Daniel eleven verse twenty-four identifies the period which pagan Rome would rule supremely with the word “time.” A “time” represents 360 years in prophetic application, and those years began at the most famous naval battle of ancient history, the battle of Actium in 31 BC. There were other naval battles that were larger and strategically more sophisticated, but Actium was the most iconic naval battle through its association with Marc Antony and Cleopatra. Similar in historical significance to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in fulfillment of Daniel 11:40, and the Twin Towers of 9/11 in fulfillment of Revelation eighteen; for when God chooses the historical events to fulfill His prophetic Word, He does so in a fashion that reaches the attention of the largest possible audience.
ദാനിയേൽ പതിനൊന്നാം അധ്യായം ഇരുപത്തിനാലാം വാക്യം, ജാതീയ റോം പരമാധികാരത്തോടെ ഭരിക്കേണ്ട കാലഘട്ടത്തെ “കാലം” എന്ന പദംകൊണ്ട് നിർണ്ണയിക്കുന്നു. പ്രവചനപ്രയോഗത്തിൽ ഒരു “കാലം” 360 വർഷങ്ങളെ സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നു; ആ വർഷങ്ങൾ ബി.സി. 31-ൽ പുരാതനചരിത്രത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും പ്രസിദ്ധമായ നാവികസമരമായ ആക്ടിയം യുദ്ധത്തിൽ ആരംഭിച്ചു. ഇതിലും വലുതുമായും തന്ത്രപരമായി കൂടുതൽ സൂക്ഷ്മമായി ആസൂത്രണം ചെയ്തതുമായ മറ്റു നാവികസമരങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുവെങ്കിലും, മാർക്ക് ആന്റണിയുമായും ക്ലിയോപാട്രായുമായും ഉള്ള ബന്ധംകൊണ്ടു ആക്ടിയം ഏറ്റവും പ്രതീകാത്മകമായ നാവികസമരമായി നിലകൊണ്ടു. ദാനിയേൽ 11:40-ന്റെ നിറവേറ്റലിൽ ബെർലിൻ മതിലിന്റെ തകർച്ചക്കും, വെളിപ്പാട് പതിനെട്ടിന്റെ നിറവേറ്റലിൽ 9/11-ലെ ട്വിൻ ടവേഴ്സിനും സമാനമായ ചരിത്രപ്രാധാന്യമുള്ളതാകുന്നു അത്; കാരണം, ദൈവം തന്റെ പ്രവചനവചനം നിറവേറ്റുന്നതിനായി ചരിത്രസംഭവങ്ങളെ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുമ്പോൾ, ഏറ്റവും വിപുലമായ സാധ്യതയുള്ള പ്രേക്ഷകവൃന്ദത്തിന്റെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽപ്പെടുന്ന വിധത്തിലാണ് അവൻ അങ്ങനെ ചെയ്യുന്നത്.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. Daniel 11:23, 24.
En nadat die verbond met hom gesluit is, sal hy bedrieglik handel; want hy sal optrek en sterk word met ’n klein volk. Hy sal in vrede binnekom, selfs in die vrugbaarste dele van die provinsie; en hy sal doen wat sy vaders nie gedoen het nie, en ook nie sy voorvaders nie; hy sal buit, roof en rykdom onder hulle uitdeel; ja, hy sal sy planne teen die vestings beraam, maar net vir ’n tyd. Daniël 11:23, 24.
Uriah Smith concludes his observations of the league between Rome and the Maccabees of verse twenty-three by commenting upon the small people of the verse.
Uriya Smit oyat yigirma uchdagi Rim va Makkabiylar o‘rtasidagi ittifoq haqidagi kuzatuvlarini, oyatdagi oz sonli xalq haqida izoh berish bilan yakunlaydi.
“At this time the Romans were a small people, and began to work deceitfully, or with cunning, as the word signifies. And from this point they rose by a steady and rapid ascent to the height of power which they afterward attained.
“Fa e ragana oqo era a tamata lalai ga na kai Roma, ka ra tekivu cakacaka vakailawaki, se ena qaseqase, me vaka e dusia na vosa. Ia mai na vanua oqo era qai tubu cake ena dua na cabe tudei ka totolo sara ki na cecere ni kaukauwa era a qai yacova emuri.
“[Verse twenty-four quoted].
« [Verset vingt-quatre cité]. »
“The usual manner in which nations had, before the days of Rome, entered upon valuable provinces and rich territory, was by war and conquest. Rome was now to do what had not been done by the fathers or the fathers’ fathers; namely, receive these acquisitions through peaceful means. The custom, before unheard of, was now inaugurated, of kings’ leaving by legacy their kingdoms to the Romans. Rome came into possession of large provinces in this manner.
«Распространённый способ, которым народы до времён Рима овладевали ценными областями и богатыми землями, состоял в войне и завоевании. Риму же предстояло совершить то, чего не делали отцы и отцы отцов их, а именно: получать эти приобретения мирными средствами. Тогда был положен начало обычаю, дотоле неслыханному, — тому, что цари по завещанию оставляли свои царства римлянам. Таким образом Рим вступил во владение обширными областями. »
“And those who thus came under the dominion of Rome derived no small advantage therefrom. They were treated with kindness and leniency. It was like having the prey and spoil distributed among them. They were protected from their enemies, and rested in peace and safety under the aegis of the Roman power.
“Na wale ambao hivyo waliingia chini ya utawala wa Rumi walipata faida isiyo ndogo kutokana na jambo hilo. Walitendewa kwa wema na upole. Ilikuwa kana kwamba mawindo na nyara viligawanywa miongoni mwao. Walilindwa dhidi ya adui zao, nao wakastarehe katika amani na usalama chini ya ulinzi wa mamlaka ya Kirumi.
“To the latter portion of this verse, Bishop Newton gives the idea of forecasting devices from strongholds, instead of against them. This the Romans did from the strong fortress of their seven-hilled city. ‘Even for a time;’ doubtless a prophetic time, 360 years. From what point are these years to be dated? Probably from the event brought to view in the following verse.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 272, 273.
«À la dernière partie de ce verset, l’évêque Newton attribue l’idée de projeter des desseins depuis des forteresses, et non contre elles. C’est ce que firent les Romains à partir de la puissante forteresse de leur ville aux sept collines. “Même pour un temps” ; sans doute un temps prophétique, 360 années. À partir de quel point faut-il dater ces années ? Probablement à partir de l’événement présenté dans le verset suivant.» Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 272, 273.
Smith continues and identifies the battle of Actium in 31 BC as the starting point for the three hundred and sixty years. After quoting verse twenty-five Smith states the following.
Smith akontiny e mamantatra ny adin’i Actium tamin’ny 31 talohan’i K. ho fiandohan’ireo enimpolo amby telon-jato taona. Rehefa avy nitanisa ny andininy faha-dimy amby roapolo i Smith dia milaza izao manaraka izao.
“By verses 23 and 24 we are brought down this side of the league between the Jews and the Romans, BC 161, to the time when Rome had acquired universal dominion. The verse now before us brings to view a vigorous campaign against the king of the south, Egypt, and the occurrence of a notable battle between great and mighty armies. Did such events as these transpire in the history of Rome about this time? — They did. The war was the war between Egypt and Rome; and the battle was the battle of Actium. Let us take a brief view of the circumstances that led to this conflict.
«Mikwaa 23 na 24 ineetubweeta ku mpande eno ey’endagaano wakati w’Abayudaaya n’Abaruumi, mu 161 BC, okutuuka mu biro Abaruumi lwe baali bafunye obufuzi obw’ensi yonna. Olunyiriri olutuli mu maaso kaakano luleeta mu maaso kaffe olutalo olw’amaanyi eri kabaka ow’obukiikaddyo, Misiri, n’okubaawo kw’olutalo olw’enjawulo wakati w’eggye eddene era ery’amaanyi. Ebintu ng’ebyo byaliwo ddala mu byafaayo bya Rooma mu biro ebyo? — Weewaawo, byaliwo. Olutalo lwali lutalo wakati wa Misiri ne Rooma; era olutalo olwo lwali lutalo lwa Actium. Ka tutunuulire mu bufunze embeera ezaaleeta okukaayana kuno.»
“[Marc] Antony, Augustus Caesar, and Lepidus constituted the triumvirate which had sworn to avenge the death of Julius Caesar. This Antony became the brother-in-law of Augustus by marrying his sister, Octavia. Antony was sent into Egypt on government business, but fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen. So strong was the passion he conceived for her, that he finally espoused the Egyptian interests, rejected his wife, Octavia, to please Cleopatra, bestowed province after province upon the latter to gratify her avarice, celebrated a triumph at Alexandria instead of Rome, and otherwise so affronted the Roman people that Augustus had no difficulty in leading them to engage heartily in a war against this enemy of their country. This war was ostensibly against Egypt and Cleopatra; but it was really against Antony, who now stood at the head of Egyptian affairs. And the true cause of their controversy was, says Prideaux, that neither of them could be content with only half of the Roman empire; for Lepidus having been deposed from the triumvirate, it now lay between them, and each being determined to possess the whole, they cast the die of war for its possession.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 273.
「［マルクス］アントニウス、アウグストゥス・カエサル、およびレピドゥスは、ユリウス・カエサルの死に報復することを誓った三頭政治を構成していた。このアントニウスは、アウグストゥスの姉妹オクタウィアと結婚することによって、彼の義兄弟となった。アントニウスは公務のためにエジプトへ派遣されたが、やがてエジプトの放縦な女王クレオパトラの術策と魅力の犠牲となった。彼が彼女に対して抱くに至った情熱はあまりにも強く、ついにはエジプトの利益を支持し、クレオパトラの歓心を買うために妻オクタウィアを退け、彼女の貪欲を満たすために州また州を与え、ローマではなくアレクサンドリアで凱旋式を挙行し、さらにその他の仕方でもローマの民を著しく侮辱したため、アウグストゥスは、この祖国の敵に対する戦争へ彼らを心から駆り立てるのに何の困難もなかった。この戦争は表向きにはエジプトとクレオパトラに対するものであったが、実際には、今やエジプトの政務の長として立っていたアントニウスに対するものであった。そして彼らの争いの真の原因は、プライドーが述べるところによれば、両者のいずれもローマ帝国の半分だけでは満足できなかったことにあった。というのも、レピドゥスが三頭政治から失脚させられていたので、今やそれは彼ら二人の間に委ねられ、双方とも全体を所有する決意を固めていたため、その支配を得るべく戦争という賽を投じたのである。」Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 273.
Prophetically the battle of Actium identifies the Sunday law, for it represented the third conquering of the three geographical obstacles which established pagan Rome’s “universal dominion,” as Smith describes it. As with pagan Rome, it was when the third obstacle of papal Rome was driven from the city of Rome that the “universal dominion” of papal Rome began in 538. Those two witnesses address the Sunday law where and when modern Rome overcomes both the sixth and seventh kingdoms of Bible prophecy, and in doing so, overcomes its third obstacle; thus, establishing “universal dominion” for forty-two symbolic months.
نبويًا، تُحدِّد معركة أكتيوم قانون الأحد، لأنها مثَّلت الغلبة الثالثة على العوائق الجغرافية الثلاثة التي أقامت «السيادة العالمية» لروما الوثنية، كما يصفها سميث. وكما كان الحال مع روما الوثنية، فعندما أُزيح العائق الثالث لروما البابوية من مدينة روما، بدأت «السيادة العالمية» لروما البابوية سنة 538. هذان الشاهدان يتناولان قانون الأحد حيث ومتى تتغلب روما الحديثة على كلٍّ من المملكتين السادسة والسابعة في نبوة الكتاب المقدس، وبذلك تتغلب على عائقها الثالث؛ وهكذا تُقيم «سيادةً عالمية» لمدة اثنين وأربعين شهرًا رمزيًا.
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Revelation 13:5.
Et il lui fut donné une bouche qui proférait de grandes paroles et des blasphèmes ; et il lui fut donné le pouvoir d’agir pendant quarante-deux mois. Apocalypse 13:5.
Rome Against Egypt
રોમ મિસર વિરુદ્ધ
The prophetic dynamics of the war of Augustus of Rome, against Egypt and Cleopatra was motivated by the rebellion of Marc Antony, and those prophetic dynamics must of prophetic necessity represent the prophetic dynamics that are represented at the Sunday law.
Les dynamiques prophétiques de la guerre d’Auguste de Rome contre l’Égypte et Cléopâtre furent motivées par la rébellion de Marc Antoine, et ces dynamiques prophétiques doivent, par nécessité prophétique, représenter les dynamiques prophétiques qui sont représentées lors de la loi du dimanche.
At Actium Rome conquered Egypt, a power which consisted of an alliance between a rebellious man and an unholy woman. The alliance of Antony and Cleopatra is the combination of church and state. At Actium, Augustine’s Rome conquered a power represented by an unholy combination of church and state.
À Actium, Rome conquit l’Égypte, une puissance constituée d’une alliance entre un homme rebelle et une femme impie. L’alliance d’Antoine et de Cléopâtre est la combinaison de l’Église et de l’État. À Actium, la Rome d’Auguste vainquit une puissance représentée par une combinaison impie de l’Église et de l’État.
Image of the Beast
ឯកភាពរូបរបស់សត្វសាហាវ
Cleopatra represents a corrupted church aligned with Antony, a symbol of Rome. Cleopatra was the ruler over their relationship, as represented by Uriah Smith, when he stated that Antony “fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen.” The alliance of church and state represented by Antony and Cleopatra identified Cleopatra as the power ruling in the relationship; so, the combination of church and state represented by their relationship meets the definition of the image of the beast—which is the combination of church and state with the woman in control of the relationship. Actium typified the soon-coming Sunday law.
კლეოპატრა წარმოადგენს გახრწნილ ეკლესიას, რომელიც ანტონიუსთან, რომის სიმბოლოსთან, არის შეკავშირებული. მათ ურთიერთობაში მმართველი კლეოპატრა იყო, როგორც ამას ურია სმიტი აღნიშნავს, როდესაც ამბობს, რომ ანტონიუსი „კლეოპატრას, ეგვიპტის გარყვნილი დედოფლის, ხელოვნებისა და ხიბლის მსხვერპლი გახდა“. ეკლესიისა და სახელმწიფოს კავშირი, რომელიც ანტონიუსითა და კლეოპატრით არის წარმოდგენილი, კლეოპატრას იმ ძალად წარმოაჩენდა, რომელიც ამ ურთიერთობაში ბატონობდა; ამიტომ ეკლესიისა და სახელმწიფოს ის შეერთება, რომელიც მათი ურთიერთობით არის წარმოდგენილი, შეესაბამება მხეცის ხატის განსაზღვრებას — ეს არის ეკლესიისა და სახელმწიფოს შეერთება, როდესაც ურთიერთობაზე დედაკაცი ბატონობს. აქტიუმი განასახიერებდა მალე მოსალოდნელ კვირადღის კანონს.
Augustus, represents the papal power conquering the United States at the soon-coming Sunday law. Marc Antony is the Republican horn of the earth beast and Cleopatra is the Protestant horn. Antony and Cleopatra come together and speak as a dragon at the soon-coming Sunday law. Both Cleopatra and Antony are symbols of a dragon power, and when they are fully joined together at the Sunday law—they speak as a dragon.
Agosto representa el poder papal que conquista a los Estados Unidos en la ley dominical que pronto ha de venir. Marco Antonio es el cuerno republicano de la bestia de la tierra, y Cleopatra es el cuerno protestante. Antonio y Cleopatra se unen y hablan como dragón en la ley dominical que pronto ha de venir. Tanto Cleopatra como Antonio son símbolos de un poder de dragón, y cuando quedan plenamente unidos en la ley dominical, hablan como dragón.
Dragons
Dragons
Both Greece and Egypt prophetically represent a dragon power, and Antony also represented a dragon power. Egypt was the south in Daniel eleven and Greece was the west. Egypt was taken by Ptolemy I after Alexander’s kingdom divided into four parts. Ptolemy I then became the first prophetic king of the south and Cleopatra was the last Ptolemaic ruler in Egypt. Ptolemy was born in Macedon, the birth place of Alexander the Great.
La Grèce et l’Égypte représentent toutes deux prophétiquement une puissance de dragon, et Antoine représentait lui aussi une puissance de dragon. L’Égypte était le sud dans Daniel onze, et la Grèce était l’ouest. L’Égypte fut prise par Ptolémée Ier après que le royaume d’Alexandre se fut divisé en quatre parties. Ptolémée Ier devint alors le premier roi prophétique du sud, et Cléopâtre fut la dernière souveraine ptolémaïque en Égypte. Ptolémée était né en Macédoine, lieu de naissance d’Alexandre le Grand.
Macedon was in northern Greece, and claimed their ancestral origins were from Greek mythical heroes. The southern Greek city-states considered the Macedonians as more barbaric than the Hellenists of southern Greece. The Macedonians were a monarchy, and the southern city-states (poleis) like Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, etc., were in southern and central Greece and the Aegean islands. These poleis often had democratic, oligarchic, or mixed governments, while Macedon was a centralized monarchy with a strong royal dynasty (the Argeads). Still, they were all Hellenists, and when Rome came into history, they labelled the Hellenists Greek. Cleopatra was the last Ptolemaic ruler, which represented the northern kingdom’s monarchial tribe of Greeks from the area of Macedon, or northern Greece.
Masedoniya nga amihanga wa Vagiriki, kandi yavugaga ko inkomoko z’abakurambere bayo zaturukaga ku ntwari z’imigani z’Abagiriki. Imijyi-leta y’Abagiriki bo mu majyepfo yabonaga Abamasedoniya ko bafite ubumenyi buke kurusha Abahelenisti bo mu Bugiriki bwo mu majyepfo. Abamasedoniya bayoborwaga n’ubwami, kandi imijyi-leta yo mu majyepfo (poleis) nka Atene, Sparta, Tebe, Korinto, n’indi, yari mu Bugiriki bwo mu majyepfo n’ubwo hagati, no ku birwa by’Inyanja ya Egée. Izo poleis kenshi zagiraga ubutegetsi bwa demokarasi, ubw’abakomeye bake, cyangwa buvangiye, mu gihe Masedoniya yari ubwami bufite ubuyobozi bukomatanyije kandi bushingiye ku muryango ukomeye w’abami (Argeads). Nyamara bose bari Abahelenisti, kandi igihe Roma yinjiye mu mateka, yise Abahelenisti Abagiriki. Klewopatra yari umutegetsi wa nyuma w’Abatolomeyi, ibyo bikaba byagereranyaga ubwoko bw’ubwami bw’ubwami bwo mu majyaruguru bw’Abagiriki bo mu karere ka Masedoniya, cyangwa mu Bugiriki bwo mu majyaruguru.
King of the South
Mfalme wa Kusini
Cleopatra was the final ruler of the Ptolemaic kingdom that began with Ptolemy I when Alexander’s kingdom divided into four. At the battle of Actium the Ptolemaic kingdom, the literal king of the south, reached its end. The next king of the south would be spiritual Egypt, represented by atheistic France during the French Revolution history.
Cleopatra te fanga anga fakamuimui ʻo e puleʻanga Ptolemaic naʻe kamata ʻaki ʻa Ptolemy I ʻi he taimi naʻe vahevahe ai ʻa e puleʻanga ʻo Alexander ki he konga ʻe fā. ʻI he tauʻanga ʻo Actium naʻe aʻu ai ki hono ngataʻanga ʻa e puleʻanga Ptolemaic, ʻa e tuʻi fakafoʻituitui ʻo e tonga. Ko e tuʻi hono hoko ʻo e tonga ʻe hoko ia ko ʻIsipite fakalaumālie, ʻa ia naʻe fakafofongaʻi ʻe Falanisē taʻetui ki he ʻOtua ʻi he hisitōlia ʻo e French Revolution.
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:8.
Et leurs cadavres seront étendus sur la place de la grande ville, qui, spirituellement, est appelée Sodome et Égypte, là même où notre Seigneur a été crucifié. Apocalypse 11:8.
Literal Egypt was the literal king of the south as related to the division of Alexander’s kingdom, but spiritual Egypt is represented as the king of the south by the prophetic attributes of Egypt, not a literal direction.
L’Égypte littérale était le roi littéral du sud en rapport avec la division du royaume d’Alexandre, mais l’Égypte spirituelle est représentée comme le roi du sud par les attributs prophétiques de l’Égypte, et non par une direction littérale.
South and West
Dheas agus Iar
Cleopatra being the last Ptolemaic ruler of the kingdom was prophetically a twofold power of Greek (west) and Egypt (south), whereas; the next, and then spiritual king of the south would be France, also a twofold power represented in Revelation eleven as Egypt and Sodom. The licentiousness of Sodom aligns with the licentiousness of Cleopatra of the west, and Cleopatra of the south aligns with the atheism of Egypt. The last literal king of the south’s twofold nature aligned with the first spiritual king of the south.
کلئوپاترا، چون واپسین فرمانروای بطلمیوسیِ آن پادشاهی بود، از لحاظ نبوی قدرتی دوگانه، یعنی یونان (مغرب) و مصر (جنوب)، بهشمار میرفت؛ حال آنکه پادشاه بعدی، و سپس پادشاه روحانیِ جنوب، فرانسه بود، که او نیز قدرتی دوگانه است و در مکاشفه یازده بهصورت مصر و سدوم بازنمایی شده است. بیعفتیِ سدوم با بیعفتیِ کلئوپاترای مغرب همراستا است، و کلئوپاترای جنوب با الحادِ مصر همراستا میباشد. سرشت دوگانهٔ واپسین پادشاهِ تحتاللفظیِ جنوب با نخستین پادشاه روحانیِ جنوب همسو بود.
The battle of Actium was the unholy alliance of Antony’s dragon of Rome and Cleopatra’s dragon of the south and west. Antony and Cleopatra represent a church and a state, so the conquering of Actium by Augustus of Rome, represents a conquering where Rome prevails over an unholy twofold union typifying the image of the beast. Three hundred and sixty years later, in fulfillment of Daniel 11:24, Constantine divided Rome into east and west, leaving the woman of Rome in the west and moving the man of Rome to the east. A conquering of south and west typified the division of east and west after a “time” of three hundred and sixty years, at the battle of Actium. In an earlier encounter Antony was given eastern Rome and Augustus the west, so Actium brought together east and west, but only for a “time.”
Yuddha Actium rā anṭōniyōni Rōma yokka drākōnu mariyu Kliyōpātrā dakṣiṇa mariyu paścima drākōnu madhya erpāḍina apavitra saṅghamu. Anṭōni mariyu Kliyōpātrā oka sanghamu mariyu oka rājyāni sūcisthāru; kabatti, Rōma yokka Agastus Actium-ni jayinchadam anedi, mṛgamu yokka pratimarūpāni sūcisē apavitra dviguṇa aikyatapai Rōma vijayam sādhincina jayamu ani sūcisthundi. Mūḍu vandala aravai samvatsarāla taruvāta, Dāniyēlu 11:24 yokka niravēraṇalō, Kānsṭanṭīn Rōmānu pūrva mariyu paścimanga vibhajinchāḍu; paścimalō Rōma strīni unchi, Rōma puruṣuni pūrvāniki taralinchāḍu. Dakṣiṇa mariyu paścimapai gelupu, mūḍu vandala aravai samvatsarāla oka “kālam” taruvāta, Actium yuddhamlō jarigina pūrva-paścima vibhajanaku mūdarūpanga nilichindi. Antakumundu jarigina oka samāgamamlō, Anṭōniki pūrva Rōma ivvaḍabaḍindi mariyu Agastus-ku paścima; kāni Actium pūrva mariyu paścimālanu kalipiṃdi, ayitē adi oka “kālam” varaku mātramē.
31 BC and 330
31 BC and 330
Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning, so the conquering of Actium in 31 BC typifies the division of the empire into east and west in 330. Actium of 31 BC was the alpha of the omega in the 360 years that concluded in 330. Both 31 BC and 330 typify the soon-coming Sunday law as represented in verse sixteen and forty-one of Daniel eleven.
Jisas kyerɛkyerɛ awiei no bere nyinaa denam mfiase no so; enti Actium so nkonimdi a esii wɔ afe 31 ansa na Kristo reba no yɛ ahyɛnsode ma ahenni no mpaapaemu a ɛkɔɔ Apuei ne Atɔe fam wɔ 330 mu no. Actium a ɛwɔ afe 31 ansa na Kristo reba no yɛ omega no alpha wɔ mfe 360 a etwa to wɔ 330 mu no mu. Afe 31 ansa na Kristo reba ne 330 nyinaa yɛ ahyɛnsode ma Kwasida mmara a ɛrebɛn ntɛm no, sɛnea wɔgyina hɔ ma no wɔ Daniel ti dubaako nkyekyɛm dunsia ne aduanan-baako mu no.
Another Symbol
प्रतीक दोसर
Antony of Rome, aligned with Cleopatra of the south and of the west represents a threefold alliance within their twofold union of the image of the beast. The cross also aligns with the Sunday law, and therefore with Actium and 330. At the cross a twofold union of church and state is represented by the Jews (corrupted church) joining with Rome (state) to murder Christ. The third party in the union at the cross is represented by Barabbas, a false Christ, whose name means “son of the father.” Barabbas is symbolically a false prophet when contrasted with Christ as the true prophet. Rome was Antony, and Cleopatra of the south and west represented the Jews and Barabbas.
Antony wa Roma, akiwa ameungana na Cleopatra wa kusini na wa magharibi, anawakilisha muungano wa namna tatu ndani ya umoja wao wa namna mbili wa sanamu ya mnyama. Msalaba nao unaambatana na sheria ya Jumapili, na kwa hiyo na Actium na 330. Kwenye msalaba umoja wa namna mbili wa kanisa na serikali unawakilishwa na Wayahudi (kanisa lililoharibika) wakijiunga na Roma (serikali) ili kumwua Kristo. Mhusika wa tatu katika muungano wa msalabani anawakilishwa na Baraba, Kristo wa uongo, ambaye jina lake linamaanisha “mwana wa baba.” Baraba kwa ishara ni nabii wa uongo anapolinganishwa na Kristo kama nabii wa kweli. Roma alikuwa Antony, na Cleopatra wa kusini na wa magharibi aliwawakilisha Wayahudi na Baraba.
The cross also aligns with Elijah on Mount Carmel where the choice was over who was the true or false prophet. The false prophet then was a twofold symbol consisting of the prophets of Baal and the priests of the grove. Baal is a male deity and the priests of the grove represented Ashtaroth, a female deity. The Jews at the cross were Ashtaroth, the female deity and Barabbas, the counterfeit of the Man of Sorrows, was the male deity Baal.
La croix s’accorde aussi avec Élie sur le mont Carmel, où le choix portait sur celui qui était le vrai ou le faux prophète. Le faux prophète alors était un symbole double, composé des prophètes de Baal et des prêtres du bosquet. Baal est une divinité masculine, et les prêtres du bosquet représentaient Astarté, une divinité féminine. Les Juifs à la croix étaient Astarté, la divinité féminine, et Barabbas, la contrefaçon de l’Homme de douleurs, était la divinité masculine, Baal.
Cleopatra was both the queen of the south and the queen of the west. Antony was the image of Rome, part of the threefold triumvirate sworn to avenge the assassination of Julius. Julius death by twenty-three wounds represented the papacies deadly wound in 1798, in fulfillment of verse forty of Daniel eleven. Augustine at Actium represents the healing of that deadly wound. The wound is healed when Antony and Cleopatra die. Antony and Cleopatra represent the image of the beast in the United States that is a threefold prophetic entity, consisting of the earth beast and its two horns. Antony is one part and Cleopatra represents the other two parts. Whether it is Antony’s Rome, or Cleopatra’s Egypt and Greece, they die together at the Sunday law when the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy ends. Prophetically Cleopatra in relation to Antony is the mixture of church craft and statecraft, with the church craft seducing and controlling the statecraft.
ক্লিওপেট্রা ছিলেন একই সঙ্গে দক্ষিণের রাণী এবং পশ্চিমের রাণী। অ্যান্টনি ছিলেন রোমের প্রতিরূপ, জুলিয়াসের হত্যাকাণ্ডের প্রতিশোধ নেওয়ার শপথকৃত ত্রিবিধ ত্রয়ী-শাসনের একটি অংশ। জুলিয়াসের তেইশটি আঘাতে মৃত্যু, দানিয়েল এগারোর চল্লিশতম পদ পূর্ণ হওয়ার প্রেক্ষিতে, ১৭৯৮ সালে পাপাল ব্যবস্থার প্রাণঘাতী আঘাতকে নির্দেশ করে। অ্যাক্টিয়ামে অগাস্টিন সেই প্রাণঘাতী আঘাতের আরোগ্যকে প্রতিনিধিত্ব করে। অ্যান্টনি ও ক্লিওপেট্রার মৃত্যু হলে সেই আঘাত আরোগ্যপ্রাপ্ত হয়। অ্যান্টনি ও ক্লিওপেট্রা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে সেই পশুর প্রতিমূর্তিকে প্রতিনিধিত্ব করে, যা একটি ত্রিবিধ ভাববাণীমূলক সত্তা, পৃথিবী-জনিত পশু এবং তার দুই শিং নিয়ে গঠিত। অ্যান্টনি একটি অংশ, আর ক্লিওপেট্রা অন্য দুই অংশকে প্রতিনিধিত্ব করে। তা অ্যান্টনির রোমই হোক, কিংবা ক্লিওপেট্রার মিশর ও গ্রীসই হোক, রবিবার আইন প্রবর্তনের সময় তারা একত্রে মৃত্যুবরণ করে, যখন বাইবেলীয় ভাববাণীর ষষ্ঠ রাজ্য সমাপ্ত হয়। ভাববাণীমূলক অর্থে অ্যান্টনির সঙ্গে সম্পর্কিত ক্লিওপেট্রা হল গির্জার কৌশল ও রাষ্ট্রকৌশলের সেই মিশ্রণ, যেখানে গির্জার কৌশল রাষ্ট্রকৌশলকে প্রলুব্ধ করে এবং নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে।
The Second Death Typified
A Fi Biyàn Síkú Kejì Ṣàpẹẹrẹ
At another prophetic level Cleopatra’s relation to Julius Caesar and Marc Antony represents two times that the church craft of Cleopatra is in a relationship with the statecraft of the Roman Empire. She was left by Julius in 1798 at her first symbolic death, in fulfillment of verse forty of Daniel eleven; and then she comes to her end with none to help, at Actium in fulfillment of verse forty-five of Daniel eleven. Verse forty is the alpha of her first deadly wound that is to be healed and the omega of verse forty-five is where she receives her second and final death.
Sa isa pang antas na makahula, ang kaugnayan ni Cleopatra kina Julius Caesar at Marc Antony ay kumakatawan sa dalawang panahon na ang gawang-simbahan ni Cleopatra ay nasa kaugnayan sa gawang-estado ng Imperyong Romano. Siya ay iniwan ni Julius noong 1798 sa kaniyang unang sagisag na kamatayan, bilang katuparan ng talata apatnapu ng Daniel onse; at pagkatapos ay dumating siya sa kaniyang wakas na walang tutulong, sa Actium, bilang katuparan ng talata apatnapu’t lima ng Daniel onse. Ang talata apatnapu ang alpha ng kaniyang unang nakamamatay na sugat na pagagalingin, at ang omega ng talata apatnapu’t lima ang dako kung saan niya tinatanggap ang kaniyang ikalawa at huling kamatayan.
As with the four Roman powers of verse sixteen through twenty-two, Cleopatra as a biblical symbol has more than one meaning, based upon the context. Julius left her in 1798 when kingly support was removed, and then her deadly wound is healed at the Sunday law, but the ten kings of Revelation seventeen ultimately destroy her with fire, when she meets her second and final death.
Sida afarta quwadood ee Roomaanka ee aayadaha lix iyo tobnaad ilaa laba iyo labaatanaad, Cleopatra oo ah astaan Kitaabi ah waxay leedahay in ka badan hal macne, iyadoo ku salaysan duruufaha qoraalka. Julius wuxuu ka tegey iyada sannadkii 1798 markii taageeradii boqornimada la qaaday, dabadeedna nabarkeedii dhimashada lahaa waa la bogsiiyey markii sharciga Axadda la dejiyey; hase yeeshee tobanka boqor ee Muujintii toddoba iyo tobnaad ugu dambayntii dab bay ku baabbi'iyeen iyada, markay la kulanto dhimashadeeda labaad oo ugu dambaysa.
Cleopatra is a symbol of the twofold nature represented by the atheism of Pharoah’s Egypt, and the religious philosophy of Greece. Her twofold nature represents the statecraft of Egypt and the church craft of Greece. Greek religious philosophy is represented by the Greek goddess Athena, who was enshrined as a statue in her temple, called the Parthenon. Athena is the symbol of wisdom, and as a woman she represents a religion of human education, in contrast with Divine education.
Cléopâtre est un symbole de la nature double représentée par l’athéisme de l’Égypte de Pharaon et par la philosophie religieuse de la Grèce. Sa nature double représente l’art politique de l’Égypte et l’art ecclésiastique de la Grèce. La philosophie religieuse grecque est représentée par la déesse grecque Athéna, qui fut consacrée sous la forme d’une statue dans son temple, appelé le Parthénon. Athéna est le symbole de la sagesse et, en tant que femme, elle représente une religion d’éducation humaine, par opposition à l’éducation divine.
The two horns of the United States are Republicanism and Protestantism, which were typified in France by Egypt and Sodom. Egypt is statecraft and Sodom is church craft; thus, Republicanism aligns with Egypt and Protestantism with Sodom. Republicanism is Egypt and Protestantism is Sodom and Greece. The symbol of human education is the Greek goddess Athena, whose temple was the Parthenon that finds its modern twin in Nashville, Tennessee’s Parthenon temple. The symbol of the corrupt church that aligns with the Republican horn in the United States at the Sunday law is represented as Cleopatra, Ashtaroth, Salome and Sodom.
الفيفان للنولايات المتحدة هما الجمهورية والبروتستانتية، وقد مُثِّلتا في فرنسا بمصر وسدوم. فمصر هي سياسة الدولة، وسدوم هي حيلة الكنيسة؛ ولذلك تتوافق الجمهورية مع مصر، والبروتستانتية مع سدوم. الجمهورية هي مصر، والبروتستانتية هي سدوم واليونان. ورمز التعليم البشري هو الإلهة اليونانية أثينا، التي كان هيكلها هو البارثينون، الذي يجد نظيره الحديث في هيكل البارثينون في ناشفيل، تينيسي. ورمز الكنيسة الفاسدة التي تتحالف مع القرن الجمهوري في الولايات المتحدة عند سنّ قانون الأحد يُمثَّل بكليوباترا، وعشتاروت، وسالومة، وسدوم.
Cleopatra portrays the atheism of Pharoah and the religion of the Greeks. The religion that accompanies the philosophy of atheism is the worship of Greek education. Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning and the tree in the garden that was forbidden to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, typifying the religion of Greek philosophy that Sister White calls, “higher education.” It identifies and emphasizes Cleopatra’s Greek religion of wisdom as the corrupted and counterfeit of true education in the great controversy between Christ and Satan.
კლეოპატრა წარმოაჩენს ფარაონის ათეიზმს და ბერძენთა რელიგიას. რელიგია, რომელიც ათეიზმის ფილოსოფიას ახლავს, არის ბერძნული განათლების თაყვანისცემა. იესო ყოველთვის დასასრულს დასაწყისით წარმოაჩენს, და ბაღში მდგარი ხე, რომლის ნაყოფის ჭამაც აკრძალული იყო, იყო სიკეთისა და ბოროტების შეცნობის ხე, რომელიც განასახიერებს ბერძნული ფილოსოფიის რელიგიას, რომელსაც და უაიტი „უმაღლეს განათლებას“ უწოდებს. ეს განსაზღვრავს და ხაზს უსვამს კლეოპატრას ბერძნულ სიბრძნის რელიგიას, როგორც ჭეშმარიტი განათლების გახრწნილ და ყალბ სახეს ქრისტესა და სატანას შორის დიდი ბრძოლის ფარგლებში.
Nashville, Tennessee is called the “Athens of the south,” and Cleopatra was the last literal queen of the south. The last queen of the south typified the next and first spiritual king of the south, fulfilled by atheistic France. Atheistic France typifies the United States, where in Nashville, Tennessee, “Athens of the south” the Parthenon temple for the goddess Athena is symbolically represented. The temple is located at 2500 West End in Nashville. The number twenty-five represents the closed door of Matthew twenty-five’s three parables. Cleopatra as both the queen of the “south” and “west” comes to her “end” in Athens of the south.
ناشفيل، تينيسي تُدعَى «أثينا الجنوب»، وكانت كليوباترا آخرَ ملكةٍ حرفيةٍ للجنوب. وقد كانت آخرُ ملكةِ الجنوب رمزًا للملك الروحي التالي والأول للجنوب، الذي تمّ في فرنسا الإلحادية. وفرنسا الإلحادية ترمز إلى الولايات المتحدة، حيث تُجسَّد رمزيًا في ناشفيل، تينيسي، «أثينا الجنوب»، هيئةُ معبد البارثينون للإلهة أثينا. ويقع المعبد في 2500 ويست إند في ناشفيل. ويمثّل العدد خمسة وعشرون البابَ المغلق في أمثال متّى الخامس والعشرين الثلاثة. وكليوباترا، بوصفها ملكةَ «الجنوب» و«الغرب» معًا، تبلغ «نهايتها» في أثينا الجنوب.
With these considerations of Actium, Cleopatra, Augustus and Antony we return to verse twenty-four through verse thirty of Daniel eleven. Perhaps, the vaguest part of the passage is when they speak lies at one table.
การพิจารณาเรื่องอักเตียม คลีโอพัตรา ออกัสตัส และแอนโทนีเหล่านี้ทำให้เรากลับมาสู่ข้อยี่สิบสี่ถึงข้อสามสิบของดาเนียลบทที่สิบเอ็ด บางที ส่วนที่คลุมเครือที่สุดของตอนนี้คือเมื่อกล่าวว่าพวกเขาพูดมุสากันที่โต๊ะเดียวกัน
And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Daniel 11:27.
Et le cœur de ces deux rois sera porté au mal, et ils diront des mensonges à une même table; mais cela ne prospérera pas, car la fin n’arrivera qu’au temps marqué. Daniel 11:27.
The time appointed in the verse is 330, the end of the “time” of verse twenty-four. The time appointed represents the Sunday law for the United States and it also represents the close of human probation for the world. Before the Sunday law the two kings, whose hearts were to do mischief will speak lies to one another at one table. Before the Sunday law of verses sixteen and forty-one of Daniel eleven, two kings will speak lies at one table, but their lies do not prosper. Who are the two kings that speak lies to one another? Before we answer that thought, I will remind us of some symbolism we have previously addressed in this series.
Le temps fixé dans le verset est 330, la fin du « temps » du verset vingt-quatre. Le temps fixé représente la loi du dimanche pour les États-Unis, et il représente aussi la fin du temps de grâce pour le monde. Avant la loi du dimanche, les deux rois, dont le cœur était de faire le mal, se diront des mensonges l’un à l’autre à une même table. Avant la loi du dimanche des versets seize et quarante-et-un de Daniel onze, deux rois se diront des mensonges à une même table, mais leurs mensonges ne prospèrent pas. Qui sont les deux rois qui se disent des mensonges l’un à l’autre ? Avant de répondre à cette pensée, je nous rappellerai certains symboles que nous avons déjà abordés dans cette série.
The four Roman rulers represent a variety of prophetic symbols depending on what context they are considered. Though Roman rulers, as a symbol they essentially represent the prophetic history of ancient Judah as they transitioned from the Seleucid domination into the domination of the Romans.
Les quatre dirigeants romains représentent une diversité de symboles prophétiques selon le contexte dans lequel ils sont considérés. Bien qu’ils soient des dirigeants romains, en tant que symbole, ils représentent essentiellement l’histoire prophétique de l’ancienne Juda alors qu’elle passait de la domination des Séleucides à la domination des Romains.
Pompey was a general and the next three Roman rulers were all Caesars. Julius in relation to Augustus represented two threefold unions with the two triumvirates, the first unofficial, the second official. All four rulers represent the Sunday law in certain contexts. Pompey conquered the glorious land, Julius, represented by twenty-three stab wounds is the first angel, for he is the first Caesar, and he typifies the third angel, which was Tiberias. Tiberias at the cross, which is the Sunday law is also represented by twenty-three, for twenty-three represents the at-one-ment; and the cross is a most essential part of the work of Christ in combining His Divinity with our humanity. So, Julius and Tiberias are the first and third message, represented by twenty-three.
Pompey wasa gbogbogbo, ati pe awọn olori Romu mẹ́ta tí ó tẹ̀lé e jẹ́ gbogbo wọn Késárì. Julius ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú Augustus ṣàfihàn ìṣọ̀kan méjì oníìpele-mẹ́ta pẹ̀lú àwọn triumvirate méjèèjì, èyí àkọ́kọ́ jẹ́ àìlọ́fíṣà, èyí kejì sì jẹ́ ti òfin. Gbogbo àwọn olori mẹ́rin náà ṣojú òfin Ọjọ́-Ìsinmi ní àwọn àyíká kan. Pompey ṣẹ́gun ilẹ̀ ògo; Julius, tí a ṣàfihàn rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ ọgbẹ́ abẹ́ mẹ́tàlélógún, ni áńgẹ́lì àkọ́kọ́, nítorí pé òun ni Késárì àkọ́kọ́, ó sì ṣe àpẹẹrẹ áńgẹ́lì kẹta, ẹni tí ó jẹ́ Tiberias. Tiberias ní agbelebu, èyí tí í ṣe òfin Ọjọ́-Ìsinmi, ni a tún ṣàfihàn rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú mẹ́tàlélógún, nítorí pé mẹ́tàlélógún ṣojú ìṣọ̀kan-pípé; agbelebu náà sì jẹ́ apá pàtàkì jùlọ nínú iṣẹ́ Kristi ní fífi Ìwà-Ọlọ́run Rẹ̀ ṣọ̀kan pẹ̀lú ẹ̀dá ènìyàn wa. Nítorí náà, Julius àti Tiberias ni ìhìnrere àkọ́kọ́ àti ẹ̀kẹta, tí mẹ́tàlélógún ṣàfihàn.
Julius was not the romantic figure he is often portrayed as in Hollywood lore; he was a ruthless man bent on power. Tiberias was worse than Julius, for his vileness is even addressed in the verse, for the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet is twenty-two and the first letter is one. The alpha is smaller than the omega and Tiberias’ vileness is located in verse twenty-two, which is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and in between the two vile persons represented by Julius and Tiberias was Augustus. Augustus represents the height of the glory of Rome’s power and prestige. As the opposite of the first and third message he is represented by the letter thirteen, which is a symbol of rebellion. Augustus secured his kingdom by subduing the rebellion of Antony and Cleopatra, the most famous rebellion of Rome’s history.
जूलियस वैसा रोमानी व्यक्तित्व नहीं था जैसा उसे प्रायः हॉलीवुड की कथाओं में चित्रित किया जाता है; वह सत्ता का लोभी एक निर्दयी मनुष्य था। टिबेरियास जूलियस से भी अधिक दुष्ट था, क्योंकि उसकी नीचता का उल्लेख इस पद में भी किया गया है, क्योंकि इब्रानी वर्णमाला का अंतिम अक्षर बाईसवाँ है और पहला अक्षर एक है। अल्फा ओमेगा से छोटा है, और टिबेरियास की नीचता बाईसवें पद में स्थित है, जो इब्रानी वर्णमाला के अंतिम अक्षर का सूचक है; और जूलियस तथा टिबेरियास द्वारा निरूपित इन दो नीच व्यक्तियों के बीच अगस्तुस था। अगस्तुस रोम की शक्ति और प्रतिष्ठा की महिमा की पराकाष्ठा का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है। प्रथम और तृतीय संदेश के विपरीत होने के कारण वह तेरहवें अक्षर द्वारा निरूपित है, जो विद्रोह का प्रतीक है। अगस्तुस ने अपने राज्य को अन्तनी और क्लियोपात्रा के विद्रोह को दबाकर सुरक्षित किया, जो रोम के इतिहास का सबसे प्रसिद्ध विद्रोह था।
Augustus is the Roman power who conquered the third obstacle and in doing so he represented the Sunday law, and the Roman power who reigns during the forty-two symbolic months of Revelation thirteen’s chapter of rebellion. When placed before the Sunday law Pompey is both 1798 and 1989, making Pompey a symbol of Antiochus Magnus ending the fourth Syrian War from 219 unto 217 BC, in fulfillment of verse ten of chapter eleven. Julius Caesar is then aligned with verses eleven and twelve and the battle of the borderline, the battle of Raphia in 217 BC. There Julius is also Antiochus Magnus, and Augustus Caesar is also Antiochus Magnus in verse fifteen’s battle of Panium. Then in verse sixteen Tiberias is the Sunday law, but he is not Antiochus Magnus, for there he is Pompey, for Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning. The verse marks the end of the Seleucid Empire typifying the end of the United States as the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy.
ਅਗਸਤੁਸ ਉਹ ਰੋਮੀ ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਨੇ ਤੀਸਰੀ ਰੁਕਾਵਟ ਨੂੰ ਜਿੱਤਿਆ, ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਉਸ ਨੇ ਐਤਵਾਰ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਨਿਧਿਤਵ ਕੀਤਾ, ਅਤੇ ਉਹੀ ਰੋਮੀ ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ ਦੀ ਪੋਥੀ ਦੇ ਤੇਰਹਵੇਂ ਅਧਿਆਇ ਦੀ ਬਗਾਵਤ ਦੇ ਬਿਆਲੀ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕਾਤਮਕ ਮਹੀਨਿਆਂ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਰਾਜ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ। ਜਦੋਂ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਐਤਵਾਰ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਤਦ ਪੋਮਪੀ 1798 ਅਤੇ 1989 ਦੋਵੇਂ ਹੀ ਬਣ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਪੋਮਪੀ 219 ਤੋਂ 217 ਈਸਾ-ਪੂਰਵ ਤੱਕ ਚੌਥੇ ਸੀਰੀਆਈ ਯੁੱਧ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਦਰਸਾਉਂਦੇ ਹੋਏ ਅੰਤੀਓਕਸ ਮੈਗਨਸ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਅਧਿਆਇ ਗਿਆਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਯਤ ਦਸ ਦੀ ਪੂਰਤੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੈ। ਫਿਰ ਜੂਲੀਅਸ ਸੀਜ਼ਰ ਆਯਤਾਂ ਗਿਆਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਰਾਂ ਨਾਲ, ਅਤੇ ਸੀਮਾਰੇਖਾ ਦੀ ਲੜਾਈ, 217 ਈਸਾ-ਪੂਰਵ ਦੀ ਰਾਫੀਆ ਦੀ ਲੜਾਈ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਰੂਪ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਉੱਥੇ ਜੂਲੀਅਸ ਵੀ ਅੰਤੀਓਕਸ ਮੈਗਨਸ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਅਗਸਤੁਸ ਸੀਜ਼ਰ ਵੀ ਆਯਤ ਪੰਦਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਾਨਿਯੁਮ ਦੀ ਲੜਾਈ ਵਿੱਚ ਅੰਤੀਓਕਸ ਮੈਗਨਸ ਹੈ। ਫਿਰ ਆਯਤ ਸੋਲ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਤਿਬੇਰੀਅਸ ਐਤਵਾਰ ਦਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਉਹ ਅੰਤੀਓਕਸ ਮੈਗਨਸ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਉੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਪੋਮਪੀ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਯਿਸੂ ਸਦਾ ਹੀ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਦਰਸਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਆਯਤ ਸੇਲਿਊਸਿਡ ਸਾਮਰਾਜ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਚਿੰਨ੍ਹਿਤ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਬਾਈਬਲੀ ਭਵਿੱਖਬਾਣੀ ਦੇ ਛੇਵੇਂ ਰਾਜ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੰਯੁਕਤ ਰਾਜ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਰੂਪ ਹੈ।
There are more alignments to be made of the four Roman rulers, and the line represents the hidden history of verse forty. The Maccabean line of verse twenty-three also illustrates the hidden history of verse forty. Then in verses twenty-four, the story of pagan Imperial Rome is represented by a time—three hundred and sixty years. The line of Roman history represented from verse twenty-four through to verse thirty is also an illustration of the hidden history of verse forty. It ends in verse thirty-one when the subject changes from pagan to papal Rome. Pagan Rome is still in the verse, but there it is not represented as the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy, but as the political power that placed the papacy on the throne in 538. In 538 the papacy passed a Sunday law, so verse thirty-one is aligning with verses sixteen and forty-one. Verse twenty-four introduced the battle of Actium and the history associated with the line.
Waxaa jira iswaafajinno kale oo loo baahan yahay in laga sameeyo afarta taliye ee Roomaanka, xariiqduna waxay metelaysaa taariikhda qarsoon ee aayadda afartanaad. Xariiqda Makabiiyiinta ee aayadda saddex iyo labaatanaadna sidoo kale waxay muujinaysaa taariikhda qarsoon ee aayadda afartanaad. Markaas aayadaha afar iyo labaatan, sheekada Roomaankii Boqortooyada ee jaahilka ahaa waxaa lagu metelayaa muddo—saddex boqol iyo lixdan sannadood. Xariiqda taariikhda Roomaanka ee laga metelay aayadda afar iyo labaatan ilaa aayadda soddonaadna sidoo kale waa sawir ka tarjumaya taariikhda qarsoon ee aayadda afartanaad. Waxay ku dhammaanaysaa aayadda kow iyo soddonaad marka mowduucu ka beddelmayo Roomaankii jaahilka ahaa una gudbayo Roomaankii baadariga. Roomaankii jaahilka ahaa weli aayadda ayuu ku jiraa, laakiin halkaas looguma metelo boqortooyadii afraad ee wax sii sheegidda Kitaabka Quduuska ah, balse waxaa loogu metelayaa awooddii siyaasadeed ee baadarinimada ku fadhiisisay carshiga sannadkii 538. Sannadkii 538 baadarinimadu waxay meel marisay sharci Axad, sidaas darteed aayadda kow iyo soddonaad waxay iswaafajinaysaa aayadaha lix iyo tobnaad iyo kow iyo afartanaad. Aayadda afar iyo labaatan waxay soo bandhigtay dagaalkii Actium iyo taariikhda la xiriirta xariiqda.
Verse twenty-four is identifying when pagan Rome began to rule supremely for three hundred and sixty years, and then in verse thirty-one papal Rome begins to rule supremely for twelve hundred and sixty-years. The beginning and ending of the line bear the signature of Christ, the Alpha and Omega. In the verses we have the history of Marc Antony, Cleopatra and Augustus Caesar. In verse sixteen pagan Rome conquered the Seleucid Empire in 65 BC, and then Judah in 63 BC. The third obstacle of Actium in 31 BC identified the end of the kingdom of Egypt, as typified by the first obstacles of the Seleucid’s in 65 BC. Once again, we find the signature of the First and the Last. 65 BC was the first of three obstacles and it represented the conquering of the king of the north and 31 BC represented the third of three obstacles and it represented the conquering of the king of the south. Judah, as the middle obstacle of the three obstacles, was having a civil war within the walls of Jerusalem when Pompey arrived in 63 BC. The second obstacle is a symbol of rebellion.
Látì ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún ni a ti ń fi hàn ìgbà tí Róòmù keferi bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í jọba lọ́lá-àṣẹ gíga jùlọ fún ọdún ọ̀ọ́ta lé lọ́ọ́dúnrún mẹ́ta, lẹ́yìn náà ní ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlélọ́gbọ̀n ni Róòmù papal bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í jọba lọ́lá-àṣẹ gíga jùlọ fún ọdún ẹgbẹ̀rún méjìlélọ́gọ́ta. Ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ àti òpin ìlà náà rú ààmì Kristi, Alfa àti Omega. Nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà a ní ìtàn Marc Antony, Cleopatra, àti Augustus Caesar. Ní ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún, Róòmù keferi ṣẹ́gun Ilẹ̀ Ọba Seleucid ní ọdún 65 Ṣ.K., lẹ́yìn náà ó sì ṣẹ́gun Juda ní ọdún 63 Ṣ.K. Ìdènà kẹta ti Actium ní ọdún 31 Ṣ.K. fi òpin ìjọba Ejibiti hàn, gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ṣàpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ àwọn ìdènà àkọ́kọ́ ti àwọn Seleucid ní ọdún 65 Ṣ.K. Lẹ́ẹ̀kansi, a rí ààmì Ẹni Àkọ́kọ́ àti Ẹni Ikẹ́yìn. Ọdún 65 Ṣ.K. ni àkọ́kọ́ nínú àwọn ìdènà mẹ́ta, ó sì dúró fún ìṣẹ́gun lórí ọba àríwá, àti ọdún 31 Ṣ.K. dúró fún ìdènà kẹta nínú àwọn ìdènà mẹ́ta, ó sì dúró fún ìṣẹ́gun lórí ọba gúúsù. Juda, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìdènà àárín nínú àwọn ìdènà mẹ́ta náà, wà nínú ogun abẹ́lé láàrín odi Jerusalẹmu nígbà tí Pompey dé ní ọdún 63 Ṣ.K. Ìdènà kejì jẹ́ ààmì ìṣọ̀tẹ̀.
In 538, the third obstacle for papal Rome was driven out of the City of Rome. That obstacle was the Goths, and there the fifth kingdom of Bible prophecy began; right where the fourth kingdom ended. And just as the fourth kingdom began at its third obstacle, the kingdom of Egypt was defeated, as had been typified in the first obstacle of the Seleucid kingdom. This identifies that the prophetic testimony found in verses twenty-four through to verse thirty, represent a line that is also to be located in the hidden history of verse forty. For this reason, it is essential to consider the various prophetic relationships that are represented by Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Pompey and Augustus Caesar.
Mnamo 538, kikwazo cha tatu kwa Roma ya upapa kiliondolewa kutoka katika Mji wa Roma. Kikwazo hicho kilikuwa Wagothi, na hapo ufalme wa tano wa unabii wa Biblia ulianza; hapo hasa ambapo ufalme wa nne uliishia. Na kama vile ufalme wa nne ulivyoanza katika kikwazo chake cha tatu, ufalme wa Misri ulishindwa, kama ilivyokuwa imeonyeshwa kwa mfano katika kikwazo cha kwanza cha ufalme wa Waseleukia. Hili linatambulisha kwamba ushuhuda wa kinabii unaopatikana katika aya ya ishirini na nne hadi aya ya thelathini, unawakilisha mstari ambao pia unapaswa kupatikana katika historia iliyofichika ya aya ya arobaini. Kwa sababu hii, ni muhimu kuzingatia mahusiano mbalimbali ya kinabii yanayowakilishwa na Marko Antoni, Kleopatra, Yulio Kaisari, Pompeyo na Augusto Kaisari.
So is the vaguest part of the passage of verse twenty-four unto thirty, when they speak lies at one table?
Niður er tað ógreiðiligasta parturin av brotinum, frá ørindi fýra og tjúgu til tríati, tá ið teir tala lygnir við einum og sama borði?
And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Daniel 11:27.
Le cœurs de ces deux rois seront tournés vers le mal, et ils diront des mensonges à une même table; mais cela ne prospérera pas, car la fin n’arrivera qu’au temps marqué. Daniel 11:27.
Uriah Smith identifies the two kings as Marc Antony and Augustus Caesar.
Uriah Smith identifie les deux rois comme Marc Antoine et Auguste César.
“Verse twenty-seven quoted
«Пешгӯии бистуҳафтум иқтибос шуд»
“Antony and Caesar were formerly in alliance. Yet under the garb of friendship they were both aspiring and intriguing for universal dominion. Their protestations of deference to, and friendship for, each other, were the utterances of hypocrites. They spoke lies at one table. Octavia, the wife of Antony and sister of Caesar, declared to the people of Rome at the time Antony divorced her, that she had consented to marry him solely with the hope that it would prove a pledge of union between Caesar and Antony. But that counsel did not prosper. The rupture came; and in the conflict that ensued, Caesar came off entirely victorious.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 276.
「Antony et César furent autrefois alliés. Pourtant, sous l’apparence de l’amitié, tous deux aspiraient à la domination universelle et tramaient des intrigues pour l’obtenir. Leurs protestations de déférence l’un envers l’autre, et d’amitié réciproque, étaient les paroles d’hypocrites. Ils disaient des mensonges à une même table. Octavie, épouse d’Antoine et sœur de César, déclara au peuple de Rome, au moment où Antoine la répudia, qu’elle n’avait consenti à l’épouser que dans l’espoir que ce mariage servirait de gage d’union entre César et Antoine. Mais ce dessein ne prospéra pas. La rupture survint; et dans le conflit qui s’ensuivit, César remporta une victoire complète. » Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 276.
When Octavia identified that her marriage to Antony was as a pledge of union, it identified the marital alliance which had been typified earlier in chapter eleven with the Hellenistic-era marriage of Berenice to the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos around 252 BC. Berenice was the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Octavia and Berenice represent diplomatic marriages or prophetically, treaties. Verses five through ten identify the history of the diplomatic marriage between the southern and northern kingdoms, and when Marc Antony and Octavian, later known as Augustus Caesar, arranged the marriage, they also divided the kingdom into east and west.
Ɔsi Octavia kyerɛɛ mu sɛ ne aware no ne Antony ho yɛɛ nhyehyɛe bi a ɛda nkabom adi no, ɛkaa aware mu apam no a na wɔadi kan ayɛ no sɛ mfonini wɔ ti dunum no mu, denam Hellenistic bere no mu Berenice aware a ɔwaree Seleucid hene Antiochus II Theos bɛyɛ afe 252 ansa na Kristo reba no so. Berenice yɛɛ Ptolemy II Philadelphus babea. Octavia ne Berenice gyina hɔ ma amammuisɛm mu aware ahorow anaa nkɔmhyɛ mu no, apam ahorow. Nkyekyɛm anum kosi du no kyerɛ abakɔsɛm a ɛfa aware mu apam a ɛda anafo fam ahenni no ne atifi fam ahenni no ntam ho, na bere a Marc Antony ne Octavian, a akyiri yi wɔfrɛɛ no Augustus Caesar no, hyehyɛɛ aware no, wɔsan kyekyɛɛ ahenni no mu yɛɛ no apuei ne atɔe.
The Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) was a negotiated settlement between Marc Antony and Octavian (later Augustus) to resolve tensions in the Second Triumvirate after near-civil war. It involved dividing Roman territories (Antony east, Octavian west) and was sealed by Antony’s marriage to Octavia (Octavian’s sister). In 39 BC the original five-year Triumvirate term expired, Antony sailed to Italy with 300+ ships that were initially denied to land at Brundisium, so they ultimately docked at Tarentum. Octavian met him there after prolonged mediations produced by an unwillingness of Antony’s army to fight with Octavian’s army and vise versa. Octavia played a key mediating role, persuading Antony to support Octavian against Sextus Pompey. They renewed the Triumvirate for another five years (to 32 BC), with Antony providing Octavian 120 ships in exchange for promised troops (which Octavian later withheld).
Le Pacte de Brundisium (40 av. J.-C.) fut un accord négocié entre Marc Antoine et Octavien (plus tard Auguste) afin de résoudre les tensions au sein du Second Triumvirat après une quasi-guerre civile. Il impliquait le partage des territoires romains (Antoine à l’est, Octavien à l’ouest) et fut scellé par le mariage d’Antoine avec Octavie (la sœur d’Octavien). En 39 av. J.-C., le terme initial de cinq ans du Triumvirat expira; Antoine fit voile vers l’Italie avec plus de 300 navires, auxquels il fut d’abord refusé de débarquer à Brundisium, de sorte qu’ils accostèrent finalement à Tarente. Octavien l’y rencontra après de longues médiations rendues nécessaires par la réticence de l’armée d’Antoine à combattre celle d’Octavien, et réciproquement. Octavie joua un rôle déterminant de médiatrice, persuadant Antoine de soutenir Octavien contre Sextus Pompée. Ils renouvelèrent le Triumvirat pour cinq années supplémentaires (jusqu’en 32 av. J.-C.), Antoine fournissant à Octavien 120 navires en échange des troupes promises (qu’Octavien retint par la suite).
In 32 BC there was an open break between the two antagonists. Relations had deteriorated through propaganda, Antony’s eastern focus (with Cleopatra), and Octavian’s consolidation in the west. Octavian rejected later conference proposals from Antony before Actium.
I te matahiti 32 hou te fanauraahia o te Mesia, ua tupu te hoê taa-ê-raa matara i rotopu i taua na enemi e piti ra. Ua ino roa ’tu te mau taairaa na roto i te porotarama, te aroraa a Antony i te pae hitia o te râ (e o Cleopatra), e te haapûpûraa a Octavian i te pae tooa o te râ. Ua patoi Octavian i te mau mana‘o i muri mai no te faatupuraa i te hoê putuputuraa i horoahia mai e Antony hou Actium.
In the diplomatic marriage with the king of the north (Antiochus) and the king of the south (Ptolemy), it was the southern king that supplied the bride, with the diplomatic marriage of Antony (the east) and Octavian (the west); the bride was supplied by the west. Both diplomatic marriages failed and the supplier of the daughter or sister was ultimately victorious over the power who broke the treaty.
Зүүн хойд хаан (Антиох) ба өмнөдийн хаан (Птолемей) хоёрын хоорондын дипломат гэрлэлтийн үед сүйт бүсгүйг өмнөдийн хаан өгсөн бол, Антони (зүүн) ба Октавиан (баруун) хоёрын дипломат гэрлэлтийн үед сүйт бүсгүйг баруун талаас өгсөн. Хоёр дипломат гэрлэлт хоёулаа бүтэлгүйтэж, эцэст нь охин эсвэл эгчийг өгсөн тал гэрээг зөрчсөн хүчийг ялсан юм.
The Testimony of Three
Le Témoignage de Trois
At the end of the Seleucid Empire there was a third treaty where lies were spoke at one table. This occurred in the context of the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BC), when Antiochus III Magnus exploited the weakness of the Ptolemaic Kingdom after Ptolemy IV Philopator’s death in 204 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Ptolemy V) ascended the throne as a child (around age 5–6), leaving Egypt under regents and vulnerable to internal chaos, native revolts, and external threats.
À la fin de l’Empire séleucide, il y eut un troisième traité où des mensonges furent proférés à une même table. Cela se produisit dans le contexte de la Cinquième guerre de Syrie (202–195 av. J.-C.), lorsque Antiochos III le Grand exploita la faiblesse du royaume ptolémaïque après la mort de Ptolémée IV Philopator en 204 av. J.-C. Ptolémée V Épiphane (Ptolémée V) monta sur le trône alors qu’il était enfant (âgé d’environ 5 à 6 ans), laissant l’Égypte sous l’autorité de régents et exposée au chaos intérieur, aux révoltes indigènes et aux menaces extérieures.
Antiochus Magnus had already invaded and seized much of the Ptolemaic territories in Coele-Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor after victories like the Battle of Panium (200 BC). Rather than fully conquering Egypt (which risked Roman intervention, as Rome was pressuring him to stay out of certain areas), he pursued a diplomatic marriage alliance as a “protector” figure. In 197/195 BC, as part of the peace treaty ending the war, Antiochus Magnus betrothed and then married his young daughter Cleopatra I Syra (also called Cleopatra Syra) to the child Ptolemy V (the marriage took place in 193 BC at Raphia; Ptolemy was 16, Cleopatra 10).
ئانطیوخوسِ بزرگ پیشتر، پس از پیروزیهایی چون نبردِ پانیوم (200 ق.م.)، بخشِ بزرگی از سرزمینهای بطلمیوسی را در کُوئلهسوریه، فلسطین، و آسیای صغیر مورد یورش قرار داده و به تصرفِ خود درآورده بود. او بهجای آنکه مصر را بهطور کامل فتح کند ــ که این امر خطرِ مداخلهٔ روم را در پی داشت، زیرا روم او را تحت فشار میگذاشت تا از برخی نواحی دور بماند ــ ائتلافی زناشوییِ دیپلماتیک را در هیئتِ یک چهرهٔ «حامی» دنبال کرد. در 197/195 ق.م.، بهعنوان بخشی از معاهدهٔ صلحی که به جنگ پایان داد، ئانطیوخوسِ بزرگ دخترِ خردسالِ خود، کلئوپاترا یکم سیرا (که کلئوپاترا سیرا نیز نامیده میشود)، را به کودک، بطلمیوس پنجم، نامزد کرد و سپس به ازدواجِ او درآورد (این ازدواج در 193 ق.م. در رافیه انجام گرفت؛ بطلمیوس 16 ساله بود و کلئوپاترا 10 ساله).
This was framed as a generous gesture: Antiochus positioned himself as an ally and “protector” of the young king, securing peace while retaining gains in Asia. The marriage gave him indirect influence over Egypt through his daughter (he hoped she would remain loyal to her Seleucid roots and act as a pro-Syrian voice in the Ptolemaic court). The ploy backfired for Cleopatra sided with her husband and Egypt, not her father, undermining Antiochus’s long-term control. This mirrors the Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) and related to Roman events in several ways.
Ceci fut présenté comme un geste généreux : Antiochus se posa en allié et en « protecteur » du jeune roi, assurant la paix tout en conservant ses acquis en Asie. Le mariage lui donna une influence indirecte sur l’Égypte par l’intermédiaire de sa fille (il espérait qu’elle demeurerait fidèle à ses racines séleucides et agirait comme une voix favorable à la Syrie à la cour ptolémaïque). Le stratagème se retourna contre lui, car Cléopâtre prit le parti de son mari et de l’Égypte, et non de son père, compromettant ainsi le contrôle à long terme d’Antiochus. Cela fait écho au pacte de Brundisium (40 av. J.-C.) et se rattache à plusieurs égards aux événements romains.
Just as Antony married Octavia (sister of Octavian) to bind rival powers after near-war, Antiochus used his daughter’s marriage to Ptolemy V to formalize a temporary peace and territorial division (Seleucids kept conquests in the north, Ptolemy retained Egypt the south).
De même qu’Antoine épousa Octavie (sœur d’Octavien) afin de lier des puissances rivales après une quasi-guerre, de même Antiochus se servit du mariage de sa fille avec Ptolémée V pour officialiser une paix temporaire et un partage territorial (les Séleucides conservaient leurs conquêtes au nord, tandis que Ptolémée gardait l’Égypte au sud).
Antiochus acted as a de facto guardian over the child-king Ptolemy V (via family ties), similar to how Octavian (and the Triumvirate) positioned themselves amid power vacuums or rivalries. In both cases, the “stronger” figure (Antiochus/Octavian) sought leverage over a vulnerable counterpart through kinship. Both arrangements brought short-term stability but ‘did not prosper’ long-term due to underlying distrust—Cleopatra favored Egypt (undermining Antiochus), while Antony’s eastern focus (Cleopatra VII) led to the breakdown with Octavian.
Antiochus agitte quasi de facto guardian super le rege-infant Ptolemaeo V (per ligamines familial), simil al maniera in que Octaviano (e le Triumvirato) se positionava in medios de vacuos de poter o rivalitates. In ambes casos, le figura “plus forte” (Antiochus/Octaviano) cercava obter influentia super un contraparte vulnerabile per medio de parentela. Ambes dispositiones apportava stabilitate a breve termino, ma illos ‘non prosperava’ a longe termino a causa del diffidentia subjacente—Cleopatra favoriva Egypto (debilitante Antiochus), durante que le orientation oriental de Antonio (Cleopatra VII) conduceva al ruptura con Octaviano.
Ptolemy V’s minority under regents parallels the instability after Julius Caesar’s death (leading to the Triumvirate’s formation and power struggles). The marriage of Berenice to Antiochus marked the beginning of the Seleucid Empire’s history in Daniel eleven, and the marriage of Antiochus Magnus daughter to the Egyptian child king, marked the ending of the Seleucid Empire. The ending of the marriage of Marc Antony to Octavia marked the ending of the Ptolemaic kingdom. The ending of Judah as God’s covenant people took place at the cross, and that Judean kingdom began with the Maccabees and the league they made with Rome. All of these prophetic lines are represented within the narrative of Daniel chapter eleven, and they all align with the hidden history of verse forty. Beginning in verse five we have the treaty of Berenice, that leads to Antiochus the Great and the treaty of his daughter Cleopatra Syra, that takes place in the history of the Maccabees of verse twenty-three. The Maccabees become part of the line based upon their rebellion against Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the last of the Seleucid Dynasty.
الدوران القَصَريّ لبطليموس الخامس تحت وصاية الأوصياء يوازي حالة الاضطراب التي أعقبت موت يوليوس قيصر، ممّا أفضى إلى قيام الحكم الثلاثي وصراعات السلطة. وكانت زواجة برنيكي من أنطيوخس بداية تاريخ الإمبراطورية السلوقية في دانيال الإصحاح الحادي عشر، كما أنّ زواج ابنة أنطيوخس الكبير من الطفل الملك المصري كان علامة نهاية الإمبراطورية السلوقية. وكان انقضاء زواج مرقس أنطونيوس من أوكتافيا علامة نهاية المملكة البطلمية. أمّا نهاية يهوذا بوصفها شعب عهد الله فقد وقعت عند الصليب، وكانت تلك المملكة اليهودية قد بدأت مع المكابيين ومع الحلف الذي عقدوه مع روما. وكل هذه الخطوط النبوية ممثَّلة في سرد دانيال الإصحاح الحادي عشر، وهي جميعًا تتوافق مع التاريخ الخفي للآية الأربعين. فمنذ الآية الخامسة نجد معاهدة برنيكي، التي تقود إلى أنطيوخس الكبير وإلى معاهدة ابنته كليوباترا السورية، التي تقع في تاريخ المكابيين المذكور في الآية الثالثة والعشرين. وقد صار المكابيون جزءًا من هذا الخط بسبب تمرّدهم على أنطيوخس أبيفانيس، أحد آخر ملوك السلالة السلوقية.
Antiochus Epiphanes is the Antiochus who was in Egypt in 168 BC near Alexandria during the Sixth Syrian War. Antiochus Epiphanes had invaded Egypt and was on the verge of capturing Alexandria. The Ptolemaic rulers appealed to Rome for help. Rome sent Popillius Laenas (with just a small entourage—no army) to deliver an ultimatum from the Senate; Antiochus must immediately withdraw from Egypt and Cyprus, or face war with Rome. When Antiochus received the letter and asked for time to consult his advisors, Popillius—described as stern and imperious—took his walking stick and drew a circle in the sand around the king’s feet. He then declared, “Before you step out of that circle, give me a reply to lay before the Senate.”
Антиох Эпифан — это тот Антиох, который находился в Египте в 168 году до н. э., близ Александрии, во время Шестой Сирийской войны. Антиох Эпифан вторгся в Египет и был уже на пороге взятия Александрии. Птолемеевы правители воззвали к Риму о помощи. Рим послал Попиллия Лената (лишь с небольшою свитою — без войска), чтобы передать ультиматум от Сената: Антиох должен немедленно вывести свои войска из Египта и Кипра, иначе ему предстоит война с Римом. Когда Антиох получил письмо и попросил времени, чтобы посоветоваться со своими советниками, Попиллий, которого описывают как человека сурового и властного, взял свой посох и начертил на песке круг вокруг ног царя. Затем он заявил: «Прежде чем ты выйдешь из этого круга, дай мне ответ, который я мог бы представить Сенату».
The implication was clear; Antiochus could not leave the circle without committing to Rome’s demands—crossing it without agreement would mean war. Stunned and humiliated, Antiochus hesitated briefly but then agreed to comply, withdrew his forces from Egypt, and returned to Syria. This bold act of diplomacy (backed by Rome’s growing reputation for power) forced the retreat without a battle, showcasing Rome’s emerging dominance in the eastern Mediterranean. It’s widely cited as an origin for the phrase “drawing a line in the sand” (though it was literally a circle).
Ang kahuluganan ay maliwanag; si Antiochus ay hindi makalalabas sa bilog nang hindi nagpapasakop sa mga kahilingan ng Roma—ang pagtawid dito nang walang kasunduan ay mangangahulugan ng digmaan. Namangha at napahiya, si Antiochus ay nag-atubili nang sandali ngunit pagkatapos ay pumayag na sumunod, inurong ang kaniyang mga hukbo mula sa Egipto, at nagbalik sa Siria. Ang mapangahas na gawang ito ng diplomasya (na sinang-ayunan ng lumalaking reputasyon ng Roma sa kapangyarihan) ang nagpilit sa pag-urong nang walang labanan, na nagpapakita ng umuusbong na pangingibabaw ng Roma sa silangang Mediteraneo. Ito ay malimit banggitin bilang isang pinagmulan ng pariralang “pagguhit ng isang guhit sa buhangin” (bagaman sa literal ay isang bilog iyon).
Antiochus Epiphanes also became the Protestant understanding of the power that exalts himself, falls and establishes the vision in verse fourteen of Daniel eleven.
Antiokhos Epifanes tou vin osi Protestant konprins long sa paoa we i leftemap hem wan, i foldaon mo i stanemap visen long vas fotin blong Daniel japta ileven.
And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.
又在那些时候，必有许多人起来攻击南方王；你本国中强暴的人也必自高自大，要应验那异象，他们却要败亡。Daniel 11:14.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned 175–164 BC, and was the eighth of thirteen Seleucid kings. He sought to impose Hellenistic culture and unify his empire under Greek religious practices. He plundered the Temple in 169 BC, banned Jewish practices (circumcision, Sabbath observance, Torah study), and forced sacrifices to pagan gods. In December 167 BC he erected a pagan altar (to Zeus) on top of the Jewish altar of burnt offerings in the Temple and sacrificed a pig, along with other profane acts. The desecration was the final straw for observant Jews, who saw it as the ultimate violation of the Temple’s sanctity and God’s law. It sparked immediate resistance when Mattathias (a priest from Modein) refused a Seleucid officer’s order to sacrifice to pagan gods and killed an apostate Jew and the officer, then fled to the hills with his sons (the future Maccabees). This ignited guerrilla warfare and revolt from 167–160 BC which aimed to restore Jewish worship, leading to the rededication of the Temple (Hanukkah) in 164 BC under Judas Maccabeus.
अन्तियोकस चतुर्थ एपिफानेस ने 175–164 ईसा पूर्व तक राज्य किया, और वह सेल्यूसिड राजाओं में तेरह में से आठवाँ था। उसने हेलेनवादी संस्कृति को थोपने और अपने साम्राज्य को यूनानी धार्मिक प्रथाओं के अधीन एकीकृत करने का प्रयास किया। 169 ईसा पूर्व में उसने मन्दिर को लूटा, यहूदी प्रथाओं (खतना, सब्त-पालन, तोराह-अध्ययन) पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाया, और मूर्तिपूजक देवताओं के लिए बलिदान अर्पित करने को बाध्य किया। दिसम्बर 167 ईसा पूर्व में उसने मन्दिर में होमबलि की यहूदी वेदी के ऊपर एक मूर्तिपूजक वेदी (ज़ीउस के लिए) स्थापित की, और अन्य अपवित्र कर्मों के साथ एक सूअर की बलि चढ़ाई। यह अपवित्रीकरण धर्मनिष्ठ यहूदियों के लिए अन्तिम सीमा सिद्ध हुआ, जिन्होंने इसे मन्दिर की पवित्रता और परमेश्वर की व्यवस्था के परम उल्लंघन के रूप में देखा। इससे तत्काल प्रतिरोध भड़क उठा, जब मत्ततियाह (मोदीन का एक याजक) ने मूर्तिपूजक देवताओं के लिए बलि चढ़ाने की सेल्यूसिड अधिकारी की आज्ञा मानने से इन्कार किया, और एक धर्मत्यागी यहूदी तथा उस अधिकारी की हत्या कर दी; फिर वह अपने पुत्रों (भविष्य के मकाबियों) के साथ पहाड़ियों में भाग गया। इससे 167–160 ईसा पूर्व तक चलने वाले छापामार युद्ध और विद्रोह की ज्वाला भड़क उठी, जिसका उद्देश्य यहूदी उपासना की पुनर्स्थापना करना था, और जिसके परिणामस्वरूप 164 ईसा पूर्व में यहूदा मकाबी के अधीन मन्दिर का पुनः समर्पण (हनुक्का) हुआ।
At the beginning and ending of the Seleucid Empire there was a significant treaty represented by a diplomatic marriage that possessed the element of division of either east and west, or north and south. As the Seleucid Empire waned Antiochus Epiphanes becomes the symbol of the rising Roman power, and the focus of the Maccabean’s indignation. Later in history he becomes the counterfeit of the prophetic symbol that establishes the vision. The power in verse twenty-two of chapter eleven is broken when the prince of the covenant was broken.
Na mwanzo na mwisho wa Milki ya Seleuki kulikuwapo mkataba wa maana uliowakilishwa na ndoa ya kidiplomasia iliyokuwa na kipengele cha mgawanyiko wa mashariki na magharibi, au kaskazini na kusini. Milki ya Seleuki ilipokuwa ikidhoofika, Antioko Epifane anakuwa ishara ya mamlaka ya Kirumi iliyokuwa ikiinuka, na kitovu cha ghadhabu ya Wamakabayo. Baadaye katika historia anakuwa bandia ya ishara ya kinabii inayothibitisha maono. Mamlaka katika mstari wa ishirini na mbili wa sura ya kumi na moja huvunjwa wakati mkuu wa agano alipovunjwa.
And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. Daniel 11:22.
Et avec les bras d’un déluge ils seront submergés devant lui, et seront brisés; oui, même le prince de l’alliance. Daniel 11:22.
Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign ended in 164 BC, almost two hundred years before Christ, “the prince of the covenant” was “broken” at the cross. What we wish to note here is that the Seleucid Empire began and ended with a diplomatic treaty marriage where the deceit between the two parties is a matter of the historical record. During the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabean revolt began, which typified the American Revolution. In the history of the Maccabees their struggle to throw off the Seleucid power included a significant treaty with Rome. The verse that identifies the treaty directly identifies Rome as working deceitfully, or telling lies at the treaty table.
Le règne d’Antiochus Épiphane prit fin en 164 av. J.-C., soit près de deux cents ans avant que le Christ, « le prince de l’alliance », ne fût « brisé » à la croix. Ce que nous souhaitons relever ici, c’est que l’Empire séleucide commença et s’acheva par un mariage diplomatique conclu par traité, où la tromperie entre les deux parties est attestée par les documents historiques. Durant le règne d’Antiochus Épiphane, la révolte des Maccabées commença, laquelle préfigurait la Révolution américaine. Dans l’histoire des Maccabées, leur lutte pour secouer la puissance séleucide comprenait un traité important avec Rome. Le verset qui identifie directement ce traité présente également Rome comme agissant avec tromperie, ou proférant des mensonges à la table des négociations.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. Daniel 11:23.
Et après l’alliance conclue avec lui, il agira avec tromperie; car il montera, et deviendra puissant avec peu de gens. Daniel 11:23.
Every prophetic line that precedes the time of the end in verse forty contains a broken treaty. Uriah Smith commenting on verse thirty’s “them that forsake the holy covenant” records the following:
Tout passage prophétique qui précède, au verset quarante, le temps de la fin comporte une alliance rompue. Commentant, au sujet du verset trente, l’expression « ceux qui abandonnent la sainte alliance », Uriah Smith consigne ce qui suit :
“‘Indignation against the covenant;’ that is, the Holy Scriptures, the book of the covenant. A revolution of this nature was accomplished in Rome. The Heruli, Goths, and Vandals, who conquered Rome, embraced the Arian faith, and became enemies of the Catholic Church. It was especially for the purpose of exterminating this heresy that Justinian decreed the pope to be the head of the church and the corrector of heretics. The Bible soon came to be regarded as a dangerous book that should not be read by the common people, but all questions in dispute were to be submitted to the pope. Thus was indignity heaped upon God’s word. And the emperors of Rome, the eastern division of which still continued, had intelligence, or connived with the Church of Rome, which had forsaken the covenant, and constituted the great apostasy, for the purpose of putting down ‘heresy.’ The man of sin was raised to his presumptuous throne by the defeat of the Arian Goths, who then held possession of Rome, in A.D.538.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 281.
«“Embijedha mikangano”; kye kitegeeza, Ebyawandiikibwa Ebitukuvu, ekitabo eky’endagaano. Enkyukakyuka ey’ekika kino yatuukirizibwa mu Rooma. Aba-Heruli, aba-Goth, n’aba-Vandal, abaawangula Rooma, baakwatira ddala okukkiriza okw’Ariyaani, ne bafuuka abalabe b’Eklezia Katolika. Kyali nnyo nnyo olw’ekigendererwa eky’okuzikiriza obukyamu buno Justinian lwe yalagira nti paapa abe omutwe gw’eklezia era omuluŋŋamya w’abakyamu mu ddiini. Bayibuli mangu n’etandika okutunuulirwa ng’ekitabo eky’akabi ekitaasaana kusomebwa bantu ba bulijjo, naye ebibuuzo byonna ebyali mu mpaka ne biteekwa okuleetebwa eri paapa. Bw’atyo ne bakung’aanya okuvumibwa ku Kigambo kya Katonda. Era bakabaka ba Rooma, ekitundu kyayo eky’ebuvanjuba ekyali ekyeyongera okubeerawo, baalina okumanya, oba ne bakwekaana n’Eklezia ya Rooma, eyali eviiridde ku ndagaano, era n’efuuka okujeema okunene, olw’ekigendererwa eky’okumalawo “obukyamu mu ddiini.” Omuntu ow’ekibi yagulumizibwa ku ntebe ye ey’amalala olw’okuwangulwa kw’aba-Goth aba-Ariyaani, abaali mu kiseera ekyo bakyafuga Rooma, mu mwaka gwa Mukama waffe 538.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 281.
Verse five of Daniel eleven identifies the line of history where the king of the south provides a diplomatic bride as a symbol of a treaty that was thereafter broken by the king of the north. The retaliation of the king of the south typified the retaliation of Napoleon’s spiritual king of the south against the papal king of the north in 1798. The broken treaty of verses five through nine typified Napoleon’s broken treaty of Tolentino, which typified Putin’s claim of a broken treaty by NATO. The retaliation of Napoleon typified the retaliation of Putin against the Ukraine in 2014. Verse ten’s retaliation of Antiochus Magnus ending the fourth Syrian War aligns with Napoleon in 1798 and also Putin in 2014. Following verse fifteen’s battle of Panium n 200 BC, Antiochus arranged a diplomatic marriage with the hidden intent of taking Egypt under his command without employing military boots on the ground. Antiochus Magnus throne was passed to his son, who was assassinated which brought Antiochus Magnus’s youngest son, Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne. His actions in implementing Greek customs and religion brought about the Maccabean revolt, that led to the deceitful treaty with Rome in verse twenty-three. Verse twenty-four introduces pagan Rome and identifies Antony and Augustus’s table of lies. In verse thirty pagan Rome enters into dialogue with the papal church, who are noted as them that had broken the holy covenant.
दानीयेल अध्याय ११ का पाँचवाँ पद इतिहास की उस रेखा की पहचान कराता है जहाँ दक्षिण का राजा एक राजनयिक वधू प्रदान करता है, जो उस सन्धि का प्रतीक है जिसे इसके पश्चात उत्तर के राजा ने तोड़ दिया। दक्षिण के राजा की प्रतिशोधात्मक प्रतिक्रिया ने 1798 में उत्तर के पापीय राजा के विरुद्ध नेपोलियन के आध्यात्मिक दक्षिणी राजा की प्रतिशोधात्मक प्रतिक्रिया का पूर्वरूप प्रस्तुत किया। पाँचवें से नौवें पदों की टूटी हुई सन्धि ने नेपोलियन की टूटी हुई टोलेंटिनो की सन्धि का पूर्वरूप प्रस्तुत किया, जिसने नाटो द्वारा टूटी हुई सन्धि के विषय में पुतिन के दावे का पूर्वरूप प्रस्तुत किया। नेपोलियन की प्रतिशोधात्मक प्रतिक्रिया ने 2014 में यूक्रेन के विरुद्ध पुतिन की प्रतिशोधात्मक प्रतिक्रिया का पूर्वरूप प्रस्तुत किया। दसवें पद में अन्तियोकुस मैग्नुस की प्रतिशोधात्मक प्रतिक्रिया, जिसने चौथे सीरियाई युद्ध का अंत किया, 1798 के नेपोलियन के साथ, और साथ ही 2014 के पुतिन के साथ भी, समरूप ठहरती है। पद पंद्रह में 200 ईसा पूर्व पानियम के युद्ध के पश्चात, अन्तियोकुस ने एक राजनयिक विवाह की व्यवस्था इस गुप्त अभिप्राय से की कि वह मिस्र को बिना स्थलीय सैनिक तैनात किए अपने अधीन कर ले। अन्तियोकुस मैग्नुस का सिंहासन उसके पुत्र को प्राप्त हुआ, जिसकी हत्या कर दी गई, और इसके परिणामस्वरूप अन्तियोकुस मैग्नुस का सबसे छोटा पुत्र, अन्तियोकुस एपिफेनीस, सिंहासन पर आया। यूनानी रीति-रिवाजों और धर्म को लागू करने में उसके कार्यों ने मक्काबी विद्रोह को जन्म दिया, जिसने तेइसवें पद में रोम के साथ उस कपटपूर्ण सन्धि तक पहुँचाया। चौबीसवाँ पद मूर्तिपूजक रोम का परिचय कराता है और अन्तोनी तथा ऑगस्टस की झूठ की मेज़ की पहचान कराता है। तीसवें पद में मूर्तिपूजक रोम पापीय कलीसिया के साथ संवाद में प्रवेश करता है, जिनके विषय में कहा गया है कि वे पवित्र वाचा को तोड़नेवाले थे।
Verses twenty-four to thirty is the testimony of pagan Rome and verses thirty-one to forty provide the testimony of papal Rome. Every line of Daniel eleven verse one on through verse forty represents a line of prophecy that is applied in the hidden history of verse forty. The line of the Seleucid kingdom, the line of the Ptolemaic kingdom, the line of the Judean kingdom of the Maccabees, the line of pagan Rome and the line of papal Rome all illustrate the history of 1989 unto the Sunday law. Each of those lines identify a broken treaty as a major element of the history.
Les versets vingt-quatre à trente constituent le témoignage de la Rome païenne, et les versets trente et un à quarante fournissent le témoignage de la Rome papale. Chaque ligne de Daniel onze, depuis le verset un jusqu’au verset quarante, représente une ligne de prophétie qui est appliquée dans l’histoire cachée du verset quarante. La ligne du royaume séleucide, la ligne du royaume ptolémaïque, la ligne du royaume judéen des Maccabées, la ligne de la Rome païenne et la ligne de la Rome papale illustrent toutes l’histoire de 1989 jusqu’à la loi du dimanche. Chacune de ces lignes identifie un traité rompu comme un élément majeur de cette histoire.
It is Rome that establishes the vision of Daniel eleven, and both pagan and papal Rome’s prophetic treaties of deceit are marked as progressive and as occurring before Rome ruled supremely for their respective and distinct prophetic periods. Both powers marked the beginning of the prophetic period of supremacy as beginning when their third obstacle was overcome. Before the soon coming Sunday law in the United States there will be a treaty of deceit between two powers. Four times the two powers have been the kings of the south and the north, once between the glorious land of Judah and Rome, once between two parts of the Roman triumvirate and once between pagan and papal Rome. In both deceitful treaties concerning Rome it amounted to a treaty between one half of the Roman empire, whether Antony of the east, Augustus of the west, or pagan Rome of the east and papal Rome of the west. Four treaties of deceit between the kings of the north and south, two between the kings of the east and west and one between the soon-to-be king of the north and the glorious land.
रोम ही दानिय्येल अध्याय ११ के दर्शन की स्थापना करता है, और मूर्तिपूजक तथा पोपीय—दोनों प्रकार की रोम की छल की भविष्यसूचक संधियाँ क्रमिक रूप से चिह्नित की गई हैं तथा इस रूप में भी कि वे उस समय से पहले घटीं जब रोम ने अपने-अपने पृथक और विशिष्ट भविष्यसूचक कालों के लिए सर्वोच्च शासन किया। दोनों शक्तियों ने प्रभुत्व के भविष्यसूचक काल के आरम्भ को उस समय से चिह्नित किया जब उनकी तीसरी बाधा दूर कर दी गई। संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में शीघ्र आने वाले रविवार-विधान से पूर्व दो शक्तियों के बीच छल की एक संधि होगी। चार बार ये दो शक्तियाँ दक्षिण और उत्तर के राजा रही हैं—एक बार यहूदा के मनोहर देश और रोम के बीच, एक बार रोमी त्रिमूर्व शासन के दो भागों के बीच, और एक बार मूर्तिपूजक रोम तथा पोपीय रोम के बीच। रोम से सम्बन्धित दोनों छलपूर्ण संधियों में यह वस्तुतः रोमी साम्राज्य के एक आधे और दूसरे आधे के बीच की संधि थी—चाहे वह पूर्व का ऐण्टनी और पश्चिम का ऑगस्टस हो, अथवा पूर्व का मूर्तिपूजक रोम और पश्चिम का पोपीय रोम। उत्तर और दक्षिण के राजाओं के बीच छल की चार संधियाँ; उनमें से दो पूर्व और पश्चिम के राजाओं के बीच, और एक उस राजा के बीच जो शीघ्र ही उत्तर का राजा होने वाला है और मनोहर देश के बीच।
This concludes our initial presentation of the book of Daniel. The Panium series represents the conclusion of the series on the book of Daniel, which is the introduction to the hidden history of verse forty which we will continue to consider in the next article.
Ací se conclui noŝa prezentaĵo inizial del libro de Daniel. La serie de Panium representa la conclușion de la serie sur el libro de Daniel, la cual es la introdușion a la historia escondida del versículo cuarenta, la cual continuaremos considerando en el próximo artículo.