Posted on 06/22/2007 10:49:14 AM PDT by pacelvi
What Is The Seventh And The Eight Empire?
"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. Revelation 17:9-11"
Before we procede, I wish here to acknowledge someone who has greatly contributed to my understanding of this issue. His name is Walid Shoebat. He is a former Palestinian terrorist and is the author of Why I left Jihad. I highly recommend this book. It may be ordered through his web site at www.shoebat.com
Beyond the above identification of the nations of Ezekiel 38, the Book of Revelation also confirms the notion that indeed the region of Turkey will be the head of the future Antichrist Empire. Let’s examine these passages from the Book of Revelation:
There I saw… a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. Revelation 17:3
Here we see the final “Beast” empire of the Antichrist. The Beast is seen to have seven heads and ten horns. We already know from the Book of Daniel that the ten horns represent the ten nations or kings that will comprise the Antichrist Empire. But the seven heads are seven empires that have existed throughout history that all have been foreshadows of the final empire that is to come. As usual, whenever a prophecy is given in the Bible that may be difficult in its symbolism, the Bible clarifies the symbolism and explains the passage for us:
This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. Revelation 17:9-11
Now the seven heads are called seven mountains. The Bible often uses mountains as a symbol representing a kingdom or an empire. But most importantly this passage gives us insight into the fact that before Jesus returns, there will actually have been a total of eight “Beast” empires. The eighth empire will be ruled by the Antichrist. How can this passage help us gain insight into the identification of the final Antichrist Empire? First, we see that at the time that it was written to John, five of the empires had already fallen. This is seen in the phrase, “five have been.” These empires are generally accepted by Bible teachers as being the following:
The Egyptian Empire
The Assyrian Empire
The Babylonian Empire
The Persian Empire
The Greek Empire
After these five, the angel tells John that one empire “is.” At the time that John wrote the Book of Revelation, Rome “was.” It ruled the Middle East, Northern Africa and much of Europe. Thus the sixth empire was the Roman Empire. The next empire, of course, is the seventh, and then the eighth will be the empire of the Antichrist. So the seventh empire is the empire that we need to identify. Because according to the verse above, it is the eighth empire that will be a resurrection or a revived version of the seventh empire:
“The beast who once was, and is not, is an eighth king.”
Let me just paraphrase this portion for clarity:
“The seventh beast (empire) that existed, but then did not exist, will come back as an eighth empire.”
So if we are now waiting for the final eighth empire, then what was the seventh? What empire followed Rome?
Because of the harsh anti-Semitic nature of the German third Reich, some Bible teachers have speculated that Germany was the seventh empire and thus Germany will come back as the eighth. 11
The most common belief however, held almost universally by Bible teachers, is that the Antichrist Empire will be a revived Roman Empire. There are however some glaring problems with this theory: Firstly, Rome was the sixth empire. If Rome was the sixth, and will also be the last, then what happened to the seventh? This theory has a gaping hole. Is Rome the sixth, seventh and the eighth empires? Neither Scripture nor history nor common sense supports this. Secondly, every one of the previous six empires ruled the Middle East, including Jerusalem. This is very important. We must always remember that the Bible is thoroughly Jerusalem centric. It is not America centric, nor is it Western centric. In the biblical view of things, Jerusalem is the center of the earth. This point cannot be underscored enough. Any theory that revolves around a revived Roman Empire based in Europe - for instance on the European Common Market - is a foreign concept to the Bible. Unless the empire rules over or directly affects Jerusalem, it is actually a bit irrelevant to biblical mind-set.
And the third crucial point is that if we look at the first six empires, each succeeding empire either destroyed or absorbed the empire that preceded it. There is a very natural sucession. If we look at each empire, we see that they all fulfill these two characteristics: they ruled over Jerusalem and they defeated or absorbed their predecessor. The Egyptian Empire ruled all of Egypt and Israel as well. But the Assyrian Empire defeated the Egyptian Empire and likewise ruled over a vast portion of the Middle East, including Israel. After this, the Babylonian Empire defeated the Assyrian Empire and became even larger than its predecessor, again, ruling over Israel. Such is the pattern with each successive empire: The Medo/Persian Empire succeeded the Babylonian Empire only to be succeeded by the Greek Empire. The Greek Empire was in turn suceeded by the Roman Empire. Which leads us to the seventh empire. Who overcame the Roman Empire? In order to answer this question, we need to briefly review the fall of the Roman Empire. What exactly happened?
In 395 A.D., The Roman Empire was divided into two portions; the eastern and the western portions. The Eastern portion became known as the Byzantine Empire. In 410 A.D. the western capital city of Rome fell to invading Germanic tribes known as the Visigoths or Barbarians. The western/European half of the Empire including its capital had fallen but the Roman Empire nevertheless continued. How so? It simply shifted its capital and its throne from Rome to Constantinople – a thousand miles east. The western European portion of the Roman Empire fell but the Eastern Byzantine portion of the Roman Empire lived on for nearly another thousand years with Constantinople as its capital. The Roman Empire didn’t actually completely fall until the eastern portion of the Empire finally fell to the Turks in 1453 A.D. Likewise it was the Islamic Caliphate of Umar Ibn al-Khattab that took Jerusalem in 637. Thus we see that it was the various manifestations of Islamic Empire culminating with the Ottoman Empire that suceeded the Roman Empire and ruled over the entire Middle East, beginning with Jerusalem for over thirteen hundred years. 12 The Turkish Empire existed right up until 1909.
Thus we see that the only empire that fulfills the patterns necessary to be considered the seventh empire is the Turkish/Ottoman Empire. This of course corresponds perfectly with Ezekiel’s list of nations with such a heavy emphasis on Turkey.
Frankly I have a hard time believing anyone could be so obsessed with an off-hand comment that was virtually OT to begin with. But then again, here were are, what is it now, the 4th exchange, and you're still trying to attack what you think is an elitist liberal snob.
I also recommend that you write in more General-American prose, rather than Northeast-Liberal-Elitist prose.
I don't even know what you mean by that? It sounds vaguely elitist though, in a plebeian sort of way. Frankly I've always been told my writing style was byzantine, with bizarre grammar and spelling errors -- which were, for the record, due to my dyslexia -- certainly not "Northeast-Liberal-Elitist." That actually sounds like a complement in comparison.
As for the BS bit, a fellow Freeper told me what it meant awhile ago, but since I'd never actually seen it used in any of the threads I usually post on I didn't know for sure. As a matter of fact I've been reading FR since 2000 (I used to post under a friends name back then), but I haven't been to FR much in the past 3 years, so there are probably lots of FR conventions and courtesy I'm unfamiliar with. Thank you for explaining it to me, and I apologize for any errors I have committed due to my ignorance.
Also, just a side point, I can understand your disgruntlement about the "pagan" bit, but "nerd?" I thought that was what made it obviously silly?
Waiting patiently for the next barrage of denunciations
Your ever weaselly aloof "liberal-straw man"
Ping
Ismalic Caliphate ping.
The what? Book of Denial?
What is the role of the British Empire?
Google Prince Charles and Anti-christ
Disclaimer. I am not saying I believe Prince Charles is the anti-christ, but some people do.
>>>Also, just a side point, I can understand your disgruntlement about the “pagan” bit, but “nerd?” I thought that was what made it obviously silly?<<<
If you were trying to be silly, why did you not state so in your reply to my original post, rather than posting an even more bizarre “explaination”.
Anyway, my point is, we read enough Founding Father bashing without having to read it from a fellow freeper, even when the intent is “tongue and cheek”.
First because I was angry with the tone you took; second, being a historian (specifically a historian of ideas) I was compelled to explain the foundations of the original assertion as something more then mere "bashing." After all, most "Founder bashing" is based on some ostensibly legitimate foundation. For example slave owning. Now those who wish to discredit the founders on this are selective in their reading of history; ignoring the difficulty there would have been in outlawing slavery and some of the founders own reservations about the institution, they are quick to accuse the founders of hypocrisy. Wrong tho this assertion is a counter argument that none of the founders ever owned slaves would be equally asinine in its omission.
My point in the explanation was that the Age of Enlightenment was pagan in many ways. That part which wasn't was, due to other influences (mostly Calvinism), almost pseudo-zionistic. A good the example of this latter sentiment would be the original English revolution of 1649, which, though it had strong religious undertones, ultimately led to the more secular revolutions of 1776, 1789, those of Miguel Hidalgo and Bolívar, the 1848 revolutions, and finally the revolution 1917.
The strange combination of these ideas (divinely chosen nation, with secular progressivism) in the period of the Enlightenment resulted in a teleological view of human history and ultimately led to all the "progressivist" elements of our modern world. That the Founders were products of this period means that regardless of their consciously professed creeds, they were operating in what was becoming a post-Christian world. I would even go so far as to say that Christianity itself was in many areas succumbing to this "Spirit of the Age." Indeed the contemporary "paganization" of Christianity is something that even DeTocqueville hinted at in his book On Democracy in America. I could go on for quite sometime about that, but this post is long enough already.
>>>First because I was angry with the tone you took...<<<
You were angry because I compared your understanding of the Founding Fathers with that of the ACLU (Post #95).
>>>second, being a historian (specifically a historian of ideas) I was compelled to explain the foundations of the original assertion as something more then mere “bashing.” After all, most “Founder bashing” is based on some ostensibly legitimate foundation. For example slave owning. Now those who wish to discredit the founders on this are selective in their reading of history; ignoring the difficulty there would have been in outlawing slavery and some of the founders own reservations about the institution, they are quick to accuse the founders of hypocrisy. Wrong tho this assertion is a counter argument that none of the founders ever owned slaves would be equally asinine in its omission.<<<
That is the same argument one might expect to hear from an ACLU-type while preparing us for the BIG BASH.
>>>My point in the explanation was that the Age of Enlightenment was pagan in many ways.<<<
Please explain to us what was pagan about the faith of the settlers of the Jamestown Colony, the Pilgrims, the early Colonies, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, George Mason, etc.?
>>>That part which wasn’t was, due to other influences (mostly Calvinism), almost pseudo-zionistic. A good the example of this latter sentiment would be the original English revolution of 1649, which, though it had strong religious undertones, ultimately led to the more secular revolutions of 1776, 1789, those of Miguel Hidalgo and Bolívar, the 1848 revolutions, and finally the revolution 1917.<<<
That is completely irrelevant nonsense posted in an attempt to make us think your knowledge of history is intellectually superior to the rest of us. It won’t work here.
>>>The strange combination of these ideas (divinely chosen nation, with secular progressivism) in the period of the Enlightenment resulted in a teleological view of human history and ultimately led to all the “progressivist” elements of our modern world.<<<
Secular progressivism (so-called) was not introduced in any great measure into our society until the rise of the Marxists in the latter 1800’s. The first truly progressive authority in America was the 16th Amendment of 1913, which gave the Feds complete control over taxation.
>>>That the Founders were products of this period means that regardless of their consciously professed creeds, they were operating in what was becoming a post-Christian world.<<<
I think you have been smoking too much wacky tobacky. Christianity was the dominant ideology in this nation in all aspects of our society, including education, until the 1960’s, and is still the dominant preference, no matter that our Marxist courts disallow it..
>>>Indeed the contemporary “paganization” of Christianity is something that even DeTocqueville hinted at in his book On Democracy in America. <<<
DeTocqueville was not born until more than 25 years after the American Revolution began. Why consider him an authority on Christianity in America, and not Washington, Adams, Jay, Jefferson, Madison, Ellsworth or Story?
>>>I could go on for quite sometime about that, but this post is long enough already.<<<
That is the first thing you have posted that I agree with.
Very well, I’m not going to argue with you any more. You win, I’m just a hemp-smoking ACLU lawyer type try’n to unhistorical place “secular-progressivism” in a period before the Marxists. I guess even the French Revolution is probably too close to the sacrosanct Age of Enlightenment. You’re right, progressivism came out of nothing, it has no political pedigree.
Conveniently.
Ok, so far, but where does the “false prophet” come from? “He” does play an important part as a “friend”/Promotor of the anti-messiah.
Persia (Iran) is involved in the end times according to His word. The US is not.
“Can you first explain how the Book of Revelations ever made it past the Council of the Bishops Nicene and into the Bible?”
I think the Holy Spirit had something to do with it.
bttt
Luke 24:25
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.