Let's look at the very first Prophecy of the regathering of Israel to the Holy Land (which I do not view as fulfilled by 1948). Deuteronomy 30 verses 3-5 (actually continuing from chapter 29 which foretells the scattering in verses 24-27).
"That then Yahuah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon
thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither Yahuah thy
God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will
Yahuah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And Yahuah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed,
and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy
fathers."
This is repeated in Nehemiah 1:8-9.
Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses,
saying, "If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations: But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were
of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them
from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my
name there."
Similar terminology is used in Matthew 24:31 and Mar 13:27. But I'd consider those less compelling because they're about The Rapture where Heaven is the destination of the Gathering.
In Obadiah when talking about Edom, God says in verse 4.
Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith Yahuah.
It's interesting that when we landed on The Moon, Neal Armstrong said "The Eagle has Landed".
Then we can look at Isaiah 13 talking about the armies Yahuah will bring against Babylon. In verses 4 and 5.
The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a
tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: Yahuah of hosts
mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even Yahuah, and the
weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.
This isn't likely to be the army from the Heaven where God dwells, that army marches in Revelation 19 after Babylon's destruction is over. Rob Skiba seems to be obsessed with saying the term "Host of Heaven" can only refer to Angels. That is false, Host is a term commonly affiliated with armies.
There are three Heavens Biblically, the Sky where the birds Fly, where the Sun, Moon and Stars are. And the Third Heaven where God is. I talked about this when discussing the Firmament. Using the word Heaven(s) back to back tends to mean the Third Heaven where God is, like we see in Psalm 115:16, Deuteronomy 10:14 and Psalm 68:33.
I reject Dominionist theology and eschatology which says that The Church is supposed to take over the World to bring about the Second Coming. Right now the Dominion meant for Adam is usurped by Satan (The Archon of The Kosmos) until the events recorded in The Book of Revelation take place and Jesus sets up His Millennial reign.
But it's interesting to look at how Psalm 8 elaborates on the issue of Adam's Dominion over God's Creation. In verse 3 we are told the Moon and Stars are the works of Yahuah's fingers. And verse 6 says He made Adam to have dominion over all the works of his hands. Why exclude the Sun here? Maybe because it's not something we can walk or build things on?
Now it is popular in the modern Flat Earth movement to say Stars are Angels, not astronomical bodies we could potentially build things on. Stars and Angels are linked often and I believe that is more then just symbolically, I think each Star has an Angel that governs or stewards it.
Now Flat Eatherers are right that Biblcally "star" is not a synonym for "sun". Rather they refer to anything up there in the heavens, including Angels and UFOs, when they are seen up there as lights in the sky.
The Biblical concept of Stars for one thing indisputably includes the Planets, which we can now see with Telescopes are large round spherical objects, some with other large round objects orbiting them. Jude uses the specific Greek term "Planates Aster" (Wandering Star) which refereed to the five visible Planets in antiquity. Hebrew had no equivalent term specific for those. And most scholars agree that Chiun of Amos 5:26 refereed to as Remphan in Acts 7:43, was an ancient name for Saturn, which the same verse calls a Star.
And in Greek astronomy the Sun and Moon were included among the "Planates Asters".
Rob Skiba even goes so far as to use the fact that The Bible records people worshiping the Stars as evidence they are sentient beings. The Bible constantly makes a point out of how the false gods people worship are inanimate lifeless objects. Like in Daniel 5.
As far as Rob's point about Stars falling from Heaven in Bible Prophecy. Taking it as literally as he wants to is severely hurt by that it happens more then once in Revelation. They seemingly ALL fall in the Sixth Seal in chapter 2. Then two more fall during the Trumpets, while also a third of them are darkened. Then a third are cast down in Revelation 12. And everything in Revelation happens in Chronological order, that is what this Blog is mainly about.
That meteors and asteroids landing on the Earth were described as "falling stars" (asteroid comes from the Greek word for star) is a known documented part of ancient terminology. And if you're going to insist The Bible must be MORE literal then common usage was, then these modern Flat Earthers need to abandon their current position on if the Sun and Moon literally rise and set.
The idea that the star falling at the start of Revelation 9 is Satan, and that he is given the Key is easily refuted by the beginning of Revelation 20 where a different Angel has the key and locks Satan in The Pit. The Angel given the Key I think is the Angel who sounded the Fifth Trumpet, later in chapter 9 we see the Angel who sounds the Sixth Trumpet plays a role on how those events play out.
The star described as "falling" to the Earth at the start of chapter 9 in the Greek can be read as just sort of descending but not totally landing. I still like my hunch that that star is Iapetus which has a lot of fringe theory speculation. But I no longer like the idea I flirted with before that the Abyss is actually inside Iapetus, the Abyss is inside The Earth, the Great Deep.
Wormwood in clearly an asteroid or comet of some sort that will poison the Earth's Water supply. Comets especially are known to have chemicals in them, not to mention the radiation any such object might bring. In Hebrew wormwood is an idiom of bitterness.
Genesis 22:17 and Hebrew 11:2 says the stars are as innumerable as the sands of the sea shore. The enclosed Dome model allows no more stars then what we can see, the sand in the sandbox I played in in my backyard as a kid dwarfs that number of stars. That model says the stars we can see are about all there are, we can number those fairly easily.
Now this hypothesis has the potential to hurt our bias for seeing these prophecies being fulfilled in our lifetime. But I also have suspicions that many of these could apply to during or after the Millennium. My one objection to Chis White's argument for Gog and Magog being Post-Millennial is his insistence that Technology will become primitive. I fully reject the idea that God would be against technological advancement.
I've actually argued before that the Regathering of Israel may not fully happen till near the end of or after the Millennium, in one of my first Lost Tribes posts. Only thing there I don't stand by anymore is the Mystery Babylon maybe being Samaria part. Some of those themes I may return to in a more refined form in the coming months. As well as the issue of Edom's eschatological destiny.
Update May 15th 2016.
What is below is not needed for this theory and gets really fringe. I'm not definitively arguing for any of it but I do find these implications interesting.
Since I'm into unconventional theories about the Ancient World having more technology then we normally think (but rejecting needing "Ancient Aliens" to explain it), as well as the possible scientific theories of Stargates/Wormholes. Maybe some of this colonization already happened?
Maybe some of the Lost Tribes went to a planet in another Solar System, a planet called Arzareth, taken from the Apocryphal 2 Esdras (sometimes IV Esdras) 13:45, which is said to be previously uninhabited by Mankind (Adamkind? or Enoshkind? we don't have it in Hebrew). While my main serious Lost Tribes theories have been based on them in Asia east of the Euphrates, (and maybe some coming to Japan and Pre-Colombian America). as an aspiring writer I've long thought of writing a SciFi/Fantasy story with this premise.
Schiller-Szinessy speculates the name Arsareth comes from a Hebrew phrase in Deuteronomy 29:28 (the Prophecy that started this study), "ereẓ aḦeret" translated in the KJV "another land". The "land" part is aHeret, a form of Erets, the Hebrew word for Earth, same one speculated to be etymologically related to the English "Earth", as well as many other Semitic and Germanic words for Earth, and from them Tolkien's Arda. Indeed the last part of Arzareth, "areth" sounds similar to Aerith, a Final Fantasy character who's name was meant to sound similar to the English "Earth".
So it could be translated "another Earth" though it does not need to mean that. Eretz is a word often used of specifically the Holy Land and other nations' homelands. But I've talked elsewhere on the Flat Earth issue that the references to the Four Corners of the Earth use Erets (and the Greek Ge) in a sense that means Eurasia+Africa. In that context the Americas can very much qualify as Another Erets, as could Australia and New Zealand, but applying that to Japan is a bit more of a stretch, Japan is the Eastern Corner I think (though Korean could also be argued to be the Eastern Corner). It is generally theories based on them going to Japan or the Americas that try to make the Arzareth reference a linchpin of the theory, Esdras is not Inspired Scripture anyway. I seem to be the first to get the idea that maybe it's not on Earth at all.
It used to be considered plausible to speculate the Moon could be habitable or inhabited, just as much as Mars was. Lucian, Kepler, De Bergerec, McDermot, Washington Irving, George Tucker, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Anderson, H.G. Wells, C.L. Moore and C.S. Lewis all put intelligent life there, Jules Verne of all people however had it uninhabited. Now we know it's not inhabited and never was. (With Mars past in-habitation still seems possible. It is speculated Earth could become like Mars with the right disasters "Unless those days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved".)
If I were living when it was still plausible to speculate about life on the Moon. I'd make note of how a Genesis 10 Patriarch, Yerech ben Yacktan (Jerah of the KJV), has the same name The Hebrew Bible and other Semitic language texts call The Moon. One who's historical traces seem far fainter then some other sons of Joktan. The Mormon argument for affiliating him with the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon I find interesting, but I've talked about what's wrong with the BoM before.
In fact this patriarch predates the Moon being called that. In Genesis 1 the Sun and Moon don't have their names yet, they're just the greater and lesser lights. Yareach as a name for the Moon first appears in Genesis 37, during the lifetime of Joseph and Jacob, then Job (I'm not sure it's as old as others think, if it's setting was during the Patriarchs' time it was late in it since the Keturites have Tribes established already), then in Exodus 2 ("three months" in the KJV), but it doesn't become common till Deuteronomy.
And the Moon has an alternate Hebrew name unlike the Sun, Chodesh/Hodesh.
When an Earthly location later becomes known by a Genesis 10 name we Young Earth Creationists see significance in that, so why am I seemingly the first to consider this with the Moon?
The name of Abraham's father Terah/Terach is also viewed as a variant. It is linked to moon worship in non Biblical texts, and in Hebrew it's spelled the same as Yerach except starting with a different letter, and there are other examples of Hebrew words beginning with Yot having equivalent words that begin with Tav, like Yeshuah and Teshuah (Salvation). Either way it seems the Moon was named for a descendant of Heber, making any hypothetical Selenites/Lunarians possibly Hebrews. It's interesting to remember that Esau/Edom was a descendant of Terah.
Maybe the Yerachites traveled to another "star" but had to pit-stop on the Moon along the way and gave it their name. Or maybe they were just the first to reach it.
And Maybe it was a Yerachite Princess who was raised by a Japanese Bamboo Cutter who named her Kaguya and was romanced by the Emperor of Japan. And also a Yerachite Princess who raped the Greek Shepherd King Endymion.
Wow, did I just got really Nerdy.
Also however the Akkadian name for the moon was Sin (sometimes spelled Suen), suggesting a possible connection to the Sinite tribe of Canaan.
Update January 6th 2017.: I can't believe I forget to mention my theory that Enoch and Elijah were taken to another Planet.
Update January 23rd 2017: Well, I just noticed something I should have in the Song of Deborah, Judges 5, verses 20-23.
"They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my
soul, thou hast trodden down strength. Then were the horsehoofs broken by the means of the prancings, the prancings of
their mighty ones. Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Yahuah, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants
thereof; because they came not to the help of Yahuah, to the help of Yahuah
against the mighty."
The Talmud says that Meroz is a Star in Moed Katan 16a.
Now Rob Skiba might say this passage supports stars being Angels. But just before this it was talking about countries coming to battle (and some not) in similar terms. It's not talking about those geographical lands getting up and moving, but their people. This passage can be an argument for some Stars being inhabited.
Update October 7th 2018: Given how I've changed my mind on supporting the Edom=Rome identification. I'm now considering that maybe Edom's travel to outer-space was also in the past already.
Jeremiah doesn't describe a captivity and return for Edom in chapter 49 the way he does most other nations. But he does echo Obadiah's talk about Edom being as an Eagle. Edom proper disappears from the Historical biblical Record before the time of Hezekiah, with during Hezekiah's time being the last reference to Amalekites. I still agree with Bill Cooper then the Greco-Roman era Idumeans are the Ishmaelite tribe of Dumah not Edomites.
So if they weren't carried away into Captivity. why did they disappear?
There are some fellow Futurists who question the traditional
identification of The Beast Empire with being a Restored Roman Empire.
Chris White's commentaries on the subject are what I'm directly
responding to here, but there are others.
On the first part briefly. I don't know why Chuck
Missler and so many other people keep insisting Nebuchadnezzar was lying when
he said he didn't remember the Dream (Daniel 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, "The thing is gone from me"). Have they never had a dream they
didn't remember? because I do all the time, the memory usually fades
within minutes of waking up.
They're confused I think by what he says latter about him knowing
the magicians would be real if they told him the Dream. I think he was
pretty sure the memory would come back if it was described to him,
which it did. This was a test to show that Daniel was more valid then
the other interpreters, but the test came from God. At any rate that's not what this study is about.
Here Chris White agrees completely with the usual view of the four Kingdoms being
Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Pesia, Macedon-Greece and Edom-Rome (well he
doesn't mention Edom).
I agree with his refutation of how some
people want to read the Nephilim issue into this Prophecy. Or at least I
agree that's not the main initial intent. I do still think that being
also relevant as a second fulfillment is very possible, but it is not
something I will be dogmatic on.
"The first [problem] is that you have an unambiguous fulfillment of this
passage in the history of the fall of Rome. We know that Rome was
divided into several parts, eventually settling into just two parts,
that is the east and west empires. We will see that the other elements
of the feet and toes prophecy fit like a glove to the events of that
period as well."
I agree with his view that the events surrounding the Western Empire's
fall around 470-490 A.D. Are foretold here. But that's only the
beginning of this divided and weak state Rome is in, and they were trying to
regain their former glory by conquest and political marriages. This continues repeatedly over the
following centuries, with Clovis, and Justinian and Charlemagne, and the
Byzantine Empire, and the Crusades and Venice, and the Holy Roman
Empire, and Napoleon, and Mazzini, and Louise-Napoleon, and
Mussolini/Hitler, and now the European Union and modern Globalism.
"And the second major problem here for the RRE view is that forcing this
prophecy to the end times means that you have to hold the view that the
Antichrist has a divided weak kingdom in the end times. "
I believe he will be the last attempt to restore unity and strength to
this divided and weak empire. The Antichrist as an individual is not in
Daniel 2, that is indeed true, I believe Daniel 7 provides new
information which we'll discus latter.
Also I think many of our assumption about The Antichrist in other passages are wrong. Including White's desire to define him first and foremost based on Daniel 11.
The biggest issue I have
with this commentary is his teaching that the Kingdom represented by the
Stone here is The Church, not the Messianic Kingdom. That view lends
itself dangerously to Amillennialism as well as a Catholic understanding of what The Church is.. He's not Amillennial or Catholic, but that
particular view of this passage is foundational to such
arguments. This interpretation can also lend itself to Dominionism.
I
think in addition to comparing Daniel 7 to Daniel 2, we should also
compare it to 8. 7 is Aramaic Daniel and 8 Hebrew Daniel, so for that
reason their view points are a little different. But it's also
interesting that no where else are two chapters from the different
language portions of Daniel so similar, both drawing on beast imagery
and also a "Little Horn". I think that's why these two chapters are the
transition from Daniel's narratives about The World to Daniel's vision
about Israel.
"In what sense can Neo-Babylonia or Medo-Persia be spoken of as living
on after the anti-christ is destroyed. Traditional scholars give no
compelling explanations for their presence and prolonging of their life
at this point."
Nebuchadnezzar's Empire which scholarly types today call the
"Neo-Babylonian Empire" was defined by Ancient authors like Herodotus
and Xenophon as only another phase of the Assyrian Empire. Assyria is mentioned in many Messianic Age passages like Isaiah 19 (after verse 18). Chis White also argues for the Post-Millennial view of Gog and Magog, and is in fact the one mainly responsible for convincing
me of that view. So we both agree that Persia is in the Millennium also. Javan (Greece) is in at least one Messianic Era prophesy as well, Isaiah
66:19.
None of the core Nations of those Empires ceased to exist
as national identities. They may have been subject to other nations at
different times, and their cultures and forms of Government changed over
time, but they still exist.
The Malbim, a Rabbinic Jewish source says .
Malbim: Daniel 7;2: <<The Four Kingdoms always exist only that
at a specific moment one of the Kingdoms (dominating one of the four
major directions of the world) gains supremacy over the other kingdoms
and quarters of the world and encompasses them. The world is seen
through the image of a great ocean since the storming winds are more
recognizable at sea and the beasts of the sea are greater than those of
the land>>.
Cyrus and the latter Persian
Kings, as well as Alexander and his Successors made a point NOT to
destroy the cultures and institutions of the nations they conquered, but
to rule them as they were used to being ruled. "It must not be said of
Alexander "He left only chared ruins in his wake."" From the Richard
Burton film Alexander The Great.
As for Rome, of the three
prior Empires, it was only Greece's homeland Ancient Rome ever conquered long term. Yet Greek Culture, and Language and Philosophy and Religion
not only still existed under Rome but they thrived. Remember it was in
Roman times that The New Testament was written in Greek.
Both
Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy thrived, and Neo-Plaotnic and Gnostic
philosophy were born deriving from Platonic ideas. Caligula, Nero and
Julian the Apostate were Roman Emperors who were Hellenophiles.
In fact it thrived so much that when Rome permanently split between East and West the Eastern part effectively became a Greek Empire.
On the First Beast
"The traditional view has this beast being Babylon, and specifically,
Nebuchadnezzar. For example they say that wings being plucked off, and
its being made to stand on two feet, and given a heart of a man is
referring to the humbling experience that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar in
Chapter 4 where Nebuchadnezzar was forced to act like an OX for several
years until he recognized the sovrenty of God and then was restored to
his right mind."
"This part of the interpretation has many
problems, the first being that Nebuchadnezzar was dead at the time of
this vision based on verse 1, and it seems strange therefore, that
Daniel would see Nebuchadnezzar coming out of the sea, and providing
more details about his life or kingdom."
A symbolic prophetic vision can still include a few past events at it's
beginning, as long as it's scope is Future. We see this in the traditional view of Revelation
12, where the Birth and Ascension of Jesus Christ are both included in
that Prophetic Vision given to John over a generation after they
happened. Or Revelation 17 including 5 past Kings in it's vision.
"The picture the traditional view paints is that the lion represents
Nebuchanezzar when he was forced to act like a beast and then the
plucking of the lions wings, making it stand on two feet, and giving it a
man’s heart is symbolic of God restoring Nebuchadnezzar to his right
mind at the end of Daniel 4. This would suggest that the reason for
these four beings being described as “beasts” is because of similar
situations like that of Nebuchadnezzars. Are we to understand then that
the king of Medo-Persia or Greece or Rome are also described as beasts
because they too were forced to act like beasts by God?"
No, the plucking out of the Wings I view as representing the
humbling of Nebuchadnezzar. Being given a New Heart is an idiom of
Salvation also used of Saul, as well as in Ezekiel 36.
"The lion was not restored to its natural state by the plucking of its
wings and making it stand on two feet. It was permanently transformed"
Which IS the same as Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar became Saved, he was NOT restored to the same as he was before.
I
would agree that secular usages of Lion and Eagle imagery is not
good to build doctrine on, but it can be interesting to back it up. A
Lion with Eagle's Wings was an Assyrian symbol as well as Babylonian.
"People trying to make this winged lion in verse 4 be Babylon are often
thinking of the so called Lamassu . A Lamassu is a representation of a
protective deity, not from Babylon but rather thousands of years before
this in the Akkadian and then Assyrian kingdoms."
My view of the First Empire is that Nebuchadnezzar was the culmination,
and that it includes all Mesopotamian civilizations going back to Nimrod
and Babel. So distinguishing between Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian,
Chaldean and any others is completely missing the point as far as the
Biblical view is concerned. Chris White is very correct to point out how Ancient Aliens plays fast and lose with such terms, cause what their claiming isn't mystical in nature. But Bible Prophecy on the subject of Shinar and Babylon is a different thing, God views all those civilizations as the same Beast. There were also originally many distinct nations in the home regions of Greece, Persia and Rome/Italy too.
"There is a similar problem with the next point which is brought up by
proponents of the traditional view. Which is that Nebuchadnezzar is
called both a lion and an eagle in scripture, this is the best of the
point that the traditional view has to offer in favor of their view for
any of the four beasts, but even so it should be considered that
scripture also calls Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, a lion and an
eagle too in Hosea 8:1 and Jeremiah 50:17."
This only backs up my point that the Neo-Babylonian is still the
Assyrian Empire.
On the Second beast
"The three ribs in its mouth according to the traditional view represent
three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire. But because there
are more than three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian empire there
is much argument among those holding to this view as to which three
should be considered the most important."
Let's use Scripture to interpret scripture here and look at how Daniel 8:4 describes Persia's conquests. "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him".
So that's three basic directions, which I think fits the point. If I wanted to choose three specific conquests
I'd look chiefly to Babylon, Lydia and Egypt.
And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’
"I
think that this phrase is very important as it helps to weaken the case
that this beast represents Medo-Persia, because after the conquests of
Cyrus the great and his son Cambyses II, which occurred relatively
quickly and very early in the medio Persian history, there would be 200
years of no conquering at all until the empire was defeated by Alexander
the Great."
I think that verse refers to the three invasions of Greece, under
Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The invasions failed and so did not add
new ribs to the bear's mouth. But they were still very violent and
bloody wars in which much flesh was devoured.
On the Third Beast
"I would agree with them however that the four wings on the leopard probably represent a very fast moving empire."
"One
of the biggest problems with this view is the four heads of this beast,
the traditional proponents say that these heads represent the four
generals who Alexander the Great gave his Empire to after he died."
"Even
a casual student of history knows that the Greek Empire did nothing but
diminish and diminish greatly after Alexander the Great died."
This is NOT the way symbolic visions ought to be interpreted. The four
heads merely represent that it is the Kingdom's destiny to be divided in
four, it does not contradict that it was the first individual King who
conquered everything. Alexander does not need to be a head, the Beast
itself refers to both the individual most significant King as well as
the Nation as whole, just as with the prior two.
Regardless, the
generals who founded those dynasties were alive during Alexander's
conquests, and most, especially Ptolemy, were with Alexander on his
campaigns, and were all married to Persian wives at Susa. The same number is used as when clearly talking about Greece in Daniel 8. That's not a coincidence.
Also since the Hebrew word for Greece is Yavan/Javan. It's interesting that Genesis 10 names Javan as having 4 sons.
It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people describe
the post Alexander period as diminishing and weak. It's true the
Hellenistic empires' borders did not expand by conquest (the wars were
between the successors mainly). But the Hellenistic Age was a very
prosperous time, a time when for the first time ever God's Word was
translated into a foreign language, Greek. To me the Third Century BC is the real Golden Age of antiquity. And the Dark Ages were caused by the rise of Rome, not its fall.
The Fourth Beast
The Fourth Beast I feel like pointing out is even affiliated with the
same Metal the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2 is, with it's Iron Teeth.
"There are major differences in the fourth empire described here and the
last empire described in the statue vision back in Daniel 2, For
instance in this verse the strength of the empire is clearly the main
focus, not a hint of weakness is detected, contrast that with the last
empire of Daniel 2 in which the bible spends verse after verse
describing the divided nature and inherent weakness of that kingdom. I
would call that a very big difference, the one in Daniel 2 is divided
and weak and the one in Daniel 7 is described as invincible."
Different standards or definitions of weakness and strength could well
be in mind here. Remember, even though both visions are from God, one
was given to Nebuchadnezzar and the other to Daniel. And visions given as
Dreams are definitely influenced by the thought processes and world
view of the dreamer. To begin with this is why one is a beautiful Statue made of precious metals and the other ravenous beasts. Nebuchadnezzar wanted to view himself as superior and the following ones each getting worse.
Certainly Chris White would not argue there is no basis
for describing Rome as a Strong Empire?
Either way, the intent of a new vision is to give us new information. The Little Horn is that new info left out of the prior vision.
"The main thing that people see as the clincher here in the reference to
the 10 horns which they say corresponds to the ten toes in Daniel 2.
But I beg the reader to realize that there is no mention of 10 toes in
Daniel 2. That idea has been read back into the text by people who
assume these two chapters are the same."
Or it's something God expected us to know because everyone knows how many Toes a person normally has. But I feel the Iron Teeth is equally as much of a clincher.
"That being said I do have some agreement with the traditional view at
this point, in that I think that the kingdom that the Antichrist comes
from will have 10 kings because of this passage in Daniel 7, and because
of its interpretation by the angel which we will get to later."
"Perhaps
it might even like representatives of the European Union or a similar
organization, and he will subdue three of them before ultimately talking
over the whole organization, I think that this organization will be
associated with the west in some way as does Charles Cooper, but it is
not required to be the Revived Roman Empire. And I hope that if someone
has the time they will see my study on Daniel 2 to find out why I say
that."
The European Union defines itself as a Revived Roman Empire. They don't
always advertise that fact, but that is why the European Constitution
was supposed to be ratified in Rome.
He goes on again to his
insistence that being the successive Empires of Daniel 2 contradicts
them also being contemporaneous. I view all four as existing right now.
Rome is Western Europe, Greece is Greece (already joined the E.U.), Turkey (military speaking it's already part of the E.U. no matter how
many experts want to insist it'll never join because of their wrong views of Ezekiel 38-39). And then Syria and Egypt. And Assyria-Babylon
is Iraq and Medo-Persia is Iran.
See I agree with the premise
that Daniel 11:40-45 tells us at least part of the story of how The
Fourth Beast conquerors the prior three beasts. It already has most of
what was Greece, so the Kings of the South and North being Egypt and
Syria fits perfectly. And then the further troubles out of the North and
East I think involves Iraq and Iran, and perhaps also Turkey and/or Russia. But I have come to view that Prophecy as initially being not The Antichrist but Augustus Caesar.
In
my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I say in the first
post why I believe The Little Horn in Daniel 8 refers to the Seleucid
Bloodline, not just random individuals within it. So at least part of
what's meant by the Little Horn emerging among the Ten Horns (not out of
one of them) is set up by how the Seleucid dynasty became intermingled
with Roman aristocracy. I further documented all that in the Genealogy
study.
This makes The Little Horn distinct from "King of The North" which refers to the Geography of the Seleucid Empire, mainly
Syria, but perhaps also Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Iran on a modern map,
and parts of Turkey.
I've also considered the possibility, that
when looking at the Little Horn's role in Daniel 7, that it could also
refer to an 11th Kingdom/Nation, not just the individual who is The Willful
King. Back when I learned toward the Mahdi theory I considered the possibility of that
being Jordan and/or a Palestinian state.
Another possibility I now consider more likely then I used to is The United States of America.
The Founding Fathers very much drew on Roman ideas of Government.
Obama I still think is unlikely even if The Antichrist does turn out to
be an American President.
Chris
White now fixates on the view that The Antichrist is a Jewish Messiah claimant, who Israel will actually accept as such, even after the
Abomination of Desolation. I think his theory could be part right, mainly in terms of how he views the First Half of the 70th Week.
The connection to Rome need
not contradict a possible Islamic origin for The Antichrist, (though I'm no longer as sold on that as I once was). Egypt,
Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and very briefly Iraq in the reigns of
Trajan and Hadrian were all under Ancient Roman control.
Chris White
agrees that the Beast out of The Sea from Revelation 13 is the same as
the Fourth beast of Daniel 7 (after conquering and/or absorbing the
prior three). That makes it even more indisputably Rome.
Every
lie has some truth to it, and the main truth that gives credibility to
how Preterists and Bible Skeptics interpret Revelation is that
Revelation clearly uses imagery that would indisputably point readers of
the time to identify The Beast as Rome.
In his Mystery Babylon study
Chris White also talks about translation issues with Revelation 17:9-10.
That it should read (and he's still using the Textus Recpetus with
this) that the Seven Heads are the Seven Mountains and the Seven
mountains are the Seven Kings. This way of looking at is just fine, except
his objective is to insist that the Mountains then tell us nothing about
the Geography of the City. Problem is he doesn't explain what the point
of adding these mountains to the symbolic imagery is then, why not just
cut them out all together?
I believe Rome was where Mystery
Babylon was in John's Time, but I do think she returns to Shinar in the
end via Zechariah 5. I elaborate on my Mystery Babylon views elsewhere.
If the Seven Mountains can in some way be descriptive of her end
times location too, that would be great. But to readers in John's day,
that this detail, however it's worded, pointed to Rome was blatantly
obvious. Indeed so obvious that I reject the skeptics claim that it's
supposed to be coded in way people unfamiliar with Old Testament
imagery wouldn't recognize. The significance of the Seven Hills and
Seven Kings are identifying details of Rome from their own History/Mythology no where found in Hebrew Scriptures.
