Friday, September 22, 2017

Jonathan Cahn is comparing Trump to Jehu, while downplaying Jehu's negative aspects

Jonathan Cahn - The Jehu/Jezebel Template.  (I don't want to get into my political disagreements with Cahn here, that is for the SolaScirpturaChristianLiberty blog).

Clearly, another way for Christians to try to convince themselves that Trump is chosen by God and they should support him in-spite of his obvious moral problems.

Here is what boggles my mind about this.  To me, Jehu is clearly a Type of The Antichrist.  I've been arguing that since early in this Blog's history, back in 2014.  In my initial post about The Four Horsemen.

It comes up when suggesting The Antichrist may be a Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant.  I cite verses like Hosea saying Yahuah will avenge the Blood of Jezreel against the House of Jehu.  And how Jehu had enemies Decapitated like Revelation 20 says The Beast will do, I think the Beast may very well call Christians he dislikes worshipers of Baal, like the Hebrew Roots movement loves to do.

In this context The House of Ahab and Jezebel could be viewed as the Decoy Antichrist.  This overlaps with when I talk about Jeroboam as a type of the Antichrist.

This also comes up posts like The Antichrist may not be as popular as we assume, and God has used Babylon and he may use it again.

I don't want to say I think Trump is the Antichrist.  But whether he is or not, this upholding the legacy of Jehu as mostly positive is certainly helping setting stage for The Antichrist.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Dajjal being from Britain

Is a theory among some Muslims I recently became aware of.  Starting with This YouTube Video.

I was already familiar with the Haddith that is the main basis for this theory.  A Story about some Arab sailors who wind up on an Island where they talk to a chained person claiming to be the Dajjal.  An Island estimated to be about a month from Arabia.  Of course the people promoting this theory are saying they aren't taking it entirely literally.

I imagine most mainstream theories about where this Island was meant to be located, (if it intended a real location at all), would look for it in the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean, or further east.

Among Judaeo-Christian Conspiracy theorists there has long been a tendency to see British imperialism as the source of all modern evil.  Including some posts on my own Conspiracy Theory Blog.  And on this Blog in the England and Egypt post.

Before meeting Dajjal, these sailors were first greeted by a hairy man or creature.  The name he identified himself by is apparently related to the Arab word for Spying, so this is taken as a clue it's an island particularly associated with Espionage.  The British are credited with pretty much inventing modern Espionage under Queen Elizabeth. 

Apparently this Haddith is also one of a few that seem to foretell the Sea of Galilee drying up.  Which apparently is happening now.  You've probably seen Zionists brag about how modern Israel has made the desserts Green again.  Well apparently some think their doing that is in the long term hurting the environment of Israel, and is why the Sea of Galilee is drying up.

What most bothers me here is how the use of this Haddith to basically identify the Ashenazim with Gog and Magog can tie into the Khazzar theory, a deception I've already addressed.

But getting back to Britain.  The idea of the Dajjal being hidden on an Island at Muhammad's time, with some linking that Island to Britain, is interesting in light of Christian theories about King Arthur having something to do with The Antichrist.  However from what I can tell none of these Muslims have made an Arthur connection themselves.

About a century before Muhammad's time was King Arthur's time.  And at the end of his Reign he is said to have not died but been taken Mortally Wounded, to Avalon, from whence he will someday return when Britain needs him again.

But some theorize Avalon isn't a separate Island form Britan, but rather the area of Glastonbury, where there is a traditional site for King Arthur's Tomb.  This Haddith has the Dajjal Chained in an old place of worship, which in the context of seeing it as Britain makes it a Church or Monastery.

I have talked about Arthurian Legend a bit once previously on this Blog, in England and Edessa.  But I've talked about it a bit on my Nerdy Blog.  With the idea of connection between it and Arabia sort of coming up in my post about Wolfram's Parzival.

I still currently do not consider an Islamic Antichrist theory likely.  But it's interesting to keep an eye on what their theories are.

Monday, September 18, 2017

I can't support Chad Schafer's theory about Egypt

I talked about his World in Bondage to Egypt book once already.

Now personally I like Chad Schafer, we're friends on Facebook, some of what I say here will come off harsher then I intend.   It's just his theory I intend to be harsh on.

I like that he's drawing attention to often overlooked Eschatological significance of Egypt.  And I think he's onto something talking about the Arch of Titus.  The problem is how he brings those things together.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

September 23 2017 is apporaching.

Awhile ago I talked about why I don't think the alignment involving Virgo, Leo and 4 of the Planets is significant.  But now the time for it is approaching I better remind people.

Also recently was this AnswerInGenesis Article on it.

That somewhat overlaps with my refuting the September 11th 3 BC Birth of Jesus theory.

Rob Skiba has kinda gone off the deep end, in a recent radio show saying Revelation 12 can only be about either something astronomical or some sort of cloned rebirth of Jesus who immediately dies.

I feel like I have firmly Biblically proven that The Woman is Israel, and The Man-Child is The Church, especially thanks to Isaiah 66.

For those who still think The Church can only be represented by a woman, I recommend this Song of Solomon post of mine.

The only thing Biblically significant about this September is that as it often does the Month of Tishri and thus the Fall Feasts will begin.

Friday, September 1, 2017

The Forgotten Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

The second chapter of the Book of Daniel begins by telling us that Nebuchadnezzar had a dream that troubled him.  In verse 5 he says "The thing is gone from me" and then demands his court occultists to make the dream known to him or he'll kill them all.

Every single commentary or Bible Study on Daniel Chapter 2 I have read or watched or listened to has assumed that Nebuchadnezzar did not actually forget this dream, he's just doing this to test all his court magicians.

For a community that is generally all about not reading things into the text that aren't actually there, I find this really odd.  Nothing in the text of Daniel 2 says or implies this.

It makes me wonder, can these people simply not relate to this happening?  Because it happens to me all the time, I'll have a Dream, a Dream that was pretty bizarre and interesting, but within minutes or even seconds of waking up my memory of the dream has faded to nothingness.

Now I don't think any of my forgotten dreams were visions from God revealing his plans for the coming centuries.  And I also can't relate to wanting to kill other people for not telling me the contents of a dream they didn't have, but Absolute Monarchs do a lot of such things I can't relate too.

The idea that it's a test is stupid.  No one who does claim to know how to interpret dreams, claims they can interpret a dream they don't know the contents of.  Now again, what Nebuchadnezzar is doing in my face value interpretation isn't rational either.  But it's the people saying he's lying about this who think he's being some champion of logical thinking.

It reflects how Protestant Christians sometimes feel compelled to in certain areas think like Atheists.  By thinking anything that exposures those sharletons with their Psychic hotlines must be serving the greater good.  But the Hebrew Bible was never operating under an assumption that occultists have no real power.

Now when Daniel describes the Dream to Nebuchadnezzar and then interprets it, that probably jogged his memory and brought it back to him.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Bethlehem was Zion, Which is The City of David

An argument can be made that the account of how Jerusalem came under David's control (2 Samuel 5:6-9 and 1 Chronicles 11:4-8) makes more sense if Jebus and "Zion which is the City of David" are separate cities.  He had to take one first to conquer the other. And this fits later references to the two locations in the time of Solomon also.  The Ark was brought out of the City of David to The Temple, and likewise the Daughter of Pharaoh was brought out of the City of David to Solomon's house.  It looks like after the Jebusites chose to resist, David simply chose the fortress of Zion to be the base of his campaign against Jebus.

It might be that Jerusalem is sometimes used broadly of an entire district, but when used specifically of a single City it's just Jebus.  Some references to Jerusalem and Zion in the same verse often taken to verify their being synonymous, can also work as listing separate cities side by side.  Like Isaiah 64:10 which says cities, plural, then lists Jerusalem and Zion.  But since Zion also arguably has both a poetic broader application and a more specific one, perhaps it fits when paired with Jerusalem, two names that refer to different specific cities but basically the same area when applied broadly.  Psalm 76:2 also makes sense as referring to Salem and Zion as separate cities.

It's possible sometimes Jerusalem and Zion are paired together to represent the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom, Benjamin and Judah, Psalm 78:68 says Zion is a mount of Judah.  Which can in turn be taken back more broadly to represent both wives of Jacob, Benjamin from Rachel and Judah from Leah.

And perhaps David's design for this area was similar in intent to the original plan for Washington DC, taking parts of both Maryland and Virginia to create a capital District.  Isaiah 24:23 refers to Yahuah ruling in Zion and in Jerusalem, as if they are separate.

One question that might pop into your mind from the idea of separating Jerusalem from the City of David is, which city then is Ariel in Isaiah 29?  "Where David dwelt" could apply to both but arguably fits the City of David better.  And Zion is mentioned explicitly.  Also Ariel means "Lion of God", that fits it being a Judean rather then Benjamite city, as Judah is the Lion in Genesis 49.  Other tribes (Gad and Dan) are associated with Lions elsewhere (Deuteronomy 33), but not Benjamin.

I think the house David built with materials provided by Hiram of Tyre was in Jebus/Jerusalem, where he lived and had children with his wives from Jerusalem, and that could be the same archeological site it's usually associated with.   But the Fort of Zion was in the City of David, that fort already existed.

Ophel is a place-name linked to the Gihon once.  It's a Hebrew word for Tent sometimes used of the The Tabernacle, and in the KJV is translated " tabernacle", so it may not always refer to the same place. Maybe the Ophel in the City of David could have been where David's Tabernacle was?

Only 2 Chronicles 1:4 says David pitched a Tent for the Ark in Jerusalem rather then Zion or the CIty of David.  First off the books of Chronicles probably entered their final form later, so a broader definition of what qualifies as Jerusalem may make more sense there.  But also this reference comes after David had purchased Moriah, so maybe the Ark did some moving around during this period.

I think Jerusalem is usually the City called the Daughter of Zion or Daughter of Sion. But "daughter of ____" can sometimes refer to a separate City that is related in some way.  Like Tyre being the Daughter of Sidon/Zidon in Isaiah 23:12.  And the Daughter of Babylon I think is likely Hammurabi/Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, the daughter of the original Babel which was Eridu.

The City we usually call Jerusalem I feel is obviously the Jerusalem of the The Gospels & Acts and thus the Jebus of the Hebrew Bible.  Where Solomon and Zerubabel/Herod's Temples were built.  So where then is the City of David and Mount Zion?

Luke Chapter 2 in verses 4 and 11 calls Bethlehem the City of David, and endless Christian commentaries try to explain why this doesn't contradict the Hebrew Bible's City of David being Jerusalem by saying both could be described that way.  Yet we're supposed to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and Luke said "The" not "a".  And Christians view the New Testament as revealing and clarifying the "Old Testament".  This argument would not convince Jews or other non Christians of course, so fortunately I have some directly from the Hebrew Scriptures.

1 Samuel 20:6 when speaking of David refers to Bethlehem as "his city", that predates the exact phrase "City of David' ever occurring.  When you think about it this should always have been obvious, the hometown of David is the City of David.  To go back to a previous point, Bethlehem was in Judah.

If you object, "David had to capture his own home town?" remember what I said above, in my theory Zion didn't need to be captured, it was the base of operations for capturing Jebus.  Bethlehem is also in a mountainous region, in fact it's elevated higher then Jerusalem.  Perhaps the Gihon was the spring now known as the Spring of Etam, or Atan?

It's interesting to note that the Crusaders also captured Bethlehem first, Godfrey sent Tancred to take it, then they used it as a base in their siege of Jerusalem. Lots of people overlook this detail of the Crusades, but once you're aware of how Bethlehem is elevated higher then Jerusalem, you realize it is ideal to secure that area first if you want to siege Jerusalem.

Micah 5:2 is the key Prophecy that The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.  But remember the Chapter divisions were not in the original text, and Micah 5 does sound like it's starting in the middle of something.  Micah mentions Zion constantly, particularly in chapter 4.

The first time Bethlehem is mentioned it is home to the Tower of Edar in Genesis 35:20-21.  Micah 4:8 refers to the Tower of Edar (Tower of The Flock in the KJV) as the Stronghold of Zion.  Then later refers to Jerusalem arguably as a separate city.  Some traditions say it was from the Migdol Eder that the Angel announced the Birth of Jesus to the Shepherds.

Psalm 132 mentions Ephratah in a context that seems to place the Tabernacle (Ophel) and The Ark there.  And it is a Davidic Psalm.  The City of David housed the Tabernacle of David and The Ark during most of David's reign.  And that Psalm also uses the name Zion.

2 Samuel 2:32 says David's nephew Asahel was buried in Bethlehem in the sepulcher of his father.  Kings of the House of David are repeatedly refereed to as being buried in the City of David, and resting with their fathers.  Starting with David himself in 1 Kings 2:10 being buried with his father in the City of David (Acts 13:36 also says David was buried with his fathers).  And it turns out Bethlehem does have a site with a tradition of being where David was buried.  Or the Kings might have been among those buried in the Bronze Age caves built where modern Efrat is.'s_Tomb " In the 4th century CE, he and his father Jesse were believed to be buried in Bethlehem. The idea he was entombed on what was later called Mt Zion dates to the 9th century CE." Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky, 'Where is King David Really Buried?,' The Jewish Press, May 15th 2014.  "By the mid-fourth century, the tombs of King David and his father, Jesse, are described as being in Beit Lechem.[See Limor, “King David’s Tomb.”] The first mention of Mount Zion as King David’s final resting place was in the ninth century".  Back to Wikipedia  "4th century Pilgrim of Bordeaux reports that he discovered David to be buried in Bethlehem, in a vault that also contained the tombs of Ezekiel, Jesse, Solomon, Job, and Asaph, with those names carved into the tomb walls."...[Ora Limor, "The Origins of a Tradition: King David's Tomb on Mount Zion," Traditio 44 (1988): 459.] "Having initially revered David's tomb in Bethlehem, Muslims began to venerate it on Mount Zion instead but no earlier than the 10th century following the Christian (and possibly Jewish) lead. In the twelfth century, Jewish pilgrim Benjamin of Tudela recounted a somewhat fanciful tale of workmen accidentally discovering the tomb of David on Mount Zion."
Asahel was a maternal Nephew which makes the above argument not quite a slam dunk exactly.  But his father is never identified.  And all three of Zeruiah's children are called sons of Zeruiah rather then by their father.  That makes it possible they may have been born out of wedlock and so mostly treated as part of Jesse's family.  Either way being buried in Bethlehem means, if it was his direct father he was buried with, he was one from the same city and so probably at least the same Tribe.  That David's nephews were so important to him means he may have insisted they be buried as part of the royal family.

Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however.  Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general.  But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah.  And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David.  So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.

Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20.  2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash.  Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16.  So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.

Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem.  Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.

The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah.  This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.
Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.

It may also be interesting to note that a Bethlehem site is believed to be where Herod was buried, the Herodion.  And Herod's Official Biographer claimed him to be of Davidic ancestry.  I also wonder if Herod built his Herodium fortress over the older fort David had used that I'd mentioned earlier, possibly eliminating all evidence of the older fort.  Some aspects of Josephus description seem consistent with the idea of an older fortification existing there, it was the site of a battle before Herod built anything.

Bethlehem is never mentioned (by that name at least) in the books of Kings and only once in 2 Chronicles during the reign of Rehoboam.  As if during the Kingdom period calling it by that name was phased out in favor of the City of David.  Of course between Solomon and Hezekiah the only references to the City of David are as where the Kings were buried.

If you still think The Man-Child of Revelation 12 is Jesus.  It is Zion far more often then Jerusalem refereed to as travailing in Childbirth. With my view of The Man-Child as The Church at The Rapture, maybe Bethlehem will play a role in that?  After all a heavenly Mount Sion is important to Revelation 14.

Yahuah-Shammah is nine times the size of modern Jerusalem, according to the most common estimate of it's size, it could be larger.  Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem.  Yahuah-Shammah could be large enough to encompass both Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

But remember not all references to Bethlehem are to the one in Ephratah of Judah, there is another lesser known one in the North.  Sometimes people will try to argue that is where Jesus was born, but Micah, Matthew and Luke all make qualifiers ruling out the Northern One.  And the reference in John 7 would make no sense in that context if they meant a city in Galilee.

I have run into a potential problem with this Bethlehem theory.  Nehemiah 3:15-16 and 12:37 refer to the City of David as seemingly pretty clearly within the Jerusalem he rebuilt, and refers to the burial site of the Kings being there.  But I shall look more into that as there could be an explanation.

The potential answer to that issue is that Nehemiah's wall was larger then we usually think it was, that it encompassed Jerusalem and Bethlehem.  Maybe the wall we usually identify it with isn't it at all, or maybe it is but was only part of it.  And that most of what Nehemiah built we won't find the remains of due to the conquests of Israel by Antiochus Epiphanes and Rome.

Given my speculation that the Construction projects of Suleiman The Magnificent could be a second fulfillment of the Daniel 9 Prophecy fulfilled by Nehemiah.  It's interesting to note that he also built fortifications in Bethlehem, like The Castle of The Pools.

 A post in which I consider there may have been two Arks, possibly filling some gaps in this study.

The death of Rachel and birth of Benjamin is traditionally assumed to have been in Bethlehem.  But many have read Genesis 35 more carefully as saying the birth of Benjamin, Death of Rachel and her Burial were on the way to Ephratah and the Migdal Eder from Bethel.

If so that makes it likely these events happened in land later allotted to Benjamin.  As the only of the 12 sons born in the Land, perhaps it makes he'd be allotted his birth place. 2 Samuel 10:2 refers to her Tomb as being in Benjamin.  And there are traditions saying it is specifically in Ramah, which could be relevant to the "Voice Crieth form Ramah" Prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15 quoted in Matthew 2.

As far as my citing it as evidence of Bethlehem being Zion.  I note that this argument observed that after these events Jacob traveled past the Migdal Eder and set up a Tent.  Perhaps this Tent was where the Tabernacle of David was later sent up?  Maybe that is the origin of the site popularly viewed as Rachel's Tomb today?

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

The Books of Tobit and Judith

Originally I was going to do this on my Revised Chronology blog.  But the theories about these books relevant to that are mainly the ones I'm going to be the most critical of.

I don't consider them Canon, as I already explained in my post on the Deutercanonical Books.  But they can be historically interesting to contemplate.

These books have in common being clearly mainly fictional narratives, that at least in the forms we have them contain some difficult to explain geographical errors.  And much more so with Judith apparent historical anachronisms.

Damien F Mackey attempts to explain the geographical issues in Tobit by saying Media is actually regions in Arabia, (Midian, Medan, Medina).  However this ignores the context of it clearly being about the deported Israelites.  II Kings is clear, many were taken to Media and all of then to east of the Euphrates.

 I've mentioned before about how Tobit as we know it is the product of a time where First Cousin marriages were strongly encouraged.  But I also have reasons to suspect Tobias's bride maybe wasn't his cousin originally before it was revised.

With the references to Ahikar we are told exactly how he fits into Tobit's genealogy, even though that character is only someone refereed to and not really part of the story (like the Author of Tobit wanted to create a Shared Apocryphal Universe).  However we're not told how Sarah or her father Raguel fit into it, just that she is Tobias' cousin somehow.  That could be consistent with her being a cousin being a detail added to the text later.

Sarah is the Hebrew word for Princess.  According to Herodotus it was around the time frame depicted in this book that the first King of Media lived.  And she is living in Ecbatane the capital of Media.  Could the original narrative have been about Tobias marrying a Median Princess?  And maybe the book of Judith calls the king of Media Arphaxad because they descended from Arphaxad via deported Northern Israelites?

The last verse of the book refers to the fall of Nineveh to "Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus".  A lot of people assume Ahasuerus here is another name for Cyaxares I of Media.  But there is evidence his son and future successor Astyages was also involved in the taking of Nineveh.  And Nebuchadnezzar was also at that time the Crown Prince of his father Nabopolassar.  Ahasuerus being a name for Astyages would agree with Josephus calling the Darius son of Ahasuerus of Daniel 5 a son of Astyages.  Which in turn agrees with that Darius being the same as Cyaxares II of Xenophon's Cyropedia.

Damien F Mackey's theory about The Book of Judith is that the "Nebuchadnezzar" of that book is really Sennacherib under his Babylonian Throne Name.  And that this is the same attempted invasion of Judah recorded in 2 Kings and Isaiah 36-39.  My main problem with that theory is Judith doesn't record an Angel destroying Assyria's Army.

His argument for this largely begins with theorizing that the Ahikar of Tobit and the Story of Ahikar is the same person as.Achior of the Book of Judith.  I see why those names seem kind of similar, but not enough to be a smoking gun.

The revised Chronology comes into it via saying Sennacherib is the same as Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon, conventionally dated to the end of the 12th century BC.  And if I were still inclined to agree with that theory, I'd consider identifying Holofernes, a name often said to seem Egyptian, with Horemheb based on Velikvosky's view of Horemheb.  But I'm not.

Three major mainstream theories about what historical context might have inspired Judith are Nebuchadnezzar as Artaxerxes III, as Ashurbanipal and as Tigranes The Great of Armenia.  Of those three the Ashurbanipal one is the main one I want to talk about here briefly.

It speculates the lack of a King in Judah is because it's while King Manasseh was being held in Babylon.  Which makes it interesting that Judith is called the Widow of a Manasseh.  But the only wife of King Manasseh mentioned in Scripture is Meshullemeth the mother of King Amon.  But the Kings of Judah frequently practiced Polygamy.  And some have speculated the name of Judith itself to be a symbol or code, as a feminine from of the name of the Southern Kingdom.

And since Tobit lived to see the fall of Nineveh, Ahikar could likewise have lived into the reign of Ashurbanipal.

Even if I were willing to consider changing when Nebuchadnezzar I lived.  He actually fits the time of Ashurbanipal better.  Ashurbanipal's brother Shamam-shum-ukin was King of Babylon during his reign.  A similar event involving a statue of Marduk being returned to Babylon transpires during his reign.  Nebuchadnezzar I celebrated a victory over Elam that seems similar to Ashurbanipal's.  And Nebuchadnezzar I conquered the "land of the Amorites" which could well refer to Canaan, where the Amorites originally came from, even Jerusalem was sometimes linked to the Amorites.

However my own revised chronology theories generally leave the Mesopotamian Kings Lists unaltered, as supported by Vellikvosky's own writing about Hamurabi and the 12th Dynasty of Egypt.

The city or village refereed to as Bethulia, which is not otherwise known to have existed, but seems to be near Jerusalem, I think is possibly meant to be Bethlehem.  Both names begin with a Beth. Bethulia seems to come from a Hebrew word for Virgin, Micah 4-5 tells us Bethlehem is where The Messiah will be born.  And in the context of my theory that Bethlehem is Zion which is the City of David, three Bible verses refer to the Bethulah daughter of Zion, (2 Kings 19:21, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13).  Micah 4-5 also refers to the Daughter of Zion giving birth in Bethlehem.  And if Judith was a wife of King Manasseh, it ties into the element of Bethlehem remaining a city linked to the house of David all through the Kingdom Period.

Now for my own personal theory.

Today a Jewish tradition has developed to read the Book of Judith during Hanukkah.  And to identify the character of Holofernes with Nicanor, both wind up beheaded for example.  I haven't yet however read any theory that the Maccabees were the original inspiration for the book.  But Judith 4:3 seems to allude to The Temple being recently rededicated following a desecration.

Who is Judith in this context?  Well in II Maccabees in particular in 14:24, Nicanor seems to be attracted to Judas Maccabeus.  Judith is the feminine form of the name Judah, which often becomes Judas in Greek Texts.

Did the author(s) of the book of Judith swap out a woman for Judas because of heteronormativity?  Or is it the product of some tradition the more mainstream historians who wrote the books of Maccabees and whatever other sources Josephus used would have ignored, that Judas Maccabeus was a Trans-woman?

Of course a potential Queer subtext for the Book of Judith on it's own is Judith and her unnamed maid.  If I made a film based on the story, I'd rename the city of Bethulia as Bethlehem, and give the name Bethulia to this character.