Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WilliamL

The 1260 and 1290/1335 Days

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

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.

 

Yes. Antiochus is Seleucid, hence the willful king. The KOTN is Asia Minor. Both Turkey and Egypt would then go battle the willful king. 

And the king shall do according to his will...is the antecedent to 'him', which the KOTS and the KOTN come against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Yes. Antiochus is Seleucid, hence the willful king. The KOTN is Asia Minor. Both Turkey and Egypt would then go battle the willful king. 

The latter sentence gives claims without scriptural or historical evidence.

The Kings of the North and South are both spiritual rulers operating through human ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WilliamL said:

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.

 

If what you say is true, when was this king of the North in the presence of God in Heaven.  Dan 11:36b - he will say unheard of things against the God of gods.  The only one who would be able to say unheard of things about the God in Heaven is Satan.  He has been in the presence of God.  Unheard of, never revealed before, first time to be revealed (not second time, direct from the sources mouth).  Satan pitches his royal tents at Mt. Carmel between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee overlooking Armageddon and the Valley of Megiddo.  Daniel 11:36-45 is all about the end of the 70th Week.

Go to Chp 12:1 - At that time, Michael, the great prince who protects your people will arise.  At what time? The preceding verses 11:36-45.

In Christ

Montana Marv


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WilliamL said:

The latter sentence gives claims without scriptural or historical evidence.

The Kings of the North and South are both spiritual rulers operating through human ones.

Well, if it's prophecy for the future from this point in time there won't be any historical evidence.

In some cases the scriptural evidence is one or two sentences, which have been provided.

I go back to this:

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: but these shall escape out of his hand, [even] Edom,and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians [shall be] at his steps. 44 But tidings out of the east and out of THE NORTH shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

"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"

This really sounds as though the two kings fight against 'he'. If the 'he' is the KOTN then it would read as though the KOTN fights himself. As examples of the KOTN and the KOTS fighting each other:

 7 But out of a branch of her roots shall [one] stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

11 And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, [even] with the king of the north:

15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand,

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; 

The language in v 40 is different. The antecedent to 'he' and 'him' is, "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

The king of the south pushes at v 36-37. Supposedly the KOTN. But the KOTN also comes against the 'him' which is v 36-37. The direct antecedent to v 40 is v 36-39.

Otherwise would we could read v 40 like this, "...at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at the king of the north: and the king of the north shall come against the king of the north..."

 

Edited by Diaste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only TWO KINGS in verses 40-45. The same two kings who fought in every Syrian War ever mentioned in chapter 11, the KOTN vs the KOTS. 

The KOTN it the coming Anti-Christ, an Assyrian (Turk) born in Greece, who comes to power in the E.U. Dan. 8 tells us where he comes from:

Dan. 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

This tells us he come from the Northwest !! Toward the south means he cpmes from the North. Towards the east means he comes from the West.  He comes from the Northwest. 808889979_theriseofthelittlehorn-Antichrist-anamazingprophecyindeed..jpg.138d92d79786e410d3aa1339ebc055b8.jpg

The European Beast comes out of the Northwest and the European Union is Northwest.

dividedgreekempire_gig.gif.f2d486b04af2b2d4cafc4958ee748d5b.gif

He is born in Greece, Cassander's Kingdom is the only one of the four Generals Kingdoms which is in the European Union (Fourth Beast of Dan. 7) hence he has to be born in modern day Greece and come to power in the E.U. 

Both are Northwest !! 

Edited by Revelation Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 8:00 PM, Montana Marv said:

If what you say is true, when was this king of the North in the presence of God in Heaven.  Dan 11:36b - he will say unheard of things against the God of gods.  The only one who would be able to say unheard of things about the God in Heaven is Satan.  He has been in the presence of God.  Unheard of, never revealed before, first time to be revealed (not second time, direct from the sources mouth). 

"Unheard of things" is a very presumptive translation of the Hebrew word pala. But par for the course for the NIV. I guess. Suggest you use a better Bible translation.

This verse has nothing to do with Satan. This is another of your presumptions upon which you have built your doctrines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 3:41 AM, Diaste said:
On 12/26/2018 at 2:21 PM, WilliamL said:

The latter sentence gives claims without scriptural or historical evidence.

The Kings of the North and South are both spiritual rulers operating through human ones.

Well, if it's prophecy for the future from this point in time there won't be any historical evidence.

Historical precedence, provided in Daniel 10, is scriptural evidence for future events of a like kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...