December 3, 2025 • 41 mins
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
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 (00:04):
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 logging to use it, and it doesn't
track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful. I
(00:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Hey, everybody, welcome to Bible Prophecy Talk. This is going
to be a best of show recorded previously, which I
think you will like. If you're interested in my non
Bible prophecy related Bible teaching, you can subscribe to my
other podcast called vine Abiders. Just search for vine Abiders
wherever you get your podcasts, or go to the substack
(01:06):
at vineabiders dot com. And welcome back to the study
of the seven headed, ten horned Beast in the Book
of Revelation and has recourse I think to places in
Daniel and maybe other places in the Bible as well.
In the first part of this series, it was more
or less an intro. Congratulations to anybody that made it
through that podcast. I felt like I was just rambling
(01:29):
and very frustrated and not being able to articulate all
the problems and things like that. So I'll try to
make this one a little more smooth, but it is
going to be kind of more of the same. I
still am going to more or less bounce around talking
about some random thoughts I've been having about this. I
still don't know what it is. Originally, this particular section,
(01:50):
Part one, I guess you'd say, was going to look
over the traditional views. By that, I mean the revived
Roman Empire view, which I'll explain in more detail in
a minute, and the Revived Islamic Empire view, which is
kind of an offshoot of that but takes a lot
of the same stuff. And in doing that and trying
to research that for this week, I realized that even
(02:11):
that is kind of too big of a bit to
take out of this, and it just seemed a little
overwhelming because what I really needed to do was go
back and study every single aspect of this before I
can come to this conclusion. So what I think I'm
going to do after the Christmas break is to start
on individual chapters improve what I know as I go along.
So I need to redo Daniel two in a sense,
(02:34):
Daniel seven, and Daniel probably eleven, and certainly all the
Revelations chapters. Daniel eight is another one that we're going
to talk about today, which is very confusing. So I
think that if you get something wrong back there, you're
going to have bad output when you get to Revelation
seventeen and you got to figure out what the five
of Fallen are, unless they are completely divorced from Daniel seven,
(02:56):
which I think might be a possibility. So let me
start off and just go through some of my notes.
I converted this into a mind map, and I just
feel a lot better about this. Every book I've ever written,
anything I've had in my head like this, I've made
these little mind maps, and they just they just are
such a relief. Like I really literally have not been
able to sleep at night because it's like it's just
(03:17):
screaming for this to be organized in some way that
I can like let it be organized and not keep
it all in my head anyway. So this is going
to help me be a little more organized. In this
podcast too, I think, but I am going to more
or less randomly skip around at first. One of the
things that I thought was interesting this week was the
concept in Daniel seven. Remember Daniel seven is where those
(03:40):
four beasts, the one like a lion, one like a leopard,
one like a bear, the diverse beasts come out of
the sea. One of the things that was interesting was
the term that it used, which was the Great Sea.
The four winds of Heaven were stirring up the Great Sea,
and four great beasts came up out of the seed,
different from one another, now, I know, especially in Revelation thirteen,
(04:05):
where we have what appears to be the combined beast,
one a seven headed, ten horned beast, one that looks
like a leopard, a bear, and a lion at the
same time. So it seems like this same beast but combined.
But that's an open question at this point. But nevertheless,
that beast comes out of the sea there, and I've
(04:26):
heard a lot of people make a lot of assumptions
about the fact that it came out of the sea.
I've if you've may have noticed, in my commentaries and stuff,
I kind of leave that alone a little bit because
I feel like if you have this right, that should
fall into play. I don't like building doctrine from it because,
(04:47):
for example, in Revelation thirteen, it just uses the word
C there. Now, as you might imagine, C is one
of the most common concepts in the Bible, because it's
the ocean. There's so many different poetic uses for the
concept of a sea in the Bible. You could make
a big list, and a lot of people zero in
(05:08):
on one of those and say, well, the sea is
like the Gentiles and the Earth is like the non gentiles,
or something like that one I've heard a lot. The
Abyss is another one, because you can find uses of
the sea being like the Abyss, that is to say,
an aspect of Hell. So and you could do that
with others, and people have done that with others great
(05:30):
multitudes and people's and nations. It's used as a see
later on when the angel interprets it in Revelation is seventeen.
But the interesting thing is back here in Daniel seven
it uses the term the great Sea. The Great Sea
is not a term that is used very often in
the Bible. According to the Blue Letter Bible, It's the
exact phrase is only used fifteen times. It is speaking
(05:53):
of the Mediterranean Sea. It's very clear. Some of the
verses maybe aren't as clear, but they're certainly not using
it in the d of poetic sense. They're talking about
a literal sea. But I'd say the vast majority of these,
maybe thirteen fourteen are obviously talking about the Mediterranean Sea.
So you can be very comfortable understanding the first part
of Daniel, with these four beasts coming out of the
(06:14):
Great Sea is that they're coming out of the Mediterranean.
There's just not the kind of ambiguity that you can
maybe have in Revelation thirteen when it just says the
word sea. But the really interesting thing about this is
later on, when the Angel interprets this vision from Daniel,
it says, the four great beasts are four kings who
(06:35):
shall arise out of the Earth. That seems to me
to be saying at least that you cannot be making
a big deal about the sea and the Earth and
these passages if you're building doctrine on it says the
sea here, but not the earth, while the Bible uses
them interchangeably in Daniel seven. And furthermore, if you are
(06:56):
of the mind that Daniel seven interprets Revelations thirteen and
that seven headed beast that's rising out of the sea.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
There.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
If you buy the idea that the great Sea and
Daniel seven means the Mediterranean, then now you have to
interpret the sea and Revelation thirteen as a reference to
the Mediterranean. I would say that it's logical in one sense.
If you look at a map of all the usual
suspects of these kingdoms, it's very clear that these world
(07:25):
empires were Mediterranean empires. That's essentially the thing that binds
all of these empires together is that they just went
around the Mediterranean and conquered the whole thing. Look at
a map of Meto Persia, look at a map of
Assyria or Babylon, or Egypt, the Egyptian Empire specifically, or
Greece or Rome. It's their Mediterranean kingdoms. And so it's
(07:50):
logical at least to think that. Again, I'm not trying
to draw conclusions right now. I'm just saying that that
makes sense, and I'm going to tread lightly, and always
have to some extent, treaded lightly on building doctrine out
of symbols that have multiple meanings in the Bible. Such
as the word see. I also have some notes here
about Daniel eight, and I think I want to do
(08:13):
an entire podcast on Daniel eight. So I don't want
to go into just all the details now, and it
might be frustrated for some of you, because I'm going
to presume that a lot of you know a lot
about this chapter. But I'll give you the brief thumbnail here.
This is another vision of Daniel during the reign of
King Belchazar, which is the last king of Babylon, probably
shortly before he saw the writing on the wall and
(08:34):
all that stuff. This is a vision of a ram
which had two horns. One was high, but one was
higher than the other. The angel later says that this
ram is a picture of Meado Persia that was going around,
charging western northward and southward. Nobody could stand before him.
And then a male goat came out of the west,
and he had a notable horn between his eyes, and
(08:55):
that horn that ram was goat was really swift. He
conquered the ram with his powerful wrath, but out of
that horn was all of a sudden broken off the
notable horn, and four other horns sprang up in its place,
and out of one of those four horns, a little
(09:18):
horn came up. And the little horn kind of has
some anti christ language. So I'm gonna read a little
bit of the little horn language in Daniel eight. Remember
there's another little horn in Daniel seven, the chapter before this.
A lot of that language is very specific to the Antichrist.
This is a little less so, but I'll read what
it says. Out of one of them came a little horn,
which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east,
(09:39):
toward the glorious land. It grew great even to the
hosts of heaven, and some of the hosts and some
of the stars that threw down to the ground and
trampled on them. It became great, even as great as
the Prince of hosts. And the regular burnt offering was
taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary
was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it,
together with the regular burnt offering, because of it will
(10:01):
throw truth to the ground. It will act and prosper.
Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy
one said to the one who spoke, for how long
is this vision concerning the regular burnt offering? The transgression
that makes desolate and the giving over of the sanctuary
and the host to be trampled under foot. And he
said to me, for twenty three hundred evenings and mornings,
then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.
(10:23):
And then the Angel goes on to do some interpretation
of this in which it says specifically that we're talking
about the Meato Persians. For the first beast, the ram
and the goat is the king of Greece. The four
horns or four horns that come out of that the
Kingdom of Greece basically, which we understand to be Alexander's
(10:44):
four generals, and then the notable horn comes out of that,
which has the Antichrist language, but in one sense is
obviously Antiocha's epiphanies. Everybody agrees that the little Horn in
this chapter, again different from Daniel seven to probably a
certain extent, is definitely talking about Antiocho's epiphanies. That's where
I stand for sure. I know the little Horn and
(11:07):
Daniel ad is talking about Antiochus epiphanies. I know it.
Some of that languages is obviously talking about him. It
bleeds over into talking about the Antichrist, especially with some
of that talk about the trampling the hosts and the
stars to the ground and the prince of host. That
seems a little too grandiose for Antiochus, unless it's language
(11:29):
about his blasphemy or whatever. But in one sense, this
Antichrist language is not as the quintessential Antichrist language that
seems to be so carefully cultivated in Daniel, things like
the warring on the Saints, the three and a half years,
the names of blasphemy, all the things that Revelation picks up,
(11:49):
those things that we know for sure are speaking of
the Antichrists, and in some cases definitely not even talking
about Antiochus. Another thing that gets me here is the
twenty three hundred evenings mornings. Now, this is a long scenario.
I talk about this in my commentary, of which is,
by the way, is free.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
I'll talk more about that in a minute or maybe
another episode here. But I'm making all my books free,
and I'll talk about it in a minute. But the
twenty three hundred evenings and mornings is I can make
fit perfectly with Antiochis. It's where we get Honika from
in the Intertestamental period, Antiochus does his abomination of destolation.
(12:26):
We know exactly when that happened. We know even in
mornings is speaking of the two daily sacrifices, which happened
twice a day, the evening sacrifice in the morning sacrifice.
So essentially half that what is that one thousand one
fifty days and fifty day period, And we know Josephas
(12:47):
gives us a calculation of the days which had basically
interclorie months at the time, thirty day months with inter
calorie months, and then of course the fifteen day period
between the actual dates that are that are mentioned in
other places in the Bible. And you come up and
you can make this work. That's where Hanka comes from,
is that this this worked. But that doesn't fit with
(13:08):
anything I know about the Antichrist. Now we have a
lot of information, especially from Daniel, about some timing with
regard to the Antichrist and the midpoint. We know, of
course two hundred and sixty days or three and a
half years or forty two months. That's the seventieth week
of Daniel part of it. But we also know because
of Daniel twelve, the last part of Daniel twelve, that
(13:30):
there is a thirty day period and a forty five
day period after that one thousand, two hundred and sixty days,
so two hundred and ninety days, and what is the
thirteen thirty five days or whatever? But this would require
a one and fifty day period to be associated with
the Antichrist, which is not something that I believe you
can find anywhere else in the Bible, not the forty
(13:51):
five day period of the thirty day period or anything
like that. So it very well may be true, but
there's just no In other words, it works for Antiochus,
but it doesn't work for the Antichrist, at least what
we know of about it. So there's that problem. There's
the problem that this doesn't have the Kingdom of God
language that Daniel two and Daniel seven that seem to
connect with them. And of course the big couple confusing
(14:13):
things here is that it would mean that the Antichrist
would come after the Grecian Empire. I mean, why skip
Rome at this point? And it's just one of those
things that's frustrating about this topic. Why use the language
of the Little Horn about this when that so seems
to be so carefully used in Daniel seven in a
(14:35):
concept about maybe timing or something. The little horn in
this case comes out of the four horns that broke
off from Alexander the Great. But in Daniel seven, the
little horn comes out of the ten horns that's on
that final beast, which that final beast is not Greece
in any way, shape or form. So it's just one
(14:56):
of those things that just show you how complicated this
thing can be. My gut feeling, though, with Daniel eight,
is that it is to be understood mostly and primarily
as a prophecy, an important prophecy that Daniel made about
Antiochus epiphanies. I think that we always look at the
(15:17):
abomination of Desolation as sort of something that we see
as the future, but there were two future events. At
the time this was pinned. Antiochus had not yet done
the first abomination of desolation when Daniel wrote it, and
I feel like this is more for those people that
would experience that first abomination. Hey, the temple sacrifices have stopped.
(15:38):
What does this mean for us? Hey, there's a prophecy
here that says in one and fifty days or twenty
three hundred evenings and mornings, it will be restored. The
weakness of that view is the language that gets a
little to grandiose. The great as the Prince of Host
it became great. Even as great as the Prince of Host,
(15:58):
some of the hosts and some of the stars it
threw down to the ground and trampled on them. It's
possible that either the sort of anti christ language must
necessarily bleed over a little bit, or it may be that,
you know, we're just not to take too much into it.
I think that there's a lot of that going on
with these kind of types. You can always carry it
(16:20):
too far. If you say, well, the King of Tire
is definitely Satan because mentioned Tire. Well, yeah, you can
take it too far for a couple of verses, but
then you've got to lay off it or else it's
going to just cause all these contradictions. So there could
be something like that going on. But in any case,
I think that there's a lot to discover here in
Daniel eight. So I'll probably do a podcast just on it.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
All.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Right, So let's look at some of the traditional views,
and by that I mean the sort of revived Roman
empire view and the Islamic empire view. Things that have
been proposed mostly recently, but there are some good things
and some bad things about them, and I'm going to
go over some of that. I need to do as
I say more on this, but this is just some
(17:02):
of my initial thoughts thinking about it over the last week.
And when I say the traditional view of the seven
head of ten horn Beast, by that, I really mean
the traditional view of all these chapters. What do they
do with Daniel two, Daniel seven, what do they do
with a revelation of thirteen in Revelation seventeen? Specifically? That
will inform sort of what I mean by their traditional views,
(17:26):
So it's not just Revelation seventeen. What do you do
with the five has fallen, one is, and one has
yet to come? I mean, what is their take on
all these seemingly related passages and do they fit? And
the traditional revived Roman Empire view has Daniel two the
statue that Nemu Canezer saw with multiple medals as representing Babylon, Meadow, Persia, Greece,
(17:50):
and Rome, which I totally agree with. And then they
say that the feet and toes which are at once
part of the legs of Iron, but they say it's distinct,
it's not just the end of Rome. It's some new
thing that they call the revived Roman Empire, and Daniel
seven they do something fairly similar. They will say that
(18:12):
it is Babylon, Medo, Persia, Greece, Rome and revived Rome.
But in that case they'll say that the little Horn
is the person of the Antichrist, which I also agree with.
But it is important that they understand that little Horn
and the revived Roman Empire that comes up out of
(18:33):
the ten horns, to be the person of the Antichrist.
And that's important, and I mentioned that here because that's
often thrown away by the time they get to Revelation seven.
But here they understand the little Horn to be the
person of the Antichrist. So then they take all that
to Revelation seventeen, where they will say that the seven
headed ten horned beast is that five have fallen one
(18:58):
is or to be represented as Typically they'll say nations here,
not kings. But they're a little they're a little wishy
washing on that. But they'll traditionally say that the seven
headed ten horned beast represents Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Meado, Persia, Greece.
For the five have fallen, the one that is is Rome,
(19:23):
the empire in John's day, and the one that will
come but must remain a short time is the revived
Roman Empire. So that's a traditional view of Revelation seventeen.
And I would say that's there's a lot of issues
that I have. Questions I have right now. Number one,
(19:44):
why wouldn't those be the same as Daniel seven. Okay,
if going back to Revelation thirteen, we see a seven
headed beast coming out of the sea, names of blasphemy
on the heads. All the things that we saw in
Daniel seven, the except they are combined. Remember Daniel seven
(20:05):
had a lion, a bear, a four headed leopard, and
a diverse beast with ten horns. If you combine all
those things, what you get is exactly what you see
in Revelation thirteen. A beast coming out of the sea
with seven heads, four for the leopard, one for the lion,
one for the bear, one for the diverse beast, ten
horns on the diverse beast. And that looks like a leopard,
(20:29):
a lion, and a bear, and that has names of
blasphemy on its head, that goes to war against the
Saints and exists for three and a half years, so
there seems to be no ambiguity that we're talking about
the same thing in Daniel seven. But here now in
Revelation thirteen, as with just about any of you, has
problems here. Now they say, well, let's go ahead and
(20:50):
say that Daniel seven has nothing to do with that,
and let's just add Egypt and Assyria to it. And
they have to do that to get to five. Right,
So if you did, if they, for example, said five
of fall on one is and they were trying to
maintain the thing that they said in Revelation or Daniel
chapter seven, then that have to say then the have
too few because really only Babylon, Meto, Persia, and Greece
(21:15):
would have fallen, and one is Rome and one we
yet to be revived Rome. So they need to just
come up with two others. So they get Egypt and Assyria.
Some people do some funny business. Some people try to
say Medea and Persia are two different kingdoms, but that
still leaves you one other one you gotta find. So
they'll throw either Egypt in a Syria in there, or
(21:35):
do something else. I mean, it's all very you know,
maybe that the answer is somewhere in the minutia there,
but there is a lot of funny business being done
there with no reason to do it. And I think
that's kind of my problem, because if it is, if
the criteria, well, you know, should be something like that,
we do need to add two more. Maybe the problem
(21:55):
is that nobody's just explaining why it is that we
need to add Egypt and Assyria. I know, I know,
people will throw out a line or two. You know,
these are the the instances in which Satan you know,
did something bad or you know whatever, some kind of
general thing that's not backed up with scripture about why
the seven heads needs to be specifically Egypt to Syria, Babylonia, Medo,
(22:16):
pressure Greece, Rome and or revived Rome. Well, you know,
if you're going to take it away from Daniel seven,
even though Revelation thirteen seems to be so clear that
it has to be in some sense about Daniel seven,
then then why just throw it away and come up
with two At least give me a good reason for
one the two that you chose, And yeah, you can
come up with a good reason. These are other kingdoms
(22:37):
that were bad or maybe even controlled Israel or you know,
some other thing, but just make it. Give me something
to believe you about.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
There.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
Another problem with this is that it would divorce this
completely from the resurrection of a man back in Revelation thirteen.
So here you're not only saying, well, this isn't the
same as Daniel seven, but you're also saying it's not
the same as Daniel or Revelation thirteen and the same book,
because there one of the heads was clearly a man
that got the deadly wound, that was healed, et cetera,
(23:08):
et cetera, and we could walk through that whole thing
that it kind of has to be a man. If
now you're saying that the head is not a man
and it's just a kingdom, then and that's why you
need it to revive your Rome Roman Empire. And that's
what they think that's about then, And this is coming
from people who in Revelation thirteen also teach that that's
(23:28):
talking about a literal resurrection, or at the very least
a resurrection that seems to be a resurrection, but it's
just fake done with whatever magic or trickery or something.
David Gouzick is one that does that, and I love
David Guzick. I think he's one of my favorite commentators.
He has done a commentary on every book in the Bible,
so it's easy to find out what he believes on everything.
(23:48):
Is just one of the reasons I pick on him
so much. It's because he's just one of the few
people that I can go for free to check out
everything that he believes on a certain issue. And he believes, Yeah,
the Revelation thirteen is talking about a resurrection, and then
yet here he's like, well now they're nations and you
know whatever. To his credit, he ends this whole section
by saying, look, there are problems with this viewpoint as well,
(24:10):
talking about his view point, view viewpoint. So some have
taken this seven as symbolic, that's all he says, symbolic
of what I don't know. And it concludes this plainly
is a difficult passage. Yeah, yeah it is. And so
he knows that calling out just just Egypt to Syria,
Babylon and media persure Greece and revived Rome with no
real reason to other than this is just what they
(24:32):
think this is talking about. And I think, to their credit,
a lot of people are just working backwards from when
John says one is, and they say, well, if one is,
it's probably talking about Rome. So let's just fill in
the blanks. Let's come up with with bad empires that
have biblical whatever. Obviously, my contemporaneous piast you has a
ton of problems with this too, because here and I'm
(24:54):
saying that Daniel seven or I have said in other
commentaries that Daniel seven was talking about contemporaneous beast, beasts
that arrive rise out of the sea. At the same time,
what it's even the verses that people try to say
work against that the beasts that were before it, for example,
in Daniel seven, what that word before is in the
spatial sense, not the temporal sense. So even the things
(25:17):
that they try to use against it seemed to suggest
that he's these beasts are before it, I eat in
front of it at that time, let alone all the
sort of temporal things we'll talk about when we talk
about Daniel seven. But point is, I believe that that
made the best sense of them, those four beasts being
seemingly combined into one beast, and Revelation thirteen was because
(25:37):
it made sense of the wars and Daniel eleven, in
which he conquers all those Mediterranean and Empire, Egypt and
Libya and all and Assyria and that whole most of
the nations that exist in these various kingdoms. Anyway, that
conquest is conquer you conquering the beat, the lion and
the leopard and the and whatever. But now what do
(25:58):
I do if I want to remain consists to hear, well,
five of those heads have to be fallen. Well, okay,
but then I have to try to split up the
fourheads of the leopard versus one of the lion or
the bear, and I have no real good reason to
do that. I have to assume this is some sort
of weird politics going on in the end times or
something like that. There's other issues with that too, so
(26:20):
that's not workable. I don't think either. I don't know.
I don't really know, but I do want to figure
this out, and I think maybe the answer could be
something like the traditional view, but it needs to be explained.
Somebody needs to show their work of why they get
this and why it's okay to divorce it from say
(26:41):
Daniel seven or whatever, if that's the way that it
has to happen. Now, the Islamic anti Christ version of this,
I believe is just about the worst possible answer to
this question. And I cover every aspect of this in
my book, The Islamic Antichrist debunkt which is for free now,
and in fact I just made it an additional way
(27:03):
to get it in addition to the audiobook. All my
books now, including my Daniel commentary Mystery Babylon False Christ,
are available or will soon be converted to HTML text,
which is easily able to navigate. You can go to
Bible prophecytext dot com. This is me just mentioning that
the website is not quite done or anything. Sorry, Eric,
(27:24):
But yeah, so you can go there and look at
this information on the Islamic anti Christ thing, because I
go into a lot more detail than I'm going to
go into now. If this is a view that you
hold and you want to know all the details of this,
go check that out or just get my book Islamic
Antichrist Debunked from Amazon or something like that. But anyway,
so in that view back in Daniel two, they say
(27:48):
that Babylon, that the statue is Babylon meto perject Greece
and the Islamic Empire. Now Here they're specific the Islamic
Empire from six thirty two eighty to nineteen twenty three
or something like that. And you know, I go through
my book and all the different reasons why that's bad,
But I think one of the big ones is why
skip Rome? You know, in every other scenario, especially in
(28:11):
that one in Daniel two, they seem to be nations
that conquered one another another, Right, Meto Persia conquered Babylon,
Greece conquered Meto Persia, and then where's Rome that's supposed
to conquer Greece. They just skipped Rome altogether. It makes
no sense to skip Rome. There, at least Daniel eight
skipping Rome and just ending it. This one just skips
(28:35):
it and appends another less important empire to it, because
I would say, I mean, the importance is less about
what I think about the Islamic Empire, but more about
in terms of prophecy. Because Daniel's focus was essentially pre
seventy a d. We have a big prophetic gap from
seventy a d onward to the start of the seventieth
(28:55):
week whenever that starts, in which the Bible is more
or less unconcerned with the Empire's rise and fall in
that period. I mean, the British Empire or whatever is
not a concern to the Bible, because it almost seems
to be about the control of the Temple, at least
that's the way that Daniel nine seems to suggest. It's
really the story of the Temple of which stopped in
(29:16):
seventy eight and became and everything essentially becomes irrelevant until
it is built again at the beginning of the seventieth week.
But nevertheless, so why skip Rome? Joel says we should
skip Rome? It doesn't matter that we skip Rome because
he says, what about and I'm talking about Joe Richardson,
the writer of Islamic Antichrist books. He says, what about
the Parthians? For example? There was a Parthian empire that
(29:38):
we skipped. But that's a really bad argument because wasn't
you know, Parthia wasn't a world empire. It didn't conquer
the one proceeding in. It didn't conquer Greece, it didn't
conquer Rome or whatever. It sort of overlapped both of them, actually,
and it never controlled Israel, which I think again might
be the thing that connects some of those other empires.
(29:58):
But Parthians were just they're not even in the same
ballpark of this. So saying well, it's okay to skip
Rome because you didn't mention the Parthians, well, that's not
even in the same ballpark. Interestingly, Joel does include in
Revelation seventeen in his list Rome there after Greece, but
there it's because he has to, because it says five
(30:20):
of fallen one is and if he wants to remain consistent,
he has to make Rome follow Greece there, but he
doesn't have it follow it here. So anyway, I would
say that's a big problem with that. And Daniel seven,
he says that again he kind of takes the same view.
It's the same thing Babylon, Medo, Persia, Greece, and the
Islamic Empire. Again, why skip Rome here? Why just depend
(30:44):
the Islamic Empire there? Joel says, in this case it
was more destructive than the Romans, because if you in
Daniel seven, it talks about the beasts having iron teeth
and destroying empires and whatever. And Joel says, well, the
Roman Empire wasn't all that destructive, you know, And again,
I mean that's a kind of subject thing to say, obviously,
Rome was incredibly destructive. It wiped entire cities off the
(31:04):
map and entire people off the map. It was brutal.
The quote from you know they they they create a
wasteland and call it peace. Yeah, both empires were similar
in the sense that they preferred not to destroy people.
They preferred to incorporate them into the empire and use
their resources, et cetera, getting paying taxes. But they also
(31:26):
destroyed them when they when they you know, so if
you want to do a body count, I'm not sure
who would win or who even has those numbers. But
to say, to say, to defend the idea that we're
skipping Greece, even though it's obvious that that's the way
that the Bible is doing this in other places. What
empire is conquering another empire, Daniel, it's a really good
example of that, right, the Meto Persians. Greece conquered the
(31:48):
Meto Persians. Which is why they would be following one
another in this list, is that one conquers the other.
The same thing with the Babylon Meto Persia. I think
that's explicit. And Daniel two, right that the Meto Persians
conquered Babylon, which is why they're the next metal on
the statue. So there's this great precedent of that. So
to skip Rome and say that's okay because Rome wasn't
all that destructive. Or then his next thing, he says
(32:10):
here Rome wasn't as blasphemous as the Islamic Empire because
the blasphemy has brought out in Daniel seven about this
last beast, and he says, wasn't all that blasphemis you know,
the Islamic Empire was more blasphemous, So that's therefore it's
a better fit. And again I think that's kind of subjective.
You might even be able to make a case of
the Islamic Empire is more blasphemous, but you wouldn't be
able to make the case of the Roman Empire wasn't blasphemous. Certainly,
(32:33):
a deification of the emperors was a integral part of
the Roman system, not to mention all the pagan gods
and the pagan worship and the sacrifice that they did
and required in terms of the citizens of the Rome.
That it is to say the pinch of incense, and
that's to say nothing of the aberind things that the
people like Nero who were particularly blasphemous and killed a
(32:54):
lot of Christians, et cetera. But in any case, it's
like a shade of gray and just say one is
less blasphemous than the other. Therefore that's why it's okay
to It's not as though he's just choosing another one
out of a hat. He's saying he's getting rid of
a really well established reason for one to come after
the other, and saying, well, we know in history that
(33:15):
the Islamic Empire did not come after Greece. Rome did,
so you got to have a better reason than well,
Rome wasn't as blasphemous as the Islamic Empire. That just
doesn't do it. But the real problem with this, and
where you really know that he's got a bad interpretation here,
is in Revelation seventeen, and I'd say that you applies
to me too. Basically, every everybody that has an interpretation
(33:36):
here usually has to pay up in Revelation seventeen, it
just so happens that the Islamic Antichrist situation ends up
paying a higher bill than others do. So in Revelation seventeen,
the five that have fallen one is et cetera. They
would say is Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo, Persia, Greece. Rome
is the one that is, and the Islamic Empire is
(33:59):
the one that's going to come. And then they have
another revived Islamic Empire, so they have one more empire
than pretty much any view, which I just it just
doesn't work in the text. I'll talk about that in
a minute. But you can see, on the one hand,
they're basically doing the same thing that the others are doing.
They're adding Egypt in Assyria out of nowhere. They have
(34:20):
divorced this from Daniel seven like the others do. This
can't be the same thing as Daniel seven because Egypt
and Assyria are involved. But in the Islamic Empire case,
if you saw what he did here, he says, the
one that is is Rome. We talked about he has
to do that here. That's kind of what messed him
up in Daniel seven. But he says, the one that
(34:43):
is is Rome, the one that Let me read what
the text says first, This calls for a mind with wisdom.
The seven heads or seven mountains on which the woman
is seated. There are also seven kings, five of whom
have fallen. One is that is Rome, and the other
has not yet come. But when he does come, he
(35:05):
must remain only a little while, only a little while.
The one that comes after Rome has not yet come,
but when it does come, it must remain only a
little while. In Joel's case, the Islamic Empire comes next,
which lasted for thirteen hundred years. That is longer than Babylon, Medo, Persia,
(35:28):
probably Assyria combined. It's definitely one of the longest reigning
empires in the history of the world. That does not
fit of a little time. And remember, he's got one
after that. He would like the revived Islamic Empire. He
could say that one might be a little time, but
that's not what the tech says. The tech says one is,
the other has not yet come. When he does come,
(35:49):
he must remain only a little while. That has to
be the one that comes after Rome. And that's why
most views have the revived Roman Empire next. They're not
adding another empire that needs to get revived later. They're
putting the revived thing after the one that is. The
next one after Rome has to be the one that
lasts a short time, So it goes five that have fallen,
(36:13):
one is and the Antichrist kingdom later on. So whatever
is past the one is has to be the one
that remains a short time. I eat Antichrist kingdom. You
can't just shoehorn another thirteen hundred years in there. Anyway.
I go through more stuff on that in the book
about why I think it goes against the pronouns and
the angels interpretation and everything in this passage. I think
(36:34):
that the speaking of the eighth, and when he's of
the seven but is of the eighth, is speaking of
the Antichrist himself and his resurrection. Which I think couldn't
be any more clear. Again, that's in the book. It's
in the If you go to Bible prophecy text dot com,
where I have all my books for free, you can
read all about it there. I talked you a little
bit about it in the last podcast. But that's actually
(36:56):
an interesting thing. I think this is very heavy on
the mortal wound that the head of the beast gets,
or one of the heads of the beast gets. That's
reiterated several times in this passage. Really all throughout the
Book of Revelation. He had the wound by the sword
and did live, and various other aspects of the one
that is and was and is not, et cetera. I
(37:18):
would say that that has to be a reference to
the Antichrist himself. And it actually brought up an interesting point,
specifically with Joel Richardson, because in order to get to
this he has to completely divorce. I talked about this
with the other revived Roman empires. They'll at least admit, well,
it has to be the resurrection, or at least a
fake resurrection, or give some lip service to that in
Revelation thirteen. And yes it causes them problems when they
(37:41):
get here to Revelation seventeen, but they still don't just
say it doesn't exist. Joel Richardson, in his latest books,
has said it doesn't exist. He basically says, you know,
which is interesting because in his first book, The Islamic Antichrist,
he had took the view that yes, the in Revelation thirteen,
(38:02):
the Deadly Wound of the Beast's head was talking about
the Antichrist. But he says that, well, it can't be
the resurrection because Satan can't raise the dead or whatever,
so it has to be some kind of fake resurrection,
and he sort of taught that version of it, but
in the new version of it, he completely just says
that none of that stuff even happens. That's all about nations.
(38:24):
Not even one iota of this is about a person.
It's all about nations. And I get it now why
he had to do that, because it's to try to
make Revelation seventeen fit with this whole thing. It has
to not be about a person, which is really difficult
when you read any of this, because number one, the
Angel says these are seven kings, and then it goes
(38:46):
on to say he he the ten or the it's
talking about a person. And yes, I get that, it's
talking about sometimes kings and kingdoms, and some of that
is to be understood that way. As I've argued in
the last part, I don't think you can get away
with being taken a hard stance on everything means king
and everything means kingdom, and this one you have to
(39:07):
be fluid on it. But you can't do the reverse
of it either. You can't say, well, this is just
kingdom is not kings, especially when the Bible rebukes you
and the Angel tells you these are kings and then
goes on to describe them as human pronouns. It's not
as though the Bible is, even in revelation, isn't capable
of talking about something in the it pronoun to give
(39:28):
you more of the nation sense of it. But it
also has a very specific time when it starts to
use pronouns in terms of he does as he does this.
He does this to make you think, hey, this has
to be reasonably a human because of the pronoun situation anyway,
So I don't think that's a good way to do
this either. So I have to say this, though, I
(39:51):
think that I am softening on some of the aspects
of the traditional view, specifically of Daniel two and Daniel
SI and I want to talk at length about Daniel
two when we get to it and when I do
a podcast on that, because I think there are some
pros to it. There are some interesting things that absolutely
have to be considered, things that I don't think are
(40:13):
being talked as much about. And I like the idea
of just going into this completely fresh, just don't have
a single dog in the fight, and see where it leads.
Thanks for listening. If you want to support this ministry.
The best way to do so is by supporting the
orphanage and Kenya that my ministry, Chris White Ministries, has
(40:33):
committed to helping called Joyful Heart's Home and Care. You
can see the progress that we're making at joyfulheartshome dot com,
which is linked in the show notes of this podcast,
where you can see the impact that we're making every week.
Your donations have a large impact, which again you can
follow at joyfulheartshome dot com and donations are tax deductible.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Hi, everybody to me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell him, 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.
(41:22):
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 logging to use it, and it doesn't
track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful. I
(00:28):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Hey, everybody, welcome to Bible Prophecy Talk. This is going
to be a best of show recorded previously, which I
think you will like. If you're interested in my non
Bible prophecy related Bible teaching, you can subscribe to my
other podcast called vine Abiders. Just search for vine Abiders
wherever you get your podcasts, or go to the substack
(01:06):
at vineabiders dot com. And welcome back to the study
of the seven headed, ten horned Beast in the Book
of Revelation and has recourse I think to places in
Daniel and maybe other places in the Bible as well.
In the first part of this series, it was more
or less an intro. Congratulations to anybody that made it
through that podcast. I felt like I was just rambling
(01:29):
and very frustrated and not being able to articulate all
the problems and things like that. So I'll try to
make this one a little more smooth, but it is
going to be kind of more of the same. I
still am going to more or less bounce around talking
about some random thoughts I've been having about this. I
still don't know what it is. Originally, this particular section,
(01:50):
Part one, I guess you'd say, was going to look
over the traditional views. By that, I mean the revived
Roman Empire view, which I'll explain in more detail in
a minute, and the Revived Islamic Empire view, which is
kind of an offshoot of that but takes a lot
of the same stuff. And in doing that and trying
to research that for this week, I realized that even
(02:11):
that is kind of too big of a bit to
take out of this, and it just seemed a little
overwhelming because what I really needed to do was go
back and study every single aspect of this before I
can come to this conclusion. So what I think I'm
going to do after the Christmas break is to start
on individual chapters improve what I know as I go along.
So I need to redo Daniel two in a sense,
(02:34):
Daniel seven, and Daniel probably eleven, and certainly all the
Revelations chapters. Daniel eight is another one that we're going
to talk about today, which is very confusing. So I
think that if you get something wrong back there, you're
going to have bad output when you get to Revelation
seventeen and you got to figure out what the five
of Fallen are, unless they are completely divorced from Daniel seven,
(02:56):
which I think might be a possibility. So let me
start off and just go through some of my notes.
I converted this into a mind map, and I just
feel a lot better about this. Every book I've ever written,
anything I've had in my head like this, I've made
these little mind maps, and they just they just are
such a relief. Like I really literally have not been
able to sleep at night because it's like it's just
(03:17):
screaming for this to be organized in some way that
I can like let it be organized and not keep
it all in my head anyway. So this is going
to help me be a little more organized. In this
podcast too, I think, but I am going to more
or less randomly skip around at first. One of the
things that I thought was interesting this week was the
concept in Daniel seven. Remember Daniel seven is where those
(03:40):
four beasts, the one like a lion, one like a leopard,
one like a bear, the diverse beasts come out of
the sea. One of the things that was interesting was
the term that it used, which was the Great Sea.
The four winds of Heaven were stirring up the Great Sea,
and four great beasts came up out of the seed,
different from one another, now, I know, especially in Revelation thirteen,
(04:05):
where we have what appears to be the combined beast,
one a seven headed, ten horned beast, one that looks
like a leopard, a bear, and a lion at the
same time. So it seems like this same beast but combined.
But that's an open question at this point. But nevertheless,
that beast comes out of the sea there, and I've
(04:26):
heard a lot of people make a lot of assumptions
about the fact that it came out of the sea.
I've if you've may have noticed, in my commentaries and stuff,
I kind of leave that alone a little bit because
I feel like if you have this right, that should
fall into play. I don't like building doctrine from it because,
(04:47):
for example, in Revelation thirteen, it just uses the word
C there. Now, as you might imagine, C is one
of the most common concepts in the Bible, because it's
the ocean. There's so many different poetic uses for the
concept of a sea in the Bible. You could make
a big list, and a lot of people zero in
(05:08):
on one of those and say, well, the sea is
like the Gentiles and the Earth is like the non gentiles,
or something like that one I've heard a lot. The
Abyss is another one, because you can find uses of
the sea being like the Abyss, that is to say,
an aspect of Hell. So and you could do that
with others, and people have done that with others great
(05:30):
multitudes and people's and nations. It's used as a see
later on when the angel interprets it in Revelation is seventeen.
But the interesting thing is back here in Daniel seven
it uses the term the great Sea. The Great Sea
is not a term that is used very often in
the Bible. According to the Blue Letter Bible, It's the
exact phrase is only used fifteen times. It is speaking
(05:53):
of the Mediterranean Sea. It's very clear. Some of the
verses maybe aren't as clear, but they're certainly not using
it in the d of poetic sense. They're talking about
a literal sea. But I'd say the vast majority of these,
maybe thirteen fourteen are obviously talking about the Mediterranean Sea.
So you can be very comfortable understanding the first part
of Daniel, with these four beasts coming out of the
(06:14):
Great Sea is that they're coming out of the Mediterranean.
There's just not the kind of ambiguity that you can
maybe have in Revelation thirteen when it just says the
word sea. But the really interesting thing about this is
later on, when the Angel interprets this vision from Daniel,
it says, the four great beasts are four kings who
(06:35):
shall arise out of the Earth. That seems to me
to be saying at least that you cannot be making
a big deal about the sea and the Earth and
these passages if you're building doctrine on it says the
sea here, but not the earth, while the Bible uses
them interchangeably in Daniel seven. And furthermore, if you are
(06:56):
of the mind that Daniel seven interprets Revelations thirteen and
that seven headed beast that's rising out of the sea.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
There.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
If you buy the idea that the great Sea and
Daniel seven means the Mediterranean, then now you have to
interpret the sea and Revelation thirteen as a reference to
the Mediterranean. I would say that it's logical in one sense.
If you look at a map of all the usual
suspects of these kingdoms, it's very clear that these world
(07:25):
empires were Mediterranean empires. That's essentially the thing that binds
all of these empires together is that they just went
around the Mediterranean and conquered the whole thing. Look at
a map of Meto Persia, look at a map of
Assyria or Babylon, or Egypt, the Egyptian Empire specifically, or
Greece or Rome. It's their Mediterranean kingdoms. And so it's
(07:50):
logical at least to think that. Again, I'm not trying
to draw conclusions right now. I'm just saying that that
makes sense, and I'm going to tread lightly, and always
have to some extent, treaded lightly on building doctrine out
of symbols that have multiple meanings in the Bible. Such
as the word see. I also have some notes here
about Daniel eight, and I think I want to do
(08:13):
an entire podcast on Daniel eight. So I don't want
to go into just all the details now, and it
might be frustrated for some of you, because I'm going
to presume that a lot of you know a lot
about this chapter. But I'll give you the brief thumbnail here.
This is another vision of Daniel during the reign of
King Belchazar, which is the last king of Babylon, probably
shortly before he saw the writing on the wall and
(08:34):
all that stuff. This is a vision of a ram
which had two horns. One was high, but one was
higher than the other. The angel later says that this
ram is a picture of Meado Persia that was going around,
charging western northward and southward. Nobody could stand before him.
And then a male goat came out of the west,
and he had a notable horn between his eyes, and
(08:55):
that horn that ram was goat was really swift. He
conquered the ram with his powerful wrath, but out of
that horn was all of a sudden broken off the
notable horn, and four other horns sprang up in its place,
and out of one of those four horns, a little
(09:18):
horn came up. And the little horn kind of has
some anti christ language. So I'm gonna read a little
bit of the little horn language in Daniel eight. Remember
there's another little horn in Daniel seven, the chapter before this.
A lot of that language is very specific to the Antichrist.
This is a little less so, but I'll read what
it says. Out of one of them came a little horn,
which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east,
(09:39):
toward the glorious land. It grew great even to the
hosts of heaven, and some of the hosts and some
of the stars that threw down to the ground and
trampled on them. It became great, even as great as
the Prince of hosts. And the regular burnt offering was
taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary
was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it,
together with the regular burnt offering, because of it will
(10:01):
throw truth to the ground. It will act and prosper.
Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy
one said to the one who spoke, for how long
is this vision concerning the regular burnt offering? The transgression
that makes desolate and the giving over of the sanctuary
and the host to be trampled under foot. And he
said to me, for twenty three hundred evenings and mornings,
then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.
(10:23):
And then the Angel goes on to do some interpretation
of this in which it says specifically that we're talking
about the Meato Persians. For the first beast, the ram
and the goat is the king of Greece. The four
horns or four horns that come out of that the
Kingdom of Greece basically, which we understand to be Alexander's
(10:44):
four generals, and then the notable horn comes out of that,
which has the Antichrist language, but in one sense is
obviously Antiocha's epiphanies. Everybody agrees that the little Horn in
this chapter, again different from Daniel seven to probably a
certain extent, is definitely talking about Antiocho's epiphanies. That's where
I stand for sure. I know the little Horn and
(11:07):
Daniel ad is talking about Antiochus epiphanies. I know it.
Some of that languages is obviously talking about him. It
bleeds over into talking about the Antichrist, especially with some
of that talk about the trampling the hosts and the
stars to the ground and the prince of host. That
seems a little too grandiose for Antiochus, unless it's language
(11:29):
about his blasphemy or whatever. But in one sense, this
Antichrist language is not as the quintessential Antichrist language that
seems to be so carefully cultivated in Daniel, things like
the warring on the Saints, the three and a half years,
the names of blasphemy, all the things that Revelation picks up,
(11:49):
those things that we know for sure are speaking of
the Antichrists, and in some cases definitely not even talking
about Antiochus. Another thing that gets me here is the
twenty three hundred evenings mornings. Now, this is a long scenario.
I talk about this in my commentary, of which is,
by the way, is free.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
I'll talk more about that in a minute or maybe
another episode here. But I'm making all my books free,
and I'll talk about it in a minute. But the
twenty three hundred evenings and mornings is I can make
fit perfectly with Antiochis. It's where we get Honika from
in the Intertestamental period, Antiochus does his abomination of destolation.
(12:26):
We know exactly when that happened. We know even in
mornings is speaking of the two daily sacrifices, which happened
twice a day, the evening sacrifice in the morning sacrifice.
So essentially half that what is that one thousand one
fifty days and fifty day period, And we know Josephas
(12:47):
gives us a calculation of the days which had basically
interclorie months at the time, thirty day months with inter
calorie months, and then of course the fifteen day period
between the actual dates that are that are mentioned in
other places in the Bible. And you come up and
you can make this work. That's where Hanka comes from,
is that this this worked. But that doesn't fit with
(13:08):
anything I know about the Antichrist. Now we have a
lot of information, especially from Daniel, about some timing with
regard to the Antichrist and the midpoint. We know, of
course two hundred and sixty days or three and a
half years or forty two months. That's the seventieth week
of Daniel part of it. But we also know because
of Daniel twelve, the last part of Daniel twelve, that
(13:30):
there is a thirty day period and a forty five
day period after that one thousand, two hundred and sixty days,
so two hundred and ninety days, and what is the
thirteen thirty five days or whatever? But this would require
a one and fifty day period to be associated with
the Antichrist, which is not something that I believe you
can find anywhere else in the Bible, not the forty
(13:51):
five day period of the thirty day period or anything
like that. So it very well may be true, but
there's just no In other words, it works for Antiochus,
but it doesn't work for the Antichrist, at least what
we know of about it. So there's that problem. There's
the problem that this doesn't have the Kingdom of God
language that Daniel two and Daniel seven that seem to
connect with them. And of course the big couple confusing
(14:13):
things here is that it would mean that the Antichrist
would come after the Grecian Empire. I mean, why skip
Rome at this point? And it's just one of those
things that's frustrating about this topic. Why use the language
of the Little Horn about this when that so seems
to be so carefully used in Daniel seven in a
(14:35):
concept about maybe timing or something. The little horn in
this case comes out of the four horns that broke
off from Alexander the Great. But in Daniel seven, the
little horn comes out of the ten horns that's on
that final beast, which that final beast is not Greece
in any way, shape or form. So it's just one
(14:56):
of those things that just show you how complicated this
thing can be. My gut feeling, though, with Daniel eight,
is that it is to be understood mostly and primarily
as a prophecy, an important prophecy that Daniel made about
Antiochus epiphanies. I think that we always look at the
(15:17):
abomination of Desolation as sort of something that we see
as the future, but there were two future events. At
the time this was pinned. Antiochus had not yet done
the first abomination of desolation when Daniel wrote it, and
I feel like this is more for those people that
would experience that first abomination. Hey, the temple sacrifices have stopped.
(15:38):
What does this mean for us? Hey, there's a prophecy
here that says in one and fifty days or twenty
three hundred evenings and mornings, it will be restored. The
weakness of that view is the language that gets a
little to grandiose. The great as the Prince of Host
it became great. Even as great as the Prince of Host,
(15:58):
some of the hosts and some of the stars it
threw down to the ground and trampled on them. It's
possible that either the sort of anti christ language must
necessarily bleed over a little bit, or it may be that,
you know, we're just not to take too much into it.
I think that there's a lot of that going on
with these kind of types. You can always carry it
(16:20):
too far. If you say, well, the King of Tire
is definitely Satan because mentioned Tire. Well, yeah, you can
take it too far for a couple of verses, but
then you've got to lay off it or else it's
going to just cause all these contradictions. So there could
be something like that going on. But in any case,
I think that there's a lot to discover here in
Daniel eight. So I'll probably do a podcast just on it.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
All.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Right, So let's look at some of the traditional views,
and by that I mean the sort of revived Roman
empire view and the Islamic empire view. Things that have
been proposed mostly recently, but there are some good things
and some bad things about them, and I'm going to
go over some of that. I need to do as
I say more on this, but this is just some
(17:02):
of my initial thoughts thinking about it over the last week.
And when I say the traditional view of the seven
head of ten horn Beast, by that, I really mean
the traditional view of all these chapters. What do they
do with Daniel two, Daniel seven, what do they do
with a revelation of thirteen in Revelation seventeen? Specifically? That
will inform sort of what I mean by their traditional views,
(17:26):
So it's not just Revelation seventeen. What do you do
with the five has fallen, one is, and one has
yet to come? I mean, what is their take on
all these seemingly related passages and do they fit? And
the traditional revived Roman Empire view has Daniel two the
statue that Nemu Canezer saw with multiple medals as representing Babylon, Meadow, Persia, Greece,
(17:50):
and Rome, which I totally agree with. And then they
say that the feet and toes which are at once
part of the legs of Iron, but they say it's distinct,
it's not just the end of Rome. It's some new
thing that they call the revived Roman Empire, and Daniel
seven they do something fairly similar. They will say that
(18:12):
it is Babylon, Medo, Persia, Greece, Rome and revived Rome.
But in that case they'll say that the little Horn
is the person of the Antichrist, which I also agree with.
But it is important that they understand that little Horn
and the revived Roman Empire that comes up out of
(18:33):
the ten horns, to be the person of the Antichrist.
And that's important, and I mentioned that here because that's
often thrown away by the time they get to Revelation seven.
But here they understand the little Horn to be the
person of the Antichrist. So then they take all that
to Revelation seventeen, where they will say that the seven
headed ten horned beast is that five have fallen one
(18:58):
is or to be represented as Typically they'll say nations here,
not kings. But they're a little they're a little wishy
washing on that. But they'll traditionally say that the seven
headed ten horned beast represents Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Meado, Persia, Greece.
For the five have fallen, the one that is is Rome,
(19:23):
the empire in John's day, and the one that will
come but must remain a short time is the revived
Roman Empire. So that's a traditional view of Revelation seventeen.
And I would say that's there's a lot of issues
that I have. Questions I have right now. Number one,
(19:44):
why wouldn't those be the same as Daniel seven. Okay,
if going back to Revelation thirteen, we see a seven
headed beast coming out of the sea, names of blasphemy
on the heads. All the things that we saw in
Daniel seven, the except they are combined. Remember Daniel seven
(20:05):
had a lion, a bear, a four headed leopard, and
a diverse beast with ten horns. If you combine all
those things, what you get is exactly what you see
in Revelation thirteen. A beast coming out of the sea
with seven heads, four for the leopard, one for the lion,
one for the bear, one for the diverse beast, ten
horns on the diverse beast. And that looks like a leopard,
(20:29):
a lion, and a bear, and that has names of
blasphemy on its head, that goes to war against the
Saints and exists for three and a half years, so
there seems to be no ambiguity that we're talking about
the same thing in Daniel seven. But here now in
Revelation thirteen, as with just about any of you, has
problems here. Now they say, well, let's go ahead and
(20:50):
say that Daniel seven has nothing to do with that,
and let's just add Egypt and Assyria to it. And
they have to do that to get to five. Right,
So if you did, if they, for example, said five
of fall on one is and they were trying to
maintain the thing that they said in Revelation or Daniel
chapter seven, then that have to say then the have
too few because really only Babylon, Meto, Persia, and Greece
(21:15):
would have fallen, and one is Rome and one we
yet to be revived Rome. So they need to just
come up with two others. So they get Egypt and Assyria.
Some people do some funny business. Some people try to
say Medea and Persia are two different kingdoms, but that
still leaves you one other one you gotta find. So
they'll throw either Egypt in a Syria in there, or
(21:35):
do something else. I mean, it's all very you know,
maybe that the answer is somewhere in the minutia there,
but there is a lot of funny business being done
there with no reason to do it. And I think
that's kind of my problem, because if it is, if
the criteria, well, you know, should be something like that,
we do need to add two more. Maybe the problem
(21:55):
is that nobody's just explaining why it is that we
need to add Egypt and Assyria. I know, I know,
people will throw out a line or two. You know,
these are the the instances in which Satan you know,
did something bad or you know whatever, some kind of
general thing that's not backed up with scripture about why
the seven heads needs to be specifically Egypt to Syria, Babylonia, Medo,
(22:16):
pressure Greece, Rome and or revived Rome. Well, you know,
if you're going to take it away from Daniel seven,
even though Revelation thirteen seems to be so clear that
it has to be in some sense about Daniel seven,
then then why just throw it away and come up
with two At least give me a good reason for
one the two that you chose, And yeah, you can
come up with a good reason. These are other kingdoms
(22:37):
that were bad or maybe even controlled Israel or you know,
some other thing, but just make it. Give me something
to believe you about.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
There.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
Another problem with this is that it would divorce this
completely from the resurrection of a man back in Revelation thirteen.
So here you're not only saying, well, this isn't the
same as Daniel seven, but you're also saying it's not
the same as Daniel or Revelation thirteen and the same book,
because there one of the heads was clearly a man
that got the deadly wound, that was healed, et cetera,
(23:08):
et cetera, and we could walk through that whole thing
that it kind of has to be a man. If
now you're saying that the head is not a man
and it's just a kingdom, then and that's why you
need it to revive your Rome Roman Empire. And that's
what they think that's about then, And this is coming
from people who in Revelation thirteen also teach that that's
(23:28):
talking about a literal resurrection, or at the very least
a resurrection that seems to be a resurrection, but it's
just fake done with whatever magic or trickery or something.
David Gouzick is one that does that, and I love
David Guzick. I think he's one of my favorite commentators.
He has done a commentary on every book in the Bible,
so it's easy to find out what he believes on everything.
(23:48):
Is just one of the reasons I pick on him
so much. It's because he's just one of the few
people that I can go for free to check out
everything that he believes on a certain issue. And he believes, Yeah,
the Revelation thirteen is talking about a resurrection, and then
yet here he's like, well now they're nations and you
know whatever. To his credit, he ends this whole section
by saying, look, there are problems with this viewpoint as well,
(24:10):
talking about his view point, view viewpoint. So some have
taken this seven as symbolic, that's all he says, symbolic
of what I don't know. And it concludes this plainly
is a difficult passage. Yeah, yeah it is. And so
he knows that calling out just just Egypt to Syria,
Babylon and media persure Greece and revived Rome with no
real reason to other than this is just what they
(24:32):
think this is talking about. And I think, to their credit,
a lot of people are just working backwards from when
John says one is, and they say, well, if one is,
it's probably talking about Rome. So let's just fill in
the blanks. Let's come up with with bad empires that
have biblical whatever. Obviously, my contemporaneous piast you has a
ton of problems with this too, because here and I'm
(24:54):
saying that Daniel seven or I have said in other
commentaries that Daniel seven was talking about contemporaneous beast, beasts
that arrive rise out of the sea. At the same time,
what it's even the verses that people try to say
work against that the beasts that were before it, for example,
in Daniel seven, what that word before is in the
spatial sense, not the temporal sense. So even the things
(25:17):
that they try to use against it seemed to suggest
that he's these beasts are before it, I eat in
front of it at that time, let alone all the
sort of temporal things we'll talk about when we talk
about Daniel seven. But point is, I believe that that
made the best sense of them, those four beasts being
seemingly combined into one beast, and Revelation thirteen was because
(25:37):
it made sense of the wars and Daniel eleven, in
which he conquers all those Mediterranean and Empire, Egypt and
Libya and all and Assyria and that whole most of
the nations that exist in these various kingdoms. Anyway, that
conquest is conquer you conquering the beat, the lion and
the leopard and the and whatever. But now what do
(25:58):
I do if I want to remain consists to hear, well,
five of those heads have to be fallen. Well, okay,
but then I have to try to split up the
fourheads of the leopard versus one of the lion or
the bear, and I have no real good reason to
do that. I have to assume this is some sort
of weird politics going on in the end times or
something like that. There's other issues with that too, so
(26:20):
that's not workable. I don't think either. I don't know.
I don't really know, but I do want to figure
this out, and I think maybe the answer could be
something like the traditional view, but it needs to be explained.
Somebody needs to show their work of why they get
this and why it's okay to divorce it from say
(26:41):
Daniel seven or whatever, if that's the way that it
has to happen. Now, the Islamic anti Christ version of this,
I believe is just about the worst possible answer to
this question. And I cover every aspect of this in
my book, The Islamic Antichrist debunkt which is for free now,
and in fact I just made it an additional way
(27:03):
to get it in addition to the audiobook. All my
books now, including my Daniel commentary Mystery Babylon False Christ,
are available or will soon be converted to HTML text,
which is easily able to navigate. You can go to
Bible prophecytext dot com. This is me just mentioning that
the website is not quite done or anything. Sorry, Eric,
(27:24):
But yeah, so you can go there and look at
this information on the Islamic anti Christ thing, because I
go into a lot more detail than I'm going to
go into now. If this is a view that you
hold and you want to know all the details of this,
go check that out or just get my book Islamic
Antichrist Debunked from Amazon or something like that. But anyway,
so in that view back in Daniel two, they say
(27:48):
that Babylon, that the statue is Babylon meto perject Greece
and the Islamic Empire. Now Here they're specific the Islamic
Empire from six thirty two eighty to nineteen twenty three
or something like that. And you know, I go through
my book and all the different reasons why that's bad,
But I think one of the big ones is why
skip Rome? You know, in every other scenario, especially in
(28:11):
that one in Daniel two, they seem to be nations
that conquered one another another, Right, Meto Persia conquered Babylon,
Greece conquered Meto Persia, and then where's Rome that's supposed
to conquer Greece. They just skipped Rome altogether. It makes
no sense to skip Rome. There, at least Daniel eight
skipping Rome and just ending it. This one just skips
(28:35):
it and appends another less important empire to it, because
I would say, I mean, the importance is less about
what I think about the Islamic Empire, but more about
in terms of prophecy. Because Daniel's focus was essentially pre
seventy a d. We have a big prophetic gap from
seventy a d onward to the start of the seventieth
(28:55):
week whenever that starts, in which the Bible is more
or less unconcerned with the Empire's rise and fall in
that period. I mean, the British Empire or whatever is
not a concern to the Bible, because it almost seems
to be about the control of the Temple, at least
that's the way that Daniel nine seems to suggest. It's
really the story of the Temple of which stopped in
(29:16):
seventy eight and became and everything essentially becomes irrelevant until
it is built again at the beginning of the seventieth week.
But nevertheless, so why skip Rome? Joel says we should
skip Rome? It doesn't matter that we skip Rome because
he says, what about and I'm talking about Joe Richardson,
the writer of Islamic Antichrist books. He says, what about
the Parthians? For example? There was a Parthian empire that
(29:38):
we skipped. But that's a really bad argument because wasn't
you know, Parthia wasn't a world empire. It didn't conquer
the one proceeding in. It didn't conquer Greece, it didn't
conquer Rome or whatever. It sort of overlapped both of them, actually,
and it never controlled Israel, which I think again might
be the thing that connects some of those other empires.
(29:58):
But Parthians were just they're not even in the same
ballpark of this. So saying well, it's okay to skip
Rome because you didn't mention the Parthians, well, that's not
even in the same ballpark. Interestingly, Joel does include in
Revelation seventeen in his list Rome there after Greece, but
there it's because he has to, because it says five
(30:20):
of fallen one is and if he wants to remain consistent,
he has to make Rome follow Greece there, but he
doesn't have it follow it here. So anyway, I would
say that's a big problem with that. And Daniel seven,
he says that again he kind of takes the same view.
It's the same thing Babylon, Medo, Persia, Greece, and the
Islamic Empire. Again, why skip Rome here? Why just depend
(30:44):
the Islamic Empire there? Joel says, in this case it
was more destructive than the Romans, because if you in
Daniel seven, it talks about the beasts having iron teeth
and destroying empires and whatever. And Joel says, well, the
Roman Empire wasn't all that destructive, you know, And again,
I mean that's a kind of subject thing to say, obviously,
Rome was incredibly destructive. It wiped entire cities off the
(31:04):
map and entire people off the map. It was brutal.
The quote from you know they they they create a
wasteland and call it peace. Yeah, both empires were similar
in the sense that they preferred not to destroy people.
They preferred to incorporate them into the empire and use
their resources, et cetera, getting paying taxes. But they also
(31:26):
destroyed them when they when they you know, so if
you want to do a body count, I'm not sure
who would win or who even has those numbers. But
to say, to say, to defend the idea that we're
skipping Greece, even though it's obvious that that's the way
that the Bible is doing this in other places. What
empire is conquering another empire, Daniel, it's a really good
example of that, right, the Meto Persians. Greece conquered the
(31:48):
Meto Persians. Which is why they would be following one
another in this list, is that one conquers the other.
The same thing with the Babylon Meto Persia. I think
that's explicit. And Daniel two, right that the Meto Persians
conquered Babylon, which is why they're the next metal on
the statue. So there's this great precedent of that. So
to skip Rome and say that's okay because Rome wasn't
all that destructive. Or then his next thing, he says
(32:10):
here Rome wasn't as blasphemous as the Islamic Empire because
the blasphemy has brought out in Daniel seven about this
last beast, and he says, wasn't all that blasphemis you know,
the Islamic Empire was more blasphemous, So that's therefore it's
a better fit. And again I think that's kind of subjective.
You might even be able to make a case of
the Islamic Empire is more blasphemous, but you wouldn't be
able to make the case of the Roman Empire wasn't blasphemous. Certainly,
(32:33):
a deification of the emperors was a integral part of
the Roman system, not to mention all the pagan gods
and the pagan worship and the sacrifice that they did
and required in terms of the citizens of the Rome.
That it is to say the pinch of incense, and
that's to say nothing of the aberind things that the
people like Nero who were particularly blasphemous and killed a
(32:54):
lot of Christians, et cetera. But in any case, it's
like a shade of gray and just say one is
less blasphemous than the other. Therefore that's why it's okay
to It's not as though he's just choosing another one
out of a hat. He's saying he's getting rid of
a really well established reason for one to come after
the other, and saying, well, we know in history that
(33:15):
the Islamic Empire did not come after Greece. Rome did,
so you got to have a better reason than well,
Rome wasn't as blasphemous as the Islamic Empire. That just
doesn't do it. But the real problem with this, and
where you really know that he's got a bad interpretation here,
is in Revelation seventeen, and I'd say that you applies
to me too. Basically, every everybody that has an interpretation
(33:36):
here usually has to pay up in Revelation seventeen, it
just so happens that the Islamic Antichrist situation ends up
paying a higher bill than others do. So in Revelation seventeen,
the five that have fallen one is et cetera. They
would say is Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo, Persia, Greece. Rome
is the one that is, and the Islamic Empire is
(33:59):
the one that's going to come. And then they have
another revived Islamic Empire, so they have one more empire
than pretty much any view, which I just it just
doesn't work in the text. I'll talk about that in
a minute. But you can see, on the one hand,
they're basically doing the same thing that the others are doing.
They're adding Egypt in Assyria out of nowhere. They have
(34:20):
divorced this from Daniel seven like the others do. This
can't be the same thing as Daniel seven because Egypt
and Assyria are involved. But in the Islamic Empire case,
if you saw what he did here, he says, the
one that is is Rome. We talked about he has
to do that here. That's kind of what messed him
up in Daniel seven. But he says, the one that
(34:43):
is is Rome, the one that Let me read what
the text says first, This calls for a mind with wisdom.
The seven heads or seven mountains on which the woman
is seated. There are also seven kings, five of whom
have fallen. One is that is Rome, and the other
has not yet come. But when he does come, he
(35:05):
must remain only a little while, only a little while.
The one that comes after Rome has not yet come,
but when it does come, it must remain only a
little while. In Joel's case, the Islamic Empire comes next,
which lasted for thirteen hundred years. That is longer than Babylon, Medo, Persia,
(35:28):
probably Assyria combined. It's definitely one of the longest reigning
empires in the history of the world. That does not
fit of a little time. And remember, he's got one
after that. He would like the revived Islamic Empire. He
could say that one might be a little time, but
that's not what the tech says. The tech says one is,
the other has not yet come. When he does come,
(35:49):
he must remain only a little while. That has to
be the one that comes after Rome. And that's why
most views have the revived Roman Empire next. They're not
adding another empire that needs to get revived later. They're
putting the revived thing after the one that is. The
next one after Rome has to be the one that
lasts a short time, So it goes five that have fallen,
(36:13):
one is and the Antichrist kingdom later on. So whatever
is past the one is has to be the one
that remains a short time. I eat Antichrist kingdom. You
can't just shoehorn another thirteen hundred years in there. Anyway.
I go through more stuff on that in the book
about why I think it goes against the pronouns and
the angels interpretation and everything in this passage. I think
(36:34):
that the speaking of the eighth, and when he's of
the seven but is of the eighth, is speaking of
the Antichrist himself and his resurrection. Which I think couldn't
be any more clear. Again, that's in the book. It's
in the If you go to Bible prophecy text dot com,
where I have all my books for free, you can
read all about it there. I talked you a little
bit about it in the last podcast. But that's actually
(36:56):
an interesting thing. I think this is very heavy on
the mortal wound that the head of the beast gets,
or one of the heads of the beast gets. That's
reiterated several times in this passage. Really all throughout the
Book of Revelation. He had the wound by the sword
and did live, and various other aspects of the one
that is and was and is not, et cetera. I
(37:18):
would say that that has to be a reference to
the Antichrist himself. And it actually brought up an interesting point,
specifically with Joel Richardson, because in order to get to
this he has to completely divorce. I talked about this
with the other revived Roman empires. They'll at least admit, well,
it has to be the resurrection, or at least a
fake resurrection, or give some lip service to that in
Revelation thirteen. And yes it causes them problems when they
(37:41):
get here to Revelation seventeen, but they still don't just
say it doesn't exist. Joel Richardson, in his latest books,
has said it doesn't exist. He basically says, you know,
which is interesting because in his first book, The Islamic Antichrist,
he had took the view that yes, the in Revelation thirteen,
(38:02):
the Deadly Wound of the Beast's head was talking about
the Antichrist. But he says that, well, it can't be
the resurrection because Satan can't raise the dead or whatever,
so it has to be some kind of fake resurrection,
and he sort of taught that version of it, but
in the new version of it, he completely just says
that none of that stuff even happens. That's all about nations.
(38:24):
Not even one iota of this is about a person.
It's all about nations. And I get it now why
he had to do that, because it's to try to
make Revelation seventeen fit with this whole thing. It has
to not be about a person, which is really difficult
when you read any of this, because number one, the
Angel says these are seven kings, and then it goes
(38:46):
on to say he he the ten or the it's
talking about a person. And yes, I get that, it's
talking about sometimes kings and kingdoms, and some of that
is to be understood that way. As I've argued in
the last part, I don't think you can get away
with being taken a hard stance on everything means king
and everything means kingdom, and this one you have to
(39:07):
be fluid on it. But you can't do the reverse
of it either. You can't say, well, this is just
kingdom is not kings, especially when the Bible rebukes you
and the Angel tells you these are kings and then
goes on to describe them as human pronouns. It's not
as though the Bible is, even in revelation, isn't capable
of talking about something in the it pronoun to give
(39:28):
you more of the nation sense of it. But it
also has a very specific time when it starts to
use pronouns in terms of he does as he does this.
He does this to make you think, hey, this has
to be reasonably a human because of the pronoun situation anyway,
So I don't think that's a good way to do
this either. So I have to say this, though, I
(39:51):
think that I am softening on some of the aspects
of the traditional view, specifically of Daniel two and Daniel
SI and I want to talk at length about Daniel
two when we get to it and when I do
a podcast on that, because I think there are some
pros to it. There are some interesting things that absolutely
have to be considered, things that I don't think are
(40:13):
being talked as much about. And I like the idea
of just going into this completely fresh, just don't have
a single dog in the fight, and see where it leads.
Thanks for listening. If you want to support this ministry.
The best way to do so is by supporting the
orphanage and Kenya that my ministry, Chris White Ministries, has
(40:33):
committed to helping called Joyful Heart's Home and Care. You
can see the progress that we're making at joyfulheartshome dot com,
which is linked in the show notes of this podcast,
where you can see the impact that we're making every week.
Your donations have a large impact, which again you can
follow at joyfulheartshome dot com and donations are tax deductible.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
Hi, everybody to me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell him, 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.
(41:22):
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
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.