We will now address some of the implications of verse twelve of Daniel eleven, and thereafter, bring the three lines of “250” years into the history of verses eleven through fifteen, that was fulfilled at the battle of Panium in 200 BC. The line of “250” years that began in 457 BC ends in 207 BC in the middle of the period that begins with the battle of Raphia and ends with the battle of Panium. The “250” years in the line of Nero ends with the three-step history of Constantine, represented by the years 313, 321 and 330. The “250” years of the United States ends on July 4, 2026.

Koulye a, nou pral egzamine kèk nan enplikasyon vèsè douz nan Danyèl onz la, epi apre sa, nou pral entegre twa liy “250” ane yo nan istwa vèsè onz rive kenz yo, ki te akonpli nan batay Panyòm nan an 200 av. J.-K. Liy “250” ane ki te kòmanse an 457 av. J.-K. fini an 207 av. J.-K., nan mitan peryòd ki kòmanse ak batay Rafia a epi ki fini ak batay Panyòm nan. “250” ane yo nan liy Neron an fini ak istwa twa etap Konstanten an, ki reprezante pa ane 313, 321 ak 330 yo. “250” ane Etazini yo fini 4 jiyè 2026.

Nero’s line represents the history of the image of the beast testing time, first in the United States, and then in the world. The line of 457 BC places Trump at a midpoint militarily between two battles. The period that extends from 1776 also marks a midpoint for Trump’s final presidency. In order to place these lines in their proper place we will first address verse twelve, and the demise of Russia and Putin. Then the three lines of “250” years, then the line of the Hasmonean Dynasty. With those lines in place, we will place Peter in alignment with Panium. When those lines are in place we should be able to recognize how the message of July 18, 2020 is to be corrected and proclaimed, and that it is the message of the book of Joel.

Liy Neron an reprezante istwa tan eprèv imaj bèt la, dabò Ozetazini, epi answit nan lemonn. Liy 457 anvan Jezikri a mete Trump nan yon mitan, sou plan militè, ant de batay. Peryòd ki pwolonje depi 1776 la make tou yon mitan pou dènye prezidans Trump la. Pou mete liy sa yo nan plas ki apwopriye yo, n ap adrese an premye vèsè douz la, ansanm ak disparisyon Larisi ak Putin. Apre sa, twa liy “250” ane yo, epi liy Dinasti Asmone an. Lè liy sa yo fin tabli, n ap mete Pyè an aliyans ak Panium. Lè liy sa yo an plas, nou ta dwe kapab rekonèt kijan mesaj 18 Jiyè 2020 la dwe korije epi pwoklame, e ke li se mesaj liv Joèl la.

King Uzziah of Judah & Ptolemy King of Egypt

Wa Ouzya, wa Jida, ak Ptolome, wa Ejip la

The history that fulfilled verse eleven at the battle of Raphia aligns with the history of king Uzziah. When Isaiah is purified and empowered to proclaim the message of the latter rain, his calling came in the year that Uzziah died.

Istwa ki te akonpli vèsè onz la nan batay Rafia a aliyen ak istwa wa Ozyas. Lè Ezayi pirifye epi li resevwa pouvwa pou l pwoklame mesaj lapli dèyè a, apèl li a te vini nan ane Ozyas te mouri a.

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Isaiah 6:1.

Nan ane wa Ouzya, wa peyi Jida a, te mouri a, mwen te wè Senyè a chita sou yon twòn, byen wo e leve anlè, epi lob rad li te plen tanp lan. Ezayi 6:1.

Uzziah’s death was preceded by the rebellion he manifested that paralleled and aligned with the rebellion of Ptolemy just after the victory at the battle of Raphia. Uzziah and Ptolemy are symbols of a southern king whose heart has been lifted up, who rebel by seeking to combining their state authority with church authority. When Uzziah attempted to combine church and state, the leprosy on his forehead typified the mark of the beast.

Lanmò Ozyas te vini apre rebelyon li te manifeste a, ki te koresponn ak rebelyon Ptolemè a epi ki te aliyen avèk li, tousuit apre viktwa a nan batay Rafya a. Ozyas ak Ptolemè se senbòl yon wa nan sid ki gen kè li leve anwo, ki rebèl lè yo chèche mete ansanm otorite leta yo ak otorite legliz la. Lè Ozyas te eseye mete legliz ak leta ansanm, lèp ki te sou fwon li a te prefigire mak bèt la.

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Revelation 14:9–11.

Apre yo, twazyèm zanj lan swiv yo, li t ap di byen fò: Si yon moun adore bèt la ak estati li, epi li resevwa mak li sou fwon li oswa sou men li, menm moun sa a va bwè diven kòlè Bondye a, ki vide san melanj nan gode endiyasyon li a; epi y ap tòtire li ak dife ak souf devan zanj sen yo, ak devan Ti Mouton an. Epi lafimen touman yo ap monte pou tout tan ak tout tan; epi yo pa gen okenn repo ni lajounen ni lannuit, sa yo ki adore bèt la ak estati li, ak tout moun ki resevwa mak non li. Revelasyon 14:9–11.

Uzziah then represents a progressive death from the time of his rebellious attempt to combine church and state. He then represents a lame-duck co-regency with his son for eleven years. Uzziah lived for eleven years after his rebellion. The beginning of his rebellion symbolizes the Sunday law, where church and state are combined and the mark of the beast is enforced. Eleven years later he died, representing the end of his reign as king of the southern kingdom of Judah, which was the glorious land, which is the United States.

Ozyas la, alò, reprezante yon lanmò pwogresif depi lè li te fè tantativ rebèl li a pou l melanje legliz ak leta. Apre sa, li reprezante yon ko-rejans san otorite reyèl ansanm ak pitit gason li pandan onz ane. Ozyas te viv pandan onz ane apre rebelyon li an. Kòmansman rebelyon li an senbolize lwa dimanch lan, kote legliz ak leta ini ansanm epi yo fè respekte mak bèt la. Onz ane apre, li mouri, sa ki reprezante fen reny li kòm wa wayòm sid Jida a, ki te peyi bèl pouvwa a, ki se Etazini.

In prophetic relation to Ptolemy, Uzziah represents Judah, the glorious land and apostate Protestantism, whereas; Ptolemy represents Egypt, which is the dragon power, whose religion is spiritualism. When the two kings are considered as parallel lines, Uzziah ceases to be an illustration of the glorious land and together they become a symbol of two nations. Egypt and Judah are symbols of the religions of spiritualism and apostate Protestantism. They are a symbol of the state and the church. The statecraft and the churchcraft they represent when they are aligned as one symbol contain two nations, as was the Medes and Persians, as was France’s Egypt and Sodom, as is the United States Republican and Protestant horns, as were the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah, as well as pagan Rome and papal Rome. As a symbol of two kingdoms, they are prophetically tied together by the temple in Jerusalem where both Uzziah and Ptolemy sought to sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. Two nations who both rebel at the same sanctuary.

Nan relasyon pwofetik ak Ptolemi, Ozyas reprezante Jida, peyi glwa a ak pwotestantis aposta a, tandiske Ptolemi reprezante Lejip, ki se pouvwa dragon an, relijyon li se espirityalis. Lè yo konsidere de wa yo kòm liy paralèl, Ozyas sispann sèvi kòm yon ilistrasyon peyi glwa a, epi ansanm yo vin tounen yon senbòl de nasyon. Lejip ak Jida se senbòl relijyon espirityalis ak pwotestantis aposta a. Yo se yon senbòl Leta a ak legliz la. Politik Leta ak politik legliz la yo reprezante, lè yo aliyen kòm yon sèl senbòl, gen ladan yo de nasyon, menm jan ak Mèd ak Pès yo, menm jan ak Lejip ak Sodòm Lafrans lan, menm jan ak kòn Repibliken ak Pwotestan Etazini yo, menm jan ak wayòm nò ak wayòm sid Izrayèl ak Jida yo, menm jan tou ak Wòm payen ak Wòm papal. Antanke yon senbòl de wayòm, yo mare ansanm pwofetikman pa tanp ki Jerizalèm nan, kote ni Ozyas ni Ptolemi te chèche ofri sakrifis nan tanp ki Jerizalèm nan. De nasyon ki toulède ap fè rebelyon nan menm tanp lan.

It is important to notice that the rebellion of both kings was in relation to the temple at Jerusalem, which is a symbol of the temple where Daniel saw Christ in chapter ten. Both these king’s histories align at the Ukrainian War, and in so doing they begin their testimony in 2014. They both were lifted up with military victories represented by the battle of Raphia in verse eleven. Raphia marks the borderland of the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy and the threefold union of the Sunday law. It is also the border of the transition of the church militant unto the church triumphant.

Li enpòtan pou remake ke rebelyon toude wa yo te an rapò ak tanp ki Jerizalèm nan, ki se yon senbòl tanp kote Danyèl te wè Kris la nan chapit dis. Istwa toude wa sa yo aliyen nan Lagè Ikrèn nan, epi lè yo fè sa, yo kòmanse temwayaj yo an 2014. Toude te leve anlè pa viktwa militè ki reprezante pa batay Rafia a nan vèsè onz la. Rafia make fwontyè sizyèm wayòm pwofesi biblik la ansanm ak inyon twa fwa a nan lwa dimanch lan. Li se tou fwontyè tranzisyon legliz militan an pou rive nan legliz triyonfan an.

After 2014, the richest king announced his intention to run for the presidency in 2015. In 2020 the richest king, representing the Republican horn received its deadly wound that would later be healed. In 2022 the Ukrainian War escalated. Trump then returned in fulfillment of verse thirteen, in the election of 2024. In July of 2023, a voice in the wilderness was sounded. December 31, 2023 the Protestant horn was resurrected, as was the Republican horn in the election of 2024, when Trump returned and then in 2025 the foundation test ended with the arrival of the temple test.

Apre 2014, wa ki te pi rich la te anonse entansyon li pou l kandida pou prezidans lan an 2015. An 2020, wa ki te pi rich la, ki reprezante kòn Repibliken an, te resevwa blesi mòtèl li a, ki t ap geri pita. An 2022, lagè Ikrèn nan te vin pi grav. Apre sa, Trump te retounen nan akonplisman vèsè trèz la, nan eleksyon 2024 la. Nan mwa Jiyè 2023, yo te fè tande yon vwa nan dezè a. Le 31 desanm 2023, kòn Pwotestan an te resisite, menm jan ak kòn Repibliken an nan eleksyon 2024 la, lè Trump te retounen; epi answit an 2025, tès fondasyon an te fini avèk arive tès tanp lan.

1989

१९८९

The truths which were unsealed in 1989 was twofold. The prophetic parallels of the reform movements and the last six verses of Daniel eleven were unsealed at the same time. There are certain prophetic rules that were employed to establish the initial message of verse forty. Some of those very truths are now the key to the hidden history of the very same verse where those prophetic gems were discovered. I’ll give you an example.

Verite ki te debloke an 1989 yo te genyen de aspè. Paralèl pwofetik mouvman refòm yo ak sis dènye vèsè Dànyèl onz la te debloke an menm tan. Gen sèten règ pwofetik ki te sèvi pou tabli mesaj inisyal vèsè karant lan. Kèk nan menm verite sa yo kounye a se kle pou istwa kache menm vèsè sa a kote bijou pwofetik sa yo te dekouvri. M ap ba nou yon egzanp.

In 1989, there was no unified understanding in Adventism as to what the last six verses of Daniel represented. That lack of unification was twofold. There was no consensus of the meaning of the verses. Those who professed to have understanding of the verses presented human ideas mixed the theology of apostate Protestantism and Catholicism, the birthright heritage they received from their forefathers of the rebellion of 1863, when they fulfilled the role of the disobedient prophet at Jeroboam’s foundational rebellion. Those individual ideas of what the verses were private interpretations, at best. Their ideas of the verses were either contradictory to basic prophetic application, and often contrary to the very premise they themselves identified of the verses.

An 1989, pa t gen okenn konpreyansyon inifye nan mitan Advantis yo konsènan sa sis dènye vèsè nan Danyèl la te reprezante. Mank inifikasyon sa a te genyen de aspè. Pa t gen okenn konsansis sou siyifikasyon vèsè sa yo. Moun ki te deklare yo te gen konpreyansyon sou vèsè sa yo te prezante lide imen melanje ak teyoloji Pwotestantis aposta ak Katolik, eritaj dwa nesans yo te resevwa nan men zansèt yo nan rebelyon 1863 la, lè yo te akonpli wòl pwofèt dezobeyisan an nan rebelyon fondamantal Jewobowam nan. Lide patikilye sa yo sou sa vèsè yo te ye te, nan pi bon ka a, entèpretasyon prive. Lide yo sou vèsè sa yo te swa kontradiktwa ak aplikasyon pwofetik debaz la, e souvan yo te opoze ak menm premis yo menm yo te idantifye konsènan vèsè sa yo.

What we saw in the verses was a consistent understanding of all six verses. It was the consistency of the message we saw that encouraged me to present my understanding, even when I knew all of Adventism rejected what I understood. What we understood of those verses was published first in 1996, and the understanding there set forth has only grown stronger as time has marched out over thirty years!

Sa nou te wè nan vèsè yo se te yon konpreyansyon ki te menm jan an pou tout sis vèsè yo. Se te konsistans mesaj nou te wè a ki te ankouraje m pou m prezante konpreyansyon pa m, menm lè m te konnen tout Advantis la te rejte sa m te konprann nan. Sa nou te konprann nan vèsè sa yo te pibliye pou premye fwa an 1996, e konpreyansyon yo te mete devan la a pa fè anyen lòt pase vin pi solid toujou pandan tan an ap mache sou plis pase trant ane!

If you consider the very first reference in the magazine The Time of the End, you find Testimonies, volume 9, page 11. Five years before 9/11, the magazine starts with 9/11. One of those understandings that encouraged me was in understanding that at “the time of the end” in verse forty, the kings of the north and south were spiritual, not literal powers. At that time, I already knew that Sister White said that the books of Daniel and Revelation are the same book, and that the same line of prophecy that is in Daniel, is taken up by John in the Revelation. I had found that in Revelation eleven, which was fulfilled in the history surrounding the time of the end in 1798; Sister White’s commentary upon the chapter clearly teaches that France was spiritual Egypt, and she was just as clear that in Revelation seventeen, the whore upon the beast was spiritual Babylon.

Si vous considérez la toute première référence dans le magazine The Time of the End, vous y trouvez Testimonies, volume 9, page 11. Cinq ans avant le 11 septembre, le magazine commence par 9/11. L’une des compréhensions qui m’ont encouragé fut de saisir qu’« au temps de la fin », au verset quarante, les rois du nord et du sud étaient des puissances spirituelles, et non littérales. À cette époque, je savais déjà que Sister White avait dit que les livres de Daniel et de l’Apocalypse sont un seul et même livre, et que la même ligne de prophétie qui se trouve dans Daniel est reprise par Jean dans l’Apocalypse. J’avais découvert que dans Apocalypse 11, qui s’est accompli dans l’histoire entourant le temps de la fin en 1798, le commentaire de Sister White sur ce chapitre enseigne clairement que la France était l’Égypte spirituelle, et elle était tout aussi explicite en ce qui concerne Apocalypse 17, où la prostituée assise sur la bête était Babylone spirituelle.

Sister White’s identification of those two powers is in The Great Controversy, and those comments tie together John and Daniel’s testimony. The definition of the king of the south in Daniel chapter eleven is the power that controls Egypt, and the king of the north is the power who controls Babylon. When the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy worked in tandem to establish a truth by bringing Daniel and Revelation together to prove the point, was something I could never surrender to any misguided theologian, or misguided self-appointed leader of a self-supporting ministry.

Idantifikasyon Sè White fè sou de pisans sa yo twouve l nan *The Great Controversy*, e kòmantè sa yo mare ansanm temwayaj Jan ak Danyèl. Definisyon wa sid la nan Danyèl chapit onz lan se pisans ki kontwole Ejip, e wa nò a se pisans ki kontwole Babilòn. Lè Bib la ak Lespri Pwofesi a te travay ansanm pou tabli yon verite lè yo te mete Danyèl ak Revelasyon ansanm pou pwouve pwen an, se te yon bagay mwen pa t janm kapab remèt bay okenn teyolojyen ki egare, ni bay okenn chèf pwoklame tèt li ki egare nan yon ministè endepandan.

To understand Ptolemy and Uzziah as symbols of the battle of Raphia and the fallout that occurs after their hearts are lifted up, is to be governed by the fact that Ptolemy represents the dragon power who defeats the proxy power of Rome, only to lose to the proxy power who had defeated Ptolemy in verse ten and in 1989. The historical distinctions are purposeful and important.

Pou konprann Ptolemais ak Ozyas kòm senbòl batay Rafya a ak konsekans ki vini apre kè yo fin leve nan lògèy, se pou yo dirije nou pa lefèt ke Ptolemais reprezante pouvwa dragon an ki bat pouvwa prokiratè Wòm nan, sèlman pou l pèdi devan pouvwa prokiratè ki te bat Ptolemais nan vèsè dis la ak an 1989. Diferans istorik yo fèt avèk entansyon e yo enpòtan.

Uzziah receives the mark of the beast when he attempts to bring church and state together, Uzziah is the glorious land, and the glorious land was a major argument in the beginning of the message in 1989. Is the glorious land the United States, or is it the Seventh-day Adventist church? Those who then held to the erroneous idea that the glorious land is the Adventist church, along with any who still do—would argue that the glorious holy mountain of verse forty-five was clearly God’s church, so that meant to them, that a mountain and a land were the same symbol. Standard human reasoning, I suppose.

Ozyas resevwa mak bèt la lè li eseye mete legliz ak leta ansanm; Ozyas se bèl peyi a, epi bèl peyi a te yon gwo agiman nan kòmansman mesaj la an 1989. Èske bèl peyi a se Etazini, oswa èske se legliz Advantis Setyèm Jou a? Moun ki, lè sa a, te soutni lide erone a ke bèl peyi a se legliz Advantis la, ansanm ak nenpòt lòt ki toujou fè sa—ta plede di ke bèl mòn sen an nan vèsè karantsenk la te klèman legliz Bondye a; konsa sa te vle di pou yo ke yon mòn ak yon peyi se te menm senbòl la. Rezonman nòmal lèzòm, mwen sipoze.

Uzziah is the glorious land, and Ptolemy is Egypt. Uzziah, as the glorious land has the two horns of Protestantism and Republicanism. The political manifestation of Ptolemy is communism and its varied forms, and the religious manifestation of Ptolemy is spiritualism and its varied forms. A characteristic of the dragon power is that it is a confederacy, but the false prophet, who is the glorious land is a single nation with two horns.

Ozyas se peyi gloriye a, epi Ptoleme se Lejip. Ozyas, antanke peyi gloriye a, gen de kòn Pwotestantis ak Repiblikanis. Manifestasyon politik Ptoleme a se kominis ak divès fòm li yo, epi manifestasyon relijye Ptoleme a se espirityalis ak divès fòm li yo. Youn nan karakteristik pouvwa dragon an se ke li se yon konfederasyon, men fo pwofèt la, ki se peyi gloriye a, se yon sèl nasyon ki gen de kòn.

Daniel eleven verse forty established that the United States was the proxy power of the papacy when the Soviet Union was swept away in 1989. This truth aligns with the role of the two-horned earth beast of Revelation thirteen, for the two books are the same.

Danyèl onz vèsè karant te etabli ke Etazini te pouvwa pa pwokirasyon papote a lè Inyon Sovyetik te baleye ale an 1989. Verite sa a ann amoni ak wòl bèt tè a ki gen de kòn nan Revelasyon trèz, paske de liv yo se menm lan.

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Revelation 13:11, 12.

Epi mwen wè yon lòt bèt k ap monte soti nan tè a; li te gen de kòn tankou yon ti mouton, epi li te pale tankou yon dragon. Li egzèse tout pouvwa premye bèt la devan li, epi li fè tè a ak moun ki rete sou li yo adore premye bèt la, bèt ki te gen blesi mòtèl li a geri. Revelasyon 13:11, 12.

Revelation thirteen identifies the United States as the proxy power of the Papacy, for the earth beast “exerciseth al the power of the” beast out of the sea that came “before him.” In verse two the dragon of pagan Rome had given the Papacy its power, seat and great authority. The word translated as “power” means power, but in verse twelve it is a different word that is translated as “power,” meaning “delegated authority.”

Revelasyon trèz idantifye Etazini kòm pouvwa pwoksi Papote a, paske bèt ki soti sou tè a “egzèse tout pouvwa” bèt ki soti nan lanmè a, ki te vini “devan li.” Nan vèsè de a, dragon lavil Wòm payen an te bay Papote a pouvwa li, twòn li ak gwo otorite li. Mo yo tradui kòm “pouvwa” a vle di pouvwa, men nan vèsè douz la se yon lòt mo yo tradui kòm “pouvwa,” ki vle di “otorite delege.”

The United States is the proxy power of the papacy, who has been typified by pagan Rome, who gave its military and economic support to the papacy as set forth in verse two. In doing so pagan Rome typified the United States who would also give its “chariots, ships and horsemen” to do the dirty-work of the papal power.

Etazini se pouvwa pwokirasyon papote a, li menm ki te prefigire pa Wòm payen an, ki te bay papote a soutyen militè ak ekonomik li, jan sa tabli nan vèsè de a. Lè li te fè sa, Wòm payen an te prefigire Etazini, ki t ap bay tou “cha lagè li yo, bato li yo ak kavalye li yo” pou fè move zèv pouvwa papal la.

When the three battles of verse ten, eleven and fifteen were fulfilled in history, Antiochus Magnus was at each battle. This fact identifies that the power represented in the three battles is a proxy power of the beast, for it is always Antiochus, and Antiochus in 1989 was the proxy power of the United States.

Lè twa batay vèsè dis, onz, ak kenz yo te akonpli nan listwa, Antiochus Magnus te prezan nan chak batay. Reyalite sa a idantifye ke pouvwa ki reprezante nan twa batay sa yo se yon pouvwa pwokirasyon bèt la, paske se toujou Antiochus; epi Antiochus an 1989 te pouvwa pwokirasyon Etazini.

The three battles that lead to the Sunday law of verse sixteen bear the signature of Alpha and Omega, and also the structure of truth. It is the United States in the first battle and the third battle, identifying an alpha and omega in the first and last battle. The three battles that lead to the Sunday law of verse sixteen also bear the signature of truth. The proxy power of Nazi Ukraine is the battle in the middle that represents the rebellion of the middle waymark in the framework of the Hebrew word truth. The three battles represent 1989 unto the Sunday law, which means they represent the “hidden history” of verse forty.

Twa lagè ki mennen nan lwa dimanch vèsè sèz la pote siyati Alfa ak Omega, epi yo pote tou estrikti verite a. Se Etazini ki parèt nan premye lagè a ak nan twazyèm lagè a, sa ki idantifye yon alfa ak omega nan premye ak dènye lagè a. Twa lagè ki mennen nan lwa dimanch vèsè sèz la pote siyati verite a tou. Pouvwa pwokirasyon Almay Nazi nan Ikrèn se lagè ki nan mitan an, ki reprezante rebelyon siy mitan an nan kad mo ebre pou verite a. Twa lagè yo reprezante 1989 jouk rive nan lwa dimanch lan, sa vle di yo reprezante “istwa kache” vèsè karant lan.

Verse eleven of Revelation eleven identifies 2023, as the point where both horns are resurrected. Daniel eleven, verse eleven identifies the very same period of history. The internal line of prophecy and the external line of prophecy align in 2023. The internal line is the “thing” Daniel understood and the external line is the “vision” he understood.

Vèsè onz nan Revelasyon onz idantifye ane 2023 kòm pwen kote toude kòn yo resisite. Danyèl onz, vèsè onz, idantifye menm peryòd istwa sa a. Liy pwofesi entèn nan ak liy pwofesi ekstèn nan aliyen an 2023. Liy entèn nan se “bagay” Danyèl te konprann nan, epi liy ekstèn nan se “vizyon” li te konprann nan.

The temple test that Daniel illustrates began at the twenty-second day, and twenty-two years after 9/11, which is the point that Isaiah entered the temple brings you to 2023. Isaiah identifies the death of Uzziah after living with leprosy for eleven years at 9/11. The work of erecting the temple consists of first laying the foundation, and thereafter erecting the temple and placing the cap stone which then leads to the third litmus test, represented by the feast of trumpets in the line of Leviticus twenty-three. The internal work of the everlasting gospel is accomplished during the history of the external line. In verse eleven Putin has been typified by Ptolemy, and king Uzziah provides a second witness to the illustration of the king of the south who is lifted up through military success, who thereafter attempts to insert themselves into the realm of religion.

Tès tanp lan, ke Danyèl ilistre a, te kòmanse nan vennndezyèm jou a; epi vennnde zan apre 9/11, ki se pwen kote Ezayi te antre nan tanp lan, mennen ou rive nan 2023. Ezayi idantifye lanmò Ozyas, apre li te fin viv ak lalèp pandan onz ane, nan 9/11. Travay pou leve tanp lan genyen ladan l an premye poze fondasyon an, epi apre sa bati tanp lan epi mete wòch tèt la, sa ki ansuit mennen nan twazyèm tès litmis la, ki reprezante pa fèt twonpèt yo sou liy Levitik vennntwa a. Travay entèn levanjil etènèl la akonpli pandan istwa liy ekstèn nan. Nan vèsè onz, Putin te tipifye pa Ptolemey, epi wa Ozyas bay yon dezyèm temwen pou ilistrasyon wa sid la, ki leve anlè atravè siksè militè, epi ki apre sa eseye antre nan domèn relijyon an.

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: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it. Daniel 11:11, 12.

E wa sid la pral move ak kòlè, epi l ap sòti pou l goumen avè l, wi, ak wa nò a; epi li pral rasanble yon gwo foul; men foul la pral lage nan men li. E lè li fin wete foul la, kè li pral leve byen wo; epi li pral fè anpil dizèn milye tonbe; men sa p ap ba li fòs. Danyèl 11:11, 12.

Uriah Smith addresses Ptolemy Philopator’s history and his attempt to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem’s temple.

Ourya Smith pale sou istwa Ptolome Filopatò a ak tantativ li te fè pou ofri sakrifis nan tanp Jerizalèm nan.

“Ptolemy lacked the prudence to make a good use of his victory. Had he followed up his success, he would probably have become master of the whole kingdom of Antiochus; but content with making only a few menaces and a few threats, he made peace that he might be able to give himself up to the uninterrupted and uncontrolled indulgence of his brutish passions. Thus, having conquered his enemies, he was overcome by his vices, and, forgetful of the great name which he might have established, he spent his time in feasting and lewdness.

“Ptolome pa t gen sajès ki nesesè pou l te byen sèvi ak viktwa li a. Si li te pouswiv siksè li a, li t ap sanble vin mèt tout wayòm Antiòk la; men, li te kontante l ak kèk menas sèlman ak kèk pwomès menasan, epi li te fè lapè pou l te ka lage tèt li san enteripsyon ni kontwòl nan satisfaksyon pasyon brital li yo. Konsa, apre li te fin venk ènmi li yo, vis li yo te venk li; e, bliye gran non li te kapab tabli a, li te pase tan li nan banbòch ak dezòd.”

“His heart was lifted up by his success, but he was far from being strengthened by it; for the inglorious use he made of it caused his own subjects to rebel against him. But the lifting up of his heart was more especially manifested in his transactions with the Jews. Coming to Jerusalem, he there offered sacrifices, and was very desirous of entering into the most holy place of the temple, contrary to the law and religion of that place; but being, though with great difficulty, restrained, he left the place burning with anger against the whole nation of the Jews, and immediately commenced against them a terrible and relentless persecution. In Alexandria, where the Jews had resided since the days of Alexander, and enjoyed the privileges of the most favored citizens, forty thousand according to Eusebius, sixty thousand according to Jerome, were slain in this persecution. The rebellion of the Egyptians, and the massacre of the Jews, certainly were not calculated to strengthen him in his kingdom, but were sufficient rather almost totally to ruin it.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 254.

“Kè li te leve akoz siksè li, men sa pa t fè l vin pi fò ditou; paske fason san glwa li te sèvi avè l te lakòz pwòp sijè pa l yo leve an rebelyon kont li. Men, leve kè li a te parèt pi espesyalman nan relasyon li ak Jwif yo. Lè li te rive Jerizalèm, li te ofri sakrifis la, epi li te gen yon gwo dezi antre nan kote ki sen anpil nan tanp lan, kontrèman ak lalwa ak relijyon kote sa a; men, menm si se avèk anpil difikilte, yo te anpeche l fè sa; konsa li te kite kote a ak tout kòlè l limen kont tout nasyon Jwif la, epi tousuit li te kòmanse sou yo yon pèsekisyon terib e san pitye. Nan Aleksandri, kote Jwif yo te rete depi nan jou Aleksann, e kote yo te jwi privilèj sitwayen ki te pi favorize yo, karant mil dapre Eusebius, swasant mil dapre Jerome, te mouri nan pèsekisyon sa a. Rebelyon Ejipsyen yo, ak masak Jwif yo, sètènman pa t fèt pou fòtifye l nan wayòm li an, men yo te ase pito pou prèske kraze l nèt.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 254.

Ptolemy Philopator’s military victory at Raphia in 217 BC, did not strengthen Ptolemy, but it caused “his heart to be lifted up.” Victory in the Ukrainian War will not strengthen Putin, but it will “lift up his heart,” as did military success cause king Uzziah to lift up his heart.

Viktwa militè Ptolome Filopat te genyen nan Rafa an 217 anvan Jezikri pa t rann Ptolome pi fò, men li te fè “kè li leve.” Viktwa nan Lagè Ikrèn nan p ap rann Putin pi fò, men li pral “leve kè li,” menm jan siksè militè te fè wa Ozyas leve kè li.

And Uzziah prepared for them throughout all the host shields, and spears, and helmets, and habergeons, and bows, and slings to cast stones. And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped, till he was strong. But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. 2 Chronicles 26:14–16.

E Ozyas te prepare pou tout lame a boukliye, epe, kas, karapas, banza ak frond pou voye wòch. Li te fè nan Jerizalèm machin lagè, moun ki gen ladrès te envante yo, pou mete sou gwo fò yo ak sou ranpa yo, pou tire flèch ak gwo wòch avèk yo. E non li te gaye byen lwen; paske li te resevwa yon èd mèvèye, jouk li te vin fò. Men lè li te vin fò, kè li te leve pou destriksyon li; paske li te fè peche kont Seyè a, Bondye li a, e li te antre nan tanp Seyè a pou boule lansan sou lotèl lansan an. 2 Kwonik 26:14–16.

Two southern kings whose hearts were lifted up from military victories, attempted to enter the same temple and offer and offering, which only a priest was allowed to do. In both cases, the priests resisted the proud kings attempts to do so. One king then initiated a retaliation upon the Jews, and the other was struck in the forehead with leprosy.

De wa wa ki te sid yo, ki kè yo te vin leve akòz viktwa militè yo, te eseye antre nan menm tanp lan epi ofri yon ofrann, bagay sèlman yon prèt te gen dwa fè. Nan toude ka yo, prèt yo te opoze ak tantativ wa ògeye yo pou yo fè sa. Lè sa a, youn nan wa yo te lanse yon vanjans kont Jwif yo, epi lòt la te frape nan fwon ak lalèp.

And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men: And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land. Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write. 2 Chronicles 26:17–22.

Epi Azarya, prèt la, antre dèyè li, ansanm ak katreven prèt SENYÈ a, mesye vanyan: yo kanpe kont wa Ozyas, epi yo di li: Sa pa pou ou, Ozyas, pou boule lansan bay SENYÈ a, men se pou prèt yo, pitit gason Arawon yo, ki konsakre pou boule lansan: sòti nan tanp lan; paske ou fè sa ki depase limit ou; e sa p ap sèvi pou onè ou devan SENYÈ Bondye a. Lè sa a, Ozyas fache, li te gen yon lansorye nan men li pou boule lansan; epi pandan li te fache kont prèt yo, lalèp la leve menm sou fwon li devan prèt yo nan kay SENYÈ a, bò kote lotèl lansan an. Azarya, gran prèt la, ak tout prèt yo, gade li, epi gade, li te gen lalèp sou fwon li; yo mete l deyò byen vit; wi, li menm tou li prese sòti, paske SENYÈ a te frape li. Wa Ozyas te rete yon moun ki gen lalèp jouk jou lanmò li, epi li te rete nan yon kay apa, kòm moun ki gen lalèp; paske yo te mete l apa ak kay SENYÈ a; epi Jotam, pitit gason li a, te sou kay wa a, li t ap jije pèp peyi a. Kanta rès zak Ozyas yo, depi premye jouk dènye, se Ezayi pwofèt la, pitit gason Amòz la, ki te ekri yo. 2 Kwonik 26:17–22.

In 2014, the globalists of Europe and the Obama regime initiated a color revolution upon the nation of the Ukraine. In 2022 Russia began an invasion that will ultimately lead to a victory for Putin and Russia; represented by Ptolemy and Uzziah, the kings of the south. Verse twelve says that after the victory of Putin, “his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.” History then records a progressive demise of his kingdom.

An 2014, globalis Ewòp yo ak rejim Obama a te inisye yon revolisyon koulè sou nasyon Ikrèn nan. An 2022, Larisi te kòmanse yon envazyon ki pral finalman mennen nan yon viktwa pou Putin ak Larisi; ki reprezante pa Ptolome ak Ozyas, wa sid yo. Vèsè douz la di ke apre viktwa Putin nan, “kè li pral leve anlè; epi li pral fè anpil dizèn milye tonbe: men sa p ap bay li fòs.” Apre sa, listwa anrejistre yon disparisyon pwogresif nan wayòm li an.

The progressive demise led to his death, and by the time Antiochus the Great retaliates for his loss at Raphia, Antiochus was no longer engaged with Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus was then addressing a young child who was then Egypt’s ruler. A child is a symbol of the last generation, so at one level the child king that Antiochus defeats at Panium is the final generation of the kingdom of the south. At the practical level the child king represents weakness in relation to Antiochus’s strength.

Degradasyon pwogresif la mennen nan lanmò li; e lè Antiòkis Gran an finalman vanje pèt li te sibi nan Raphia, Antiòkis pa t ankò an fas ak Ptolome Filopatò, men li t ap trete ak yon timoun piti ki te sou twòn Ejip la nan moman sa a. Yon timoun se yon senbòl dènye jenerasyon an; konsa, sou yon nivo, wa-timoun Antiòkis bat nan Panium nan se dènye jenerasyon wayòm sid la. Sou plan pratik la, wa-timoun nan reprezante feblès an rapò ak fòs Antiòkis la.

“The peace concluded between Ptolemy Philopater and Antiochus lasted fourteen years. Meanwhile Ptolemy died from intemperance and debauchery, and was succeeded by his son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, a child then four or five years old. Antiochus, during the same time, having suppressed rebellion in his kingdom, and reduced and settled the eastern parts in their obedience, was at leisure for any enterprise when young Epiphanes came to the throne of Egypt; and thinking this too good an opportunity for enlarging his dominion to be let slip, he raised an immense army “greater than the former” (for he had collected many forces and acquired great riches in his eastern expedition), and set out against Egypt, expecting to have an easy victory over the infant king. How he succeeded we shall presently see; for here new complications enter into the affairs of these kingdoms, and new actors are introduced upon the stage of history.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 255.

“Lapè ki te konkli ant Ptolome Filopatè ak Antiyokis te dire katòz ane. Pandan tan sa a, Ptolome mouri poutèt depafini ak debòch; epi se pitit gason li a, Ptolome Epifan, ki te pran plas li, yon timoun ki te gen lè sa a kat oswa senk an. Antiyokis, nan menm peryòd la, apre li te fin kraze rebelyon nan wayòm li a, epi li te soumèt ak tabli pati lès yo nan obeyisans, te vin gen tout latitid pou nenpòt antrepriz lè jèn Epifan monte sou twòn Lejip la; e, konsidere sa kòm yon okazyon twò favorab pou elaji dominasyon li pou l ta kite l pase, li leve yon lame imans “pi gwo pase premye a” (paske li te rasanble anpil fòs epi li te ranmase gwo richès nan ekspedisyon li nan lès la), epi li pati kont Lejip, avèk espwa li t ap genyen yon viktwa fasil sou wa tibebe a. Ki jan li reyisi, nou pral wè sa talè konsa; paske isit la nouvo konplikasyon antre nan zafè wayòm sa yo, epi nouvo aktè parèt sou sèn listwa a.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 255.

The King of the South

Wa Sid la الجنوب

To outline the final steps of Russia, is to outline the final steps of the prophetic king of the south. A prophetic characteristic of the spiritual king of the south that arrived in prophetic history at the time of the end in 1798—is how it comes to its end. It is also a prophetic characteristic of the king of the north, and the false prophet. Each of the three powers that lead the world to Armageddon have endings that are specifically identified in God’s Word. Whatever happens to Putin and Russia will have been typified with past lines of the king of the south.

Pou trase dènye pa Larisi yo, se trase dènye pa wa pwofetik sid la. Youn nan karakteristik pwofetik wa espirityèl sid la, ki te parèt nan istwa pwofetik la nan tan lafen an an 1798, se fason li rive nan fen li. Sa se tou yon karakteristik pwofetik wa nò a, ansanm ak fo pwofèt la. Chak nan twa pouvwa ki mennen mond lan nan Amagedòn yo gen yon fen ki idantifye klèman nan Pawòl Bondye a. Kèlkeswa sa ki rive Poutin ak Larisi, sa va deja te genyen tipifikasyon li nan liy pase yo nan wa sid la.

The examples of the spiritual king of the south’s demise were typified by the demise of the first spiritual king of the south, who was atheistic France during the period of the Revolution. The demise of the southern kingdom includes the demise of the southern king. Napoleon’s demise corresponds to the demise of France, and aligns with the demise of the next kingdom of the south, who was Russia. Russia as the modern king of the south began in revolution, just as France, as the king of the south, began with revolution.

Egzanp disparisyon wa espirityèl sid la te prefigire pa disparisyon premye wa espirityèl sid la, ki te Lafrans ate pandan peryòd Revolisyon an. Disparisyon wayòm sid la gen ladan disparisyon wa sid la. Disparisyon Napoleyon koresponn ak disparisyon Lafrans, epi li aliyen ak disparisyon pwochen wayòm sid la, ki te Larisi. Larisi, kòm wa modèn sid la, te kòmanse nan revolisyon, menm jan Lafrans, kòm wa sid la, te kòmanse avèk revolisyon.

Revolution is a characteristic of the dragon, who is the symbol of the southern kings. The dragon, the primary symbol of the king of the south is Satan, and as he attempts a revolution at the end of the millennium, fire comes down out of heaven and devours him. His rebellion in heaven at the beginning was the alpha of his rebellion at the conclusion of the millennium.

Revolisyon se yon karakteristik dragon an, ki se senbòl wa sid yo. Dragon an, premye senbòl wa sid la, se Satan; epi lè l ap eseye fè yon revolisyon nan fen milenòm nan, dife desann soti nan syèl la epi li devore l. Rebelyon li nan syèl la nan kòmansman an te alfa rebelyon li nan konklizyon milenòm nan.

In 1798, France prophetically took the throne as the spiritual king of the south during the French Revolution. That revolution swept through the nations of Europe and ultimately arrived at the Russian Revolution that was quickly followed by the Bolshevik Revolution in the same year.

An 1798, Lafrans te pran fotèy la pwofetikman kòm wa espirityèl sid la pandan Revolisyon fransè a. Revolisyon sa a te bale atravè nasyon Ewòp yo epi, finalman, li te rive nan Revolisyon ris la, ki te byen vit swiv pa Revolisyon bolchevik la nan menm ane a.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 consisted of two main steps: the February Revolution (which overthrew the Tsarist monarchy, ended autocracy, and established a provisional government amid a period of dual power with the Soviets) and the October Revolution (also called the Bolshevik Revolution, where the Bolsheviks under Lenin seized power in a coup, leading to the establishment of Soviet rule and the path to socialism/communism).

Revolisyon Ris la nan ane 1917 te gen de etap prensipal: Revolisyon Fevriye a (ki te ranvèse monachi tsaris la, mete fen nan otokrasi a, epi tabli yon gouvènman pwovizwa nan mitan yon peryòd doub pouvwa ansanm ak Sovyet yo) ak Revolisyon Oktòb la (yo rele l tou Revolisyon Bolchevik la, kote Bolchevik yo anba Lenin te pran pouvwa a pa yon koudeta, sa ki te mennen nan tablisman dominasyon Sovyetik la ak nan chemen pou rive nan sosyalis/kominis).

In historical analyses and revolutionary theory (particularly from Marxist perspectives like those of Trotsky, Luxemburg, and others drawing parallels), the French Revolution (1789–1799) is often seen as typifying or providing a schema for the course of the Russian events. The two steps of the French Revolution that typified these Russian phases are:

Nan analiz istorik ak teyori revolisyonè yo (patikilyèman depi nan pèspektiv Maksis tankou sa yo ki nan Trotsky, Luxemburg, ak lòt moun ki trase paralèl), Revolisyon fransèz la (1789–1799) souvan konsidere kòm sa ki tipifye oswa bay yon modèl pou kou evènman ris yo. De etap Revolisyon fransèz la ki te tipifye faz ris sa yo se:

  • The initial moderate/constitutional phase (roughly 1789–1792), which aligns with the February Revolution. This French phase began with the storming of the Bastille, the convening of the Estates-General/National Assembly, the abolition of feudal privileges, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy under the Girondins and moderate reformers. It overthrew absolute monarchy but retained elements of bourgeois/liberal governance and dual/contested power structures (e.g., between the Assembly and the lingering monarchy). Similarly, February 1917 ended Tsarism, but led to a bourgeois provisional government and dual power with the Soviets.

    Premye faz modere/konstitisyonèl la (anviwon 1789–1792), ki koresponn ak Revolisyon Fevriye a. Faz fransè sa a te kòmanse avèk pran Bastiy la pa fòs, konvokasyon Eta Jeneral yo/Asanble Nasyonal la, abolisyon privilèj feyodal yo, Deklarasyon Dwa Moun yo, ak etablisman yon monachi konstitisyonèl anba direksyon Gironden yo ak refòmatè modere yo. Li te ranvèse monachi absoli a, men li te konsève eleman gouvènans boujwa/liberal ak estrikti doub/pouvwa konteste (pa egzanp, ant Asanble a ak monachi ki te toujou la a). Menm jan an tou, Fevriye 1917 te mete fen nan Tsaris la, men li te mennen nan yon gouvènman pwovizwa boujwa ak yon doub pouvwa avèk Sovyet yo.

  • The radical/Jacobin phase (roughly 1792–1794, including the establishment of the First Republic, the execution of Louis XVI, and the Reign of Terror under Robespierre and the Jacobins/Committee of Public Safety) aligns with the October (Bolshevik) Revolution. The Jacobins seized power from the more moderate Girondins through radical action, declared a republic, suppressed counter-revolution, and pushed the revolution toward deeper social transformation and defense against internal/external threats. This mirrors how the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government, consolidated proletarian/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat rule, and advanced revolutionary socialism.

    Faz radikal/Jakoben an (apeprè 1792–1794, sa enkli etablisman Premye Repiblik la, egzekisyon Louis XVI, ak Rèy Laterè a anba Robespierre ak Jakoben yo/Komite Sekirite Piblik la) koresponn ak Revolisyon Oktòb la (Bòlchevik). Jakoben yo te sezi pouvwa a nan men Gironden yo ki te pi modere yo pa mwayen aksyon radikal, yo te deklare yon repiblik, yo te reprime kontre-revolisyon an, epi yo te pouse revolisyon an nan direksyon yon transfòmasyon sosyal ki pi pwofon ansanm ak defans kont menas entèn ak ekstèn. Sa reflete fason Bòlchevik yo te ranvèse gouvènman pwovizwa a, te konsolide dominasyon proletarya a/diktati proletarya a, epi yo te fè sosyalis revolisyonè a vanse.

These parallels emphasize how revolutions often follow a pattern: an initial broad uprising against the old regime (led by moderates/bourgeois forces), followed by a more extreme seizure of power by radicals to ‘save’ and deepen the revolution amid crisis. The Bolsheviks themselves consciously drew on the French example, viewing their October uprising as akin to the Jacobin coup—necessary to prevent counter-revolution and fulfill the revolution’s potential.

Paralèl sa yo mete an relèf kijan revolisyon yo souvan suiv yon modèl: yon premye leve-kanpe laj kont ansyen rejim nan (ki te dirije pa fòs modere/boujwa yo), epi apre sa yon pran pouvwa ki pi ekstrèm pa radikal yo pou “sove” epi pwofondi revolisyon an nan mitan kriz la. Bolchevik yo menm te konsyanman pran egzanp franse a kòm referans, yo te wè soulèvman Oktòb yo a tankou koudeta jakoben an—yon bagay ki te nesesè pou anpeche kontrevolisyon epi akonpli tout potansyèl revolisyon an.

This typology appears in works like Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (which explicitly compares the dual power phase in Russia to similar dynamics in France) and Rosa Luxemburg’s writings on the Russian events, where she notes the Russian Revolution’s first period (March–October) follows the schema of the French (and English) revolutions, with the Bolshevik takeover paralleling the Jacobin ascent.

Tipoloji sa a parèt nan zèv tankou History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky a (ki, klèman, konpare faz doub pouvwa a nan Larisi ak dinamik ki sanble an Frans) ak nan ekriti Rosa Luxemburg sou evènman ris yo, kote li remake premye peryòd Revolisyon ris la (Mas–Oktòb) suiv chema revolisyon fransèz yo (ak anglèz yo), pandan pran pouvwa Bolchevik yo mache an paralèl ak monte Jakoben yo.

Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning, and the demise of Napoleon as the first spiritual king of the south followed the waymarks at the beginning of the revolution, and in so doing represented the demise of the Soviet Union.

Jezikri toujou sèvi ak kòmansman an pou ilistre lafen an; e disparisyon Napoléon kòm premye wa espirityèl sid la te swiv repè ki te make kòmansman revolisyon an, epi lè li te fè sa, li te reprezante disparisyon Inyon Sovyetik la.

Napoleon’s progressive (step-by-step) demise aligns closely with the Soviet Union’s gradual decline and 1991 collapse, in the same typological framework where the French Revolution’s two phases prefigured the Russian Revolution’s February and October 1917 stages. The parallel extends into the post-radical consolidation phase (Bonapartism) and its inevitable unraveling. This draws from both general historical patterns and Marxist analyses (especially Trotsky’s in The Revolution Betrayed and related works), which treat Napoleon as the archetype of Bonapartism: a strongman regime that arises after a revolution’s radical peak, balances between classes, preserves key structural gains of the revolution (while suppressing its democratic thrust), builds a personal/military-bureaucratic empire, overextends, and then suffers a phased collapse leading to partial restoration of the old order.

Demiz pwogresif (pa etap) Napoléon an aliyen byen sere ak dekadans gradyèl Inyon Sovyetik la ak efondreman li an 1991, nan menm kad tipolojik kote de faz Revolisyon franse a te prefigire etap Fevriye ak Oktòb 1917 Revolisyon ris la. Paralèl la pwolonje rive nan faz konsolidasyon apre peryòd radikal la (Bonapartis) ak dechoukaj inevitab li. Sa sòti ni nan modèl istorik jeneral yo, ni nan analiz maksis yo (espesyalman sa Trotsky fè nan The Revolution Betrayed ak lòt zèv ki gen rapò avè l), ki trete Napoléon kòm arketip Bonapartis la: yon rejim nonm fò ki leve apre somè radikal yon revolisyon, ki kenbe ekilib ant klas yo, ki prezève prensipal aki estriktirèl revolisyon an (pandan l ap siprime pouse demokratik li), ki bati yon anpi pèsonèl/militè-biwokratik, ki depase limit li, epi apre sa sibi yon efondreman pa faz ki mennen nan yon restorasyon pasyèl ansyen lòd la.

Napoleon’s Bonapartist Rise Parallels the Stalinist Consolidation

Monte bonapartis Napoléon an paralèl ak konsolidasyon stalinis la

After the Jacobin radical phase and Thermidorian reaction (1794), the unstable Directory (1795–1799), Napoleon’s 18 Brumaire coup (1799) establishes the Consulate, then the Empire (1804). He codifies and exports bourgeois revolutionary gains (Napoleonic Code, end of feudal privileges, strong centralized state) but subordinates them to authoritarian rule, military glory, and a new elite.

Apre faz radikal Jakoben an ak reyaksyon Tèmidoryèn nan (1794), Direktwa enstab la (1795–1799), koudeta 18 Brimè Napoleyon an (1799) tabli Konsila a, epi answit Anpi a (1804). Li kodifye epi ekspòte akizisyon revolisyonè boujwa yo (Kòd Napoleyon an, fen privilèj feyodal yo, yon leta santralize fò), men li soumèt yo anba yon pouvwa otoritè, glwa militè, ak yon nouvo elit.

After the Bolshevik/October radical phase and early Soviet experiments, bureaucratic degeneration sets in (especially from the mid-1920s). Stalin’s consolidation defeats the Left Opposition, enforces “socialism in one country,” and creates a police/military-bureaucratic dictatorship. The planned economy and nationalized property (core gains of October) are preserved but turned into tools of a privileged caste, with internationalism abandoned.

Apre faze radikal bolchevik/oktòb la ak premye eksperyans sovyetik yo, yon degradasyon biwokratik vin tabli (sitou apati mitan ane 1920 yo). Konsolidasyon pouvwa Stalin lan bat Opozisyon Gòch la, enpoze “sosyalis nan yon sèl peyi,” epi kreye yon diktati polisye/militè-biwokratik. Ekonomi planifye a ak pwopriyete nasyonalize yo (gwo akiz Oktòb la) konsève, men yo tounen zouti yon kas privilejye, pandan yo abandone entènasyonalis la.

In both cases, the revolutionary energy is “frozen” and redirected into state power and expansion under a single figure or apparatus (Trotsky explicitly called the Stalin regime a form of “Soviet Bonapartism,” closer to Napoleon’s Empire than the Consulate).

Nan toude ka yo, enèji revolisyonè a vin “jele” epi yo redirije li nan pouvwa Leta ak ekspansyon anba yon sèl pèsonaj oswa yon sèl aparèy (Trotsky te rele rejim Stalin lan klèman yon fòm “Bonapartis Sovyetik,” ki te pi pre Anpi Napoleyon an pase Konsila a).

The Step-by-Step Collapse

Efondreman etap pa etap

This is the core alignment—the decline is not one sudden event but a successive series of erosions driven by overextension, internal contradictions, military quagmires, loss of peripheral control, failed reforms, and final dissolution/restoration.

Sa a se alyman santral la—dekadans lan se pa yon sèl evènman toudenkou, men yon seri ewozyon siksesif ki pouse pa twòp ekstansyon, kontradiksyon entèn, maras militè, pèt kontwòl sou periferi a, refòm ki echwe, epi finalman disolisyon/restorasyon.

Napoleonic side (1812 to 1815)

Bò Napoléonyen an (1812 rive 1815)

  • 1812: Disastrous invasion of Russia—Grande Armée (600,000 men) decimated by logistics, winter, and resistance. Catastrophic turning point; massive loss of prestige and manpower.

    1812 : Désastreuse invasion de la Russie — la Grande Armée (600 000 hommes) décimée par la logistique, l’hiver et la résistance. Tournant catastrophique ; perte massive de prestige et d’effectifs.

  • 1813: Coalition forms against him; defeat at Leipzig (“Battle of the Nations”)—loss of German allies and territories; empire begins shrinking.

    1813: Yon kowalisyon fòme kont li; defèt nan Leipzig (“Batay Nasyon yo”)—pèt alye alman yo ak teritwa yo; anpi a kòmanse retresi.

  • 1814: Allies invade France proper; Paris falls; Napoleon abdicates and is exiled to Elba.

    1814: Fòs alye yo anvayi tèritwa Lafrans menm; Pari tonbe; Napoleyon abdike epi yo ekzile l sou Elba.

  • 1815: Brief return (Hundred Days), final defeat at Waterloo; permanent exile to St. Helena; Bourbon monarchy restored (reactionary rollback of revolutionary gains, though not total—some legal/administrative changes survived).

    1815 : Brève reprise du pouvoir (Cent-Jours), défaite finale à Waterloo ; exil définitif à Sainte-Hélène ; restauration de la monarchie bourbonienne (reflux réactionnaire des acquis de la Révolution, quoique non total — certaines réformes juridiques et administratives subsistèrent).

Soviet side (1970s to 1991)

Kote Sovyetik la (ane 1970 yo rive 1991)

  • Late 1970s–1980s: Economic stagnation (“zastoi” under Brezhnev), chronic shortages, technological lag, and crippling arms race with the US/NATO—systemic overextension begins to hollow out the economy.

    Fen ane 1970 yo rive ane 1980 yo: estagnasyon ekonomik (“zastoi” sou Brezhnev), mank kwonik, reta teknolojik, ak yon kous zam ki t ap kraze peyi a ak Etazini/OTAN—twòp chaj sistemik la kòmanse vide ekonomi an andedan.

  • 1979–1989: Afghanistan war—Soviet “Vietnam”; quagmire drains resources, morale, and international standing (note the ironic parallel: Napoleon destroyed in Russia; USSR bled in a rugged, resistant theater).

    1979–1989: Lagè Afganistan an—“Vyetnam” Sovyetik la; yon marekaj ki vide resous yo, moral la, ak pozisyon entènasyonal la (note paralèl ironik la: Napoléon te detwi nan Larisi; Izin Sovyetik la te senyen nan yon teyat brit, ki te opoze avèk tenasite).

  • 1985–1989: Gorbachev’s perestroika/glasnost reforms (attempted “saving” of the system, like some late Napoleonic adjustments) instead expose and accelerate contradictions; Eastern Bloc satellites revolt and break free (Berlin Wall falls November 9, 1989, regimes collapse across 1989–1990)—loss of the “outer empire,” exactly like Napoleon’s loss of allied states.

    1985–1989 : Refòm perestroika/glasnost Gorbatchev yo (tantativ pou “sove” sistèm nan, menm jan ak kèk ajisteman napoléonyen ki te fèt an reta) olye de sa mete kontradiksyon yo an plen limyè epi akselere yo; eta satelit Blòk Lès yo leve an rebelyon epi yo libere tèt yo (Mi Bèlen an tonbe 9 novanm 1989, rejim yo tonbe atravè 1989–1990) — pèt “anpi ekstèn” nan, egzakteman menm jan ak pèt Napoleon te fè nan eta alye yo.

  • 1990–1991: Internal nationalist crises, republics declare sovereignty; August 1991 hardliner coup fails spectacularly; Gorbachev resigns December 25, 1991; USSR dissolves into 15 states. Capitalist restoration follows (Yeltsin-era shock therapy, oligarchs, privatization)—analogous to the Bourbon restoration: prerevolutionary class elements (or their equivalents) return, rolling back full revolutionary property relations while keeping some administrative forms.

    1990–1991 : Kriz nasyonalis entèn yo vin pi grav, repiblik yo deklare souvènte yo; koudeta dirijan di yo nan mwa out 1991 la echwe yon fason espektakilè; Gorbachev demisyone 25 desanm 1991; Izin Sovyetik la disoud pou l tounen 15 eta. Retablisman kapitalis la vini apre sa (terapi chòk epòk Yeltsin lan, oligak yo, privatizasyon an) — analòg ak restorasyon Bourbon an : eleman klas ki te egziste anvan revolisyon an (oswa ekivalan pa yo) retounen, yo demantle relasyon pwopriyete revolisyonè yo nèt ale pandan yo konsève kèk fòm administratif.

In both, the “empire” (French Continental System vs. Soviet Eastern Bloc/COMECON influence) fragments outward-in, internal decay accelerates, a final crisis exposes the hollowness, and the old social forces reassert (monarchy/capitalism). Bonapartism proves unsustainable—a “pyramid balanced on its point,” as Trotsky put it—because it rests on suppressing the revolution’s democratic base while defending (but distorting) its economic base amid hostile external pressures. The Soviet collapse was not “sudden” in the long view but the culmination of progressive internal rot, just as Napoleon’s empire did not vanish overnight but eroded through successive defeats until restoration.

Nan toude, “anpi” a (Sistèm Kontinantal franse a kont enfliyans Blòk lès sovyetik la/COMECON) fragmante soti deyò pou antre anndan, pourisman entèn lan akselere, yon kriz final revele vid li, epi ansyen fòs sosyal yo reprann plas yo ankò (monachi/kapitalis). Bonapartis la pwouve li pa dirab — yon “piramid ki ekilibre sou pwent li,” jan Trotsky te di sa — paske li chita sou sipresyon baz demokratik revolisyon an pandan l ap defann (men an menm tan defòme) baz ekonomik li a anba presyon ekstèn ostil. Efondreman Sovyetik la pa t “sibit” nan vizyon alontèm lan, men li te akimilasyon pourisman entèn pwogresif la, menm jan anpi Napoléon an pa t disparèt nan yon sèl nuit, men li te erode atravè defèt siksesif jouk rive nan restorasyon.

The beginning and ending of France and the Soviet Union align with the testimony of king Uzziah and Ptolemy. Ptolemy IV Philopator wins a decisive victory at the Battle of Raphia (217 BC) against the king of the north (Antiochus III), but “he shall not be strengthened by it”—he makes peace instead of pressing the advantage, returns to luxury and self-exaltation, then (per the record preserved in 3 Maccabees 1–2) Ptolemy visits Jerusalem after his triumph. His heart lifted up, he attempts to enter the Holy of Holies and offer sacrifice himself—an act of usurpation and defiance against the true God. He is divinely struck (paralysis), humiliated, and turns to persecution of God’s people. His reign thereafter is one of progressive decline: moral corruption, internal revolts, and loss of strength until his death. This is the exact mirror of King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16–21) whose heart was lifted up after military success., who then entered the temple to burn incense (usurping the priests) and was struck with leprosy in the forehead, which was a public, visible judgment. From then on Uzziah lived in isolation, cut off from the house of the Lord, until death—a slow, lingering demise rather than instant destruction.

Kòmansman ak finisman Lafrans ak Inyon Sovyetik la aliyen avèk temwayaj wa Ozyas ak Ptolome. Ptolome IV Filopatè ranpòte yon viktwa desizif nan Batay Rafya a (217 anvan Jezikri) kont wa nò a (Antyòkis III), men “li p ap vin fòtifye pa sa” — li fè lapè olye li pouse avantaj la, li retounen nan liks ak nan pwòp egzaltasyon pa li, epi apre sa (dapre dosye ki konsève nan 3 Makabe 1–2) Ptolome vizite Jerizalèm apre triyonf li. Kè li leve anlè, li eseye antre nan Sen Sentespri a epi li menm ofri sakrifis — yon zak uzipasyon ak defi kont vrè Bondye a. Bondye frape l dirèkteman (paralizi), li imilye, epi li vire pou l pèsekite pèp Bondye a. Depi lè sa a, rèy li vin youn nan degradasyon pwogresif: koripsyon moral, revòlt anndan peyi a, ak pèt fòs jouk li mouri. Sa se glas egzak Wa Ozyas (2 Kwonik 26:16–21) ki te gen kè li leve anlè apre siksè militè., epi ki ansuit te antre nan tanp lan pou boule lansan (an uzipan fonksyon prèt yo) epi yo te frape l ak lalèp nan fwon li, sa ki te yon jijman piblik, vizib. Depi lè sa a Ozyas te viv nan izolman, koupe lwen kay Seyè a, jouk li mouri — yon fen ki te ralanti, ki te trennen, olye yon destriksyon enstantane.

Both are southern kings whose pride manifests in a temple intrusion at Jerusalem, followed by a progressive, erosive ending instead of immediate collapse. This is the typological template for every later “king of the south.”

Tou de se wa sid ki fè lògèy yo parèt nan yon antre san dwa nan tanp Jerizalèm nan, epi sa vin swiv pa yon fen pwogresif, ki ap ravaje yo, olye yon tonbe bridsoukou. Sa se modèl tipolojik la pou chak “wa sid” ki vini pita.

1798: France Becomes the Spiritual King of the South

1798: Lafrans vin tounen Wa Sid la nan sans espirityèl

At “the time of the end” (1798), atheistic France (the power that had just manifested the spiritual characteristics of Egypt—open denial of God, as in Revelation 11:8) pushes at the king of the north (the Papacy) by taking the Pope captive. Napoleon is the military embodiment of that push. France wears the crown of the south in 1798, because it exalts the same atheistic spirit that ancient Egypt embodied.

Nan “tan an lafen an” (1798), Lafrans ateyis la (pisans ki te fèk manifeste karakteristik espirityèl Ejip yo—negasyon ouvè Bondye, jan sa parèt nan Revelasyon 11:8) pouse kont wa nò a (Papote a) lè li pran Pap la an kaptivite. Napoleyon se anbodiman militè pouse sa a. Lafrans pote kouwòn sid la an 1798, paske li leve menm lespri ateyis ansyen Ejip te ankarne a.

But just as Ptolemy could not “make the most of his victory,” the French Revolution’s radical phase could not sustain or fully export its gains. The crown of the south passes onward as the philosophy of atheism matures and finds a new governmental voice.

Men menm jan Ptolome pa t kapab « tire tout avantaj nan viktwa li », faz radikal Revolisyon fransè a pa t kapab ni soutni, ni ekspòte nèt ale pwogrè li yo. Kouwòn sid la pase pi lwen pandan filozofi ateyis la ap rive nan matirite li epi li jwenn yon nouvo vwa gouvènmantal.

Progressive Leadership Symbols: Napoleon to Lenin to Stalin

Senbòl Lidèchip Pwogresis yo: Napoleon rive sou Lenin rive sou Stalin

These three are not random; they are progressive endings—each representing a further stage in the king of the south’s trajectory toward its own slow dissolution. Napoleon—the first great symbol after 1798. Victorious in Egypt (the literal south), he overreaches (Russian campaign of 1812 was a disaster beginning a series of losses to his peripheral empire step by step (1813–1814), suffers final defeat (Waterloo 1815), and is exiled twice. Napoleon represents a progressive, phased demise—exactly like unto the Ptolemy and Uzziah.

Twa sa yo pa o aza; yo se fen pwogresif—chak ladan yo reprezante yon etap pi avanse nan trajektwa wa sid la nan direksyon pwòp disolisyon dousman li. Napoléon—premye gwo senbòl la apre 1798. Viktorye ann Ejip (sid literal la), li depase limit li (kanpay Larisi a an 1812 te yon dezas) e sa kòmanse yon seri pèt pou anpi periferik li a, etap pa etap (1813–1814); li sibi defèt final la (Waterloo, 1815), epi yo ekzile l de fwa. Napoléon reprezante yon disparisyon pwogresif, an faz—egzakteman menm jan ak Ptolome ak Ozyas.

Lenin seized the crown in the 1917 October Revolution. The Bolshevik “push” continues the war against the old order (including religious power). But the radical phase cannot stabilize; Lenin’s own health fails early, and the system begins to bureaucratize.

Lenin te pran kouwòn nan pandan Revolisyon Oktòb 1917 la. “Pouse” bolchevik la kontinye lagè a kont ansyen lòd la (sa enkli pouvwa relijye a). Men faz radikal la pa ka vin estab; sante Lenin menm kòmanse febli bonè, epi sistèm nan kòmanse vin biwokratize.

Stalin, the consolidator (Soviet Bonapartism) “freezes” the revolution into a military-bureaucratic empire, preserves the core gains (nationalized economy the anti-feudal parallel to Napoleon’s Code), but turns the power inward (purges) and outward (expansion). Yet the heart is lifted up in atheism; the system cannot truly “make the most of its victory.” Overextension (Afghanistan parallel to Napoleon’s Russia), stagnation, failed reforms (perestroika was the last desperate attempt), loss of satellites (1989–90 = loss of “allies”), and final dissolution (1991).

Staline, moun ki konsolide a (Bonapartis Sovyetik la), “jele” revolisyon an pou fè l tounen yon anpi militè-biwo­kratik, li prezève pwogrè fondamantal yo (ekonomi nasyonalize a, paralèl anti-feyodal ak Kòd Napoléon an), men li vire pouvwa a anndan (epirasyon yo) ak deyò (ekspansyon an). Men kè a leve nan ateyis; sistèm nan pa ka vrèman “pwofite viktwa li a nèt.” Twòp ekstansyon (Afganistan kòm paralèl ak Larisi Napoleon an), estagnasyon, refòm ki echwe (perestroika te dènye tantativ dezespere a), pèt satelit yo (1989–90 = pèt “alye” yo), epi finalman disolisyon an (1991).

The Soviet Union’s collapse was not sudden—it was progressive, exactly as Napoleon’s empire eroded step by step and as Ptolemy’s and Uzziah’s reigns withered after their temple-pride moment. The “spiritual” king of the south (atheism in governmental form) received its own lingering judgment: hollowed out from within, unable to sustain the lie, swept away in the counter-movement of the king of the north (the Papacy’s resurgence in the vacuum).

Efondreman Inyon Sovyetik la pa t rive toudenkou—li te pwogresif, egzakteman menm jan anpi Napoléon an te degrennen etap pa etap, epi menm jan rèy Ptolemey ak Ozyas yo te fennen apre moman ògèy yo nan tanp lan. Wa “espirityèl” sid la (ateyis sou fòm gouvènmantal) te resevwa pwòp jijman pwolonje pa li a: vide anndan l, li pa t kapab soutni manti a, epi li te pote ale nan kontremouvman wa nò a (rezirjans Papote a nan vid la).

The French Revolution (two steps) typifies the Russian Revolution (February and October/Bolshevik). Napoleonic Bonapartism and progressive demise typify Stalinist consolidation and Soviet progressive demise. All of it is the modern outworking of Daniel 11’s king of the south line, from Ptolemy’s Raphia failure and temple arrogance, through Uzziah’s identical sin and slow end, to France in 1798 and its atheistic heir (Lenin–Stalin era) that could not strengthen itself by its victories.

Revolisyon fransè a (de etap) se yon tip Revolisyon ris la (Fevriye ak Oktòb/Bolchevik). Bonapartis napoleyonyen an ak degradasyon pwogresif li yo se yon tip konsolidasyon stalinis la ak degradasyon pwogresif sovyetik la. Tout sa se akonplisman modèn liy wa sid la nan Danyèl 11, depi echèk Ptolemey nan Rafia ak awogans li anvè tanp lan, atravè menm peche Ozyas la ak fen ralanti li, rive jouk Lafrans an 1798 ak eritye ateis li a (epòk Lenin–Stalin nan) ki pa t kapab fòtifye tèt li pa mwayen viktwa li yo.

Lenin, the radical founder or seizer of power (parallel to the Jacobin/Bolshevik ascent; the “push” phase post-1917, is akin to Napoleon’s early Consulate after Brumaire). Stalin was the Bonapartist consolidator (Soviet empire builder, purges, WWII victory, Cold War peak; heart lifted up in atheism, but unable to fully “strengthen” the victory long-term—overextension begins).

Lenin, fondatè radikal la oswa moun ki te pran pouvwa a (an paralèl ak monte Jakoben/Bòlshevik la; faz “pouse” apre 1917 la sanble ak premye Konsila Napoléon an apre Brumaire). Stalin te konsolidatè Bonapartis la (bati anpi Sovyetik la, fè epirasyon yo, ranpòte viktwa nan Dezyèm Gè Mondyal la, rive nan pik Lagè Fwad la; kè li te leve nan ateyis, men li pa t kapab nèt “ranfòse” viktwa a sou long tèm—depasman limit yo kòmanse).

Khrushchev was the post-peak “thaw” leader (1953–1964): denounces Stalin (Secret Speech 1956), exposes some corruption, attempts limited reforms, but fails to resolve systemic contradictions. This parallels a “Thermidorian” or early-decline phase—loosening terror while the core atheist structure remains, yet prestige erodes (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis humiliation 1962 mirrors minor Napoleonic setbacks before the big ones).

Khrushchev te chèf “dejel” pòs-pik la (1953–1964) : li denonse Stalin (Diskou sekrè 1956), li ekspoze kèk koripsyon, li eseye fè kèk refòm limite, men li pa rive rezoud kontradiksyon sistemik yo. Sa koresponn ak yon faz “Tèmidoryèn” oswa yon faz kòmansman dekadans—lè yo lage lach sou laterè a pandan estrikti ateis santral la rete an plas, men prestij la ap degrade (pa egzanp, imilyasyon Kriz Misil Kiba a an 1962 reflete ti revers napoleonyen yo anvan gwo revers yo).

Gorbachev was the desperate reformer (1985–1991) with perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness) as last-ditch efforts to “save” the system, but they accelerate collapse—loss of the Eastern Bloc (1989 Berlin Wall), internal revolts. This is the clearest “progressive ending” marker: like unto Napoleon’s late attempts at adjustment before the 1814 invasion, or Ptolemy/Uzziah’s lingering decline after temple-pride. Gorbachev’s 1989 concordat/meeting with Pope John Paul II (king of the north) symbolizes the spiritual defeat—the southern king’s atheism yielding to papal resurgence.

Gorbachev te refòmatè dezespere a (1985–1991) avèk perestroika (restriktirasyon) ak glasnost (ouvèti) kòm dènye efò dezespere pou “sove” sistèm nan, men yo akselere efondreman an—pèt Blòk Lès la (1989 Miray Bèlen an), revòlt entèn yo. Sa a se makè ki pi klè nan yon “fen pwogresif”: tankou dènye tantativ Napoléon te fè pou ajiste bagay yo anvan envazyon 1814 la, oswa deklinasyon ki t ap trennen Ptolome/Ozyas la apre ògèy tanp lan. Konkòda/reyinyon Gorbachev an 1989 ak Pap Jan Pòl II (wa nò a) senbolize defèt espirityèl la—ateyis wa sid la ki sede devan rezijans papal la.

Yeltsin was the final dissolution figure (1991 onward) who led to the August 1991 coup resistance, becomes president of Russia, oversees USSR breakup (December 1991), shock therapy privatization, capitalist restoration. He embodies the chaotic end and partial “restoration” of prerevolutionary elements (oligarchic capitalism, like Bourbon’s return post-Napoleon). The southern king’s palace is swept away, fulfilling Daniel 11:40’s whirlwind conquest by the north (Papacy via US alliance).

Yeltsin te dènye pèsonaj disolisyon an (apati 1991) ki te mennen nan rezistans kont koudeta Out 1991 la, ki vin prezidan Larisi, ki sipèvize demantèlman Izin Sovyetik la (Desanm 1991), privatizasyon “terapi chòk” la, ak restorasyon kapitalis la. Li enkane fen dezòdone a ansanm ak yon “restorasyon” pasyèl eleman anvan revolisyon yo (kapitalis oligachik, menm jan ak retou Bourbon yo apre Napoléon). Palè wa sid la rache nèt, konsa li akonpli konkèt toubiyon wa nò a nan Daniel 11:40 la (Papote a atravè alyans Etazini an).

The typology emphasizes lingering, step-by-step judgment rather than instant fall, just as Ptolemy IV’s Raphia victory led to pride, temple intrusion, divine striking, and slow decay; Uzziah’s leprosy isolation until death; Napoleon’s phased losses (Russia, Leipzig, Paris, Elba, Waterloo). The Soviet line identifies the peak strength under Stalin, the progressive hollowing during Khrushchev’s thaw that exposes the cracks in the system. Then the Brezhnev-era stagnation and then Gorbachev’s reforms become accelerants; Yeltsin’s era completes the sweep (USSR dissolved, atheism’s governmental form ends). The “heart lifted up” manifests across the line (atheistic defiance), but none “makes the most of victory.”

Tipoloji a mete aksan sou yon jijman ki pran tan, etap pa etap, olye de yon tonbe touswit, menm jan viktwa Ptolome IV nan Rafya te mennen nan ògèy, antre nan tanp lan, frapman diven, epi yon dekonpozisyon dousman; izolman Ozyas anba lalèp jouk li mouri; pèt Napoleon yo pa faz (Larisi, Leipzig, Pari, Elba, Waterloo). Liy Sovyetik la idantifye fòs maksimòm nan anba Stalin, vidman pwogresif la pandan dejèl Khrushchev la ki ekspoze fant ki nan sistèm nan. Apre sa, estagnasyon epòk Brezhnev la epi apre sa refòm Gorbachev yo vin tounen akseleratè; epòk Yeltsin lan konplete baleyaj la (URSS fonn, fòm gouvènmantal ateyis la fini). “Kè leve anlè” a manifeste atravè liy lan (defyans ateyis), men okenn pa “tire pi gwo avantaj nan viktwa a.”

The end of the southern kings are progressive, Satan’s demise began at the cross, and he is ultimately sent into exile for 1,000 years and then he dies.

Fin wa sid yo nan sid la se yon pwosesis pwogresif; disparisyon Satan an te kòmanse sou kwa a, epi finalman yo voye l ann egzil pandan 1,000 ane, epi apre sa li mouri.

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Epi mwen wè yon zanj desann soti nan syèl la, li te gen kle twou san fon an epi yon gwo chenn nan men li. Epi li sezi dragon an, ansyen sèpan sa a, ki se Dyab la ak Satan, epi li mare l pou mil an. Epi li jete l nan twou san fon an, li fèmen l ladan l, epi li mete yon sele sou li, pou li pa twonpe nasyon yo ankò jouk lè mil an yo va fin akonpli; epi apre sa, li dwe lage pou yon ti tan.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

Epi mwen wè twòn yo, epi yo te chita sou yo, epi jijman te bay yo; epi mwen wè nanm moun yo te koupe tèt yo poutèt temwayaj Jezi a, ak poutèt pawòl Bondye a, e ki pa t adore bèt la, ni imaj li a, ni pa t resevwa mak li sou fwon yo oswa nan men yo; epi yo te viv epi yo te gouvènen avèk Kris pandan mil an. Men rès mò yo pa t retounen viv ankò jouk lè mil an yo te fin pase.

This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Se premye rezirèksyon an. Beni e sen se moun ki gen pati nan premye rezirèksyon an: sou moun konsa, dezyèm lanmò a pa gen okenn pouvwa; men yo pral prèt Bondye ak Kris la, e yo pral renye avèk li pandan mil an.

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:1–10.

E lè mil an yo va fini, y ap lage Satan soti nan prizon li. Epi l ap soti pou l twonpe nasyon ki nan kat kwen tè a, Gòg ak Magòg, pou l rasanble yo ansanm pou lagè; kantite yo tankou sab lanmè a. Epi yo moute sou tout lajè tè a, yo antoure kan sen yo ak vil byeneme a; epi dife desann soti nan syèl la, soti bò kote Bondye, e li devore yo. Epi dyab la ki t ap twonpe yo te jete nan lak dife ak souf la, kote bèt la ak fo pwofèt la ye; e y ap soufri tòti lajounen kou lannuit pou tout tan ak pou tout letènite. Revelasyon 20:1–10.

We will continue our considerations of the southern king in Daniel eleven, verses eleven through fifteen in the next article.

N ap kontinye konsiderasyon nou sou wa sid la nan Dànyèl onz, vèsè onz rive kenz, nan atik k ap vini an.

The Time of the End magazine was published in 1996 and it represents the prophecy from the book of Daniel that was unsealed in 1989. Recently the magazine was read by ChatGPT and asked to evaluate the role of Ukraine in the history of verse forty represented in the magazine. The following is the breakdown of the magazine that has been in the public record for thirty years. The first passage from the writings of Ellen White in the magazine is Testimonies, volume 9, 11.

Magazin The Time of the End te pibliye an 1996, e li reprezante pwofesi ki soti nan liv Danyèl la ki te de sele an 1989. Dènyèman, ChatGPT te li magazin nan epi yo te mande l evalye wòl Ikrèn nan istwa vèsè karant la jan sa reprezante nan magazin nan. Men dekonpozisyon magazin nan ki te nan dosye piblik la pandan trant ane. Premye pasaj ki soti nan ekriti Ellen White yo nan magazin nan se Testimonies, volim 9, 11.

Overview: Ukraine in the Prophetic Framework

Apèsi jeneral: Ikrèn nan kad pwofetik la

Within the magazine’s prophetic outline of Daniel 11:40–45, Ukraine is discussed in connection with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the struggle between the Papacy (king of the north) and atheistic communism (king of the south). Ukraine is presented as a key religious and geopolitical battleground during the closing stages of the proxy wars, particularly in relation to the Ukrainian Catholic Church and its legalization after decades of suppression under Soviet rule.

Nan kad deskripsyon pwofetik magazin nan sou Danyèl 11:40–45, Ikrèn diskite an rapò ak efondreman Inyon Sovyetik la ak lit ki genyen ant Papote a (wa nò a) ak kominis ate a (wa sid la). Yo prezante Ikrèn kòm yon tèren batay relijye ak jeopolitik kle pandan dènye faz lagè pwokirasyon yo, sitou anrapò ak Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an ak legalizasyon li apre plizyè dizèn ane represyon anba dominasyon Sovyetik la.

The magazine presents Ukraine as part of the broader prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 11:40, describing the sweeping away of the king of the south through a Vatican–United States alliance. Ukraine is shown as evidence of the weakening of Soviet atheism and the resurgence of Catholic influence in Eastern Europe.

Magazin nan prezante Ikrèn kòm yon pati nan akonplisman pwofetik pi laj Danyèl 11:40 la, pandan li dekri disparisyon rapid wa sid la atravè yon alyans ant Vatikan an ak Etazini. Yo montre Ikrèn kòm prèv feblès ateyis Sovyetik la ak rezijans enfliyans katolik la nan Ewòp de Lès.

Ukraine in the War Between the King of the North and South

Ikrèn nan lagè ant wa Nò a ak wa Sid la

The magazine teaches that the king of the south is atheism, embodied first by France (1798) and later by Soviet Russia. The king of the north is the papacy and Daniel 11:40 describes a spiritual war beginning in 1798 and culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Ukraine appears within this context as part of the Soviet bloc that is swept away in fulfillment of Daniel 11:40. The publication presents the collapse of the Soviet Union as the first step in the healing of the Papacy’s deadly wound (Revelation 13).

Magazin nan anseye wa sid la se ateyis, ki te pran fòm dabò nan Lafrans (1798) epi pita nan Larisi Sovyetik. Wa nò a se papote a, epi Danyèl 11:40 dekri yon lagè espirityèl ki kòmanse an 1798 e ki rive nan pwen final li ak tonbe Inyon Sovyetik la an 1989. Ikrèn parèt nan kontèks sa a kòm yon pati nan blòk Sovyetik la yo baleye ale nan akonplisman Danyèl 11:40. Piblikasyon an prezante tonbe Inyon Sovyetik la kòm premye pa nan gerizon blesi mòtèl Papote a (Revelasyon 13).

Suppression of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Quoted Sources)

Represyon Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an (Sous Site yo)

The magazine includes secular documentation of Catholic persecution under Soviet rule.

Magazin nan genyen dokimantasyon sekilè sou pèsekisyon Katolik anba dominasyon Sovyetik la.

From Time Magazine, December 4, 1989:

Soti nan Time Magazine, 4 Desanm 1989:

“After World War II, fierce but generally less bloody persecution spread into the Ukraine and the new Soviet bloc, affecting millions of Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as Orthodox.”

“Apre Dezyèm Gè Mondyal la, yon pèsekisyon vyolan, men an jeneral mwens sanglan, gaye rive ann Ikrèn ak nan nouvo blòk Sovyetik la, e li te frape plizyè milyon Katolik women ak Pwotestan, ansanm ak Otodòks yo.”

Ukraine is identified as a major area where Catholicism was suppressed under communism.

Ikrèn idantifye kòm yon zòn enpòtan kote Katolik te siprime anba kominis.

Legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

Legalizasyon Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an

A major focus of the Ukraine discussion is the legalization of the long-banned Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Youn nan pwen prensipal nan diskisyon sou Ikrèn nan se legalizasyon Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an, ki te entèdi pandan yon bon bout tan.

From Life Magazine, December 1989:

Soti nan magazin *Life*, Desanm 1989:

“Three new Catholic bishops have recently been named in Czechoslovakia. And this month Gorbachev meets Pope John Paul II during a visit to Italy—the first face-to-face encounter between leaders of the Kremlin and the Vatican. The sessions may lead to legalization of the long-banned Ukrainian Catholic Church in the U.S.S.R.”

“Yo fèk nonmen twa nouvo evèk katolik nan Tchekoslovaki. Epi mwa sa a, pandan yon vizit ann Itali, Gorbachev ap rankontre Pap Jan Pòl II—premye rankont fasafas ant chèf Kremlin nan ak Vatikan an. Sesyon yo kapab mennen nan legalizasyon Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an, ki depi lontan te entèdi, nan U.R.S.S.”

From U.S. News & World Report, December 11, 1989:

Soti nan U.S. News & World Report, 11 desanm 1989:

“The revival of religious freedom is expected to include lifting of an official ban on the five-million-member Ukraine Catholic Church, which has survived underground since 1946 when Stalin ordered it absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church. Winning legalization for the Ukrainian Church has been a primary aim of the pope’s.”

«Renesans libète relijye a sipoze gen ladan l leve yon entèdiksyon ofisyèl sou Legliz Katolik Ikrèn nan, ki gen senk milyon manm, yon legliz ki siviv nan klandestinite depi ane 1946, lè Stalin te bay lòd pou yo absòbe li nan Legliz Otodòks Ris la. Jwenn legalizasyon pou Legliz Ikrenyen an se youn nan objektif prensipal pap la.»

The magazine presents this as evidence of the weakening of atheistic control, the restoration of Catholic power. It is identified as a direct outcome of Vatican diplomatic pressure and a milestone in Daniel 11:40’s fulfillment is set forth as the Ukraine as a visible example of the Papacy regaining influence in former communist territory.

Magazin nan prezante sa kòm prèv feblès kontwòl ateyis la, retablisman pouvwa katolik la. Yo idantifye sa kòm yon rezilta dirèk presyon diplomatik Vatikan an, epi yo prezante l kòm yon etap enpòtan nan akonplisman Danyèl 11:40, pandan yo mete Ikrèn an avan kòm yon egzanp vizib sou fason Papote a ap reprann enfliyans nan ansyen teritwa kominis yo.

Ukraine as Evidence of the Papacy’s Advance

Ikrèn kòm Prèv Avansman Papas la

The collapse of communism not merely as political change but as a spiritual defeat of atheism, a geopolitical advance of the Papacy and the beginning of the Papacy’s return to world dominance. The Ukraine becomes a case study in the dismantling of Soviet religious suppression and a strategic victory of Rome in Eastern Europe. It represents the visible shift from enforced atheism to restored Catholic authority and the legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church is treated as prophetic confirmation that the king of the north was sweeping away the king of the south “like a whirlwind.”

Efondreman kominis la, non sèlman kòm yon chanjman politik, men kòm yon defèt espirityèl ateyis, yon avans jeopolitik Papote a, ak kòmansman retou Papote a nan dominasyon mondyal. Ikrèn nan vin tounen yon etid ka sou demantèlman represyon relijye sovyetik la ak yon viktwa estratejik Wòm nan Ewòp de Lès. Sa reprezante chanjman vizib la soti nan ateyis enpoze pou rive nan restorasyon otorite katolik la, epi legalizasyon Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an trete kòm yon konfimasyon pwofetik ke wa nò a t ap bale wa sid la ale “tankou yon toubiyon.”

Ukraine and the Broader Prophetic Sequence

Ikrèn ak Sekans Pwofetik ki Pi Laj la

  • 1798 – Papacy receives deadly wound.

    1798 — Papauté a resevwa blesi mòtèl.

  • 1917 – Atheism relocates to Russia (Bolshevik Revolution).

    1917 – Ateyis la deplase ann Larisi (Revolisyon Bolchevik la).

  • 1989 – Soviet Union collapses.

    1989 — Inyon Sovyetik la tonbe.

  • Ukraine – Catholic Church legalized.

    Ikrèn — Legliz Katolik legalize.

  • Papacy regains geopolitical influence.

    Papote a reprann enfliyans jeyopolitik.

  • United States eventually comes under Papal influence (Daniel 11:41).

    Etazini finalman vin anba enfliyans Pap la (Danyèl 11:41).

  • Entire world follows (Daniel 11:42–43).

    Tout mond lan suiv (Daniel 11:42–43).

Ukraine fits into stages 3–4 as part of the transition between Soviet atheism and restored Papal influence.

Ikrèn antre nan etap 3–4 yo kòm yon pati nan tranzisyon ant ateyis Sovyetik la ak enfliyans papal la ki retabli.

Sources Referenced in Ukraine Discussion

Sous yo fè referans ak yo nan diskisyon sou Ikrèn

  • Jeff Pippenger (primary theological framework)

    Jeff Pippenger (kad teolojik prensipal la)

Spirit of Prophecy

Lesprit de prophétie

  • The Great Controversy

    Gran Kontwovès la

  • Selected Messages

    Messages choisis

  • Testimonies for the Church

    Témoignages pour l’Église

Secular Press

Laprès eksklizyon Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Lasanble Sekilye

  • Time Magazine

    Magazin Time

  • Life Magazine

    Magazin Life

  • U.S. News & World Report

    U.S. News & World Report

Ukraine is mentioned in connection with:

Ikrèn mansyone anrapò ak:

  • Post-World War II Catholic persecution

    Pèsekisyon katolik apre Dezyèm Gè Mondyal la

  • Underground survival of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

    Sivivans kache Legliz Katolik Ikrenyen an anba tè

  • Gorbachev–Vatican diplomacy

    Diplomasi Gorbachev–Vatikan

  • Legal restoration of Catholic hierarchy

    Restorasyon legal yerachi katolik la

Summary of Ukraine’s Role in the Newsletter

Rezime sou Wòl Ikrèn nan Bilten an

The Ukraine was a stronghold of suppressed Catholicism under Soviet atheism. The legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church signaled the weakening of the king of the south. The Vatican’s influence in the Ukraine demonstrated the Papacy’s resurgence and the Ukraine’s religious shift served as tangible evidence that Daniel 11:40 was being fulfilled. The events surrounding Ukraine formed part of the first step in the healing of the Papacy’s deadly wound. The Ukraine is therefore presented not as an isolated political event, but as a prophetic marker within the final movements of Daniel 11.

Ikrèn te yon fòtrès Katolis ki te siprime anba ateyis Sovyetik. Legalizasyon Legliz Katolik Ikrèn nan te siyale feblisman wa sid la. Enfliyans Vatikan an nan Ikrèn te demontre rezirjans Papote a, epi chanjman relijye Ikrèn nan te sèvi kòm prèv konkrè ke Danyèl 11:40 t ap akonpli. Evènman ki te antoure Ikrèn yo te fòme yon pati nan premye etap gerizon blesi mòtèl Papote a. Se poutèt sa, yo prezante Ikrèn non kòm yon evènman politik izole, men kòm yon makè pwofetik anndan dènye mouvman Danyèl 11 yo.