Lutheran Aristocracy

Lutheran Aristocracy 

House of Ludovingian

Louis I, Landgrave of Thuringia

:Louis II, Landgrave of Thuringia

::Louis III, Landgrave of Thuringia           

::Hermann I, Landgrave of Thuringia, Patron of Wolfram von Eschenbach

:::Jutta  

::::Henry III, Margrave of Meissen    

:::::Albert II, Margrave of Meissen   

::::::Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen (Became Heir to House of Hohenstaufen)

::::Herman I, Count of Henneberg

:::Louis IV, Landgrave of Thuringia

::::Hermann II, Landgrave of Thuringia

::::Sophie of Thuringia, Duchess of Brabant

:::::Henry I, Landgrave of Hesse

:::Irmgard

::::Henry II, Prince of Anhalt-Aschersleben

::::Bernhard I, Prince of Anhalt-Bernburg

::::Siegfried I, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst

:::::Albert I, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst

:::Henry Raspe

:::Conrad, Grand Master of The Teutonic Knights

Reformation Era (16th Century)

Philip I, Langrave of Hesse (Heir of Henry I Landgrave of Hesse)

John the Steadfast Elector of Saxony (Heir of Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen)

Henry IV the Pious, Duke of Saxony (Another Patrilineal Descendent of Fredrick of Meissen)

Ernest I, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg as well as his brothers Otto and Francis (Their mother was John The Steadfast's Sister)

Julius of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

Philip I, Duke of Brunswick-Grubenhagen

John V Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst 

George III Prince of Anhalt-Dessau

Joachim I Prince of Anhalt-Dessau

Jobst II, Count of Hoya

Bernhard VIII, Count of Lippe

Barnim XI, Duke of Pomerania

Philip I, Duke of Pomerania

Philip III Count of Waldeck and his nephew Count Philip IV of Waldeck-Wildungen

George I of Württemberg-Mömpelgard and his brother Ulrich

John Albert I, Duke of Mecklenburg

John III Duke of Cleves (Mother was another descendent of Henry Landgrave of Hesse)

Albert of Prussia last Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights and first Duke of Prussia 

Joachim II Hector, Elector of Brandenburg, Albert's Paternal Cousin

John, Margrave of Brandenburg-Küstrin a brother of Joachim II Hector.

Louis V, Elector Palatine

Frederick II, Elector Palatine

Otto Henry, Elector Palatine

John II, Count Palatine of Simmern

Wolfgang, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken (Mother and Wife were both Princesses of Hesse)

Charles II Margrave of Baden-Durlach

William I, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg (His mother was another descendent of Henry Landgrave of Hesse)

Christopher, Count of Oldenburg

Anthony I, Count of Oldenburg

Gustav I of Sweden

Elizabeth of Denmark, Electress of Brandenburg

Dorothea of Denmark, Duchess of Prussia

Christian III of Denmark 

The Cadet branch of his dynasty founded by his third son often intermarried with these families, the Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein.

His Half-Brothers founded Cadet Branches of their own that did the same.

Bavarian Illuminati Members (usually born in the 1740s or 1750s)

Ernest II Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (Was the senior Male-preference Primogeniture heir of John the Steadfast)

Prince August of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Karl August Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (Was the senior Male-only Primogeniture heir of John the Steadfast)

Prince Frederick Ferdinand Constantin of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel

Prince Christian of Hesse-Darmstadt

?Louis X, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt

Frederick V, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg

?Frederick Christian II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (not an official member but is mentioned by Bode)

Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Lüneburg-Wolfenbüttel (1721-1792)

?Frederick William III of Prussia father of Kaiser Wilhelm I

Nazi Party Members and Sympathizers (alive in the 1930s and 40s)

House of Hohenzollern

Kaiser Wilhelm II sometimes expressed support for Hitler but sometimes condemned him

:Prince August Wilhelm of Prussia (NSDAP – 24)

::Prince Alexander Ferdinand of Prussia (NSDAP – 534782)

:Prince Joachim Franz Humbert of Prussia

::Prince Karl Franz of Prussia (NSDAP – 2407422)

:Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia

Princess Margaret of Prussia (NSDAP – 4814690)

Princess Marianne of Prussia (NSDAP – 4628851)

British Royals

Duke of Windsor/King Edward VIII, senior Male-preference primogeniture heir of Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Princess Alexandra of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 4969451)

:Gottfried Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (NSDAP – 402307)

Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Charles Edward Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 2560843)

:Johann Leopold, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 1037966)

:Prince Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 7213588)

Princess Marie Louise of Hanover and Cumberland

:Princess Marie Alexandra of Baden (NSDAP – 7900128)

:Berthold, Margrave of Baden

Princess Alexandra of Hanover and Cumberland

:Friedrich Franz, Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (SS) (NSDAP – 504973)

:Duke Christian Louis of Mecklenburg

Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick

Other Princes of Saxony

Prince Rainer of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 300354)

Prince Ernst of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 196633)

Prince Leopoldine of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (NSDAP – 1453322)

Georg of Saxe-Meiningen (NSDAP – 2594794)

Bernhard Prince of Saxe-Meiningen (NSDAP – 898842)

Ernst II Duke of Saxe-Altenburg (NSDAP – 4868932)

:Georg Moritz Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Altenburg

House of Hesse

Frederick Charles Louis Constantine Prince and Landgrave of Hesse (NSDAP – 4814689)

:Philip Landgrave of Hesse (NSDAP – 418991)

:Prince Wolfgang of Hesse-Cassel (NSDAP – 1794944)

:Prince Christopher of Hesse-Cassel (SS) (NSDAP – 696176)

Chlodwig Langrave of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld

:Prince Wilhelm of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld (SS) (NSDAP – 1187621)

:Alexander Friedrich of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld (NSDAP – 1184026)

:Princess Viktoria Cacilie (NSDAP – 3515493)

Ernest Louis Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine

:Louis Prince of Hesse and by Rhine (NSDAP – 5900506)

:Georg Donatus Hereditary Grand Duke of Hesse  (NSDAP – 3766312)

Princess Cecilie of Greece and Denmark (NSDAP – 3766313)

Prince Richard of Hesse (NSDAP – 1203662)

House of Lippe

Princess Marie Adelheid of Lippe (NSDAP – 237533)

Prince Bernhard of Lippe

:Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (NSDAP – 2583009)

:Prince Aschwin of Lippe-Biesterfeld (NSDAP – 5854038)

Leopold IV Prince of Lippe

:Ernst Hereditary Prince of Lippe (SS) (NSDAP – 88835)

:Prince Leopold Bernhard of Lippe

:Prince Chlodwig of Lippe

Wolrad Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe (NSDAP – 3681098)

Prince Stephan of Schaumburg-Lippe (NSDAP – 309344)

Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe (NSDAP – 95146)

Princess Bathildis of Schaumburg-Lippe (NSDAP – 3681097)

Others

Princess Marie-Auguste of Anhalt (NSDAP – 3452693)

Duchess Edda Charlotte of Anhalt (NSDAP – 4843880)

Duke Joachim Ernst of Anhalt (NSDAP – 7267717)

Princess Pauline of Württemberg

Nikolaus Hereditary Grand Duke of Oldenburg (NSDAP – 4085803)

Duchess Altburg of Oldenburg (NSDAP – 161001)

Josias Hereditary Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont (SS) (NSDAP – 160025)

:Princess Margarethe of Waldeck and Pyrmont (NSDAP – 8562493)

:Prince Wittekind of Waldeck and Pyrmont (Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler were his Godfathers)

House of Windsor's succession from Hohenstaufen

Frederick Barbarossa Holy Roman Emperor

Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor

Margaret of Sicily, Wife of Albert II Margrave of Meissen

Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen

Frederick II, Margrave of Meissen

Frederick III, the Strict

Frederick I, Elector of Saxony

Frederick II, Elector of Saxony

Ernest, Elector of Saxony

Johann the Steadfast Elector of Saxony

Johann Friedrich I, Elector of Saxony

Johann Wilhelm, Duke of Saxe-Weimar

Friedrich Wilhelm I, Duke of Saxe-Weimar

Johann Philipp, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg

Princess Elisabeth Sophie of Saxe-Altenburg, Wife of Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Gotha

Frederick I, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Frederick II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Frederick III, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Augustus, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg

Princess Louise of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, Wife of Ernest III, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

Albert, Prince Consort of Queen Victoria

King Edward VII

King George V

King George VI

Queen Elizabeth II

King Charles III

William, Prince of Wales

Prince George of Wales

Holy Roman Imperial Descent of Frederick Barbarossa

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Ingeltrude

Hedwig of Babenberg

Henry the Fowler

Otto the Great

Liutgard of Saxony (died 953)

Otto of Worms

Henry of Speyer

Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor

Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Agnes of Germany

Frederick II, Duke of Swabia

Frederick Barbarossa

Holy Roman Imperial Descent of Hermann I, Landgrave of Thuringia

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Ingeltrude

Hedwig of Babenberg

Henry the Fowler

Otto the Great

Liutgard of Saxony (died 953)

Otto of Worms

Henry of Speyer

Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor

Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Agnes of Germany

Frederick II, Duke of Swabia

Judith of Hohenstaufen

Hermann I, Landgrave of Thuringia

Assyria was the Asshurim of Genesis 25 rather then Asshur of Genesis 10?

In Genesis 25 we learn that after the passing of Sarah Abraham took a new wife named Keturah.  In verse 2 one of the sons by Keturah is named Jokshan.  In verse 3 Jokshan has two sons named Sheba and Dedan, and then Dedan's descendants are referred to as the Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.  

Asshurim is the plural form of Asshur the second born son to Shem in Genesis 10:22 but also the name of a region in northern Mesopotamia and south-western Turkey.  Asshurim is the exact same spelling as what's translated "Assyrians".

The modern Assyrians who tend to be members of one of three East-Syriac Churches (The Assyrian Church of The East, The Ancient Church of The East, or The Chaldean Catholic Church) actually claim to descend from the Asshurim of Dedan.  One could dismiss that as Christian Assyrians wanting to take an opportunity to strengthen their ties with Abraham.  However the Assyrian Kings List does list a Didanu among the "kings who lived in tents" which is a memory of when they were a more nomadic people before settling in the area of Nineveh.  The Assyrian people in Assyria don't securely enter recorded history till around 2000 BC, I currently date the death of Joseph to about 2036 BC, 430 years before my date for the Exodus.

Now it's possible both Genesis Asshurs are relevant to the early history of the civilization that history would come to know as Assyria.  Asshur son of Shem founded a settlement on the Tigris river roughly contemporary with Nimrod founding his three cities there and thus the region around it became named after him, later one of the nomadic tribal groups to come from Dedan migrated to that region and become called Asshurim because they were dwelling in Asshur.  In time both of them along with other descendants of Arphaxad and Aram contributed to the population of Northern Mesopotamia but the Dedanites became numerically dominant, at least among those identifying as Assyrians, because YHWH did promise Abraham's Seed would be Numerous like the Stars of Heaven and Sands of the Sea.

As far as the other two tribes of Dedan go, Leummin I think is a form of the Lihyan the people who controlled the cities of Dedan and Hegra at the start of classical Antiquity.  So it's only the Letushim who are a mystery, I am personally hoping for a way to link them to the Lakhmids, that would result in them sharing the Assyrians' connection to the Church of The East..

I found this discussion on Reddit of the Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups of the Assyrians.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Assyria/comments/at5332/the_most_common_ydna_haplogroups_among_assyrians/

They are mostly either the same as or related to the Haplogroups prominent in Jewish and Arab populations (as well as those I've argued descend from the Lost Tribes), R1b, J1, J2,, E1b1b, and even T and G show up in a few Jewish populations.  

The below digression is a tangentially related theory I may abandon it, everything above holds together perfectly without it..

Erbil as the original Babel

I'm perhaps the first person to propose this theory, but I think it's interesting.

Archeologists have considered Erbil to be a candidate for the title of oldest continually inhabited city on Earth.  Biblically that City should be Babel.

The name of that city today is commonly given as Erbil or Irbil and was in Greco-Roman times known as Arbella.  It's been known by forms of that name since before 2000 BC when the Sumerians called it Urbilum, Urbelum, Urbillum or Arbilum.  The Hebrew word for City used in Genesis 11 is Ir and the Hebrew word for Confusion used is Balal.  So could this name come from "City of Confusion" in a Semitic language?

Specifically this results in my theorizing that the Citadel of Erbil could be the site of the Abandoned base of The Tower.

I don't know fully how to reconcile this with Genesis 10.  Maybe that Babel is still Nippur as I argued for last year, I certainly still favor the YLT translations of the Nimrod verses.  However there are a number of ancient inhabited archeological sites near Erbil who's ancient names we don't know because some were abandoned before 2000 BC it seems, like Tell Shemshara, Tepe Gawra, Tell Arpachiyah, Telul Eth-Thalathat, and maybe Arrapha.  Could a lot of the names we usually associate with southern Mesopotamia really be re-foundings of settlements that were originally further north?

This theory could be compatible with a number of different theories of Bible Prophecy.

For example in the first century it was the capital of Adiabene who's rulers had converted to Judaism and King Monobaz II brought an army from beyond the Euphrates to support the rebels during the 66-73 Ad revolt.  So maybe 70 AD Preterists should rethink their assumption that they have to remove Babylon from Mesopotamia?

But for Protestant Historicists and Futurists still obsessed with wanting Mystery Babylon to be the Catholic Church, Erbil is currently the seat of one of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, the Chaldean Catholic Church, they have a huge Church in the city called the Cathedral of Saint Joseph that was built in an ancient Mesopotamian Style, it basically looks like a Ziggurat with a Cross on top.  Zechariah 5 seems to describe Mystery Babylon dwelling somewhere else for awhile but returning to her home in Shinar before the end.  So maybe the seed is already in place for the Papacy to move there for some reason?

And the Patriarch of this branch of the Catholic Church is officially titled the Patriarch of Babylon.  Speaking of which maybe this city which had a major Jewish population in the first century is the city Peter was dwelling in and calling Babylon when he wrote his first Epistle?

Erbil is also the current Headquarters of the Assyrian Church of The East, one of the Churches often misleadingly called "Nestorian".  Isaiah 14 seems to call the End Times King of Babylon "The Assyrian" and Micah 5 also uses that title when referring to the "Land of Nimrod".  Of course most followers of the Chaldean Church also consider themselves ethnically Assyrian.

Erbil is also the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.  Now in Prophecies like Jeremiah 50-51 and Isaiah 13 it's currently popular to see the Kurds as the Medes.  But maybe the Medes of Jeremiah 51:28 are in fact modern Iran, while the prior verse is pretty arguably referring to locations in modern Turkey (Ashkenaz could be Lake Ascanius near Istanbul).  Those are the two major nations most threatened by and opposed to Kurdish sovereignty.  Youtuber Nelson Waters is building a view of Bible Prophecy that involves an alliance between Turkey and Iran, that involves a lot of things I don't currently agree with but it's interesting.

More about Isaiah 7 and 8.

I did a post already proving that Virginity is implied in the meaning of Almah. I want to deal now with other aspects of how people will try to discredit this as a Prophecy applicable to the time frame of 5-1 BC.

I do cautiously believe in the doctrine of duel fulfillments.  So no I'm not going to deny that this is in some way applicable to Isaiah's own time in the reign of King Ahaz, when the Northern Kingdom and Aram Damascus were allied against Judah.

I'll even concede that maybe the Prophetess who becomes Pregnant in Isaiah 8 is a lesser near fulfillment of the Almah mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

One thing I've seen is that some people think this Prophetess is Isaiah's wife.  It's difficult to know for sure, but I've generally more leaned towards the idea that this child in question is Hezekiah and the Prophetess is Abijah also called Abi his mother, and so the Zechariah who is Abi's father is the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isaiah 8:2.

I think the basis for interpreting her as Isaiah's wife is taking the language of 8:3 as literally saying Isaiah fathered the child.  But I don't think that is the intent here.  It could be Isaiah's personal role in this first fulfillment is played in The Nativity narrative by Simeon and/or Anna in Luke 2.

My hunch is this Prophetess Office was directly inherited from that held by both Deborah and Miriam the Sister of Moses.  Thus backing up aspects of what I argued in the Almah post about the significance of Miriam being called an Almah.  And at the time of the Birth of Christ this Prophetess Office was held by Anna of Luke's Gospel.

Maybe at some point it became standard for this Prophetess to be among the wives of The King.  Like the ceremonial marriage between King and Priestess many pagan cultures had.  The Marriage between Jehoram's daughter Jehosheba and the Priest Jehoiada may have been a similar arrangement, a marriage alliance between the Royal family and the Priesthood.

Isaiah 8:14 is terminology drawn on by Paul (Romans 9:32-33, 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 1:23) as well as 1 Peter 2:8-10.  So quoting this promised Son as being Jesus was not unique to Matthew.

The key objection many might have to applying this prophecy all the way into Isaiah 8 to the time of Jesus birth is what's said in Isaiah 8:4.

For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, "My father", and "my mother", the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

I have argued that King Herod died during the 40 days between Jesus Birth and Presentation in The Temple.  After he died rebellions broke out in the lands Herod ruled, which did extend to include parts of Old Testament Aram.  And these were put down by Varus when he was governor of Roman Syria.  I don't think it's that hard to typologically say Rome is in the role of Assyria here.  Especially the Roman Province of Syria which was basically what the Seleucid Empire had declined to.  And the Greek name Syria is directly derived from Assyria.

Josephus talks in-depth about these campaigns.  One battle is clearly placed in the general area of Samaria.

But even if more time separated Jesus Birth from Herod's Death.  It can sometimes take a year or two before a child is able to speak.  Or that verse could refer to more then just being first able to speak.  It could make sense for a Christians to see that point in Jesus development as the Passover that Luke 2 records after it's nativity narrative.

However the argument that Isaiah 7:14 needs to be understood in the immediate context of chapters 7-8 can also be countered by pointing out that they exist in the context of the chapters around them with no clear separation, not ending till chapter 12.  Meaning this promised Child is perfectly valid to identify with the Child foretold in Chapter 9 and the Branch of Chapter 11.  The overarching theme is foretelling Israel to be carried away into captivity but also that they will one day be regathered by a Messiah.

And in Genesis God made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that weren't fulfilled in their lifetimes.  So no there isn't a guarantee this promise made to Ahaz had to be in his, especially since he himself said he didn't need such a sign.

Could The Antichrist rule from Egypt?

This post is not a speculation on his ethnic ancestry, or his religious affiliation prior to the Abomination of Desolation, this is mainly just geographical.

The only clue Revelation gives us about where he will rule from is that it's West of the Euphrates, based on Revelation 16 when the 6th Bowl is poured out.  But since the Euphrates is also the Western border of what God promised to Abraham, perhaps it's not too difficult to extrapolate from that that it'll be West of what God promised to Abraham, that Israel is in the middle of this conflict as they were the Daniel 11 conflicts.

A lot of false assumptions about the Antichrist exist because of a desire to find him in as many Old Testament prophecies as possible.  I no longer view him as The Assyrian.  And in Daniel I feel only chapter 7 and 8 give us any hints about him and 8 is mostly typological.  Daniel 11:40-45 is the basis for thinking of Egypt as a nation he goes to war with, but that is actually about Augustus.

What about the Fourth Beast being Rome?  The Ten Horns I believe are European nations that emerged from Rome, the Little Horn emerges after them.  The Eight King I believe must be a king of one of the first three Beasts.  So it's a complicated relationship, basically I feel the Horns provide his military strength.  And it could be noted that the Roman Emperors took over the Pharonic Worship in Egypt, Egypt was treated uniquely among Roman Provinces, as the personal possession of The Emperor.

Rob Skiba's Yahuah Triangle theory is interesting, I disagree with the Pyramid stuff, but he has a valid point that throughout the The Bible the narrative seems to bounce back and forth between Israel, Mesopotamia and Egypt.  At face value Egypt seems absent from Revelation, but we often see typological parallels to the Exodus and Wandering in Revelation.

Some Jewish traditions name The Pharaoh of the Exodus Adikam, like the Sefar Olam and the Prayer of Asenath, and the alleged Jasher.  This obviously wasn't his real name since it's a blatantly Hebrew name.  It could be a shortened form of Adonikam, a name which in Ezra 2:13 is linked to the number Six Hundred and Sixty Six.

I have recently discussed reasons to suspect a connection between Satan's Seat and Egypt.

To many, all Daniel 8 tells us for certain is he'll come from or rule one of the Kingdoms Alexander The Great's empire was divided into.  One of those was Egypt, the Ptolemaic Dynasty.  Ptolemaioin is a known attested variation of the name Ptolemaios/Ptolemy that has a Greek Gematria value of 666.  3 Maccabees is an apocryphal book included in the Orthodox canon where Ptolemy IV Philopater seems to serve as a type of The Antichrist.

In Isaiah 19 the "Cruel Lord" who rules Egypt could be viewed as The Antichrist, but I also see it as fulfilled in the 20th century.  I'm still unsure entirely what to make of Isaiah 19, I'll likely return to it in the future.

The real smoking gun however to me is what I've noticed that few have before about Ezekiel 29-32.

A lot of people even who are Futurists think those Prophecies were fulfilled by the time the Old Testament ended.  There is a statement that is interpreted as saying Egypt would never have a native ruler anymore, and then saying that was fulfilled by the time the Ptolemaic dynasty took over.  But the statement was not about ethnicity but that no one would ever rule from Egypt again (perhaps more specifically Egypt being an Empire ruling other lands).  So we know that isn't fulfilled yet because of the Ptolemies, the Fatimid Caliphs and modern Egypt.

Bishop James Ussher tried to argue the prophecy of Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years was fulfilled during what we today call the Neo-Babylonian empire.  But archaeology is lacking for that and even his seeing it documented in Herodotus seems like a stretch.  I think it's possible that that 40 years is the first 40 years of the Millennium, which I don't view as being as Utopic as most people do.

Some verses here mention Nebuchadrezzar by name implying an at least typological connection to Ezekiel's own time.  But it's also important to remember that this isn't all one Prophecy, there are numerous "The word of Yahuah came onto me saying" indicating a separate prophecy.  All linked in some way but also separate.  Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned by name only in 29:17-21 and 30:1-19, the latter may have been given the same day as the former.  I could make this argument independent of those prophecies, but his role is still at least typologically linked due to the title Terrible of the Nations being applied to him.

Ezekiel 30:24 says "And I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and put my sword in his hand: but I will break Pharaoh's arms, and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man.".  The word for "deadly" there can also be translated "mortally".  Being mortally wounded by a sword is a defining trait of The Beast in Revelation 13, and this is the only Old Testament prophecy that has that same terminology.  Later chapter 32 again refers to the Sword of the King of Babylon.

Then in chapter 32 and also slightly 31 it talks about Pharaoh descending into the underworld.  The most vivid description of the underworld the Hebrew Scriptures have.  Chapter 31 also says "the Pit" a likely idiom of specifically The Abyss.  The Beast ascends out of the Abyss.  32:17 dates this Prophecy to the 15th day of the month.  I've argued before the 15th of Nisan is when Jesus entered Sheol, so perhaps the Antichrist enters it on the same day.

A further striking detail is that Ezekiel 29:3 calls Pharaoh the "Great Dragon" this is the only place outside Revelation that the phrase "Great Dragon" is used.  Now at face value that seems to identify Pharaoh with Satan, and there are other Prophecies I see as about Satan even though it seems like a human ruler because it's in the context of Satan's relationship to that nation. Also later the Hebrew word translated "whale" in the KJV is the same word translated Dragon here.

But again the Dragon in Revelation gives his Seat to The Beast, so maybe the Pharaoh in 29:1-16 and 30:20-26 aren't the same. or maybe they're doing some kind of mimickery of the Ancient Egyptian view of the relationship between Osiris and Horus, both of the gods associated with the Rulership of Egypt, who were father and son and thus in comparative mythology get misleadingly compared to the Trinity.  And in that context Thoth could be the role taken by the False Prophet.

And given what I've said before about Babylon being in conflict with The Antichrist in Revelation. I think The Terrible of The Nations/King of Babylon/Assyrian of these prophecies is the man who will kill The Antichrist.  And may perhaps be a Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant given my theories about the Kings of the East and the Lost Tribes.

The talk of Egypt in Isaiah 27 could also be a clue.

I've done a post on how this could tie in with American Antichrist theories.

And now I've maybe found a smoking gun in Daniel 11?

A New Perspective on Isaiah 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding what Syria means in various Bible references

In all likelihood no use of "Syria" in the King James Bible is exactly synonymous with Modern Syria.

Every time you see Syria in The Old Testament, the Hebrew said Aram, one of the sons of Shem.  Now very early on Aram settled further north, maybe in modern Turkey.  But they had traveled to the Damascus area well before the time of Saul.

The kingdom of Aram was centered around Damascus, but it did not include all or even most of modern Syria.  It's size varied at different times of course.  But it certainly never controlled anything on the other side of the Euphrates River.  And also never anything north of Lebanon.  Pretty much anything between Damascus and modern Syria's borders with Leabanon and Israel and western Jordan had been Aramean territory at times.  And they also sometimes controlled parts of north western Jordan, and possibly extended into the Golan Heights.

Our word Syria comes from Greek usage that was adopted by the Romans.  In origin it derives from Assyria, which is what they called Asshur.  The Assurian Empire at times controlled pretty much all of modern Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel, and also parts of Turkey.  The original intent of the word might have been Mesopotamia + Syria = Assyria.

The name became synonymous with the Seleucid Empire to an extent.  At it's greatest extent Seleucus controlled all of what Assyria had and even more of Turkey (almost all of it really) and Iran and into Afghanistan and Pakistan and the very edge of India.

But once Parthia broke off as well as the Hasmonean revolt it shrunk a great deal, many parts of Turkey became independent as did Petra/Nabatea.  For awhile it looked a lot like modern Syria and Iraq plus chunks of Turkey.   In about 150 BC it lost Mesopotamia to Parthia.

Damascus was also independent of the Seleucids for awhile.  Also, Antioch the Seleucid capital is not part of modern Syria but in Turkey.

The Septuagint is likely the origin of thinking of Syria and Aram as synonymous.  I think the Septuagint translators made a bit of a mistake there.

The Roman Province of Syria also never matched modern Syria exactly, it's capital was also Antioch.  It never had anything on the other side of the Euphrates, and also most of the time did not Include Damascus (sometimes Damascus was independent, sometimes it was under Herodian control, Aretas had it when Paul was there).  To an extent it was the base of what the Seleucid Kingdom had declined down to when it fell to Pompey.

After Hadrian put down the Bar-Kochba Revolt he made Judea which he renamed Palestina part of Syria.  Later that again broke off into a separate province.

This is why Daniel 11 never uses Syria as a synonym for the King of The North like it does Egypt for The South.  And why we should be iffy about assuming any possible eschatological application for 36-45 must equal modern Syria or Damascus.  Or of reading references to Syria and Damascus in other prophecies as being about the same as the King of The North.  There is however good reason to see a possible correlation between The Assyrian and the King of The North.

If The Antichrist is the Willful King of Daniel 11:36-45 he is NOT the King of The North.

I.S.I.S. has been observed as starting to look kind of like both ancient Assyria and the Seleucid Empire.  But in order for that to fully work it'll have to take some parts of Turkey.  And that seems highly unlikely.

Since the Captial was often the most important identifying city of a Kingdom in ancient times, it's easy to see why the King of Antioch would be the King of The North from Israel's perspective even though other Hellenistic Kingdoms were further North.  It's directly due North of Israel.

Today Antioch is in Turkey, but it's not Turkey's capital.  So an argument that the King of The North now refers to Turkey would be a complicated one to make.  It's ties to Seleucus are as valid as Syria and Iraq's.  But in Daniel 11:40 the King of The South is taking the lead, Turkey is not likely to let Egypt take the lead in any alliance.

Modern Syria is broken up between at least 4 camps right now.  The Assad government which may not control much outside the immediate vicinity of Damascus does kinda look like Aram right now.  I.S.I.S., The Kurds who don't want anything besides their homeland, and other resistance groups who hate Assad and Isis equally.

The largest city in modern Syria is Aleppo rather then Damascus.  The news confuses me so I honestly have no idea if Aleppo is under I.S.I.S. control or not, but I think it's currently not, but it is definitely an objective of ISIS to take it..  It's near the Turkish border where Antioch is.

Aleppo is possibly around where Aram was at some point before they traveled south and settled in the Damascus area.  Seleucus named the city Beroea, which derived from Boreas, the North Wind in Greek Mythology, which is interesting.

The Hebrew word translated North in Daniel 11 is Zaphon, which is also the name Ugarit texts give Jebel Aqra on the modern Syria-Turkey border south of Antioch.And apparently Seleucus I made the decision to found Antioch where and how he did after praying to Zeus on that very mountain.  So he was truly the King of Zaphon.

Some Old Testament locations that equate to around where Aleppo and Antioch are would be Laish (conquered by Dan in Judges, not to be confused with Leshem, the Dan of the Golan Heights) and Hammath.

Basically the areas where the Denyen of the Egyptian Sea Peoples records and Danuna of the Amarna letters lived.  As well as Yamhad.  Ugarit is also near there.

Could The Antichrist be American?

Disclaimer: This is NOT in any way me trying to defend the Barack Obama as the Antichrist nonsense.  Quite the contrary what has largely inspired this post is my suspicion that the Antichrist will probably come from the political right (and America is still the most conservative western nation).  That he'll convince many Evangelicals he's one of us, or at least be the kind of politician too many of us tend to be too easily suckered in by.  Obama is horrible, but not in my view Antichrist material.

This post is kind of a follow up to The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy.  Which was itself a follow up to earlier posts of this blog.  Thing is, if The Antichrist is the head of a western nation that comes to Israel's aid (being her ally at first but turning on her later) like Chris White and I in different ways suspect.  Right now it seems the United States of America is the by far the most likely nation to do that.  That doesn't prove anything because circumstances could change, but it's worth looking at.

Objections to the idea of The Antichrist being a United States President, or American in anyway, that are actually Biblical, tend to come purely down to passages taken as proving he does come from somewhere else.

I agree with Chris White's arguments against the Assyrian Antichrist. but not with his arguments against a Roman Antichrist.  However America does have a Roman legacy as much as Europe.  I think it's possible that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 isn't just the individual of The Antichrist, but also an 11th Nation.  The U.S. as that 11th Nation could work quite well.

Chris White also insists Daniel 8 proves The Antichrist must come from the region of the nations conquered by Alexander The Great.  But as I've argued elsewhere I believe that connection is genealogical not geographical.  (Though it is interesting the exiled Royal Family of modern Greece is living in New York, the youngest members of it including the current second in line to the throne were born here and thus under the 14th Amendment have American citizenship.  But at this point I see no solid reason to accuse any of them, it seems unlikely any would seek to run for an American political office.)

So I see no solid reason to limit where he could come from.

In terms of the potential relationship to the Hersey that Western Nations are the inheritors of the Northern Kingdom.  Britam (drawing on earlier ideas) affiliates the U.S. with Manasseh and the U.K. with Ephraim.  It's interesting that the Continental United States is divided between east and west by a major river (Mississippi) just as the lands allotted to Manasseh were by the Jordan.

But a stronger thematic connection is that Gideon (the greatest hero of the Tribe of Manasseh) can be compared to George Washington.  Both men after being the military leaders of successful rebellions were offered Kingship but turned it down.  And also both later became symbolically affiliated with a Tree.

It's interesting then to return to the role both White and I feel the false Psalm 83 War belief could play.  Psalm 83 makes an allusion to the narrative of Gideon, which leads to a desire to affiliate that Psalm with a call for a "New Gideon", which plays into the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept quite well.

(Update: I've done another post on the Manasseh connection.)

In the Edom=Rome study I talk about how the Eagle was a major Symbol of Rome and became a major Western Symbol from that.  I also talked about how UnBiblical the idea of the Eagle being linked to Dan is, and pointed to passages linking it to Edom.  There is however one interesting Bible Prophecy that can justify linking the Eagle to the Northern Kingdom.  Micah chapter 1 is a Prophecy mainly against Samaria.  At the end in verse 16 it says.

"Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee."

The Eagle as I said has been a symbol of The West for centuries.  But the sub-species known as the Bald Eagle is indigenous to the New World, which is why it was chosen to be a specific symbol of the United States of America.   Yet we have here Samaria being represented as a bald eagle in a time long before Columbus.

So I'm not saying The Antichrist certainly will be American, but I think Believers need to be more open to the possibility that he could be.

Satan I believe has been laying the groundwork for every possible option.  And that American politically conservative Christians tend to marry their Faith and their Patriotism is something I consider a major problem.  I call it Patriotic Idolatry, and definitely a form of the Sin of Pergamos.

And while Evangelicals love to preach against Mormon Hersey, they are very surprisingly willing to jump into bed with Mormons politically, when it comes to "Family Values" and other things.  Mormons meanwhile have their Prophecy of a Rider on a White Horse, who'll become both President of the U.S. and Prophet of the Mormon Church at the same time, and "Save" the Constitution when it "hangs by a thread" by creating a Mormon Theocracy.  Regardless of those concerns Evangelicals got behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and I fear may again in 2016.  The Mormons also in-cooperate seeing America as Manasseh into their doctrine, and have even used the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept in their own weird way.

That rant doesn't mean I think it must be a Mormon who becomes an American Antichrist.  That's just one option.

Back during the period just before and after 2000 there was a popular trend of making many independently produced Christian movies depicting the End Times (almost all with Pre-Trib suppositions), and with them were also books.  These works also reflected this dangerous marrying of faith and patriotism, which I've already complained about.  By having the U.S. be one of the few countries who manages to rebel against The Antichrist.

Two of those films go so far as to feature a President of the United States as a Hero standing up against The Antichrist.

First is Megiddo: The Omega Code 2, (a Sequel to the first movie only in having the same actor as it's Antichrist).  That movie even makes it's hero the Antichrist's brother.  Somehow one brother becomes President of the E.U. and the other President of the U.S.

In Left Behind: World At War (based on left over plot-lines of the second book), the President is African American, which I give them credit for.  But also this time he does in fact die in his battle with The Antichrist.

Reason this is significant is that I think there will be a decoy Antichrist (maybe more then one) who will have an adversarial relationship with the real one.  He's The Terrible of The Nations in Ezekiel.  And I argued in my Four Horseman study that I think this individual could be who gives The Antichrist his mortal wound.

I know these authors might hate to think their own works may unwittingly help The Antichrist.  But I'm afraid that may very well happen.

Revived Roman Empire

There are some fellow Futurists who question the traditional identification of The Beast Empire with being a Restored Roman Empire. Chris White's commentaries on the subject are what I'm directly responding to here, but there are others.

First his commentary on Daniel 2.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-2-31-4...ezzars-dream-2/
The second part.

On the first part briefly.  I don't know why Chuck Missler and so many other people keep insisting Nebuchadnezzar was lying when he said he didn't remember the Dream (Daniel 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, "The thing is gone from me").  Have they never had a dream they didn't remember? because I do all the time, the memory usually fades within minutes of waking up.

They're confused I think by what he says latter about him knowing the magicians would be real if they told him the Dream. I think he was pretty sure the memory would come back if it was described to him, which it did. This was a test to show that Daniel was more valid then the other interpreters, but the test came from God.  At any rate that's not what this study is about.

Here Chris White  agrees completely with the usual view of the four Kingdoms being Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Pesia, Macedon-Greece and Edom-Rome (well he doesn't mention Edom).

I agree with his refutation of how some people want to read the Nephilim issue into this Prophecy. Or at least I agree that's not the main initial intent. I do still think that being also relevant as a second fulfillment is very possible, but it is not something I will be dogmatic on.

  "The first [problem] is that you have an unambiguous fulfillment of this passage in the history of the fall of Rome. We know that Rome was divided into several parts, eventually settling into just two parts, that is the east and west empires. We will see that the other elements of the feet and toes prophecy fit like a glove to the events of that period as well."

 I agree with his view that the events surrounding the Western Empire's fall around 470-490 A.D. Are foretold here. But that's only the beginning of this divided and weak state Rome is in, and they were trying to regain their former glory by conquest and political marriages. This continues repeatedly over the following centuries, with Clovis, and Justinian and Charlemagne, and the Byzantine Empire, and the Crusades and Venice, and the Holy Roman Empire, and Napoleon, and Mazzini, and Louise-Napoleon, and Mussolini/Hitler, and now the European Union and modern Globalism.

 "And the second major problem here for the RRE view is that forcing this prophecy to the end times means that you have to hold the view that the Antichrist has a divided weak kingdom in the end times. "

 I believe he will be the last attempt to restore unity and strength to this divided and weak empire. The Antichrist as an individual is not in Daniel 2, that is indeed true, I believe Daniel 7 provides new information which we'll discus latter.

Also I think many of our assumption about The Antichrist in other passages are wrong.  Including White's desire to define him first and foremost based on Daniel 11.

The biggest issue I have with this commentary is his teaching that the Kingdom represented by the Stone here is The Church, not the Messianic Kingdom. That view lends itself dangerously to Amillennialism as well as a Catholic understanding of what The Church is.. He's not Amillennial or Catholic, but that particular view of this passage is foundational to such arguments.  This interpretation can also lend itself to Dominionism.

With Daniel 7, he completely rejects the notion that the Four Beasts there are the same as the Four Empires of Daniel 2.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-7-how-...alternate-view/


I think in addition to comparing Daniel 7 to Daniel 2, we should also compare it to 8. 7 is Aramaic Daniel and 8 Hebrew Daniel, so for that reason their view points are a little different. But it's also interesting that no where else are two chapters from the different language portions of Daniel so similar, both drawing on beast imagery and also a "Little Horn". I think that's why these two chapters are the transition from Daniel's narratives about The World to Daniel's vision about Israel.

 "In what sense can Neo-Babylonia or Medo-Persia be spoken of as living on after the anti-christ is destroyed. Traditional scholars give no compelling explanations for their presence and prolonging of their life at this point."

  Nebuchadnezzar's Empire which scholarly types today call the "Neo-Babylonian Empire" was defined by Ancient authors like Herodotus and Xenophon as only another phase of the Assyrian Empire.  Assyria is mentioned in many Messianic Age passages like Isaiah 19 (after verse 18). Chis White also argues for the Post-Millennial view of Gog and Magog, and is in fact the one mainly responsible for convincing me of that view. So we both agree that Persia is in the Millennium also. Javan (Greece) is in at least one Messianic Era prophesy as well, Isaiah 66:19.

None of the core Nations of those Empires ceased to exist as national identities. They may have been subject to other nations at different times, and their cultures and forms of Government changed over time, but they still exist.

The Malbim, a Rabbinic Jewish source says .  

Malbim: Daniel 7;2: <<The Four Kingdoms always exist only that at a specific moment one of the Kingdoms (dominating one of the four major directions of the world) gains supremacy over the other kingdoms and quarters of the world and encompasses them. The world is seen through the image of a great ocean since the storming winds are more recognizable at sea and the beasts of the sea are greater than those of the land>>.    

Cyrus and the latter Persian Kings, as well as Alexander and his Successors made a point NOT to destroy the cultures and institutions of the nations they conquered, but to rule them as they were used to being ruled. "It must not be said of Alexander "He left only chared ruins in his wake."" From the Richard Burton film Alexander The Great.

As for Rome, of the three prior Empires, it was only Greece's homeland Ancient Rome ever  conquered long term. Yet Greek Culture, and Language and Philosophy and Religion not only still existed under Rome but they thrived. Remember it was in Roman times that The New Testament was written in Greek.

Both Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy thrived, and Neo-Plaotnic and Gnostic philosophy were born deriving from Platonic ideas. Caligula, Nero and Julian the Apostate were Roman Emperors who were Hellenophiles.

In fact it thrived so much that when Rome permanently split between East and West the Eastern part effectively became a Greek Empire.

On the First Beast

 "The traditional view has this beast being Babylon, and specifically, Nebuchadnezzar. For example they say that wings being plucked off, and its being made to stand on two feet, and given a heart of a man is referring to the humbling experience that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 4 where Nebuchadnezzar was forced to act like an OX for several years until he recognized the sovrenty of God and then was restored to his right mind."

"This part of the interpretation has many problems, the first being that Nebuchadnezzar was dead at the time of this vision based on verse 1, and it seems strange therefore, that Daniel would see Nebuchadnezzar coming out of the sea, and providing more details about his life or kingdom."

 A symbolic prophetic vision can still include a few past events at it's beginning, as long as it's scope is Future. We see this in the traditional view of Revelation 12, where the Birth and Ascension of Jesus Christ are both included in that Prophetic Vision given to John over a generation after they happened.  Or Revelation 17 including 5 past Kings in it's vision.

 "The picture the traditional view paints is that the lion represents Nebuchanezzar when he was forced to act like a beast and then the plucking of the lions wings, making it stand on two feet, and giving it a man’s heart is symbolic of God restoring Nebuchadnezzar to his right mind at the end of Daniel 4. This would suggest that the reason for these four beings being described as “beasts” is because of similar situations like that of Nebuchadnezzars. Are we to understand then that the king of Medo-Persia or Greece or Rome are also described as beasts because they too were forced to act like beasts by God?"

No, the plucking out of the Wings I view as representing the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar. Being given a New Heart is an idiom of Salvation also used of Saul, as well as in Ezekiel 36.

 "The lion was not restored to its natural state by the plucking of its wings and making it stand on two feet. It was permanently transformed"

Which IS the same as Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar became Saved, he was NOT restored to the same as he was before.

I would agree that secular usages of Lion and Eagle imagery is not good to build doctrine on, but it can be interesting to back it up. A Lion with Eagle's Wings was an Assyrian symbol as well as Babylonian.

 "People trying to make this winged lion in verse 4 be Babylon are often thinking of the so called Lamassu . A Lamassu is a representation of a protective deity, not from Babylon but rather thousands of years before this in the Akkadian and then Assyrian kingdoms."

 My view of the First Empire is that Nebuchadnezzar was the culmination, and that it includes all Mesopotamian civilizations going back to Nimrod and Babel. So distinguishing between Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Chaldean and any others is completely missing the point as far as the Biblical view is concerned. Chris White is very correct to point out how Ancient Aliens plays fast and lose with such terms, cause what their claiming isn't mystical in nature.  But Bible Prophecy on the subject of Shinar and Babylon is a different thing, God views all those civilizations as the same Beast.  There were also originally many distinct nations in the home regions of Greece, Persia and Rome/Italy too.

"There is a similar problem with the next point which is brought up by proponents of the traditional view. Which is that Nebuchadnezzar is called both a lion and an eagle in scripture, this is the best of the point that the traditional view has to offer in favor of their view for any of the four beasts, but even so it should be considered that scripture also calls Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, a lion and an eagle too in Hosea 8:1 and Jeremiah 50:17."

 This only backs up my point that the Neo-Babylonian is still the Assyrian Empire.  

On the Second beast

 "The three ribs in its mouth according to the traditional view represent three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire. But because there are more than three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian empire there is much argument among those holding to this view as to which three should be considered the most important."

 Let's use Scripture to interpret scripture here and look at how Daniel 8:4 describes Persia's conquests. "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him". So that's three basic directions, which I think fits the point.  If I wanted to choose three specific conquests I'd look chiefly to Babylon, Lydia and Egypt.

 And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’

"I think that this phrase is very important as it helps to weaken the case that this beast represents Medo-Persia, because after the conquests of Cyrus the great and his son Cambyses II, which occurred relatively quickly and very early in the medio Persian history, there would be 200 years of no conquering at all until the empire was defeated by Alexander the Great."

 I think that verse refers to the three invasions of Greece, under Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The invasions failed and so did not add new ribs to the bear's mouth. But they were still very violent and bloody wars in which much flesh was devoured.

On the Third Beast

 "I would agree with them however that the four wings on the leopard probably represent a very fast moving empire."

"One of the biggest problems with this view is the four heads of this beast, the traditional proponents say that these heads represent the four generals who Alexander the Great gave his Empire to after he died."

"Even a casual student of history knows that the Greek Empire did nothing but diminish and diminish greatly after Alexander the Great died."

This is NOT the way symbolic visions ought to be interpreted. The four heads merely represent that it is the Kingdom's destiny to be divided in four, it does not contradict that it was the first individual King who conquered everything. Alexander does not need to be a head, the Beast itself refers to both the individual most significant King as well as the Nation as whole, just as with the prior two.

Regardless, the generals who founded those dynasties were alive during Alexander's conquests, and most, especially Ptolemy, were with Alexander on his campaigns, and were all married to Persian wives at Susa.  The same number is used as when clearly talking about Greece in Daniel 8.  That's not a coincidence.

Also since the Hebrew word for Greece is Yavan/Javan.  It's interesting that Genesis 10 names Javan as having 4 sons.

It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people describe the post Alexander period as diminishing and weak. It's true the Hellenistic empires' borders did not expand by conquest (the wars were between the successors mainly). But the Hellenistic Age was a very prosperous time, a time when for the first time ever God's Word was translated into a foreign language, Greek.  To me the Third Century BC is the real Golden Age of antiquity.  And the Dark Ages were caused by the rise of Rome, not its fall.

The Fourth Beast

 The Fourth Beast I feel like pointing out is even affiliated with the same Metal the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2 is, with it's Iron Teeth.

 "There are major differences in the fourth empire described here and the last empire described in the statue vision back in Daniel 2, For instance in this verse the strength of the empire is clearly the main focus, not a hint of weakness is detected, contrast that with the last empire of Daniel 2 in which the bible spends verse after verse describing the divided nature and inherent weakness of that kingdom. I would call that a very big difference, the one in Daniel 2 is divided and weak and the one in Daniel 7 is described as invincible."

 Different standards or definitions of weakness and strength could well be in mind here. Remember, even though both visions are from God, one was given to Nebuchadnezzar and the other to Daniel. And visions given as Dreams are definitely influenced by the thought processes and world view of the dreamer.  To begin with this is why one is a beautiful Statue made of precious metals and the other ravenous beasts.  Nebuchadnezzar wanted to view himself as superior and the following ones each getting worse.

Certainly Chris White would not argue there is no basis for describing Rome as a Strong Empire?

Either way, the intent of a new vision is to give us new information. The Little Horn is that new info left out of the prior vision.

"The main thing that people see as the clincher here in the reference to the 10 horns which they say corresponds to the ten toes in Daniel 2. But I beg the reader to realize that there is no mention of 10 toes in Daniel 2. That idea has been read back into the text by people who assume these two chapters are the same."

 Or it's something God expected us to know because everyone knows how many Toes a person normally has.  But I feel the Iron Teeth is equally as much of a clincher.

"That being said I do have some agreement with the traditional view at this point, in that I think that the kingdom that the Antichrist comes from will have 10 kings because of this passage in Daniel 7, and because of its interpretation by the angel which we will get to later."

"Perhaps it might even like representatives of the European Union or a similar organization, and he will subdue three of them before ultimately talking over the whole organization, I think that this organization will be associated with the west in some way as does Charles Cooper, but it is not required to be the Revived Roman Empire. And I hope that if someone has the time they will see my study on Daniel 2 to find out why I say that."

 The European Union defines itself as a Revived Roman Empire. They don't always advertise that fact, but that is why the European Constitution was supposed to be ratified in Rome.

He goes on again to his insistence that being the successive Empires of Daniel 2 contradicts them also being contemporaneous. I view all four as existing right now. Rome is Western Europe, Greece is Greece (already joined the E.U.), Turkey (military speaking it's already part of the E.U. no matter how many experts want to insist it'll never join because of their wrong views of Ezekiel 38-39). And then Syria and Egypt. And Assyria-Babylon is Iraq and Medo-Persia is Iran.

See I agree with the premise that Daniel 11:40-45 tells us at least part of the story of how The Fourth Beast conquerors the prior three beasts. It already has most of what was Greece, so the Kings of the South and North being Egypt and Syria fits perfectly. And then the further troubles out of the North and East I think involves Iraq and Iran, and perhaps also Turkey and/or Russia.  But I have come to view that Prophecy as initially being not The Antichrist but Augustus Caesar.

In my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I say in the first post why I believe The Little Horn in Daniel 8 refers to the Seleucid Bloodline, not just random individuals within it. So at least part of what's meant by the Little Horn emerging among the Ten Horns (not out of one of them) is set up by how the Seleucid dynasty became intermingled with Roman aristocracy. I further documented all that in the Genealogy study.

This makes The Little Horn distinct from "King of The North" which refers to the Geography of the Seleucid Empire, mainly Syria, but perhaps also Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Iran on a modern map, and parts of Turkey.

I've also considered the possibility, that when looking at the Little Horn's role in Daniel 7, that it could also refer to an 11th Kingdom/Nation, not just the individual who is The Willful King.  Back when I learned toward the Mahdi theory I considered the possibility of that being Jordan and/or a Palestinian state.

Another possibility I  now consider more likely then I used to is The United States of America. The Founding Fathers very much drew on Roman ideas of Government. Obama I still think is unlikely even if The Antichrist does turn out to be an American President.

Chris White now fixates on the view that The Antichrist is a Jewish Messiah claimant, who Israel will actually accept as such, even after the Abomination of Desolation. I think his theory could be part right, mainly in terms of how he views the First Half of the 70th Week.

The connection to Rome need not contradict a possible Islamic origin for The Antichrist, (though I'm no longer as sold on that as I once was). Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and very briefly Iraq in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian were all under Ancient Roman control.

Chris White agrees that the Beast out of The Sea from Revelation 13 is the same as the Fourth beast of Daniel 7 (after conquering and/or absorbing the prior three). That makes it even more indisputably Rome.

Every lie has some truth to it, and the main truth that gives credibility to how Preterists and Bible Skeptics interpret Revelation is that Revelation clearly uses imagery that would indisputably point readers of the time to identify The Beast as Rome.

In his Mystery Babylon study Chris White also talks about translation issues with Revelation 17:9-10. That it should read (and he's still using the Textus Recpetus with this) that the Seven Heads are the Seven Mountains and the Seven mountains are the Seven Kings. This way of looking at is just fine, except his objective is to insist that the Mountains then tell us nothing about the Geography of the City. Problem is he doesn't explain what the point of adding these mountains to the symbolic imagery is then, why not just cut them out all together?

I believe Rome was where Mystery Babylon was in John's Time, but I do think she returns to Shinar in the end via Zechariah 5. I elaborate on my Mystery Babylon views elsewhere. If the Seven Mountains can in some way be descriptive of her end times location too, that would be great. But to readers in John's day, that this detail, however it's worded, pointed to Rome was blatantly obvious. Indeed so obvious that I reject the skeptics claim that it's supposed to be coded in way people unfamiliar with Old Testament imagery wouldn't recognize. The significance of the Seven Hills and Seven Kings are identifying details of Rome from their own History/Mythology no where found in Hebrew Scriptures.

The Four Empires are Assyira-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece-Macedon and Edom-Rome

I want to address a matter of Interpretation on the four world Empires of Daniel 2 and 7. It is popular for skeptics of The Bible (and also certain Preterists) to insist that the four empires were originally meant by the author to be Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. Rather then the traditional Futurist view of Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece and Rome.  This is absurd to me.

Daniel 5&6 (still part of the Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.

Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.

The Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed. This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores the interpretation the Angel gives.

The strongest Argument any of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.

Daniel 2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is a good prototype of The Antichrist.

But Daniel 7 is about how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16.  But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.

Daniel 7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini.

But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four.  I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.

The annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast. Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.

Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire. His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220 B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose. That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.

Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome, after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.

He would frequently put off his royal robes, and, assuming a white toga, go round the market-place like a candidate, and, taking some by the hand and embracing others, would beg them to give him their vote, sometimes for the office of aedile and sometimes for that of tribune. Upon being elected, he would sit upon the ivory curule chair, as the Roman custom is, listening to the lawsuits tried there, and pronouncing judgement with great pains and display of interest. In consequence all respectable men were entirely puzzled about him, some looking upon him as a plain simple man and others as a madman. His conduct too was very similar as regards the presents he made. Polybius 5-7l

But his relationship with Rome proved more complicated over time. You could almost view him as an analogy for how America keeps supporting Middle Eastern leaders who become our enemies latter, like the Ayatollah in Iran, or Saddam Hussein, or Bin Laden.

Daniel 11's history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms also alludes to it's inevitable conquest by a fourth empire. First in verse 4 after describing the division of Alexander's empire among his successors it goes on to say the Kingdom "shall be plucked up, even for others beside those." That is the summery, more details follow.

Verse 18 alludes to Antiochus III's failed war with Rome. Verse 30 refers to when Antiochus IV Epiphanes was thwarted by Rome on Cyprus. After verse 32 alludes to the Hasmonean revolt, verse 33 says they will inevitably be conquered and taken captive by some other Empire. One could argue the Willful King in verses 36-45 is a Roman conqueror.

Update: As of June 2015 I no longer view the Willful King as The Antichrist but as Augustus Caesar.

Update on the Mosul Dam

I posted on the situation with that Dam north of Mosul earlier.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Nahum, and the Dam in Mosul, modern Nineveh

When I saw the news earlier today that there is concern ISIS could destroy a Dam in Mosul (which I know is modern Nineveh) to Flood the Shite regions of Iraq.  I immediately thought of the Prophet Nahum.

I don't want to sounds I'm saying for certain.  But it's interesting.  because Nahum spoke of Nineveh and Flooding. Te immediate fulfillment of Nahum's prophecies was Nineveh's fall to what we call the Neo-Babylonian Empire.  But Bible Prophecies can have a dual Fulfillment.

It's an interesting development to look at.

Posted by JaredMithrandir at 12:27 PM

Now I've learned that the Dam apparently is in need to constant maintenance because it was poorly designed.  maintenance which ISIS likely can't give it.  So it seems it could likely break even if ISIS doesn't do it intentionally.  Which could fit The Prophecy even better.

Nahum 1:8 "But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies."

Nahum 2:6 "The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved."

Again, this can fit the Ancient Fall of Nineveh.

Diodorus also wrote that.

"There was an oracle among the Assyrians that Nineveh should not be taken till the river became an enemy to the city; and in the third year of the siege, the river, being swollen with continual rains, overflowed part of the city, and broke down the wall for twenty furlongs. Then the king, thinking that the oracle was fulfilled, and the river had become an enemy to the city, built a large funeral pile in the palace, and collecting together all his wealth and his concubines and eunuchs, burnt himself and the palace with them all, and the enemy entered at the breach that the waters had made, and took the city" (Diodorus Siculus, bk. 2. p. 80).

That makes me think of Denethor a little bit.

It seems the Prophecy of Nahum became known in Ninveh.  It's read at least one Bible Scholar suggest that Jonah and Nahum are really the same person (Jonahum).   And that basically the Book of Nahum is what Jonah Prophecies in the streets of Nineveh.  I'm not sure what I think of that.  Even if they're not the same person, it's probable what Jonah prophesied and Nahum wrote down was basically the same thing.

But to a certain extent I feel the scale of Nahum's Prophecy is more epic then that.  And Maybe it will be repeated again as we approach the End Times.

And the modern enemies of ISIS kind of Parallel those that attacked Nineveh back then. The Kurds have been argued to be the modern Medes, and then there is the Shiite controlled Southern Iraq which would be Shinar/Babylon.

Remember however that in the time of Jonah, Nineveh got a reprieve.  So I think we Christians ought to Pray for the people of Iraq and Syria.  The Christians, the Yazidis, the Kurds and the Sunnis and Shiites.  But also ISIS themselves, it's popular in Conservative media to demonize them right now, but we're supposed to Love and Pray for our enemies.

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Isaiah 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What new does this understanding tell us?

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

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

The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things

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

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

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

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

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