November 26, 2025 • 49 mins
Chris White starts a new study about the beasts found in the books of Daniel and Revelation.Take your Bibles and turn to Daniel 7, Revelation 12-13 and Revelation 17 for this interesting study.
Show Notes:
Support Joyful Hearts Home:
https://joyfulheartshome.com/
Vine Abiders Podcast:
iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vine-abiders-podcast/id1836542893
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/08zwN9adiROSwLvZeg4Vxh
Vine Abiders Substack:https://vineabiders.com
Show Notes:
Support Joyful Hearts Home:
https://joyfulheartshome.com/
Vine Abiders Podcast:
iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vine-abiders-podcast/id1836542893
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/08zwN9adiROSwLvZeg4Vxh
Vine Abiders Substack:https://vineabiders.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe radio network. It's safe and you
don't have to log in to use it, and it
doesn't track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
(00:27):
I know I was gonna tell him, how do you
get the app? Just go to fringe radionetwork dot com
right at the top of the page. I know, slippers,
we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
So I decided to take on a subject that has
daunted me for as long as I can remember, and
that is the seven headed, ten horned Beast in the
Book of Revelation. Now, on the one hand, I'm pretty
confident that I know what it is in a macro sense,
I have virtually no questions that in some sense it's
(01:07):
the Antichrist. At least one of those heads is the
Antichrist who gets the deadly wound, etc. The beast is
referred to euphemistically the first Beast all throughout the Book
of Revelation as a reference to the person of the Antichrist.
So I know, in one sense the answer is it's
(01:27):
the Antichrist. But in another sense, there is so many
details about the seven headed, ten horned aspect of this beast,
both here in the Book of Revelation and in Daniel.
If Daniel is in fact intended to be understood as
related to this beast, which I would argue it kind
of has to be, which I'll get into in a minute,
(01:50):
then there are many aspects that can give us a
lot more information about the Antichrist. But every time I
try to come up with an idea of what each
of these heads represent, or try to work out some
of the other problems that we'll get into, it never
(02:11):
ends up clicking with all the other details. And it
is so taxing on my brain that I feel like
it's just there's some kind of lock to this mystery.
I don't think it's a coincidence that verse nine and
Revelation seventeen starts off with this calls for a mind
with wisdom. The seven heads or seven mountains on which
(02:31):
the woman is seated, they are also seven kings, five
of whom have fallen, one is and the other has
not yet to come. And I know many of you
are thinking, Chris, it's this thing or is that thing.
I'm telling you, if you think it is a thing,
and you don't know some of the things that we're
going to talk about today, it's very likely that what
you believe is contradicted by some other aspect of this.
(02:53):
In my commentaries, I never came up with a reference,
for example, of the five five of Fallen one is
in my commentary. I simply said, you know, this is
probably referring to five sort of satanic manifestations of the
Antichrist in history. If we're to understand these as kings
and not kingdoms or whatever, they would probably be particularly blasphemous.
(03:16):
But every time I try to do a traditional sort
of Bible study, the same kind of methods and hermeneuticts
that has yielded me proof that I'm on the right track.
In other instances, it always ends up with nothing. None
of the normal methods I use seem to yield results
with not just that, but it's actually interesting in the
Book of Daniel, also in Daniel seven, where we have
(03:40):
the four beasts rising out of the sea, one like
a lion, one like a foreheaded leopard, one like a bear,
with three ribs in its mouth and the diverse beasts
with ten horns. Even in that commentary, I simply said,
here are what I think these symbols would mean for
the person who will have venteally figure out what this means.
(04:02):
But I don't know what it means. And I have tried.
I've looked up every aspect of that. What are the
three ribs? Bear studies and leopard studies and every kind
of study you can do in the Bible to see
if the Bible is giving you some kind of clue
to this, And it's just as far as I can see,
it's no help. And the traditional views, I mean, read
(04:25):
commentaries and you're going to get some pretty diverse opinions
on this. I think the traditional view, which we'll talk about,
that these are to be equated with Daniel two and
Daniel seven. I think a lot of you are probably thinking, oh, Chris,
this is probably your weird theory about Daniel two and
Daniel seven not being the same thing that's caused new problems.
If you would just take that traditional view, everything will
be fine. Look I'm okay, I'll go back to the
(04:47):
traditional view if you can prove to me that this
works I think when we get into this, you'll see
that the problems with the traditional view that this is,
you know, Babylon, Amato, Persia or what much much more
significant than just the beasts seem to live on for
a time in the millennium. And we'll get into all
that stuff, but I basically want to get a couple
(05:08):
points across. This is a huge problem, and I don't
think I've ever heard of anybody solving it. And when
I finally sat down to be like, I've got to
figure this out, it just started pouring notes, notes, notes, notes,
not even organized notes. It's hard for me to even
you might be able to get a sense of this,
to even articulate what the problems are. There's a lot
(05:30):
here and I and so what I'm going to try
to do in this podcast is just use it as
an excuse to figure this out and to maybe try
to tackle it in bite sized chunks, like, for example,
one podcast might just be talking about the ten Kings?
What do we know about the ten Kings? And I think,
I think if this is going to be figured out,
(05:50):
it's got to be there's got to be like a
list made of here are the things that must be
true about the ten Kings, and that list is much
longer than you might think. And then let's go from there,
you know, or whatever. So right now I have a
big list of things that must fit these passages, and
if and you know, to find out where the contradictions
(06:11):
are and stuff like that. I'm nowhere near ready for
this stuff. But I think one way to talk through
some of the problems is to go through Well, I
don't know where should we start, so I'll just mention
a couple of different options, and maybe I should start
by just giving the overview of what's happening in these passages.
So let's start in Daniel seven. As I mentioned, four
(06:33):
beasts appear out of the sea. One is like a lion.
It has its wings plucked off. It's told to stand
on its feet. It's given a heart of a man.
One is like a bear with raised up on one
side as three ribs in its mouth. It's told to
go out and devour much flesh. You've got the leopard
(06:54):
with four heads. It's got wings, I think as well,
and then you've got the Antichrist be best, in which
it's this beast with iron teeth and it's got ten horns,
and one little horn uproots three of them, and the
little horn is the Antichrist. He speaks, speaks blasphemous words.
He continues for three and a half years. It's clearly
(07:14):
the Antichrist now. As I mentioned in Revelation, that same
beast appears multiple times. Is mentioned specifically in Revelation twelve,
Revelation thirteen, Revelation seventeen, where it talks about let me
just read Revelation thirteen one. And I saw a beast
rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads,
(07:35):
and ten diadems on its horns, and blasphemous names on
its heads. And the beast I saw was like a leopard.
Its feet were like a bear's, its mouth was like
a lion's. And to it the Dragon gave his power
and his throne and great authority. One of its heads
seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound
was healed. And the whole earth marveled as they followed
(07:56):
the beast, And they worshiped the dragon who had given
his to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying,
who is like the beast who can fight against it?
And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and
blasphemous words, it was allowed to exercise authority for forty
two months, et cetera, et cetera. Now there's a lot
of interesting things are happening there because we know I
(08:17):
could argue, and I should argue very strongly, that the
writer of the book a Revelation, wants us to equate
what Daniel said with this, and the reason I know
that is first. But in order to do that, we
need to understand that those four beasts that I talked
about before, one of them that's seven heads, because the
leopard had four heads, and there were three other beasts,
(08:38):
so that's so they were all put together. And now
they got seven heads and ten horns because as I mentioned,
the last diverse beasts had ten horns already and the
little horn came out of it and everything else. So
Revelation expects us to understand that that's an amalgamation of it.
And it's further reiterated because it was like a leopard,
it was like a bear, it was like a lion,
which was all three of the other types of beasts.
(09:01):
In addition, it adds other details such as the three
and a half years, it was allowed to continue forty
two months. That was the thing that was mentioned in
both Daniel seven and Revelation thirteen. The war on the
Saints was reiterated, and the blasphemous words were reiterated. So
we've got so many details that's just incontrovertible that we're
(09:23):
supposed to understand this set of beasts with the other.
But then all kinds of problems happen as a result
of that. If you assume, okay, let's see back there,
the little horn was the Antichrist, but here the head
is the Antichrist. Are these kings or kingdoms because of one?
It's clearly kingdom is one, and clearly as kings. And
it's never as simple as like, well let's just make
(09:44):
them kingdoms then, or let's just make one king. Everything
has a problem and the reference nonewithstanding. So I think
what I'm going to do here is just I think
I'm first going to go through some of the theories.
The theory that I'm going to start with to an
extent is one that I think is defensible but has
its contradictions, and that is that Satan is the seven headed,
(10:08):
ten horned beast, but each human, that each of the
heads is kind of a human representative that may or
may not also be a kingdom. I actually think that
the Bible demands that you understand that it has the
free will to change king and kingdom at certain points.
But I also think that it's clearly as a sort
(10:31):
of general rule of thumb, you could almost always say
that horns are individuals and the beast itself is typically
the kingdom, but not always, and you I think kind
of have to have the heads be kings not kingdoms.
But again, there's some passages to sort of demand that
you don't take that too seriously. So that's why I
(10:54):
say it like that Satan is the seven headed, ten
horned beast. Revelation twelve calls the same headed ten orned
beasts with ten diadems Satan, but at the same time
we know it's not Satan, because Satan is thrown alive
with the Antichrist of the first beast and the second
beast into they're all They're not like Clark Kenton Superman.
They're on the same place at the same time. In
(11:17):
that instance. Also in the instance where the ritual where
the spirits of frogs come out of their mouth, and
they gather the kings together for the battle of Armagedon.
Both Satan, the Dragon, the first Beast, and the second
Beast are in that situation, so they're definitely distinct. But
because of Revelation twelve, Satan has to essentially be the
(11:39):
Beast himself. However, the Bible also refers to the Beast.
Now it goes on to say one of the heads
is a mortal wound, and I think, what's happening Is
it saying this head is the Antichrist. He has the
mortal wound that's healed, and he's speaking blasphemous words. The
same thing with the little horn did in Daniel seven.
(12:02):
So that's why the perfect match has trouble. Unless the
ten horns on that head, he is actually one of
those than the head itself. Maybe can be more of
a kingdom as long as he is one of the
ten kings, but there's a problem with that because the
ten Kings are discussed in Revelation seventeen. It's sort of autonomous,
(12:22):
different kings. They do not have authority. They are given
authority by the Beast, the Antichrist for a specific hour.
They hate the woman, the blah blah, blah. So the
ten kings are there and they've got an uprooted problem.
We'll talk about that in the ten horns section. I
never even got through a definition. You can tell me
what was happening here. So Satan is is the beast,
(12:44):
but each head is a human representative that may or
may not be a kingdom. So, for example, the head
in this theory that I'm going to try to first
show the pros and cons of the heads are most
likely kings past manifestations of the Antichrist. Think of John
and first John what for something like that where he's
(13:06):
talking about, you know, one Antichrist were in the world
even then, but there have been many other Antichrists. So
in other words, so maybe Antichrist has appeared as a
king's say for the sake of argument Pharaoh or Antiochus,
that maybe, in one sense that was Satan in some
special way manifesting on the earth to do something very
(13:29):
antichrist like. Whatever that criteria is is kind of one
of the problems in Bible study that I'm having to
determine exactly what that criteria is. In one sense, I
think it's the blasphemous names on the heads is maybe
the key to this if I could find in the
Bible key moments of manifestations of kings and kingdoms that
(13:50):
were characterized by blasphemy. But that's difficult because a word
study of blasphemy in the except Tuo Agent or Greek,
or even just doing an English study and plasphemy don't
yield their kind of results that would explain any of that.
So if it is that, it would have to be
non word study based, and maybe that's why it requires wisdom.
(14:13):
You have to know the Bible better than I do. Anyway,
So continuing with my definition with the seventh and final
head being the man we call the Antichrist, the ten
Horns are ten human kings of Revelation seventeen that are
given power by the Antichrist in the Final Kingdom. I
think the ten Horns, I'm pretty darn confident, and I
(14:35):
don't think I have any issues with the ten Horns
being the human kings that we see in Revelation seventeen.
My only problem with them, as I mentioned earlier, how
to deal with the uprooted nature in the vision part
of Daniel seven, where the little Horn comes up and
in doing so it uproots three of the ten Kings,
(14:56):
but then later in the definition it seems that they don't.
The uprooted may have been a little too strong to
read too much into that vision because it uses the
word that's essentially the equivalent of humiliated or something like that.
But they appear, if Daniel seven is to be directly
equated to Revelation to still be there. So it's almost
(15:20):
like he conquers the ten Kings but never really becomes
one of them. He sort of is over and above
them to some degree. He uses three in some way
to conquer them. This humiliation or uprooting of them conquers them,
but he doesn't become one of them. And the Little
Horn you know, and that's one of the problems with
(15:41):
making this a perfect match, is the Little Horn is
now He's clearly the head. The Little Horn was speaking
blasphemous words, it was three and a half years it
was warring on the saints and Daniel seven, but those
same attributes are attributed to the head that gets the
mortal wound over in Revelation. Okay, So to an idea
(16:01):
like that is it's logical to assume that all the
heads of Revelation thirteen, the seven headed ten horned beast
are human since one of its heads gets a mortal wound.
This head seems to be become synonymous with the beast,
since the world is forced to worship the beast whose
deadly wound was healed Revelation thirteen fourteen. The very concept
(16:25):
of getting a mortal wound implies that the head is mortal.
If one of the heads is human, it's logical to
assume that they all are. And that's maybe too big
of a reach, but I think it's logical to assume
that if he is human, then they all are. And
maybe human might be too strong of a word. I'm
not saying that they can't be. That the Antichrist maybe
(16:48):
could be some sort of demonic being or angel or
something like that. I'm not necessarily this particular I view
doesn't necessarily preclude that, But I am saying it's an individual,
and I think think that the New Testament, especially Pauline
writings and Jesus's writings in the all of a discourse
and writings, is his message on the alli a discourse. Definitely.
Let's just know we're talking about an individual here that
(17:10):
has the same attributes to three and a half years
the deadly wound and the blasphemous words, etc. War on
the saints. Another reason why that's this is a good argument.
A pro for it is it jives with Revelation seventeen ten,
which says that the seven heads are seven kings, five
of whom have fallen, one is, and one has yet
(17:31):
to come. I know people always run around trying to
find which city is sitting on seven hills, which is
just a total Reformer thing. If you guys could read
the commentaries just to know how much that has impacted
modern prophecy is the reformers. And I love the Reformers.
I love Reformation theology about the Gospel and stuff like that,
but on prophecy, man, they did more damage than a
(17:55):
lot of stuff. I think in some sense, the mountains
there because it says there's seven mountain I'm not taking
that away from it. It's not like it doesn't say
that the seven heads or seven mountains, but it also
says they are seven kings and mountains is a big
piece to this puzzle. Somehow it may even end up
being the key to it. I don't know, but they
are definitely kings too. Now we'll get into the kings
(18:17):
or kingdom's argument, And for the sake of argument here,
I'm going to say that kings means kings here because
it makes the most sense out of this. It's a
pro here because getting the mortal wound the other aspects
of making it seem like the head itself is the Antichrist.
So I'm good with that. So that's a pro for it.
It also suggests that Satan has what did I say here?
(18:39):
This suggests that Satan has throughout history made specific appearances
as a man. That would be a logical outgrowth of that.
This makes the beast. This this makes the best sense
of the resurrection Rosetta Stone theory. Okay, this is something
I just came up with a name here. I called
it the Resurrection Rosetta Stone theory, which tries to makes
(19:00):
sense of a number of verses. Okay, So the Rosetta Stone,
if you know, in history, it was found by I
think Napoleon's troops. It was the first time that they
were able to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics, because you had this
passage and written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, but they also had
it written in Greek and some other language, maybe a
(19:20):
Kadian or something like that, when they knew the other
two languages, but they didn't know so they were able
to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics because of that, And I think
that something is happening here. If you take a number
of different verses Revelation thirteen three, Revelation thirteen twelve, Revelation
thirteen fourteen, and Revelation seventeen eight, and Revelation seventeen eleven
(19:43):
by themselves, you wouldn't necessarily know what they're trying to say.
But if you put them all together, they're interpreting one another.
And the logical outgrowth of that interpretation is that the
Antichrist is rising from the dead, and that is a
title that he has been given. It's one of the
(20:04):
reasons that the world worships him, I know. And this
is in somewhat to distinguish from the idea that is
a lot of taken because of one of these verses,
which is a Revelation seventeen eight of him rising from
the bottomless pit, and that is kind of a theory
that we're going to talk about at some point that
I think maybe makes a little too much of that.
(20:26):
I think he does rise from the bottomless pit. But
I think what's been said there is just another way
to say the same thing that all these other verses
are saying. That his title essentially is the one who
came back to life, kind of like in a sense,
it's sort of a satanic play on the first part
of Revelation where Jesus said he is the one who
(20:47):
is or was and is and is to come. And
I think which is probably referring to his resurrection. I
think you could maybe parse that another way, but probably
not in any case. So these verses read as follows
relation thirteen to three. One of his heads seem to
have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed,
and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast.
(21:07):
I've got a couple things highlighted there. One of his
heads has a mortal wound, which it will say is
the it doesn't quite and its mortal wound was healed,
which is going to be the resurrection portion of this.
Another part I have highlighted is the whole earth, and
that's because it's the earth dwellers, which is a specific
term in the Book of Revelation to essentially refer to
(21:28):
those people who are not in the Book of Life.
There the earth dwellers and the non earth dwellers, that is,
those who are saved. And then they have marveled as
they followed the beast. So we've got the title the
one whose mortal wound was healed, We've got the earth dwellers,
and we've got the marveling as they followed the beast.
Next verse, it exercises the first beast all the authority
(21:50):
of what the second beast. Actually, the second beast exercises
all the authority of the first beast in its presence
and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first
beast whose mortal wound it was healed. So here we're
just sort of understanding that there is Again it just
says his mortal wound was healed as sort of an
honorific here. But the earth dwellers are here, although the
(22:13):
specific term earth dwellers is not used there. I don't
think a revelation thirteen fourteen. Let's see, and by the
signs that it is, and by the signs that is
allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it
deceives those who dwell on the earth, the earth dwellers
telling them to make an image for the beast that
(22:34):
was wounded by the sword and yet lived. So again
they didn't have to say wounded by the sworn and
yet lived. It's just becomes a title for him, and
the earth dwellers are doing that to worship him. Revelation
is seventeen eighteen. The beast that you saw was and
is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless
pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers of the earth,
(22:55):
whose names have not been written in the Book of
Life from the foundations of the world, will marvel to
see the beast because as it was and is not
and is to come. This is a really key thing.
Before I get to it, i'll read the next one.
As for the beast that was and is not, it
is an eighth, but it belongs to the seven and
it goes to destruction. So there's number of between those two.
The ghost to the destruction is the same thing. In fact,
(23:17):
they're the exact same line. The beast that you saw
was and is not, it's about to rise from the
bottomless pit and go to destruction, versus the beast that
was and is not is an eighth and belongs to
the seventh, and it goes to the destruction. The only
difference there is one says rise from the bottomless pit,
and one says was and is not. It is an eighth,
but it belongs to the seven, which I'm saying is
the Rosetta stone. Aspect of that is that that means
(23:39):
the same thing. Rise from the bottomless pit can be
shown from scripture to mean resurrect from the dead. Jesus
was said to rise from the bottomless pit when he
resurrected from the dead. Sorry, don't have the scripture on hand.
You can just do a study of this, do a
study of Abyss other instances that this is my commentary
as well, going through the instances to show you from
scripture it can mean rising from the bottomless pick I
(24:00):
mean to resurrect from the dead. Resurrection from the dead
clearly has been a theme as we've been reading about
this seven headed ten head beast whose mortal wound was
healed and yet to live and people marvel. And that's
actually whate interesting thing in Revelation seventeen eight because the
dwellers of the earth, and it also calls it well
and the dwellers of the earth whose name has not
(24:21):
been written in the Book of Life from the foundation
of the world will marvel to see the beast because
it was, and is not and is to come. And
I would submit that you can take that Rosetta Stone
concept of why do the earth dwellers marvel at the beast? Well,
go back to what we read there in Revelation thirteen
to three. But it's mortal wound was healed, and the
(24:42):
whole earth, the earth dwellers marveled as they follow the beast.
The marveling we were told earlier was because his mortal
wound was healed. That interprets the dwellers marveling in Revelation
seventeen because he was, and is not and is to come.
But I need to be very careful not to be
too dogmatic about this, And I think if I'm ever
(25:03):
going to figure this out, I need to hold very
loosely any theory that I have here, as much as
I think it makes good sense. I have to be
willing to let the other things speak for themselves in scripture.
One thing with if you believe that the rising of
the from the bottomless pit and Revelation seventeen is to
(25:24):
be equated with the healing of the beasts woon. And
by the way, if you're having trouble with that concept
of the Antichrist rising from the dead, read a paper
called can Satan Raise the Dead? Toward a Biblical view
of the Beast's wound? I read reread the paper the
other day. He doesn't go quite as much detail as
I'd like him too on the aspect that the reason
I usually recommend that paper. He talks more about the
(25:45):
concept of that it's a necessity that the Antichrist and
the false Prophet have resurrection bodies in order to be
sent into Hell, and that's why it says they're thrown
alive into the Lake of Fire, and it talks about
the doctrine of Hell, essentially the Great White Judgment and
the resurrection of the unjust dead has to happen before
they are put into Hell, and blah blah blah. But
(26:05):
he does come to the conclusion that I want people
to read, which is a lot of reading to get
to the point, which is that it is God who resurrects,
that it's not a pretend resurrection. He really does resurrect
from the dead. It is the great delusion that God
sends specifically reads the Second Thessalonians too. He does it
so that people will believe the lie, and it's done
(26:26):
specifically for the reasons he outlines there. But that's that's
my theory. But again my point is, I don't want
to hold too tightly on any of this stuff. I
want to be willing to say, well, maybe the coming
from the bottomless pid is speaking of a polion and
the bottomless paid in Revelation what is it nine to eleven?
In other words, in Revelation nine to eleven, it says
they have the speaking of the locust like beings that
(26:50):
are that come out of the abyss. When the angel
in the fifth trumpet unlocks the abyss, all these locusts
go out and they kill people. They're described in great detail.
Locus were like horses prepared for battle. On their heads
would look like crowns of gold. Their faces were like
human faces. And they go out and they torment people
that don't have the seal of God in their foreheads.
(27:11):
Then it says they have a king over them, the
Angel of the Bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is
a baton, and in the Greek it is called Apollon,
which essentially means the destroyer. So the counter argument to
what I just said would say, well, maybe the coming
out of the bottomless pit the abyss am. I just
saying that this is a coincidence that over here you've
(27:31):
got somebody coming out of the bottomless pit, and over
here I've just said, well that the one that was
and is and comes out of the bottomless pit and
goes into destruction and that means resurrection. Well, I think again,
I think that you can absolutely show that with the
Rosetta Stown theory. But I would say, yeah, I think
(27:52):
that it is just kind of in this current theory
which I'm willing to bend on. And I'm going to
go through this theory, for example, in one of these podcasts,
and we're just going to talk about this theory, and
we're going to go through the pros and cons of
Abadan is the Antichrist or some other fallen angel type
thing associated with the Antichrist or whatever. The first reason
(28:14):
I'm not too big on this theory that Apollion or
a Baden in Revelation nine is the Antichrist is the
timing of the event this occurs at the fifth trumpet,
it lasts five months. The fifth trumpet, everyone would agree
is well within the wrath of God. Nearly all sides
would agree that the fifth trumpet is well after the
(28:36):
midpoint the abomination of desolation. How Lindsay sort of had
a take on this which was similar that he thought
the Antichrist would be possessed by apollyon that came from
the bottomless Pit at this point in the timeline, that
the Antichrist needed to be possessed for some reason by
this angel. I think maybe he said the angel was
(28:58):
Satan or something like that. In any case, there was
a possession of the Antichrist at this point. That was
sort of how Lindsay's take, if I remember correctly, and
so number one, I don't see any reason that the
Antichrist needs to be possessed by an angel from the
bottomles pit. I mean, he probably is possessed by Satan
in a real way, but why would that need to
happen at the fifth trumpet as opposed to any other time.
(29:19):
There's no other biblical reason for him to be possessed.
And if there was, you know, you might be able
to make a case. At the midpoint, maybe there's a
change there in the Antichrist from his covenant. Maybe he
gets possessed at the midpoint, but this isn't at the midpoint.
It's at the fifth trumpet, after the Wrath of God
has started. There's really nothing else for him to do
except for Armageddon at this point, So the concept of
(29:41):
him being possessed or any significance to the fifth trumpet
with regard to the Antichrist seems really difficult to deal with.
Another reason I'm not huge on this theory is that
I think it in context it's kind of mundane. And
what I mean by that is that this angel over
the Bottomless Pit just seems to be a king over
(30:04):
the locust like beings. These locusts like beings have one
job for five months to torment people who do not
have the Seal of God. They need to be told,
don't harm anybody else, just harm these people. And he
that this angel is the king over those beings that
facilitates this judgment for five months. I don't see any
reason for it needing to be any bigger than that.
(30:26):
And one of the reasons I say that is because
nobody has a problem with that concept. In the next trumpet,
the four angels bound at the Great River Euphrates, who
have been prepared for that hour, day, month, and year
were released to kill a third of mankind for the
sixth trumpet. So nobody has a problem with four angels
who were not given their names, So maybe that's why
(30:48):
nobody speculates on them. But there are four angels that
are bound there that are released to kill mankind of
what is a third of mankind at that point, So
it's really more of the same in the next trumpet,
angels being prepared to do damage to the earth dwellers
at a given time, I don't see it needing to
(31:08):
be any more serious. And in addition, sort of related
to that, I don't see any particular reason for this
angel to even be a bad guy, or for those,
for that matter, the four angels in the next trumpet
to be bad guys. I mean, they're killing bad people,
they're executing God's commands against God's enemies. I would say
(31:30):
you could probably make the case at the locust like
beans that are from the pit of Hell, And that's
kind of another thing. We don't even know that the
angel that's king over these locusts like beings that definitely
come from the bottomless pit. We don't even really know
that this angel comes from the bottomless pit. He's just
king over them. They certainly need somebody to tell them
what to do to obey God's laws, because otherwise they
(31:51):
apparently would torment the people who had the markt a
God on their forehead. So maybe his only job is
to make sure these rabid dog like beans beans from
the pit of hell do what they're commanded to do
by God, which doesn't sound like something Satan would do,
but it could be. Again, I'm not going to say
that that's the reason not to take this seriously. I
(32:11):
want to do an entire podcast just on the various
theories sort of surrounding this idea that a batten is
kind of the same thing and it is to be
equated with the Revelation seventeen verse about coming out of
the bottomless pit, because sort of the weakness of my
view would be to say that the bottomless pit issue
is speaking of resurrection, and am I now saying that
(32:34):
this is a separate issue, that it's just sort of
a coincidence that the bottomless pit has mentioned over here
with a bad guy coming out of it or ruling
over it, and I guess, yeah, I am kind of
saying it is a bit of a coincidence. So that's
a weakness I suppose of that view. So anyway, I
wanted to go into a few other reasons why I
think that earlier view had pros and cons. The other
(32:54):
pros of the concept that the seven head to ten
horned beast is essentially that heads are human cares, that
Satan is essentially the beast itself, is that it seems
to jive with Daniel seven to seventeen, where it says
these four great beasts are four kings who shall arise
out of the earth, but the saints are the most high,
shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever and ever.
(33:17):
So here I'm kind of trying to say that Daniel
seven speaking of those four beasts that a rise out
of the sea, they're great kings, except that Daniel seven
sort of speaks of the fourth one as a kingdom.
It just used a different word for kingdom. So it's
really difficult, I should say. That's kind of one of
the problems of the contemporaneous versus sort of sub sub
that's a whole other issue here are those four beasts
(33:39):
and Daniel seven contemporaneous. I've argued that they kind of
have to be, But again, for the sake of argument,
I'll be willing to do whatever, But I think that
they have to be for a number of reasons. They
are certainly allowed to live on for a time and
a season after the diverse beast is thrown into the
Lake of fire. So whatever that means. And if you're
(34:01):
going to say that they are the exact same thing
as the beast in Revelation, you know, thirteen and seventeen,
then you have to then say, when you get to
the part in Revelation seventeen versus five have fallen one
is and what is yet to come, You've got to
do some really interesting business with that. You've got to say, well,
(34:22):
five have fallen. If they're human kings and they were
contemporaneous back in Daniel seven, then you've got to what
take the foreheaded leopard and say he fell along with
whatever dealer's choice, the lion or the bear, And so
those five have fallen one is therefore must mean I
don't know again dealer's choice the lion or the bear is,
and the one yet to come had to be the
(34:43):
diverse beast, and at least that part makes sense, and
that could be it. It could be. And I think some
of you are saying, oh, Chris, this is so simple.
If you just go with a traditional view and say
that Daniel two is the same thing as Daniel seven.
The beasts aren't contemporaneous. They are Babylon, Meto, Persia, Greece
(35:06):
and Rome and a revived Roman Empire. Fine, I'm okay
with that too. I'm at the point where i'll take it.
But as we get into that, especially, it's so fascinating
to read the commentaries when you know, when you can
see the problems with this, you see how badly some
of these commentators are just falling all over themselves. You know,
(35:26):
you've got to make the five of fallen. You know,
you've got to make Meto and Persia two separate things
to get to five, which makes no sense in any
of these things. And again, when we get into to that,
I think that it'll be clear that it can't happen.
At least they can be nations, and they may end
up being something like Babylon and Assyria thrown in on
one of those. And even if but then you've got
(35:47):
another one. You got to get rid of it. You've
got a number of problems. But if I can find
a biblical reason to say these are the five we
should include and the ones that have fallen, here's the
criteria what fallen means. And trust me, I've done a
study on every possible aspect of this, done a research
for fallen or whatever for example, but to find the
criteria of how do we find you know, trying to
(36:09):
come at it from that direction and say, maybe if
we can find just the criteria, then we could find
out what they were. If we could find out what
they were, we can interpret that and Daniel will fall
in line as well. I mean, I think that it's interesting,
if you want to think of it that way, that
I that I have never been able to figure out
with what Daniel the beasts and Daniel seven are or
(36:29):
the heads on the seven headed ten horned beasts. That
seems to suggest that they're the same thing, or at
least that however you discover them is the same way,
a way that I do not know. And again I
want to reiterate, this isn't. This isn't because I believe
something weird. I know, I've got a lot of weird
things that people don't you know, agree with. But I'm
(36:50):
for the sake of argument, I'm saying, it's all on
the table here, whatever whatever it is that will get
me there. And I know some of you are saying, Chris,
you know, there's lots of theories out there. There are
theory is about oh, it's the a lot of a
lot of really on the surface stuff about it's America,
it's Great Britain, Chris. Obviously the lion is on the
flag of the Great Britain, and you got eagles wings
(37:12):
on a you know, on something, and so that's whatever.
And I don't know what they do. I guess they
got to make the tiger be it the leopard be
a tiger. And I think, you know, it's very on
the surface level stuff and stuff like you know, is
July fourth, it is in Daniel seven four thinking about that,
you know, and that kind of stuff. I'm okay with
(37:33):
it being America too. If that's the way this is,
then then fine. But I don't a lot of the
argumentation for that stuff isn't take isn't even trying to
take into it to account any of the contradictions that
arise from it. It's just very surface level stuff. Anyway,
I didn't get to to some of the other things.
I know you guys are getting board with me, so
I'll try to wrap it up here real quick. Some
of the things I did want to say as I
(37:54):
wanted to get into the cons here. The cons is
that I can't find good biblical proof for the Beast
of Daniel, seven Lion, leopard Bear as human kings. The
text also seems to suggest that they are also kingdoms
seven twenty three through twenty four, et cetera, which means
that they could be past nations or past kings of
(38:14):
nations of whom the Antichrist had particular control. If that
is the case, I can't seem to find the key
to determine what the criteria is for the Antichrist type king,
that is, to choose one over and above another. I
also can't find any key words that lead to solid conclusions.
So something I've sort of already discussed, I wanted to
(38:35):
talk real briefly about why I think it's reasonable to assume.
Although I'm not saying that this is the criteria that
I'm always going to be using in this study. But
this is what the most preferable option that I would want,
and the best match I'm looking for is a perfect
match with Daniel seven and Revelation. And I say this,
it is reasonable to assume that there's a perfect match
with Daniel seven, though admittedly assuming that has made this
(38:58):
very difficult to reconcile, say that it's reasonable because of
the perfect understanding the author has with other aspects of
the Old Testament, mystery Babylon, allusions to the High Priests,
and other amazing references that are pitch perfect. Also references
and Revelation twelve has led me to that conclusion. But specifically,
the author of a relation uses many and I assume
it's John uses many explicit themes from Daniel in Revelation
(39:21):
concerning the Antichrist beast rising out of the sea, seven heads,
ten horns, leopard, lion bear as aspects of the beast,
blaspheming on its heads, the three and a half year
period killing of the Saints possibly destroyed by fire in
both diadems on the Horns. So the fact that the
reader is supposed to equate the two passages is beyond question.
But unless a new theory can be developed. I don't
(39:42):
think there can be a perfect resolution of the two
passages with the beast heads and horns all perfectly matching,
but that is the goal and the reason I say
I want to get close. But it's hard with the
horn that the little horn being one of the horns,
and the head essentially taking that se aspect. So it
(40:02):
very well may be that we're not to assume a
perfect match, that we need to allow.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
For some.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Artistic license here, but it's not what I'm going to
go for. Just a couple other things. Here's some just
from my notes, things that need to fit the ten Horns,
which I consider one of the most consistent things. They're
human kings that the Antichrist sort of takes over by
humbling three of them, but later gives them authority. They
(40:31):
have some authority in his kingdom until the very end,
and that are used to destroy Mystery Babylon because they
hate the city. If they are the same as the
horns of the ones in the fourth Beast of Daniel seven,
then we need to understand the plucking up by the
roots of the three of them and Daniel seven to
be taking over through those three kings, but not a
supplanting of them the H eight two one four Strong's
(40:52):
number for humble, or that the ten Kings in Revelation
thirteen and seventeen are at a chronogologically earlier time before
the three are uprooted. This seems unlikely due to the
lateness of the ten kings action in Revelation thirteen, which
can be argued to be the very end of the
seventieth week of Daniel. The kings can't be part of
(41:13):
the current system because they only get their kingdom for
one hour with the beast in Revelation seventeen twelve. Something
that I think a lot of people overlook. Another thing
is one of the heads in Revelation thirteen is the
person of the Antichrist. I think that is fairly incontrovertible.
The four beasts in Daniel must be kings that arise
out of the earth, and that could be kingdoms. As
(41:36):
they say, there's some ambiguity there. Each head has a
blasphemous name. Thirteen one makes it clear that each one
of the heads has a blasphemous name, as I think
that might be a key somewhere in there. Another one.
Comparisons of Daniel seven and thirteen are intended. I would
explain that the earth dwellers marvel because of the deadly wound.
I don't think it's a coincidence that they're marveling at
(41:57):
the deadly wound that was healed is same reason they
marvel because he was and is not and yet is.
You got all kinds of problems with kingdoms there because
of the earth dwellers worshiping the anti Christ and marveling
at him because he was and is and is not
to come. A lot of people have theories about, you know,
this nation revived and everybody marveled because while the Roman
(42:18):
Empire is back. Who would have guessed, you know, let's
marvel and worship the Roman Empire because it's back. You know,
I know a lot of Jesuit types are you know,
you know saying yes, yes, right now, that's exactly what's
gonna happen. Seventh Day Adventists are out there cheering me on.
But anyway, so that there's lots of problems with assisting
(42:38):
that that aspect has to be nations because in equating
that with a deadly wound, because then you have to
make a nation have a deadly wound. I know that
there's other theories about that, and you've got people marveling
because Nebucan Nezzar not nebec and are who they say,
you know, the old king rises from the dead. But
any kind of thing like that, let's say Hitler rises
(43:00):
from the dead, or you know, some ancient king arises
from the dead, people marveling because he rose from the dead. Again,
I don't see that as like something that people would
know and understand, Like even if he was cloned, do
they marvel, because how do you even prove that if
it's a big deal and then he takes over the world.
It's just it doesn't quite make as much sense as
(43:20):
what the seemingly plain evidence is here that he gets
a mortal wound that is healed and people worship him
because he seems to resurrect from the dead. Must fit
these The beast must fit this passage. It calls from
minde is wisdom already talked about that worship of the
dragon is the worship of the beast, but they are distinct.
This is an interesting sort of thing, and really difficult.
(43:42):
In Revelation twelve, where it just calls the seven headed,
ten horned beast with the ten diadems, Satan, and anyway,
the worship of the dragon, as they mentioned a Revelation thirteen,
they worshiped the dragon and gave authority of the beast,
but they also worshiped the beasts. Not quite explained well
the worship. And that's kind of why I lean to
the idea that the entire beast is Satan, and in
(44:04):
the Mystery Babylon, she's riding Satan. Essentially, her grand idolatry
is the worship of the great, grandest, worship of false
God's far worse than she ever did before, which is
the reason Assyria destroyed her and Babylon destroyed her. She's
finally gone too far, and she says she's found her
husband and she's found her king, but she has chosen unwisely,
(44:27):
and she is in fact worshiping Satan through the Antichrist.
And I think that makes the best sense of that,
And it also makes sense of these ideas that the
worship of the dragon is the worship of the beast.
But they are distinct. The dragon, beasts and false Prophet
are different. Revelation sixteen three. In Revelation twenty, I've mentioned
that before both they're all three in the Lake of fire.
(44:48):
They're all three at that ritual in Revelation sixteen thirteen.
If strong, if the strong delusion, there's the resurrection Revelation
seventeen eighteen makes more sense. That shouldn't really be there.
But Daniel seven, beasts kingdoms seem to be in play,
and that what I mean to say there is that
I've tried to nail down say these must be kings,
(45:10):
these must be kingdoms, and that is a fool's errand
you will be tricked every time. Not trick, but it's
a bad use of that word. But if you demand
that they have to be kings or kingdom is a
certain area I have not found. I've found that to
be a very contradictory situation. It always seems to trip
(45:31):
you up if you demand that beasts are all kings.
In this situation, even though the word is kings and
not kingdoms, it uses them interchangeably. Now it's calling them
kingdoms over here. That kind of thing is happening. So
when I say the kings and kingdoms are in play,
certainly in Daniel seven, it has to be a little
bit of both, but I lean more towards kings. But
willing to be wrong, it seems that the little Horn
(45:55):
of Daniel seven is now to be undershed as one
of the heads. I know this goes against my perfect
match theory, but I think it's a logic exception. Both
the little horn and the head speak blasphemous words kill
saints have authority for three and a half years. It
is the beast, not the image of the beast, that
gets the wound. I think that was relevant to some
other theory somebody who's talking about, dear children, this is
(46:16):
the last hour, and just wanted to put this in there.
Dear children, this is the last hour. And as you've
heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists
have come. And so in context, this is John says
some interesting stuff about the Antichrist. But this kind of
fits with the five is falling. One is John is
essentially this is the writer of revelation. Earlier in First John,
(46:37):
his epistle is talking about that you've heard this is
the last hour. You've heard that the Antichrist is coming,
even now many Antichrists have come. Now in context, it
can be that John is making a prophecy, going to
lean that way here about the thing that he will
later expand On in Revelation of seventeen five and fall
On one is when he's yet to come. But he
(46:57):
could also because in context he's talking about who is
the Antichrist but one who denies Christ. And by the way,
for people who say, oh, antichrist means against Christ Christ,
you're saying antichrist, well no, it doesn't look it up
in the lexicon. It can mean against Christ. But also,
I mean, listen to what John just said. He says
that who is Antichrist but one who denies that Jesus
(47:20):
is the Christ? So all you have to do is
deny that Jesus is the Christ. And actually it's that
concept in reading that in the study that made me
sort of resolve an issue that I've always had with
my the antichrist theory. I've always sort of said, well,
maybe the Antichrist might he can do one of two things,
and I'm not sure which one. He's going to either
say that he is the return of Christ or that
(47:42):
Jesus wasn't the Christ because Jesus didn't fulfill all the
Messianic kingdom stuff, but he will and so he is
the Christ. And so in order to do that, he
John defines the word Antichrist is, but that says who
just says that Jesus isn't the Christ Anyway, I'm trying
to say that this John in that passage is obviously
(48:04):
talking about false teachers as well, so it could be
that Jesus that Paul is saying that many Antichrists have
come speaking of many false prophets, and probably to some
extent he was saying that, but in doing so he
also made a prophecy that he later reiterated in Revelation seventeen.
All right, so in conclusion, just a few show notes first,
So I'm going to start in the next episode, I'm
(48:25):
going to probably cover I think I'm going to do
the traditional view first, so not just the feet and
toes and the four beasts being the same thing as
Dano two and Dano seven, and the traditional revived Roman
Empire view and that kind of take, but also sort
of the corollary to that, which is sort of the
Islamic anti Christ take on that, where you just change
(48:48):
out revived Roman Empire for whatever the Islamic calivator, however
they want to do it with the Seria. Theres so
a few different takes on that too, but they all
have the same problem. So I'll kind of take the
modern views the next podcast, or at least Lord Willing.
And then also I wanted to mention if you know
the answer to this, shoot me an email Chris White
seventy nine at ProtonMail dot com.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella AX. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and you
don't have to log in to use it, and it
doesn't track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
(49:37):
I know I was gonna tell him, how do you
get the app? Just go to fringeradionetwork dot com right
at the top of the page. I know, slippers, we
gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe radio network. It's safe and you
don't have to log in to use it, and it
doesn't track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
(00:27):
I know I was gonna tell him, how do you
get the app? Just go to fringe radionetwork dot com
right at the top of the page. I know, slippers,
we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
So I decided to take on a subject that has
daunted me for as long as I can remember, and
that is the seven headed, ten horned Beast in the
Book of Revelation. Now, on the one hand, I'm pretty
confident that I know what it is in a macro sense,
I have virtually no questions that in some sense it's
(01:07):
the Antichrist. At least one of those heads is the
Antichrist who gets the deadly wound, etc. The beast is
referred to euphemistically the first Beast all throughout the Book
of Revelation as a reference to the person of the Antichrist.
So I know, in one sense the answer is it's
(01:27):
the Antichrist. But in another sense, there is so many
details about the seven headed, ten horned aspect of this beast,
both here in the Book of Revelation and in Daniel.
If Daniel is in fact intended to be understood as
related to this beast, which I would argue it kind
of has to be, which I'll get into in a minute,
(01:50):
then there are many aspects that can give us a
lot more information about the Antichrist. But every time I
try to come up with an idea of what each
of these heads represent, or try to work out some
of the other problems that we'll get into, it never
(02:11):
ends up clicking with all the other details. And it
is so taxing on my brain that I feel like
it's just there's some kind of lock to this mystery.
I don't think it's a coincidence that verse nine and
Revelation seventeen starts off with this calls for a mind
with wisdom. The seven heads or seven mountains on which
(02:31):
the woman is seated, they are also seven kings, five
of whom have fallen, one is and the other has
not yet to come. And I know many of you
are thinking, Chris, it's this thing or is that thing.
I'm telling you, if you think it is a thing,
and you don't know some of the things that we're
going to talk about today, it's very likely that what
you believe is contradicted by some other aspect of this.
(02:53):
In my commentaries, I never came up with a reference,
for example, of the five five of Fallen one is
in my commentary. I simply said, you know, this is
probably referring to five sort of satanic manifestations of the
Antichrist in history. If we're to understand these as kings
and not kingdoms or whatever, they would probably be particularly blasphemous.
(03:16):
But every time I try to do a traditional sort
of Bible study, the same kind of methods and hermeneuticts
that has yielded me proof that I'm on the right track.
In other instances, it always ends up with nothing. None
of the normal methods I use seem to yield results
with not just that, but it's actually interesting in the
Book of Daniel, also in Daniel seven, where we have
(03:40):
the four beasts rising out of the sea, one like
a lion, one like a foreheaded leopard, one like a bear,
with three ribs in its mouth and the diverse beasts
with ten horns. Even in that commentary, I simply said,
here are what I think these symbols would mean for
the person who will have venteally figure out what this means.
(04:02):
But I don't know what it means. And I have tried.
I've looked up every aspect of that. What are the
three ribs? Bear studies and leopard studies and every kind
of study you can do in the Bible to see
if the Bible is giving you some kind of clue
to this, And it's just as far as I can see,
it's no help. And the traditional views, I mean, read
(04:25):
commentaries and you're going to get some pretty diverse opinions
on this. I think the traditional view, which we'll talk about,
that these are to be equated with Daniel two and
Daniel seven. I think a lot of you are probably thinking, oh, Chris,
this is probably your weird theory about Daniel two and
Daniel seven not being the same thing that's caused new problems.
If you would just take that traditional view, everything will
be fine. Look I'm okay, I'll go back to the
(04:47):
traditional view if you can prove to me that this
works I think when we get into this, you'll see
that the problems with the traditional view that this is,
you know, Babylon, Amato, Persia or what much much more
significant than just the beasts seem to live on for
a time in the millennium. And we'll get into all
that stuff, but I basically want to get a couple
(05:08):
points across. This is a huge problem, and I don't
think I've ever heard of anybody solving it. And when
I finally sat down to be like, I've got to
figure this out, it just started pouring notes, notes, notes, notes,
not even organized notes. It's hard for me to even
you might be able to get a sense of this,
to even articulate what the problems are. There's a lot
(05:30):
here and I and so what I'm going to try
to do in this podcast is just use it as
an excuse to figure this out and to maybe try
to tackle it in bite sized chunks, like, for example,
one podcast might just be talking about the ten Kings?
What do we know about the ten Kings? And I think,
I think if this is going to be figured out,
(05:50):
it's got to be there's got to be like a
list made of here are the things that must be
true about the ten Kings, and that list is much
longer than you might think. And then let's go from there,
you know, or whatever. So right now I have a
big list of things that must fit these passages, and
if and you know, to find out where the contradictions
(06:11):
are and stuff like that. I'm nowhere near ready for
this stuff. But I think one way to talk through
some of the problems is to go through Well, I
don't know where should we start, so I'll just mention
a couple of different options, and maybe I should start
by just giving the overview of what's happening in these passages.
So let's start in Daniel seven. As I mentioned, four
(06:33):
beasts appear out of the sea. One is like a lion.
It has its wings plucked off. It's told to stand
on its feet. It's given a heart of a man.
One is like a bear with raised up on one
side as three ribs in its mouth. It's told to
go out and devour much flesh. You've got the leopard
(06:54):
with four heads. It's got wings, I think as well,
and then you've got the Antichrist be best, in which
it's this beast with iron teeth and it's got ten horns,
and one little horn uproots three of them, and the
little horn is the Antichrist. He speaks, speaks blasphemous words.
He continues for three and a half years. It's clearly
(07:14):
the Antichrist now. As I mentioned in Revelation, that same
beast appears multiple times. Is mentioned specifically in Revelation twelve,
Revelation thirteen, Revelation seventeen, where it talks about let me
just read Revelation thirteen one. And I saw a beast
rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads,
(07:35):
and ten diadems on its horns, and blasphemous names on
its heads. And the beast I saw was like a leopard.
Its feet were like a bear's, its mouth was like
a lion's. And to it the Dragon gave his power
and his throne and great authority. One of its heads
seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound
was healed. And the whole earth marveled as they followed
(07:56):
the beast, And they worshiped the dragon who had given
his to the beast. And they worshiped the beast, saying,
who is like the beast who can fight against it?
And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and
blasphemous words, it was allowed to exercise authority for forty
two months, et cetera, et cetera. Now there's a lot
of interesting things are happening there because we know I
(08:17):
could argue, and I should argue very strongly, that the
writer of the book a Revelation, wants us to equate
what Daniel said with this, and the reason I know
that is first. But in order to do that, we
need to understand that those four beasts that I talked
about before, one of them that's seven heads, because the
leopard had four heads, and there were three other beasts,
(08:38):
so that's so they were all put together. And now
they got seven heads and ten horns because as I mentioned,
the last diverse beasts had ten horns already and the
little horn came out of it and everything else. So
Revelation expects us to understand that that's an amalgamation of it.
And it's further reiterated because it was like a leopard,
it was like a bear, it was like a lion,
which was all three of the other types of beasts.
(09:01):
In addition, it adds other details such as the three
and a half years, it was allowed to continue forty
two months. That was the thing that was mentioned in
both Daniel seven and Revelation thirteen. The war on the
Saints was reiterated, and the blasphemous words were reiterated. So
we've got so many details that's just incontrovertible that we're
(09:23):
supposed to understand this set of beasts with the other.
But then all kinds of problems happen as a result
of that. If you assume, okay, let's see back there,
the little horn was the Antichrist, but here the head
is the Antichrist. Are these kings or kingdoms because of one?
It's clearly kingdom is one, and clearly as kings. And
it's never as simple as like, well let's just make
(09:44):
them kingdoms then, or let's just make one king. Everything
has a problem and the reference nonewithstanding. So I think
what I'm going to do here is just I think
I'm first going to go through some of the theories.
The theory that I'm going to start with to an
extent is one that I think is defensible but has
its contradictions, and that is that Satan is the seven headed,
(10:08):
ten horned beast, but each human, that each of the
heads is kind of a human representative that may or
may not also be a kingdom. I actually think that
the Bible demands that you understand that it has the
free will to change king and kingdom at certain points.
But I also think that it's clearly as a sort
(10:31):
of general rule of thumb, you could almost always say
that horns are individuals and the beast itself is typically
the kingdom, but not always, and you I think kind
of have to have the heads be kings not kingdoms.
But again, there's some passages to sort of demand that
you don't take that too seriously. So that's why I
(10:54):
say it like that Satan is the seven headed, ten
horned beast. Revelation twelve calls the same headed ten orned
beasts with ten diadems Satan, but at the same time
we know it's not Satan, because Satan is thrown alive
with the Antichrist of the first beast and the second
beast into they're all They're not like Clark Kenton Superman.
They're on the same place at the same time. In
(11:17):
that instance. Also in the instance where the ritual where
the spirits of frogs come out of their mouth, and
they gather the kings together for the battle of Armagedon.
Both Satan, the Dragon, the first Beast, and the second
Beast are in that situation, so they're definitely distinct. But
because of Revelation twelve, Satan has to essentially be the
(11:39):
Beast himself. However, the Bible also refers to the Beast.
Now it goes on to say one of the heads
is a mortal wound, and I think, what's happening Is
it saying this head is the Antichrist. He has the
mortal wound that's healed, and he's speaking blasphemous words. The
same thing with the little horn did in Daniel seven.
(12:02):
So that's why the perfect match has trouble. Unless the
ten horns on that head, he is actually one of
those than the head itself. Maybe can be more of
a kingdom as long as he is one of the
ten kings, but there's a problem with that because the
ten Kings are discussed in Revelation seventeen. It's sort of autonomous,
(12:22):
different kings. They do not have authority. They are given
authority by the Beast, the Antichrist for a specific hour.
They hate the woman, the blah blah, blah. So the
ten kings are there and they've got an uprooted problem.
We'll talk about that in the ten horns section. I
never even got through a definition. You can tell me
what was happening here. So Satan is is the beast,
(12:44):
but each head is a human representative that may or
may not be a kingdom. So, for example, the head
in this theory that I'm going to try to first
show the pros and cons of the heads are most
likely kings past manifestations of the Antichrist. Think of John
and first John what for something like that where he's
(13:06):
talking about, you know, one Antichrist were in the world
even then, but there have been many other Antichrists. So
in other words, so maybe Antichrist has appeared as a
king's say for the sake of argument Pharaoh or Antiochus,
that maybe, in one sense that was Satan in some
special way manifesting on the earth to do something very
(13:29):
antichrist like. Whatever that criteria is is kind of one
of the problems in Bible study that I'm having to
determine exactly what that criteria is. In one sense, I
think it's the blasphemous names on the heads is maybe
the key to this if I could find in the
Bible key moments of manifestations of kings and kingdoms that
(13:50):
were characterized by blasphemy. But that's difficult because a word
study of blasphemy in the except Tuo Agent or Greek,
or even just doing an English study and plasphemy don't
yield their kind of results that would explain any of that.
So if it is that, it would have to be
non word study based, and maybe that's why it requires wisdom.
(14:13):
You have to know the Bible better than I do. Anyway,
So continuing with my definition with the seventh and final
head being the man we call the Antichrist, the ten
Horns are ten human kings of Revelation seventeen that are
given power by the Antichrist in the Final Kingdom. I
think the ten Horns, I'm pretty darn confident, and I
(14:35):
don't think I have any issues with the ten Horns
being the human kings that we see in Revelation seventeen.
My only problem with them, as I mentioned earlier, how
to deal with the uprooted nature in the vision part
of Daniel seven, where the little Horn comes up and
in doing so it uproots three of the ten Kings,
(14:56):
but then later in the definition it seems that they don't.
The uprooted may have been a little too strong to
read too much into that vision because it uses the
word that's essentially the equivalent of humiliated or something like that.
But they appear, if Daniel seven is to be directly
equated to Revelation to still be there. So it's almost
(15:20):
like he conquers the ten Kings but never really becomes
one of them. He sort of is over and above
them to some degree. He uses three in some way
to conquer them. This humiliation or uprooting of them conquers them,
but he doesn't become one of them. And the Little
Horn you know, and that's one of the problems with
(15:41):
making this a perfect match, is the Little Horn is
now He's clearly the head. The Little Horn was speaking
blasphemous words, it was three and a half years it
was warring on the saints and Daniel seven, but those
same attributes are attributed to the head that gets the
mortal wound over in Revelation. Okay, So to an idea
(16:01):
like that is it's logical to assume that all the
heads of Revelation thirteen, the seven headed ten horned beast
are human since one of its heads gets a mortal wound.
This head seems to be become synonymous with the beast,
since the world is forced to worship the beast whose
deadly wound was healed Revelation thirteen fourteen. The very concept
(16:25):
of getting a mortal wound implies that the head is mortal.
If one of the heads is human, it's logical to
assume that they all are. And that's maybe too big
of a reach, but I think it's logical to assume
that if he is human, then they all are. And
maybe human might be too strong of a word. I'm
not saying that they can't be. That the Antichrist maybe
(16:48):
could be some sort of demonic being or angel or
something like that. I'm not necessarily this particular I view
doesn't necessarily preclude that, But I am saying it's an individual,
and I think think that the New Testament, especially Pauline
writings and Jesus's writings in the all of a discourse
and writings, is his message on the alli a discourse. Definitely.
Let's just know we're talking about an individual here that
(17:10):
has the same attributes to three and a half years
the deadly wound and the blasphemous words, etc. War on
the saints. Another reason why that's this is a good argument.
A pro for it is it jives with Revelation seventeen ten,
which says that the seven heads are seven kings, five
of whom have fallen, one is, and one has yet
(17:31):
to come. I know people always run around trying to
find which city is sitting on seven hills, which is
just a total Reformer thing. If you guys could read
the commentaries just to know how much that has impacted
modern prophecy is the reformers. And I love the Reformers.
I love Reformation theology about the Gospel and stuff like that,
but on prophecy, man, they did more damage than a
(17:55):
lot of stuff. I think in some sense, the mountains
there because it says there's seven mountain I'm not taking
that away from it. It's not like it doesn't say
that the seven heads or seven mountains, but it also
says they are seven kings and mountains is a big
piece to this puzzle. Somehow it may even end up
being the key to it. I don't know, but they
are definitely kings too. Now we'll get into the kings
(18:17):
or kingdom's argument, And for the sake of argument here,
I'm going to say that kings means kings here because
it makes the most sense out of this. It's a
pro here because getting the mortal wound the other aspects
of making it seem like the head itself is the Antichrist.
So I'm good with that. So that's a pro for it.
It also suggests that Satan has what did I say here?
(18:39):
This suggests that Satan has throughout history made specific appearances
as a man. That would be a logical outgrowth of that.
This makes the beast. This this makes the best sense
of the resurrection Rosetta Stone theory. Okay, this is something
I just came up with a name here. I called
it the Resurrection Rosetta Stone theory, which tries to makes
(19:00):
sense of a number of verses. Okay, So the Rosetta Stone,
if you know, in history, it was found by I
think Napoleon's troops. It was the first time that they
were able to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics, because you had this
passage and written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, but they also had
it written in Greek and some other language, maybe a
(19:20):
Kadian or something like that, when they knew the other
two languages, but they didn't know so they were able
to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics because of that, And I think
that something is happening here. If you take a number
of different verses Revelation thirteen three, Revelation thirteen twelve, Revelation
thirteen fourteen, and Revelation seventeen eight, and Revelation seventeen eleven
(19:43):
by themselves, you wouldn't necessarily know what they're trying to say.
But if you put them all together, they're interpreting one another.
And the logical outgrowth of that interpretation is that the
Antichrist is rising from the dead, and that is a
title that he has been given. It's one of the
(20:04):
reasons that the world worships him, I know. And this
is in somewhat to distinguish from the idea that is
a lot of taken because of one of these verses,
which is a Revelation seventeen eight of him rising from
the bottomless pit, and that is kind of a theory
that we're going to talk about at some point that
I think maybe makes a little too much of that.
(20:26):
I think he does rise from the bottomless pit. But
I think what's been said there is just another way
to say the same thing that all these other verses
are saying. That his title essentially is the one who
came back to life, kind of like in a sense,
it's sort of a satanic play on the first part
of Revelation where Jesus said he is the one who
(20:47):
is or was and is and is to come. And
I think which is probably referring to his resurrection. I
think you could maybe parse that another way, but probably
not in any case. So these verses read as follows
relation thirteen to three. One of his heads seem to
have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed,
and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast.
(21:07):
I've got a couple things highlighted there. One of his
heads has a mortal wound, which it will say is
the it doesn't quite and its mortal wound was healed,
which is going to be the resurrection portion of this.
Another part I have highlighted is the whole earth, and
that's because it's the earth dwellers, which is a specific
term in the Book of Revelation to essentially refer to
(21:28):
those people who are not in the Book of Life.
There the earth dwellers and the non earth dwellers, that is,
those who are saved. And then they have marveled as
they followed the beast. So we've got the title the
one whose mortal wound was healed, We've got the earth dwellers,
and we've got the marveling as they followed the beast.
Next verse, it exercises the first beast all the authority
(21:50):
of what the second beast. Actually, the second beast exercises
all the authority of the first beast in its presence
and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first
beast whose mortal wound it was healed. So here we're
just sort of understanding that there is Again it just
says his mortal wound was healed as sort of an
honorific here. But the earth dwellers are here, although the
(22:13):
specific term earth dwellers is not used there. I don't
think a revelation thirteen fourteen. Let's see, and by the
signs that it is, and by the signs that is
allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it
deceives those who dwell on the earth, the earth dwellers
telling them to make an image for the beast that
(22:34):
was wounded by the sword and yet lived. So again
they didn't have to say wounded by the sworn and
yet lived. It's just becomes a title for him, and
the earth dwellers are doing that to worship him. Revelation
is seventeen eighteen. The beast that you saw was and
is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless
pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers of the earth,
(22:55):
whose names have not been written in the Book of
Life from the foundations of the world, will marvel to
see the beast because as it was and is not
and is to come. This is a really key thing.
Before I get to it, i'll read the next one.
As for the beast that was and is not, it
is an eighth, but it belongs to the seven and
it goes to destruction. So there's number of between those two.
The ghost to the destruction is the same thing. In fact,
(23:17):
they're the exact same line. The beast that you saw
was and is not, it's about to rise from the
bottomless pit and go to destruction, versus the beast that
was and is not is an eighth and belongs to
the seventh, and it goes to the destruction. The only
difference there is one says rise from the bottomless pit,
and one says was and is not. It is an eighth,
but it belongs to the seven, which I'm saying is
the Rosetta stone. Aspect of that is that that means
(23:39):
the same thing. Rise from the bottomless pit can be
shown from scripture to mean resurrect from the dead. Jesus
was said to rise from the bottomless pit when he
resurrected from the dead. Sorry, don't have the scripture on hand.
You can just do a study of this, do a
study of Abyss other instances that this is my commentary
as well, going through the instances to show you from
scripture it can mean rising from the bottomless pick I
(24:00):
mean to resurrect from the dead. Resurrection from the dead
clearly has been a theme as we've been reading about
this seven headed ten head beast whose mortal wound was
healed and yet to live and people marvel. And that's
actually whate interesting thing in Revelation seventeen eight because the
dwellers of the earth, and it also calls it well
and the dwellers of the earth whose name has not
(24:21):
been written in the Book of Life from the foundation
of the world will marvel to see the beast because
it was, and is not and is to come. And
I would submit that you can take that Rosetta Stone
concept of why do the earth dwellers marvel at the beast? Well,
go back to what we read there in Revelation thirteen
to three. But it's mortal wound was healed, and the
(24:42):
whole earth, the earth dwellers marveled as they follow the beast.
The marveling we were told earlier was because his mortal
wound was healed. That interprets the dwellers marveling in Revelation
seventeen because he was, and is not and is to come.
But I need to be very careful not to be
too dogmatic about this, And I think if I'm ever
(25:03):
going to figure this out, I need to hold very
loosely any theory that I have here, as much as
I think it makes good sense. I have to be
willing to let the other things speak for themselves in scripture.
One thing with if you believe that the rising of
the from the bottomless pit and Revelation seventeen is to
(25:24):
be equated with the healing of the beasts woon. And
by the way, if you're having trouble with that concept
of the Antichrist rising from the dead, read a paper
called can Satan Raise the Dead? Toward a Biblical view
of the Beast's wound? I read reread the paper the
other day. He doesn't go quite as much detail as
I'd like him too on the aspect that the reason
I usually recommend that paper. He talks more about the
(25:45):
concept of that it's a necessity that the Antichrist and
the false Prophet have resurrection bodies in order to be
sent into Hell, and that's why it says they're thrown
alive into the Lake of Fire, and it talks about
the doctrine of Hell, essentially the Great White Judgment and
the resurrection of the unjust dead has to happen before
they are put into Hell, and blah blah blah. But
(26:05):
he does come to the conclusion that I want people
to read, which is a lot of reading to get
to the point, which is that it is God who resurrects,
that it's not a pretend resurrection. He really does resurrect
from the dead. It is the great delusion that God
sends specifically reads the Second Thessalonians too. He does it
so that people will believe the lie, and it's done
(26:26):
specifically for the reasons he outlines there. But that's that's
my theory. But again my point is, I don't want
to hold too tightly on any of this stuff. I
want to be willing to say, well, maybe the coming
from the bottomless pid is speaking of a polion and
the bottomless paid in Revelation what is it nine to eleven?
In other words, in Revelation nine to eleven, it says
they have the speaking of the locust like beings that
(26:50):
are that come out of the abyss. When the angel
in the fifth trumpet unlocks the abyss, all these locusts
go out and they kill people. They're described in great detail.
Locus were like horses prepared for battle. On their heads
would look like crowns of gold. Their faces were like
human faces. And they go out and they torment people
that don't have the seal of God in their foreheads.
(27:11):
Then it says they have a king over them, the
Angel of the Bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is
a baton, and in the Greek it is called Apollon,
which essentially means the destroyer. So the counter argument to
what I just said would say, well, maybe the coming
out of the bottomless pit the abyss am. I just
saying that this is a coincidence that over here you've
(27:31):
got somebody coming out of the bottomless pit, and over
here I've just said, well that the one that was
and is and comes out of the bottomless pit and
goes into destruction and that means resurrection. Well, I think again,
I think that you can absolutely show that with the
Rosetta Stown theory. But I would say, yeah, I think
(27:52):
that it is just kind of in this current theory
which I'm willing to bend on. And I'm going to
go through this theory, for example, in one of these podcasts,
and we're just going to talk about this theory, and
we're going to go through the pros and cons of
Abadan is the Antichrist or some other fallen angel type
thing associated with the Antichrist or whatever. The first reason
(28:14):
I'm not too big on this theory that Apollion or
a Baden in Revelation nine is the Antichrist is the
timing of the event this occurs at the fifth trumpet,
it lasts five months. The fifth trumpet, everyone would agree
is well within the wrath of God. Nearly all sides
would agree that the fifth trumpet is well after the
(28:36):
midpoint the abomination of desolation. How Lindsay sort of had
a take on this which was similar that he thought
the Antichrist would be possessed by apollyon that came from
the bottomless Pit at this point in the timeline, that
the Antichrist needed to be possessed for some reason by
this angel. I think maybe he said the angel was
(28:58):
Satan or something like that. In any case, there was
a possession of the Antichrist at this point. That was
sort of how Lindsay's take, if I remember correctly, and
so number one, I don't see any reason that the
Antichrist needs to be possessed by an angel from the
bottomles pit. I mean, he probably is possessed by Satan
in a real way, but why would that need to
happen at the fifth trumpet as opposed to any other time.
(29:19):
There's no other biblical reason for him to be possessed.
And if there was, you know, you might be able
to make a case. At the midpoint, maybe there's a
change there in the Antichrist from his covenant. Maybe he
gets possessed at the midpoint, but this isn't at the midpoint.
It's at the fifth trumpet, after the Wrath of God
has started. There's really nothing else for him to do
except for Armageddon at this point, So the concept of
(29:41):
him being possessed or any significance to the fifth trumpet
with regard to the Antichrist seems really difficult to deal with.
Another reason I'm not huge on this theory is that
I think it in context it's kind of mundane. And
what I mean by that is that this angel over
the Bottomless Pit just seems to be a king over
(30:04):
the locust like beings. These locusts like beings have one
job for five months to torment people who do not
have the Seal of God. They need to be told,
don't harm anybody else, just harm these people. And he
that this angel is the king over those beings that
facilitates this judgment for five months. I don't see any
reason for it needing to be any bigger than that.
(30:26):
And one of the reasons I say that is because
nobody has a problem with that concept. In the next trumpet,
the four angels bound at the Great River Euphrates, who
have been prepared for that hour, day, month, and year
were released to kill a third of mankind for the
sixth trumpet. So nobody has a problem with four angels
who were not given their names, So maybe that's why
(30:48):
nobody speculates on them. But there are four angels that
are bound there that are released to kill mankind of
what is a third of mankind at that point, So
it's really more of the same in the next trumpet,
angels being prepared to do damage to the earth dwellers
at a given time, I don't see it needing to
(31:08):
be any more serious. And in addition, sort of related
to that, I don't see any particular reason for this
angel to even be a bad guy, or for those,
for that matter, the four angels in the next trumpet
to be bad guys. I mean, they're killing bad people,
they're executing God's commands against God's enemies. I would say
(31:30):
you could probably make the case at the locust like
beans that are from the pit of Hell, And that's
kind of another thing. We don't even know that the
angel that's king over these locusts like beings that definitely
come from the bottomless pit. We don't even really know
that this angel comes from the bottomless pit. He's just
king over them. They certainly need somebody to tell them
what to do to obey God's laws, because otherwise they
(31:51):
apparently would torment the people who had the markt a
God on their forehead. So maybe his only job is
to make sure these rabid dog like beans beans from
the pit of hell do what they're commanded to do
by God, which doesn't sound like something Satan would do,
but it could be. Again, I'm not going to say
that that's the reason not to take this seriously. I
(32:11):
want to do an entire podcast just on the various
theories sort of surrounding this idea that a batten is
kind of the same thing and it is to be
equated with the Revelation seventeen verse about coming out of
the bottomless pit, because sort of the weakness of my
view would be to say that the bottomless pit issue
is speaking of resurrection, and am I now saying that
(32:34):
this is a separate issue, that it's just sort of
a coincidence that the bottomless pit has mentioned over here
with a bad guy coming out of it or ruling
over it, and I guess, yeah, I am kind of
saying it is a bit of a coincidence. So that's
a weakness I suppose of that view. So anyway, I
wanted to go into a few other reasons why I
think that earlier view had pros and cons. The other
(32:54):
pros of the concept that the seven head to ten
horned beast is essentially that heads are human cares, that
Satan is essentially the beast itself, is that it seems
to jive with Daniel seven to seventeen, where it says
these four great beasts are four kings who shall arise
out of the earth, but the saints are the most high,
shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever and ever.
(33:17):
So here I'm kind of trying to say that Daniel
seven speaking of those four beasts that a rise out
of the sea, they're great kings, except that Daniel seven
sort of speaks of the fourth one as a kingdom.
It just used a different word for kingdom. So it's
really difficult, I should say. That's kind of one of
the problems of the contemporaneous versus sort of sub sub
that's a whole other issue here are those four beasts
(33:39):
and Daniel seven contemporaneous. I've argued that they kind of
have to be, But again, for the sake of argument,
I'll be willing to do whatever, But I think that
they have to be for a number of reasons. They
are certainly allowed to live on for a time and
a season after the diverse beast is thrown into the
Lake of fire. So whatever that means. And if you're
(34:01):
going to say that they are the exact same thing
as the beast in Revelation, you know, thirteen and seventeen,
then you have to then say, when you get to
the part in Revelation seventeen versus five have fallen one
is and what is yet to come, You've got to
do some really interesting business with that. You've got to say, well,
(34:22):
five have fallen. If they're human kings and they were
contemporaneous back in Daniel seven, then you've got to what
take the foreheaded leopard and say he fell along with
whatever dealer's choice, the lion or the bear, And so
those five have fallen one is therefore must mean I
don't know again dealer's choice the lion or the bear is,
and the one yet to come had to be the
(34:43):
diverse beast, and at least that part makes sense, and
that could be it. It could be. And I think some
of you are saying, oh, Chris, this is so simple.
If you just go with a traditional view and say
that Daniel two is the same thing as Daniel seven.
The beasts aren't contemporaneous. They are Babylon, Meto, Persia, Greece
(35:06):
and Rome and a revived Roman Empire. Fine, I'm okay
with that too. I'm at the point where i'll take it.
But as we get into that, especially, it's so fascinating
to read the commentaries when you know, when you can
see the problems with this, you see how badly some
of these commentators are just falling all over themselves. You know,
(35:26):
you've got to make the five of fallen. You know,
you've got to make Meto and Persia two separate things
to get to five, which makes no sense in any
of these things. And again, when we get into to that,
I think that it'll be clear that it can't happen.
At least they can be nations, and they may end
up being something like Babylon and Assyria thrown in on
one of those. And even if but then you've got
(35:47):
another one. You got to get rid of it. You've
got a number of problems. But if I can find
a biblical reason to say these are the five we
should include and the ones that have fallen, here's the
criteria what fallen means. And trust me, I've done a
study on every possible aspect of this, done a research
for fallen or whatever for example, but to find the
criteria of how do we find you know, trying to
(36:09):
come at it from that direction and say, maybe if
we can find just the criteria, then we could find
out what they were. If we could find out what
they were, we can interpret that and Daniel will fall
in line as well. I mean, I think that it's interesting,
if you want to think of it that way, that
I that I have never been able to figure out
with what Daniel the beasts and Daniel seven are or
(36:29):
the heads on the seven headed ten horned beasts. That
seems to suggest that they're the same thing, or at
least that however you discover them is the same way,
a way that I do not know. And again I
want to reiterate, this isn't. This isn't because I believe
something weird. I know, I've got a lot of weird
things that people don't you know, agree with. But I'm
(36:50):
for the sake of argument, I'm saying, it's all on
the table here, whatever whatever it is that will get
me there. And I know some of you are saying, Chris,
you know, there's lots of theories out there. There are
theory is about oh, it's the a lot of a
lot of really on the surface stuff about it's America,
it's Great Britain, Chris. Obviously the lion is on the
flag of the Great Britain, and you got eagles wings
(37:12):
on a you know, on something, and so that's whatever.
And I don't know what they do. I guess they
got to make the tiger be it the leopard be
a tiger. And I think, you know, it's very on
the surface level stuff and stuff like you know, is
July fourth, it is in Daniel seven four thinking about that,
you know, and that kind of stuff. I'm okay with
(37:33):
it being America too. If that's the way this is,
then then fine. But I don't a lot of the
argumentation for that stuff isn't take isn't even trying to
take into it to account any of the contradictions that
arise from it. It's just very surface level stuff. Anyway,
I didn't get to to some of the other things.
I know you guys are getting board with me, so
I'll try to wrap it up here real quick. Some
of the things I did want to say as I
(37:54):
wanted to get into the cons here. The cons is
that I can't find good biblical proof for the Beast
of Daniel, seven Lion, leopard Bear as human kings. The
text also seems to suggest that they are also kingdoms
seven twenty three through twenty four, et cetera, which means
that they could be past nations or past kings of
(38:14):
nations of whom the Antichrist had particular control. If that
is the case, I can't seem to find the key
to determine what the criteria is for the Antichrist type king,
that is, to choose one over and above another. I
also can't find any key words that lead to solid conclusions.
So something I've sort of already discussed, I wanted to
(38:35):
talk real briefly about why I think it's reasonable to assume.
Although I'm not saying that this is the criteria that
I'm always going to be using in this study. But
this is what the most preferable option that I would want,
and the best match I'm looking for is a perfect
match with Daniel seven and Revelation. And I say this,
it is reasonable to assume that there's a perfect match
with Daniel seven, though admittedly assuming that has made this
(38:58):
very difficult to reconcile, say that it's reasonable because of
the perfect understanding the author has with other aspects of
the Old Testament, mystery Babylon, allusions to the High Priests,
and other amazing references that are pitch perfect. Also references
and Revelation twelve has led me to that conclusion. But specifically,
the author of a relation uses many and I assume
it's John uses many explicit themes from Daniel in Revelation
(39:21):
concerning the Antichrist beast rising out of the sea, seven heads,
ten horns, leopard, lion bear as aspects of the beast,
blaspheming on its heads, the three and a half year
period killing of the Saints possibly destroyed by fire in
both diadems on the Horns. So the fact that the
reader is supposed to equate the two passages is beyond question.
But unless a new theory can be developed. I don't
(39:42):
think there can be a perfect resolution of the two
passages with the beast heads and horns all perfectly matching,
but that is the goal and the reason I say
I want to get close. But it's hard with the
horn that the little horn being one of the horns,
and the head essentially taking that se aspect. So it
(40:02):
very well may be that we're not to assume a
perfect match, that we need to allow.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
For some.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Artistic license here, but it's not what I'm going to
go for. Just a couple other things. Here's some just
from my notes, things that need to fit the ten Horns,
which I consider one of the most consistent things. They're
human kings that the Antichrist sort of takes over by
humbling three of them, but later gives them authority. They
(40:31):
have some authority in his kingdom until the very end,
and that are used to destroy Mystery Babylon because they
hate the city. If they are the same as the
horns of the ones in the fourth Beast of Daniel seven,
then we need to understand the plucking up by the
roots of the three of them and Daniel seven to
be taking over through those three kings, but not a
supplanting of them the H eight two one four Strong's
(40:52):
number for humble, or that the ten Kings in Revelation
thirteen and seventeen are at a chronogologically earlier time before
the three are uprooted. This seems unlikely due to the
lateness of the ten kings action in Revelation thirteen, which
can be argued to be the very end of the
seventieth week of Daniel. The kings can't be part of
(41:13):
the current system because they only get their kingdom for
one hour with the beast in Revelation seventeen twelve. Something
that I think a lot of people overlook. Another thing
is one of the heads in Revelation thirteen is the
person of the Antichrist. I think that is fairly incontrovertible.
The four beasts in Daniel must be kings that arise
out of the earth, and that could be kingdoms. As
(41:36):
they say, there's some ambiguity there. Each head has a
blasphemous name. Thirteen one makes it clear that each one
of the heads has a blasphemous name, as I think
that might be a key somewhere in there. Another one.
Comparisons of Daniel seven and thirteen are intended. I would
explain that the earth dwellers marvel because of the deadly wound.
I don't think it's a coincidence that they're marveling at
(41:57):
the deadly wound that was healed is same reason they
marvel because he was and is not and yet is.
You got all kinds of problems with kingdoms there because
of the earth dwellers worshiping the anti Christ and marveling
at him because he was and is and is not
to come. A lot of people have theories about, you know,
this nation revived and everybody marveled because while the Roman
(42:18):
Empire is back. Who would have guessed, you know, let's
marvel and worship the Roman Empire because it's back. You know,
I know a lot of Jesuit types are you know,
you know saying yes, yes, right now, that's exactly what's
gonna happen. Seventh Day Adventists are out there cheering me on.
But anyway, so that there's lots of problems with assisting
(42:38):
that that aspect has to be nations because in equating
that with a deadly wound, because then you have to
make a nation have a deadly wound. I know that
there's other theories about that, and you've got people marveling
because Nebucan Nezzar not nebec and are who they say,
you know, the old king rises from the dead. But
any kind of thing like that, let's say Hitler rises
(43:00):
from the dead, or you know, some ancient king arises
from the dead, people marveling because he rose from the dead. Again,
I don't see that as like something that people would
know and understand, Like even if he was cloned, do
they marvel, because how do you even prove that if
it's a big deal and then he takes over the world.
It's just it doesn't quite make as much sense as
(43:20):
what the seemingly plain evidence is here that he gets
a mortal wound that is healed and people worship him
because he seems to resurrect from the dead. Must fit
these The beast must fit this passage. It calls from
minde is wisdom already talked about that worship of the
dragon is the worship of the beast, but they are distinct.
This is an interesting sort of thing, and really difficult.
(43:42):
In Revelation twelve, where it just calls the seven headed,
ten horned beast with the ten diadems, Satan, and anyway,
the worship of the dragon, as they mentioned a Revelation thirteen,
they worshiped the dragon and gave authority of the beast,
but they also worshiped the beasts. Not quite explained well
the worship. And that's kind of why I lean to
the idea that the entire beast is Satan, and in
(44:04):
the Mystery Babylon, she's riding Satan. Essentially, her grand idolatry
is the worship of the great, grandest, worship of false
God's far worse than she ever did before, which is
the reason Assyria destroyed her and Babylon destroyed her. She's
finally gone too far, and she says she's found her
husband and she's found her king, but she has chosen unwisely,
(44:27):
and she is in fact worshiping Satan through the Antichrist.
And I think that makes the best sense of that,
And it also makes sense of these ideas that the
worship of the dragon is the worship of the beast.
But they are distinct. The dragon, beasts and false Prophet
are different. Revelation sixteen three. In Revelation twenty, I've mentioned
that before both they're all three in the Lake of fire.
(44:48):
They're all three at that ritual in Revelation sixteen thirteen.
If strong, if the strong delusion, there's the resurrection Revelation
seventeen eighteen makes more sense. That shouldn't really be there.
But Daniel seven, beasts kingdoms seem to be in play,
and that what I mean to say there is that
I've tried to nail down say these must be kings,
(45:10):
these must be kingdoms, and that is a fool's errand
you will be tricked every time. Not trick, but it's
a bad use of that word. But if you demand
that they have to be kings or kingdom is a
certain area I have not found. I've found that to
be a very contradictory situation. It always seems to trip
(45:31):
you up if you demand that beasts are all kings.
In this situation, even though the word is kings and
not kingdoms, it uses them interchangeably. Now it's calling them
kingdoms over here. That kind of thing is happening. So
when I say the kings and kingdoms are in play,
certainly in Daniel seven, it has to be a little
bit of both, but I lean more towards kings. But
willing to be wrong, it seems that the little Horn
(45:55):
of Daniel seven is now to be undershed as one
of the heads. I know this goes against my perfect
match theory, but I think it's a logic exception. Both
the little horn and the head speak blasphemous words kill
saints have authority for three and a half years. It
is the beast, not the image of the beast, that
gets the wound. I think that was relevant to some
other theory somebody who's talking about, dear children, this is
(46:16):
the last hour, and just wanted to put this in there.
Dear children, this is the last hour. And as you've
heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists
have come. And so in context, this is John says
some interesting stuff about the Antichrist. But this kind of
fits with the five is falling. One is John is
essentially this is the writer of revelation. Earlier in First John,
(46:37):
his epistle is talking about that you've heard this is
the last hour. You've heard that the Antichrist is coming,
even now many Antichrists have come. Now in context, it
can be that John is making a prophecy, going to
lean that way here about the thing that he will
later expand On in Revelation of seventeen five and fall
On one is when he's yet to come. But he
(46:57):
could also because in context he's talking about who is
the Antichrist but one who denies Christ. And by the way,
for people who say, oh, antichrist means against Christ Christ,
you're saying antichrist, well no, it doesn't look it up
in the lexicon. It can mean against Christ. But also,
I mean, listen to what John just said. He says
that who is Antichrist but one who denies that Jesus
(47:20):
is the Christ? So all you have to do is
deny that Jesus is the Christ. And actually it's that
concept in reading that in the study that made me
sort of resolve an issue that I've always had with
my the antichrist theory. I've always sort of said, well,
maybe the Antichrist might he can do one of two things,
and I'm not sure which one. He's going to either
say that he is the return of Christ or that
(47:42):
Jesus wasn't the Christ because Jesus didn't fulfill all the
Messianic kingdom stuff, but he will and so he is
the Christ. And so in order to do that, he
John defines the word Antichrist is, but that says who
just says that Jesus isn't the Christ Anyway, I'm trying
to say that this John in that passage is obviously
(48:04):
talking about false teachers as well, so it could be
that Jesus that Paul is saying that many Antichrists have
come speaking of many false prophets, and probably to some
extent he was saying that, but in doing so he
also made a prophecy that he later reiterated in Revelation seventeen.
All right, so in conclusion, just a few show notes first,
So I'm going to start in the next episode, I'm
(48:25):
going to probably cover I think I'm going to do
the traditional view first, so not just the feet and
toes and the four beasts being the same thing as
Dano two and Dano seven, and the traditional revived Roman
Empire view and that kind of take, but also sort
of the corollary to that, which is sort of the
Islamic anti Christ take on that, where you just change
(48:48):
out revived Roman Empire for whatever the Islamic calivator, however
they want to do it with the Seria. Theres so
a few different takes on that too, but they all
have the same problem. So I'll kind of take the
modern views the next podcast, or at least Lord Willing.
And then also I wanted to mention if you know
the answer to this, shoot me an email Chris White
seventy nine at ProtonMail dot com.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella AX. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and you
don't have to log in to use it, and it
doesn't track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
(49:37):
I know I was gonna tell him, how do you
get the app? Just go to fringeradionetwork dot com right
at the top of the page. I know, slippers, we
gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.