The Mark of the Beast

[sundin13]

padib said:

sundin13 said:

Alternatively, it is a garbled metaphor that has no real way of objectively interpreting. Thats largely how many of these prophecies survive. They put the onus of interpretation on the believer so they can never be disproven. If someone is wrong, the fault lies on the interpreter, not the original text. Meanwhile, the end will always be just around the corner.

Remember, this head is one of seven heads of a leopardbearlion. How objectively can we truly interpret a line about the healing of a wound on this "beast"? 

EDIT: Also, as you say, Revelations is written through the eyes of one 2000 years ago. It is interpreted through the lens of the time in which is was written, and it is continues to be interpreted in modern lenses as time progresses. As medicine has developed, how many times have people exclaimed "This new technology is marvelous! This must be what is referred to in Revelation"? By inviting interpretation, it asks you, the reader, to place it within the framing of your world, which is why it will always feel as if it applies to the present. 

When in history apart from Christ has any human cheated death properly speaking? That they fully died, were decomposing and revived, to a point where people can't believe their eyes?

Also, don't forget that if you take the pieces together, some possibilities are impossible. How would we be looking at a war general that is a leopardbearlion?
"and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?”"

He is referred to as him, someone against who war can be decalred, but is too powerful that nobody would dare. He is a leader of a region of the world.

The problem is that if you take pieces out of context and are not familiar with the whole picture, it's like trying to make sense of a movie after only having seen a single frame. It will never work.

You are introducing your own contexts into the scripture. There is no requirement for decomposition that I see in the scripture. It only states that there was a wound that looked to be fatal, but had healed. Further, it is impossible to state for certain how literal this is to be. 

Looking for interpretations of this verse, the first I found speculated that this is a reference to the fall and rebuild of the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing up the further context implying that this individual is a leader of a region of the world, even assuming that this inference is true. And btw, going by the contexts you provided, it is not necessary for this individual to be a leader of a region of the world. This individual could be bestowed power, or raise a non-state army (ala terrorist groups), or further, this could be a metaphor and not be meant literally. Perhaps "war" is not a literal war of armies, but a spiritual or ideological conflict.