The Beast of The Earth from the Koran.

My attitude towards Islamic Antichrist/Mahdi theories has been long and complicated.

One factor is I used to say that if the Beast out of the Sea does claim to be the Islamic Mahdi, that I doubted the second assumption of The False Prophet aka the Beast out of The Earth claiming to be the Islamic Isa/Jesus would be correct.

Then I changed my mind on that as I learned more.  I showed from Scripture that the False Prophet being a Counterfeit Jesus does make sense independent of reading Islamic eschatology into it.  But now, I've again noticed something others talking about Islamic Eschatology miss.

The Koran, which doesn't mention The Mahdi, does mention a Beast of The Earth, it actually calls it that, but doesn't depict this Beast as Evil, it's depicted as good.

And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs.
— Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82

 And from a Hadith, though it's considered weak.

Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "A beast will emerge from the earth. With it shall be the ring of Sulaiman (Solomon) and the staff of Musa (Moses). It will brighten the face of the believer, and stamp the nose of the disbeliever with the ring, such that when the people gather to eat, it will be said to this one: 'O believer! and to that one: 'O disbeliever!'"
— Jami' Al-Tirmidhi; English: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3187; Arabic: Book 47, Hadith 3490

Could this Brightening the Faces have some connection to the Mark of The Beast in the Forehead?

Many Christian commentators think The False Prophet will claim to be the Prophet like Unto Moses.  This beast claiming to have the Staff of Moses could fit that.  The New Testament tells us that Prophet is Jesus.  But many even claiming to be Christians want to give that title to someone else, like Muslims arguing it was Muhammad.  And those who want to make Moses one of the Two Witnesses say this Prophecy is about a second coming of Moses.  I haven't seen it yet but it wouldn't surprise me if some Jews think that will be fulfilled by Elijah.

Since The Mahdi was added to Islamic Eschatology later.  One could argue that the demonic forces behind The Koran originally just intended Isa to be the Antichrist and this Beast the False Prophet.

But maybe it's possible for a Muslin today to try and argue this Beast in this Sura was a symbol of Isa, just as the New Testament Apocalypse Symbolized Jesus as the Arnion (usually translated Lamb but could be Goat or Ram).  And indeed The Beast out of The Earth has Horns like an Arnion.  And Jesus did Descend into the Heart of The Earth.  Contrary to what most Muslims think The Koran doesn't contradict Jesus dying on The Cross but affirms it.

Having The Ring of Solomon could be a sign of being an Heir to Solomon and thus being Messiah Ben-David.  But in this extra Biblical Lore about Solomon (it's not unique to Islam) Solomon used this Ring/Seal to perform Magick and control Demons/Shedim/Jinn.  The Ring is also said to have the Divine Name in-graved on it.  And I would guess it's normally depicted as being worn on the Right Hand.

This is perhaps a good time to remember that the number 666 was linked to Solomon, and the Hexagram has been linked to the Seal of Solomon, which many have sought to connect to the Number of The Beast.  And in one Legend the Ring of Solomon is thrown into the Sea to be returned to Solomon later by a Sea Animal.

What if the Ring of Solomon here is going to be used like a Ring a King would give to a Regent?

More importantly, there is a reason the Ring of Solomon and Seal of Solomon are treated as synonyms when you study this lore.  Because a King's Seal was often on his Ring which he would use to place his Seal on documents and so forth, but he might also give the Ring to someone else to give them authority to seal things in his name.  Revelation is definitely drawing on this imagery in Chapter 7 with the 144,000.  And The Mark is frequently viewed as Satan's inferior copy of that.

The Hebrew word chowtham is often translated either Signet or Seal.  There is no Bible verse directly telling us Solomon had one.  But the first one mentioned is Judah's in Genesis 38:18.  Jeremiah 22:24 tells us it's often kept on the Right Hand.  1 Kings 21:18 tells us a royal one was used by the Northern Kingdom at least.  The use of this word in Exodus 28:36 and 39:30 I've considered passages a False Messiah could use to justify the Mark of The Beast system as being part of The Torah, (along with the Tefflin verses).  The Hebrew word translated "engravings" in those verses, pittuwach, is very likely the Hebrew equivalent of the word translated "Mark" in Revelation.  Though another candidate would be miqla'ath which is possibly used as a synonym for that word the only time it appears, in 1 Kings 6-7.

Again, my take on studying these False Prophecies is that I think Satan makes all of them as potential seeds for The Antichrist.  But that doesn't mean for certain that this false Prophecy is what The Antichrist will wind up using.

Was Muhammad a valid Prophet

I want here to advise Christians on how to argue against the Prophethood of Muhammad without diverging into a debate about his moral character.  That's a legitimate issue to look into, but irrelevant to if he was a Prophet.

I'm going to argue that Muhammad can't even qualify as a False Prophet.  Now yes I know the literal definition is any fake prophet, so once you claim to be a Prophet you either are one or you're a false prophet.

But the Pseudophophetes that The Bible is concerned with both contemporary with itself and eschatologically.  Were individuals just as capable of performing genuine supernatural miracles, and having genuine supernatural revelations as a legit Prophet.  Balaam even had legit revelations from the Biblical God, The Holy Spirit sometimes uses unsaved people, likewise John's Gospel records Caiaphas giving a legit Prophecy.

So Biblically someone has to be proven a Prophet before we can even get into if they're a False Prophet or not.  Joseph Smith did prove himself a Prophet by predicting The Civil War, but Muhammad couldn't even do that, yet the modern world takes Joseph Smith's Prophethood less seriously then Muhammad's, I find that funny.

Now there are different kinds of Prophets in The Bible.  In a sense a Prophet is anyone who declares the Word of God, which is why Evangelists and Preachers and Pastors are considered New Testament successors to the office of Prophet.

But in order for someone to be able to add to the Canon, to say their Revelations are God's Word and Authoritative just as much if not more so then The Bible.  They need to be able to prove the Supernatural origin of their revelations.  No amount of discrediting the preservation of The Bible used by Jews and Christians will matter if you can't prove a Supernatural origin for the Koran, you're then only arguing against anything being God's Word.

The Koran itself says Muhammad never performed miracles and gives it's own justification for why.

They say, 'We will not believe thee till thou makest a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or till thou possessest a garden of plants and vines, and thou makest rivers to gush forth abundantly all amongst it, or till thou makest heaven to fall, as thou assertest, on us in fragments, or thou bringest God and the angels as a surety, or till thou possessest a house of gold ornament, or till thou goest up into heaven; and we will not believe thy going up till thou bringest down on us a book that we may read. Say: 'Glory be to my Lord. Am I aught BUT A MORTAL, a Messenger?' S. 17:90-93 

Yet when the truth came to them from Ourselves, they said, 'Why has he not been given the like of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also in what Moses was given aforetime? They said, 'A pair of sorceries mutually supporting each other.' They said, 'We disbelieve both.' S. 28:48

 And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2:118

Jesus performed Miracles which The Koran agrees with but gives a different account of what miracles.

Jesus' Disciples/Apostles including Paul performed miracles.  The only place the New Testament tells us to expect any new Prophets in the future it tells us what miracles they'll perform, in Revelation 11.  John The Baptist performed no miracles but he was only the forerunner, Jesus whom he spoke of appeared and performed miracles overlapping with John's ministry.  The Baptist didn't author any Scripture.

Muslims don't consider any of that valid.  But Muslim apologists constantly want to claim the "Prophet like unto Moses" of Deuteronomy 18 is Muhammad.  The problem is first the context of that Prophecy clearly defines this Prophet as an Israelite, as coming from among the children of Israel to whom Moses was speaking.

Muslims will argue all kinds of superficial parallels between Muhammad and Moses, but Deuteronomy 34 when the book ends tells us what "like unto Moses" means and it includes performing miracles.

There are major differences between the miracles of Jesus and the miracles of Moses.  But both turned water into another liquid, Moses blood and Jesus wine.  And wine is called the "Blood of The Grape" in The Torah.

Deuteronomy 34 also tells us it requires knowing God face to face like Moses did.  Muhammad only claimed to have met Gabriel not Allah himself.

Muhammad gave no testable Prophecies.

Most of his statements about the future were all about the Second Coming and the End Times.  And I will concede that he said nothing to prove he meant it would happen in the lifetime of his companions.  The same kinds of arguments get used against Jesus which I gave my own take on recently.  Since there are Muslims who will use the same tactics Atheists use to attack the Prophet hood of the New Testament version of Jesus, only then would I consider it valid to bring up that issue to show their hypocrisy.  But I will not consider it part of my main argument against Muhammad being a Prophet.

Besides the End Times.  He said Aisha would be important to passing on his history and teachings.  1. It seems we only know he said this because Aisha said so. 2. It only proves him being perceptive about Aisha's talents, nothing truly supernatural.

The only even possibly testable Prophecy Muhammad gave was when he said exactly how God would kill him if he said anything false.  In which case his credibility depends on it not coming true.

I. QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta). (Hilali-Khan)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery. (Pickthall)

Qur’an 69:44-46—Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart’s vein. (Dawood)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. (Shakir)

II. MUSLIM COMMENTARIES

Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Qur’an 69:44-46—(And if he had invented) and had Muhammad invented (false sayings concerning Us) lies against Us and attributed to Us that which We did not say, (We assuredly had taken him) We assuredly had taken revenge against him (by the right hand) by means of truth and proofs; it is also said this means: We assuredly had vehemently taken him. (And then severed his life artery) the life artery of Muhammad (pbuh).

Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur’an 69:44-46—And had he, namely, the Prophet (s), fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of the heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person’s death.

He said God would sever his Arota or Life-Artery. Generally it's only a fraud who would even go around making a claim like that, like God would even bother personally striking down everyone who claims to be a Prophet.  In fact it's generally people who don't think there is a real God that would make that claim.

But still it's worth looking into the most trusted Muslim accounts of Muhammad's life to see if this ever happened.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428—The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Sahih Muslim 5430—A Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. 

Sunan Abu Dawud 4498—A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449—Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1622—Aishah said: “I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.”

What do you know, it did happen, or at least Muhammad the supposed Prophet thought it did.

He also declared to his poisoner that Allah would not allow this to kill him.  But all the sources agree (except Shiites slandering Aisha) his Death was the inevitable result of this poison.  So he did make at least one failed Prophecy failing the test of Deuteronomy 18:22.

He also claimed to have a supernatural revelation that the food was poisoned after he'd already eaten some, not in time to save anyone's life.  And his companion said he tasted the poison instantly, he it seems could tell it was poisoned before Allah bothered to warn Muhammad.  The logical conclusion is Muhammad tasted it too but couldn't figure out what he tasted as quickly.

I'm not going to include the issue of the Satanic Verses here because it's historical reliability is in doubt.  I feel above a strong enough case has been made against his Prophet-hood.

Now among Muslim attempts to find Muhammad in Bible Prophecy.  There is Deuteronomy 18 which I've dealt with already.

Some have appealed to Isaiah 29:11 because Muhammad couldn't read.  In context this person is clearly being condemned.  So that is ill advised.

The Comforter passage has been a go to method of many would be Prophets from Mani to Bahi.  In the case of Muslims that they keep trying it is really funny.  It's one thing to say our Bible is corrupt but pick and choose passages that you think support your views.  But in the case of the Comforter prophecy it's not even a separate passage, the doctrine of Jesus being the Son of God is right in those same verses.

The Koran and early Islamic tradition claims you can even find Muhammad by name in The Bible (The Torah and The Gospel), and in some extra Biblical prophecies of Arabic folklore.  But I find it funny that Muhammad or Ahmed is the name they look for because that wasn't Muhammad's birth name.  He was born Amim.

Muhammad means "praise worthy" in Arabic so it makes sense as a name that might be used in made up Prophecies, being related in meaning to Yahuda/Judah.  And so Al-Amim changing his name to Muhammad proved nothing.

The attempts to find his name in the Hebrew Scriptures involve Strong number 4261 in Song of Solomon 5:16.  And Strong number 2532 in Haggai 2:7.  Both variations of the same root.

Only the latter example makes sense in context to view as a prophecy of a future individual.  It is grammatically feminine, which I'm fine with for viewing it as a title of Christ, but if you want to argue it's someone's personal name then that person better be a woman or man with a woman's name.

Leaving aside that the obvious context of Song of Solomon 5:16 is Shulamith describing her Beloved as "altogether lovely". David Wood likes to point out this same word is used in other contexts where it would outright make Muhammad look bad to interpret it as Muhammad.  But one Muslim he debated said here (in SoS, he didn't use the Haggai one) and only here is it used in that precise form.

That form he admits in grammatically plural (Mahamadim), but he defends that by siding with the Rabbinic Jewish view on why Eliohim is grammatically plural.  Problem is even if we agree with that interpretation for why a singular individual can be described with a plural title, it's NEVER done that way of a personal name.  YHWH never had an -im at the end, and that not Elohim is God's personal name.  The two known examples of an individual person being foretold by name in advance likewise don't put an -im at the end, Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2 and Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1.

But the bigger problem with seeing Strong Number 4261 as Muhammad is that these Muslims pronounce it as if it has a Heh but it doesn't, it has a Het, which actually makes more of a ch sound.  The pronunciations of Muhammad and Ahmed would both use a Heh in Hebrew, how Ahmadinejad is pronounced would use a Het in Hebrew.

This same Muslim challenged David Wood to find Jesus by name in the Hebrew Bible. By the same standard he's used it's all over the Hebrew Scriptures, far closer then this flawed Muhammad argument.  Strong number 3444 is exactly the spelling of Yeshua except with a Heh on the end making it grammatically feminine.  So if 2532 can count as close enough to Ahmed then this noun is far closer to Yeshua.  It's used in many verses that can work as Messianic Prophecies far better then this Song of Solomon verse can.  Just look em over.

The name of Jeshua in the Hebrew is the exact same name, and Joshua is very close.  Jeshua's name is used in some Zechariah prophecies that seem pretty epic for being just a High Priest, in fact he's crowned a King which is strictly not allowed of Aaronic Priests, clearly foreshadowing Jesus as the Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

And I've already done a post on the direct connection I see between the names Yeshua and Yahuah.

I do agree that Ishmael still has his Firstborn Inheritance.  Still I do not yet see any evidence of The Hebrew Bible foretelling an Ishmaelite Prophet.

If there is however, I'd consider the possibility of that being fulfilled in Agabus who's name isn't Hebrew but possibly could be Arabic from an Arabic root that means "to Burn".  Also Agabus has been theorized to be similar to the name Agbarus/Abgarus/Abgar, but I would not agree with any theory making Agabus and King Abgar the same person.  Abgar was of Nabatean descent.

And if you could convince me of a Prophet being foretold to come geographically from Paran/Arabia.  Mt Sinai is arguably part of Paran as Muslims define it.  Elijah spent time in Sinai, and so did Paul according to Galatians 1:17.

Muslims have tried to make Deuteronomy 33:2 about Muhammad.  That is clearly about what just happened, the wandering in the wilderness, and is about Yahuah himself not a Prophet.  But if it does have an Eschatological second application, it's to Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63, since I believe at that time Israel will be in the same wilderness they were back then.

The Identities of The Two Witnesses

Elijah is obvious

Rarely some will even question Elijah's status (claiming they're not two literal individuals, but symbolic), saying that to Christians the promise of Elijah's return (Malachi 4:5&6) was fulfilled by John The Baptist. But this is an over simplification of what The New Testament says about the connection between John and Elijah (who due to Greek transliteration tends to be called Elias in the KJV of the NT).

Matthew 11:14 says "if ye will receive it" they didn't however, John was rejected just as Jesus was. Accounts of the Transfiguration likewise have a lot of quotes that can be taken out of context to support this doctrine, but that discussion is particularly mystical in nature. John like Elisha preached with the "Spirit and Power" of Elijah, but that's a separate thing from his literal return. In a sense I believe NT Church Age believers also have the "Spirit and Power" of Elijah, or at least we should if we're not ignoring the Gifts of the Spirit.

In John 1:21 John clearly states that he is not Elijah.  Some people just write off this clear statement preferring to build doctrine on the Transfiguration.  Scripture cannot contradict, so clearly one statement is not to be taken at face value.  And it's the Transfiguration quote, not John, that contains a qualifying statement.

That the Prophecy that begins Malachi 3 (and Isaiah 40:3) is cited in the NT as being about John The Baptist is sometimes seen as backing John The Baptist being the return of Elijah.  Nothing however proves those should be viewed as the same thing.  They just assume that last part of Malachi was merely elaborating on Malachi 3:1, but I see no reason to believe that.

John could be viewed as a near fulfillment, like Solomon was of Nathan's Prophecy, but the true ultimate fulfillment is still yet future.

Other circumstantial reasons to view Elijah as a witness will happen to come up as I discus the identity of the other one. So addressing the John issue is all I need to do for now.

Not Moses

So many scholars I respect, like Chuck Missler, who are right on so many other basic Eschatological issues still insist on this mistaken view that the other Witness is Moses. I'm going refute those arguments.  The main three are.

1. "The plagues parallel Elijah and Moses". Miracles are truly performed by God, Elijah and Moses happened to be affiliated with some of the most basic and standard stuff. Truth is however it's primarily Elijah's ministry their description parallels, with stopping the rain for 3 and a half years and consuming their persecutors with fire. The only specific thing affiliated with Moses is the turning water to blood. But by this point in Revelation that's already no longer unique to Moses, we saw it in the trumpet judgments twice and will again twice during the bowl judgments.

2. "It was Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration". The Transfiguration follows directly when Jesus said to the Twelve "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28. My response to how that verse is used by Preterists and Amillennials (and Bible skeptics who call Jesus a failed Prophet) is that it's referring to the Transfiguration. Jesus and his two visitors are transfigured into their post Resurrection states. I believe there is a deliberate bending of Space-Time here, and that the Elijah with Jesus here has already experienced the events of Revelation 11.

3. "Moses and Elijah represent The Law and The Prophets". For starters the term "The Law and The Prophets" isn't used in Revelation 11. Also "The Prophets" in that sense refers to the Prophetic books of The Bible, Elijah didn't write any of those. But at any rate, Enoch is from The Torah.

4. "Moses is mentioned right by Elijah in Malachi's Prophecy". This should be an argument against frankly, Malachi was just on the subject of Moses and yet he only directly refers to Elijah returning. Clearly the intent was that Elijah's return would make people remember the Law of Moses, I believe he'll be preaching that the Law was fulfilled by Jesus.

Those are the typical core three arguments, but I want to address now two I've heard chiefly from Chuck Missler.

First Chuck claims that the Prophecy of the coming "Prophet like unto Moses" from Deuteronomy 18 really implies a second coming of Moses but that's simply lost in translation, but my own study of the Hebrew text lends it no support. At any rate he's ignoring Acts 3:22 and 26:22 which define this as a Prophecy of Jesus.

He also cites Jude verse 9

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Suggesting the reason defending Moses's body from Satan was so important was because God still has a future plan for him.

I believe the reason was to be a witness to the Resurrection. Matthew 27:52&53 says

"And 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."

As I've said elsewhere, this can't be another temporary Resurrection like Lazarus, that wasn't a special sign anymore. This is referring to the first phase of The First Resurrection. We know where Moses was buried, Mt. Nebo isn't as controversial an identity as Sinai. Lots of excavations go on there, but the body of Moses hasn't been found. I believe Moses certainly had to be among those Resurrected soon after Jesus, which means he's not capable of dying anymore, which The Witnesses will have to do. 

Some have even argued that what Jude is describing here is when Moses Resurrection happened.  Daniel 12 arguably links Michael to the Resurrection (I think Daniel 12 has it's near fulfillment in the Resurrection that happened with Jesus Resurrection, and finale fulfillment in The Rapture) and if you hold a Midway Point Rapture view like I do, the connection between the Seventh Trumpet and Revelation 12 could back that up.

People then go on and bring in all kinds of Extra-Biblical post Second Temple Rabbinic Jewish traditions to back them up, from the Mishna, Talmud and Kabbalistic ideas, from men like Rashi.

 I'm a Christian who considers the Talmud a useful source of Historical information, but Rabbinic Judaism is still just as much a false religion as Catholicism and their traditions. These same kinds of Esoteric Jewish speculations may consider the idea of a returning Moses independent of Revelation 11, but you'll also find teachings there that the Messiah isn't a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, or Solomon.

The death nail however is that Moses was punished for his Sin of Unbelief by not being allowed to enter the Promised Land.  The Witnesses will be in the promised land.  And that was a penalty God will not repent of, Moses will not see The Promised Land.

Why I view the other as Enoch.

I believe in the symmetry of The Bible. Exactly two people are recorded as being taken out of the Earth alive without ever dying during the B.C. period. One we are told specifically will come back. Then Revelation 11 speaks of Two Witnesses who operate like Old Testament Prophets, and they definitely parallel the one confirmed to come back. And both will die and be resurrected in circumstances distinct from most of humanity. It seems to me like 1+1=2.

Chuck Missler argues against Enoch by saying "He's not Jewish". He's one of those Pre-Tribbers who view the entire Tribulation as being uniquely focused on Israel, so clearly the other can't be a Gentile, not even a pre-Abramanic gentile. But to me the Gentiles are still relevant during this period, the whole world is said to hate them, not just Jews offended by their Jewish message. I could add that Chuck also likes to say that the Woman of Revelation 12 is "Israel, in the sense that she starts with Eve" The Seed of The Woman, Enoch is part of that sense clearly, being in the Genealogy of Jesus from Luke 3.

There were Prophets in Pre-Church times who had missions to the Gentiles, Jonah and Nahum for example. But also Daniel's message was half for Israel and half for The World. 2-7, Aramaic Daniel, is a message for The Gentile World. Elijah himself, as well as Elisha his successor had missions involving Gentiles, including a command to Anoint a King of Aram. Prophets need not physically travel to Nineveh to preach to them anymore, television and the internet will make sure their message travels.

Here is what he's overlooked though. The Two Olive Trees imagery of Revelation 11 in addition to drawing on Zachariah 4 is also further explained by Romans 11:17-24, the Prophecy of Israel's restoration. Where it becomes clear one represents Israel and the Other the believing Gentiles. This is often used by those who want to allegorieze the Witnesses, that allegorical context is only heretical when it throws out the literal fulfillment. We know Romans 11 should be understood with this subject in mind because Elijah was refereed to at the start.

But what about the assumption that in Zachariah they represent Zerubbabel and Jeshua? Both of them were Jews and not Gentiles? Technically true but Zerubbabel did have a Gentile name, unlike Enoch who coming from Pre-Babel times had a Hebrew name like all original Gentiles. But either way the Doctrine of the Two Witnesses shouldn't be based on the types definitively. For one thing, The Witnesses clearly hold the office of Prophet, while Zeurbbabel was the leader of Civil Government and Jeshua was the High Priest.

Hebrews 9:27 is often cited by Enoch supporters, though I hardly view my position as dependent upon it. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment". The response to that however is that there are exceptions to this chiefly in those who will be Raptured.  Because whether your Pre, Mid or Post Tirb, 1 Thessalonians 4 clearly describes people who will be spared "dying" in the normal way when Jesus returns to gather his people.

The Church is Resurrected at the Rapture "The dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain", those alive still when it happens will be Resurrected without dying. No one was truly Resurrected before Jesus in 30 A.D. So Enoch couldn't have been Resurrected, he still needs to be.

People against it being Enoch like to say Enoch's being taken was a type of The Rapture as if that inherently conflicts with the idea of him coming back.  But Elijah's can be viewed as a type of The Rapture too, even better really since his story has a narrative, linked to other End Times proto-types.  Those are only a type because they weren't Resurrected.  But The Two Witnesses will be Resurrected and Raptured.  And as a Mid-Tirbber I view theirs and ours as linked, maybe even simultaneous.  So to me their serving at a foreshadowing of The Rapture event in The Law and The Prophets only fits them being The Witnesses even better.

Those against using Hebrew 9:27 to support Enoch will say it's intent is only about condemning reincarnation.  Well the irony there is I've seen supporters of reincarnation mocking the idea of using that verse against reincarnation because the same author reminds us Enoch was taken out of the Earth alive.

John 3:13 is often cited by skeptics of The Bible as a contradiction, for contradicting the accounts of both Elijah and Enoch by saying. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." The answer is that Elijah and Enoch were taken out of The Earth, but did not go all the way to the "Third Heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). But that answer leaves Enoch stranded if only Elijah comes back.

Given what we now know about the nature of Time thanks to Albert Einstein, about how if you travel past the speed of light you're also traveling through Time itself.  What if Enoch and Elijah were taken to an angelically inhabited planet orbiting a distant Star?  Both could have arrived at the same time despite being taken from Earth thousands of years apart simply by giving their "Chariots" different speed settings. There they were briefed on what they needed to do.  I suspect they arrived after 100 A.D. so they could be given a complete New Testament and Hebrew Scriptures to study. Then left to Space-Time Travel again and will return when the 70th Week starts, but for them it'll have only been like a few years tops.

Next I will return to a specific passage alluded to in Revelation 11, Zechariah 4. The two Olive Tress on each side of the Menorah, which represent two Anointed Ones who stand before YHWH. Standard non NT influenced interpretation is that they refer to Zeurbbable and Jeshua, leaders of the first wave of Israelites returning from the exile. Of course that is true, in one sense they do foreshadow The Witnesses. But there is more to it. One of the layers of symbolism of the Seven Candlesticks of The Menorah to me is the Seven Angels who stand before the Throne of YHWH. So what we have here is literally two men who are currently among the Angels.

What's interesting is this passage is also often affiliated by Jews with Hanukkah and read during that festival. They see the two Olive Trees next to the Menorah as foreshadowing the nine candlestick Hanukkah Menorah.  Hanukkah is linked to the history of Antiochus Epiphanes and his Abomination of Desolation, a precursor of The Man of Sin. So it does also have End Times significance. 

It's not noticed by us in English because of differences in transliteration, but in Hebrew the first syllable of Hanukkah is the name of Enoch. The Holy Spirit loves making puns like that, so I don't think it's a coincidence.

I feel I should add, even though it's ultimately irrelevant to me, that them being Enoch and Elijah was virtually the unanimous opinion of early Christianity. Early Church fathers, such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus of Rome state this view, the last two I know take the correct Futurist views on most issues of Eschatology and so are my favorites to read on that subject. The account of Christ's descent into Hades from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus features both of them identifying themselves as The Two Witnesses. The Pseudo-Prophecy from the late 4th Century attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl also identifies them as Enoch and Elijah. Also Ephraim the Syrian, and other 7th Century AD apocalypses.  This Moses popularity popped up much latter.

One final thought that is completely conjectural.

The Moses camp can build a strong circumstantial case using thematic parallels, but those aren't something to build doctrine one.  It being Enoch is what makes the full Biblical picture of history fit together.

I've thought to myself recently.  "What if there is a way to reconcile the circumstantial arguments with the solid reasons for seeing it as being Enoch.  What if to begin with Moses was to Enoch as John The Baptist was to Elijah?  A type fulfillment of his promised return but not the literal final fulfillment."

We have no real reason to build such a doctrine on that.  But I can think of one thing that might give it minute support.  The Prophecy Jude attributes to Enoch says "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints".  This verse happens to have a poetic parallel to Deuteronomy 33:2 "he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."  That could lend credence to suggesting that if we knew more about what Enoch prophesied that maybe the days of Moses could be viewed as its near fulfillment, but the End Times as the final far fulfillment.

This theory on how to tie everything together might suggest that the "Elijah" at the Transfiguration was really John The Baptist.  Considering the Transfiguration account is the only place that seems to explicitly identify John with the fulfillment of Elijah's return, that could make sense.