The Wild Beast has both a Name & Number. Do you know what the NAME is? (page 20)

gumby

Schizm....you irritating bastard. Everytime I think of you I think of a 60 year old lookin like this here

AuldSoul

The truth of the matter is that if the name were meant to refer to the woman, then the Bible would indeed be inconsistent.

And this must be "the truth of the matter" because you believe it. As you have capably demonstrated, that is the only reason it must be true.

Your insinuation that the Bible is inconsistent, unless in every case it specifically states who the name on a person's forehead belongs to, is totally false.

I didn't insinuate anything. "Insinuate" is a word in the English language that has meaning. It means inferring or conveying (subtly or gradually) without overt statement. I directly stated my point. You missed my point, even though directly stated. Let me try again:

If the name does not belong to the person who bears it, the Bible makes that fact clear in every instance. The Bible further makes it clear to whom the name does belong. Now, if you can find any exception to that rule OTHER than the one you are trying to stretch all out of shape in this thread, I will happily eat my words.

If you don't comprehend English and you don't understand Greek, on what basis should anyone have confidence that you have correct comprehension of this passage? Especially since your view differs with every translation I know of.

AuldSoul

Jeffro

Schizm

Firstly I will point out that your sarcasm has very rapidly raised its ugly head again. I thought you were going to make more of an effort.

Naw ... tell me it isn't so! You mean you're actually making an admission of having changed the text around? Well blow me down, Popeye! I suppose that what you're gonna tell me now is that someone's rewording of the original text is fine and dandy, as long as it's done within the limits YOU stipulate.

Do you seriously think that changing "the forehead of her" to "her forehead" and "name having been written" to "was written a name" alters the meaning one iota? In any case, it is not my alteration, but that of translators of almost every translation that make such simple adjustments to clarify the English reading, and regarding which there is absolutely no dispute.

You have added in "Yes....," which finds no support in the original text.
And YOU added in "was" and "a," which finds no support in the original text. ; And besides that, you took out "the," "of," "having" and "been," which finds no support in the original text.

Despite the misleading quote, you didn't add just "yes" but an entire additional phrase: "Yes, that was the name inscribed upon the forehead of she who". Saying that "the forehead of her" means "her forehead" does indeed find support in the original text, as does saying that "name having been written" means "was written a name". These are very simple matters of basic translation, and are in no way the same as taking liberties such as you have done in introducing an entire additional phrase where not even the necessary connectives are present in the original language.

Furthermore, the woman is sitting on the beast which suggests dominance
Say's who?

Are you suggesting that it does not? Shall I follow your example and pick some other scriptures from the bible where someone is on an animal indicating that the animal is subject to them? That is hardly necessary, as it is obvious.

It's quite obvious that you have a hearing problem.

Now I have a hearing problem? You really aren't trying at all are you?

AuldSoul

Furthermore, the woman is sitting on the beast which suggests dominance

Say's who?

[sarcasm on]
Ah, now it all comes clear! The four horses of the apocalypse are the real problem, not the riders seated on them. And the thrones are the important thing, they have the power in the scenes where Kings sit on them.
[sarcasm off]

Revelation 17:9,18 — “Here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. 18 And the woman whom you saw means the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.”

Says the Bible, genius.

AuldSoul

Schizm

Revelation 17:9,18 — “Here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. 18 And the woman whom you saw means the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.”

Says the Bible, genius.
AuldSoul

The "woman" (harlot) represents Christendom, and her alone. The beast she sits upon represents a future one-world government. The "kings of the earth" (aka 10 horns) refer to all the world's governments in that future day, all of which will have submitted to the newly formed 8th King. These "10 horns" are shown to have relinquished their sovereignties to the 8th King, as indicated by the fact that they no longer sport the diadems that each horn once possessed (compare Re 13 with Re 17).

Who is it then that LITERALLY has a a kingdom over the kings of the earth? Why, it's the newly formed 8th King, of course! But yet, as you've so lovingly pointed out, the Bible says that the harlot (aka "the great city"; Christendom) has a "kingdom over the kings of the earth". Given the proveable fact that the 10 horns will have subjugated themselves to the 8th King, in what sense then does the harlot have a "kingdom" over them? For the reason explained, this "kingdom" of her's cannot be a literal kingdom. Therefore, it must be in a SPIRITUAL sense that the harlot has such a "kingdom". Her "kingdom," therefore, must symbolize to the powerful religious influence she has upon the 10 horns.

And so does the harlot's "sitting" upon the beast suggest that she dominates the beast itself, as has been suggested? Why, of course not! Why not? Because her "kingdom" is said to be over the 10 horns, not over the beast (the 8th King).

Schizm

.

LittleToe

Are you really saying that we have to ignore John's words to the people of his day where he stated "let the reader use discernment"?

It would be ludicrous to imagine that there wasn't a contemporary interpretation to what John was writing (regardless of whether you want to extrapolate a future" interpretation, or not).

There's a difficulty with that interpretation, mainly being that in John's day "Christendom" had no such allegence to Rome - in fact Christians were being persecuted, hence his incarceration.

That leaves the question; what did the beast and the harlot represent at the end of the first century AD?

jeanniebeanz

Sorry, this picture fits in this thread too, and I couldn't resist... lol

Rook

Called a "Man" : meaning, possibly, a set of Men; or, an Institution headed by a man or a set of Men. It seems to mean a name, the letters of which, when regarded as numerals, total 666.

Irenaeus, a pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John, understood the 666 to be the Greek word "Lateinos": I,10: N,50:, O,70: S,200. These total 666.

"Lateinos" means "Latin Kingdom." Papal Rome made Latin its official language. And it still is. Rome's canons, missals, prayers, decrees, bulls, blessings, cursings, are in LATIN.

Schizm

LittleToe,

You aren't even in the ballgame, man!

You desperately need to become educated. You have slept way too long and it's time you awaken from your slumber. Until you do, your brain will remain in your little toe.

Schizm

.

The Wild Beast has both a Name & Number. Do you know what the NAME is?

Share this