A Retired Prophecy Blog

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Possibility of 2050-2057

I'm not dogmatic on any date setting. But I have come to an interesting hypothetical theory.

If you take Ussher's Creation date (4004 B.C.) and correct him only on the 60 year dispute on when in Terah's life Abraham was born, you get 3944 B.C. Which then has 2057 mark the begging of the 6001st year of History, (remember that there is no year 0).

Meanwhile J.R. Church had his Hidden Prophecies in the Psalms theory, centered on the fact that Psalm 48 could be viewed as a Prophecy of Israel's restoration in 1948 (though it's ultimately about New Jerusalem). But he stopped viewing them as correlating to years with Book 5 (Psalm 107 and up) because he didn't want the end to be that far off. With 150 Psalms, that puts the Period the Psalms document as ending in 2050.

There are reasons I've come to theorize that the Seventh Trumpet (which I view as the midway point of the 70th week) could correlate to a Solar Eclipse on the eve of the Feast of Trumpets (First of Tishri). There will be one on September 12 of 53 AD. This is similar to the August 2 2027 eclipse a certain website online sees as significant. But that Eclipse is two months too early to be the Feast of Trumpets. That site also uses historist day=year theory nonsense about Issac Newton's 2060 theory.

It will only be partial over Israel, but be Total over North Africa and Arabia. I think it only being Partial is fine, it's pretty rare any of the Solar Eclipses at the right time of year are visible in Israel at all, and the next century has none that are Total over Israel. Jesus' description in Matthew 24 has the Sun and Moon darkened but still visible. This one fits the best of any within the life time of people alive now.

I'm not a supporter of the Blood Moon theory as I've explained on this blog before. If the Moon turning to Blood in Joel 2 and Revelation 6 has any natural explanation at all, volcanic eruptions can work just as easily. And there is certainly no Tetrad needed, the Blood Moon references in Scripture are all a singular event.

However I have argued for unrelated reasons that I feel the Sixth Seal events could happen on the Passover of the Nisan that begins the 70th Week. And at any rate I do think the moon turning to Blood would have the best dramatic effect if it's a Full Moon.

There will be a Total Lunar Eclipse visible in Israel on May 6 of 2050. On the Calendar the Jews currently use that's a month too late to be Passover. But some people think the Jewish calendar is in some years off by a month, and indeed the Samaritans and Karaites both do their leap months differently. But if it is accurate then that May 6th would be Second Passover, which I have before argued for seeing as possibly eschatologicaly significant. This Blood Moon is also the first of a Tetrad.

The Sixth Seal theory I've worked out before could easily be adjusted to that, the Horsemen would still ride in Nisan.

Back to the 2053 Solar Eclipse. It will be at that time that Jupiter is leaving Virgo after having been in her for over 9 months. Venus, Mercury, Uranus and Mars will all be in Virgo at that time too. Which can be interesting in light of Revelation 12 theories. The Moon will indeed be under the feet of Virgo just a few days later.

The top objection to this other then usual anti Date Setting sentiment would be the view that the end must come within a generation of 1948. People are already beginning to more commonly live to 120, so some people born before 1948 could still be alive in 2057.

Edit Update : I was honestly unaware when I first came up with this of Frank J. Tipler and his reasons for predicting the second coming before 2057. (of course my model as a form of "Mid-Trib" places the Second Coming proper in 2053).

Cyaxares II was said to be a king of the Medes whose reign is described by the Greek historian Xenophon. Some theories have equated this figure with the "Darius the Mede" named in the Book of Daniel. However, the fact that he is not mentioned at all in the history of Herodotus, nor in the very different history of Ctesias, has caused many scholars to debate whether such a king ever actually existed.

According to Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Cyaxares II followed king Astyages to the throne of the Mede Empire, and was also brother of Mandane, Cyrus the Great's mother. He describes the Persian Cyrus as cooperating with his uncle, Cyaxares, in order to conquer Babylon in 539 BC. However Cyaxares was by then an old man, and because Cyrus was in command of the campaign, the army came to regard Cyrus as king. Cyrus thus received not only the king's daughter (his first cousin), but his kingdom, as dowry, and the aged Cyaxares became Cyrus' viceroy in Babylon for two years until his death, when Cyrus seized that kingdom as well.

"4. That Darius the Mede was Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages. Compare the statements in (Prophets and Kings 523, 556, 557) concerning Cyrus as the nephew and general of Darius with Xenophon’s claim that (1) Cyrus, Astyages’ grandson through his mother Mandane, had become acquainted with his uncle Cyaxares during the years Cyrus spent at the court of his Median grandfather (Cyropaedia i. 3. 1; 4. 1, 6–9, 20–22; 5. 2) ; (2) that Cyaxares followed his father on the throne as king of Media, after the latter’s death (i. 5. 2); (3) that when Cyrus had conquered Babylon he visited his uncle with gifts and offered him a palace in Babylon; that Cyaxares accepted the presents, and gave Cyrus his daughter as well as the kingdom (viii. 5. 17–20). Although the details of the story as given by Xenophon cannot be accepted, it is possible that the Greek writer preserves correctly the tradition that Cyaxares was the last Median ruler, and that he was Cyrus’ father-in-law as well as an intimate friend of the great Persian. If these points can be accepted as historical facts, it can be assumed that Cyrus, upon rebelling against Astyages, permitted Cyaxares to rule as a shadow king to please the Medes. At the same time everyone in the kingdom would know that the actual sovereign was Cyrus, and that Cyaxares was a mere figurehead. In that case Darius the Mede may be identified with Cyaxares II, who, presumably, had come to Babylon at Cyrus’ invitation to act in an honorary capacity as king. That Cyaxares II was advanced in age at the time of the fall of Babylon can be shown as follows, assuming Xenophon to be correct: Cyaxares II was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Cyrus himself was most likely at least 40 years old at the time, as is evident from the fact that his son, Cambyses, was mature enough to represent him in an official position during the next New Year’s Day activities. Hence Cyaxares II could have been 62 years old at the fall of Babylon, the age Daniel assigned to Darius the Mede. His comparatively advanced age—in a time when most people died young—may have been responsible for the fact that he did not survive the fall of Babylon very long. This would explain why Daniel mentions only his first regnal year. Xenophon reports nothing further concerning Cyaxares shortly after the conquest of Babylon. Daniel’s statement that Darius was the “son” of Ahasuerus should probably be understood as meaning that he was the “grandson” of Ahasuerus. That the Hebrew word for “son” may mean “grandson,” or an even more remote descendant, can be abundantly demonstrated (see on 2 Kings 8:26). The English form Ahasuerus is from the Heb. ’Achashwerosh, which might possibly be a rendering of Uvaxshtrah, the Old Persian spelling of Cyaxares I, but not of Astyages. If after his arrival at Babylon, Darius became a special friend of Daniel’s, it is understandable that the prophet would date the visions received during this brief reign in terms of Darius’ regnal years ( Daniel chs. 9:1; 11:1), rather than of the regnal years of Cyrus. However, after the one year credited to Darius, Daniel dated events in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign (Daniel chs. 1:21; 10:1). Contemporary evidence that might shed light on this reconstruction of the history of Cyaxares II is ambiguous and meager. There is a possible reference to Cyaxares in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Since it is certain that Gubaru lived for many years after the conquest of Babylon, whereas Ugbaru died soon after, and a state mourning was provided for some high personage during the same month, it may be possible to see Cyaxares II in the Ugbaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Or, the name of Cyaxares may have been in the broken line which speaks about the death of a distinguished individual for whom a nationwide mourning was held. However, there seems to be an error in the first mention of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Either the name Ugbaru is a scribal error for Gubaru, or the title “governor of Gutium” was by mistake transferred by the author of the tablet from Gubaru to Ugbaru. A second possible piece of contemporary evidence may lie in the double mention of a Cyaxares in the great Behistun inscription of Darius I (on the Behistun inscription see Vol. I, pp. 98, 110). Among the several pretenders to the throne against whom Darius I fought were two who claimed to be of the family of Cyaxares. The Cyaxares in question may have been either Cyaxares I, the father of Astyages, or possibly Cyaxares II, the father-in-law of Cyrus, and last shadow king of Media. The foregoing summary makes evident that there are still many obscure factors in the solution of the problem of identifying Darius the Mede from historical and archeological sources. All things considered, however, this commentary favors the fouth view."

Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series),

Friday, February 6, 2015

Could the second Witness be John?

I've argued before for the second witness being Enoch. And I still feel strongly convinced by all those arguments. But I've become aware of a compelling argument being made that the other Witness is John, the Beloved Disciple to whom the Revelation was given, himself.

At the end of Revelation 10 John is told. "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." Maybe this just means him preaching the message of Revelation to the world after he finished it. But early Church tradition doesn't record such an epic final ministry, though Irenaeus says he lived into the reign of Trajan. The compelling thing is, it's the very next chapter that discuses the Two Witnesses.

Of all the verses Preterists misuse to make it sound like the New Testament says Jesus' Second Coming must happen in the lifetime of his ministry. Matthew 16:28 (and it's parallels in the other synoptics) is the strongest.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

I have for awhile favored the argument of Chuck Missler and others that this refers to the Transfiguration in the next chapter. Which was a glimpse of the Kingdom. But I've read recently that the Greek word Tis translated "Some" here can also me "a certain one".

At the end of John's Gospel. Jesus says concerning the Beloved Disciple who is the book's author.

"If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me."

We are told that many interpreted this to mean he wouldn't die. But then we are told that was incorrect, "yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

The correction is often taken as assuring us it doesn't give John any unusual lifespan, or anything else like that, but that this was simply fulfilled in a way by him having the vision that is The Book of Revelation. But the correction was only about thinking John wouldn't die, The Two Witnesses will die.

John is traditionally believed to have not died a Martyr, a few sources all drawing on Papias who's original work we don't have say he was Martyred during the reign of Domitian. But our oldest quoter of Papias, Irenaeus, who has supposedly an indirect connection to John via Polycarp, was unaware of this and says John lived into the reign of Trajan. Zahn T argued that the reference in Papias is actually to John The Baptist.

A work attributed to Hippolytus of Rome called "On the Apostles and Disciples" records certain traditions I don't believe, mainly Peter dying in Rome, and it follows Catholic dogma of confusing certain of the 12 with the Brothers of Jesus. But what it says about John is interesting.

"John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."

Matthew 10:35 and 20:20 have been interpreted as implying both sons of Zebedee would die Martyrs. James is the only one of the 12 who's death is recorded in the History of the New Testament, in Acts 12. But if John is one of the Two Witnesses then his is recorded in Prophecy.

Thematically I think it would fit well with my argument for The False Prophet being Judas Iscariot. Having a disciple on each side relevant to the End Times.

How does this effect Rapture timing disputes? Any argument that the Two Witnesses ministry can't be during the Church Age would be destroyed by this, since John is absolutely part of The Church. It would give more credence to an argument that the Rapture of the Witnesses is part of the Rapture of The Church if one of them is one of the 12. And the statement from John 21 would require their death to be very near when the Rapture happens.

Also, read Acts 3 and 4 carefully. Peter and John sort of serve as a type of the Witnesses there. Just as Elijah did during his first ministry.

Thing is, there are still arguments I made for Enoch that I feel are pretty difficult to refute. And this would require that the early traditions about John's death are false, which they could be, but I'm forced to wonder why they would pop up? But that he's traditionally the only of the 12 not Martyred is interesting.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Responding to another Chris White Podcast

http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-some-thoughts/

Skip to between 12 to 13 minutes in.

He finally did something on Beheadings, but he did so in a way that presumes Pre-Wrath, I do not concede that Revelation 9 is after the Rapture, to me Revelation 9 is when the Restrainer is removed.

I no longer am an Islamic Antichrist proponent, but again White responds to that view with flawed arguments.

The Abominations of Desolation has nothing to do with the back-story of the Antichrist. It's a more important issue then his Backstory, we won't know who he is until he does that. But the point is when he does that the Pretext of whatever deception he used before is over. At that point it become open Satanism (true Satanism, not like any religion currently calling itself that) no matter which false religious ideas he used before. I do not believe the Antichrist will deify himself during the first half of or before the 70th week, at least not openly.

Deifying major leaders is part of out fallen human nature, and Muslims have effectively defied Mohammed regardless of their pretext of Monotheism.

He makes a blatant error saying the 70th Week begins with the Antichrist allowing daily Sacrifice, that isn't said in Daniel 9 at all. I address popular assumptions about the Daily Sacrifice here. My view is not compatible with the Islamic Antichrist view either.

And again, the impossibility of something happening isn't a argument.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Other Mid-Trib websites

They are rare, but I've found some.

I've mentioned Nomadic Ministry on this blog before. I have also now found two other sites.

The Spiritual Solider

Hope To The End

I also found a video on YouTube supporting a form of Mid-Trib Rapture.
Daniel's 70th Week - According to Revelation

All three sites have things I disagree with them on, not just on other eschatology issues but also how to define a Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture. The Youtube video makes mistakes on Revelation chronology common to Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath.

There is a tendency to confuse Mid-Trib and Pre-Wrath, so I had to pay careful attention to make sure these two sites weren't doing that.

Still, it's important since I believe this view is the correct timing and yet is the least popular that we make an effort to support each others.

Friday, January 23, 2015

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.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

I still support the Southern Conjecture

I have a post where I originally explained my support for the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas Fountain view. And then another one where I deal with one particular objection to it's Escatological significance.

Latter I did a post in response to some new information I learned where I considered changing to the Gihon Spring view of The Temple's location. That post was made and revised as my mind was being pretty chaotic on the subject and it still seemed clear I wasn't really gonna do that. All the reasons for rejecting that view I hold now are explained there, or in links provided there.

So I am just making this post to clarify. I believe the Temple was where the Al-Kas fountain is. But the Gihon Spring is interesting and I think probably the Location of the Tabernacle of David.