Does The Bible talk about the End Times more then the Life of Jesus?

Chuck Missler likes to say it does, calling it.

"a period of time about which the Bible says more than it does about any other period in human history- including the time when Jesus walked the shores of the Sea of Galilee or climbed the mountains of Judea. "

And my being uncomfortable with that implication is perhaps a factor in why, even though I am ultimately a Futurist based on my view of Matthew 24 and Revelation, and Paul's Thessalonian Epistles, and 2 Peter 3.  I'm increasingly becoming sympathetic to Preterist interpretations of many passages where my fellow Futurists aren't fond of Preterist interpretations.  Because I do believe the Death and Resurrection of Jesus is the time period around which The Bible revolves

Not all Preterism is so focused on 70 AD, some say much was fulfilled by within Seven Years of Jesus Crucifixion.  And that is where I am in terms of the 70th Week of Daniel, I don't think it refers to 66-73 AD.  I think it was 30-37 AD or maybe 29-36 AD.  And that Jesus was Crucified at it's beginning or end but NOT the Middle.

Still 70 AD can be viewed as in some senses "close enough" to the time of Jesus, plenty of people lived through both time periods.  And I think Jesus did especially in Luke foretell the events of 70 AD often.

I already made one post on Zechariah 12-14, and how I'm unsure what to think of it but am growing more and more open to it being about 30-70 AD.  And I recently became aware of a new argument for that.

Zechariah 13:7 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 as being fulfilled by His arrest.

 Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad"."

The following verses of Zechariah 13 are the basis for saying in the End Times two thirds of all Jews will be massacred, probably by The Antichrist.  Preterists have argued this was filled by by how many Jews were killed in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War.  I will object to any claims that 70 AD fulfilled Matthew 24, but as far as Zechariah 12-14 (and much of Luke 21) go, it fits.

And on Daniel 12 I have strong reasons for believing that can apply to the First Century AD also.  As The Book of Revelation defines it's existence as the unsealing of Daniel.  And the Resurrection alluded to is the same one alluded to in Matthew 27:52-43, as those are the only two Resurrection verses that say "many" rather then All.  And I've shown that Daniel 36-45 is about Augustus Caesar.

And my thoughts on Isaiah 19 are also complicated.

I also think some passages usually assumed to be about before The Millennium are actually about after The Millennium.  Like the Gog and Magog invasion.

The Nile in The Bible

Some people out there want to argue that not all references to Mizraim (the Hebrew name Translated Egypt) are in fact to Egypt, the nation on the North Eastern corner of Africa.  But to a tribe called Musri, located in either Arabia or Turkey.  And the word translated Pharaoh was a personal name.  Some have even attempted to argue seemingly none of them were.

I looked into this theory with an open mind, knowing it could hurt much of what I've been arguing about Egypt's role in Bible Prophecy, though perhaps translate much of it to an an Islamic Antichrist theory.  And then Deuteronomy 28 and Hosea's Prophecies of Israel returning to Egypt could apply to the abundance of documentation of Jews going to Arabia following both the Babylonian and Jewish captivities.

Because of Herodotus we know at least Necho and Hophra were Egyptians.  I certainly do not think there was a coincidence of two nations with the same name, not with only one Mizraim in the Table Nations.  I considered that the Hyksos might descend from Mizraim (which could fit something I argued for here) and the original Egyptians were the Horites/Horim.  But I'm ultimately unconvinced of that.

Since there is outside The Bible references to a Musuri tribe in Arabia and/or Turkey (they could have migrated), one may ask in the traditional view of Egypt how does that Tribe fit into the Biblical narrative?  I think the Biblical name more likely to be related to that tribe is Masrekah in Genesis 36:36, the homeland of one of Edom’s early Kings, Samlah.  But also Genesis 50:11 could explain a location in Jordan sharing the name of Mizraim.  And also maybe one or two of the seven sons of Mizraim settled in Arabia rather then Africa.  In fact I've come to a theory about the Philistines that would place them in the time of Abraham and Isaac near the Saudi/Yemen border, and that they traveled to the Gaza strip region much latter but before the time of Moses.  And that could also place the two sons of Mizraim they are said to come from in Arabia.

As far the role the word Pharaoh plays in these theories. suggesting Pharaoh isn't an Egyptian word and became a name for Egyptian Kings only because of The Bible. Homer in the Odyssey refers to the Thebes in Egypt as Pharan Thebes.  So that's a pretty ancient precedent.

But the main reason I have come to conclude that this theory is wrong is because of The Nile.  And  then from that research of The Nile I discovered something else interesting.

But to begin, proponents of the above theory may first point out that in the King James at least the name Nile never occurs, so they could argue the river in Genesis and Exodus we assume to be the Nile could be some now long dried up river in Arabia, perhaps the same one often identified with the Pison of Genesis 2.

However, it is the perception that this river is unnamed that is wrong.  The standard Hebrew word for River is Nahar, Strong number 5104.  But there is another word translated river (and sometimes stream, brook or flood) in the King James Bible, Y'or, Strong Number 2975.  Even though this word is used a lot, it is, with very few exceptions I'll talk about later, always used of the major river of Egypt, or at least with Egypt being mentioned in close proximity.

It is used in Jeremiah and Ezekiel's prophecies that are clearly about the Egypt of Necho and Hophra.  But it first appears in Genesis 41 when Joseph first comes to Egypt.  And it's used in Exodus of the river that took Moses basket to Pharaoh's Daughter, and that Moses later turned to Blood.

The word is sometimes used in plural form.  That could be in reference to the Nile delta region.  Or to how in Sudan the Nile splits in two.  Or other places where smaller rivers or streams seem to branch off from the Nile, like the Fayum region.

Nahar rather then this word is what's used in the phrase "River of Egypt" often used in defining the borders of what God promised to Abraham.  The ongoing debate on if this is The Nile or the Al-Arish or something else is not necessarily settled by that since The Nile certainly can still be called a Nahar, but it's a fact I felt should be mentioned.  Since I do hold the view that the "River of Egypt" is the Al-Arish.

Y'or is believed by scholars to not be Hebrew in origin but to derive from one of the words Egyptians used for The Nile.  Hapi seemed to be The Nile's name, while what the word Y'or is thought to come from is more like an Egyptian word for river or waterway.

This word is also used in Isaiah 19 and 7:18, Psalm 78:43-44, Amos 8&9, Nahum 3:8 and Zechariah 10:11.  All about Egypt. Isaiah 19 also uses Nahar.

Isaiah 23 is one of the more ambiguous passages being mainly about Tyre, but Egypt is mentioned.

The main obstacles for viewing this as referring only to The Nile is four random verses and one significant passage.  The fours verses are Job 28:10, 2 Kings 19:24, Isaiah 33:21 where it is used right next to Nahar, and Isaiah 37:25.  Those lack clear reference to Egypt, but hard to say they contradict the Nile being in mind either.  The historical context of Isaiah 37 does mention Egypt elsewhere.

It might be a word where the Hebrew usage is complicated, if to the Egyptians it was a word for river but often the Hebrews remembered it only being used in reference to The Nile or other waterways of Egypt.  But still some Hebrew writers might have known the Egyptians didn’t use it so exclusively.

However what is most fascinating is that Daniel 12:5-7 uses this word four times.  Mostly it is assumed this is about the same River Ezekiel 40-49, Zechariah 14 and Revelation 22 refer to as flowing out of the Messianic Temple and New Jerusalem/Yahuah-Shammah, but those passages use Nahar, except Revelation which uses a Greek word.  This is still the same Prophecy as Daniel 11, and I did a post somewhat recently where I argued that was more focused on Egypt then we usually realize, particularly that Egypt can be linked in concept to the Abomination of Desolation, mentioned again in Chapter 12.  So perhaps it makes sense to view this Daniel 12 River as The Nile?

The Eschatological significance of The Spring Feasts

It is popularly said the Spring Feast of Leviticus 23 were fulfilled in the First Advent and the Fall Feasts will be the Second Advent.  And that is mostly true, but the Fall Feasts do come up in the Gospel narrative.

Jesus' Crucifixion is the most important fulfillment of Passover.  But I think it has post shadowings as well as foreshadowings.  In the Book of Acts, Passover (incorrectly translated Easter once in the KJV) and Unleavened Bread continue to come up well after the Pentecost on which The Church was born.

This is a follow up of sorts to my recent post on the Fall Feasts.  That was focused on the Midway Point, this post will deal with how the Week begins and ends.  So like The Godfather Part II it is a prequel and a sequel at the same time.

I shall interpret the time periods from Revelation 11-13 (I'll mention Daniel's too, but I no longer feel Daniel's need to be Eschatological).  The math I did with my current 2030-2037 theory in mind, but I did similar calculations before with other years.  I encourage you to do your own calculations.

Revelation 11:1-2 says Jerusalem will be trodden under the foot of the Gentiles for 42 months.  Many have come up with all kinds of convoluted explanations of what that means, but using Scripture to interpret Scripture this is explained by Luke 21:24 as clearly an expression of military occupation.

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." and the next verse is the Second Coming and The Rapture.  Luke 21:20 through the first part of this verse I believe was fulfilled in 70 AD and Revelation 11 is the last part of the times of the gentiles.  But if it has a second fulfillment in the End Times, I believe it is at the start of the week not the midway point.

After the Two Witnesses are resurrected and ascend into heaven the people of the city (who we were told at the start are mostly gentiles) will believe and praise God, then the Last Trumpet sounds.  That is when the Fullness of the Gentiles are come in (Romans 11:25).

The 42 months I don't think necessarily need to be fulfilled to the day, they're broadly the same time period as the 1260 days but different in the specifics.  42 months before Yom Teruah takes us to (assuming there is a second Adar in there) the New Moon of Nisan three and a half years before.  Allowing wiggle room the siege could happen a little before or after.

The possibly that something will happen in the last month before the Week begins is logical, in the last month of the year the Barley Harvest is what lets Israel know the next New Moon will be the New Year.  Ezra 6:15 tells us the Second Temple was finished on the 3rd of Adar.  It is possible the Third Temple will be finished right before the Week begins, but I also think it possible it could last awhile before it begins.

The Two Witnesses will be killed three and a half days before Yom Teruah.  1260 days before that takes us to about, depending on when the proceeding Barley Harvest is, either the 7th of Nisan or 7th of Iyar.  Ezra 3:8 tells us Iyar was when Zeubabel and Jeshua began their work, they are considered types of the Two Witnesses so the Witnesses beginning their ministry in Iyar makes sense.  The 7th of Nisan is traditionally conjectured from the narrative of Joshua to be when his two spies were sent into Jericho, they too are types of the Witnesses.

I've argued before that the 1290 days are the first half of the Week not the second as usually assumed.  I've gone back and forth on if the Abomination of Desolation should begin or end it.    Either way what does happen at the beginning is the sacrifice and oblation being taken away.

If the 1290 days end on Yom Teruah then they could begin about either the 10th of Nisan or exactly a month before.    I could also see when they end being 10 days before or 10 days after.  If the earlier month for this is what happens it'd be the same with the Two Witnesses, and visa versa.  The 10th of Nisan I think will be important either way.

My theory on the first 6 seals is they happen very quickly in the Nisan that begins the Week.  The White Horseman might be the Antichrist before his death, or might be an anitchrist and/or a decoy antichrist.  Christians who want to co-opt the Rabbinic concept of Messiah Ben-Joseph as someone separate from Jesus could easily see that figure in the White Horseman.  The other three horseman will ride at about the same time, maybe as his allies or maybe as his enemies.

Whatever identity for him is true, I think he'll have his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem on the 10th of Nisan.  Maybe as someone many Jews and Christians will accept as a Messiah, or maybe as a conqueror.  And then maybe given a Crown on the 14th of Nisan.  And maybe killed on either the 14th or 26th of Nisan.  Cause either way for most of the first half of the Week the First Beast isn't a factor.

The Fifth Seal is a heavenly event, it shows all Martyrs of the Church, not just victims of a specific persecution.  But it's opening could still correlate to a specific persecution, like the one Jesus described in Matthew 24:9-14.

I've argued before that the Sixth Seal will open on the 14th of Nisan based on it's connection to Acts 2 and Joel 2 making the Earthquake and Darkness when Jesus was on The Cross it's near fulfillment.

I had argued then the 144,000 are sealed in Revelation 7 on Pentecost, I still feel they're connected to Pentecost but they're also called the First fruits in Revelation 14 so I now think their sealing will begin on First Fruits.

In one Seventh Trumpet post I talked about how Jewish custom has the Last Trump on Yom Teruh and the First Trumpet on Pentecost.  Connecting Trumpets to Pentecost is justified by Exodus 19-20 where in the third month when the Decalogue was given on Pentecost the Trumpets were sounded.

I think on the Pentecost following the start of the Week the 144,00 will be saved sparking a massive revival, the latter rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a repeat of the Pentecost of Acts 2.  Their Prayers will fill the golden Censor in the Heavenly Temple, it'll be thrown into the Earth causing more Earthquakes and thunder and lighting.  Then the Trumpets will be given to their Angels and the first will sound burning up the green grass and trees right as the Harvest season is starting.

I have no theories yet on when the 2nd-4th Trumpets will sound.  I have a post where I discus the timing of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets.  Where I conjecture the Five Months the locust torment men will end on the 17th of Nisan, the day Jesus Rose, and Haman was hanged.

The text of Daniel 12 does not in any explicit way link the end of the 1290 days to the Sacrifices being restored.   It could be they're are restored 2300 mornings and evenings (1250 days, about 37 lunar months, 3 years) after their taken away, like Daniel tells us was the case with Antiochus' Abomination.  But in this case that wouldn't end on Hanukkah but in the Nisan that starts year four of the week.  Or perhaps they never will be restored.

If one insists the 1290 days need to be the second half.  If they begin on Yom Teruh they could end on the last day of Unleavened Bread, if they begin on Yom Kippur they could end on the New Moon of Iyar.  Either way fitting what I already suspect that when the Week is over the Israelites won't be able to observe Passover at the proper time and will need to delay to Second Passover.  If they begin three and a half, seven or ten days before Yom Teruah.  Still not quite allowing everything to be cleansed in time for a proper Passover.

The 42 months the Beast is allowed to continue, if they begin in early Tishri or late Elul would end in about Adar, again not needing to be fulfilled to the day.  Purim is when the sons of Haman were hanged.

The 1260 days Israel (The Woman) is in the wilderness begins right after The Rapture, even if they were fleeing in a sense already from the Abomination before.  1260 days from Yom Teruah takes us to about the 20th or 21st of Adar, and 1260 days from Yom Kippur takes us to about the end of Adar and Beginning of Nisan.  This is when their Messiah, a namesake of Joshua, will lead them into the Promised Land from Edom, as shown in Isaiah 63.

I think we need to consider that how the Armageddon reference in the 6th Bowl ties into Revelation 19 isn't quite what we assume.  And also that Satan being sealed in the Abyss is not the same day as Revelation 19 either.

I now respond to Post-Tribbers who say everyone else believes in more then one Second Comings by pointing out that Revelation 19 is never Biblically defined as the Second Coming.  Revelation 14 is where the Greek word Paursia is used.

Zechariah 12-14 is one vision but it has pieces, 9-11 are a separate vision.  Chapter 12 has the reference to Meggido/Armageddon, Chapter 13 has a possible illusion to the Idol Shepherd of chapter 11 being dealt with, and I think maybe the two thirds who are cut off and die are the armies following the Beast in Revelation 19 not Israelites as people often assume, two thirds of all gentiles, or the world's total population.

And Chapter 14 depicts Jerusalem still under siege, perhaps from Satan directly this time.  And Jesus Second Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives.  This one will also be on the 10th of Nisan, this time He'll be riding on a White Horse.  And given a Coronation on the 14th or 15th of Nisan. And perhaps raise from the dead whoever among the saved are still not yet raised on First Fruits (Ezekiel 37). So this Nisan will be important even though the Passover won't be kept till the following month.

The 1335 days is the one number form Daniel I'm most certain on.  It begins on the Yom Teruah that finished Revelation 11 and ends early in Sivan.  There is a strong possibility of it ending on Pentecost or the Sabbath the day before Pentecost.  No matter what the next Sunday after will be the Biblical date of Pentecost.

Pentecost as the day the Church Age began, and the Day Israel as born as a Nation with the giving of the Covenant in Exodus 19-20, fits perfectly as the day to formally begin The Millennium, or the Government that will rule The Millennium and a little after.  Because as I said before the only event that happens right when the Thousand years expire is Satan being released.  So I think the end of the 1335 days will be when Satan is bound in The Abyss.

Will the Spring Feats have relevance after The Millennium?  Well I think Satan will be released the same day he was bound, on if not near Pentecost.  I have a hunch the Gog and Magog war will involves the 17th of Tammuz, 9th of Ave and 3rd of Tishi, because God said in Zechariah he'd make their Fast Days joyous celebrations.

Seven years after 3rd of Tishri fits what I said on the Fall Feasts about New Jerusalem and Tabernacles.  Seven months later may mean they'll be finished cleaning up the dead bodies after Passover and need to do one last Second Passover.

So that is my view of the End Times relevance of the Spring Feasts.

I now think the Abomination of Desolation could start the Seven Years

Allow me to clarify what I mean.  The Man of Sin proclaiming himself God while sitting in The Temple in II Thessalonians 2, which I believe connects to events in Revelation 13, is certainly at the Midway Point of the Seven Years.

But I'm no longer convinced of the assumption that what Jesus meant by the "Abomination of Desolation" is the same as that event.  Jesus called it "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet".

Actually that they're distinct events is grammatically justified by that Paul's Man of Sin is sitting in The Temple while Jesus' Abomination is standing in it.  It know it might seem silly to quibble about that but I believe the details of God's Word are important.

Daniel never used that phrase of what Paul describes (a Man deifying himself), he used it of an Idol of Zeus Olympus being set up in The Temple.  And Upon reading Maccabees more closely I realized it wasn't even in the Holy of Holies, it was on the Brazen Altar.  Now one could argue Antiochus Epiphanes did deify himself, but that's not what the "Abomination the maketh Desolate" refers to in Daniel 11.

Revelation 13 does refer to an Image of The Beast, but I don't think that is what most people think it is.

In past studies on this Blog I've come to the conclusion that if Jerusalem is captured by a Gentile army during the end times, it marks the beginning of the Week, not the middle like people assume.  And I've talked about the possibility of a decoy Antichrist doing a decoy Abomination event.

I did a post where I argued the 1290 days ends with the Abomination of Desolation.  I'm no longer convinced of that argument, I'm having trouble clearly getting it from the Hebrew, and I've noticed the Preterists making that argument appeal to the Septuagint, which I object to.

That assumption remained in mind when I did my Calculations on the 70th Week post.  I'm also no longer convinced the 7 years of Revelation necessarily has anything to do with Daniel 9.

I do still believe that if those numbers in Daniel 12 are relevant to the End Times at all (I believe that can apply to Antiochus's Abomination, I just don't know how, but it most likely involved history beyond the first Hanukkah and Antiochus' death).  That the 1290 days are the first half and the 1335 days the second half.  With the point where they meet being the Yom Teruah on which The Rapture will happen.  The 1290 days would begin in Nisan if the first half has a Second Adar, and the 1335 days would end on or near Pentacost, which I think will formally begin the Millennium a couple months after The Beast is defeated.

That would put the beginning of the ministry of the Two Witnesses in Iyar rather then Nisan as I thought before.  But I have reason to see Iyar as prophetically significant.

I think this Abomination of Desolation will be performed by a Decoy Antichrist.  And later the actual Antichrist and False Prophet will present themselves as saving the world (or at least Israel) from him.

The "Great Tribulation" I still think refers to all Christian persecution, but now I can argue the escalation of it Matthew 24 describes applies to the first half of the 7 years, not the second.

Now it's also possibly it could be distinct but still happen at broadly the Mid-Way point.  I'm continually revising my theories as I study the Word.

I no longer believe in Gaps in Daniel chapters 9 and 11

I've held that view in the past, but I've slowly come to abandon it.  For that reason I changed the name of this blog, I sadly don't know a way to create a full new URL without rending all existing links to this Blog dead.

I had cited Hippolytus as an early source on Gaps in Daniel.  Thing is he's the only Early Church Father to hold this view, he seems to have invented it.  And while I still agree with him more then most Church Fathers on a number of End Times issues, his bizarre views on the Song of Solomon hurts his credibility.  And his view on when the 69th Week ended does not agree with anyone today, he ended it at Jesus Birth.

I first started work on this 70th Week study when I was still against seeing the 70th Week as already fulfilled.  But as you can see my open minded study of the evidence lead me to become convinced that yes the 70th Week was fulfilled from 30-37 AD.  I talked more on that subject here.

I have also shown that Daniel 11:36-45 was about Augustus.

Gaps have nothing to do with making Daniel 2 or 7 End times, they are in nature incredibly broad symbolic visions of all history.  But the visions in Hebrew Daniel are usually more narrow in scope.  The way in which Revelation draws on Daniel is only really explicitly to Daniel 7 and to some extent 12.  That Daniel 12 is jumping from the first to second Advent isn't a Gap really, it is again a broader in scope prophecy.

Matthew 24 is indisputably End Times.  The basis for making material from Hebrew Daniel end times relevant is Jesus saying "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet".  Thing is while terminology similar to that is arguably used in the last verse of Daniel 9, the exact phrase is used in Daniel only in 11 and 12, and in 11 it's not the part any reasonable person argues is before the gap but in the part clearly about Antiochus Epiphanes.

Now I do think it's possible that the 70th Week and Daniel 11:36-45 could have end times relevance via Double Fulfillment.  And I think to an extent even Daniel 12's End Times relevance is via double fulfillment.  But the only thing I see absolutely required to happen again is what Jesus specifically refereed to.

But in the case of the 70th Week I've come to view that as only being applicable if the entire 70 Weeks is fulfilled twice, which I have argued a possible model for on this blog.  If that model doesn't bear out, then Daniel 9 is not End Times relevant.

If Daniel 11's relevance is via double fulfillment  Then when it starts being End Times relevant may have to be pushed sooner, because again it's the phrase "Abomination of Desolation" that is the key to Daniel's End Times relevance.

One thought I just started considering is that maybe two End Times Abomination of Desolation events will happen, one that seems more like a direct repeat of what Epiphanes did at the start of the 70th Week, and then what II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 depicts at the Midway Point.  (Update Sept2016: I've now considered an entirely new take on the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11.)

Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

It is commonly argued that the Second Advent is required for this to be fully fulfilled, that certain aspects of this clearly aren't fulfilled already.   In fact I've even seen some Christians try to remove the First Advent from this altogether, like Chris White.  To me that grossly undervalues what happened in 30 AD in a way no Christian, no matter how Futurist and Premillennial they are, should be willing to do.

If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it.  I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory.  This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".

Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled.  Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.

I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.

Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.

I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.

In my past study on the first 69 Weeks proving they ended in 30 AD.  I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic.  But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated.  I brought that up in some other posts too.

I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone.  I won't remove that argument from that post because it's intent was to refute Chris White which it still does  At any-rate when studying the possible dual fulfillment I realized it didn't revolve around The Temple as much as I thought.  In fact it's barely mentioned at all.

Michael and The Angel of The LORD

The Jehovah's Witnesses are infamous for believing Jesus was Michael The Archangel.  What makes the JW view of Jesus extremely Blasphemous though isn't about Michael at all but about making Him a created being and denying The Trinity.

Meanwhile they don't even believe God The Father is Infinite but rather Finite.  They used to officially teach He lived on a star in the constellation Pleiades, but later abandoned that.  I think it could be possible God has a Tabernacle in the Heavens just as He's had one on Earth, and that could be New Jerusalem, the Heavenly Zion by the Sides of The North.  But ultimately God is Omnipresent.

Here is a brief analysis of why the Watchtower Bible's translation of John 1:1 is wrong.

[And I now have a post on why even the mildest form of Semi-Arianism is wrong]
However the idea that Michael (which means "Who is Like God") might be a name given to The Angel of The LORD, who some Jews and nearly all Christians both agree to be God manifested within The World, a Theophany, is I think a worthwhile possibly to investigate.

Michael appears in The New Testament, and usually the view among Christians is that The Angel of The LORD is a form or title Jesus took only in The Hebrew Bible (besides occasional New Testament quotations of those incidents), and that upon the Incarnation it does not apply to Jesus anymore.

 In English we keep forgetting that angel is just a word for messenger, Jesus used it of John The Baptist which should prove gaining humanity does not take away the term's accuracy.  Everything that made that word apply to John, Jesus was doing also.  The term "Word of God" certainly still applies to Jesus in the New Testament, and in my view those titles are related in concept, messages are made up of words after all.

At any-rate the reference to Michael in Jude at least is an incident that probably took place in the Old Testament era.  And Revelation is often defined as the most Old Testament part of The New Testament.  Together those are every NT usage of the name Michael.

Many Christians have argued The Angel in Revelation 10 could be Jesus, pointing to parallels between it's description and Jesus in the first chapter.  Jesus certainly takes many forms throughout Revelation, The Lamb in chapter 5, the Son of Man in 14 and so on.  Could it be the Angel in chapter 10 is Michael preparing for the actions he shall take in chapter 12?

I now believe The Man-Child in chapter 12 is The Church rather then Jesus, so seeing Jesus as Michael at that moment becomes far more plausible.  But even if you still think The Man-Child is Jesus, that the Man-Child takes the form of Michael as soon as He's in Heaven is a possibility.

It's largely because of Revelation 12 that Michael gets defined in popular imagination as the military commander of God's Angels.  In Joshua The Angel of The LORD appears to him before the battle of Jericho and identifies himself as The Captain of The LORD's hosts.

Jude alone actually quotes Michael.  And what Michael says to Satan is the same thing The Angel of The LORD said to Satan in Zechariah 3.  Now those are clearly not the same incident so Michael could be quoting Zechariah.  But still, the fact that the only statement attributed to Michael is also attributed to The Angel of The LORD is interesting.

Jude alone is the reason we call Michael The Archangel.  I now unlike in the past believe Archangel is a term that applies to multiple angels.  Because the only other time it appears is in I Thessalonians 4, in the infamous Rapture passage, but while it reads singular in the KJV in The Greek it is actually in a plural form there, which to me verifies connecting this to The Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11 where many voices are in Heaven after The Trumpet sounds.

I think Archangel is a synonym for when you see "Principality" used in the KJV as seemingly a type or rank of Angels.  In the Greek "Principality" is Arca or Arche, the same word that combines with Angel to make Archangel.  This I believe correlates to in Hebrew the word Sar (one of many Hebrew words translated Prince) when used of Angels.

In Daniel 10 Michael is called the Chief Prince, and in chapter 12 he's the Great Prince, Daniel 10 also shows other Angels are Princes too, but Michael has a higher rank among the Princes.  Daniel 8 calls Jesus the Prince of Princes, likewise Isaiah 9 calls Jesus The Prince of Peace (Which could be interpreted as Prince of Salem).  In each of these cases the Hebrew word is Sar.

Daniel 10 5-9 describes Daniel seeing a being who many interpret as a Theophany, again with parallels to Revelation 1 and also Revelation 10.  Interestingly this same entity's voice is also described as being "Like the Voice of a Multitude".  After this encounter Daniel passes out.

The Angel speaking to Daniel after he wakes up in verse 10 (and is really saying everything in chapter 11 and the beginning of 12) can't be Jesus because he needed help to get past the Prince of Persia to get to Daniel.  It is common to use that fact to refute the idea of seeing a Theophany here at all, but others have suggested this isn't necessarily the same Angel.

Here is the thing, it is Michael who this Angel says came to help him and enabled him to finally reach Daniel.  So it seems logical to consider that perhaps Michael is The Angel that Daniel sees in verses 5-9.

What happens when Michael "Stands Up" in Chapter 12 is that those who's names are written in The Book are Delivered(Saved) and many are Resurrected.  I think this Prophecy as I argued before has a dual fulfillment.  That it can apply to both Jesus Resurrection in 30 AD and The Rapture at the middle of the 70th Week.  I argued that independent of possibly seeing Michael and Jesus as the same, but them being the same certainly makes that fit even stronger.

Again this is nothing to be dogmatic on.  But I think when debating JWs we should be willing to say, Yes maybe Michael is Jesus, but that is separate from the debate of if Jesus is God.

Daniel 11:36-45 is about Octavian Caesar Augustus

I'm a Futurist on Bible Prophecy because there is no ambiguity to me what so ever that Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, II Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-22:5 are still yet future.  And others I think are too, but those are what define one's views on Eschatology.  Anything that indisputably depicts the Second Coming is in the future.

But too many Futurists are determined to not let any Prophecies besides the first Advent and a few other obvious ones be already fulfilled.  And I feel this is a mistake.  We should rejoice in showing the World those Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled to prove the reliability of God's Word and demonstrate that they should take seriously what remains to be fulfilled.

Now the part of Daniel I'm going to discus today, I had in the past assumed like most futurists to be about The Antichrist, in many posts on this blog.  What I'm going to express here however only further backs up that Rome is indeed the Fourth Beast.

I even cited Hippolytus of Rome as ancient precedent for viewing this as still yet future.  But on my other Blog I've explored a lot recently how even the pre-Constantine Church Fathers were already having doctrinal problems and becoming proto-Catholics.  Hippolytus's "On Christ and Antichrist" I think lies at the root of what I feel has gone wrong with the Antichrist Doctrine in it's very title.  Some Christians want to see the Antichrist in Scripture almost as much as Jesus.  I've come to grow concerned that that is a dangerous unhealthy attitude, but one I've also been a victim of in the past.

Chris White shares a healthy skepticism of some passages assumed to be Antichrist or End Times relevant that maybe aren't.  But on this passage he has to some extent come to see it rather then anything in the New Testament as the defining Antichrist passage.  To him no Antichrist suspect should be taken seriously till they fight wars that match Daniel 11:40.  I think that is a horrible misdirection.

Now I still don't consider it impossible that via double fulfillment and typology that the Antichrist will manage to match this passage also.  In fact if he is indeed creating a revived Roman Empire then Augustus is someone he's going to want to emulate.  But the core of the Antichrist doctrine needs to be based on what Jesus, John and Paul told us about the End Times, and everything else supplemental.  Especially since I suspect there will likely be a decoy Antichrist before the Abomination of Desolation, maybe more then one.

II Thessalonians 2 is the only Antichrist prophecy that will be indisputably obvious when it happens.  I'm sure White would not deny it when it does if the person that does it never did anything like Daniel 11:40 first.  But what he may be is completely unprepared for it, or suspecting the wrong person if someone else does fight wars with Egypt and Syria.

I'm aware that others have argued for Augustus fulfilling this prophecy before. They are usually Preterists in their general view of Prophecy however, my approach will be different.  And honestly the idea did enter my head before I looked and saw others had drawn the same conclusion.

Now to begin.

When I argued against those who say Rome isn't the Forth Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, I mentioned how Daniel 11:4 hints at the Hellenistic Kingdoms falling to another Empire.  Since the rest of the Chapter is an elaboration on the last part of Daniel 11:4, I have come to feel how that happens should be part of the following Prophecy.  I had also mentioned other hints of Rome's rise.  I see 11:33 as foretelling both the Maccabees revolt and the Hasmonean kingdom latter falling to Rome under Pompey in 63 BC (same year Augustus was born).  Rome further finished the Hasmoneans off in 37 BC when Antigonus Mattathias was defeated by Anthony and beheaded.

I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.

First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age.  So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous.  What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era.  In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.

Daniel 11:40

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context.  Since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII.  These ships could still be aircraft carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.

Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this.  People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here.  Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.

You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra.  You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?"  The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses.  But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.

The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt.  Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands.  Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia.  And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule.  I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.

Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria.  But in fact plenty happened in-between,  You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised Land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed Herod's kingship increasing his power.  A number of local governments were overthrown at this time.  However Biblical Edom, Moab and much of Ammon were part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan.  What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states.  The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.

Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third. I talked in another post of mine about his visit to Alexander's Tomb.

Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces.  It was treated as his personal possession.  Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province.  Egypt became his gold mine basically.

Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands.  And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.

Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them.  It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome.  But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.

Daniel 11:44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms.  The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia.  Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia.  But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.

The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so.  So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians.  But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.

Daniel 11:45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

I've talked about this verse elsewhere.  The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then.  Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during any time Roman soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels.  Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Archelaus was removed in 6 AD.

The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one.  So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple.  It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC which was where the Dome of The Rock is now.

Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him.  Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion.  And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.

Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria.  After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies.  Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea.  Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi.  And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip.   So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means.  Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.

Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.

Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would.  But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples.  He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharonic worship.

In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on.  The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god.  More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.

I still interpret what "the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women" means the same as I have before.  But I believe Rome had an Ephraimite heritage, including it's spiritual heritage.  So he did descend from the Patriarchs of Genesis.

Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god.  Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks.  To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.

The word for "Strange" means foreign.  Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo.  But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus.  In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.

A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo.  Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday.  Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.

The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him.  Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil.  So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.

It may be that the extent to which this is typological of The Antichrist is more about 36-39, his deification, then 40-45.  Just as we see The Antichrist in the first part of Ezekiel 28 because that Nagyim of Tyre sees himself as a god, but no one thinks The Antichrist will be a ruler of Lebanon specifically.

Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel.  Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes.  The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.

You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation.  I think Daniel 12 has a definite second application to Revelation 12 and the eschatological 70th Week.  But I have also argued that the 70th Week can be seen as fulfilled already.  Because I definitely see a double fulfillment there.

Could Michael standing up apply to the first Advent of Jesus?  Maybe, what is Michael standing up linked to?  The word for "delivered" means saved, it could be simply referring to the Age of Grace.

12:2 says "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", in the past I've argued the Resurrection that is part of the Rapture is meant here.  And that I still think is it's second fulfillment.  But there is only one other Bible verse on the subject of Resurrection that says "many" were raised as opposed to all.  Matthew 27:52-53

The graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Some see the reference to Michael in Jude as being linked to when Moses was Resurrected at this time.

Matthew only seems to refer to saints being risen though, but the Rapture is the same way, the general resurrection of the unsaved isn't till after the Millennium.

Scholars complain about the accounts of Judas death allegedly contradicting each other, but I notice that neither actually refers to him as dead.  Acts 1 describes something he couldn't possibly have survived however.  Maybe he was resurrected for the second resurrection early and then "taken to his own place" the Abyss.  And maybe it's the same with whoever of the first five kings turns out to be the Eight King.  And now they're sealed away till Revelation 9.

As far as the knowledge increasing statement goes, I know it's popular to see modern technological development in that.  But as Chuck Missler has said knowledge of God's Word increasing is the real intent of the passage.  It could be referring to Jesus and the New Testament increasing our knowledge.  I've already argued that Daniel's book being unsealed refers to the publication of Revelation.

Hebrew Daniel's applications to the End Times are mostly typological.  But Daniel 7 definitely had the End Times in view.  .

Messiah The Prince of Daniel 9

The 70 weeks Prophecy four times refers to an awaited personage at the the end of the 69 weeks and/or the 70th week.

Messiah The Prince in verse 25
The Messiah in verse 26
The Prince that shall come in verse 26
He in verse 27

The standard view among Christians who are Premillennial Futurists (and even some Preterists) has been that the first two are Jesus Christ and the last two the person we commonly call The Antichrist.  Chris White however promotes a theory he didn't invent himself that makes each of the four something different. predicating it largely on how unclear it is which of the earlier personages the He in verse 27 appears to be.

However most people reading this Prophecy without a Christian starting point, as well as many Christians who are Preterist, see the clear grammatical logic as saying all four are the same person.

When verse 25 says to await the coming of a Messiah The Prince and then verse 26 says The Prince that shall come logic dictates that it's the same Prince.  And if there aren't two or three different people refereed to earlier, figuring out who He is, isn't that complicated.

It's also pretty much unique to Christians to see a Villain in any of the four references.  Because you see the "he" after "Abominations" in the KJV of verse 27 isn't in the Hebrew.  So the first He is not the one who sets it/them up.  That can agree with seeing him as The Antichrist however, because in Revelation while The Image is of The Beast, it's the second beast (False Prophet) that sets it up and enforces it's worship.

I'm going to suggest that the traditional Christian view, and this "only one person is mentioned" view can both be right, via the principle of Double Fulfillment.  I've already documented that there are Jews without a Christian bias who see the 70th Week as yet future and separated from the first 69.  But I've also argued that seeing the 70th Week as being entirely fulfilled from 30-37 AD is more plausible then my fellow Futurists realize.  Recently I've argued that some of our assumptions about how the End Times 70th Week will play out are wrong.

The suggestion that there is a Prophecy which is fulfilled by both Jesus and the Antichrist is certainly controversial.  But Solomon was a type of both Jesus and The Antichrist.  When doing well he was the near fulfillment of the Messianic Kingdom.  But when he backslid, the number 666 was directly linked to him.  Samson likewise has been argued to prefigure both, especially by those who see Genesis 49 as implying a Danite Antichrist.  Saul could also be viewed this way.

The word "Antichrist" means, false Christ, or counterfeit Christ, or opposing Christ, or replacement Christ, or enemy of Christ. or antithesis of Christ, or opposite of Christ.  I've seen several different meanings argued for it, but they all involve Christ, which is Greek for Messiah.  Many Old Testament types of The Antichrist were anointed by true Prophets of God (Jeroboam and Jehu, also Solomon and Saul I already mentioned).  Jesus refereed to Judas as someone He Choose, and Judas could perform divine Miracles by Jesus authority.  Yet he was a Devil and the Son of Perdition.

And at any-rate, he'll need to be able to make Messianic Prophecies apply to him if he'll be a credible Messiah Ben-Joseph.

Given what I argued on those posts I linked to.  This would mean his Mortal Wounding is at the beginning of the 70th week.  We tend to assume that his Resurrection happens soon after his death.  But I notice that there is no reference in Revelation to The Beast being active during the first half of The Week.  The first undisputed appearance of The Beast is when he kills The Two Witnesses, and hes' already ascended out of The Pit by then.

I do agree that The First Horseman is likely the man who'll become The Beast.  But I've become inclined to view all of the first 6 Seals as being right at the start of The Week, due to my Sixth Seal view and other things.

Maybe the opening of the First Seal has him doing his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, after winning many wars.  Doing it maybe even on the same day Jesus did his, the 10th of Nisan.  Then he is Crowned Messiah Ben-Joseph.  But the next thing to happen is the Red Horseman.  Who I argued in that same Four Horseman study could be The Antichrist's killer because of his Sword.  And many Christians and Jews will assume that that killer is The Antichrist/Armillus.

My main False Prophet theory wouldn't have it be possible for him to have The False Prophet with him already at this point.  But I could be wrong, he could also have a Prophet with him all through those Wars.  They could together claim to Christians to be The Two Witnesses, and to Jews that they're Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or Elijah and/or The Prophet like unto Moses and/or the Priest of the order of Melchizedek and/or Enoch.  And then people might selectively use the day=year theory to say that The Witnesses being dead three and a half days really means three and a half years.

This deception could fit what Perry Stone (who I respect and consider truly Saved) is predicting.  He's saying that The Temple will be under construction during the first half of the week, after Elijah/Witnesses conquers the Muslims.  Then The Mahdi will conquer Jerusalem and kill them and stop the sacrifice sin The Temple right after it was just finished being constructed.

The 1290 days are the first half of The Week

Daniel 12:11

"And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."

The common assumption among my fellow Futurists is that both the Sacrifice being taken away and the Abomination of Desolation being set up occurs at the beginning of this time period.  Pre-Wrath needs this to some degree for their view on the Bowls.  And it's been a part of many of my past studies.

The problem is it doesn't tell us what marks the end of this period.  It's a useless Prophecy to say was proven true if we don't know what is supposed to happen at the end of this time we're keeping count of.

The Hebrew Grammar, and also the English when you read it carefully, is actually intending to tell us that there would be 1290 days from the Sacrifice being taken away until the Abomination of Desolation set up.  It's the very problematic Septuagint rendering adding the word "when" that is the source of this common error.

We keep assuming that clearly those events must be at the same time.  But neither Jesus in any account of The Olivite Discourse, or Paul in II Thessalonians 2, or Revelation in Chapter 13 tell us a taking away of Sacrifice occurs when The beast deifies himself and the False Prophet sets up his Image.  Revelation 11 clearly has The Temple standing during the first half, but I must now admit it says nothing to verify Sacrifices being carried out.  Jerusalem is trodden under foot of The Gentiles.

In the case of the near fulfillment linked to Antiochus Epiphanes they did happen at the same time, roughly.  But double fulfillment prophecies often have differences in how they're fulfilled.  And at any-rate Antiochus's had a different time period linked to it in Daniel 8, 23000 Mornings and Evenings (1150 days, or 37 months on a lunar calendar).

Many Preterists view the 1290 days this way.  But their interpretation of what sacrifice is taken away is clearly not the intent of Daniel.  They think it refers to sacrifices being made in honor of Caesar being stopped at the start of the First Jewish-Roman War.

Chris White even argues in his Mystery Babylon Theory, that I have objected to for many reasons, but now I'm rethinking some of those.  That the Temple services will be carried out (in worship of The Beast) during the second half after the Abomination is set up.

The Seventieth Week Prophecy says in Daniel 9:27 "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

First note, the "he" after Abomainitons isn't in the Hebrew text.  More importantly for this however, the word translated "midst" is also translated elsewhere "half".  So it could be valid to render it as "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".  And that the Abominations are defining the second half.

A note I want to add.  When this happens, who it appears to the world, (and to believers who don't put enough thought into it) is responsible for the Sacrifice ceasing may not be who God actually blames.  I say this because of my belief that there could be a Decoy Antichrist(s).  We're likely to think of it as the person who by force says "I won't let this go on anymore", but that may not be who God considers ultimately responsible.

Going back to Daniel 12, this allows us to make more sense out of the 1335 days.  That is what is meant to equate to the second half.  Rather then usually seeing it as some kind of extension to the 1290 days.  This could add to/adjust what I argued here.

"Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days." I'm now thinking could be further proof of a Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture.  Because that event is what we're supposed to be waiting for.  So maybe The Rapture is about where the 1335 days begins.

We do return to what the old 1290 days assumption left us with.  Some implied time after when the 1260 days Israel hides and 42 months The Beast rules the World ends.  Once again I think that could include Israel as a nation celebrating a Second Passover.  And then The Millennium is formally instituted.

The most telling thing this conclusion of mine tells me is that it backs up my reasons for thinking that part of the End Time deception will be trying to pass off the First Half of the Week as the second. With the way Pre-Wrathers and Post-Tirbbers have the 6th Seal and Trumpets and the Two Witnesses all in the second half while the more plain reading of Revelation clearly says they're the first half.

So if the Sacrifice and Oblation is made to cease when it starts.  And they pass something else off as the Abomination, like an allegorical interpretation of it.  Or just the Decoy Antichrist being really arrogant while in The Temple but falling short of what Paul describes.  Then that can make that deception fit together.

Revelation 11 is also dealing with the time periods of the first half of the week.

The 42 months the outer court is trodden under and the 1260 day ministry of the Two Witnesses are basically the same time period I believe, but possibly with slight variation.  For one thing the 42 months I don't think needs to be calculated to the day, in fact I think based on the Hebrew concept it's drawing on that it could only mean 42 New Moons transpire during the period, and thus could hypothetically be barely more then 41 months.  During a period of 1290 days there would be at least 43 New Moons and maybe even 44.

The 1290 days most likely begins rather then ends at the same time as the 42 months, since Jerusalem would have been trodden underfoot if the Sacrifices are stopped by force.  And the wording in Daniel 12 could allow the Sacrifices to be restored before the 1290 days are entirely over. And on the other hand there is no guarantee the Sacrifices would be restored right away when the gentile presence is removed since Revelation 11 doesn't address sacrifices at all.

It could be the Beast after his resurrection liberates Jerusalem and waits a month or so before actually performing his Abomination.  I used to be set on seeing the AoD as the same day as his resurrection, but now I'm not so sure.  Or it could be the actual Image of Revelation 13 is set up sometime after he does what II Thessalonians 2 describes.   Or a combination of both.

The Ministry of the Witnesses ends with their Martrydom, which I still feel instinctively is likely to be the same day as the II Thessalonians 2 Abomination event.  It must be after his resurrection since he's ascended form the Pit.  Matthew 24:15 I believe is not about the actual Image of Revelation 13 but the II Thessalonians 2 event. Three and a half days latter they are Resurrected and Raptured and Jerusalem repents.

Some Calculations I have done on how things could work out.

Daniel 12 on The Ressurection

Daniel 11 seems to end with the death of The Antichrist.  Daniel 12 begins with "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:" Which I feel clearly corresponds to the War in Heaven and Satan's Fall in Revelation 12.  Then it says "there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:" Which is how Jesus describes the time immediately after The Abomination of Desolation.

Then we read "and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."  There are a few Heavenly Books.  I feel like this probably is not the Lamb's Book of Life.  Perry Stone, while Pre-Trib if I recall correctly, has a study on the Book of Remembrance from Malachi and how he feels that backs up connecting The Rapture to the feast of Trumpets.

That verse 2 says "many" rather then "all" of the dead are raised makes me feel like, following what's before, this is a Rapture reference and not a general statement of the entire Resurrection.  But the Problem with that theory is some of the Damned are raised here too.

But I think back to my argument that The Beast and False Prophet being cast alive into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 19 means their both early partakers of the Second Resurrection.  I believe The Antichrist will have both a Death and Resurrection that the End Times world will witnesses.  And The False Prophet will be Judas.

Chris White argues based on the Strong Delusion from 2 Thessalonians 2 that The Anitchrist's resurrection is something God himself makes happen.

Given that Judas is kind of defined as part of The Church even though he wasn't Saved, which is why Matthias had to take his office.  With what I argued in my Four Horsemen study, it could work to maybe speculate that the person who turns out to be The Antichrist could be a similar situation.

All that could well mean it'd make sense to see their resurrections as happening at the same time as or very close to The Resurrection of The Church.

All of this strongly backs up that a Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture model is what Daniel 12 points to.

Knowledge shall be increased

Daniel 12:4 "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

 The "knowledge shall be increased" is often taken out of context to just be about the increase in Scientific Knowledge we see in the modern world.  But Chuck Missler likes to point out the context here is clearly about Knowledge of God's Word.  Indeed it should not surprise us that these two things go together.

The thing I want to say here is, that this is reason against refuting any new Biblical interpretation or insight purely on the grounds that it's brand new.  Especially not when it comes to Prophecy.

So that's why I don't care that clearly the Post-Trib understanding of how 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24 relates to Revelation 19 was the one clearly taught by the Early Church fathers and all Christian teachers before the Reformation.  Regardless of what Pre-Tribbers try to take from their misuse of the quotes on "Imminence".

I think lots of important new insights in Bible Prophecy are potentially being made.   Like Jeremiah 49 and the Hidden Prophecies in The Psalms.

Until fairly recently access to the word was limited, even before the Catholic Church outright made lay people reading the word for themselves a crime, it was uncommon to be literate.  And the fact that having Chapter and Verse divisions didn't even exist till very recently made studying the word a lot more difficult for most generations.

Now we can use computers to do key word or phrase searches, and checking the Greek and Hebrew is easier then ever.  Some people hate the ramifications of studying Scripture in that way, like Alan Kurshner.  And we should be careful, but the fact is things like that are exactly what Daniel 12:4 was about.

Revelation and the rest of The Bible, how do they interact?

Chuck Missler likes to say "Everything in the Book of Revelation is in Code, and the Code is always explained somewhere else in The Bible". And he also likes to say that an in depth study of Revelation will lead you to every other book of The Bible.

That is all very true, you won't fully understand Revelation without understanding the other Bible Passages it alludes to.  But the reverse is equally if not more true.

Daniel was told in chapter 12 verse 4: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and the knowledge shall be increased."

In Revelation chapter 22 verse 10 John is told: "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."

Apokalupsis (ap-ok-al'-oop-sis); means Revelation, or Unveiling. The Book begins with "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants".

Ultimately, I don't believe the rest of The Bible explains Revelation quite as much as I believe Revelation explains the rest of The Bible.

That doesn't mean nothing was understood before. Certainly the message of Salvation can be understood without Revelation. However the more mystical and cryptic aspects of The Bible, especially of End Times Prophecy, are finally fully explained in Revelation, the last book of The Bible to be written.

I believe Revelation is essentially a sort of encryption key, that clarifies what was unclear before.

One interesting example is Satan. Without Revelation Chapter 12, we wouldn't know for certain that Satan, The Devil, the Serpent of Genesis 3. And the Angelic being destined to fall from Heaven in Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 are the same personage. But verse 9 makes it clear "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world". And indeed Jewish traditions do fail to connect those figures.

This is key to how much of my understanding of Revelation and End Times Prophecy is different, even from others who hold the same basic view of things like The Rapture that I do. To many other people, regardless of their basic Rapture position or doctrinal bias, use the other passages to interpret Revelation, when it should be the reverse.

People have preconceived notions that certain Prophecies are about the Millennium, so they write off how John clearly draws on those prophecies for The Eternal Kingdom. Similarly with Gog and Magog. I used to be with most fellow Futurists on this being a Pre or During the Tribulation event. But Chris White's discussion of the subject has convinced me of the Post Millennial view.

Revelation is generally less detailed then other Prophecies about the same things. And this lack of details often helps people justify separating the events. But to me the key facts in Revelation are enough to show how a certain event fits in the grander scheme, then the other prophecies we go to to learn the fuller details.

And then there is the Olivite Discourse of Matthew 24. Most Post-Tirbbers and Pre-Wrath supporters feel it's Jesus who's chronology of events should be taken at face value. And even Pre-Tirbbers sort of.

But I see the fact that Jesus is summarizing all of this material in 1 or 2 Chapters (Chapter 25 is all parables, even less Chronologically definitive). Revelation is what clarifies how things happen.

Jesus's description of his Parousia, has parallels to events of both the Sixth Seal and Seventh Trumpet (but I find the Sixth Seal parallels over stated). Post-Tribbers garble the clear chronology of Revelation to make those the same event. While Pre-Wrath supporters simply ignore or write off the Seventh Trumpet's parallels and insist the first time you see any events resembling the Parousia description is where it happens.

My view is different. The Sixth Seal only has very overstated parallels to the cosmic/natural disaster type signs. So I believe it marks the beginning of the signs of his coming, but those signs continue through the Seventh Seal and the Trumpets.

But the Seventh Trumpet and Revelation 14 are where the far stronger more definitive parallels are. And Paul's key descriptions of the Rapture in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 include none of the Sixth Seal parallels. Only things that Parallel the Seventh Trumpet from Revelation 11, and also Revelation 14.

And the chronology of Revelation I feel clearly places those events at basically the Mid-Way point of the 70th Week. Because in Chapter 11 the Seventh Trumpet is proceeded by Three and a Half Years references that correlate to the first half of the 70th Week. And then in Chapters 12 and 13 is followed by Three and a Half Years references that correlate to the second half.

And Revelation only defines the Seven Bowls as being God's Wrath. The use of the word Wrath in the Sixth seal account is only by fallible human characters.

The chronology of Revelation in terms of the 70th week of Daniel is this.

Chapters 6-11 are the First Half.
Chapters 12 and 13 are a symbolic summery of all History, but with a focus on the Mid-Point drama.
Chapters 14-19 are the Second Half.

I know Revelation isn't 100% purely chronological, certain single statements span an entire half of the 70th week. But there is a basic chronology to it that clearly places the mid way point between the Trumpets and Bowls. This is a problem for some people however, who have tried to argue that we're at the halfway point at the Sixth Seal, or that we're already at the end of the 70th week when the 7th Trumpet sounds, but those argument always seem forced.

In Revelation 8 there is no gap between the Seals and the Trumpets, the Trumpets and the Censer both come from the Seventh Seal. But between The Seventh Trumpet and The Bowls is the entire narrative of Revelation 12, 13 and 14.

I think it's telling that in Revelation 11 the Seventh Trumpet is preceded by two reference to three and a half years, that clearly correlate to the first half of the 70th week. I know some see those as the second half already, but they describe conditions that can only apply before the Abomination of Desolation. Then in 12 and 13 is followed by three references to a three and a half year period that are clearly the second half.

So my point is, if the chronological face value of Revelation and the other Bible passages it draws on seem to conflict. Remember it was Revelation that was written to explain the rest, not the other way around.