The 1260 and 1290/1335 Days

[Revelation Man]

On 12/9/2018 at 11:15 AM, Montana Marv said:

William

I see a problem here.  You imposing the King of the North here.  v.40 states; at the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him.  and v.44 - But reports from the east and the north will alarm him.  The He of v. 45 are the (hims) of vs. 40 and 44.

In Christ

Montana Marv

We can't overlook that in all of chapter 11 we are shown the King(s) of the South vs. the King(s) of the North over and over. The end is not going to change, IMHO. The King of the North in this instance is the European Union President. So why would this whole King of the North vs. King of the South or hese Syrian Wars be rebelant then ? 

Because this MAN/Beast/Little Horn/Anti-Christ, will be born in Greece, {Dan. 8} he will be an Assyrian (Isaiah 10, I think of Turkish descent) and he thus as a citizen of the E.U. comes to power out of the "head" of the Fourth Beast (in the E.U. as Dan. 7 says). This qualifies him to be the King of the North, hes born in Greece and thus in the LATTER TIME (Dan. 8:23-34) of their Kingdom when the transgressors are come full (God's bowls of wrath have filled up) a King of fierce countenance and understanding DARK SENTENCES (Riddles and Conundrums) will stand up. His power will be might, but not his own power....etc. etc. Thus he is a Grecian, he will come to power in the E.U. however because it is the the Country he is a subject/citizen of as per where the power resides. The 10 Kings (10 many times represents fullness) give their power unto him. 

Antiochus Epiphanes is a forerunner to this Ant-Christ, and I think Jason is a forerunner to the False Prophet who will be a High Priest. . 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Revelation Man

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Since I wrote the first post, my understanding came to be changed, due to the working out of the literal translation of Daniel 12:11. Explained in my posts of Oct. 16 and 29. Also my latter two blogs on the 1290 and 1260 days.

In short, Daniel 12:11 actually tells us that the 1290 days are the period up to the Abomination of Desolation. The next 45 days, up to 1335, include the Great Trib. The 1260 days then follow after the GT, being the time of the Little Horn and the "wearing out of the [earthly] saints," Dan. 7:25; 12:11. The elect of Christ will be harpazoed "after the [great] tribulation" (Matt. 24:29-310, before the Little Horn does his dirty work.

I don't know... seems a little...forced. Not that I have the understanding but the above seem to fly against the wind of other events, their order, and timing.

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Daniel 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him [the King of the South] like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, ... 41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, ... etc.

The antecedent to all of the hes and hims is the king of the north. Not other possible antecedent is mentioned. This is the Latter Day human ruler dominated by the same spiritual King of the North that possessed the whole line of Seleucid kings, including Antiochus Ephiphanes [beginning in 11:21], who set up the original abomination of desolation in Jerusalem, 11:31. This same spiritual sar shall be the impetus behind the Latter Day abomination of desolation of 12:11.

The King of the South gets whupped again [11:41-42], "as the former" time, 11:29, 25, so no chance that the hes and hims are him. So to speak.
 

Except I always thought it sounded a little weird.

The direct antecedent to the following is the 11:36 'willful king'.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many [countries] shall be overthrown:

And why suddenly 'willful king' when both the KOTN and the KOTS have been named throughout, clearly antecedents to 'him' or 'he' in the narrative?

And why the odd declarative of both the  KOTN and KOTS pushing at 'him'?

Sure looks like a third actor.

And Seleucid would not be the KOTN by history; that would be Lysimachus, or Asia Minor. Seleucus would be eastern, Mideast, and Egypt would be southern, Cassander to the west.

 

[WilliamL]

On 12/12/2018 at 6:29 PM, Montana Marv said:

Have you thought about a King of the West, Europe

Europe is north of Israel, as well as west. There is no word in Hebrew for northwest.

On 12/12/2018 at 6:29 PM, Montana Marv said:

Have you wondered why this leader is unable to overcome the leaders of Ammon, Edom, and Moab. 

The text doesn't say that the King of the North "is unable to overcome" them. Those tribes belong to the modern nations of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have long been allies of Europe. Therefore a King of the North out of NATO would have no reason to occupy them.

[WilliamL]

On 12/13/2018 at 3:45 AM, Diaste said:

I don't know... seems a little...forced. Not that I have the understanding but the above seem to fly against the wind of other events, their order, and timing.

What it flies against is tradition. The great stumbling-block of truth.

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, WilliamL said:

What it flies against is tradition. The great stumbling-block of truth.

And I would counter Rome, Europe, EEC, EU, or any other alphabet soup agency is tradition.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Diaste

[Montana Marv]

8 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Europe is north of Israel, as well as west. There is no word in Hebrew for northwest.

The text doesn't say that the King of the North "is unable to overcome" them. Those tribes belong to the modern nations of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have long been allies of Europe. Therefore a King of the North out of NATO would have no reason to occupy them.

The four directions are: North, South, East, and West.  Three are listed (North, South, and East) and these all are against the he or him; who is left, West.

The text says he is unable to overcome the leaders of Ammon, Moab and Edom.  Guess where those of Judea flee to; once you see standing in the holy place the A/D is set up according to Matt 24:15, Dan 9:27, Rev 12:13-17

In Christ

Montana Marv

[ghtan]

On 12/13/2018 at 6:58 PM, Diaste said:

Except I always thought it sounded a little weird.

The direct antecedent to the following is the 11:36 'willful king'.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many [countries] shall be overthrown:

And why suddenly 'willful king' when both the KOTN and the KOTS have been named throughout, clearly antecedents to 'him' or 'he' in the narrative?

And why the odd declarative of both the  KOTN and KOTS pushing at 'him'?

Sure looks like a third actor.

And Seleucid would not be the KOTN by history; that would be Lysimachus, or Asia Minor. Seleucus would be eastern, Mideast, and Egypt would be southern, Cassander to the west.

 

I believe you are right that the "him" in v 40 should refer to the king in v 36 and not to either KOTN or KOS. It is a third king. I suspect it refers to a Roman king, which I believe is the traditional view. Otherwise the prophecy would jump from Antiochus to the end time without referring to the Roman period. I don't think this is an option considering that the fall of Jerusalem was far more devastating to the Jews than what they faced under Antiochus.

[Diaste]

3 hours ago, ghtan said:

I believe you are right that the "him" in v 40 should refer to the king in v 36 and not to either KOTN or KOS. It is a third king. I suspect it refers to a Roman king, which I believe is the traditional view. Otherwise the prophecy would jump from Antiochus to the end time without referring to the Roman period. I don't think this is an option considering that the fall of Jerusalem was far more devastating to the Jews than what they faced under Antiochus.

As a bit of circumstantial evidence that helps me conclude it's a third actor Seleucus fought against Lysimachus, and Antigonus before him, and he fought Ptolemy. To me there is either precedent or unfulfilled prophecy concerning verse 40.

[WilliamL]

On 12/13/2018 at 3:58 AM, Diaste said:

Sure looks like a third actor. 

On 12/19/2018 at 8:18 PM, Montana Marv said:

The four directions are: North, South, East, and West.  Three are listed (North, South, and East) and these all are against the he or him; who is left, West. 

You both posit another king, but neither of you point to any verse that actually says there will be another one. All of the verses from 11:31-39 mention no other antecedent than "he" or "the King." None of them say anything about a new king, or a king from the west, etc. So there is no solid reason to presume that "he" and "the King" should be anything other than a continuing reference to the King of the North, a spiritual prince/sar, a heavenly Power like the sarim of Greece, Persia, and Israel.

My understanding is of course supported by the fact that this End Time king will follow in the very same footsteps as Antiochus Epiphanes: both invade the south/Egypt, both occupy the Holy Land, and both set up an Abomination of desolation. Especially note verse 11:29, speaking of Antiochus:

“At the appointed time he shall return and go toward the south; but it shall not be like the former or the latter."

Antiochus invaded Egypt twice: the first time is mentioned in 11:25-27, and verified by history, as is his second invasion of Egypt referred to here. But Antiochus never invaded Egypt a third time: thus "it shall not be like...the latter [invasion]" refers to the King of verse 40-42ff., the same spiritual king but a different human one, up to his old tricks and depravities.