I was following along with the original poster until I came to this point.... "This image of the beast is three items; the recognition of Israel, the honoring of all prior Palestinian agreements, and a renunciation of terror." In what way is recognition of Israel related to the image of the beast. Furthermore, renunciation of terror doesn't either seem related to the image of the beast... particular if you look at your own posted quote.... "Rev.13:15- And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast, should be killed." It is not the PA who killed anyone who didn't serve them. It is Hamas. Hamas won the elections in Gaza, and after winning the elections proceeded to throw Fatah supporters who lived in Gaza off the roof (for not being loyal to Hamas... not the PA). Hamas doesn't renounce terror but instead encourages terror... and just as a refresher for what is meant by terror we're talking about shooting rockets and mortar shells into populated cities, sending suicide bombers into Israeli grocery stores, shooting anti-tank missiles at school buses, etc.... unwavering attempts at *killing* those who do not "worship the image of the beast" ie serve Hamas. *however* it is worth noting Hamas has *not* (at least yet) been given power to cause death to *all* who don't worship the image of the beast. But neither has Fatah. It is an interesting study I would say, but I find myself curious as to why one would paint the PA as being the beast and Hamas being the one who refuses to worship when Hamas more closely resembles biblical quotes you used here. Furthermore Fatah and Hamas have agreed to form a "unity" government, and when Israel tried to refuse to make payments to Fatah on the grounds that Fatah and Hamas are now merging, the international media made it look like Israel's just stealing Fatah's money instead of the reality which is that Hamas is a terrorist organization whose *stated* objective is the destruction of Israel and the extermination of Jews from the world. It would seem from my perspective that Hamas is the larger organization, and Fatah is merely Hamas' "lets get some of that western cash" branch. This is further supported by their "unity" deal which comes after Hamas proved itself a terrorist organization even to Fatah, by attacking Fatah supporters, discrediting Fatah endlessly, and refusing to allow Fatah's chosen prime minister after they agreed to a "unity" deal. While I do believe there are some Fatah supporters who believe in their cause, I believe Yasser Arafat's original intent was to create Fatah, while Hamas already existed (even if by another name) in order to deceive the world into believing what they want is peace. Yasser Arafat himself was a terrorist, and was not born "palestinian" but Egyptian... how he became the spokesman for the "palestinians" is beyond me.... Fatah and Hamas are competing political parties now (even though Hamas is still also a terrorist organization), what sense it makes for Fatah to merge with Hamas just before going to the UN for recognition is beyond me. It's essentially Fatah giving up everything they worked for to Hamas... Hamas who would've never even had an audience at the UN without Fatah's "peaceful" branch doing all the leg work. In regards to your original post I would say the Fatah/Hamas organization more closely resembles this.... "Rev.13:11- and I beheld another beast coming up out of the Earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." One beast, 2 horns.... Fatah is one horn, and Hamas the other horn. Well I can't find any supporting links on Google, but I have heard it said that a Dragon speaks with 2 voices. This would fit nicely with whatever you call the merged entity of Fatah/Hamas, as they do speak with 2 voices. One insists peace is what they want, the other insists they want to destroy. Together their voice speaks unending slander against Israel, and only because of their "peaceful" side are they not destroyed completely when their destructive side sends declaration after declaration of war in the form of rockets being shot into Israeli cities. I think it's an interesting interpretation, which is why I've gone into detail to try to make this more of a workable theory. That said, I tend to agree with Nathan's point about Catholicism being the beast. "Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. " Here is the other problem I see with your interpretation. You interpreted horn to King, and then King into country... see examples... "The seven heads are seven mountains and the ten horns are ten kings. Ok, we know from this description that the beast as described is a group of possibly ten countries" "For one, we know that the beast is made up of only possibly ten countries." It can't be ten countries, as it says right there where it identifies the horns as kings it also specifies that those ten kings have received no kingdom yet. Thus ten kings WITHOUT nations. I'll admit interpreting the kings as nations is so common, more people are likely to agree with you, but it is clear from scripture that the kings spoken of have no kingdom but receive power as kings "one hour with the beast". I read that part and thought it curious, this was written almost 2 thousand years ago. They didn't have a clock back then. So an hour (by modern definition) did not exist.... Luckily I got my e-Sword right here we can see the original meaning.... being new testament it comes from the Greek.... "G5610 ὥρα hōra ho'-rah Apparently a primary word; an “hour” (literally or figuratively): - day, hour, instant, season, X short, [even-] tide, (high) time." Wow with all that information it kind of makes you wonder why some translator would put "hour" in that place.... could be a day, could *not* be an hour, as previously stated an hour as you and I know it didn't exist back then (well it existed perhaps but not in the minds of the people who lived back then), could be an instant, a season, essentially they were given power for a time.... power, but it doesn't say a kingdom. So how does one have power as kings without having a kingdom.... oh that's right... money.... If someone had like 100,000,000,000 dollars, even if they weren't president or king of their particular country, that money gives them power as kings over people (who need money). Quick calculation before I continue... how many man hours does 100 BILLION dollars command.... we'll say at $10/hour... that's right 10 BILLION man hours... so lets say some king with no kingdom wanted to start a company that employed 1000 workers for each of 3 shifts 365 days of the year... you take the 10 billion man hours, divide it by your (total) of 3000 workers, gives you a total of 3333333.333333333 man hours per person, which they work in 8 hour increments... gives you a total of 416666.6666666667 days of work.... amounts to 1141.552511415525 years of work each. So with 100 billion dollars you could work 3000 people for 1141 and a half years. Perhaps we should increase the amount of workers... they could work 30,000 people for 114 years (and that's without making a penny from their labor)... that's like practically enough to build a pyramid without any technology whatsoever..... Not to mention with a decent pay rate and without expanding the work day (though this doesn't figure weekends in). However, fear not, the world's richest person isn't quite there yet.... Carlos Slim Helu & family $74 B Not far though either.... and with the economy the way it is it won't be long til employers can dictate to us what we make (ie 10/hour could seem to them excessive.... after all if you only get 5, that's twice the man hours they can get out of the same money.... Also it's worth noting that's the richest person in the world, but that's not to say there isn't an organization with more.... especially when you account for all that money hidden in swiss banks... It's unlikely that the 10 kings of the earth would choose to reveal themselves on Forbes wealthiest persons list.... That's just my interpretation of the kings of the earth without a kingdom... Feel free to point to a set of nations if you'd feel more comfortable doing so, it's easier to deal with nations than people, or kings, who individually have that much power. It has been said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" ... it is also said "the love of money is the root of all evil". In any case back to the point....