To Rev 17  to the return of God the Father , to the end .  For those who have eyes to see it.

    Berean please go to what I wrote on First love , and respond, no one has yet to respond to it,  I wonder why?

    peace and love to you and yours Berean………gene

    #891493
    Berean
    Participant

    Gene

    At the moment, you are unable to understand the prophecy, because you do not follow correctly what the bible says. Answer my last question instead of passing judgment on me.

    After the thousand years, it is not a question of a kingdom as I showed you: reread the passage in Revelation 20

    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
    [8] And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    [9] And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
    [10] And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    THERE IS NO QUESTION OF A SEVENTH KINGDOM AS YOU SAY.

    BE HUMBLE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE DECEIVING.

    #891495
    gadam123
    Participant

    Chronological and historical flaws of the book of Daniel

    The presence of numerous chronological errors, such as the dates of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, the succession of Belshazzar and the Darius the Mede figure, mistakes a 6th century author would not have made, indicate that the authors of the various Daniel narratives were weaving a tale of a past they were vaguely familiar with and that the tales are, “not to be understood as historical.” If the authors of Daniel had been writing in the 6th century BCE, these errors would not have happened making it more apparent that the book refers to the second century BCE. The book starts with a dating error, stating that the conflict that led to Daniel’s capture occurred, “In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it” (1:1), when in fact Jehoiakim’s third regnal year was 606 BCE and Nebuchadrezzar did not assume the Babylonian throne until 605 BCE. Furthermore, Nebuchadrezzar’s siege of Jerusalem occurred in 586 BCE, an even greater chronological disparity. In chapters 5, 7 and 8 we see references to King Belshazzar, called the son of King Nebuchadrezzar (5:2). While there was a Babylonian figure named Belshazzar he was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar and was not king, but a co-regent in Babylon when his father, “moved to the royal residence to Teiman”

    Finally and most dramatically is the figure of Darius the Mede, who according to Daniel was the successor to Belshazzar. However no such figure can be found in the historical record. While the Median Kingdom certainly existed, it was not the successor to the Babylonian Empire. These dating errors make it quite
    apparent that the author of Daniel was simply not a person writing in the 6th Century BCE, as such errors would not have been made by someone living at that time.

     

     

     

    #891519
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    So you don’t want to consider the history?

    I don’t mind discussing history. But I need you to admit that the Medes and the Persians were given the kingdom after the Babylonians. You have 3 witnesses in the Book of Daniel for this.

    1. The statue with the second metal signifying the Kingdom being given to the Medes and Persians;
    2. The two sided second beast where one side was raised up compared to the other.
    3. The goat with two horns, one larger than the other.

    This discussion is based on the Book of Daniel. You don’t have to agree with Daniel, but you could at least be honest and agree with what he was saying regarding the Medes AND Persians. You don’t see language like the Babylonians and the Medes or the Persians and the Greeks do you.

    When you decide to be honest about this, then I will be happier regarding your character and it might be suffient for me to have a fruitful discussion about the history too. But if you cannot acknowledge some basic facts about what Daniel says, then a new discussion with you is very likely to be a waste of time.

    I prefer a scientific approach where the facts are discussed and points agreed to when they are established. It doesn’t bother me if you do not believe Daniel, but that you acknowledge what he is saying.

    argument

    #891521
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Berean please go to what I wrote on First love , and respond, no one has yet to respond to it,  I wonder why?

    Because a wise man will be thankful for a rebuke, but a fool will ignore it. I think people know that discussing anything with you is futile. You have never acknowledged when you were proven wrong and never acknowledged weaknesses in your own arguments. Why would people want to debate you on a new topic that you setup?

    I simply rebuke you when I see fit. I personally don’t bother having a serious discussion with you because your responses are largely a joke.

    Sorry to break that to you gene, but what I am saying is true.

    #891550
    gadam123
    Participant

    I don’t mind discussing history. But I need you to admit that the Medes and the Persians were given the kingdom after the Babylonians. You have 3 witnesses in the Book of Daniel for this

    OK let us see your three witnesses;

    1. There is no mention of name of the kingdom for the second metal as “Medes and Persia” in Dan 2:

    32 The head of that statue was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

    39 After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.

    2. Daniel 7:5 Bible Commentary on “The two sided second beast where one side was raised up compared to the other”

    And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear – That is, after the lion had appeared, and he had watched it until it had undergone these surprising transformations. There are several circumstances, also, in regard to this symbol, all of which, it is to be supposed, were significant, and all of which demand explication before it is attempted to apply them.

    Its rising up on one of its sides: “and it raised up itself on one side.” The Chaldee word used here (שׁטר sheṭar) occurs nowhere else. It means side (Gesenius), and would be applied here to the side of an animal, as if he lifted up one side before the other when he rose. The Latin Vulgate renders it, in parte stetit. The Greek (Walton), έις μέρος ἕν ἐστάθη eis meros hen estathē – “it stood on one part;” or, as Thompson renders it, “he stood half erect.” The Codex Chisianus, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς πλευροῦ ἐστάθη epi tou henos pleurou estathē – “it stood upon one side.” Maurer renders this, “on one of its forefeet it was recumbent, and stood on the other,” and says that this is the figure exhibited on one of the stones found in Babylon, an engraving of which may be seen in Munter, Religion d. Babyl. p. 112. The animal referred to here, as found in Babylon, says Lengerke, “lies kneeling on the right forefoot, and is in the act of rising on the left foot.” Bertholdt and Havernick understand this as meaning that the animal stood on the hindfeet, with the forepart raised, as the bear is said to do; but probably the true position is that referred to by Maurer and Lengerke, that the animal was in the act of raising itself up from a recumbent posture, and rested on one of its forefeet while the other was reached out, and the body on that side was partially raised. This position would naturally denote a kingdom that had been quiet and at rest, but that was now rousing itself deliberately for some purpose, as of conquest or war – as the bear that had been couching down would rise when hungry, or when going forth for prey.

    The application of this symbol was not explained by the angel to Daniel; but if the former pertained to Babylon, there can be little difficulty in understanding to what this is to be applied. It is evidently to what succeeded the Babylonian – the Media, the kingdom ruled successively by Darius the Mede as per Dan 5: 30-31 and 9:1. The only inquiry now is as to the pertinency of the symbol here employed to represent this kingdom.

    The symbol of the bear. As already seen, the bear would denote any fierce, rough, overbearing, and arbitrary kingdom, and it is clear that while it might have applicability to any such kingdom, it would better represent that of Medes than the lion would, for while, in some respects, either symbol would be applicable to either nation, the Media or Medo-Persia did not stand so decidedly at the head of nations as the Babylonian. As to its character, however, the bear was not an inappropriate symbol. Taking the whole nation together, it was fierce and rough, and unpolished, little disposed to friendliness with the nations, and dissatisfied while any around it had peace or prosperity.

    In the image seen in Dan. 2., this kingdom, denoted by the breast and arms of silver Daniel 7:32, is described in the explanation Daniel 7:39 as “inferior to thee;” that is, to Nebuchadnezzar. So Media combined with Persia can not fit into the second place as Persia never was an inferior kingdom to Babylon and in fact a world wide empire larger than even Greece as per the historians.

    3. The goat with two horns, one larger than the other. Dan 8:

    20 As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia.

    Here the Ram is representing the kingdoms of both Media and Persia but that doesn’t mean they are not two separate kingdoms as per the other texts of the book I mentioned in my previous posts.

    Please give your commentary on Dan 11 so that we can understand about the third and fourth kingdoms of Daniel. Fourth is the main focus of Dan 7, 8 and 11 from which the Little horn would come forth.

     

     

Viewing 20 posts - 621 through 640 (of 649 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account