False Prophet & Wild Beast

[Marque100]

False Prophet & Wild Beast from the book of Revelation.

From my reading (and re-reading) of the scriptures, it seems to me that the false prophet and wild beast mentioned in the book of Revelation are both men.

False Prophet – Powerful religious leader with supernatural powers.

Wild Beast – Powerful king of world government.

A number of different Bible translations such as the KJV, will use the words He, Him & His, whenever the scriptures mention the wild beast or false prophet. The NWT mostly uses the word "It or its" when referring to these two, although the NWT does use the word "He" at Revelation 19:20 and at Revelation 17:10.

Revelation 19:20 – "And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who render worship to its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulphur." – (NWT)

Revelation 17:10-11 – "And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while. 11 And the wild beast that was but is not, it is also itself an eighth king, but springs from the seven, and it goes off into destruction." – (NWT)

Revelation 16:13 – "And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet."

Revelation 13:18 – "Here is where wisdom comes in: Let the one that has intelligence calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a man's number; and his/its number is six hundred and sixty-six." (KJV/NWT)


The wild beast appears to have a number of different labels throughout the Bible, such as "Eighth King", "Man of Lawlessness or Man of Sin", "Son of Destruction or Son of Perdition", "Idol Shepherd or Valueless Shepherd", "King of Fierce Countenance", "Wicked Chieftain or Wicked Prince of Israel", "The Assyrian", "Antichrist".

Revelation 17:10-11 appears to indicate that the seventh and eighth kings are of the same person. Even though the seventh and eighth kings are the same person there is obviously a big difference in how he behaves . There are a number of scriptures that show that the "wild beast" gets badly injured, but survives –it could be like a counterfeit resurrection, imitating that of Jesus and because he revives from what appears to have been a fatal wound (assassination attempt?), people of the world are astonished and begin to follow him, believing that he is someone special. Perhaps this has an effect on his personality and makes him think he is invincible, like a god, this is when the false prophet gets men to make an image to the wild beast and worship him as though he is a god.

Revelation 13:12 – "... to worship the first beast whose deadly wound was healed"

Revelation 13:3 – "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration."

Ezekiel 21:25 -27 – "And as for you, O deadly wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel whose day has come in the time of the error of the end, 26 this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, 'Remove the turban and lift of the crown. This will not be the same. Put the high even that is low, and bring low even the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one's until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him.' – (NWT)

Daniel 8:24 – "...And in a wonderful way he will cause ruin (A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it), And he will actually bring mighty ones to ruin (bring low even the high one)."

Zechariah 11:17 – "Woe to my valueless shepherd who is leaving the flock! A sword will be upon his arm and upon his right eye. His own arm will without fail dry up, and his own right eye will without fail grow dim."

Revelation 13:14 – "... make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword and did live"

Jesus even hints that some man/impostor would come and claim to be the saviour and be welcomed by most.


"I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" - John 5:43

[Marque100]

False Prophet & Wild Beast from the book of Revelation.

From my reading (and re-reading) of the scriptures, it seems to me that the false prophet and wild beast mentioned in the book of Revelation are both men.

False Prophet – Powerful religious leader with supernatural powers.

Wild Beast – Powerful king of world government.

A number of different Bible translations such as the KJV, will use the words He, Him & His, whenever the scriptures mention the wild beast or false prophet. The NWT mostly uses the word "It or its" when referring to these two, although the NWT does use the word "He" at Revelation 19:20 and at Revelation 17:10.

Revelation 19:20 – "And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who render worship to its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulphur." – (NWT)

Revelation 17:10-11 – "And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while. 11 And the wild beast that was but is not, it is also itself an eighth king, but springs from the seven, and it goes off into destruction." – (NWT)

Revelation 16:13 – "And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet."

Revelation 13:18 – "Here is where wisdom comes in: Let the one that has intelligence calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a man's number; and his/its number is six hundred and sixty-six." (KJV/NWT)


The wild beast appears to have a number of different labels throughout the Bible, such as "Eighth King", "Man of Lawlessness or Man of Sin", "Son of Destruction or Son of Perdition", "Idol Shepherd or Valueless Shepherd", "King of Fierce Countenance", "Wicked Chieftain or Wicked Prince of Israel", "The Assyrian", "Antichrist".

Revelation 17:10-11 appears to indicate that the seventh and eighth kings are of the same person. Even though the seventh and eighth kings are the same person there is obviously a big difference in how he behaves . There are a number of scriptures that show that the "wild beast" gets badly injured, but survives –it could be like a counterfeit resurrection, imitating that of Jesus and because he revives from what appears to have been a fatal wound (assassination attempt?), people of the world are astonished and begin to follow him, believing that he is someone special. Perhaps this has an effect on his personality and makes him think he is invincible, like a god, this is when the false prophet gets men to make an image to the wild beast and worship him as though he is a god.

Revelation 13:12 – "... to worship the first beast whose deadly wound was healed"

Revelation 13:3 – "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration."

Ezekiel 21:25 -27 – "And as for you, O deadly wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel whose day has come in the time of the error of the end, 26 this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, 'Remove the turban and lift of the crown. This will not be the same. Put the high even that is low, and bring low even the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one's until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him.' – (NWT)

Daniel 8:24 – "...And in a wonderful way he will cause ruin (A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it), And he will actually bring mighty ones to ruin (bring low even the high one)."

Zechariah 11:17 – "Woe to my valueless shepherd who is leaving the flock! A sword will be upon his arm and upon his right eye. His own arm will without fail dry up, and his own right eye will without fail grow dim."

Revelation 13:14 – "... make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword and did live"

Jesus even hints that some man/impostor would come and claim to be the saviour and be welcomed by most.


"I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" - John 5:43[/b]
Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuua0siq168
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kue6aNMlT_E

* Christianity will be discredited and Christians will become accursed. They are to be branded an ignorant and inferior human species. * A planetary crisis will be precipitated by Satan's human world leaders. Out of this crisis will come the opportunity for the New Age Kingdom to be realized. * A great world leader and statesman will then appear to bring order to chaos. He will be Satan's hand-picked man: the Beast, or Antichrist, with the number 666. * New Age leaders, especially those who control the world's TV and radio broadcast media, will mount a tremendously powerful campaign on behalf of this World Leader, causing all the world to believe in his perfection and infallibility. * After assuming the reins of power, the great World Leader will usher in a period of universal peace and prosperity. His magnetism and charisma will enable him to establish himself at the helm of a One World Government, One World Economy, and a One World New Age Religion. * Consolidating all power and might, the great World Leader will finger Christians and Jews as "public enemies" who are a constant danger to world peace, justice, and sharing. The arrest and imprisonment of Christians will commence. All the world will applaud their persecution. * Every man, woman, and child who has not yet been initiated into the Mystery of Iniquity will take a mark and receive the "Luciferic Initiation." They will then discover the awful truth, but it will be far too late. Their fate will have been sealed. * All who refuse the mark and the "Luciferic Initiation" and who refuse to worship the image of the Beast will be put to death. * The whole world will be deluged with Satan's demons, who will eagerly and hungrily possess human bodies. * After the whole world has been conquered, Satan's final treacherous act will be to assault the very gates of heaven.

Those familiar with the Bible will recognize that all of the Devil's Plan except the last will substantially succeed. There will be a one world government under the direct authority of the Antichrist. There will be horrible persecution of Christians, and the entire world will be forced to receive the mark of the Beast or be killed.
-----

[watchman]

The Bible refers to kingdoms as kings. That is because traditionally individual kings ruled the kingdom. For example, Sennacharib, the king of Assyria; Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon; Cyrus, the king of Persia; Alexander, the king of Greece, etc, etc. However, those various empires were larger than the individual monarchs that once ruled them. In modern times the British Empire is ruled over by Queen Elizabeth but her immediate domain is called the United Kingdom. Obviously, though, the United Kingdom has existed longer than any single king or queen that has ruled over it. But that is why the Bible refers to those kingdoms as individual kings. On the other had, you are over looking the fact that Daniel and Revelation also refer to the wild beast as an "it" and as a kingdom, and not always as "he" or as a king. For example, Revelation 16:10 states: "And the fifth one poured out his bowl upon the throne of the wild beast. And its kingdom became darkened..."

The same is true of God's kingdom. Christ of course is the King, and it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the kingdom of Christ. However, there are numerous other kings that sit on thrones in Christ's kingdom with whom he will share power. So, even the kingdom of Christ is not a one-man-show, so to speak.

watchman

[Marque100]

The Bible refers to kingdoms as kings. That is because traditionally individual kings ruled the kingdom. For example, Sennacharib, the king of Assyria; Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon; Cyrus, the king of Persia; Alexander, the king of Greece, etc, etc. However, those various empires were larger than the individual monarchs that once ruled them. In modern times the British Empire is ruled over by Queen Elizabeth but her immediate domain is called the United Kingdom. Obviously, though, the United Kingdom has existed longer than any single king or queen that has ruled over it. But that is why the Bible refers to those kingdoms as individual kings. On the other had, you are over looking the fact that Daniel and Revelation also refer to the wild beast as an "it" and as a kingdom, and not always as "he" or as a king. For example, Revelation 16:10 states: "And the fifth one poured out his bowl upon the throne of the wild beast. And its kingdom became darkened..."

The same is true of God's kingdom. Christ of course is the King, and it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the kingdom of Christ. However, there are numerous other kings that sit on thrones in Christ's kingdom with whom he will share power. So, even the kingdom of Christ is not a one-man-show, so to speak.

watchman[/b]

King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain.."

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/16.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain.."

Bible in Basic English (http://basicenglishbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth let what was in his vessel come out on the high seat of the beast; and his kingdom was made dark; and they were biting their tongues for pain..."

NWT = "IT or ITS" = ambiguous
KJV(+OTHERS) = "HE, HIM, HIS" = unambiguous

What is the reason for the NWT choice of translation with these words.

L.

[Utuna]

---------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton</span>

[Marque100]

---------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton</span>
[/b]

Here it is. It&#39;s very simple.

Ambiguous -Vs- Unambiguous

"He, His, Him" = "A Man" = "Unambiguous" = "Painless"

"IT, ITs" = "Make up whatever you like" = "Ambiguous" = "Migraine"

[Earthbound]

King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/16.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his

Bible in Basic English (http://basicenglishbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth let what was in his vessel come out on the high seat of the beast; and his kingdom was made dark; and they were biting their tongues for pain..."

NWT = "IT or ITS" = ambiguous
KJV(+OTHERS) = "HE, HIM, HIS" = unambiguous

What is the reason for the NWT choice of translation with these words.

L.

Here it is. It&#39;s very simple.

Ambiguous -Vs- Unambiguous

"He, His, Him" = "A Man" = "Unambiguous" = "Painless"

"IT, ITs" = "Make up whatever you like" = "Ambiguous" = "Migraine"[/b]


ambiguous. adj. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=ambiguous&search=search)

Whether one uses "He, His, Him," or "It, Its" they all are ambiguous, and subject to several possible means or interpretations (or applications, I might add).

Therefore, why the protest?

-=Earthbound=-

[Marque100]

<div class='quotemain'>
King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/16.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his

Bible in Basic English (http://basicenglishbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth let what was in his vessel come out on the high seat of the beast; and his kingdom was made dark; and they were biting their tongues for pain..."

NWT = "IT or ITS" = ambiguous
KJV(+OTHERS) = "HE, HIM, HIS" = unambiguous

What is the reason for the NWT choice of translation with these words.

L.

Here it is. It&#39;s very simple.

Ambiguous -Vs- Unambiguous

"He, His, Him" = "A Man" = "Unambiguous" = "Painless"

"IT, ITs" = "Make up whatever you like" = "Ambiguous" = "Migraine"[/b]


ambiguous. adj. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=ambiguous&search=search)

Whether one uses "He, His, Him," or "It, Its" they all are ambiguous, and subject to several possible means or interpretations (or applications, I might add).

Therefore, why the protest?

-=Earthbound=-
[/b][/quote]

I know what ambiguous means just as I know the meaning of unambiguous.

Unambiguous Adjective"having a clear meaning which can only be interpreted in one way"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

"HE" is very clear in interpretation. That is why it&#39;s painless. I just think - "I get it! that scripture is referring to a human, a MAN"

Trying to interpret "IT" just fills my head with ????????????????????? that&#39;s why I get a migraine.

Back to the dictionary:
"HE"
a. Used to refer to the man or boy previously mentioned or implied.b. Used to refer to a male animal.
"HIM"
refers to a male person or animal

"HIS"
belonging to a male person already spoken about

.

[Earthbound]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>
King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/16.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his

Bible in Basic English (http://basicenglishbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth let what was in his vessel come out on the high seat of the beast; and his kingdom was made dark; and they were biting their tongues for pain..."

NWT = "IT or ITS" = ambiguous
KJV(+OTHERS) = "HE, HIM, HIS" = unambiguous

What is the reason for the NWT choice of translation with these words.

L.

Here it is. It&#39;s very simple.

Ambiguous -Vs- Unambiguous

"He, His, Him" = "A Man" = "Unambiguous" = "Painless"

"IT, ITs" = "Make up whatever you like" = "Ambiguous" = "Migraine"[/b]


ambiguous. adj. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=ambiguous&search=search)

Whether one uses "He, His, Him," or "It, Its" they all are ambiguous, and subject to several possible means or interpretations (or applications, I might add).

Therefore, why the protest?

-=Earthbound=-
[/b][/quote]

I know what ambiguous means just as I know the meaning of unambiguous.

Unambiguous Adjective"having a clear meaning which can only be interpreted in one way"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

"HE" is very clear in interpretation. That is why it&#39;s painless. I just think - "I get it! that scripture is referring to a human, a MAN"

Trying to interpret "IT" just fills my head with ????????????????????? that&#39;s why I get a migraine.

Back to the dictionary:
"HE"
a. Used to refer to the man or boy previously mentioned or implied.b. Used to refer to a male animal.
"HIM"
refers to a male person or animal

"HIS"
belonging to a male person already spoken about

.
[/b][/quote]


"He" is a pronoun, and therefore is non-specific. In other words, "he" could be you, me, John Doe, or any other male being. It can also be used in reference to an individual OR a group of persons, especially in prophetic usage. However, it remains an ambiguous term, and therefore is no different than if someone used "it." "It" can be that object, this object, that thing, or this thing. It, too, remains an ambiguous term.

Unambiguous would be if the Bible said "he" was the King of the North. That would be unambiguous. Further, if the Bible said that "he" was the King of the North (unambiguous) AND "his" name was "John" that would be even more unambiguous.

Same with "it."

To make matters worse, Greek does not use "articles" like we do in the English language, so there is no inarguable way to say that a given passage refers to a man or the man. Again, clearly ambiguous.

Why so much protest over what amounts to semantics? (You say pah-tay-toe and I say pah-tah-toe, but it&#39;s still a spud.)

-=Earthbound=-

[Marque100]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>
King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/16.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his

Bible in Basic English (http://basicenglishbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth let what was in his vessel come out on the high seat of the beast; and his kingdom was made dark; and they were biting their tongues for pain..."

NWT = "IT or ITS" = ambiguous
KJV(+OTHERS) = "HE, HIM, HIS" = unambiguous

What is the reason for the NWT choice of translation with these words.

L.

Here it is. It&#39;s very simple.

Ambiguous -Vs- Unambiguous

"He, His, Him" = "A Man" = "Unambiguous" = "Painless"

"IT, ITs" = "Make up whatever you like" = "Ambiguous" = "Migraine"[/b]


ambiguous. adj. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=ambiguous&search=search)

Whether one uses "He, His, Him," or "It, Its" they all are ambiguous, and subject to several possible means or interpretations (or applications, I might add).

Therefore, why the protest?

-=Earthbound=-
[/b][/quote]

I know what ambiguous means just as I know the meaning of unambiguous.

Unambiguous Adjective"having a clear meaning which can only be interpreted in one way"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

"HE" is very clear in interpretation. That is why it&#39;s painless. I just think - "I get it! that scripture is referring to a human, a MAN"

Trying to interpret "IT" just fills my head with ????????????????????? that&#39;s why I get a migraine.

Back to the dictionary:
"HE"
a. Used to refer to the man or boy previously mentioned or implied.b. Used to refer to a male animal.
"HIM"
refers to a male person or animal

"HIS"
belonging to a male person already spoken about

.
[/b][/quote]


"He" is a pronoun, and therefore is non-specific. In other words, "he" could be you, me, John Doe, or any other male being. It can also be used in reference to an individual OR a group of persons, especially in prophetic usage. However, it remains an ambiguous term, and therefore is no different than if someone used "it." "It" can be that object, this object, that thing, or this thing. It, too, remains an ambiguous term.

Unambiguous would be if the Bible said "he" was the King of the North. That would be unambiguous. Further, if the Bible said that "he" was the King of the North (unambiguous) AND "his" name was "John" that would be even more unambiguous.

Same with "it."

To make matters worse, Greek does not use "articles" like we do in the English language, so there is no inarguable way to say that a given passage refers to a man or the man. Again, clearly ambiguous.

Why so much protest over what amounts to semantics? (You say pah-tay-toe and I say pah-tah-toe, but it&#39;s still a spud.)

-=Earthbound=-
[/b][/quote]

OK, but what is the first thing someone thinks of when they read the word "he" and what is the first thing someone thinks of when they read the word "it" - will they say "Spud" for both?

.

[Earthbound]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>
King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his

New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/revelation/16.htm) (©1995) (http://www.lockman.org/)
"Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his

Bible in Basic English (http://basicenglishbible.com/revelation/16.htm)
"And the fifth let what was in his vessel come out on the high seat of the beast; and his kingdom was made dark; and they were biting their tongues for pain..."

NWT = "IT or ITS" = ambiguous
KJV(+OTHERS) = "HE, HIM, HIS" = unambiguous

What is the reason for the NWT choice of translation with these words.

L.

Here it is. It&#39;s very simple.

Ambiguous -Vs- Unambiguous

"He, His, Him" = "A Man" = "Unambiguous" = "Painless"

"IT, ITs" = "Make up whatever you like" = "Ambiguous" = "Migraine"[/b]


ambiguous. adj. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=ambiguous&search=search)

Whether one uses "He, His, Him," or "It, Its" they all are ambiguous, and subject to several possible means or interpretations (or applications, I might add).

Therefore, why the protest?

-=Earthbound=-
[/b][/quote]

I know what ambiguous means just as I know the meaning of unambiguous.

Unambiguous Adjective"having a clear meaning which can only be interpreted in one way"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

"HE" is very clear in interpretation. That is why it&#39;s painless. I just think - "I get it! that scripture is referring to a human, a MAN"

Trying to interpret "IT" just fills my head with ????????????????????? that&#39;s why I get a migraine.

Back to the dictionary:
"HE"
a. Used to refer to the man or boy previously mentioned or implied.b. Used to refer to a male animal.
"HIM"
refers to a male person or animal

"HIS"
belonging to a male person already spoken about

.
[/b][/quote]


"He" is a pronoun, and therefore is non-specific. In other words, "he" could be you, me, John Doe, or any other male being. It can also be used in reference to an individual OR a group of persons, especially in prophetic usage. However, it remains an ambiguous term, and therefore is no different than if someone used "it." "It" can be that object, this object, that thing, or this thing. It, too, remains an ambiguous term.

Unambiguous would be if the Bible said "he" was the King of the North. That would be unambiguous. Further, if the Bible said that "he" was the King of the North (unambiguous) AND "his" name was "John" that would be even more unambiguous.

Same with "it."

To make matters worse, Greek does not use "articles" like we do in the English language, so there is no inarguable way to say that a given passage refers to a man or the man. Again, clearly ambiguous.

Why so much protest over what amounts to semantics? (You say pah-tay-toe and I say pah-tah-toe, but it&#39;s still a spud.)

-=Earthbound=-
[/b][/quote]

OK, but what is the first thing someone thinks of when they read the word "he" and what is the first thing someone thinks of when they read the word "it" - will they say "Spud" for both?

.
[/b][/quote]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that they are likely to think that the pronoun being used is far less important than the thing being referenced (Seriously, did early Christians really fret over which Caesar sat on the throne of Rome when Rome dominated Israel? Further, will it really matter if we see John Doe&#39;s kingdom fulfill those scriptures you cited, or instead Alan Anyone&#39;s kingdom?).

Of course none of this takes into consideration the majority of evangelicals who have bought into the whole 666-Damien-AntiChrist drama that continues to be portrayed through novelisations in Christian bookstores and movies, where we will see a lone man gain world power and be the spawn of Satan, so to speak.

Is it "his kingdom" or "its kingdom"? It really doesn&#39;t matter, does it? It&#39;s not God&#39;s Kingdom, and that&#39;s the point. The Bible writers certainly didn&#39;t worry over the "who" much or they would have presented several things differently in their writings for us. They didn&#39;t know beyond knowing what they&#39;d been given, or fully understand it; and they handed that information off to us in the event that they didn&#39;t live to see those days that they foresaw, so that we would know beforehand and be ready. The who was far less of a worry than what would happen to Christians during that time. That was the core issue.

And that doesn&#39;t even get into the whole tendency we have towards anthropomorphism and how that affects our grasp of spiritual and heavenly things and how we relate using terms such as "he."

-=Earthbound=-

[Utuna]

"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton</span>

[Marque100]

"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton</span>
[/b]

OK, just don&#39;t be surprised if we soon get a modern day King Nebuchadnezzar (Schwarzenegger or Obama?) - whatever. Someone needs to be the leader of the UN&#39;s One World Government/Kingdom...

I&#39;m now going to lie down in a dark room for a few hours...I will then start on my new post "Mark of the Beast"....

.

[watchman]

I&#39;m now going to lie down in a dark room for a few hours...I will then start on my new post "Mark of the Beast"....

.[/b]

We&#39;ll look forward to it, if not for anything else but its entertainment value.

watchman

[Utuna]

"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton</span>

[Marque100]

"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton</span>
[/b]

Thanks, I will.