Stephen implied Moses was born near the Winter Solstice

Acts 7:20-21

In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months: And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.

Which agrees with Exodus 2:2 (and Hebrews 11, this period of time being three months is said three times in Scripture).  Three months separated the Birth of Moses from him being taken in by Pharaoh's Daughter.

But Stephen goes on to evenly divide the rest of Moses life into three periods of 40 years.  40 years in the house of Pharaoh king of Mizraim, 40 years in the house of Jethro, and then the 40 years of the Wilderness Wandering.

The Forty years of the Wilderness Wandering began in Nisan, the Nisan of the First Passover, and ended in a Nisan, the Passover recorded early in the Book of Joshua.  It seems reasonable then to infer all three 40 year periods begin and end in Nisan.

Just looking at the account of Pharaoh's Daughter finding Moses in Exodus 2, there are good circumstantial reasons to suspect this is happening near the Spring Equinox.

So if Moses was born three months before events that happened near the Spring Equinox, then he was born near the Winter Solstice, in December or January.

Likewise, three months means he was taken in by Pharaoh's Daughter at about the anniversary of his Conception. 

Why does the Tense change in Revelation 11?

I've noticed a few things interesting about Revelation 11.

First, because we often study the different subjects of Revelation in a compartmentalized fashion, we often think in verse 3 the "I will give power unto my two witnesses" is God/Jesus talking, and maybe it is, but that depends on how you interpret other parts of Revelation.

In the first verse of chapter 11 John writes "and the angel stood, saying" and most of the rest of the chapter is John writing what this angel says.  What Angel is it?  Well remember there were no chapter divisions originally, if you read through 10 and 11 uninterrupted, it becomes clear the angel in question is the angel who was the subject of chapter 10.

I also wonder about the "God of the Earth" the Two Witnesses stand before.  Is it a God they're severing or a God they are opposing?  "Stand Before" could be used both ways.  This title is used no where else in the New Testament, but Satan being the Archon of the Kosmos and God of this Aion leaves open the possibility that this title would most likely be used of Satan.  However it is used of YHWH in Genesis 24:3.   Is it a title of this Angel, who's feet are in the Earth and in the Sea?  It is also worth noting that we are before Satan is cast out of Heaven.

This Blog is predicated on my belief that Revelation should be interpreted chronologically.  But since I now notice much of chapter 11 is a character in the narrative describing future events, I am forced to wonder if there is some wiggle room here, and maybe somethings I have long viewed as being before the Last Trumpet sounds could be after.

And that leads me to the question that was the title of this post.  For verses 1-10 this Angel is speaking in the future tense, in the KJV at least.  Then in verse 11 it changes to past tense.  Maybe it's only in translations it seems this way.  I wouldn't be able to know.

It shouldn't be that big a mystery since lots of Prophecies are spoken in the past tense, and I've made a point of that in posts before.  The sudden change in tense is what seemed interesting here, as I was rereading Revelation 11 in the context of the observations I mentioned above.

In verse 14 it's no longer the Angel speaking, it's John setting the stage for the next Woe to happen, which is the Seventh Trumpet.  

The Angel in Chapter 10 also says the stuff he's telling John about pertains to when the Seventh Angel sounds his Trumpet.  So yeah I do now think everything this Angel Talks about is simply another angels on what happens after the Seventh Trumpet sounds.

Ephraim Ben Joseph is the Horse-Rider of Jacob's Prophecy about Dan

Genesis 49:16-17

Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.

Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

This passage is frequently the beginning of attempts to say The Antichrist will come from Dan, along with a reference to Dan in Jeremiah that also mentions Horses.  But who/what are this Horse and it's Rider?

 It is commonly speculated that the reason Dan and Ephraim are left out of the 144,000 in Revelation 7 is how it was through them that Idolatry entered Israel, in Judges 17-18 and then with Jeroboam, an Ephraimite who built Golden Calves at Dan and Bethel in Ephraim.

It is often assumed that the difference with Ephraim is Ephraim is still represented by the name of Joseph, since Manasseh is named separately Joseph here must be only Ephraim.  But Numbers 13 doesn't remind us of Joseph when it identifies Ephraim's Spy, but calls it's Manasseh spy of Joseph.  Manasseh himself as a Firstborn was kind of split in two, the two sides of the Jordan, called Machir and Gilead in the Song of Deborah, and this is needed to justify Jeroboam getting Ten Tribes, attempts to justify saying he also got Simeon will not hold up.  Maybe the two tribes left out of the Sealing are involved with The Mark, Satan's counterfeit of the Seal?

Now, both that Judges narrative and the Jeroboam situation may make you think Ephraim lead the way and Dan followed.  But Ephaim's major spiritual problems don't start till Judges 17, while a Danite has an issue already  in Leviticus 24.  But I also think that the mother of Micah in Judges 17 was Delilah and that Delilah was not a philistine.

Jacob's blessing on Joseph in Genesis 49 says he has a Bow and depicted him as an Archer, Zechariah 9 also depicted Ephraim as an Archer.  Isaiah 28 says Ephraim has a Crown.  Isaiah 63 represents Israel as a Horse.  The rider on the White Horse in Revelation 6 has a Bow and a Crown, and is often speculated to possibly be The Antichrist while others have wanted to make him a more positive figure.

It is interesting to note that Jehu wielded a Bow and Arrow when he overthrew Jehoram while riding  a horse drawn chariot.   Jehu is someone a Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant may seek to model themselves after.

Maybe the False Prophet is from Dan and The Antichrist from Ephraim?  When I look at the Prophetic model lots of Rabbinic Jews are expecting, it's easy to see Messiah Ben-Joseph who is Mortally Wounded by Armilus as the Beast, and the False Prophet as Messiah Ben-David who resurrects him.  There is also a view proposed in Rabbinic writings that Messiah Ben-David's mother will be from Dan. 

I feel like I've made a solid case already, but for those who believe in Mazzaroth/Gospel in The Stars theories, I have one more factor to add.

The most popular constellations to identify Joseph/Ephraim with are Aquarius and Taurus (and if Manasseh needs a separate one it's one right next to one of those).  I see no Biblical basis for Aquarius.  Taurus is justifiable by Joseph's blessing in Deuteronomy 33 where he's called a Cow and an Aurochus (Re'em translated Unicorn in the KJV), but in that context Leo is no longer Judah but either Gad or Dan.

In Genesis 49 Joseph is an Archer, the Archer constellation is Sagittarius, who is also a Horseman and has but isn't wearing a Crown, the Corona Australis.  People looking for astronomical references in Revelation tend to see the White Horseman as Sagittarius for these reasons.  And Sagittarius is right next to Scorpio, which gets identified with Dan based on Genesis 49.

The Crucifixion at the site of Solomon's Temple?

This is a follow up both to my post about Solomon’s Temple and the Second Temple possibly not being on the same location, and my post about The Vail of The Temple.

Christians have long wanted to view Genesis 22:14 as saying the place where Isaac was offered is the same spot as where Jesus was Crucified.  The problem has been Mt Moriah being clearly identified as where Solomon's Temple was (The name Moriah appears in The Bible only twice, Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1), and we know Jesus wasn't Crucified inside The Temple.

The Garden Tomb theory is based in part on saying that location is also on the same mountain as the Temple Mount, and was originally it's peak.  But the Garden Tomb in question is too old, and I have long felt that location for The Crucifixion was least likely to be true.

However now that I've opened the door to the possibility that the Second Temple wasn't where the First Temple was.  Where was Solomon’s Temple site in the time of Christ?  Could it be where the Passover was fulfilled in 30 AD?

What if Jesus was Crucified where Animals would have been killed in Solomon's Temple?   And maybe the Tomb where he was buried and rose from the dead was beneath the Holy Place or Holy of Holies, his Body laid beneath where The Ark once rested?

Now needless to say if this is true it rules out the Mount of Olives model that I had favored at one point, since that's to the East and probably where Solomon placed his Idols.

Placing Solomon's Temple to the West would happen to fit The Church of The Holy Sepulcher.  In my post about Venus maybe being the Star of Bethlehem, I was interested in the implications of Hadrian building a Temple to Venus on that site.  In the apocryphal Prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sybil, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher seems to play the role modern Futurist Christians tend to give The Temple in Bible Prophecy.  The actual presumed Tomb of Jesus there is directly under its largest Dome, which is interesting.  

That would place the Brazen Altar in the Katholikon, perhaps about where the Omphalos is.  I recall seeing in a documentary I watched years ago, a woman saying she thinks the Crucifixion site was within The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, but not at the traditional spot.  This part I may be remembering wrong, but I think she placed it in the Katholikon.

However I have seen models of the Tabernacle and Temple that interpret the Brazen Altar as being as being not directly east of the entrance to the Holy Place, but a little further south.

Also it could be that if the Tomb is the Holy of Holies and the Brazen Altar to the East of it.  That the traditional Rock of Golgotha could equate to where the Red Heifer was killed, to the east of the Gate of the Tabernacle. Fitting the desire to connect Numbers 19 to Hebrews 13:11-13.

But I'm not quite willing to support The Church of The Holy Sepulcher being the site of either  Solomon's Temple or Calvary just yet.  It may be too far West (and North) given where I think Jebus proper was.

What if the real site of Jesus Crucifixion and Resurrection was where the Nea Ekklesia was built?  Which in my main post on thinking Solomon’s Temple wasn’t where the second Temple was I came to favor for it’s location.

The Garden that exists by that site now happens to by sheer coincidence be called The Garden of The Resurrection, the intent being to refer to Israel's modern Resurrection as a nation.  And that Armenian Church is called The Church of the Archangels, I have suggested before that Michael's actions in Daniel 12 could be tied to the events of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Some people have theorized Jesus was Crucified on a still standing Tree, with only part of the Cross being what he carried.  Which makes me curious about the Olive Tree believed to mark the Holy of Holies in that model.

However I have come to realize that if that Armenian Church is where Ananias lived as it’s actual tradition claims, then it was within the City at Christ’s time and thus not where the Crucifixion would have been.  

The people who before me argued it was the site of The Temple were basing most of their arguments on it being the Second Temple.

One more compelling argument for the possibility of Jesus burial being where the Holy of Holies was where the Ark of The Covenant rested,  is in the word for Ark itself.

The Hebrew word translated Ark when referring to the Ark of the Covenant is not the same Hebrew word used for Noah’s Ark or the basket the carried Moses.  It’s ‘arown Strong Number 727.  This word is used almost exclusively in direct reference to the Ark of the Covenant, including I think every time the KJV translates it Ark.  Of course I lean towards the theory that there were two Ark of the Covenants and this word is used of both.  But still it’s almost always of an Ark containing Tablets of The Law.

Six of the exceptions to this are places where the KJV translated it “chest”, in two accounts of the same events.  2 Kings 12:9-10 and 2 Chronicles 24:8-11.  This chest was also placed in The Temple, it was a chest for depositing funds for The Temple.

Coincidentally the name given to Ornan who originally owned the Threshing Floor the Temple was built on in 2 Samuel 24 is Araunah, basically this word with a Heh added at the end.  Interesting but still not the exact same word, but the most similar any other word in Scripture is.

But the exact word in question does appear one other time in Scripture, in the very last verse of the Book of Genesis.  Where the KJV translates it “coffin” because it describes where Joseph’s body was laid to rest.  Joseph is viewed as a type of Christ, and the Tomb Jesus was buried in was originally built for another man named Joseph.

The references to Jacob and Joseph being “embalmed” in Genesis 50:2-3 and 26 are often assumed to refer to Mummification because of who/where people assume Mizraim was.  But the actual etymology of the word just means to spice or anoint a body, exactly as was done with Jesus.

So perhaps the last verse of the first book of The Bible is providing us a type picture of the Burial of Jesus while at the same time providing the first usage in Scripture of a word used almost exclusively of The Ark of The Covenant?

And for further connection between Genesis 50 and this subject.  Genesis 50:10-11 says the children of Jacob stopped to mourn at the Thresshingfloor of Atad on the way to burying Jacob. Now this is often assumed to be east of the Jordan, but if Mizraim was in Arabia rather then Africa, then Beyond Jordan in this context could mean west of the Jordan.  Canaanites being there could be a reason to see this as west of the Jordan, as well as that they aren't described as crossing the Jordan to get from here to Hebron/Mamre.  Atad isn't used as a place name anywhere else, it means "thorn", so could it be a reference to the same thorns that the Crown of Thorns was made from?  And could this Thresshingfloor have later become the Thresshinglfoor of Ornan the Jebusite?

And then there is John 20:12 where after the Tomb is found empty Mary Magdalene sees two angels standing where the body of Jesus had laid, one at the Head and the other at the Feet.  Could they correspond to the two Cherubim on the Atonement Covering?

Update March 20th 2018: I've abandoned this view as explained here.

12 BC Date for the Nativity

I’ve been slightly off in the past when I mention saying that a Romans census took about 5 years.  I just went by the usual known Census dates and assumed they dated the start of that 5 year period, allowing the 8 BC Census to end in 4 or 3 BC.

In actuality the Monumentum Ancyranum inscription states that Augustus completed a Lustrum in 8 BC, the year Censorinus and Asinius were Consuls.  That would make the first year of that Lustrum 12 BC.  Some translations word this more vaguely, but I think the version identifying 8 BC as when it was completed may be correct.

Now I’ve made a big deal before about my post deconstructing the assumption that Luke mentions Quirinus, however it's interesting that 12 BC was the year Quirinus was Consul.  Again Luke 2 doesn’t use a word for Governor, but for governing.  The Legate of Syria at this time was Marcus Titius, but he was brand new in the office, it’s not difficult at all to imagine one of the Consuls was overseeing the East.  Especially since 12 BC was also the year Quirinus started his campaign against the Homonadenses.  He wasn't actively serving as Consul anymore by the year's end, but he was still one of the Consuls the year was named after. 

Or if Jesus was born at the end of 13 BC or beginning of 12 BC, it could be Mary and Joseph had to be in Bethlehem before the Lustrum started. 

Of course given the common interpretation of Luke 2:1-2 saying the Census began during the governing of Quirinus, and the Roman custom of naming years after the Consuls at it's start.  It could be this Lustrum was gonna be identified with Quirinus regardless of when during it Jesus was born.

Some before have argued for a 12 BC Birthdate for Jesus.  They get a lot of stuff wrong (including the common anti December 25th memes), starting with wanting to see Halley's Comet as the Star of Bethlehem.  Since I place the Star of Bethlehem a little under 2 years before Jesus was born, not at his birth, my model here would use the Star of Bethlehem candidate(s) usually favored by 15 or 14 BC theorists, when there were more Jupiter-Regulus conjunctions, and some interesting movements with Venus.  And that when Hanukkah would have happened in December of 12 BC, Venus was visible in Israel as an Evening Star according to Stellarium.  

But the previous year's Hanukkah had Venus visible as a Morning Star.  That year the 25th of Kislev would have began probably at sunset of December 23rd.  And then perhaps the magi arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born around Sunrise of December 24th, and arrived at Mary and Joseph's house exactly 24 hours later.  That model would put the beginning of Nisan of 13 BC around the 6th of 7th of April.

There could be more time between the family going to Egypt and Herod’s death then people usually assume.  The word for “young child” used at the time they return from Egypt, can simply mean not fully an adult yet, Mark 5:40-42 uses it of a 12 year old.

Now that goes against some of what I’ve argued before.  I do still believe the Magi arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born.  But it might be Herod didn’t give up on waiting for the Magi to return till after the 40 days.  Maybe he wasn’t in Jerusalem when Simeon and Anna gave their prophecies.  He was often not in Jerusalem, he may have been there for when the Magi arrived only because he was there to celebrate Hannukah.

Some think Simeon the Just of Luke 2 was probably a Priest and maybe even the High Priest.  That this date puts the nativity during the administration of Simon Beothus is pretty interesting then.   One of the more overlooked things Josephus said about the house of Simon Beothus is that they descended from Onais IV.

In my post on the Lunar Eclipse preceding the Death of Herod, where I explain why reluctantly I may have to agree with the 4 BC Eclipse, I also broke down Luke 2 and showed that it was only John preaching against Antipas and Herodias dated to the 15th year of Tiberius, Jesus Baptism when he was almost 30 could have been earlier.

If Jesus was conceived during the Passover season of 13 BC, and then born in late December 13 BC or early January 12 BC.  Then Nissan of 37 AD would be the 49th anniversary of Jesus conception, a Jubilee.  And that’s when I believe the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 ended.

I believe Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was the same person as Simon the half brother of Jesus (in-spite of the early Catholics wanting to call him a son of Clopas).  I believe all of his half siblings were younger, since I believe Mary was their mother and Jesus was obviously her first born.  Simeon’s death is dated to 117 AD, and he was apparently 120 years old when he died, according to Eusebius (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxii.html).  That would place the birth of Simon in 5 or 4 BC.  Assuming they were named in the order they were born, James and Joses were also older than Simon.  So that is potential evidence against my past desire to place Jesus's Birth right before Herod died.

However that date for Simeon’s death may be too late.  Since it’s also said to be while Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes was Governor of Judea, which was from 99-102.  However the chronology of post Josephus governors of Judea isn't established as firmly.  The scenario presented makes most sense as being in the context of the Kitos War.

This is an idea I’m considering, but not one I’m willing to consider my main theory yet.

Update March 21 2018: John The Baptist

What's interesting to me about the proposed December 23rd/24th 13 BC Birthdate is that from the calculations I did with the Lunar phases and such for the prior two years.  John The Baptist could have been born on July 7th 13 BC. On the Hebrew Calendar that's the 4th of Tammuz.

Update September 2022: I've been returning to basically this Nativity Model, but I'm now favoring December of 12 or January of 11 BC over the prior year as I had originally, with the Annunciation near the Spring Equinox of 12 BC.

When I say I think Jesus was born on December 25th

I don't necessarily mean that exactly.  But I think the basic time-frame is right.  Late December or early January.  On the Hebrew Calendar in either Kislev or Tevet.

I have a bit of a hunch it may have been the 25th day of the Month on the Hebrew Calendar, and then that got translated to December 25th by Gentile Christians.   In other words I think it highly possible Jesus was born on the First day of Hanukkah and Circumcised on the Eight Day of Hanukkah.

My past estimate that a Passover/First Fruits conception would place his Birth near the end of Tevet was based on a misunderstanding of how the Gestation cycle is counted.

Following Zola Levitt's observations about the Gestation cycle and the Leviticus 23 Feast days.  If the first month of Mary's cycle directly lined up with the month of Nisan.  Then 270 days takes us to about when Hanukkah happens.

Ya know often on the first day of Hanukkah the Moon is under the Feet of Virgo.

I still haven't made up my mind what year yet.  That's something I'll be getting into more in the future.

Israel did wander in the Sinai Peninsula

[Update Ocotber 2020: I'm semi retracting this post, if Hor and Kadesh-Meribah are both in the area of Petra then the Israelites were right be the modern border of Israel and Jordan and so this detail of Numbers doesn't mean as much as I thought.]

I just read an article saying Joktan never went to Arabia

http://www.eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm

I've talked about descent from Joktan before.  On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia.  And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia.  But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.

This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and not it's the only place where Genesis is not strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25.  But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.

Some Bible scholars have offered an opinion that Joktan migrated into Arabia
because two of his sons, Sheba and Havilah, have the same names as two tribes
in Arabia.  But those Arabian tribes are of Cushite descent in the lineage of Ham
and are not in the lineage of Shem at all (see Gen. 10:6-7).  Arabia is part of the
migration route to Africa, the land of Cush; therefore the first peoples in Arabia
were Cushite, in the lineage of Ham. 

(Many Biblical names may occur multiple times in the different genealogies but
that does not confirm a genealogical kinship; only the context can indicate that.)

Now I do agree about there being Cushites in Arabia.  The problem here is they ignore Ophir, there is no Ophir among the descendants of Cush, and Arabain traditions frequently linked Ophir to Sheba and Havilah.  And The Bible does the same.

It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba).  In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire.  The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah.  In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.

The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled.  The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.

The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.

Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes.  Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen.  The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.

Joktan had 13 sons.  So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah.  And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula. 

Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan.  I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names.  The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon however.  What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska.  I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.

So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are.  Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few.  And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.

The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.

More speculation on The Little Horn

This Daniel 7 speculation could be made compatible with the Daniel 7 theory I posted a couple days ago.  But it arguably works better in the context of the theory before that.  And should definitely be compared with my last post on The Little Horn.

It derives from one of my earliest Lost Tribes posts.  Where I suggested that the Fourth Beast proper is Edom but the Horns are Ephraim.  That drew on connections between Edom and Ephraim made in Obadiah, and also Amalek being in Mount Ephraim during the Midianite oppression.  And in the context of Daniel 2 that sees the Iron as Edom and the Miry Clay as Ephraim.

Now initially the main reason I had for associating the number 10 with Ephraim was that Jeroboam was given 10 Tribes.  But I've noticed something else compelling.

In Deuteronomy 33 Moses gives Blessings to the Tribes of Israel, like Jacob did in Genesis 49.  Verses 13-17 are the blessing for Joseph, one of the longer ones.  This is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine taught in Rabbinic Judaism.  Other aspects of this blessing I may talk about in future posts, but here I'm going to focus on a specific part of verse 17.

"his horns are like the horns of Aurochs: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

Mostly the numbers here are seen as just about how Ephraim has or will have a larger population then Manasseh.  Genesis 48 says Ephraim would become a multitude of nations (or the fullness of them) while Manasseh would simply be one great people.  But what I notice is this is specifically about the Horns of Joseph.  If each Horn is a "thousands", then Ephraim is 10 and Manasseh is 1, making a total of 11.

In the prior Little Horn post, one theory I suggested was seeing the Little Horn as The United States of America.  And I have a prior post about America possibly being Manasseh.

But I also talked about seeing it as Modern Greece.  On my Revised Chronology blog, I talked about possible links between ancient Greece and Northern Israelites, I may talk about that more in the future.  That speculation has included specific figures of Greek mythology who might have been based on Jehu, a king who first arose in Gilead.  But also the possibly of the Dorians coming from Dor, a city linked to Manasseh and Asher.

As far as the recent theory about the Fourth Beast being Arabia and Islam.  The Little Horn being Jordan fits well, a recently created nation at the same time as modern Israel.  It includes the core of ancient Edom and most of the land of the Trans-Jordan Tribes, in fact the capital of modern Jordan is arguably land given to Gilead in-spite of it's modern name making us think of Ammon.  And Jordan also originally had the West Bank territories, which included Shechem, Samaria and Tirzah. And all Palestinians technically have Jordanian citizenship.

When it comes to Genesis 48, people talk a lot about Ephraim, but I think we might be overlooking Manasseh.

Another variation of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7 view.

I laid out my view of the Seven Heads of Daniel 7, and then improved it a bit in my Basra post.  This view is predicated on saying seven heads are implied in Daniel 7, 3 beasts with 1 head each and 1 beast with 4 heads.

The most controversial aspect of that was making Rome the seventh head instead of the 6th, defining it as yet future in John's time because it hadn't taken Babylon yet.  And that still may be the best way of looking at Daniel 7.  But I have recently devised a variation that keeps the basic premise but returns Rome to being the 6th and then present head.

Basically, it makes Rome not the 4th Beast anymore but the fourth head of the Leopard.  The Leopard and his heads I associate with Javan and his four Sons, and there have long been reasons to justify associating Kittim with Rome.  Rome was very influenced by Greece.  In the Eastern Empire Greek was always the more popular language, and after the western Empire fell the Eastern Empire eventually even flat out made Greek it's official Language.  So Rome as it was to it's Eastern conquests including Judea, was always very Greek, Paul used Greek and Gentile interchangeably even though he wrote during the Roman period.

My initial form of this Daniel 7 view was based on it being Babylon/Shinar's POV of history, for this we return to the focal point being the Land/Erets of Israel.

The Four Heads of the Leopard are thus Alexander, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Caesars.

Naturally, the fourth beast/seventh head must thus be the Islamic Empire.  Chris White bases his objection to Islam as the 7th head mainly on saying you can't possibly define Islam as having a short reign.  However in this theory, that's where the Horns come in.

Just as the Four Horns in Daniel 8 represent a Kingdom being divided.  The 10 Horns/Toes represent Islam being divided.  Initially it was just a split in two, the Sunni/Shia split, hence the Two Legs of the Statue in Daniel 2.  But has since fractured even more.

It was a united Islam that had a comparatively short reign over the Eretz of Israel.  It was the second Caliph who captured Judea, and then the Split was cemented as soon as the fourth died.  All of the first five were people who knew Muhammad, meaning this all happened in the course of one lifetime.

If I'm going to look for a specific individual to identify with the Seventh Head, it would be Ali ibn Abu Talib based on what I've discussed elsewhere.

This does not necessarily prove an Islamic Antichrist view, it makes Islam relevant, but I still feel the Eight King of Revelation 17 is one of the first 5, not the seventh.

How should we define the Fourth Beast in terms of the Table of Nations?  Since we know the first three are Asshur, Madai and Javan?

The thing is Arabia was a very ethnically mixed region.  The word Arab is in the Hebrew texts spelled the same as the Hebrew word for an ethnically mixed person (sometimes translated Mongrel), when Israel is called a "Mixed Multitude" at the Exodus "Mixed" is also Arab there.  And it's the same when Daniel 2:41 describes the toes of the Statue as "Iron mixed with Miry Clay".

Arabia had Cushites and possibly also Mizraimites from Ham, and also I think some Canaanite presence, particularly the Sinites.  From Shem it had the Joktanites, the tribes of Ishmael the firstborn of Abraham, and also Abraham's sons by Keturah, by the time of Joseph Midianite and Ishmaelite became interchangeable. The Trans-Jordan tribes were often in conflict with Ishmaelites as 1 Chronicles 5 shows.  And I think 1 Chronicles 4 shows Simeon migrated to some Ishmaelite lands, and I think the clan of Jamin specifically went to Yemen and provided Yemen it's name.  My defining Arabia as being not just the whole peninsula but also everything between the Jordan and Euphrates rivers, also puts within it Moab, Ammon, and Edom, including the Amalekites who are linked to both Seir and Kadesh.

Edom is perhaps the most important.  Removing Rome as the Fourth Beast would destroy my support for seeing Edom as Rome, because the foundation of that was largely how the Fourth Beast's unique fate of being completely destroyed with no national identity left in the Messianic Era, is outside Daniel given only to Edom and Amalek, some cities may be described similarly but no other whole nation.  We see this in Balaam's Prophecies and in Obadaiah.  Jeremiah 46-49 also foretells judgment on several nations, but with Edom lacking a promise of restoration.  Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36 also seem to see Edom as the last Nation to be destroyed before The Messianic Era begins.

And it's possible Edom could be linked to more of Arabia then is traditionally assumed.  Where you place Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea inevitably effects your view of how far Edom's borders stretch, and I've gone back and forth between a few theories that place Sinai at least pretty far away.  And his having a grandson named Teman can justify linking Edom to Yemen.  Genesis 14 links the Amalekites to the same region Ishmael would later settle.

It's also interesting thematically how all the passed over First Born lines from Abraham can be linked to Arabia.  Ishmael's status is the one tied directly to Islamic theology.  But Esau was also originally considered the firstborn of Isaac.  And then the fact that some Tribes of Israel can be linked Arabia, they include Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, and eastern Manasseh who was the firstborn of Joseph.   Perhaps the Little Horn is an attempt by Satan to create an heir to all these lines?

It also could be viable to in Daniel 2 see the Iron as the peoples of Arabia and the Miry Clay as the Ottomans.

Biblical Egypt might not be Egypt

[This is a defunct theory now.  See this post https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-tribes-of-mizraim.html]

The Second Resurrection

I did a post on The First Resurrection already.  I've updated that post fairly recently, so if you only read it when it was new, you might want to read it again.

Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events.  But what Revelation 20 says does not support this.  Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment.  And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.

Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.

Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time.  But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that.  Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.

The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this.  The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable.  This is also about the Second Resurrection.

Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated.  The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.

This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology.  And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.

Who is The Bride of Christ?

I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once.  My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational.  I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel.  Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.

So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then.  I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride.  And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.

Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21.  And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church.  One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church.  I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.

I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars.  Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes.  They simply wouldn't care.

But now to how I'm more open.

The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities.  Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed.  These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God.  And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church. 

In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber.  Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here.  What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.

I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together.  My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate.  The Children may then equate to the Inner Court.  Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests.  There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows.  Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.

I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen].  The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.

Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21.  It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel.  It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17.  Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.

In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17.  A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.

It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.

Update: Types

Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of  "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament.  I think he said there are at least 7 once.  But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.

Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.

With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother.  Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.

Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.

Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.

Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile.  Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite.  And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem.  Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.

Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.

Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively.  And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.

Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba.  The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir.  What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding.  Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel.  Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin.  But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.

So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story.  Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech.  The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.

So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.

Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.

 Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.

Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.

Methodius's writings we don't have in full.  This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib.  But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do.  (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).

So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational.  But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture.  However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.

Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.

All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.

Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue.  But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.

Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law.  At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife.  Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.

However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.

Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently.  Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.

Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.

Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues.  First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from.  Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.

The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.

Some things about the word order are not what I expected either.  The Young's Literal Translation reads.

for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,

Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order.  For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.

Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.

Eden, Sinai and Iraq

I’m abandoning some of my past speculation about the locations of Kadesh-Barnea and Mt Sinai.  I still think Sinai was in Arabia not the traditional Sinai Peninsula.  But it’s a broad definition of Arabia that includes all of the Arabian Peninsula and everything between the Jordan and Euphrates Rivers.  I now think the Kadesh of the wilderness (or one at least if there were two) was Petra, a theory Josephus expressed and is supported by some today, including many who still support Jabal El-Lawz.

Ezekiel 28:13-14 associates the Garden of Eden with the Holy Mountain of God.  Many use this to support making Eden a location in Judea, like Moriah or Zion.  But the first Holy Mountain of God in The Bible was Mt Sinai.  Perhaps this location was consistently God’s main earthly dwelling place until the construction of the portable Tabernacle in the days of Moses.  The exact phrase "Mountain of God" or "Mount of God" (both the same in the Hebrew) is used outside Ezekiel only of Sinai/Horeb.

This is a good place to remind people that the Garden was probably gone in the Post-Flood world.

Eden was in Mesopotamia.  Search every appearance of the name Eden in The Bible, you’ll find many references ignored in the Garden debate because they are clearly about a Mesopotamian location during the Neo-Assyrian period.  I’ve already addressed those who are confused by thinking Cush only refers to Africa.  The Cush of Mesopotamia was probably Kish and/or the core cities of Nimrod’s Empire, the “Land of Nimrod” of Micah.  Though some have also suggested connecting it with the Kassites.

The Gihon Spring in the City of David is not a river.  Plenty of names are used of more than one location in The Bible, that Gihon has nothing to do with Eden.

Locating where the Sumerian mythology counterpart of the Garden was is complicated by it coming to share a name with a civilization Sumer traded with, Dilmun, possibly located in Bahrain.  What I can gather of it independent of that, seemingly implies a place close to Eridu, where the Abzu Temple was.  Dilmun is called a Mountain at least once.

Another name for Mt Sinai was Horeb.  The spelling in the Hebrew is the same as the word for Sword used in Genesis 3:24 in reference to the Flaming Sword.  Part of the word play of that verse is that word being a bit of a homophone for Cherub, a word also used in Ezekiel 28’s discussion of the Molech of Tyre.

The name of Sinai itself is possibly etymologically related to the name of the connected Wilderness of Sin.  Which may come from the Sinite tribe of Canaan, possibly the same as the Sinim of Isaiah 49:12.  The Sinites aren’t one of the Canaanites who show up again in Joshua and Judges.  Genesis 10:18 says the Canaanites did spread beyond what we properly call Canaan.  So some could easily have gone to modern Iraq, Sinim is defined as a land Israel is returning from.

Sin was the Akkadian (a Semitic language) name for the Mesopotamian Moon god, named Nanna by the Sumerians.  In the past I’ve desired to question the traditional identification of the Ur of Genesis 12 with the Ur of Sumer.  But given how Terah, the name of Abraham’s father, could be interpreted as a variation on the Hebrew word for the moon, Yerah.  Him moving from Ur to Harran is interesting, the older and later centers of Mesopotamian moon worship.  Acts 7 clarified that God first spoke to Abraham before they left for Harran.  Did even Abraham also first encounter Yahuah at Mt Sinai?

Yahuah is obviously not a Moon god, he forbids moon worship.  But it’s possible His preference for a Lunar calendar in His worship may have caused some polytheists to presume Him to be one.  Pagans who encountered the Israelites never denied the existence of their God, just His Superiority.  I’ve discussed before an apparent phonetic similarity between the name Yah and the name of a moon god worshiped in Kemet.  So it may be Sin became a name for a moon god from being linked to the Mountain of Yahuah.  Or that mountain and wilderness was named after Sin because people erroneously thought the God dwelling there was a moon god.

The Sinai is Yemen theory draws a lot on Teman being a name for Yemen, and Habakkuk 3:3 seemingly using Teman as a synonym for Sinai.  But Biblically other uses of Teman are usually about Edom.  The location of Kadesh may be more what that verse had in mind.  And Edom could have controlled more than we usually think.  Something worth keeping in mind when I bring up Bozrah later.  As well as considering how Seir fits into Sinai’s location.

Shiite Muslims seem to view Mesopotamia as equally or even more holy than Arabia.  It has a lot to do with Ali’s association with the region, but they have justifications for making it older.  Karbala, Kufa and Samarra are among particular cities they revere.  Basra is mainly a Shiite city as well.  

Sunni Muslims typically say that Mecca doesn’t just go back to Abraham and Ishmael, but all the way back to being the first Holy Mosque built by Adam.  But the fourth Shiite Imam Zayn al-Abidin said.

 “God chose the land of Karbalā’ as a safe and blessed sanctuary twenty-four thousand years before He created the land of the Ka'bah and chose it as a sanctuary. Verily it (Karbala) will shine among the gardens of Paradise like a shining star shines among the stars for the people of Earth.”. 

If there was more than one Kadesh of the wandering, and one needs to be made much closer to Sinai than Petra.  There are a lot of places in Jordan, Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia to choose from.  Maybe Tema, which was an Ishmaelite settlement, and later become another Holy Place of the Akkadian moon god Sin.  However I think most scholars underestimate how far they could travel in 11 days.

One proposed location for the Garden of Eden is Basra.  A city I have argued could be Eschatological Babylon.

I have argued that The Woman’s hiding place in the Wilderness is the same Wilderness as Exodus and Numbers, and possibly a return to Sinai.  

Later however I argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and the Woman of Revelation 13 could be the same.  In that the main thing holding me back was that this would make my Sinai being where the Woman returns and the Babylon being in Iraq position probably not compatible anymore.  But did suggest they could be reconciled by expanding the scale of the wandering.  And even suggested that the Bozrah of Micah could be a by name prophecy of the Basra of Iraq.  Either way the Hebrew name Bozrah seems to refer to more than just one location.

Paul is speaking mostly symbolically not Literally when he calls Torah based religion mount Sinai in Galatians 4.  But perhaps it does have a literal application Eschatologically?

This view can be compatible with a traditional identification of Misraim with Kemet (modern Egypt), including maybe Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke’s Red Sea crossing site.  Israel had over a month to get to Sinai.  But I should mention I have been considering the alternate Misraim in Arabia view, and will post on it in the future.

Likewise with the traditional location for Midian, many think Sinai wasn’t as close to where Jethro lived as is commonly assumed.  At the same time expanding Midian is viable, they had five Kings after all.

The only thing is I don’t have is a specific mountain to identify with Sinai/Horeb.  I think it’s modern Iraq, probably to the south.  West of the Euphrates, or at least west of where the Euphrates was at the time.  But maybe a bit too far from the rivers to fit what many consider Mesopotamia proper.  Looking at the modern maps, maybe a location in Kuwait could fit?