Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[hch]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The words translated as "for ever and ever", mean "unto the age of the ages".  No one KNOWS exactly how long that will be.  It could be said that the age of evil ENDS when these evil demons are finally DEAD.

8thday.

The point that I understood you to make was that only beast and the false prophet were cast into the lake of fire not the devil. Al three are in the lake of fire. Do you suppose that there are 2 lakes of fire or that they are put there at different times? 

Rev 20:10  "And the devil [that old serpent, Satan, the dragon] 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."

Christian regards

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, hch said:

Pickle,

If the latter days were in John's days then what are the days that have come 2000-years after those latter days?

I don't understand your point. I was referring to the latter of (a) and (b). I said nothing about "latter days."

2 hours ago, hch said:

And why get hung up on Rev 11.

Rev. 11 is the only other place in Revelation where we have an extended conversation. Since the question is all about what is the time context of the extended conversational explanation of Rev. 17, if we are going to avoid private interpretations, we have to look at the extended conversational explanation of Rev. 1 to see if it tells us anything about the timing of extended conversational explanations in the book of Revelation.

2 hours ago, hch said:

Rev 13 explains the deadly wound. But it does not stop at the wounded beast, it focuses on the "healed beast." Are you trying to put that in John's day too?

Where in Rev. 13 do you see any sort of a conversation whatsoever?

Note that your post was commenting on my post that said, "My point from Rev. 11 is that the latter are in John's day. Thus far you haven't shown anything to the contrary." You should have tried to show something in Rev. 17 that would place the the timing of the extended conversational explanation later than John's day. You failed to make any attempt to do that, even though that is the main question I've been asking.

And that again demonstrates that this all-important question has only one answer: The 6th king must be in John's day, because it is impossible to date the conversation of Rev. 17 at any other point in time.

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, hch said:

Pickle,

I took the time to look at Revelation 11 that your private interpretation is trying to place in John's day.

Rev 11:14  "The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly."

From my study: woe #1 was from 22 October 1844 till 22 February 1928

Woe #2 was from 14 October 1929 till 14 February 2013

And the third woe is not too far in the future.

Christian regards

You didn't address the points raised at all. The 1260 days are 538 to 1798. During the extended conversation in Rev. 11, these are spoken of as being future. Therefore, the date of that conversation must be John's day.

Now, how is that a private interpretation? Adventism agrees that the 1260 days are 538 to 1798.

GC and other places put Rev. 10 in the time of the Millerite Movement, and Rev. 11 in the time of the French Revolution. I take it from your comments that you reject these ideas and place Rev. 10 and 11 after 1929.

That being so, what religious faith are you? I thought you were an Adventist, but if you deviate that far from GC, I guess I was mistaken.

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, hch said:

Pickle.

This post is illogical.

"the clear, biblical principle seen in Rev. 11" that you propose is as clear as mud from what has been presented above.

Christian regards

Then explain why you think so. Assertions don't cut it. Tell us what part of what I said "is as clear as mud."

Give me some other reason why the time period of 538 to 1798 is spoken of in Rev. 11 as being in the future.

Note hat you have yet to give any exegetical reason for why the 6th king was during Benedict's reign, whether clear as mud or not, even though I asked for one some time ago.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

The 1260 days are 538 to 1798

Only if you hold an Adventist or historicist view on eschatology.  Futurists (which I am) believe that the 1260 days (literal 24-hour periods) are yet ahead of us.  No need to debate me on this; my mind is pretty much closed to the historicist view.  The day for a year analogy only applies to those prophecies for which it was explicitly stated (Num. 14:34 and Ezek 4:5-6); not for all prophecy in general.  If the day for a year application was universal, then the millennium is really  360,000 years long, unless someone can show me a scripture that says "the day for a year application does not apply beyond the second coming".

[hch]

8 hours ago, Pickle said:

Then explain why you think so. Assertions don't cut it. Tell us what part of what I said "is as clear as mud."

Give me some other reason why the time period of 538 to 1798 is spoken of in Rev. 11 as being in the future.

Note hat you have yet to give any exegetical reason for why the 6th king was during Benedict's reign, whether clear as mud or not, even though I asked for one some time ago.

Pickle,

Since you are not getting the point across about Revelation 11.

maybe you would restate it?

Or is someone following this thread can figure it out, maybe they could do what you have thus far failed to do?

Christian regards

 

[Pickle]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Only if you hold an Adventist or historicist view on eschatology.  Futurists (which I am) believe that the 1260 days (literal 24-hour periods) are yet ahead of us.  No need to debate me on this; my mind is pretty much closed to the historicist view.  The day for a year analogy only applies to those prophecies for which it was explicitly stated (Num. 14:34 and Ezek 4:5-6); not for all prophecy in general.  If the day for a year application was universal, then the millennium is really  360,000 years long, unless someone can show me a scripture that says "the day for a year application does not apply beyond the second coming".

For the discussion with hch, my point still stands. However, I doubt you can maintain your position on the day-for-a-year principle and be a futurist at the same time. You do believe that the 70 weeks are 490 years, don't you, even though Dan. 9 doesn't say it's talking about years?  The 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days are in the same book. How do you justify saying that the 70 weeks are 490 years, but time prophecies in the two previous visions, and the one following vision are not similarly years?

As far as the millennium goes, based on Rev. 10, and the declaration that there should be time no longer, there are no more prophetic time prophecies after the end of the 2300 days that the angel of Rev. 10 announced.

I realize that is too brief of an answer, but I would suggest we leave the millennium question alone for now. For now I would like you to share with me how you date the first 69 weeks of the 70 weeks of Dan. 9. My contention has been that the futurist view destroys the ability to date the first 69 weeks, and that that then demonstrates that the futurist view cannot possibly be correct. The futurist scholars who have worked on this problem have not been able to find a solution, to my knowledge.

[Pickle]

27 minutes ago, hch said:

Pickle,

Since you are not getting the point across about Revelation 11.

maybe you would restate it?

Or is someone following this thread can figure it out, maybe they could do what you have thus far failed to do?

Which part did you not understand?

11:2  But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

That's 538 to 1798, correct? "Shall tread" is future tense, correct? The time context, of the statement, therefore, must be pre-538. If it was post-1798, it would instead say, "And the holy city they trod under foot." If it was spoken within a context of 538-1798, it would be "And the holy city they are treading under foot."

1:3  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

That's still spoken from a pre-538 time context.

If you think there are any extended conversations in Revelation that are spoken in any other time frame than John's day, state which passage contains it, and show how it must be other than John's day. I've shown you above that the time frame for the conversation in Rev. 11 must be in John's day. Do that for Rev. 17 if you can.

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

You do believe that the 70 weeks are 490 years, don't you, even though Dan. 9 doesn't say it's talking about years?

Yes, I believe the 70 weeks are 490 years.  The literal translation from the Hebrew is seventy "sevens" or "periods".  Even several Bible translations call it seventy "sevens" or 70 "weeks of years".  I infer from that 490 years is a reasonable translation.  No translation that I am aware of even vaguely refers to the 1260 days as a "day for a year".

I infer (assuming 70 weeks of years) that when Daniel 9:24-27 describes the 70 weeks, the 70th week (last seven years it cut off from the previous 69.

"The Anointed One described in Dan. 9:25-26 is literally translated "an anointed one" in the original language and in several translations.  It is not referring to Christ; it is referring to an antichrist power.  When that power is covenants with Israel for 7 years, part of the deal will be to build a new Temple (sometime in the near future).   Halfway through that period (3-1/2 years), this power will break the treaty, end the sacrifices at the new Temple, and stand in that Temple and declare Himself to be God.  That leaves 3-1/2 years (1,260 days; a time, times, and half a time) for this power (the beast) to set up his kingdom and try to destroy God's elect.  At the end of that 1,260 days, God's elect will be taken into the sky; and the 7 last plagues will fall.  It won't be pretty for those remaining on the earth; for their probation (time of mercy - whatever you want to call it) will be over.

Forgive me if I'm to lazy and tired to meticulously document this.  To do so would make this post boringly long.  Again, it is my current belief/opinion; not a "dogma that I think people must believe or be wrong.  I'm not saying you (or others in this thread) are wrong; I'm just saying that at the current time, I believe differently than you.  This is IMHO not a salvational issue.  None of us at this time "know" empirically how eschatology will unfold.  However, it is up to us to keep our eyes and mind open to more than just one specific scenario.  Prophecy will unfold the way it unfolds; and almost all of us might be wrong.

I have a very strong opinion on who this antichrist power and beast are; you can find it by searching this and other threads.

[hch]

11 hours ago, Pickle said:

For the discussion with hch, my point still stands. However, I doubt you can maintain your position on the day-for-a-year principle and be a futurist at the same time. You do believe that the 70 weeks are 490 years, don't you, even though Dan. 9 doesn't say it's talking about years?  The 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days are in the same book. How do you justify saying that the 70 weeks are 490 years, but time prophecies in the two previous visions, and the one following vision are not similarly years?

As far as the millennium goes, based on Rev. 10, and the declaration that there should be time no longer, there are no more prophetic time prophecies after the end of the 2300 days that the angel of Rev. 10 announced.

I realize that is too brief of an answer, but I would suggest we leave the millennium question alone for now. For now I would like you to share with me how you date the first 69 weeks of the 70 weeks of Dan. 9. My contention has been that the futurist view destroys the ability to date the first 69 weeks, and that that then demonstrates that the futurist view cannot possibly be correct. The futurist scholars who have worked on this problem have not been able to find a solution, to my knowledge.

Pickle

This is a great example of the circular logic that has entrapped you: "the 70 weeks are 490 years...  The 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days are in the same book. How do you justify saying that the 70 weeks are 490 years, but time prophecies in the two previous visions, and the one following vision are not similarly years?"

"As far as the millennium goes, based on Rev. 10, and the declaration that there should be time no longer, there are no more prophetic time prophecies after the end of the 2300 days that the angel of Rev. 10 announced."

The millennium is a time prophecy as are the 1260 and 42-months, the Judgment HOUR, and the hour allotted to the beast (to name a few) all of which "are in the same book" and they all come after what you have said declares "there are no more prophetic time prophecies." So after Revelation states "that there should be time no longer" (Rev 10), John gives at least 8 instances of a time prophecy.

Why would the angel tell John that all time prophecy has stopped and then show John 8 instances where time prophecy are involved?

Those that look a little deeper find the answer that others refuse to believe. And the unbelievers pervert the truth so badly that it hinders the work that God has appointed to be done through HIs word.

EGW stated that the 42-months of Rev 13 are the 1260-years from 538-1798 [The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798. At that time a French army entered Rome, and made the pope a prisoner, and he died in exile. Though a new pope was soon afterward elected, the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before possessed.  {GC88 266.2} ]

Some folks misread EGW to believe that she said all time prophecy stopped in 1844 when she actually said that there was no prophecy declaring the day and hour of Christ's coming after 1844. But by taking the wrong view of EGW, unbelievers have thrown a shadow over the word of God.

The evidence is in that EGW also stated: " In the last days Satan will appear as an angel of light... He will declare that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week; and as lord of the first day of the week he will present this spurious sabbath as a test of loyalty to him. Then will take place the final fulfillment of the Revelator's prophecy. "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? 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..." [Revelation 13:4-18, quoted.]  {19MR 282.1}"

The unbelievers try to explain away the repetition of the time to make this EGW statement agree with their misreading of her other statements. But they just muddy the water and conceal the truth. Since it is obvious that EGW places the 42-months in the past (538-1798) and states that they will have a final fulfillment after 1844 (when Satan will appear as an angel of light) it is obvious that there is prophetic time after 1844. And when we look a little deeper there are numerous other statements from EGW confirming prophetic time after 1844.

The problem is that there was a faction of Adventists after 1844 that misunderstood prophetic time and EGW tried to correct their error. And Adventists that followed confused what she was trying to correct and what she was saying about prophetic time. The popular misunderstanding of EGW's view of prophetic time is just as harmful as the one she was seeking to correct.

"The thirteenth chapter of Revelation presents a power that is to be made prominent in these last days. Let all understand that it is Christ, the Captain of the Lord's host, who gave these visions to John. Christ came in person to the lonely isle of Patmos, and showed John the things that must be, [things] that were of the highest importance to His people. ([?] Through the person of His highest angels. He had veiled His own glory.) This message is to come to God's people, straight, sharp, and clean from all mixture of human wisdom and tradition."  {18MR 33.2}

Christian regards

[hch]

12 hours ago, Pickle said:

Which part did you not understand?

11:2  But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

That's 538 to 1798, correct? "Shall tread" is future tense, correct? The time context, of the statement, therefore, must be pre-538. If it was post-1798, it would instead say, "And the holy city they trod under foot." If it was spoken within a context of 538-1798, it would be "And the holy city they are treading under foot."

1:3  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

That's still spoken from a pre-538 time context.

If you think there are any extended conversations in Revelation that are spoken in any other time frame than John's day, state which passage contains it, and show how it must be other than John's day. I've shown you above that the time frame for the conversation in Rev. 11 must be in John's day. Do that for Rev. 17 if you can.

Pickle,

If I correctly understand what you have said, John speaking "from a pre-538 time context" about events that related to the time from 538-1798. That makes sense so far. And "from a pre-538 time context" he spoke about the 1798 papal head (Pius) that had received the deadly wound and about the Pius head's restoration in 1929 and the 7 popes that ruled after the kingdom was restored to Pius XI. It makes perfect sense.

So what are you disagreeing about?

Christian regards

[Pickle]

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Yes, I believe the 70 weeks are 490 years.  The literal translation from the Hebrew is seventy "sevens" or "periods".

That isn't true. That is a justification futurists use to have only the 70 weeks be 490 years, but it isn't true. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that when it says "week" (singular) in Dan. 9, there is agreement that that that means "week," not "seven."

You didn't answer my question as to your dates for the first 69 weeks, maybe because I was unclear. Give me the date you start them with, and the date you end them with.

I will help. If you really believe that the 69 weeks are 69 sevens of years, and that they refer to 69 sabbatical cycles (which they do), and that's how you get them to be 483 years without using the day for a year principle, then you can't turn them into 68 sabbatical cycles, since the text says 69, and run them from Artaxerxes' 20th year to 31 or 32 AD. And if you try to do that anyway, despite what the text plainly says about it being 69 rather than 68, let's take a look at your start and end dates as far as months and days go.

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

"The Anointed One described in Dan. 9:25-26 is literally translated "an anointed one" in the original language and in several translations.  It is not referring to Christ; it is referring to an antichrist power.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with futurist interpretations about Dan. 9, then. I've never met a futurist that says that "Messiah" in Dan. 9 isn't "Christ." It's the "prince that cometh" that they say is the antichrist, not the Messiah.

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

When that power is covenants with Israel for 7 years, part of the deal will be to build a new Temple (sometime in the near future).   Halfway through that period (3-1/2 years), this power will break the treaty, end the sacrifices at the new Temple, and stand in that Temple and declare Himself to be God.

Thus you hold the futurist position that the "prince" or nagiyd that confirms the covenant of Dan. 9:26-27 is the antichrist. The usual word for "prince" in Daniel is sar, but in Dan. 9:25-26 it is nagiyd. Nagiyd occurs only one other place in Daniel:

Daniel 11:22  And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

Futurists tend to say that this is talking about a 2nd-century BC Jewish ex-high priest, while Dan. 9's nagiyd of the covenant is the antichrist. That's not even the same type of person, when the grammatical similarity tells us it would be best to have them be the same person. In contrast, the Adventist position has both references referring to Christ.

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

This is IMHO not a salvational issue.

We don't decide what is and is not salvational. In Eden, whether to eat or not eat a piece of fruit was salvational, as it were. In Noah's day believing his prophetic message was salvational. In Rev. 14:9-12, we have God saying that He will pour out His wrath unmingled with mercy, something that has never happened before, upon the worshippers of the beast. Thus, knowing who the beast is so that we don't worship him can be salvational.

The problem is that the Protestant world used to know who the antichrist is, and it was so obvious. Today, churches have changed their theology so that they no longer believe what they used to, and some members of certain denominations that haven't done that don't know what their denominations believe on the topic because the preachers don't preach it. (That's what a LCMS pastor himself told me.)

But this sort of becomes a moot point if we can't find workable dates for the first 69 weeks. Without valid, workable dates, we have to leave the 70 weeks together as a single unit, and that destroys futurist eschatology.

[Pickle]

56 minutes ago, hch said:

The evidence is in that EGW also stated: " In the last days Satan will appear as an angel of light... He will declare that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week; and as lord of the first day of the week he will present this spurious sabbath as a test of loyalty to him. Then will take place the final fulfillment of the Revelator's prophecy. "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? 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..." [Revelation 13:4-18, quoted.]  {19MR 282.1}"

The unbelievers try to explain away the repetition of the time to make this EGW statement agree with their misreading of her other statements. But they just muddy the water and conceal the truth. Since it is obvious that EGW places the 42-months in the past (538-1798) and states that they will have a final fulfillment after 1844 (when Satan will appear as an angel of light) it is obvious that there is prophetic time after 1844. And when we look a little deeper there are numerous other statements from EGW confirming prophetic time after 1844.

You come across as if you disagree with what I said about there being no more prophetic time prophecies after 1844, and yet I highly doubt that you are saying that there will be a future 1260-year period. If you say that the future fulfillment is 1260 literal days, then you are agreeing with me that there is no prophetic time prophecy after 1844.

But look at the portions of the quote that you bolded. You're putting the being given a blasphemous mouth into the future. When are you saying that he will receive his blasphemous mouth, something he doesn't already have? In actuality, that clause puts a pre-538 date on that part of the passage.

Again, I don't think you would appreciate it if someone did this kind of thing to what you had written. You can't find anywhere where EGW explicitly said that there will be a future 1260-day time period. You're reading that into what she wrote based on this word and that phrase. I could do the same with this very post of yours. I could trumpet to the world that hch believes that the second coming is 1260+ years away, because he was arguing that there are prophetic time prophecies after 1844, and that the 42 months is future. It is what you said, but it isn't what you meant, I am sure.

Prophetic time prophecies are time prophecies that use prophetic time, and prophetic time is where each day represents a year.

[Pickle]

54 minutes ago, hch said:

If I correctly understand what you have said, John speaking "from a pre-538 time context" about events that related to the time from 538-1798. That makes sense so far. And "from a pre-538 time context" he spoke about the 1798 papal head (Pius) that had received the deadly wound and about the Pius head's restoration in 1929 and the 7 popes that ruled after the kingdom was restored to Pius XI. It makes perfect sense.

So what are you disagreeing about?

You aren't specific enough as to what verses you are referring to, so I will have to guess.

Revelation 13:3  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.

That's past tense, not future tense. And so why are you dating this scene as pre-538? And why are you referring to a scene when I asked for an extended conversation?

I can't comment on the rest of your statement because you didn't give any reasons why the time context of the extended conversation of Rev. 17 must be anything other than John's own day, and thus I don't really understand your thought.

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/29/2016 at 5:03 AM, hch said:

2Ki_11:12  "And he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king."

1Ki_1:35  "Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah."

In ancient times the crowned head was the king (royalty) because he was the ruler.

In Daniel Cpt 10, the "prince of Persia" - the one who "withstood" the LORD's angel messenger to Daniel for 21 days - is a demon - NOT a human.  Only Michael - "first" (echad - meaning the first, or "head") of the "chief princes", could help in the battle with this "prince of Persia". 

I believe there are 7 "chief princes".  They stand before God's thrown in the Rev. 4-5 scene.  They also release or pour out, the 7 last plagues. 

Michael was the pre-incarnate Son of God.  The name Michael means "like unto God".  ONLY the Son of God was "like" God.  He was begotten in the Father's "express image". 

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/27/2016 at 5:28 PM, Pickle said:

Come on, Henry. She's explaining what the woman Babylon symbolizes, and she very clearly says that that power is Rome. That is clearly what she is saying. To try to say that she is distinguishing the woman from the power, I can't see anyone buying that sort of idea. And I am certain you would not appreciate it if someone came along and did that kind of thing to things you have written.

I think every one here KNOWS that Ellen White thought the Vatican was/will be, "the harlot" of Revelation.  She might be right.  Time will tell. 

I do not personally look to EGW for interpretation of Scripture.  I want to stick with BIBLE only.  I want to look for Bible proofs and connections.  I know folks will keep on posting EGW quotes, and that's OK, but I will focus on those who stick with Bible. 

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

Maybe you're unfamiliar with futurist interpretations about Dan. 9, then. I've never met a futurist that says that "Messiah" in Dan. 9 isn't "Christ." It's the "prince that cometh" that they say is the antichrist, not the Messiah.

"Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. ²⁶ After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.  He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.” (Dan.9:25-27 NRSV)

I don't see how The Messiah (or the Anointed One) will break the covenant.  It's interesting that you bring up the nagiyd vs. the sar.  I have noticed that as well.  There is also a difference between the "covenant" and the "holy covenant" mentioned in Daniel 9.  The "covenant" is the treaty between Israel and the antichrist power;  and the "holy covenant" is the covenant between God and Israel.

It is obvious that you are well studied as well as eloquent.  Forgive me if I'm not in that same genre; I'm no theologian or expert expositor;  I'm just a guy trying to find His way with the guidance of the Spirit and the Word.  I have neither the energy nor the time to rigorously respond to all of your questions and concerns about my beliefs.  Suffice it to say I have been studying myself for over 40 years; and - although I drank the traditional SDA Kool-Aid for many years;  I don't buy it now.  I must find my own way to the Kingdom.  Like I stated before, I claim the right to be wrong (as I have often been in my journey to the Kingdom).  For me personally (maybe not for you), there is a difference between a belief/opinion and a dogma.  My mind is open to beliefs/opinions (like "day-for year", 1844, 1798 papal antichrist, etc); but it is closed to dogma (like Jesus being God and the only Name under heaven by which people can be saved), Sabbath worship, etc.).

I won't argue with you; I won't change our mind; and you won't change mine.  That being said, I respect your scholarship and organization.

[hch]

Pickle,

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

You come across as if you disagree with what I said about there being no more prophetic time prophecies after 1844, and yet I highly doubt that you are saying that there will be a future 1260-year period. If you say that the future fulfillment is 1260 literal days, then you are agreeing with me that there is no prophetic time prophecy after 1844.

When Ezekiel had the vision of a day for a year, it is in relation to the destruction of the Sanctuary. Thus prophetic time in relation to the restitution of the Sanctuary can be viewed as a day for a year. And much of the imagery in Revelation revolves around the Sanctuary: so a day for a year fits in most instances. BUT When John recorded that "time shall be no longer," he was stating that long time: a day for a year stopped being the general rule in Revelation (after the 2300-years that had been allotted, which extended from Daniel's prophecy to the time [1844] when the cleansing of the sanctuary began). Time prophecy continues in Revelation after 1844, but not as a day for a year.

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

But look at the portions of the quote that you bolded. You're putting the being given a blasphemous mouth into the future. When are you saying that he will receive his blasphemous mouth, something he doesn't already have? In actuality, that clause puts a pre-538 date on that part of the passage.

When the prophecy (Rev 13) repeated as EGW said it would, Pope John-Paul II: had a deadly wound that he survived, the world wondered after him; Satan gave "power unto" John-Paul II; he appeared as an angel (a messenger) declaring that Sunday was now the Sabbath (blasphemy "them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan") [he was of the synagogue of Satan because he had received power from Satan]; Communism could not make war against him-it fell at his bidding without firing a shot, power was given him to continue 42-months [as I wrote earlier, he died  4/2/05 which was exactly 42-months after 9/11/01 and from 9/11/01 it was exactly 1260-days when he entered the dying process and was admitted into the hospital to linger and die]; and when Satan personates John-Paul II as I pointed out in another thread-Satan pretending to be John-Paul II do some more of those things revealed in Rev 13.

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

Again, I don't think you would appreciate it if someone did this kind of thing to what you had written. You can't find anywhere where EGW explicitly said that there will be a future 1260-day time period.

The Bible says it and that is good enough for me. But it is very hard to set the record straight when EGW's wittings have been corrupted by well meaning folks who just don't read her the way she wrote things. That is explained ion the message to the Laodiceans.

"The message of the fall of Babylon, as given by the second angel, is repeated, with the additional mention of the corruptions which have been entering the churches since 1844. The work of this angel comes in at the right time to join in the last great work of the third angel's message as it swells to a loud cry. And the people of God are thus prepared to stand in the hour of temptation, which they are soon to meet. I saw a great light resting upon them, and they united to fearlessly proclaim the third angel's message." {EW 277.1}

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

You're reading that into what she wrote based on this word and that phrase.

words are what conveys thoughts. Rightly understood, they can be a blessing. But apart from their setting, they can do harm.

Christian regards

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/29/2016 at 5:41 AM, hch said:

8thday.

The point that I understood you to make was that only beast and the false prophet were cast into the lake of fire not the devil. Al three are in the lake of fire. Do you suppose that there are 2 lakes of fire or that they are put there at different times? 

Rev 20:10  "And the devil [that old serpent, Satan, the dragon] 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."

Christian regards

Please see my post where I explained that in the KJV the word "are" is in italics.  The DEVIL is not thrown into the "lake of fire" until AFTER the millennium.  The beast and false prophet are thrown in at the Second Coming. 

So yes - they are thrown in "at different times". 

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Yes, I believe the 70 weeks are 490 years.  The literal translation from the Hebrew is seventy "sevens" or "periods".  Even several Bible translations call it seventy "sevens" or 70 "weeks of years".  I infer from that 490 years is a reasonable translation.  No translation that I am aware of even vaguely refers to the 1260 days as a "day for a year".

I infer (assuming 70 weeks of years) that when Daniel 9:24-27 describes the 70 weeks, the 70th week (last seven years it cut off from the previous 69.

"The Anointed One described in Dan. 9:25-26 is literally translated "an anointed one" in the original language and in several translations.  It is not referring to Christ; it is referring to an antichrist power.  When that power is covenants with Israel for 7 years, part of the deal will be to build a new Temple (sometime in the near future).   Halfway through that period (3-1/2 years), this power will break the treaty, end the sacrifices at the new Temple, and stand in that Temple and declare Himself to be God.  That leaves 3-1/2 years (1,260 days; a time, times, and half a time) for this power (the beast) to set up his kingdom and try to destroy God's elect.  At the end of that 1,260 days, God's elect will be taken into the sky; and the 7 last plagues will fall.  It won't be pretty for those remaining on the earth; for their probation (time of mercy - whatever you want to call it) will be over.

Forgive me if I'm to lazy and tired to meticulously document this.  To do so would make this post boringly long.  Again, it is my current belief/opinion; not a "dogma that I think people must believe or be wrong.  I'm not saying you (or others in this thread) are wrong; I'm just saying that at the current time, I believe differently than you.  This is IMHO not a salvational issue.  None of us at this time "know" empirically how eschatology will unfold.  However, it is up to us to keep our eyes and mind open to more than just one specific scenario.  Prophecy will unfold the way it unfolds; and almost all of us might be wrong.

I have a very strong opinion on who this antichrist power and beast are; you can find it by searching this and other threads.

When was the command issued “to restore and to build Jerusalem” ?  

        Do we look to the command issued anciently by Cyrus or Artaxerxes, which freed the Jews to return to their land, and to rebuild their Temple after the captivity in Babylon?  If this prophecy is for “the latter days” or “the time of the end”, then why look to this ancient command? The prophet was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end” (Dan 12:4).  The messenger said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (Dan 12:9).  What makes us think we can clearly understand this prophecy - yet?

        Do we look to the United Nations recognition of Israel as a nation in 1948?  Or do we look for another command in the very last days?   If Iran gets a nuclear weapon and destroys Jerusalem, then another command may be forthcoming. The entire 70 weeks may belong to the last days.  
        
        We have at least two possibilities.  Maybe three.

How long is a “week” ?

        The Hebrew word translated “week” in Daniel 9:27 is shabuwa` (Strong’s #07620). The meaning, according to Strong’s Concordance is “seven” - a period of 7 days, or of 7 years.  

        Another more obscure meaning connects the word with the Feast of Weeks (also known as Tabernacles).  This was a 7 day feast, which took place each Fall.

        If one day is equal to one year, then “seventy sevens” would be  490 years (Exo 23:10-11, Lev 25:3-4).  If one week equals 7 literal days, then “seventy sevens” would be 490 literal days (1 year, 4 months, 10 days).  If one “seven” is one Feast of Tabernacles, then 70 of those feasts, would take place within a period of 70 years.

        NOTE: The nation known today as Israel, will be 70 years old in 2018.

        You can see, we have at least three possibilities.      

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

You come across as if you disagree with what I said about there being no more prophetic time prophecies after 1844, and yet I highly doubt that you are saying that there will be a future 1260-year period. If you say that the future fulfillment is 1260 literal days, then you are agreeing with me that there is no prophetic time prophecy after 1844.

But look at the portions of the quote that you bolded. You're putting the being given a blasphemous mouth into the future. When are you saying that he will receive his blasphemous mouth, something he doesn't already have? In actuality, that clause puts a pre-538 date on that part of the passage.

Again, I don't think you would appreciate it if someone did this kind of thing to what you had written. You can't find anywhere where EGW explicitly said that there will be a future 1260-day time period. You're reading that into what she wrote based on this word and that phrase. I could do the same with this very post of yours. I could trumpet to the world that hch believes that the second coming is 1260+ years away, because he was arguing that there are prophetic time prophecies after 1844, and that the 42 months is future. It is what you said, but it isn't what you meant, I am sure.

Prophetic time prophecies are time prophecies that use prophetic time, and prophetic time is where each day represents a year.

The 1260 day period ("time, times and a part" / 42 months) ENDS when the judgment of Daniel 7:9-10 awards the kingdom to Christ and his "saints". 

Daniel 7:21 "I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them 22 until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom." (NAU)

This is the FINAL period of persecution, leading up to the Second Coming!!! 

Daniel 7:25 (time, times, and a part)

Daniel 12:7 (time, times, and half a time)

Revelation 11:2 (42 months)

Revelation 11:3 (1260 days)

Revelation 12:6 (1260 days)

Revelation 13:5 (42 months)

All these passages are speaking about the SAME TIME PERIOD!!

At the END of the 42 months of Revelation Cpt Eleven, the 7th trumpet sounds.  WHEN the 7th trumpet sounds, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ."  (Rev. 11:15). 

The "two witnesses" testify for 42 months, during which they are persecuted.  Right at the END of the 42 months, the two witnesses are killed (or a death decree is issued).  They remain dead for 3.5 days, and are then resurrected.  They hear the "voice" of God calling them, and they and ascend to heaven "in a cloud" as their persecutors watch.  Immediately there is a great earthquake, and the 7th trumpet sounds.  THIS is the SECOND COMING!!!

[JoeMo]

19 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

NOTE: The nation known today as Israel, will be 70 years old in 2018.

        You can see, we have at least three possibilities.

Now THAT'S something I have never considered that is worth looking at!  Your'e good!

[hch]

4 hours ago, Pickle said:

You aren't specific enough as to what verses you are referring to, so I will have to guess.

Revelation 13:3  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.

That's past tense, not future tense. And so why are you dating this scene as pre-538? And why are you referring to a scene when I asked for an extended conversation?

I can't comment on the rest of your statement because you didn't give any reasons why the time context of the extended conversation of Rev. 17 must be anything other than John's own day, and thus I don't really understand your thought.

Pickle,

the example you give is like the last one you gave that I answered. John did not write in English. Consider the word translated wondered:

Revelation 13:3  "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered [G2296] after the beast."

G2296 From G2295; to wonder; by implication to admire: - admire, have in admiration, marvel, wonder.

Revelation 13:3  "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world is to wonder [G2296] after the beast."

Revelation 13:3 Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)  "And I saw one of his heads as-if [a] having been slain to death. And his wound of [c] death was cured. And the whole earth was caused-to-marvel [while following] after the beast."

Revelation 13:3Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) " And I saw one of his heads as it were slain to death: and his death's wound was healed. And all the earth was in admiration after the beast."

Revelation 13:3J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS) "One of its heads appeared to have been wounded to death but the mortal wound had healed."

Revelation 13:3Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) followed=opisō

ὀπίσω (opisō)

Strong: G3694

GK: G3958

can function as an improper prep., behind, after, at one’s back, Mt. 4:10; Lk. 7:38; Rev. 1:10; τὰ ὀπίσω, the things which are behind, Phil. 3:13; ὀπίσω and εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, back, backwards, Mt. 24:18; Mk. 13:16; Lk. 9:62, when an improper prep., takes the gen.

Matthew 4:19 "And he said to them, “Come, follow (opisō | ὀπίσω | improper prep-gen) me, and I will make you fishers of men.”"

As you can see, your argument is very weak.

Christian regards

[Pickle]

34 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

There is also a difference between the "covenant" and the "holy covenant" mentioned in Daniel 9.  The "covenant" is the treaty between Israel and the antichrist power;  and the "holy covenant" is the covenant between God and Israel.

That begs the question. Since the only covenant mentioned in Dan. 9 is a covenant between God and His people, one needs to have some sort of reason why the covenant of Dan. 9:27 must be something else.

While dialoging with a Baptist some years ago about the nagiyd having to be Christ because of the use of the same words in Dan. 11, it dawned on me that it would be good to find some additional support for the idea. I therefore searched for other passages in the Bible that used nagiyd and came up with 2 Sam. 5 and 1 Chr. 11, both talking about the same event. However, there were five words that paralleled Dan. 9, not just two:

• nagiyd (captain/ruler/prince)
• people
• anointed/Messiah
• made/cut off
• covenant

It was intriguing, but what did it mean?

Every covenant between God and His people is similar to Israel's covenant with David. We agree that God will be our ruler, and He agrees that we will be His people.

I think any well-read Jew who reads Dan. 9 would notice the Messianic language throughout the chapter, including the final verses. To arrive a different conclusion as to the meaning of those final verses, someone needs to find a solid reason for doing so.

[Pickle]

51 minutes ago, hch said:

BUT When John recorded that "time shall be no longer," he was stating that long time: a day for a year stopped being the general rule in Revelation (after the 2300-years that had been allotted, which extended from Daniel's prophecy to the time [1844] when the cleansing of the sanctuary began). Time prophecy continues in Revelation after 1844, but not as a day for a year.

And so I concluded correctly what your position is, even though you said something different. What you said was that there are prophetic time prophecies after 1844, but you don't believe there are, as you here make clear. Similarly, it is wrong for you to use EGW's words to say something she did not intend to mean.

You did not answer my question as to when the papacy will receive a blasphemous mouth which it didn't already have. Please do so.