• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Bible Prophecies Explained At Last!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firstly, are you solely concentrating on the Christian religion and discarding all others?
Similarly, when you say the ‘Royal Family’, are you referring only to the UK or all the other Royal Families in the world?
How accurate is your interpretation of The Bible? For instance, you ask us to think twice and as an example of thinking twice, if Methuselah’s age of 969 was recorded in months instead of years, he’d have reached 80. Which sounds more accurate to me. So what measurement of time are you working to?

What makes you certain you’ve chosen the right context for your observations?
My goal was to decypher the Bible prophecies. But I included Muslim (Madhi), Hindu (Kalki), Mayan (Bolon Yokte) and Nostradamus' (Great Monarch and Christ's return) prophecies too to see how they were corroborated. And they all match. Nevertheless, the Bible prophecies are by far the most accurate and detailed prophecies of all the religions.

Regarding the 'Royal Family', I just stick to the texts and their symbols and figures. I describe what they say and it PERFECTLY fits with the British monarchy (the four beasts in Daniel 7 (and 8 / 9 too), and the first beast in Revelation) and the City of London (second beast in Revelation).

The measurement of time in the Book of Revelation simply comes from its structure (God's perspective in the 7 sealed scroll vs Humans' perspective in the little open scroll). Hours and Days in the God's perspective part are respectively 16.666 years (1,000 / 60) and 1,000 years (mentioned in Psalm and Peter as the Day of God). Days and months in the humans' perspective part are those of our calendar. Besides, I show how perfectly matching are the fractal calendars (before and after Christ's return in late 2017) with the said periods.

The corroborated details are so numerous, and the coherence so clear, that no other interpration can challenge them to that point of detail and logic. That makes me certain I have chosen the right context for my analysis...along with personal visions of the future that we didn't understand until I worked on those prophecies.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather you did show some more interest in others topics as you would appear less fixated and probably more easy to engage with.
My time is counted. I do prefer to be engaged in the topic that could REALLY help people for their future, rather than debating on questions that will be answered by the coming announced events. More efficient I believe.
 
Don't get too wound up- can you see it happening any time soon? My personal belief is that it won't.
That's the whole point. The Orleans UFO event will be the starting point of the endtimes calendar as showed in my work. I am not talking about my beliefs but my study of the Bible prophecies. I offer an ANALYSIS, not a belief system. So, I have no personal belief. The only exception is my interpretation of the date of departure, in an ET ship from Orleans, France, based on several analysis (therefore several dates) of CRYPTIC date setting oriented ET intels. I was wrong until now because there can be ONLY ONE DATE! And it is approaching fast.
 
This summary of the book could help you envision its content:

Released on October 14th 2017

THE BIBLE PROPHECIES EXPLAINED AT LAST

ERIC JULIEN


1 - Introduction. Page 6

2 - Year 2017. Page 28

3 - UFO and Aliens in the Bible. Page 37

4 - The Structure of the Book of Revelation. Page 69

5 - The First Beast. Page 75

6 - The Second Beast. Page 91

7 - The Four Beasts in Daniel 7. Page 104

8 - WWII in Daniel 8. Page 121

9 - Anointed One vs Antichrist in Daniel 9. Page 129

10 - Christ in Daniel 10. Page 135

11 - The 7 churches in Revelation 2 & 3. Page 144

12 - Everything starts with Revelation 12. Page 169

13 – The Four Living Creatures. Page 185

14 – The Four Horsemen. Page 208

15 – The Power of the Two Witnesses. Page 212

16 – The Fractal Calendar of the Endtimes. Page 237

17 – The Endtimes in Matthew 24. Page 243

18 – WWIII in Daniel 11. Page 261

19 – The Salvation in Daniel 12. Page 281

20 – The Nuclear Weapons in the Bible prophecies. Page 292

21 – The Seven Trumpets in Revelation. Page 308
 
...I am not talking about my beliefs but my study of the Bible prophecies. I offer an ANALYSIS, not a belief system. So, I have no personal belief...

With respect, you obviously do have personal beliefs that are explicit in your hypothesis.

The existence of the Christian god, intelligent aliens who are visiting us, and your view that the Bible is reliable and able to be used as evidence, are all personal beliefs of yours that aren't shared by everyone.
 
With respect, you obviously do have personal beliefs that are explicit in your hypothesis.

The existence of the Christian god, intelligent aliens who are visiting us, and your view that the Bible is reliable and able to be used as evidence, are all personal beliefs of yours that aren't shared by everyone.
I didn't built my work on beliefs, I insist.

I have read a lot of analysis explaining 'how', 'what' and 'when' the Bible has been written. I am fully aware of those aspects. But there is NO ultimate proof neither on the 'how', the 'what' nor the 'when'. I mean that Bible scholars (that skeptics naively regard as 'experts' without digging much more to count the assumptions rather than the debatable proofs), all without exception, make inferences (and mistakes), assuming that only the available documents (pieces of books of the Bible) can be used as the only possible documents. How do they know that? How can they retrace with precision all the channels (and possible documents) through which those pieces were gathered in a world of oral tradition? The only thing they can do is to BELIEVE / ASSUME that such and such have occurred.

In addition, the time for those documents to be added in, or excluded from, the official doctrine is another 'scientific' guess. One would need a supercomputer to enter all the data of all the remaining documents - and all the lost documents - to have the full whole picture on how and when events, or non-events, became facts and / or truths for the churches (before and after JC). The point is that most of people seem to believe that if something really happened, or not happened, this should have been reported somewhere else, as if the means and the skills of those ancient cultures and peoples, often at war with each other (destroying documents), were those of our modern days.

At last, the content of the Scriptures is often seen as metaphorical or symbolical just because of the interpreters' mindset and knowledge. Without being even aware of it, most of people unconsciously deduce that some events can't be real (too exotic) while others are the figment of the imagination (too magical). The problem is that 99% of those people have 0% of knowledge in advanced science. Those Bible scholars have a background in litterature, not in quantum physics. But they (wrongly) judge events related to beings even more evolved than us.

With all of this said, to show you how deep I went to appreciate the uncertainties regarding the Scriptures to avoid all the beliefs, that is to say assumptions without background or back up, I started studying the Bible prophecies AFTER I experienced ET encounters and UFO sigthings. These experiences were real and not beliefs.

So, I first reduced my approach to those prophecies by comparing descriptions to facts. Once I got the keys (aliens and British monarchy) thanks to my real experiences (private ET contacts and visions), the more I dug those prophecies, the more it was obvious that both (aliens and British monarchy) were fully involved.

So, ONCE THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PROPHECIES AND REALITY BECAME CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, I considered the whole Bible with a new eye and better comprehended what the witnesses (and the authors) of the remote past could have wanted to say and to describe, sometimes precisely like an historian would have done, sometimes like an impressed kid would have say, what is normal with so many authors from different horizons (even if the texts were arranged with time). I, myself, give a rank to the Bible books for their 'truthness', or rather their literal nature. Some authors are more reliable than (supposed) others.

So, again, I don't offer beliefs but analysis.
 
So, again, I don't offer beliefs but ultimate truth.

There, I fixed it.

If it's okay to spew personal beliefs all over the internet, then it's okay for me to state mine calmly here. My beliefs about religion are that it's obsolete, that we should have grown out of it long ago, and that most of the ones I am aware of are simply various forms of mental illness. This isn't something I've come to lightly, either. I started out being raised by devout Catholics, and spent many years primarily engaged in spiritual exploration, deep reading of various philosophies, psychology and so on. I consider the Buddhists to be the least fucked-up of "religious" people that I know about, including the Native American ones I'm fairly familiar with. But I'm no Buddhist. I just like their style.

I offer this not as ridicule, but as an example of alternative beliefs held by intelligent people who have put rather strenuous effort over many years into discovering what we are and why we are here. Far from pushing it as some kind of absolute truth, I point out that it's not even an Ultimate Truth to me. It's just where I am now. My beliefs are quite as valid as anyone else's, and have the advantage of not including fear-mongering, punishment, judgment or even proselytization. Egads, that's just gauche!

Apocalyptic nutball predictions, various forms of "ascension" and all the rest are a dime a dozen.
 
Let me share with you, in few posts, an example of a prophecy that has been fulfilled with...

7 - The Four Beasts of Daniel 7.


Now, DANIEL 7.

There are four beasts. The three first ones are described in only one verse each, while the fourth is lengthily depicted. Contrary to what is usually believed, these four beasts are not those mentioned in the decyphering of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, king of Babylon, in Daniel 2. In that dream, Daniel speaks about the four consecutives empires related to the control of Babylon (the leaders of which were Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon), Cyrus the Great (Medio-Persia), Alexander the Great (Greece), Julius Ceasar (Rome)). These empires are those mentioned in only one verse in Daniel 11:2.

2 “Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

But this only verse, which gives us the root of the UK through the Roman invasion of Great Britain, doesn't match the descriptions of Daniel 7 which, actually starts from 1066, the battle of Hastings where William the Conqueror got the power over Great Britain.

The four beasts in Daniel 7 are the four only consecutive British royal dynasties:

1) NORMAN / PLANTAGENET.
2) TUDOR.
3) STUART.
4) HANOVER / WINDSOR.

upload_2017-10-18_16-13-19.png


Here above is the English Monarchy Family Tree which could help you understand why Daniel saw, in Daniel 7, only four beasts when there were more than four Houses in the British royal dynasties.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/English_monarchy_family_tree.png

First of all, this graph displays a FAMILY TREE, that is to say a series of dynasties which are from one unique family, unlike the Houses which came before.

When accurately looking at the way the Houses formed you see that direct and recent family links - son or daugther - exist between the Houses of the Normans and the Plantagenet, including Lancaster and York. The same exists between the Houses of Hanover and Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha).

But the House of Tudor came from a family link as far as a great-great-grandson (of John, son of Edward III, himself directly linked to William the Conqueror).

The House of Stuart also came from a family link as far as a great-great-grandson (of Henry VII, first Tudor king).

At last the House of Hanover came from a family link as far as a great-grandson (of James I, first Stuart king).

So, the vision of Daniel (as the interpretation of this book) is true (only four beasts!) and respects the family tree!

Indeed, their differences lie in the time distance (big leap) from one (last) heir of a given dynasty / beast to the next dynasty / beast. Hence four beasts for the same original kingdom which got bigger with time until the British empire, the greatest ever (fourth beast).

In this English Monarchy Family Tree above, you surely have noticed that England and France are fully tied with William the Conqueror (Norman / rampant lion) from France, with Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabela of Angouleme, Eleanor of Provence, Isabella of France, Philippa of Hainault and Catherine of Valois (all Plantagenet / standing lion) from France, and Marietta Maria of France (Stuart / leopard) from France. Elizabeth of York (Tudor / bear) is linked to France through her ancestor Philippa of Hainault from France.

The LION is for the Houses of Norman / Plantagenet, the BEAR is for the House of Tudor and the LEOPARD is for the House of Stuart, while the (red dragon with) 10 HORNS (and 7 crowned heads) is the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (and the first beast of Revelation 12 / 13) for the Houses of Hanover / Windsor.

You now better understand why Rev 13 says:

2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast..../...

14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

One of the
[7] heads of the beast (fourth beast of Dan 7, first beast of Rev 13) is George III (longest reign of the Hanover / Windsor) who lived at the time of Louis XVI, last king of France who has been beheaded by the sword (guillotine), but who has been healed because, while the French monarchy, here merged with the English monarchy because of the three preceding beasts mentioned as the lion, the bear and the leopard which had direct links with the French royalty as showed above, the British monarchy survived (healed and yet lived) to the fall of numerous European monarchies, including the French one.

With such a precision, you can wonder how people could still have other interpretations of the Bible prophecies, because, once you rightly decode the four beasts of Daniel 7, everything that follows, and depends on those four beasts, is necessarily and ONLY tied to the British monarchy. But let us see in the details how wonderfully matching are these four beasts to the British monarchy.

Let's start with the first beast. We need to study first the history of Brittany.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duché_de_Bretagne#Histoire

The French version of the wikipedia source displays the coat of Arms of the Duchy of Brittany

upload_2017-10-18_16-14-8.png


from which Great BRITAIN is from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)#Medieval

In Old English or Anglo-Saxon, the Graeco-Latin term referring to Britain entered in the form of Bryttania... The Latin name Britannia re-entered the language through the Old French Bretaigne. The use of Britons for the inhabitants of Great Britain is derived from the Old French bretun, the term for the people and language of Brittany...

Unfortunately, the English version of this wikipedia article doesn't show this picture above. But as you will see, Daniel starts his prophecy in Daniel 7 in the Medieval Age, precisely those of William the Conqueror. So, he didn't randomly 'choose' to see the symbol of Brittany since the latter is the root of UK, even in the language origin.

Another link gives us the story of the loss of the Duchy of Brittany by the English, in the War of the Breton Succession, justifying for the wings of the eagle of the first beast to be torn off in Daniel 7 (see below) when Richard II, Plantagenet king, still ruled in England (until whom Daniel was able to see the future of the first beast), just before the Lancaster and York dynasties popped up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Breton_Succession


FIRST BEAST: Norman / Plantagenet.

4 “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it.

The lion is those of the Normans (William the Conqueror):

upload_2017-10-18_16-14-47.png


The English kings had power over Brittany in France, hence (Great) Britain, until the Hundred Years' War. Here comes a larger Brittany coat of Arms with its lion / eagle wings. But the best detail which seems to me the fatal wound for all the alternate interpretations of Daniel 7 is this one:

View attachment 740

4 “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it.

The wings of an eagle (therefore two wings) are indeed those of the coat of Arms of Brittany (root of Britain, in Great Britain) above which, indeed, contains a lion having the upper body of an eagle with two wings (see on the right side).

But what matters here is what Daniel says: I watched until 1) the wings were torn off, and 2) the lion lifted on two feet.

What does it mean? Some people have said that the Houses before the Normans (direct link to the Plantagenets) and those of the Lancaster and York were not in that prophecy so it didn't add up. But:

1) the Houses before the Normans weren't from the same English Royal Family Tree...leading to the endtimes!

2) Daniel didn't see beyond Richard II during the reign of whom (1377 - 1399) ended the English power over Brittany in the Hundred Years' war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brittany#High_Middle_Ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War

At that time, the Lancaster and the York 'dynasties' didn't exist yet! (see the English Royal Family Tree above) And the lion already stood on two feet in the English royal coat of Arms since Richard I.

upload_2017-10-18_16-15-17.png



That kind of mention (I watched until) shows us how powerful were the prophetic skills of Daniel! The Lancasters and the Yorks wouldn't have add anything useful to define this Norman/Plantagenet dynasty preceding the Tudors.

As you see, there are many subtilities in the angel's depictions of the four beasts that are supposed to better lead us to the only solution of the beasts' enigma, aka the British monarchy's lineage.

The human mind is actually a House of 18 kings, that is to say a dynasty was born from nothing.

upload_2017-10-18_16-15-42.png
 
SECOND BEAST: Tudor.

5 “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’

This second dynasty had only three kings, the most famous one being Henry VIII.

upload_2017-10-18_16-29-49.jpeg


He was from his father, Henry VII, the only Tudor (one of his side) before him.

upload_2017-10-18_16-30-48.jpeg



The only 'rib' in the Bible is the woman (Eve) in Genesis 2:22:

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

upload_2017-10-18_16-32-21.jpeg


Henry VIII 'killed' three wifes (Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard).

upload_2017-10-18_16-33-38.jpeg


upload_2017-10-18_16-34-51.jpeg


upload_2017-10-18_16-35-45.jpeg


Henry VIII made himself Head of the new Anglican Church and 'killed' many catholics (fill of flesh of Christ).

upload_2017-10-18_16-38-1.jpeg


This shows you that no word in the biblical prophecies are randomly chosen. And this also shows us that Daniel (like John later) always refers to emblems and coat of Arms, what defines the most the involved figures, except in the case of Henry VIII (the bear), the second and the most prominent of the three Tudor kings.

Henry VII: 24 years of reign.
Henry VIII: 38 years of reign.
Edward VI: 6 years of reign.
 
Everybody needs a hobby. People love their dogma, be it religious, philosophical, political, scientific, whatever. Eric is clearly trying to impress us with his, um, research. Good luck Eric. Say hi to Archangel Michael. He's a solid dude. Do try his barbecue! Guy's a master.
 
THIRD BEAST: Stuart.

6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

The leopard is in the Scottish (the Stuart kings were from Scotland) Lord Lion king of Arms coat of Arms:

upload_2017-10-18_17-2-25.png


The Right Honourable the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the head of Lyon Court, is the most junior of the Great Officers of State in Scotland and is the Scottish official with responsibility for regulating heraldry in that country, issuing new grants of arms, and serving as the judge of the Court of the Lord Lyon, the oldest heraldic court in the world that is still in daily operation.

Lord Lyon King of Arms - Wikipedia

upload_2017-10-18_17-2-59.png


Above is a leopard.

There are four small 'wings' on the leopard's tail.

upload_2017-10-18_17-3-25.png


The Stuart dynasty had only four kings: Charles I and II, James I and II.

upload_2017-10-18_17-3-47.png
upload_2017-10-18_17-3-58.png
upload_2017-10-18_17-4-9.png
upload_2017-10-18_17-4-20.png


For the first time, the Scottish kings have had the right to rule over England.

Some details provided by the angel to Daniel in Daniel 7 could seem superfluous. For exemple, the Stuart dynasty is portrayed with four 'wings like those of a bird'.

Daniel 7:6: And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird.

We know that there are indeed four hairs on the leopard's tail, behind its back, like the wings of a little bird (short and curved). But we also know from the same verse that this dynasty had only four kings:

This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

It happens that these four kings had the same names: James (x2) and Charles (x2).

Now, when looking at the same kind of physical details for the fourth beast - House of Hanover / Windsor - immediately following the verse 6, we find:

7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

upload_2017-10-18_17-4-44.png


These only physical features are used to better describe the related coat of Arms (wings/heads - teeth/horns). But it seems that the angel wants us to look for something else.

When pointing to the mouth of the lion of the fourth beast's coat of Arms he show us the four iron teeth. Why four? Of course, it's nature. But he could have chosen the claws (as dangerous as the teeth), or anything else on its body. Besides, he speaks about horns, 10 horns (with 3 of them being 'uprooted', i.e. not named George).

The point here is that the four kings of the Stuart (four wings/heads) were followed by four kings George (four teeth/horns)! The Hanover/Windsor lion has also four wings like those of a bird. But unlike the four soft hairs, the four teeth / George are solid enough to start a longer dynasty until the endtimes, despite that the fifth king was William IV, followed by Victoria, then Edward VII.

Remember that the Norman/Plantagenet were 18 kings. But then there were only 3 Tudor, then 4 Stuart.

So, 10 Hanover/Windsor are quite numerous, especially with the 11th horn, the antichrist.

This seems to split hairs, literally. But nothing is given for free, especially coming from an angel. The latter wanted us to understand that the mouth had four teeth like the head of George (x 4), at the head of the list the Hanover/Windsor kings.

Guess what? The angel already spoke about the teeth of the bear, the Tudor dynasty:

5 “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’

It was showed that the three ribs are three wifes 'killed' (including one from pregnancy) by Henry VIII for the only biblical reference of the rib is in Genesis 2 to portray Eve, Adam's 'wife'.

A bear has four prominent teeth, like a lion. But the word 'between' in that verse above rather means TWO PAIRS of teeth. As a matter of fact, there were TWO HENRY (VII and VIII) among three kings (the third being Edward VI).

The three beasts above - lion, bear and leopard - are linked to the fourth beast (red dragon with 10 horns and 7 crowned heads) in Rev 13:

13 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

First point: Great Britain is an island (rather a multitude of islands). It comes therefore out of the sea as mentioned above.

So, again the first beast is the British monarchy while the red dragon, the lineage of the consecutive Prince of Wales the title of which is given ONLY to the heir apparents to the throne of UK, provides successive kings (gives authority) to the first beast.

Note that when I mentioned the 'hour of God' (1,000 years / 60 = 16.666 years) as the exact duration of the average reign of the 10 horns / kings of the House of Hanover / Windsor (fourth beast of Daniel 7) it is starting from their coronation, what is called 'authority' in the Book of Revelation.

Several remarks proving the nature of these four beasts of Daniel 7:

1) the order of the four beasts in Daniel 7 is chronologically given (lion - bear - leopard - 10 horns), respecting the succession of the four British dynasties in history for the future...seen from the past of Daniel's time. The order given by John in Rev 13 is exactly the opposite (leopard - bear - lion) since he sees them from the point of view of the red dragon, with 10 horns and 7 heads giving power to the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which starts from the most recent to the oldest dynasties.

2) the parts of the whole figure (see how complex is this beast: dragon + lion + bear + leopard) are not random: [feet = bear = Tudor] ; [body = leopard = Stuart] ; [head = lion = Plantagenet]. While not respecting the chronology of history, this order follows another logic, those of the number of kings in each dynasty according to what defines the most a figure, that is to say the head (18 kings), the body (4 kings) and the feet (3 kings).

3) these three beasts, preceding the fourth beast of Daniel 7, are what we can call 'wild beasts' since lion, bear and leopard really live in the wilderness, unlike the red dragon (not in the nature). This reminds us the fourth seal in Rev 6:

7 When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

The same way the 7 spirits of God (the 7 kings George of the House of Hanover / Windsor) are said in Rev 5 to be sent out into all the earth by God, the same way the wild beasts (lion, bear and leopard) are of the earth.

It also happens that the British Empire of the fourth beast (the Red Dragon), now being the Commonwealth of Nations, represents the surface of the fourth of the earth. As you know, the British monarch is still Head of this Commonwealth of Nations.

In other words, the wild beasts in Rev 6:8 represent a huge military force under the sole power of the fourth British royal dynasty, with its historical heritage (three preceding royal dynasties).

Let us discover the whole picture of the four beasts before addressing the fourth below:

upload_2017-10-18_17-5-25.png


In case some people doubted about this interpretation of the four beasts in Daniel 7, and who follows, here is a clear verse, an explanation from the angel speaking to Daniel:

16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this. “So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things:

17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.

18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

First of all, the four beasts are four KINGS! It is NOT about different countries, church leaders, presidents, dictators or what else anywhere in the world. This is about specific kings (each dynasty has a main king such as William the Conqueror, Henry VII, James I and George I), that is to say KINGDOMS. But, look CAREFULLY what follows:

THE kingdom! The four dynasties are suddenly located on the same territory: GREAT BRITAIN!

upload_2017-10-18_17-5-49.png


And more than this, the holy people of the Most High will receive THIS kingdom! How many Christian monarchies in the world do you have in mind in the endtimes? WHO can receive a kingdom if not heir apparents?

Once we have understood that the holy people the angel speaks about is the British FAMILY of Christ (the Most High), then the dots are far easier to connect.

REMARK: this verse just below speaks about the different boundaries in Great Britain of the four consecutive kingdoms (Norman / Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart and Hanover / Windsor). The kingdoms became bigger with time and dynasties.

The British Empire which rose on earth was the result of the world conquest of the fourth beast / House of Hanover / Windsor.

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.

Now comes the fourth beast of Daniel 7.

As you understood it, it's the fourth British royal dynasty, the House of Hanover / Windsor starting with George I in 1714. As a reminder, the first beast / British royal dynasty (Plantagenet) started with the Battle of Hastings in 1066, that is to say once the first Day of God of the Christian era had ended in 1033 (Christ's resurrection in 33 A.D. + 1,000 years). To the scale of the Christian era (2,000 years), 1066 - 1033 = 33 years are very small.

It happens that Henry VII, first king of the Tudor dynasty, the second beast / British royal dynasty, was on the throne in 1485, that is to say almost 500 years later. Remember that the 7 fractal periods of the 7 churches are consecutively 1,000 years, then 500 years, then 250 years, etc, 7 times. So, the coming of a new dynasty took place around the start of a new church period, at least at the beginning of the 7 churches.
 
The fourth beast of Daniel 7:

Except that George I (first king of the fourth beast / British royal dynasty) came exactly 70 years BEFORE the 4th church period started (1784), like the state of Israel came 70 years BEFORE the coming of the Messiah in 2017. Since the British monarchs are seen as the 'deported' kings of Israel in Rev 17, due to the 'mysterious Babylon' (London), this conjonction of the 70 years is not surprising.

Here are the main aspects of the description of the fourth beast that clearly show that it is the fourth British royal dynasty, aka the House of Hanover / Windsor:

7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

1)
terrifying and frightening and very powerful: the British Empire was the most powerful empire ever.

upload_2017-10-18_17-20-26.png


2) It had large iron teeth: the large opened mouth of the lion in the British royal coat of Arms has iron-like teeth, very impressive (compared to an exhaustive large number of coats of Arms in the world).

upload_2017-10-18_17-20-46.png


3) it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left: the British Empire waged many bloody wars, without mercy, all over the world.


4) It was different from all the former beasts: unlike the three preceding dynasties, this fourth British royal dynasty, from a mere unique royal power, became a constitutional royalty, with a parliament.

upload_2017-10-18_17-21-38.jpeg



5) it had ten horns: the 10 horns are the horn of the unicorn of the British royal coat of Arms, times 10, the number of kings (including the one still to come).

upload_2017-10-18_17-22-19.png


In case people think that the 10 horns are 10 different countries, let me remind them that:

24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.

The 11th horn / king is the antichrist, Satan 'incarnated' (walk-in process) in a royal's body. The three subdued kings are...KINGS! I have already addressed who they are in the introduction (William, George and the unborn child).

Speaking of the antichrist, here is a verse confirming the interpretation of the 10 horns / British kings of the House of Hanover / Windsor:

8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

The first horns are the 10 horns. Among them, three are 'uprooted'. What does it mean?

This is very simple. The first four kings were named George. This name was the root of this Hanover / Windsor dynasty (since two more kings, George V and VI, followed this tradition after them). But among the 10 horns, three kings were named William IV, Edward VII and Edward WIII. That is how we can identify the 7 crowned head (7 kings George, including the one still to come) of the Book of Revelation, right here in Daniel's book written 6 centuries before John's book.

upload_2017-10-18_17-23-5.png


Why is the 11th horn called 'little horn'? That is the tricky question. He is 'little' because he is NOT heir apparent (he is after the three kings to come in the list of succession). He will usurp the throne of UK!

upload_2017-10-18_17-23-27.png
 
Everybody needs a hobby. People love their dogma, be it religious, philosophical, political, scientific, whatever. Eric is clearly trying to impress us with his, um, research. Good luck Eric. Say hi to Archangel Michael. He's a solid dude. Do try his barbecue! Guy's a master.
Where do you see dogma in my work? There is nothing I state that is not supported by facts or logic. I don't try to impress anyone but to help people see how an analysis provides what could be called prophecies fulfillments.
 
There, I fixed it.

If it's okay to spew personal beliefs all over the internet, then it's okay for me to state mine calmly here. My beliefs about religion are that it's obsolete, that we should have grown out of it long ago, and that most of the ones I am aware of are simply various forms of mental illness. This isn't something I've come to lightly, either. I started out being raised by devout Catholics, and spent many years primarily engaged in spiritual exploration, deep reading of various philosophies, psychology and so on. I consider the Buddhists to be the least fucked-up of "religious" people that I know about, including the Native American ones I'm fairly familiar with. But I'm no Buddhist. I just like their style.

I offer this not as ridicule, but as an example of alternative beliefs held by intelligent people who have put rather strenuous effort over many years into discovering what we are and why we are here. Far from pushing it as some kind of absolute truth, I point out that it's not even an Ultimate Truth to me. It's just where I am now. My beliefs are quite as valid as anyone else's, and have the advantage of not including fear-mongering, punishment, judgment or even proselytization. Egads, that's just gauche!

Apocalyptic nutball predictions, various forms of "ascension" and all the rest are a dime a dozen.
Thanks to share your beliefs. But fulfilled prophecies matching the least details of history (facts) is another story. A mental illness would be to deny it. By the way, the word 'religion' comes from the Latin word 'religare', that is to say 'link' (human to God). The problem is that there is NOTHING but God in the universe, whatever where you look at or how you consider what it is. Now, if you only speak about the religious, you indeed can speak about dogma, what I expose in my work. Besides, buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy...quite limited actually, like the animism of the Native Americans.

Actually, you have more beliefs (what I respect) than I have since I don't base my work on such stances. Beliefs are not valid or not. They remain just beliefs. The coming destruction of humanity is 'just' engraved in the Bible prophecy, fulfilled until now, like your death was the very moment you were born. Would you deny you will die one day? Would you deny the abduction cases (called ascension)?

The real mental illness would be to deny proofs (fulfilled prophecies) to defend one's own beliefs.
 
It's not like we lack a long and colorful history of such non-events, either. People have been proclaiming The End Is Near for centuries. Millennia, probably. So far, they are 0% accurate.
No. It is coming, it just that many try to guesstimate or just want it to come due to the problems of this world. Don't worry, my dear friend, it shall come, and it shall come quickly before you even know, just like Noah's day and....no person listened and only their family survived. Now, wake up!
 
Wake up and do what, exactly? Buy some of Jim Bakker's Buckets O' Glop? You can have my share. Of course, you'll have to pay for them.
 
Wake up and do what, exactly? Buy some of Jim Bakker's Buckets O' Glop? You can have my share. Of course, you'll have to pay for them.
Pay for them!? Then you are not invited! Joking, hahaha. Nah, be prepared by making a way for yourself, like the good old saying 'prepare for the worst and hope for the best' and 'better safe than sorry'. In regards to Divine intervention, be a good person in deeds and conduct for they are to be judged accordingly and each person is held accountable for themselves.
 
Where do you see dogma in my work? There is nothing I state that is not supported by facts or logic. I don't try to impress anyone but to help people see how an analysis provides what could be called prophecies fulfillments.

So you are basing all that
SECOND BEAST: Tudor.

5 “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’

This second dynasty had only three kings, the most famous one being Henry VIII.

View attachment 6582

He was from his father, Henry VII, the only Tudor (one of his side) before him.

View attachment 6583


The only 'rib' in the Bible is the woman (Eve) in Genesis 2:22:

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

View attachment 6584

Henry VIII 'killed' three wifes (Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard).

View attachment 6585

View attachment 6586

View attachment 6587

Henry VIII made himself Head of the new Anglican Church and 'killed' many catholics (fill of flesh of Christ).

View attachment 6588

This shows you that no word in the biblical prophecies are randomly chosen. And this also shows us that Daniel (like John later) always refers to emblems and coat of Arms, what defines the most the involved figures, except in the case of Henry VIII (the bear), the second and the most prominent of the three Tudor kings.

Henry VII: 24 years of reign.
Henry VIII: 38 years of reign.
Edward VI: 6 years of reign.


So by your logic why didn't the Tudors carry the Bear on their coat of arms? They have Lions, dragons, roses, helmets but not a bear in sight.

Also Jane Seymour I believe died after childbirth and wasn't killed by Henry. So she wasn't one of the ribs.

Bloody hell that's some cast iron logic there Eric.
 
Last edited:
THIRD BEAST: Stuart.

6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

The leopard is in the Scottish (the Stuart kings were from Scotland) Lord Lion king of Arms coat of Arms:

View attachment 6589

The Right Honourable the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the head of Lyon Court, is the most junior of the Great Officers of State in Scotland and is the Scottish official with responsibility for regulating heraldry in that country, issuing new grants of arms, and serving as the judge of the Court of the Lord Lyon, the oldest heraldic court in the world that is still in daily operation.

Lord Lyon King of Arms - Wikipedia

View attachment 6590

Above is a leopard.

No the supporters are lions.

Helm

Above the Shield is placed the proper Crown of the Lyon, being precisely after the model of the Imperial Crown of Scotland yet not set with stones but only enamel
Escutcheon
Argent a lion sejant guardant Gules armed and Iangued Azure holding in his dexter paw a thistle Proper and in his sinister a shield of the second; on a chief Azure a St. Andrew's cross of the first.
Supporters
On a compartment below the Shield are set the proper Supporters of the Lord Lyon King of Arms. two lions rampant guardant Gules armed and langued Azure each crowned with the proper crown of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, their bodies semee of thistles crowned Or.
Other elements
Behind the Shield are disposed in saltire two representations of the Batons of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, videlicet: Azure, tipped Or, that on the dexter semee of thistles, roses, harps and fleurs de lys also Or (as Lord Lyon King of Arms), that on the sinister semee of thistles and St. Andrew’s Crosses of the Last (as King of Arms of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle)
Badge
Argent a lion sejant guardant Gules armed and Iangued Azure holding in his dexter paw a thistle Proper and in his sinister a shield of the second; on a chief Azure a St. Andrew's cross of the first. Around the Shield is placed the Lord Lyon’s Collar of Thistles linked with sprigs of rue interwoven Or and having from it pendent by a Scottish Imperial Crown Proper an oval medallion Or displaying the figure of St. Andrew vested Vert surcoat Purpure bearing before him the cross of his martyrdom Argent.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Lyon_King_of_Arms
 
So you are basing all that

So by your logic why didn't the Tudors carry the Bear on their coat of arms? They have Lions, dragons, roses, helmets but not a bear in sight.

Also Jane Seymour I believe died after childbirth and wasn't killed by Henry. So she wasn't one of the ribs.

Bloody hell that's some cast iron logic there Eric.
Actually, all the British dynasties had a lion in their coat of Arms.

Since the first one (Norman / Plantagenet) is described as what looks like a lion for it is the starting emblem of the whole UK royal family tree, the angel had to choose another wild beast to emphasize what differed between the first and the second beast. May I remind you that the verse related to the Tudor dynasty says: looked like a bear. Henry VIII really physically looked like a bear. He is chosen as the main emblematic king of the Tudor due to his mis/deeds and longest reign.

Yes, Jane Seymour died after childbirth (I mentioned it myself). But Henry VIII is considered to have killed her by HIS child (future king Edward VI), like the two other wifes were killed by HIS executioner. It's a figure of speech for HIS mis/deeds. So, she was one of the three ribs...rib which happens to be THE (unique) symbol of Adam's wife, hence the iron logic.
 
No the supporters are lions.

Helm

Above the Shield is placed the proper Crown of the Lyon, being precisely after the model of the Imperial Crown of Scotland yet not set with stones but only enamel
Escutcheon
Argent a lion sejant guardant Gules armed and Iangued Azure holding in his dexter paw a thistle Proper and in his sinister a shield of the second; on a chief Azure a St. Andrew's cross of the first.
Supporters
On a compartment below the Shield are set the proper Supporters of the Lord Lyon King of Arms. two lions rampant guardant Gules armed and langued Azure each crowned with the proper crown of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, their bodies semee of thistles crowned Or.
Other elements
Behind the Shield are disposed in saltire two representations of the Batons of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, videlicet: Azure, tipped Or, that on the dexter semee of thistles, roses, harps and fleurs de lys also Or (as Lord Lyon King of Arms), that on the sinister semee of thistles and St. Andrew’s Crosses of the Last (as King of Arms of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle)
Badge
Argent a lion sejant guardant Gules armed and Iangued Azure holding in his dexter paw a thistle Proper and in his sinister a shield of the second; on a chief Azure a St. Andrew's cross of the first. Around the Shield is placed the Lord Lyon’s Collar of Thistles linked with sprigs of rue interwoven Or and having from it pendent by a Scottish Imperial Crown Proper an oval medallion Or displaying the figure of St. Andrew vested Vert surcoat Purpure bearing before him the cross of his martyrdom Argent.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Lyon_King_of_Arms
Again, all the British dynasties had a lion in their coat of Arms.

Since the first one (Norman / Plantagenet) is described as what looks like a lion for it is the starting emblem of the whole UK royal family tree, the angel had to choose another wild beast to emphasize what differed between the first and the third beast. The leopard is actually the name for the lion in the original descriptions of the coat of Arms. Your google research wasn't complete. Look at this wikipedia intels:

The leopard in heraldry is traditionally depicted the same as a lion
, but in a walking position with its head turned to full face, thus it is also known as a lion passant guardant in some texts, though leopards more naturally depicted make some appearances in modern heraldry. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry makes little mention of leopards but glosses leopard as a "term used in medieval heraldry for lion passant guardant. Now used for the natural beast."

In other words, the angel chose to speak about what looked like a leopard, provided that the SCOTTISH Lord Lyon king of Arms coat of Arms is indeed what looks like the most a real leopard.
 
EricJulien, is there a chance to get a printed copy, because I hate reading allot of things on the screen?
 
The leopard in heraldry is traditionally depicted the same as a lion, but in a walking position with its head turned to full face, thus it is also known as a lion passant guardant in some texts, though leopards more naturally depicted make some appearances in modern heraldry. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry makes little mention of leopards but glosses leopard as a "term used in medieval heraldry for lion passant guardant. Now used for the natural beast."

The lions are definitely rampant and not passant though. Plus they have manes. Dead giveaway.
 
If I'm going to participate in someone else's crackpot delusion, it's going to be a hell of a lot more interesting than this old crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top