Historically incorrect.
The ten toes of the feet of the image are the same as the ten kings of the Revelation who will war with the Lamb - the ten kings who will rule for one hour with the beast that will ascend from the abyss - the same beast that existed before the days John received the Revelation but no longer existed, i.e before the Roman Empire.
Ever noticed in your zeal to misapply history that the legs of iron come before the ten kings, who had received no kingdom as yet when John received the Revelation (during the days of the Roman Empire)?
JOHN told you that those ten kings will rule WITH the beast that is going to ascend from the abyss - the beast that existed before the Roman Empire - and those ten kings will go to war against the Lamb and be defeated by Him - the great mountain cut out without human hands that will strike the feet of the image (Daniel chapter 2 that you keep misinterpreting - the ten kings).
That's why your interpretation is so full of error - because you deny history, and deny what JOHN told us. You have the Roman Empire existing before the Roman Empire and ceasing to exist before it existed. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Historically incorrect yet again (and therefore, false). The FOUR Greek kingdoms that had existed before John received the Revelation, i.e before the days of the Roman Empire, followed the 3rd kingdom - the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great. The ten kings of the Revelation, which are the same as the ten toes of the feet of the image in Daniel chapter 2, had received no kingdom yet, and still have received no kingdom yet. How can the beast that existed before Rome be Rome?
1+1=2, not 5. Your arithmetic needs brushing up because according to your eschatological theories 1+1= 5 (but you will first have to free your mind from your enslavement to the denominational false doctrine and false eschatology that you believe in).
Daniel 8:20-25
"The ram which you saw having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the shaggy goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king. And as for that being broken, and four stood up in its place; four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in its power. And in the latter time of THEIR kingdom, .."
It does not say in the latter days of a Roman Empire. THEIR kingdom = the latter days of the four Greek kingdoms that succeeded the one Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great.
Daniel chapters 7, 8 and 11 are all applying the little horn to the king that came up in the latter days of the four Greek kingdoms that succeeded the one Greek Empire of Alexander the Great - the beast that had existed when John received the Revelation during the days of the Roman Empire but no longer existed at the time the Roman Empire existed - but will ascend again from the abyss. It's not the Roman Empire and it had noting to do with the Roman Empire.
Anyone can see how you change the Bible and the history, and then invent your own eschatology!!
"In the latter time of THEIR kingdom, when the transgressors have come to the full, a king, fierce of face, and skilled at intrigues, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power."
The above is another reference to a "little horn" coming up among ten Greek horns - the little horn that came up from out of of the Seleucid kingdom and seized the throne illegitimately, having had three of the rightful heirs to the throne murdered.
That's right. Alexander the Great was followed by the four Greek kingdoms and the little horn is one that rose out of one of the four Greek kingdoms (Antiochus IV Epiphanes - the Macedonian Greek king of Seleucia) - that little horn, historically, is part of the beast (the Greek kingdoms) that existed before the days of the Roman Empire, according to Revelation 17:8.
But you obviously don't believe Revelation 17:8, or Daniel, because if you did you would not apply things that apply to the five kingdoms that came before the Roman Empire according to Revelation 17:8, to the Roman Empire.
Of course not. It has nothing to do with Rome. Your mind is enslaved to this obsession with Rome, and the Popes. That's why your eschatology is so confused - because it's based on a lot of falsehood.
You obviously don't believe Revelation 17:8 & 11-14. Nor do you believe Revelation 17:10 when it tells you that five of the seven kingdoms had already fallen by the time of the days of the Roman Empire - which makes it obvious that the ten toes of the feet of the image of Daniel chapter 2 are the same as the ten kings of the Revelation who will war with the Lamb - the ten kings who will rule for one hour with the beast that will ascend from the abyss.
That beast that will ascend from the abyss are the same five kingdoms of the beast that existed before the days John received the Revelation but no longer existed, i.e before the Roman Empire - identified in Revelation 13:2 with the symbols of leopard, bear and lion - the kingdoms of Babyon, Persia and Greece, including the four kingdoms and the "little horn" - all of which existed before the Roman Empire.
Ever noticed in your zeal to misapply history that the legs of iron come before the ten kings, who had received no kingdom as yet when John received the Revelation (during the days of the Roman Empire)?
JOHN told you that those ten kings will rule WITH the beast that is going to ascend from the abyss - the beast that existed before the Roman Empire - and those ten kings will go to war against the Lamb and be defeated by Him - the great mountain in Daniel chapter 2 that was cut out without human hands that will strike the feet of the image, of which the ten toes represent ten kings.
Rome is disqualified by Revelation 17:8 and by the fact that the little horn was a Greek horn which had already existed but no longer existed by the time of the Roman Empire, and by the fact that the ten kings did not exist yet - those ten kings who will make war against the Lamb and hand all their power and authority over to the same beast that existed before the days of the Roman Empire, when it ascends from out of the abyss, .
Your obsession with Rome has blinded you, together with the denominational false doctrine and eschatology that your mind has become enslaved by:
etc etc etc. Total nonsense.
Your interpretation of "the Daniel chapter 2 template" that you stick to, is in error, so you have chosen to stick to false doctrines, and yourself and others who have made up your denominational eschatology have blinded one another with the things you have made up - things which are historically and biblically inaccurate, and therefore, false.
In your eschatology you have the Roman Empire existing before the Roman Empire existed. And you can't see how totally illogical it is.
PS: The Revelation does not say that the harlot IS (the same as) the beast. You conflate the two a whole lot in your made up eschatology. The harlot will be destroyed by the beast that she prostituted herself to - which is all seven heads of the beast - meaning all of Abraham's seed who compromised their faith in Christ for the sake of favors from the political authorities of this world. The Vatican is just one of the manifestations of the harlot.
The seven-heads of the beast represent seven kingdoms. Five had fallen by the time John received the Revelation. One existed (the Roman Empire), and the seventh had not yet come. When it comes, it must continue a short time. Likewise, the beast John saw the harlot seated on existed before John received the Revelation (so no longer existed) but it will ascend from the bottomless pit and go to perdition. Likewise, the ten kings will hate the harlot, and will eat her flesh and burn her with fire, rendering her desolate and naked.
"I counsel you to buy from Me gold tried in the fire, so that you may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed, and so that the shame of your nakedness does not appear.
Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is the one who watches and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame." -- Revelation 3:18 & 16:15.
Maybe some Catholics will remain faithful and not be found naked. Maybe some non-Catholics will be found naked.
You do not understand what you are talking about.
