You might want to check out my other Blogs.

Looking at the stats it seems this Blog currently gets the most views of the blogs I run, even when I haven't posted or promoted anything on it recently.  There must be some people coming here regularly, perhaps annoyed how little I've been posting lately.

My interest in Bible Prophecy fluctuates, lately I've been posting once a month here, but there will likely be a time in the future when I'll have more to say.  I do have some ideas for future posts currently in my head, I'd like to get one up before the year's over but no promises.

The posts I'll link to are ones I figure are of relevance or interest to people interested in my takes on Bible Prophecy.

My strong position on The General Resurrection of The Dead being a literal and physical Resurrection is vital to my understanding of Prophecy, as shown by the post I made for November.  But it's relevant to more then just Prophecy, it's one of the core doctrines of The Faith.  So my posts most directly about that have actually been on my more general Theology blog.  Posts like Spiritual and Heavenly, what do they mean? and The Sects of First Century Judaism, and that overlaps with my opposition to Platonic/Pythagorean influences on mainstream Christianity, which come up in my posts about the Origins of Puritan Sexual Morality, or God and The Universe, or Divine Impassability/Immutability.  I also talk about Politics sometimes, and that informs how I look at Prophecy as well.  I've made a couple posts on my secular reasons for being a Zionist, and there is more I want to add to that subject in the future.

Then there is the blog where I talk about fiction and entertainment media I enjoy, for the last few years it's been dominated by Anime.  That's the one I generally try to post to most consistently.

For all of us interested in Bible Prophecy, how we visualize it is pretty intentionally or not viewed through the lens of a lot of the fiction we like, and in turn certain kinds of fiction always make us think of Bible Prophecy.  A lot of the popular tends in Futurist speculation of the last 30 or even 40 years feel like premises for a Cyber-Punk novel, many views on the Mark of the Beast and Image of the Beast lend themselves to transhumanism.  Rob Skiba is literally trying to make a SciFi TV show out of his theories, which I've already talked about on that blog once.

So yeah Bible Prophecy is constantly on my mind when I'm watching Steins;Gate, Robotics;Notes, Chaos;Head or Code Geass.  Though I try to restrain myself from actually bringing it up there.  I haven't posted anything on the new Dune or Wheel of Time yet, but I intend to.

Horror stuff can also overlap with Bible Prophecy.  I have after all come close to literally arguing The Antichrist is a Mummy, and elsewhere used my False Prophet speculations to justify certain Vampire Lore.  October is a month in which Horror stuff is more likely to come up.  

And the theory I proposed in my latest Zelda post is based on stuff I was able to notice because of the studying of Byzantine architecture I've done while trying to determine where I think The Temple stood.

How much Patristic support is there for Preterism?

I ultimately don't actually care what the "Early Church Fathers" thought on anything.  I'm true Sola Sciprtura, and my exact views on Bible Prophecy are not 100% in agreement with any interpretation known to have been expressed in antiquity.  If aspects of what I believe genuinely didn't exist before a guy named Darby in the 1800s then so be it, all I care about is what conclusions the Scriptures lead me to.

But preterists both full and partial, amillenials and post-millennialism in all it's forms don't have that option even when they are nominally protestant.  If the history of The Church is the fulfillment of the Thousand Years refereed to in Revelation 20 and/or New Jerusalem, then we should have known that from the start.

I don't necessarily expect the reverse to be true though, the whole point of Pre-Millennialism is that we consider the age of Grace to be one where the follows of the true God are just as capable of getting things wrong as we were before, even at the earliest stage, The Apostles themselves kept misunderstanding Jesus while He was right there correcting them.

So I'm not even making this investigation because I think it could be the ultimate death nail to other views.  It's because I care about history being represented properly, and because I do respect the early Christians, even the ones I most disagree with, and so don't want to see their views misrepresented for the sake of an ideological argument by anyone on my side or agaisnt it.

First let's talk about what does not inherently make someone a Preterist in their view of Revelation.

1. Referring to what happened in 70 AD as being foretold by Jesus.

There seems to be some straw-manning of Futurism going around where some think any acknowledgment that Jesus "not one stone" comment refers to 70 AD is incompatible with Futurism.  When the truth is I've rarely seen that connection denied by even the most extreme futurists.

First of all I don't think we even need the three "Olivte Discourse" chapters to find Jesus foretelling it, in Luke especially he refers to it a lot.  I personally see 70 AD in more prophecies then most of my fellow Futurists.  Of the the three chapters in question I only have a definitively futurist stance on Matthew 24.  However there is also a position called Middleism which takes a Preterist view of Matthew 24 but a Futurist view of Revelation, these terms didn't exist in antiquity but it looks to me like that position was a common one in the Early Church.

2, Viewing the 70th Week of Daniel as already fulfilled.

Lots of Post-Trib Futurists and Historicists (who are generally Pre-Mill and so more akin to Futurism on what I think matters most then Preterism) also view the 70th Week as already fulfilled.  My own view is that the 70th week was 30-37 AD, so on that issue I'm more preterist then the people who obsess over 70 AD.

Basically those are the two most prominent examples of a more general fact that what someone says about other prophecies proves nothing about their view of Revelation.

Yes your view of Revelation will effect how you view other things because it's referencing older Prophets all the time.  But there is no consistency even within a basic view to what conclusions believers will make from those connections.  In my own view sometimes Revelation is claiming to be what that older Prophecy was actually about all along, but sometimes it's more like history repeating itself and/or making an analogy to help us understand what it's talking about.

3. Identifying The Church as now the true Israel in some capacity.

Like the 70th Week example it seems a lot of people opposing Futurism treat it as if Pre-Trib Dispensationalism is the only form Futurism comes in.  Post-Tribbers pretty much all take this view in some way, and I as a form of Mid-Trib hold a position between the extreme Dispensationalism of Chuck Missler and the extreme conflation of Post-Tribers.

There are multiple non Dispensational views on how The Church and Israel relate.  Two-House theology is predicated on specifically equating The Church or at least the "Gentile" Church with Ephraim.  Mormonism is actually based on a form of that view but it's also popular in the Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant movements.

Rob Skiba likes to call "Replacement Theology" a straw man, he says the Dispensationalists are the true Replacement theologists.  He stresses how even in The Torah citizenship in the Nation of Israel was not predicated solely on bloodlines, people not biologically descended from Jacob or even Abraham could be counted in as long as they got Circumcised and kept the Torah.  To him it's about us being the continuation of Israel.

But that's not a Strawman when applied to 70 AD Preterism.  I was recently watching a Partial Preterist's video on Revelation 11 and the Two Witnesses and he made it explicitly clear, God divorced one wife to replace her with another, there will be no redemption for the divorced wife.  This view is known as Supersessionism.  And make no mistake there are Post-Trib Futurists who also see it that way not Rob Skiba's way.  And the sad thing is that seems to be the way the "Early Church" talked about this issue and is the main reason I have no real desire to agree with them, Anti-Semitism creeped into the Greek Speaking Church very early on.

Even when someone is talking specifically about Revelation some things are simply not as inherently Preterist as Preterists looking for support will assume.

4. Identifying Mystery Babylon with Jerusalem isn't inherently Preterist either.

Chris White is a "Pre-Wrath" Futurist who wrote a book on Babylon being Jerusalem, and he was willing to do that even though he's just as much of a Dispensational Zionist as the Pre-Tribbers.  When he says he intends nothing Anti-Semitic by it I believe him, he's simply misguided.  Among the openly Anti-Semitic Conspiracy theorists there are people like Texe Marrs who was Post-Trib from what I've read.

This 4th example I kinda didn't need to include because I'm currently aware of no early Patristic support for it, though I certainly could have missed something.  In fact from what I've seen so far Babylon as Rome is the only Mystery Babylon view I've seen among them.  Instead the Anti-Semitism of the Early Church manifested in viewing the "Antichrist" as a Jewish Messiah claimant The Jews will accept.  So literally the polar opposite of the standard modern Preterist view on the bad guys of Revelation.

Now onto specific claims.

A website called Preteristarchive has pages devoted to a number of early fathers where they concede the Futurist stances of some but spend a lot of time engaging in the above distractions and other tactics to mislead people.  It does not have pages for Tertullian or Methodius and wrongly classified Ambrose of Milan and Eusebius as Ante-Nicene.

Froom is the name of a Historicist who wrote a book called The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers that you can find online.  He generally avoids trying to make anyone sound more in agreement with his views then they actually were, instead trying to speculate on why they were sometimes wrong in his view.  His one mistake in that area was claiming Tertullian made a connection he didn't actually make regarding The Temple of God as The Church and the Temple in II Thessalonians 2.  While I don't always agree with him his book was a key source in the research I did for this post.

An interesting thing about the most popular forms of Historicism is during the Pre-Nicene and even early post Nicene era their view on at least The Antichrist would have still been a pretty Futurist one.  None the less there were still things you could believe back then pretty incompatible with proper Historicism.

His book documents pretty well how Pre-Nicaea it was pretty much only the Alexandrians and maybe Victorinus of Potiou who entertained any position other then Pre-Mill on Revelation 20.

Justin Martyr is the oldest definitely known example of anyone referencing The Revelation at all.  Maybe The Didichae had Revelation 12's description of The Dragon in mind when it says "the world deceiver", if so that was a futurist application inserted into what seems like a futurist application of Matthew 24 (it's very possible Matthew was in fact the only NT writing the Didichae used at all).

The Preteristarchive has a page on Justin Martyr, and it takes a lot of things he said out of context to make it seem like he's explicitly rejecting Pre-Mill, but they exist in the context of him debating with a Jew about the Rabbinic Jewish Sabbath Millennium concept.  Today many Dispensationalists and Hebrew Roots types like identifying the Revelation 20 Millennium with that Rabbinic concept, but Justin clearly didn't.  I myself have come to not like defining the Millennium as a "Sabbath" Millennium because 1 Corinthians 15 defined it as a period that isn't a "rest" at all.

They failed however to quote the one and only time Justin explicitly refers to The Revelation.  I shall provide it here.

Dialogue with Trypho 81.4 "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

Pretty clearly and unambiguously a Pre-Mill interpretation.

More then one website and blog trying to paint the Early Church as non Pre-Mil as possible will inevitably concede the Pre-Mill Futurism of Hippolytus of Rome and to some extent also his "mentor" Irenaeus.

The problem with conceding him and trying to paint him as the ONLY one is NOT their alleged connection to John which I feel is overstated and don't care about.  It's that only he actually wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy at all, it was really not a major priority of the surviving writings we have from the Early Church especially Pre-Nicaea.  It mostly comes up when refuting Gnostics and Origen on The Resurrection, in which context it frequently comes across that the "Proto-Orthodox" clearly seem Pre-Mil when stressing a literal Bodily Resurrection.  Only Hippolytus wrote an entire book on specifically the subject of The Antichrist.  And in so doing expressed many views on the matter I no longer and/or never did agree with, but his view on the matter was definitely a Futurist one.  And he was not speaking as if he was massively breaking with the norm, he spoke as if some of his specific details may be new but the gist was basically what everyone already agreed on..

And when the only unambiguous counter example(s) to pre-mill are Origen and some other Alexandrians linked to Origen, then your side is on the shakier ground since he was condemned as  a Heretic at a Synod in the 540s.  He's connected to a lot of Heresy, but none of his earliest critics like Methodius of Olympus ever objected to his Soterology, it was his Pre-Existence of Souls doctrine and how that effected his view of The Resurrection that was the core issue.

I'm not an Origen apologist the way most of my modern fellow Universal Salvation proponents often are, because I know that Soteorlogy was also supported by many others who shared none of Origen's issues, and a few condemned for going in the opposite direction on the literal/allegorical dichotomy.

I actually feel like 70 AD Preterism is far more incompatible with a God of Love who Saves ALL then Futurism, because as I stressed above they are adamant on YHWH's refusal to forgive Israel, they make YHWH's promises to never permanently cast Israel aside into bold faced LIES.

Origen's view of Revelation was probably more Idealist then 70 AD focused Preterism given his approach to Scripture in general.

On both Tertullian and Hippolytus one Amill blog admits they were Pre-Mill but says "not like modern Premillenialism", by which they mainly must mean not being Pre-Trib Dispensationalists.  Hippolytus was clearly Post-Trib on his timing of the Parusia, though he did support the gaps in Daniel 9 and 11 that are today usually typical of Dispensationalism.  I myself even in how I view The Millennium's nature am not like most modern pre-Millers, but my disagreement puts the Patristics I've looked at as closer to them then to me.

Tertullian was influenced by the Montanists and so occasionally viewed with suspicion by later generations of The Church, but still not as much suspicion as Origen.  Again Froom tried to paint him as the one Pre-Nicene father who seemed compatible with his Historicism, and indeed Tertulian is the earliest example I've seen of explicitly identifying Babylon with Rome.  But he also clearly identified The Two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah.

Eusebius of Caesarea was agaisnt the Millennium but because of that questioned the Canonocity of Revelation altogether. Thing is a lot of writers at this time saw the Diocletian Persecution and it's relief under Constantine as the fulfillment of the future Kingdom happening then not back when The Church was founded.  Constantinople was in turn viewed as the New Jerusalem as much as it was a New Rome.

 Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary and Jerome all spoke about things like The Antichrist in ways that show a futurist understanding of that issue, even Gregory of Nysaa the one time he mentioned The Antichrist clearly viewed him as yet future.  Both versions of the Nicene Creed rule out at least Full Preterism by clearly defining the Parusia as having not happened yet..  

Aphrahat one of the oldest Syrian Fathers also definitely taught Premillenialism and a Literal Resurrection.  His Eschatology can be considered a from of Historicism, but does not have the Antichrist view typical of Protestant Historicism.

In 380 Ticonius published a Revelation commentary that became the foundation of Post Millenialism as we know it today, and was in turn the basis for Augustine of Hippo's eschatology.

Over the course of the next few centuries the leadership of the Church became increasingly either Post-Mill or not Prophecy concerned at all as now Jesus overthrowing the current world system became no longer desirable to them.  However the Popular literature of this era implies Futurism was still the preferred eschatology of the masses, like the Apocalypse of Pseudo Methodius and other texts related to The Last Roman Emperor tradition.  Meanwhile The Book of The Bee shows that understanding of Prophecy continued to thrive among the "Nestorians" into the 13th Century.

Also identifying The Two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah seemed pretty universal when they came up all.

Maybe the Torah's Calendar was never a Lunar or Lunisolar Calendar?

First some terminology clarification.  The traditional Rabbinic Hebrew Calendar we're used to calling a Lunar Calendar is strictly speaking a Lunisolar Calendar, the phases of the Moon come first but synchronization is done with a Solar year so the seasons don't drift out of place.  The same is true of the popular variants I've discussed already like the Samaritan Calendar, the Kariate reckoning and the proposed Lunar Sabbath model.  A strictly Lunar Calendar would be something like the Islamic Calendar which makes no attempt to reconcile and so Ramadan has fallen all over the Gregorian Calendar.

But I've lately been questioning the traditional assumption that the Torah's Calendar is Lunar at all.

Let's start with the fact that the Torah has completely different words for Month and Moon, that is not what I'd expect from an ancient strictly Lunar month based culture.  Month is Chodesh/Hodesh (Strongs Number 2320) while Moon is Jerah/Yerach (3394).  There are a few places where the latter word is used of a passage of time, but that's because even without a lunar calendar the concept of a month is still tied poetically to the Moon somewhat as it's phases come at least close.

Japan for example had a Lunar Calendar until 1873, and that's why their language uses the same word for both Month and Moon, Tsuki.  That's why in the English version of episode 6 of my favorite Anime, Noir, it sounds weird when Mireille says "so many Months and Years have passed", in a language where all the word "month" means is a fraction of a year my mind goes "why even include months in that expression?".  But I'm pretty sure in the Japanese she's saying "so many Tsuki and Hi", Hi being an alternate word for both Sun and Year and sometimes Day.  So a more poetic yet equally literal translation would be "so many Moons and Suns have passed" which sounds more right even if technically equally as redundant.

The phrase "Rosh Chodesh" gets translated "New Moon" sometimes because of our traditional assumptions, but Rosh means the beginning or head of something not quite "New".  Colossians 2:16 is the one New Testament reference to the Jewish concept of the "Rosh Chodesh", and it again uses a Greek word for Month, not Selene the word for the Moon.

Because we think of it as the Crescent New Moon so much talk about Rosh Chodesh is spent on saying we don't know for certain exactly when it is till it happens.  With Dispensationalists saying it typologically fits the Pre-Trib Rapture and "no man knowth the day or the hour" verses.  But there is one clear Biblical reference to people knowing for certain the next day is a Rosh Chodesh, 1 Samuel 20:5.

The Torah never talks about the Full Moon, even in regards to the Holy Days that should happen about then on a Lunar or Lunisolar calendar.  Two verses elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible are often translated as referring to the Full Moon, but those are highly disputable as I've discussed before.  For Psalm 81 I don't know how to translate it but my hunch is it's about the Jubilee Yom Kippur sounded Shofar.  The word for "feast" used here is sometimes used of Sacrificial animals like Exodus 23:18, Psalm 118:27 and Isaiah 29:1, so that could be the Yom Kippur Sin Offering in this verse.  The root of the word thought to refer to the Full Moon appears in Leviticus 16:13 where it's translated "cover".

And then there is all the evidence that The Bible clearly thinks of a Month as being 30 days not 29 and a half.  It's there when you do the math of the Flood chronology of Genesis 7 and 8 with 5 months being exactly 150 days beginning on the 17th of the second month and ending on the 17th of the seventh month.  And it's also in Revelation with 42 Months, 1,260 days and three and a half years being treated as synonymous time periods.  

However there is one thing often taken as evidence for a 365 day year in the Torah, and that is how that number happens to be the number of years Enoch lived. But that could be a coincidence.

Genesis 1:14-19 discuses the Sun (greater light), Moon (lesser light) and stars being made for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.  But you'll notice in verse 16 the Sun is made and talked about first, it has priority.  And months are seemingly missing from the discussion.

It is well known that the Hebrew Calendar was influenced by the Babylonian Calendar during the Captivity, the names we're now used to calling the months come from Babylon for one thing.  Well the thing is Babylon had a Lunisolar Calendar, so even that aspect of it could be Babylonian in origin.

Lunar Calendars were more popular with the ancient Pagans then you might expect given the modern popular narrative that ancient Paganism always started with Sun worship.  In fact the most prominent not at all Lunar Calendar used by Pagans in classical antiquity was the Civil Egyptian calendar, but even they originally had a Lunar one which they kept using for ceremonial purposes.  Actually even in Greece the Attic Lunar Calender's main purpose was for how they observed Pagan festivals.

Now as much as we love to see all things Egyptian as bad, it wasn't the Egyptians much of the Torah is telling the Israelites not to be like, it was the Canaanites, (When Jerusalem is derogatorily called "Sodom and Egypt" it's about them being inhospitable to strangers not any particular customs.).  One of the Canaanite tribes was the Amorites, Babylon first became a major player in Mesopotamia under it's Amorite dynasty, so that Babylonian calendar could be Canaanite in origin.

There is one indisputable difference between the Torah Calendar and the Civil Egyptian Calendar, and that is when to start it.  Exodus 12 proclaims Aviv (the time of the Barley Harvest, early Spring) to be the first month while the Egyptian Calendar starts near the Autumnal Equinox.

It is a common traditional conjecture that before Exodus 12 the first season was Fall rather then Spring, and that in Exodus 12 YHWH is swapping the First and Seventh months.  I'd been thinking of making a post on how we can't entirely prove that using Scripture alone and so shouldn't build so many theories on it.  But since they were in Egypt for several generations it's very possible the Egyptian Calendar was their starting point and what month to make the first month was the only change YHWH is making in Exodus 12.  Though different agricultural and climate circumstances in Canaan probably brought further differences, the Egyptian Calendar was organized around 3 seasons rather then 4 because of how much they were ruled by the flooding of the Nile.

In a hypothetical Torah based Solar Calendar the Intercalary month of five or six days (if that was the method used for synchronization) would go between Adar and Nisan rather then in September.  (BTW, those 5 days were when the Egyptians observed the birthdays of Osiris and Horus, not anywhere near Christmas.  And the Egyptian new year was September 11th on our calendar coincidentally enough.)  Or maybe you would try to put them before the Seventh Month to keep Yom Teruah close to the Fall Equinox.  

Genesis 1:14 is possibly using Signs in place of Months, I have over the years gone back and forth on the Mazzaroth/Gospel in the Stars theory.  Maybe fellow Mazzaroth proponents like Rob Skiba should consider that the Star Signs can be an alternative to the Moon for how to determine the months of the year.  Josephus did refer to Nisan as being when the Sun is in Aries, in the first century the Sun entered Aries around the Spring Equinox, and that month is indeed when the Barley Harvest happens.  The Romans had a Seven Day Barley Festival similar to Unleavened Bread that was the 12-18th of April, but due to the awkwardness of Caesar's revisions that may be off from when in the Sun's journey it was supposed to be.

It is popular to theorize that Revelation 12:1 is describing some astronomical alignment involving the Moon. If it is it could be an exception and not proof the months are usually defined by the Moon.  But I'm skeptical of that altogether, I think it's probably a purely supernatural vision and not something predictable using Stelarrium.

Now I do believe the Passover through Pentecost of Christ's Passion, Resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit was likely based on what the Jews of the time were doing regardless of if it was still accurate.  But it may be it happened to be a year when they did line up, or at least close enough that First Fruits was the right Sunday.  Since I favor 30 AD and a Thursday Crucifixion on the 14th of Nisan followed by a Sunday Resurrection on the 17th of Nisan, I have long placed the Passion on the 6th of April 30 AD and The Resurrection of the 9th.

But maybe not all the Jews were already using the Babylonian Calendar in Christ's time?  Maybe it was originally mainly the Pharisees, who became the only sect to survive the 70 AD war?  It was the Sadducees who actually controlled the Priesthood and The Temple, and according to Josephus they were a Torah only sect.

The Qumran Community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls also rejected the Lunar Calendar, the Temple Scroll is our main source on their Calendar but it's discussed in other scrolls too.  I don't think that Calendar is right either, like the Lunar Sabbath model it wants to synchronize the monthly and yearly cycle to the weekly cycle by giving every 3rd month an extra day creating a 364 day year.  As I've talked about before the language in Leviticus 23 about Firs Fruits and Pentecost is clearly assuming they won't always line up.  They make the first day of the year a Wednesday because that was the day the Sun and Moon were created.  But at least they correctly placed First Fruits and Pentecost on Sundays.  Weeks are not even remotely mentioned in the Genesis 1 account of the fourth day, so they aren't connected to the sun, moon or stars.

The Book of Jubilees was popular with them because it too rejected the Lunar Calendar (Chapter 6 verses 32-37).  Something I bet Rob Skiba didn't notice when using the book for his agendas (This Calendar also seems to be endorsed by Enoch 72-82).  But indeed Jubilees has the same problem as the Temple Scroll system.  In fact it's criticism of the lunar system is a little hypocritical since it doesn't line up perfectly with the seasons either, being one day short of a solar year will inevitably create the same issue even if it'd take longer.

The Hebrew Roots movement has a lot of irrational fear of Sun Worship wrapped up into it.  Obviously actually worshiping the actual Sun or Moon or any other inanimate object is a Sin.  But Malachi does call Jesus the Sun(Shamash) of Righteousness, there is no equivalent title making the Moon a symbol of Jesus.  So I have no problem believing Jesus Rose from The Grave at Sunrise on a Sunday Morning, or that he was born on or soon after the Winter Solstice.  I'd rather base my calendar on the astronomical object that is explicitly a symbol of Jesus then one that is not and was frequently the basis for Pagan ceremonial calendars.

You might ask "are you gonna also question if Biblical days begin and end with Sunset?"  Well I did consider it, but I concluded that they do.  Genesis 1 lists them as Evenings and Mornings, and later Torah verses after Exodus 13 do the same, like Exodus 16 which is also the proper origin of the Sabbath.  Also Exodus 27:21 and Leviticus 24:3.  Instead I'm just going to point out that even that is also determined by the the Sun, when the Sun sets.  [Update: on this paragraph I've had a change of mind since.]

But I'm not just disagreeing with the current Hebrew Roots movement here.  This may shock you to learn but the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other mainstream Christian Churches do use the Moon to calculate "Easter".  It's just that explaining why it doesn't always line up with Rabbinic Passover is complicated.  In most Languages "Easter" is just called Pascha.  If Catholic "Easter" was just a Christianized Spring Solstice festival as many allege it would consistently happen in the 20s of March.

Also remember that as a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist I do believe originally the Solar and Lunar cycles were in sync and there was no need to choose between them.  I think that was the case at least until the Flood but maybe also till the time of Joshua or even Hezekiah.

I'm not ready to propose a specific calendar model just yet.  I merely want to open up this line of discussion.

Or maybe I am.  But take everything below with a grain of salt, it's all stuff I could easily abandon.  What I've talked about above is the point of this post.

In Fact ignore everything below, I've revamped it all here.

https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2021/09/biblical-calendar-proposal.html

[Update 2023: I have an even newer idea to add.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2022/04/passion-week-chronology-completely.html]

Eden may have been in Yemen

I have to agree with the position that the Tigris and Euphrates aren't useful for identifying Eden, since things changed at the Flood.  Rob Skiba likes to say the text of Genesis is present tense, but I think that's because Moses simply edited together older sources.  I believe Genesis 2-4 were written by Adam and Eve themselves.  The fact is, the relationship between the Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis 2 is literally the exact opposite of the Post-Flood rivers we now call by those names.

That doesn't mean I think it's hopeless to identify Eden's location.  Because there are Post-Flood references to it.

I had in the past fixated on ways to read the references in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 37 and Amos 1 as placing Eden in Mesopotamia.  But those verses contain qualifiers like "Scepter of" and "sons of" that may mean we're dealing with references to Eden that are not geographically useful.

What's interesting however is Ezekiel 27:23, which mentions Eden right before Sheba.

Genesis 2 says the Garden was "Eastward in Eden".  Which has been debated between whether it means the Garden was in an Eastern part of Eden, or that Eden was East of where Yahuah first created Adam.  What's interesting is Genesis 10 says the children of Joktan settled at mount Sephar (Zafar), a mountain known to be in Yemen, and calls it a Mountain of the East.  A fact I also noted when arguing the Magi came from Arabia not Persia.

There is a region in Yemen called Aden.  And their local tradition is that it's as old as Humanity and Cain and Able were buried there.

Ezekiel goes on in Chapter 28 when addressing the Melek of Tyre to say the Mountain of God was in Eden.  And elsewhere in Scripture "Mountain of God" is a title used only of Sinai/Horeb, never of Zion or Moriah.  I noted this once before when trying to place Sinai in Iraq.

But now this Eden/Sinai connection is perfectly compatible with my past argument that Sinai was in Yemen and is the tallest Mountain in Arabia.

In that context this post is a companion piece to the one I made earlier today.  As well as this post.

Now it might be possible to make this argument compatible with connecting all the Genesis 2 names to their Post-Flood usage.  After all the first river mentioned is associated with Havilah, a name that is in Yemen near Sheba and Ophir post Flood.  But I'm gonna leave that to someone else to figure out since I don't find it necessary.

The Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30

Deuteronomy 30 is considered the first and most important Prophecy of Israel's return to her Promised Land.  Other Prophecies we turn to from Prophets like Isaiah are arguably just elaborating on that.

Some think this can apply to 1948 and what's been going since.  I long ago sorta agreed with that, but have during the time I've written on this blog been inclined to agree with those who say it obviously can't fit, and my mind as of this post hasn't entirely changed on that, but.......

Nehemiah chapter 1 quotes Deuteronomy 30, as having already being fulfilled by the return from the Babylonian Captivity.

Unless you want to reject the Canonocity of Nehemiah, (which I know of people who would, but I'm not addressing this post to them,) you have to accept this as correct.  Now another Captivity happening under Rome is why we know there is another return from Captivity coming.  But Deuteronomy 30 has been fulfilled at least once already.

Doesn't matter how at face value laughable it seems.  Critics of Christianity mock plenty of the New Testament's claims of Old Testament fulfillment.  But good Christians should accept and defend those no matter what.  From Peter applying the end of Joel 2 to Pentecost, to the claim that Jesus was a Nazarite because he was from a town called Nazareth.  I've gone out of my way on this blog to defend the New Testament's quotations of Isaiah 7 and 8.  But the Acts 2 reference is more comparable here, yet equally criticized by some, as it's about a stage in God's Covenant relationship with His People.

Christians can believe there is a second fulfillment coming, that may be grander then the first, as I certainly do with Joel and Pentecost in my view of Revelation 6-7.  But we can't question the accuracy of the cited fulfillment.  We use Scripture to Interpret Scripture.

That means Nehemiah has destroyed much of the argument that it's absurd to apply these Prophecies to 1948.  It's no longer true that it has to be something obviously Supernatural, and that no Gentile human governments can be the means by which God does it.

I would argue the Anglican British Government (and the Rothschilds if you insist on overstating their involvement) come closer to being worshipers of The God of The Torah then the devout Mithra worshiping Cyrus, or the Zoroastrians who made the later decrees.

But the main reason I can argue 1948 fits better is that it more naturally fits the idea that they're returning from all over the world, from it's very edges, from many nations.  While in Nehemiah's day at face value it seems like a return from just one nation.  Perhaps we could infer these decrees also became a rallying cry to Israelites who wound up in other regions for whatever reason, but if so that was only a small part of it.  The prophecies specify people returning by Ships, they specify Israelites returning from Ethiopia, and somehow even people returning by air (but not all of them, that will be important later).  Those details fit 1948 and since, but are harder to apply to Nehemiah's time.

Rob Skiba, one of the main people I'm responding to here, is totally against viewing that return as including the Northern Kingdom's exiles.  Though Chris White and Chuck Missler argue it did, that Babylon inherited Assyria's captives.  However Assyria never kept them in Assyria in the first place, and Ezra and Nehemiah's long lists of returning clans includes no references to Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Gad or Naphtali.  Asher wasn't part of the Assyrian deportation in the first place which is why Anna was in Judea.  Yet again the people saying clearly 1948 can't fulfill these are basing it partly on asserting modern Jews are only from the Southern Kingdom.

The only thing one could argue that Return had that today's doesn't is returning in obedience.

Christians typically assume they can't be returning in obedience unless they've accepted Yeshua/Jesus as their Messiah.  But to a Jew that's a non issue, and they would be offended if you told them otherwise.  Fortunately I've become a Universalist.  I do believe the culmination of all this involves Jesus being recognized as The Messiah, but at the start of the process I know there are other ways to be obedient.  So I won't offend Jews by telling them God's Promises to them doesn't apply till they accept Jesus.

Now there is a strictly Hebrew Bible basis for questioning the obedience of modern Israel that some have made, and that's how they aren't even really trying to govern themselves by the Torah.  Some online today limit Canon to only The Torah, they reject Nehemiah so I can't really respond to them here.  Ironically in this case it's being a Paulian Evangelical Universalist Christian that makes it easier to defend Israel here.  To me Paul's declaration that we aren't under The Law anymore doesn't apply just to Christians, Jesus saved and liberated everyone.  And as a civil Government the Torah is utterly unworkable in the modern world.

But if I were a citizen of modern Israel, there are plenty of policies of the modern government I would object to.

So the question becomes, was Israel in perfect obedience in Nehemiah's day?  By some priorities they were more so then modern Israel.  But no, they certainly still had issues that the Prophets from that time period like Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi were addressing.

But they no longer had the main problem that lead to the Captivity, their tendency to fall into Idolatry was cured.  Whether or not modern Israel still has the same issues as first Century Judaism would be a complicated debate, but since most Modern Jews aren't Sadducees, I think a good case can be made that they don't, from a Christian, Rabbinic or Karaite perspective.

So it is my view that 1948 was the beginning of the restoration of Israel, but it's not complete yet.  Ezekiel 37 clearly isn't fulfilled until the Resurrection.  The time between the Decrees of Cyrus and Nehemiah was longer then between 1948 and now, and Nehemiah's decree was only the beginning of another phrase. 

The issue of Israel's return is also part of the Rapture debate.  You see to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same as Israel's return, hence the emphasis on saying it must be a supernatural return.  Ignoring the clear references to many returning by "Ships of Tarshish".

The Church is New Jerusalem/Yahuah-Shammah.  But we're not all there is to Israel, there is still the land allotted to the Tribes, the Levites, the Priests and the Prince, which are all separate from Yahuah-Shammah.  It's after the Rapture that Israel is protected in the Wilderness.

Post-Tribbers deny that we are actually taken to Heaven at the Rapture.  Jesus clearly said in Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.".  But more importantly then that, Revelation 13 says the Best will Blaspheme "Them that dwell in Heaven", chapter 14 has the Resurrected 144 Thousand on the Heavenly Zion.  New Jerusalem doesn't descend until after the Millennium and Gog and Magog and the White Throne Judgment.

Iapetos could be The Name of The Beast

Iapetos was the name of a Titan from Greek Mythology, often called today Iapetus or Japetus because of Latinization, but Ἰαπετός Iapetos was the original proper Greek spelling.

Disclaimer up front, I'm not arguing Greek Mythology is true and The Antichrist will be a Titan from it.  Or even how many Christians usually tie the Titan Mythology into Genesis 6.  Nor would it require him being anyone who lived in the past returning.  By the end it will make sense why a (completely biologically Homo-Sapien) Jewish Messiah claimant, or maybe even someone claiming to be Jesus, would use this name. Just bear with me.

The spelling has a Greek Gemetria value of Six Hundred and Sixty Six.
Iota=10, Alpha=1, Pi=80, Epsilon=5, Tau=300, Omicron=70, Sigma=200.
10+1+80+5+300+70+200=666.

[Update May 2023: Since my overall Eschatological views have become more flexible since I first wrote this I want to clarify that I view this interpretation of 666 as also potentially  Compatible with Preterist Post-Millennial and Historicist views on Revelation even though everything below was primarily argued for in the context of Pre-Mil Futurism.]

This spelling is also 7 letters with no repeats, 7 different Greek letters.  Why do I find that significant?  At the start of Chapter 13 John says the Name of Blasphemy was written on the seven heads of the Beast.  I've long had a hunch this is the same name being dealt with at the end, just not sure what to make of it.  Here I think it possible that each Head had one letter.  Perhaps I could go deeper with that, but not today.

A few Greek names are known to have had this value.  Irenaeus and Hippolytos and other Early Church Fathers speculated on some but didn't notice this one.  Though Tietan, a bizarre I don't think attested anywhere else spelling of Titan, is included, and a Titan is what Iapetos was in Greek Mythology.  I'm not quite the first to notice this however, a google search for Iapetos 666 will mainly turn up stuff about a Metal band (I haven't listened to them).  But no Bible Study seriously looking into it.  At first I myself while excited to have stumbled on this didn't think too much of it.

But then I read how the name is usually interpreted to mean The Piercer.  It's thought to come from the word iapto which means wound or pierce, and usually refers to a spear.  Most scholars think this meaning is meant to apply the idea of mortality to him.

All that is stuff right from Wikipedia.  I myself think it could also be possible to interpret it's derivation from that word as meaning Pierced or Wounded.  Which can make us think of Revelation 13 even if we didn't already have the Gemetria connection.  But maybe The Beast would want both the Piercer and Pierced meanings to apply to him, he was Pierced, but after being healed intends to Peirce his enemies.

I will return to Etymology later.

Homer mentions Iapetos in the Iliad (8.478–81) as being in Tartaros with Kronos. He is a brother of Kronos, who ruled the world during the Golden Age.  2 Peter 2:4 uses Tartaros as a name for The Abyss, The Beast ascends out of The Abyss.  The beginning of Hesiod's theogony also associates Tartaros with the Deep.

The importance of that Homer reference has to do with how the idea of all the Titans being in Tartaros comes later, at first it was just these two.  Given how little we know of Iapetos, and how Homer and Hesiod come after Greek Mythology had already changed in many ways.  It could be Iapetos and Kronos were originally the same.

Egyptian mythology also has more then one Underworld god.  Anubis like Hades is seemingly existing only to rule there.  The other is Osiris who similar to the Titans originally ruled the world of the living but then was killed.  The Pharaoh was Horus in life and Osiris in death.

It is believed there was an underworld god among the Semites named Shalman, the god of the Theophoric Assyrian name Shalmanezzer.  Possibly related to the Hebrew name Shalim meaning Dusk.  In Egyptian Mythology the land of the Dead was also called The West, Amentis, because it was where they believe the Sun traveled from West to East during the Night.  It's not difficult to connect these names to the name of Solomon, as Shalim and Shalem are very similar if not identical in spelling.  And I've argued elsewhere adding an N to the name of Shalmo to get Solomon isn't just a result of the Greek.  And they are also speculated to be related to the Greek Salmoneus, another King imprisoned in Tartaros.  In the Septuagint Solomon is spelled Salomon.

Solomon is linked to the number 666 in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13.  He was a type of Christ early on when he was doing well, but later he fell into Idolatry.  Even the fact that he built a palace for himself that took 4 years longer to build then The Temple is perhaps a sign of this.  That will be a subject in the future.  But this connection is still only as a type.

I've also talked on this Blog about how The Beast may seek to be an Adam figure.  That one of the titles of Christ he may claim for himself is The Last Adam.  How part of the reason his name adding up to 666 means something may be a connection to the 6th day of Creation being the day Adam was made.  And understanding The Image of The Beast begins with Adam being made in The Image of God.  And that maybe his deception will draw on false teachings that say Genesis 1 and 2 are about two different Adams.

Iapetos in Greek Mythology is made an ancestor of the entire Human Race, or at least the Hellenes and those the Hellenes felt kinship with.  Two of his sons are Prometheus and Epimetheus.  Prometheus is the father of Deucalion, the Noah figure of one of Greek Mythology's Flood Legends.  And Epimetheus married Pandora (arguably an Eve figure) and had Pyrrha, the wife of Deucalion.

It may be interesting to note that being the Grandfather of the Flood Survivor gives basis to identify Iapetos with Methuselah, who's name means "His death shall bring" making an interesting connection for the mortality association.

The Flood connection is a good place to get into how many Creationists (including myself), and even some purely Secular scholars doing comparative mythology like Robert Graves see this name as being derived from Yaphet/Japheth.  Greek mythology is very garbled and so a son of the Flood survivor became an ancestor.  Not unlike Rammah son of Kush becoming Rama with a son named Kusha in Hindu mythology. 

The secular scholars however tend to do so from a desire to late date as much of Genesis as they can and say Genesis took the name from the Greeks.  While Iapetos makes sense as an archaic Greek transliteration of Japheth, if it went the other way I wouldn't expect Japheth to be spelled with only three letters.

This can be a good time to look at how Japheth fits into typological themes of The Bible.

In Genesis 9:27.

 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The word for Tents here is Ohel and is definitely used of the Mishkan/Holy Tabernacle elsewhere, but also of the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles.   This can be seen as anticipating Romans 9-11 and Galatians talk of Gentiles being grafted unto Israel.  (I've seen a KJV only pastor use Genesis 10 to say "Gentiles" Biblically refers only to descendants of Japheth)  That is good, I love the Adoption theme of The Bible.

The Problem is how many, including some in the Hebrew Roots movement tie that into British Israelism and Two House Theology.  Seeing Ephraim and the Northern Kingdom become intermingled beyond distinction with the descendants of Japheth.  Cimmerians linked to both Gomer and Omri, Scythians linked to both Magog and Israel, The Irish linked to Magog and Judah's son Zarah and later the House of David.  And all of Britam's identifications.  I do see some truth in plenty of that kind of stuff, but it also gets tied into Racist and Nationalist political agendas.

And many of these are expecting a Messiah Ben-Joseph.  Christ White has argued for The Antichrist claiming to be Messiah Ben-Joseph independent of the Lost Tribes aspect.  And I disagree with many aspects of his argument especially Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon, but have explored how that could tie into the Lost Tribes issue.

I have a growing hunch The Antichrist will be using much rhetoric taken from the Hebrew Roots movement.  That he'll talk about Nimrod the same way Rob Skiba does.  And that includes their reverence for The Book of Jasher, which paints Nimrod as Evil and says he fought a War with the Japhethites.  There may be other sources for this Japheth vs Nimrod mythology, I'm unsure.

I've said before I think there may be Decoy Antichrists, including the Terrible of The Nations who will rule Babylonia.  And that The Terrible of The Nations will be an enemy of The Antichrist, and probably who wounds him.

Of all the people who are types of Christ in The Hebrew Bible, it's interesting how it was Joshua of all of them who shares his actual name.  The Shia Muslim reverence of Ali draws a lot on seeing Ali as the Joshua to Muhammad's Moses (even though logically Umar fits that role better).  Well in this un-Biblical Jasher mythology, Japheth becomes arguably the Joshua to Noah's Moses.

Now some Creationists talking about Iapetos as Japheth have claimed Iapetos makes no sense in Greek etymology at all.  And in fairness there are real Greek scholars who have questioned the etymology I discussed above.  But what I want to talk about is how that commonly accepted Etymolgoy for Iapetos can be more consistent with Japheth's Hebrew etymology then you might think.

Going back to Genesis 9:27, the use of Enlarge there is a known pun, as Japheth's name is derived from that Hebrew word, phathah.  But this verse is the only time the KJV translates it Enlarge.  It's also sometimes words like Entice or Beguile, where sometimes a sexual connotation is implied in the context.  And the Strongs definition suggests it could mean "to open".  So the idea of Piercing could come from it, especially as things get clouded through a change in language.

A Yot added at the beginning of a name is often a sign of being Yah theophoric but then contracted, like Jehoram becoming Joram. Yeshua itself is an example of a Yah theophoric being contracted to the point where the letter Yot is all that represents the Holy Name.  Now I don't think Japheth was a Yah theophoric name originally, but I think a future false Messiah deifying himself while going by that name could seek to re-imagine it as one.  Actually the word play in Genesis 9:27 can be interpreted as making Japheth a Yah thephoric now that I think about it.

Those who out of ignorance of how First Century Greek worked try to claim Iesous is really a pagan name.  May add that they feel a transliteration of a Yah theophoric name should have an Alpha after the Iota.  But in Greco-Rroman times all Semitic names beginning with Yot began with Iota-Eta.  And that included Japheth in the Septuagint. But this rule wasn't a factor in more archaic times when the spelling of Iapetos was standardized.  And given the many Semtic via Phonecian influences on Greek, I wonder if Iasus might derive from a more ancient Greek form of Yeshua?

So I can easily imagine a false Messiah Ben-Joseph etymologically connecting himself to Japheth.  And interpreting the name Iapetos to mean either "Yah pierced" or "Yah Piercer".  And either of those proposed meanings could have opposite proposed interpretations depending on if he identifies himself with Yahuah or rejects the name of Yahuah.  "Pierced by Yah" or "Yah is pierced".  And "Yah the Piercer" or "the Piercer of Yah". 

And the Hebrew Gemetria value of the Hebrew spelling of Japheth being 490 he could argue a Biblical Numerical significance for, being 70 times 7.  I've suggested before that the Antichrist might claim to be the Messiah the 70 weeks points to.

And so I feel I have made my case.  What's below is just a supplemental epilogue and not part of the main thesis. 

The shape of The Tabernacle, YHWH-Shammah and New Jerusalem

Project314.org is a website arguing that The Tabernacle was not shaped how we usually assume it was, but was rather a Dome.  I've also listened to the author of the site interviewed by Rob Skiba.  I've become pretty convinced of the theory, (but people like Skiba want to make it also an argument for their Flat Earth Model, which I do not agree with).

They haven't done much yet in terms of trying to see if this means The Temples of Solomon or Zerubabel were also a Dome rather then the shape we usually assume.  But I have an observation to make.

The Popularity of Domes in the design of Islamic Mosques actually comes from them later taking over and copying Byzantine/Eastern Roman Churches that were centered around Domes.  And this being a fixture of Byzantine architecture primarily goes back to the building projects of Emperor Jusitnian.

The Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos was one of Jusitnian's major projects.  It was built in Jerusalem.  Procopius’s account of Justinian's building projects deliberately makes the account of this Church echo the Biblical Account of the construction of Solomon's Temple.  And it was a Church dedicated to Mary, who Catholic and Orthodox theology often viewed The Ark, Tabernacle and Temple to be types of.  

So is it possible that that church had a Dome because of a deliberate attempt to model it after Solomon's Temple?  And that influenced other Byzantine architecture?  And is indirectly the reason we have Domes on The Temple Mount today?

I've made much on my Blog before about how Yahuah-Shammah of Ezekiel 48 and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 have the same shape.  And back then went along with the usual assumption it was a Cube.   But the thing, is others talking about their shape being a Cube are also assuming that was the shape of The Holy of Holies.

Many people including Rob Skiba and Chuck Missler (last I checked) seem to think the description of these two cities (which I view as the same) can only be either a Cube or a Pyramid.  Basically something Squared at the bottom.  But I think that is a flawed assumption.  It's based on referring to there being three gates on each side.  

But a Circle with 12 evenly distributed gates could also be described that way.  Just use what a clock looks like as your frame of reference, the 3 is the central eastern gate, the 6 the central southern gate, the 9 the central western gate, and the 12 the central northern gate.

And if you believe in Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theories, the 12 signs of the Zodiac form a circle.  Often also believed to correlate to the Israelites encampment around The Tabernacle in the Book of Numbers.

The last verse of the Book of Ezekiel says in the KJV "It was round about eighteen 6240 thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there".   Well the reason the word "round" is there is because the Hebrew word Cabyib (Strong Number 5439) is used.  That word is often translated things like Circuit and Compass.  It is inherently terminology of a round shape.

Revelation 21 uses the term "foursquared" which in the Greek is related to the terminology that refers to Four Corners.  You might think that rules out a Circular shape, but not really.  Remember these Flat Earthers think The Bible is describing a Flat Circle shaped Earth as having Four Corners.  The gist of the description is that it's the same size in all three directions.  And that can fit a Dome as well as it can a Cube or Pyramid.  In fact it can fit a Dome best, as it would be the same distance from the central grounded spot it's built around in every possible direction.

Here is a site arguing New Jerusalem is shaped like a Mountain. 

I've heard of an interesting book that deals with Geometry and New Jerusalem that may be useful to this topic.   The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order on Earth by John Mitchell.

Objections to Enoch and Elijah being translated

Lex Meyer has raised some I want to address.

This post is not me objecting to his overall doctrine.  Where I agree and disagree with that I already addressed on my Sola Scriptura Blog.

Here I want to point out that he can keep his basic premise without being so contrarian on Enoch and Elijah.  I do NOT believe they've already obtained immortal glorified bodies.  And I agree that Jasher and the Book of Enoch should be rejected.  I believe they are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, which means I believe they are going to physically die in the future.

The first explanation for how this could work is what I already mentioned on this Blog in my main Two Witnesses identities post.  That they traveled through Time as well as Space.  I do not believe they ascended to the Third Heaven, but may have been taken to receive training on another Planet and then sent back, and for them it'll have seemed like only a few years not Thousands.  Because of the theory of Relativity.

The second option also still has them basically the same normal humans we are, but God has supernaturally stalled their ageing process.  We saw during the 40 Year Wandeirng that he did something similar in Deuteronomy 29:5, making it so the shoes and cloths the Israelites wore wouldn't wear out.  This could then also apply to the argument for The Apostle John being a Witness.

As far as his attempts to explain away the accounts of their translations.

His argument is ironically more difficult to buy with Enoch precisely because so much less is said.  With the Elijah narrative his arguments about the real point of what was going on being to get Elisha to go out on his own are quite valid, and without what's said in Malachi and The New Testament, I would be totally willing to accept that.

But with Enoch he just sites all the places where similar terminology is used of death.  That's all true, but context matters.  In the context of Genesis 5 a point is made to define Enoch's fate as not like everyone else, and everyone else is defined as dying.  Genesis 5 is unambiguous about what it is trying to say.

Now what he sites as proof of Elijah not being taken out of the Earth is the letter Jehoram received from him later in 2 Chronicles 21:12.  If Elijah himself were personally present in this story, I would consider it a slam dunk for his argument, but he.s not.

I don't have his book unfortunately, I just listened to the Rob Skiba interviews.  Rob Skiba is into science fiction like Back to The Future.  There is a trope that shows up in some Time Travel stories of a letter being written to be delivered to someone on a very specific date in the distant future.  Well maybe that concept originated right here?

God did a lot of pre-planning with Elijah.  The instructions to anoint Hazael and Jehu were originally given to Elijah in 1 Kings 19, but they were carried out in 2 Kings 9 after the mantle was passed to Elisha.  So I think God had Elijah write this letter way in advance, because He knows the End from the Beginning.  And delivering it at the appointed time was another responsibility passed on to Elisha or someone else.

A second explanation could be that our understanding of the Chronology is wrong, many disagree on the Divided Kingdom Chronology.  But I don't want to get into that here, the above theory works just fine for me.

Now on the subject of Elijah's foretold return.  He sites that John The Baptist preached in the Spirit and Power of Elijah to mean that the Two Witnesses will just do the same.  Problem is in John's Gospel 1:21, John The Baptist states blatantly that he does not qualify as the return of Elijah.  What Jesus says at the Transfiguration about how John could have been that was purely rhetorical.  What Malachi said in his closing verses was NEVER applicable to the First Advent, it is strictly about the Day of Yahuah.

The return of Elijah absolutely needs to be taken literally or else you open the door to not take Jesus promised Return literally.

I don't think Jesus was born on a Leviticus 23 Holy Day

I've already done one post where I explained why historically I find it highly implausible, I don't think Rome would have forced everyone to be at a specific location so close to any of the Pilgrimage Festivals.

Still, there are some people in the Torah Observant and Hebrew Roots communities who seem darn near like the Holy Days are Idols to them.  Insisting "They are Yahweh's Appointed Times, of course Yeshua could only be born then", ignoring any history based arguments besides the common anti December 25th Memes that I've firmly refuted.

Remember how people used to mock the title of Star Wars Episode VII?  "The Force doesn't Sleep".  Well it seems like some Christians think Yahuah sleeps over 300 days a year, and wakes up only on those Leviticus appointed times.

In Exodus 16 in the very next month after Yahuah initiated the calendar, He does something significant on a day not mentioned in Leviticus 23.  And later the Book of Esther ordains Purim.

Other Anti-Christmas people start with how The Bible never calls for celebrating Birthdays at all, and every reference to Birthdays seem to be about Pagans celebrating them.  So maybe that's a good argument against Jesus being born on an Appointed Time?

But of course since these people are usually Pro-Lifers, I could point out that perhaps they should consider the Conception date more important, the time of the Annunciation and Visitation.  And the traditional date for Jesus Birth places that around Passover, it is inherently linked to Early Christians believing (before Constantine) that Jesus Conception should logically happen around the same time as His Death and Resurrection.  It's the Conceptions of Jesus and John, being Six months apart, that start the New Testament narrative chronologically, not their births.

It was first Zola Levitt who discovered a compelling correlation between the Gestation process and the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.  And Rob Skiba, one of the most adamant anti-Christmas people out there right now, endorses that idea, including a video about it on his Virtual House Church website, on the page for Week 15, Bo.
http://www.virtualhousechurch.com/biblestudies/exodus-week-15

That begins with placing the sequence of biological events we commonly call "Conception" on the Spring Feasts in Nissan.  That the Early Church Fathers, having no knowledge of any of these modern Scientific facts, for totally separate reasons concluded that Jesus was conceived at that time, I find an awfully compelling coincidence.

What's interesting then is to try, though it's not easy, to follow the chronology of Exodus after the first Passover, and see what if anything there can be estimated to happen about Nine Months later.

In Exodus 18 and 19 the giving of what we commonly call The Ten Commandments is placed in the Third Month, now known as Sivan, and generally conjectured to be Pentecost.

In Exodus 24:18 to chapter 32, after the initial Covenant had been given and ratified, Moses goes up into the Mount for 40 days and 40 nights.  It's difficult to be certain when this was.  But it's common to theorize it as basically Elul and the first 10 days of Tishri.  It was near the end of this Period the Golden Calf was made, and there is potential typological significance to it being in early Tishri or late Elul, when the Abomination of Desolation will likely happen.

Stuff happens after that, and then in Exodus 34:27-28 Moses goes up again for another 40 days because now the Tablets have to be replaced.

Exodus 40:2&17 tell us that the Tabernacle was first set up on the first day of the first month of the second year, that is almost a full year since the first Passover.

Between the end of the second 40 day period, and the start of the second year, it was mostly the creating of The Tabernacle and everything needed for it that they were doing.  And it does seem the first priority was building The Ark of The Covenant.  Could it make sense to place the construction of the Ark as being on the Birth and/or Circumcision day of Christ?  Or maybe it'd be fitting if the Menorah was originally made during what would become Hanukkah?

Is it possible the second 40 day period may have correlated to the 40 days and nights that it rained in Genesis 7?  Which is commonly viewed as beginning on the 17th of Heshvan and ending during the 8 days that would become Hanukkah? 

That's another thing.  In the Torah observant branch of the Anti-Christmas movement, it commonly goes hand in hand with arguing for Hanukkah.  Other Anti-Christmas people also hate Hanukkah (though Hanukkah receives hate from pro-Christmas people as well).  Well I've been a Hanukkah defender on this Blog.  And the fact is I've also seen it argued that Hanukkah is a reason for placing Jesus birth at that time of year.  Him being the Light of The World and so forth.

And to a great extent reasons for placing Jesus birth at Tabernacles can be transferred to Hanukkah, but without the Pilgrimage problems.  I firmly believe the real origin of Hanukkah is Haggai 2, where it is essentially ordained as a Second Tabernacles.  And the First and Second Maccabees accounts of their Hanukkah also back that up.

The first Thanksgiving was actually in September.  And many have argued it originates from celebrating Tabernacles.  Perhaps that Holiday getting moved from the month named the Seventh Month to the month named the Ninth Month has something to do with how Hanukkah relates to Tabernacles?

Of course my initial main argument was for Jesus being born in Tevet.  But I'm less certain on my exact chronology now since I've possibly changed my view on the Lunar Eclipse preceding the Death of Herod. 

So I'm still working out the details.  But I now believe Jesus was born at the earliest in late November and at the latest in early February.

And as I was still writing this, it occurred to me, what if there is some relevance to the start of Leviticus 24?  What Yahuah talked about right after finishing the Leviticus 23 Appointed Times?  Since our modern chapter divisions weren't in the original text.  And that just so happens to be about The Menorah, and then talk of frankincense.  Almost as if The Holy Spirit wanted to tell me something before I finished this.

And then Leviticus 25 to the end is mainly about the Sabbatical Cycle and The Jubilee, showing He wasn't done with The Calendar when 23 ended.

In my attempts to do searches for others who might have thought the same thing.  I am seeing a common argument that it was nine months spent building The Tabernacle.  So far no sign of anyone using this as evidence for the Birth-date of Jesus, but it would be attractive to those who place his Birth in Nissan.  This estimate fudges the dates, they could not have begun building the Tabernacle till after Moses came down from the first period of 40 days.  The soonest that could have ended was maybe in Tammuz, but as I said it was probably much later Moses even went up there.

The completion of the Tabernacle's construction is recorded in Exodus 39.  Then early in 40 the instruction to set it up on the First Day of the new year is given.  Then later in that chapter that is recorded.  So perhaps it can be assumed the Tabernacle was done significantly before it was set up?  Not unlike Solomon's Temple.

Perhaps the first 40 day period, which ended with the Golden Calf incident, was really most of Tammuz and early Av, making a link between that period of Sin and the dates the associated with The Temples' destruction much later.  And the second 40 days were Elul and the beginning of Tishrei.  And the Tabernacle was completed in Kislev or Tevet?

God has used Babylon, and he might again.

The key passage for this study is Jeremiah 27 and 28.  Read all of that before going into this study, I shall quote one particular verse at the start, verse 8 of 27.

"And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith Yahuah, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand."

God's people should never worship the gods and goddesses of Babylon or other nations.  But it's important not to forget that there was a time when God's will was for nations to serve political Babylon.

Jeremiah, and also Ezekiel, preached to the people of Israel that God wanted them to submit to and serve Babylon.  And he was accused of Treason for that, of being a spy.  Imagine the modern equivalent of that, an American Baptist or Pentecostal Pastor going on Television and Preaching to the whole Nation that God wants The United States to surrender to Russia or to China, or to Iran, or I.S.I.S. and if they don't then God will punish them.  The Pundits and your typical Evangelicals would go crazy.

But that's what happened.  And The People indeed didn't listen and instead allied themselves with Egypt.

My point Eschatologically here is that there are reasons to think that in some ways the End Times will be a repeat of some of that history.  Plenty of Prophecies from Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem to be about both their own time and the End Times.  I've already argued that Ezekiel 30:24 could be telling us a King of Babylon will be who Mortally Wounds The Beast.

And now I think, what if Jeremiah and Ezekiel were also Types of the Two Witnesses?  What if part of what they'll Preach is to side with Babylon over Egypt?  Because Egypt is being ruled by The Beast?  The modern Church would be totally unprepared for that, especially if this Egyptian Ruler is also presenting himself as a Conservative Christian, and maybe even an American.  And maybe he'll even be preaching the same kind of Anti-Babylon message as Rob Skiba.

Rob Skiba is right spiritually to preach against the wickedness of Babylon.  Yet at the same time I suspect his treating Babylon as being the same as The Antichrist may be unwittingly helping The Beast.

So I want to repeat. The Bible never says Nimrod was Evil.  And it also never necessarily says the World will Love the Antichrist.

My view on Modern Israel in Bible Prophecy

I don't believe in traditional Dispensationalism, or Two House Theology, or Catholic and Mainline Protestant understandings of "Replacement Theology".  So what do I think about Modern Israel?

I agree that most of the Bible Prophecies that Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists want to cite as being about 1948 like Isaiah 11:11 are clearly about something far more Supernatural and Messianic, where they return in belief.  However I disagree with Rob Skiba that they are about the Millennium.  I think they are about the New Heaven and New Earth and the descent of New Jerusalem.

Well, Ezekiel 37 is an exception, that is the one directly linked to the Resurrection, so that is possibly about the Millennium, though I think it may be possible it'll take the entire Millennium for all of it to be fully fulfilled.  And then Ezekiel 38 is about what happens between the end of the Millennium and the White Throne Judgment.  And then Ezekiel 40-48 are about the New Heaven and New Earth.

Psalm 48 is about New Jerusalem.  I've already argued that Isaiah 65-66 define themselves as being about the New Heaven and New Earth.  Leviticus 26&Deuteronomy 29 is where Bible Prophecy about the regathering of Israel begins, they I have come to view as not fully finally fulfilled until the descent of New Jerusalem.

I have talked before about how The Millennium is not as Utopic as people are assuming it will be.  For Believers it'll certainly be better then the world is now.  But most of the World will be obeying Jesus out of Fear not Love during this time.  This is where I think Zechariah 14 ends.

The Rothschild involvement in the 1948 birth of modern Israel is grossly overstated by Conspiracy Theorists.  Some of them financially supported it, but they were not the masterminds of it.  And to this day some Rothschilds are still Anti-Zionists.

Anti-Zionist Christians like to say it can only be God doing it if it's blatantly Supernatural.  And when we remind them about Cyrus they dismiss that by saying that God would tell his people through his Prophets if he was going to do it that way.  Well I'm a Continuationist, and the fact is throughout the 19th and early 20th Century many Christians seemed to know the time of Israel's return was approaching, and history vindicated them.

God tells us it was Him who scattered them, even though to terrestrial eyes it was Gentile Nations.  So who says their return can't be done the same way?

The Roman Captivity was very much a repeat of the Babylonian Captivity, right down to events playing out on the same days.  Chad Schafer has been talking a lot about Egypt's overlooked significance to the Roman Captivity, well Egypt was very vital to the Babylonian Captivity as well.  Jeremiah tells us that many Jews went to Egypt after Jerusalem fell, and that is part of why Egypt was carried away into Captivity by Babylon.

So it makes sense that the Return from the Roman Captivity would be very similar to the return from the Babylonian Captivity.  Truman however was not the Cyrus of 1948 like he sought to claim to be, he had nothing to do with making it happen.  Great Britain was in the role of Cyrus, and it's King at this time interestingly had Arthur in his full name.  Great Britain cemented their status as a modern successor to Rome when they defeated Napoleon and erected the Wellington Arch.  Just as Cyrus had taken the throne of Nebuchadnezzar.

However another layer of Typology is that I see the Seven Years King David ruled from Hebron as a type of the Seven Year period over which much of Revelation will play out.  And the time David Ruled from Zion and Jerusalem a type of the Millennium, and the early Reign of Solomon, when he was doing well, as a type of the full Messianic Kingdom.  In which context it's interesting to remember that before that was the reign of King Saul.

Could Modern Israel's destiny be to become the House of Saul to the Returning Jesus's David?  It's interesting that the current Prime Minister is named Benjamin, after Saul's Tribe.  I also alluded to reasons based on Jeremiah 6 for associating modern Israel with Benjamin in a Revelation 12 theory I came to last year.  In which case it's interesting that Ishbosheth ruled in the Trans-Jordan, near Mount Hermon.

The secular Capital of Modern Israel is Tel-Aviv.  The Ancient City that Tel-Aviv is adjacent to is Joppa/Jaffa.  Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa.  Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).

It's interesting that most Ahskenazim (and to a lesser extend many Shephardi) families that claim descent from David, do so via Rashi who did so via Hillel The Elder.  Hillel claimed through his mother descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital.  But Tribal Identity was traditionally determined paternally, and Hillel's father was a Benjamite, since he was born in Babylonia he may have come from the same Benjamite clan that Esther and Mordecai did, which came from a relative of Saul.  Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson, Paul claimed to have studied at his feet, and we know Paul was a Benjamite and originally a namesake of Saul, could Paul have been a relative of the House of Hillel?

The Khazar myth about where the Ashkenazim come from can be easily debunked, like in this video by Chris White.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDWUZ6EqWHc

[Update: or this one from Casual Historian.]

There is a small truth to it in that yes some Khazars intermarried into Jewish families, so many Ashekanazim may have some Khazars in their ancestry, but that does not contradict also descending from Jews who were in Israel at the Time of Christ.

Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars.  But I find it more interesting that Benjamin had a son named Rosh (Genesis 46:21), and that the name of Rosh can also be linked to the same region as Meshech and Tubal, which is the land where the Khazars emerged, between the Black and Caspian Seas (something Chris White has also talked about).

I obviously disagree with the aspects of Velikovsky's argument that involve reinterpreting where Assyria first took them, I've built much of this Blog on that they were taken to parts of eastern Iraq and northern Iran.  But it's also possible that just as some remnants of the northern Tribes existed in Judah, that some Benjamites might have been among those deported when Samaria fell.  When the division first happened the border was mostly Benjamite territory on Judah's side.  But later there were times were Israel was winning in it's wars with Judah and so the border moved further south.

There is at least one website out there seeking to argue the Spanish came from Benjamin.  What they wound up making is a strong argument for the Shaphardi Jews coming chiefly from Benjamin, but Shaphardi Jews are genetically distinct from the gentile populations of Spain in-spite of how much they may look the same.  Another connection between Benjamin and Spain is Paul himself who in Romans expressed a desire to go to Spain which later traditions say he did.

The term Mizrahi Jews refers to Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia, and the Mountain Jews also associated with the same region as the Khazzars and Rosh.  Also the Oral Traditions of the Mountain Jews claim they came specifically from Jerusalem.

As far as the Jewish communities of Iraq/Persia go, we know the family of Esther and Mordechai dwelt there coming from a relative of Saul.  And that the Descendants of Hillel were based there during the time the Babylonian Talmud was composed.  The Exilarchs (traditionally descendants of David via Zerubabel) were also in Iraq for a long time.  But the Rabbinic Jewish traditions about them skip right form when the TNAK ends to the time of Hadrian, maybe their claimed David descent was not unlike Hillel's.  At any-rate most families today claiming descent from the Exilarchs do so via a lot of intermingling with the descent from Rashi.

Temani/Yemenite Jews I theorize mainly descend from Simeon (probably from the clan of Jamin) Simeon and Levi were both destined to be scattered among the other tribes.

I also see a poetic logic in the early Jewish Communities of Rome (who existed at least as early as the first Pentacost) coming from Benjamin.   Given the wolf association of both.

I think some remnant of Judah may exist among them.  But mostly I think Judah went to Africa after 70 AD.  Though I also think the descendants of the half-siblings of Jesus, and of Jesus Apostles, inevitably became absorbed into gentile populations.

David promised Johnathon Ben Saul that his seed would be preserved.  And we see him keep that later when he spared Johnathon's son Mephibosheth from the killing of descendants of Saul done to appease the Gibeonites.  Often such promises correlate to that line having a role to play in Eschatology.

Benjamin was the only son born in the Promised Land.  Maybe that is a reason for it to make sense he would be the only one who's Nation at the time of the Regathering would be already in Israel.

Chad Schafer's The World in the Bondage of Egypt: Under the Triumphal Arch of Titus

Is a book that came out recently.

The World in the Bondage of Egypt: Under the Triumphal Arch of Titus Paperback – September 15, 2016

And here is him on Rob Skiba's Radio Show talking about it.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFwo3YkkIOs
[Update: here is part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb08RIbj0g]

A part two may happen in the future, if so once it's up on YouTube I'll edit this post to add it.
 [Update: here is part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb08RIbj0g]

I'm also going to add here some Screencaps of Comments I left there that aren't visible on the video for some reason.

This idea has the potential to tie into a lot of what I've talked about on this Blog about Egypt (and also Edom with the Eagle on the Arch of Titus).

However I still believe actual geographical Egypt is important.  That where ever the Beast of The Sea comes from, or whatever nation he first takes over.  He will set up his Capital in Egypt, where Satan's Seat will be his Throne.

Update.

In part two he makes some Jordan Maxwell level etymology errors, but I can give him a bit of a pass on that.

It is amusing to me how this is mostly evidence of the whole world becoming Roman.

I also think he's mistaken that Jesus was alluding to Daniel 9 in Matthew 24, the exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" is in Daniel 11 and 12.  Daniel 9 uses a similar term about possibly the same thing, but not that exact phrase.  The 70th Week of Daniel is not about 70 AD or the End Times, it's about 30-37 AD.

The Lunar Sabbath issue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-s31DlZNTs

Earlier today (October 11th 2016) I watched this video.  And this was the first time I heard of the Lunar Sabbath issue.

First assumption I had was this involved the Sabbath being kept on the multiple of 7 days of each month.  As I looked it up elsewhere (the Hope For Israel site which I have many issues with starting with it's Racism) I saw that it actually involves not counting the New Moon as a work day (a detail Rob clearly missed) and making the Sabbaths the 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th of each month.

As I contemplated this I was reminded of how I'm always puzzled by all these often conflicting Rabbinic customs about what to do if the Sabbath falls on the 14th of Nisan or 10th of Tishri or some other inconvenient day, and would ask myself "why didn't God deal with that in The Torah?"

But then as I contemplated it more I remembered that Jesus said "God made The Sabbath for Man not Man for The Sabbath".  Which means you really shouldn't stress about it.

Both key arguments Rob made against it are flawed.  One I alluded to already, you never work more then 6 days because of the New Moon.  The other about God creating the Moon on the 4th day is that I feel God created the Moon in it's 4th day (or 18th day in a Tabernacles Creation Week theory) position, I don't think the first New Moon was a Wednesday.

The biggest flaw to me is that this theory can't explain how Pentecost works, how can the Fiftieth day also be the day after a Sabbath?

In fact First Fruits and Pentecost as a whole weaken the argument.  If those days were always supposed to be the same day of a Month then God would have just said that like he did with the other Holy Days.  Instead he said the morning after the Sabbath.  This is my same argument against the Rabbis starting the Omer on the 16th of Nisan.

A minor observation is everything I read so far seemingly ignores that sometimes a Hebrew month has 30 days, meaning a single work day between the 29th Sabbath and the New Moon in this model.  I have long theorized that in God's original perfect creation all years were 360 days, 12 months of 30 days each.  I do NOT however then interpret that to mean Daniel 9 should be counted as 360 day years.

This model also overlaps with the absurd Friday Crucifixion model.  The Thursday model which I favor and even more the Wednesday model need the weekly Sabbath to NOT be the 15th special Sabbath in that particular Nisan.  And as Greek students know the text itself refers to there being plural Sabbaths passing between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.

Jesus was Crucified on the 14th, Liberated Sheol on the 15th, rested on the Weekly Sabbath on the 16th, and Rose again on the 3rd day of Unleavened Bread which was the 17th of Nisan, the day Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged in Esther, and probably the day Noah's Ark landed on Ararat.

I did once did calculations and concluded that IF the original first month was Tishri as many assume, and IF my originally months were 30 days theory is true. Then the 10th and 17th of of the first Nisan would have also fallen on Sundays and the 16th would have been a weekly Sabbath.  That's an interesting observation but I wouldn't read anything profound into it.

Update October 28th 2016:  Lunar Sabbath supports have often sought to say the synchronized week goes back to Babylonian Paganism.  But it was actually Mesopotamians who used a Lunar cycle to determine their days of Rest.  As discussed (with an Anti-Judeo Christian bias) on the Wikipedia pages for Week and Sabbath.  We however don't need a Sumerian origin for the word Sabbath, it comes from Sheba, the Hebrew word for Seven.