Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, Invicta said:

It was 10 tribes who conquered the empire not seven/

Well, history according to men is always skewed by men's agendas. From what I have read it was 7 and that is confirmed by several other sources. But I have little doubt that other books or websites would say 10, 11 or whatever.

IOWs: it is a junk-shoot which to believe. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
43 minutes ago, Invicta said:

It was 10 tribes who conquered the empire not seven/

What 10 tribes?

I've read many Dispensationalists claim Rome was never conquered and therefore technically still exists and will one day be revived.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The historian Machiavel without any reference to this prophecy gives the ten kingdoms as:

Lombards, Franks, Burgungians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Heruli, Sueves, Huns, Saxons. The horn which subdued the three kings is the papacy and the three kings he subdued were the Lombards, Visigoths and Sueves (Suabi)

Dan 7:24  And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
 

 

Edited by Invicta
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Invicta ; are you asking about Daniel 7:4 and Revelation 12:14 ? Please forgive me for not getting back sooner but there has been a lot of things happening around my home lately. I haven't even made a doctor's appointment for myself , my right shoulder is aching terribly. It's limiting my ability to do many things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Yes, some history lists them as kings. Kinda like the Irish kings of yore. But honest histories explain that those kings are actually the same as chieftains. Nomadic tribes took down the Roman Empire. Not kingdoms. The kingdoms came afterward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Yes, some history lists them as kings. Kinda like the Irish kings of yore. But honest histories explain that those kings are actually the same as chieftains. Nomadic tribes took down the Roman Empire. Not kingdoms. The kingdoms came afterward.

They set up kingdoms, for instance the Burgundians in France who still have a region named after them.  In the past their kingdom would have been much greater as there are many small towns and villages outside the region that bear the name Bourguignon (Burgundian)  Chieftains would be classed as kings in the bible/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

They set up kingdoms AFTER the fall of Rome.  They were NOT the 10 kings of prophecy. Particularly since a number of the tribes were offshoots of other tribes. It is assumption to claim that chieftains were the kings that the Bible prophesied. Especially since, when the prophecies took place, there were actual kings, not chieftains, ruling actual kingdoms, not family clans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Yes, they overthrew the Roman Empire. And THEN set up kingdoms. Most of them joined together to create the kingdoms (for example, the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes in Britain). They were not the 10 kingdoms of prophecy.  Depending on the historian, there were more than 10 tribes and less than 10 tribes. Tribes originated in family groups - not just dad and children, but also cousins, etc. Tribes joining together created kingdoms. As even you said, AFTER the overthrow (which came, in part, from several of the Germanic tribes integrating into Roman life - joining the army, learning to read and write, accepting much of the Roman religion, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Older historians instead of Anglo Saxons have Allens.  Of course Anglo Saxons were later. My Funk and Wagnell's says the Angles and Saxons came from around the same town in Saxony.  John says many antichrists have gone out from us, i.e. the church.  They were apostate Christians.  The papacy is the most apostate christian kingdom on earth.  The name should give you a clue, he was to be antichrist, or antichristian.  The papacy overthrew three of the 10 kingdoms  The Heruli under Odacer in 493,the Vandals in 534 and the Ostrogoths in 553, thus setting up the papal states over which he ruled as absolute dictator until 1870 when his dominion was taken away, Dan 7:27.  From that year the only possession he had was the Vatican Palace, where he sulked and refused to leave until Mussolini gave him Vatican city in the 1920s.  The next great event according to Dan. 7 is the saints taking the kingdom, showing that the end is near.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Sorry, but they were not the 10 kingdoms of prophecy.

Totally correct.Good post. The listing of any tribes, kingdoms, etc... throughout history is irrelevant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

No, we're not. Historians do not agree on the number of tribes that brought down the Roman Empire so there is no way to definitively quote one or two and say, Voila! Here's the answer!

You are trying to wrest clans and chieftains into kings and kingdoms to justify your belief that prophecy of Revelation has already taken place. It has not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Jutes helped settle Britain. That was part of the Roman Empire. And, yes, it is believed to have been. The Cimbri (whom Strabo claimed were Germanic but others believed were Celtic...) lived there and paid tribute to Augustus. Before the fall of Rome.

In point of fact, to highlight the disagreement amongst historians, some believed the Jutes to be the Geats of  Sweden, while others think they might have been Goths. Others believe them to have been associated with the Saxons. 

My point being: there were lots of different groups of people - more than 10 - who helped bring down the Roman Empire. None of them were established kingdoms. And historians cannot agree on the number because these peoples were nomadic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Jutes helped settle Britain. That was part of the Roman Empire. And, yes, it is believed to have been. The Cimbri (whom Strabo claimed were Germanic but others believed were Celtic...) lived there and paid tribute to Augustus.

That was later.  They came from Jutland. The Normans (Norsemen) settled in Britain, but they came from France where they settled from Northern Scandinavia   If I remember our history correctly, the Romans withdrew from Britain to concentrate their energies in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Yes,I know it was later. And, yes, the Jutes came from Jutland. Unless some historians are right and they came from Sweden. Mayhap the Jutes were a combination of Geats and Goths. :unsure:

 Britain was no longer part of the Empire after 410 (possibly 409). That has nothing to do with the fact that Angles, Saxons, and Jutes fought Rome and aided in its fall. And then went on to settle in Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Eric Stahl said:

The ten kings of the Iron beast will devour the whole earth with the antichrist by the middle of the tribulation see Daniel 7:23-24. This has not happened yet.

Do you know who these ten kings are and how they will accomplish this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, John81 said:

Do you know who these ten kings are and how they will accomplish this?

They will come to power with the antichrist after the rapture. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12 explains that God will cause the people that heard the truth of the gospel but rejected Jesus to believe the lie of the antichrist. God gives the crown to the antichrist who will ride the white horse in the 6th seal. The nations of the western powers who once believed in Jesus will follow the antichrist. NATO will be his army to devour the earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Eric Stahl said:

They will come to power with the antichrist after the rapture. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12 explains that God will cause the people that heard the truth of the gospel but rejected Jesus to believe the lie of the antichrist. God gives the crown to the antichrist who will ride the white horse in the 6th seal. The nations of the western powers who once believed in Jesus will follow the antichrist. NATO will be his army to devour the earth.

There are many more than ten formerly "Christian" nations in the West.

How can NATO, which is mostly America, devour the earth?

Just what does "devour the earth" mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, John81 said:

There are many more than ten formerly "Christian" nations in the West.

How can NATO, which is mostly America, devour the earth?

Just what does "devour the earth" mean?

When antichrist and the ten kings devour the whole earth 666 will become king of earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, John81 said:

So we don't know who the ten nations will be or if NATO will have anything to do with this?

Daniel 9:26 tells us the antichrist will come from Roman linage since Rome destroyed Jerusalem. We don't know the Kings but we know the 4th beast of Iron was Rome and it will be Rome and its colonies that first follow the antichrist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Who but Jesus knew this? The same could happen again while we are looking for Rome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Who but Jesus knew this? The same could happen again while we are looking for Rome.

Indeed, in hindsight the First Coming of Christ seems clear, and the Jews at that time certainly thought they understood exactly what Scripture meant regarding the coming of Christ...yet they were wrong.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/9/2014 at 10:58 AM, Nom de Plume said:

I have heard the America "Eagle" Russian "Bear" theory since I was in grade school (that's a long time ago). I've also heard arguments that the Antichrist will come out of Arabia (these are the least credible IMO). I have also seen good studies that place the AC out of the European Union. I personally lean towards the EU theory but am far from dogmatic about it. People far more knowledgeable than I argued out the credibility of each of these theories for many years with little gain towards any theory; and as it has nothing to do with salvation or my scriptural OBedience, I won't argue the point.

 

Having said that, here are some references I have had on hand that give some information on the word Tarshish. There is no support for the British Isles in either reference:

 

From Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary:

 

תַּרְשִׁישׁ Tarshiysh tar-sheesh'

prOBably the same as 8658 (as the region of the stone, or the reverse); Tarshish, a place on the Mediterranean, hence, the ephithet of a merchant vessel (as if for or from that port); also the name of a Persian and of an Israelite:—Tarshish, Tharshish.

 

8658:

תַּרְשִׁישׁ tarshiysh tar-sheesh'

prOBably of foreign derivation (compare 8659); a gem, perhaps the topaz:—beryl.

 

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Tarshish appears to have had a considerable trade in silver, iron, tin, and lead (Jer. x. 9; Ezek. xxvii. 12). It gave its name, besides, to a precious stone which has not yet been satisfactorily identifiedSee Gems). The Targum of Jonathan renders the word "Tarshish" in the prophetical books by "sea," which rendering is followed by Saadia. Moreover, the term "ships of Tarshish" is rendered by Jewish scholars "sea-ships" (comp. LXX., Isa. ii. 16, πλοῖα θαλαρρης). Jerome, too, renders "Tarshish" by "sea" in many instances; and in his commentary on Isaiah (l.c.) he declares that he had been told by his Jewish teachers that the Hebrew word for "sea" was "tarshish." In Isa. xxiii. 1 the Septuagint, and in Ezek. xxvii. 12 both the Septuagint and the Vulgate, render "Tarshish" by "Carthage," apparently suggested by Jewish tradition. Indeed, the Targum of Jonathan renders "Tarshish" in I Kings xxii. 48 and Jer. x. 9 by "Afriḳi," that is, Carthage.

 

Josephus ("Ant." i. 6, § 1), apparently reading "Tarshush," identifies it with Tarsus in Cilicia. This identification was adopted by Bunsen and Sayce ("Expository Times," 1902, p. 179); but it seems from Assyrian inscriptions that the original Hebrew name of Tarsus was not "Tarshush." Bochart (in his "Phaleg"), followed by many later scholars, identifies Tarshish with Tartessus, mentioned by Herodotus and Strabo as a district of southern Spain; he thinks, moreover, that "Tartessus" is the Aramaic form of "Tarshish." On the other hand, Le Page Renouf ("Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch." xvi. 104 et seq.) refutes this theory, declaring besides that Tartessus never really existed. Renouf's opinion is that "Tarshish" means a coast, and, as the word occurs frequently in connection with Tyre, the Phenician coast is to be understood. Cheyne (in "Orientalische Litteraturzeitung," iii. 151) thinks that "Tarshish" of Gen. x. 4, and "Tiras" of Gen. x. 2, are really two names of one nation derived from two different sources, and might indicate the Tyrsenians or Etruscans. Thus the name may denote Italy or the European coasts west of Greece.

 

Personally, where I see America in the Bible is in references like Isaiah 59:2 - 15

 

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Isaiah 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.
Isaiah 59:4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
Isaiah 59:5 They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
Isaiah 59:6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.
Isaiah 59:7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
Isaiah 59:8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
Isaiah 59:9 Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold OBscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
Isaiah 59:10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.
Isaiah 59:11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.
Isaiah 59:12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;
Isaiah 59:13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
Isaiah 59:14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
Isaiah 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. 

 

Having said that, America certainly looks like an appealing place for the Anti-Christ. Perhaps he'll have a vacation home here...maybe in Hawaii  :biggrin:

Tarshish is the tribe of people who started in Carthage and had colonies in Tyre the Island of Roads Spain and England. In Isaiah 23:6-10 the people of Tyre went back to their mother Tarshish in Carthage. It all became part of the Roman empire. North and South America are colonies of The Tribe of Tarshish and the Roman Empire. The antichrist is the 11th horn that comes out of the 10 horns of the Iron Roman empire from Daniel 7:7-8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I once read this - 'America is always mentioned to exist in the scriptures, and most of Israel lives in it's land - JerUSAlem.'

I thought it clever.

Zechariah 2:6-7

 

 

6Ho, ho, [come forth], and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

7Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest [with] the daughter of Babylon.

 

 

 
The Russian Jews have gone back to Israel from the north. About 23% of Israel's population came from Russia. So where is the daughter of Babylon from verse 7 that has the Jews that need to go home?
Edited by Eric Stahl
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/24/2016 at 9:20 AM, Eric Stahl said:

Zechariah 2:6-7

 

 

6Ho, ho, [come forth], and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

7Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest [with] the daughter of Babylon.

 

 

 
The Russian Jews have gone back to Israel from the north. About 23% of Israel's population came from Russia. So where is the daughter of Babylon from verse 7 that has the Jews that need to go home?

I believe America is the daughter of Babylon because this is where most of the Jews outside Israel are located.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 38 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...