Ellen White was not wrong. Her statements are simply or purposely misapplied.

Revelation 17:15 states that waters, being seas as well, represent a very populated area of the planet earth. Consequently, when we read of the earth in prophecy, it means a sparsely populated area planet earth. Earth in Bible prophecy being basically the opposite of water in Bible prophecy.

The reason for the USA being explicitly mentioned is this country was founded in a sparsely populated area of the planet and ended up the most powerful country in the world and is following after the beast. (Revelation 13)

So, Ellen White is correct in her understanding of prophetic symbols.

Then you agree with "His Child" that the heads and horns of the beast must be interpreted as being prophetic of US presidents, since:

1. The Angel of God said the kings will arise out of "the earth", and
2. Ellen White said "the earth" represented the USA.

For #1, see Dan. 7:17, "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth." Putting it together with #2 (see GC p.440), it is evident that Ellen White would have you look to the men who sit in the Oval Office of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue for fulfillment of heads and horns.

And so, "His Child" must have a point, and you need some more explaining to do.

///

I can't speak for him, but I thought I'd jump in anyways to clarify that the above is not what Ellen White taught.

The symbol of the earth in Rev 13 is correctly interpreted as the land that the US arose from, but Dan 7:17 does not present the earth as a symbol. In that verse symbols were being explained, not given. The beasts were literal kingdoms that arose out of the earth. Other places in the Bible that mention earth (Gen 1:1, for example) are clearly not using it as a symbol.

Therefore the earth, as a symbol, can be interpreted as the land of the US without necessitating that the earth, used literally, also be interpreted as the land of the US.

Whatever some individuals choose as an interpretation of Dan 7:17 does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the SDA church, the rest of its members, or its founding members, as I'm sure you understand.

• I like the distinction you made between "the earth" being seen in vision and "the earth" being spoken of in interpretation. You said, "Dan 7:17 does not present the earth as a symbol. In that verse symbols were being explained, not given." That was clever.
   
• I wish you had applied such discernment to the meaning of Rev. 13:11, "Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon."
  
  If "the earth" were symbolic of the USA, then Jesus Christ would have been returning for US residents only. Consider Rev. 14:14-16:
  
  "Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, 'Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.' So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped."
  
  It is evident that "the earth" spoken of here is "the earth in vision" which must mean, according to you, that it can ONLY be the USA. But is Jesus Christ coming for Americans only? Are Canadians going to be left behind? I feel discouraged already.

///

Since the Bible elsewhere clearly explains that Jesus is returning to the earth as a whole it would contradict to apply the interpretation of the earth being the land of the US to the return of Jesus. For the sake of Bible harmony and good sense we consider context for interpretation.

In Rev 13:11 the earth is in the context of a beast rising from it. Both of these symbols work together as a whole.

Because the same vision also includes the symbol of a beast rising out of the sea, there must be a significance to the earth and the sea. Otherwise, why include them?

A beast represents a kingdom, which in the literal sense has a defined location, so the type of place it's depicted as rising from must represent a defined location. Any other place in the Bible that may use the earth as a symbol doesn't have this qualifier on it, nor is the earth necessarily a symbol in every vision that mentions it.



By the way, the second beast of Rev 13 is evidently the primary end time power. If this power is not the US, what do you think it is?

You're not being consistent. And the ONLY reason why you say "the earth" of Rev. 13:11 is symbolic of the USA is because Ellen White said so. There are 24 references to "the earth" in Rev. 12-16 (NKJV). Kindly state which one(s) point to the USA.

1. Rev. 12:4 ... [Satan's] tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.
    
2. Rev. 12:9 ... [Satan] was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
    
3. Rev. 12:12 ... Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath
    
4. Rev. 12:13 ... Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth
    
5. Rev. 12:16 ... But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood
    
6. Rev. 13:7-8 ... And authority was given [the Beast from the Sea] over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him
    
7. Rev. 13:11-14 ... Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.
    
8. Rev. 14:3 ... no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
    
9. Rev. 14:6-7 ... Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth — to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people — saying with a loud voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."
    
10. Rev. 14:15-16 ... And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.
     
11. Rev. 14:18-19 ... And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, "Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe." So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw it into the great wine-press of the wrath of God.
     
12. Rev. 16:1 ... Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, "Go and pour out the bowls of the wrath of God on the earth."
     
13. Rev. 16:14 ... For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
     
14. Rev. 16:18 ... And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth.

///

The only one of those that refers to the US is Rev 13:11 because none of the other uses of that word are in the context of a defined location that is also in connection with a beast.

Glancing through I'd go further and say that Rev 12:16 and 13:11 are the only two verses that use the earth as a symbol at all, and in both places it indicates a sparsely inhabited place, though not necessarily (and if we interpret things correctly, not actually) the same location.

To clarify: I haven't said "the earth" is the US. It is "the land of the US." It's specifically the beast that rises out of it that is the US. The earth is simply a symbol that describes the type of location that this particular beast would rise out of.



I think we can agree that one thing can be represented by multiple symbols. For example, Persia was the chest and arms of silver, the bear, and the ram.

One symbol can also have multiple meanings depending on context. For example, the symbol of a lion could be the kingdom of Judah (Eze 19:2), some of the last kings (Eze 19:3-9), the devil (1Pe 5:8), and Jesus (Rev 5:5), among others. There are many other lions in the Bible that are not symbolic at all, just as the word earth is used literally many times.



I still consider, for the previously given reasons, that it's logical to view both the earth and sea as depicting the type of location that each beast would rise out of and physically occupy.

Do you consider the second beast to be the end time power?

The problem with your answer is that the use of Revelation 17:15 relating to water aligns with the vision. It uses the vision to explain the vision. But it does not align with Heaven's interpretation of the vision. When Heaven's interpretation of the vision is considered, the beasts are earth kings - not sea kingdoms according to Daniel 7:17. Earth and sea are different.

Ellen White is correct, but you do not appear to be correct on this point.

James, you didn't answer Josh's question, just assumed his ONLY reason was "because Ellen White said so".

To restate the question --
Why would the vision of Rev. 13 have one beast rising out of the sea while the other beast is rising out of the earth if no distinction between the two is to made?

Another question:
Just because "earth" is literal "the Earth" many times in Revelation, does that mean it MUST always mean "the Earth"?

The word for "earth" G1093 is used some 250 times in the NT. It can also mean "land" or "a country enclosed within fixed boundaries"

Act 7:3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, G1093 and from thy kindred, and come into the land G1093 which I shall shew thee.

"Earth" G1093 can mean "a territory" or "the earth as a whole". To insist it must always mean the same thing is NOT right. One needs to consider the context.

Another question -- what do "beasts" represent?

Daniel 7 gives us a pattern --
Lion, bear, leopard, terrible beast rise out of the sea.
Next chapter has a ram and a goat.
Daniel 7 tells us these symbolic beasts are "kingdoms" that sought dominion over the "territories" they conquered.

Nor did they literally rise out of the sea. The sea is symbolic.

So won't the two beasts of Revelation 13 follow the pattern established in Daniel 7 and represent political powers?
In fact the first beast has all Daniel seven's beasts wrapped up in itself! Implying it is a continuation from that vision.

The first beast of Revelation 13, rising out of the sea, is virtually unanimously acknowledged to be a symbol of Rome’s power. There is variation on what phase of Rome it represents. For us the activities of Rev.13's beast parallel the activities of the little horn on Daniel 7's terrible beast, thus it indicates Rome's papal phase.
This is further supported by it's emphases on "worship" as this beast is very focused on "worship", albeit it's counterfeit worship.

The beast from the earth, called in later visions "the false prophet" (16:13; 19:20; 20:10), is "another beast" different from the first, but it is not a competitor of the beast from the sea, at least not in the end, though it's lamb like horns does seem to signify a more Christ-like attitude in the beginning.

Thus HC's idea of mixing up the identity of the two beasts is simply confusing things -- thinking the "interpretation" given in Daniel 7, is ANOTHER vision, not really an interpretation at all. Thus leaving the prophecy open to his own opinions and speculations to bring in a lot of unnecessary confusion.

This 2nd beast becomes subordinate to the first beast. Its mission in the end times, is to make sure that the earth's inhabitants worship the first beast (vv. 14-15) and set up an "image" or replica of the first beasts method of worship and government.

So this second "beast", to be consistent with the interpretation of beasts -- needs to be a nation -- a strong and powerful nation -- a rather new nation when compared to the history of the first beast.
BUT it is NOT the same as the first beast which is the continuation of Daniel's beasts.

Since the other beasts rose "out of the sea" -- and context indicates "sea" here is symbolic, because kingdoms don't normally establish themselves in the sea, but as the interpretation indicates they established themselves on land.

So why would the vision differentiate on the second beast?
It arises out of the earth, not out of the sea.
If "sea" represents "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" Rev. 17:15, then a beast rising out of the "earth" would be in contrast to that.
A sparsely settled land?


The vision shows a "kingdom" or "nation" arising near the end time that will have the political power, to enforce the first beasts "worship".
It didn't arise in the same place as the other kingdoms, or any place teaming with many nations. It has a "false prophecy" by which it deceives the world into worshipping the first beast, complete with signs and wonders, and enough clout and persuasion to enforce it on many countries.

You are right on one point -- Ellen White is correct, but your interpretation of the interpretation which totally mixes up the identity of the two beasts is total confusion.

You wrote: Revelation 17:15 relating to water aligns with the vision. It uses the vision to explain the vision.

No -- it uses the INTERPRETATION to explain the vision.

The symbolic woman sits on many symbolic waters.

The interpreting angel speaks:
17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Now if you follow YOUR way of doing Bible study, you would next say -- Oh -- peoples, and multitudes must now be symbolic of something else -- what new interpretation can we give to that? -- That reasoning is confusion.

Since in Daniel 7 when Daniel sees in vision
four symbolic beasts coming out of the symbolic sea,
The angel tells Daniel the interpretation that the four beasts rising out of the sea represent kings (kingdoms) that rise up on the earth.

To now say the interpretation is new symbolic material is simply confusion.