Babylon in Egypt

The existence of a place called Babylon in Ancient Egypt, not poetically or spiritually but as it's literal official name, is a pretty fascinating subject.  Babylon in Egypt was also the embryo of the city now known as Cairo, the Capital of Modern Egypt and religiously important to both Muslims in Egypt and Coptic Christianity.

Speculation that this could be relevant to Biblical uses of the name Babylon mostly focus on 1 Peter 5:13's usage, since Marcus/Mark is said to be with him in the same verse and tradition says Mark went to Egypt.  But I'm as skeptical of the Mark in Egypt traditions as I am the Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus traditions.  My theory is the Christian Community of Alexandria was largely founded in the late 1st or early 2d century by Christians from Cyprus and their particular interest in Mark and Barnabas comes from their connection to Cyprus.  I think Peter and Mark were in Seleucia on the Tigris when that Epistle was written.

For New Testament relevance I've actually become very interested in Babylon in Egypt possibly explaining the use of the name in Revelation.

The main argument against this that isn't more an argument for Babylon being somewhere else would be that the only explicit reference to Egypt in Revelation is calling the "Great City" Spiritually Sodom and Egypt in chapter 11, with "Spiritually" in a context like this being presumed to be mutually exclusive to literally or geographically, and elsewhere The Great City is explicitly Babylon.  I have two responses to that.

1st from a certain POV you could almsot argue actual Egypt was only still Egyptian Spiritually by this point, the land had been increasingly colonized by the various Empires of Daniel 2&7 and their native languages were on the decline being largely only still used for Religious purposes, yet Egyptian Paganism still thrived both in Egypt and throughout the Empire.

2nd is that I feel the relationships between certain key terms in Revelation are not as geographically synonymous as a casual reading assumes, and that some relate to each other more abstractly.  The Babylon Fortress was from 30 BC onwards a Roman Military fortress, it was central to how Rome enforced it's military might in the region.  The fact is a significant number of the Roman troops involved in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War were probably troops who had been stationed in the Babylon Fortress before it started.

So this view need not conflict with arguments for Babylon being Rome, the Seven Hilled City of Revelation 17 I still believe refers to the Seven Hills of Rome.  I stand by my argument for how the Great City of Revelation 11 could be Rome and for the Roma Cult argument that the Woman of Revelation 17 is the people of Rome no matter where they dwell.  The Beast is definitely still the Roman Empire.  Or "Great City" could refer to different cities in different contexts, sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes Rome and sometimes Babylon in Egypt.

But before I return to Revelation I want to speculate on how even some Hebrew Bible references to Babylon could be this Babylon in Egypt.  

The origins of there being a settlement in Egypt called Babylon do predate the Roman Fortress and possibly go back to Babylonian Refugees in Egypt during the time of Assyria's Conquests contemporary with King Hezekiah of Judah and thus also the Prophets Micah and Isaiah.  Based on the conclusions of my Languages of the Table of Nations theories the language of the Babylonians was a Canaanite Language, so Babylon in Egypt could be one of those Five Cities from Isaiah 19.

The Biblical chapter divisions we're used to aren't in the original text, the famous Bethlehem Prophecy of Micah 5 is actually in the context of Micah 4 which refers to the Migdal Eder and Zion.  Micah 4:10 has the Daughter of Zion after giving birth go to Babylon, well Christians know this was actually fulfilled by going to Egypt, both with Mary in Matthew 2 and then the people as a whole after being conquered by Titus, Josephus says Titus stopped at Alexandria with his Captives on the way to Rome and then once at Rome started his Triumph in the Temple of Isis.  Latter after the Fall of Masada the surviving Zealots go to Egypt to rile things up there.  This arguably also fulfills the prophecy of Israel returning to Egypt in Hosea 8:13-9:3.

In the time of Isaiah this Babylon in Egypt was possibly a settlement of ethnic Babylonians (like a little Italy or a Chinatown) so Isaiah could have referred to them in Ethnic terms, he could have called them the Daughter of Babylon for the same reason he called Tyre the daughter of Sidon.

Ezekiel 20:36 justifies calling the land of Egypt a wilderness fitting the third verse of Revelation 17.  And Ezekiel 23 associated Egypt with the theme of Israel's Idolatry as Spiritual Whoredom/Adulatory which is another theme Revelation 17 is drawing on.

What really compels me though is the possibly of the Babylon of Isaiah 13-14 being a Babylon in Egypt thus justifying placing the Seat/Throne of Satan in Egypt.  I've already talked on this blog about how I now view the King of Babylon of Isaiah 14 as having never been a mortal ruler but always a title of Heylel ben Shachar.

Sobek was often depicted as with Isis healing the murdered Osiris.  Sobek's association with Ra which became his main form during Ptolemaic and Roman times could explain why The Dragon of Revelation 12 is Red since Ra is usually depicted as a Red Sun rather then Yellow.  And that association with The Sun also provides relevance to the Babylon fortress being in the area of Heliopolis.

When people say the reason Rome is called Babylon in Revelation was to try and hide what they were talking about from Romans who might happen to read it I get annoyed.  What makes Babylon in some sense Rome is entirely Rome's own self identification, no Patriotic Roman reading the text would see chapter 17 refer to a City on Seven Hills with Seven Kings and fail to recognize that. It is attempts to find an alternate Sola Scriptura explanation for those symbols that leads one away from Rome and to Daniel 7 and other prophecies referencing the same animals or symbolic Harlots.  It is studying the Hebrew Bible references being drawn on that points one to Egypt as the secret actual focus of the narrative, if it's not as straight forward as simply being Babylon or more broadly Iraq.

For more Egyptian Relevance to Revelation beyond just Babylon read this follow up post.

https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2023/02/patmos-was-actually-pithom-in-egypt.html

A New Perspective on Isaiah 14

I did a major study on Isaiah 14 before.  I now have new insights that have forced me to reject the idea of it being relevant to the Death and Resurrection of the Antichrist.  Much of my insights there are still helpful, and I don't feel like repeating my adjustments to the Translation.  That post however also predates my changing my view on Daniel 11:36-45.

Isaiah 13:1-14:27 is all one Prophecy, remember that as you study this yourself.  I still feel this thematically connects Revelation 12 to Revelation 18.

As I was thinking about that again recently, it hit me how I really should have realized after talking about a possible allusion to the Abyss there that I had just discovered an Old Testament reference to Satan being bound in the Abyss.

Verse 19 was the main smoking gun to my reading Revelation 13 into it, "thrust through with a sword" but as I read it more carefully now, it's not Satan or the King of Babylon being described that way, just talking in general about people who have died violently because of this individual's evil deeds.

I also realized that when talking about the King of Babylon being sent to Sheol it never says this individual died at any point.  Another note I should mention is the word translated "dead" in verse 9 isn't a usual Hebrew word for dead but Raphaim.

The standard view of Isaiah 14 among the faithful is that it starts out talking about the King of Babylon then the subject switches to Satan.  I said in the prior post I felt verse 12's grammar justified that, but I now realize that was my bias talking.

Another view is that this is all just about a human King of Babylon and that the seeming references to someone falling from Heaven shouldn't be taken at face value.  One video on Youtube insists the term "Sides of the North" being used in Psalm 48 about Zion proves that term is about a Terrestrial location, Jerusalem.  However Psalm 48 could be the Heavenly Zion of Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 14, the heavenly location that will become New Jerusalem and then descend after the New Heaven and New Earth are created.  The "Sides of The North" is where I believe the Heavenly Temple/Tabernacle is.  Interestingly Pagan Canaanite texts also use this same terminology of Heaven.

And the view of Bible skeptics is that Isaiah is just poetically comparing a human King of Babylon to a mythical god.  I have addressed that elsewhere.

I have considered a new option.  There is no Human King of Babylon in this chapter, this King of Babylon is never described as an Adam or an Enosh, he's never defined as human.  Just as Ezekiel 48 refers to Satan as the King of Tyre after talking about Tyre so here Satan is called the King of Babylon after talking about Babylon.  Because Jesus called him the Ruler of The World (Archon of the Kosmos) in John's Gospel, and Paul called him the "God of this Aion".  He offered Jesus all the Kingdoms of The World and will give them to The Beast in Revelation 13.

The beast is in conflict with Babylon in Revelation 17, but I think that plays into Satan's manipulations.  And it could be God's destruction of the City in chapter 18 is after The Beast conquers it and destroys it's system represented by the Harlot in chapter 17.

(Note, this does not change my view that the Prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 48 is a human ruler, but I'm less certain that has anything to do with The Antichrist).

It could be the Abyss is being idiomatically spoken of as his grave in verse 19.

In verse 20, the "thy" before both "land" and "people" isn't in the Hebrew. Even if their presence is grammatically justified somehow (I'm by no means a Hebrew expert), this could be going back to whatever Satan's intended role was before he started working against God's will in Genesis 3, that he's destroyed lands and people he was meant to be responsible for.

It could be the narrative jumps forward a thousand years, from when Satan is cast into the Pit to when he's cast out.

In that past Isaiah 14 study I talked about The Assyrian at the end.  This now gives me a new answer to that mystery.

Chris White has a video where he seeks to refute the view of The Antichrist being an Assyrian.  I basically agree on that but have differences, for one in the past I'd criticized that video for ignoring Isaiah 14.  But I completely agree on Isaiah 9-11, though I do think that could have an End Times second fulfillment, if so that Assyrian would be more likely a decoy Antichrist.

The key to it's relevance here is Micah 5 starting in verse 4.  I agree with him that the context of that Prophecy is Millennial, (I had even before this recent insight).  But I'm not so convinced of the argument that the hypothetical language means it's not something that will happen.  White himself uses hypothetical statements to build eschatological doctrine elsewhere, with John 5 which his False Christ book is dependent on, but I possibly have a different view on.

Now I'm thinking again of my argument that there may be more time between Satan being let out of the Abyss and the Gog and Magog invasion then people realize (I agree with Christ White that Ezekiel 38-39 is post Millennial).  What if Micah 5's Assyrian invasion of Israel is something that happens very soon after Satan is freed from the Abyss?  Satan's first act in the events leading up to the Gog and Magog War?  A detail Revelation 20 skips or glosses over?

In which case Micah 5 and Isaiah 14's Assyrian Prophecies could be the same event, an event soon after the thousand years expire.  And whether there is an individual being called "The Assyrian" or just about the nation and people of Asshur would be irrelevant.  This could also tie in with my thoughts on Isaiah 17 and Damascus.

Isaiah on Babylon

I want to address the absurdity of thinking Isaiah 13 has already been fulfilled.

It's most annoying when I see people who think Isaiah's prophecies are about the fall to Cyrus, where no Battle even happened, nothing happened in the 530s BC that can remotely fit any Bible passages about Babylon besides Daniel who wrote about that history contemporary with it.  And defending the accuracy of Daniel on this is something I have done and may continue to do in other posts on this blog.

The informed intelligent people arguing for a Preterist interpretation of Isaiah's Prophecies about Babylon focus on the earlier destruction the city faced in Isaiah's own time, during the reign of Merodach-Baladan.

I indeed do think Isaiah 21 is about that piece of Babylonian History.  Chris White makes an argument for that, starting about 8 or 9 minutes into that podcast.  He expresses plenty else here I don't agree with concerning the 7 heads and so forth, and I've addressed his own Mystery Babylon view elsewhere.

The problem with applying any of these purely military falls of Babylon to Isaiah 13-14 or Jeremiah 50-51 is that while those include many military and political aspects, ultimately they are also divine Judgments comparable to what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Isaiah 13 includes a statement that the Sun, Moon and Stars will not give their light.  That did not happen in the days of Merodach-Baladan, or Belshazzar.  But it fits Isaiah 13 being the same as Revelation 17-18 since the effect of the Fifth Bowl of God's Wrath (Revelation 16) will probably not have been undone yet.

And I've talked about Isaiah 14 and the Fall of Lucifer extensively elsewhere, that happens in Revelation 12, at the midway point of the final Seven year period.

There is not a near and far fulfillment issue here, Isaiah 13 does not perfectly or even vaguely fit any past events.  All anyone can do is say "hey look, Babylon fell, that must be what Isaiah meant" but an analysis of the details will never hold up.

And for all the "there are no modern Medes" nonsense, I have earlier posts on the Medes and the Kurds.  But in Isaiah 21 the Medes (and Elam) are on Babylon's side, not enemies as they are in other prophecies.

People who want to make Isaiah 21 about the fall to Cyrus in addition to ignoring that the Medes are Babylon's ally here, want to make Elam a reference to Persia.  The Persians were not the same people as Elam, in fact the Persians were probably Japhetic like the Medes were, they may even be Medes themselves once traced all the way back to Genesis 10.

As far as Isaiah's additional Babylon references in chapters 43, 47 and 48.  Well I haven't delved into those too deeply yet.

Isaiah 14 has nothing to do with the Morning Star

Because in Greek mythology the Morning Star was the son of the Dawn goddess Eos (Aurora to the Romans) the Greek Septuagint translators of Isaiah 14:12 chose to render the personage identified as a "son of the Dawn" as Heosphorus, the Morning Star.  Which became Lucifer in Latin versions like the Vulgate.

Repeatedly people will tell you that scholars believe Isaiah 14:12 and up references a Canaanite myth about the god of the Morning Star named Helel who was the son of Shachar god of the Dawn rebelling against El Elown.  (Elown is the Hebrew title translated "Most High" or "The Highest".)

What they won't tell you is they have no actual text or inscription describing that myth with those names.  It's all conjectured from their assumption that Isaiah 14 must be drawing on some kind of Canaanite myth.

Shahar is the Hebrew word for Dawn (morning in the KJV but that's unfortunate because it's not the standard word for morning, Dawn is more accurate) used in Isaiah 14:12.  That word is also the name of a pagan Caananite (assumed to be male) god associated with the Dawn, his brother Shalim being Dusk.  Shachar and Shalim were among the sons of El Elown.

There are NO texts outside Isaiah 14 that identify Shachar as having a son named Helel.

Attar (also rendered Ashtar, Ishtar, Astar, and Athtar) was a god affiliated with Venus the Morning star.  But he is not associated with the name Helel nor is he ever refereed to as a son of Shachar. He was a male counterpart to Ashteroth/Astarte, who's name is similar and was also affiliated with Venus.  We don't know for certain his position in the mythological genealogy but I'd suspect he was like a brother maybe even twin of Ashtroth, or her son.  Astarte was a sister/wife of Hadad and daughter of El.  Hadad would probably be the father of any children of hers.

So the morning star and the Dawn in Caananite mythology were siblings or maybe uncle/nephew but not father and son.

There is a Canaanite myth about Attar rebelling against Baal Hadad but NOT against El, Hadad himself was the rebel against El.

Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse to use the word Helel.  But Helel is just the noun form of the verb Halal (Strongs number 1984).  Which has a variety of meanings, shine, boast, celebrate, glory, praise, rage, mad, all words the KJV has rendered it as.  The context of mentioning dawn implies shine works best, the YLT translates it Shining One.

A more accurate Greek rendering could be Phoibos/Phoebus which means bright or shining one which was an epithet of Apollo given to him after he became affiliated with the Sun (he originally was not).  Or Phainon, a Greek name for the planet Saturn which Cicero says in On The Nature of the Gods meant "Shining". 

However that Boasting is very much what this personage goes on to describe him doing suggests that "boastful one" would fit best.  Interestingly Bromius, a name for Dionysus, means "noisy", "roaring", or "boisterous", from βρέμειν, to roar.

Helel may also be Yalal (Strong number 3213) with a definite article.  Making it a title not a name.  It means Howl or Howling, so as a title would mean Howling One or Howler. English Translations of the Peshita version of Isaiah 14:12 don't even interpret Helel as a noun but as a verb saying things like "Wail at Dawn" or "Howl in the morning".  (Interestingly I've seen the name of the Shinto deity Susanoo interpreted as meaning Howler.)

The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19).  The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which cosmologically refers to the same star Heosphorus does, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin.  Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.

I've seen it described as though the Septuagint uses "Heosphorus" for the entire phrase "Helel ben Shahar".  So the Heosphorus being a son of Eos in Greek mythology is probably the origin of this mistake, since other mythologies don't make the Dawn a parent of any stars.  Interestingly the etymology of Heosphorus perhaps makes a better translation of the "Ben Shahar" part, meaning "Dawn-Bearer" or Born of Dawn.

I've been thinking however, what if Dawn isn't even an accurate translation of Shahar here?  It definitely means Dawn in many places, but a Hebrew word spelled the same also means "Black" or "Dark".  When Shulamith is described as being "black" like the tents of Kedar (Song of Solomon 1:5), Shachor is the word translated black.  Perhaps this similarity makes a certain kind of sense, "the Night is darkest just before the Dawn".  Maybe Satan is actually being called the "son of the Darkness".

So calling Satan the Morning Star fits his agenda quite well.  The Latin Vulgate indeed uses Lucifer in both Isaiah 14 and the NT Morning Star references.  Because of this there are some Latin Catholic hymns that call Jesus Lucifer which ignorant Protestants have had paranoid reactions to.

And maybe even identifying Satan as an offspring of the Dawn is dangerous.  Because one could easily argue if they wanted to that the Woman of Revelation 12 is being described with Dawn Goddess imagery.  Eos is frequently depicted in Greek art and poetry as wearing Saffron robes, Saffron is a shade of the color yellow that is commonly identified as being the Sun's shade of yellow.  And since the Sun rises as the Moon is setting one could also say the Moon is under her feet. 

Gnostics and certain other enemies of Christianity could make use of such arguments.

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Isaiah 14

Isaiah 13 and most of 14 is one Prophecy. 13 is talking about the Fall of Babylon, a prophecy that has not been literally fulfilled, an arguable near fulfillment exists in Isaiah's day, but it doesn't fit the full details even remotely. And attempts to make this fit the fall to Cyrus don't work at all. 14 begins with saying how Yaweh will choose Israel and give them the land.

I used to view The King of Babylon as not being The Beast, but as probably a decoy Antichrist the Beast will defeat, but I've changed my mind after only recently noticing aspects of this I repeatedly overlooked. Which is gonna cause me to have to go back and adjust some details of my older dissertations.

A note, I shall adjust the KJV rendering to better reflect The Hebrew, influenced by my own in depth study.

Now let's begin, verses 4-11 are talking about the human King.

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! Yaweh hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.  He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.  The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.  Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the demons for thee, even all the rams of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.  All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of thy viols: the maggot is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

So this Human ruler has died and is now in Sheol, called Hades in the Greek and often by us Hell. But this isn't the Lake of Fire.

Now people assume what comes next is mentioned for the purpose of comparing these two personages. I feel the grammar justifies that a new character is in mind, but the person we were discussing will come up again latter. Isaiah 14:12-14

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the Dawn ! how art thou cut down to the earth, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Highest.

This is one of the core passages on the fall of Satan from heaven. The only one besides Revelation that could help us time it chronologically, but Revelation is far more precise.

Now I think we learn why these two come together in verse 15

Yet thou shalt go down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.

They are now in the same place. In the New Testament "The Pit" is used of the Abyss. Given Hebrew poetic style however, I think this reference means a synonym of Hades. Though it could work either way if the Abyss is a specific part of Hades, or a location right next to it. This Hebrew word is also used of just literal cisterns and dungeons also.

The big translation issue I noticed is that the part of the usual translations that imply he's being brought there against his will, like his fall was, isn't in the Hebrew. It can be read that he went down there on his own, his fall was only to The Earth.

In the past I've been against viewing The Beast as possessed by Satan like Judas was, simply out of lack of direct reference. But here once both characters are in the underworld, the grammar of the text does seem to treat them as one.

Now verses 16-19 is the key really interesting part.

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lay in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Generally we've considered the idea of the Beast's having his own Death and Resurrection merely implied by the "mortal wound" being healed in Revelation 13, and how Daniel 45 speaks of his end. But we miss how Isaiah here explicitly speaks of a King who'll go to Hell, but then be "cast out of his grave". And having some sort of wound from a sword.

Of the three ways the KJV translated that word throughout The Bible I chose "grave" because it most literally conveyed the idea poetically. It can also mean "sepulcher", and I do think as I explained elsewhere the Dome of The Rock could be his sepulcher. It's not Sheol however, which the KJV also often renders Grave, but I personally choose never to translate it that way.

Revelation twice when describing The Beast (both references timing wise I see as after his resurrection). Refers to him as ascending out of the Abyss. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition".

I also see here a possible description of his post resurrection state. See I don't think The Antichrist's resurrection will be one like Lazurus, just being returned to how he was before. Though he's certainly not like our promised Resurrection either. That he and The False Prophet are in Revelation 19 cast into the Lake of Fire without being killed first implies to me that they are early partakers of the Second Resurrection. I've written on my theory about The False Prophet's identity elsewhere.

Since we who will be of The First Resurrection will have bodies like The Angels. I think it's possible that the bodies of The Second Resurrection will be like the bodies of Fallen Angels. II Corinthians 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven". The word translated "house" here is Oiketerion. A word used only one other time in The Bible, in Jude 6 where it's translated "habitation". "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Like Chuck Missler I view this word as being a technical term for the Incorruptible bodies of Unfallen beings.

Does this tell us anything about the timing of other events in relation to his resurrection, mainly the destruction of Babylon that was discussed before?

That his mortal wound's healing is mid week is pretty indisputable from other references. This account is in the context of the yet future Fall of Babylon. But the context here is a semi change of subject, it could be looking back to explain how this King became what he is now, when Babylon falls. Or it could be this is going on to describe how this King after is judged Babylon is judged. Or maybe Babylon's End Times Judgment really happens in phases? Now to continue. Verses 19-23

But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.  Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not stand, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemy cities. For I will rise up against them, saith Yahweh of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and offspring, and posterity, saith Yahweh.  I will also make it a possession for the porcupines, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, saith Yahweh of hosts.

The subject of Babylon itself seems to be returned to, as if the process of destruction began earlier but hadn't ended yet. It's interesting that he's spoken of as slaying his own people.

What new does this understanding tell us?

It kind of directly links the counterfeit resurrection to Satan's fall. Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are the same continuous message originally, (the Chapter divisions are modern), also place "Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" at the time the Willful King meets his end. Daniel 12:1 I also believe correlates to Revelation 12:7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon" which is directly linked to when The Woman (Israel) flees to the Wilderness.

Verses 24-27 are still the same Prophecy, no "Word of The LORD came unto me saying" or any other indicator of it being a change in subject. None the less some Bibles include a new Chapter heading here as if it were different that calls it Judgment on Assyria. The text in the KJV says The Assyrian however.

The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things

1. The same King of Babylon we'd been discussing. I consider this the least likely since the other passages people cite as calling The Antichrist as The Assyrian I see as flawed logically also. Micah 5 is being hypothetical, saying how Israel can't be attacked once The Messiah reigns. And I've come to see Isaiah 9-11, if End Times at all (it could be easily just be about events form Isaiah's time when he gave this Prophecy) as linking The Antichrist to Ephraim rather then Assyria. Because I see Isaiah 9:14-15 "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." as being a rare outside Revelation reference to The Antichrist being paired with a False Prophet.

2. Perhaps the "Terrible of The Nations" from Ezekiel I'll discus when I study those Chapters later.

3. The "King of The North" from Daniel 11:40. Could be the same person as 2 or maybe not.

4. It could be a flawed Translation, and simply mean Assyria, or the Assyrian people. Which could maybe overlap with either 1 or 2 or 3.

When it's said of The Beast "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." The terminology could mean continue as in he should have ended already. I think specifically it's referring to the amount of time following his being cast out of Hades.

Satan's fall and the War in Heaven is a Future event not a past one

It's amazing to me how many Un-Biblical ideas are casually believed even by many Fundamentalist Christians simply because Society has conditioned us to believe it.

The idea of a War in Heaven sometime before Adam's fall or even creation is a Gap Theory connected false Doctrine mainly popularized by secular western fiction.

When I say it's a Pagan idea it's because various Pagan mythologies have myths of various wars between the gods (Sometimes newer gods overthrowing older ones) or of a god being cast out. Greek mythology as the Titanarchy, the Gigantarchy, Cronos overthrowing Ophion, the brief usurpation of Typhon, and the casting out of Hēphaistos. Egyptian mythology has Amon's war with Apep and Set overthrowing Osiris to later be overthrown by Horus. Norse mythology has the war of the Vanir and the Aseir.  Japanese mythology has Susanoo being cast out of Heaven and then the war between the Heavenly Kami and the Earthly Kami.  And so on.  And for the Pagan Canaanites just look at the Baal Cycle.

But it's insertion into Judeo-Christian tradition somewhat begins with Jewish Rabbis attempting to incorporate the Mesopotamian Combat Myth of Marduk killing Tiamat before Creation into the Genesis narrative.

"In the days before Creation, Rahab, Prince of the Sea, rebelled against God. When commanded: 'Open your mouth, Prince of the Sea, and swallow all of the world's waters,' he cried: 'Lord of the Universe, leave me in peace!' Whereupon God kicked him to death and sank his carcase below the waves, since no land beast could endure its stench." (Bavli Baba Bathra 74b; Numeri Rabba 18:22; Midrash Wayosha, 46.)

Rahab is a name that does come from The Bible, Psalms 87 & 89, and Isaiah 51:9 (distinct in the Hebrew from the Rahab of Joshua which often looks the same in English).  It's used by many modern Christian Gap theorists combining their Gap Theory with Ancient Astronaut theories as the name for a Planet or Civilization in the supposed Pre-Adamic world that was destroyed by Satan's Rebellion.

The standard view among normal scholars is it was a nickname of some sort for Egypt.  I do think it plausible there was once a Planet where the Asteroid Belt is, but I think The Flood would be when it's destruction happened.  Even if it is another name for Satan, these are possibly all prophetic passages.  Isaiah certainly is, many Psalms are ambiguous on if they're prophetic or not.

Rahab is used in other passages actually, but in those the KJV translates it rather then treating it as a name.  Isaiah 30:7 is the basis for linking it to Egypt, there it is translated "strength".  Job 9:13 and 26:12 translate it "proud".

Pagan mythologies even already had the idea of a Pre-Adamic race.  In Sumerian mythology the Igigi were who the gods originally meant to be their slaves, but they stopped obeying so the Adamu were made instead.  Greek mythology has three races of Man made before the current one was made from the earth, Golden, Silver and Bronze.  The Fae of Celtic religion have been thought of this way sometimes too.  There is also some Extra-Koranic Islamic legends about Pre-Adamic races.  But before that, the Jinn are also treated as a Pre-Adamic race.

Now the use of it in modern Evolution comprise makes these people the "ape men" and "cave men" alleged from the fossil record.  While the more classical idea was the previous races were better then us, not unlike Tolkien's Eldar.  The way it attacks The Bible remains the same, Death before Adam's Sin.

The Gap theory also has ties to Gnosticism.

The Bible only ever discuses in detail the Fall of Satan is Prophetic books, Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:13, and Revelation 12.

Only one isolated verse appears to place it in the past, Luke 18:10 "And I beheld Satan as lighting fell from Heaven". But God often uses past tense language in reference to future events(commonly known as “prophetic perfect”; example, Isaiah 53; 21:1-10).  Jesus is God The Son made Flesh, He came from Outside time, He's seen all of History already play out. He know the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning.

Job demonstrates that Satan still has free access to Heaven, and he's still serving that function in The New Testament, hence why he's called the Accuser. The only difference Post-Cross is that now believers have an Advocate in Jesus. 1 John 2:1

The big problem with this false view to me is that it conflicts with the important fact that Adam's sin is the origin of Sin and Death. (Roman 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21). Genesis 3 is the origin of Sin, it's not just the first Sin Adam or Eve committed, I believe it's the Serpent's first open act of rebellion against God as well. We don't need a Prequel Trilogy to explain how The Serpent became a sinner.

The Fallen Angels did not all fall at once. The first group to fall are the ones from Genesis 6, who are now imprisoned in the Abyss. Then after the Flood more began to fall. I suspect there may be some not fallen now who will fall before the end.

Satan is also still the "Archon (Prince or Ruler) of the World" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) as well as the "God of this World" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Some think the John verses mean he ceases serving as that at the Crucifixion (Preterist and Amillennial thinking), but the Corinthians verse shows he still is, and Ephesians also shows his servants still rule the World behind the scenes. Jesus did purchase the World with his Death and Resurrection, but he doesn't actually take it until His Return.

Isaiah 14 is a continuation of 13, it's still the same Prophecy. It affiliates Satan's final doom with the final Doom of Babylon, which is yet future, (Revelation 17 and 18). But the exact timing I feel requires Revelation 12 to figure out.

Revelation 12 presumably begins as a summery of all History (but I interpret it all as End Times), the Woman being Israel, the War in Heaven begins not only after The Man Child's birth but also after his ascension/rapture. after the Woman/Israel has fled to her hiding place in the Wilderness, which as we know from Matthew 24 is triggered by the Abomination of Desolation. When it says he caused a 3rd of the stars to fall from Heaven, I believe that's referring specifically to the Angels who fell in Genesis 6 who are now in Tartaros.

In other words it's the Final Week.

A lot of people believe Satan will indwell in "The Antichrist", but I see no Biblical basis for that either. Many End Times Christian movies and books like Left Behind and Revelation/Tribulation, and The Omega Code virtually make The Devil and The Antichrist the exact same character. But in my view Revelation 13 and 16:13 clearly paint The Dragon (Satan), The Beast of the Sea (Antichrist) and Beast of the Earth (The False Prophet) as three distinct individuals, acting as a sort of counterfeit Trinity, with the last leading the world to worship both of the other two.

Revelation 19 and 20 give The Antichrist and The False Prophet a very separate fate from The Devil, their cast into the Lake of Fire after the Battle of Armageddon, their the first individuals ever sent there.  Satan is then bound in the Abyss/Tartaros for 1000 years and then after sparking one last rebellion he's cast into the Lake of Fire.