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.
Daniel chunka huk versículo iskay chunka tawaqninpi sut’inchan, mana iñiq Roma aswan hatun kamachiq kashanpaq pacha “tiempo” nisqa simiwan. Huk “tiempo”qa profecíaq churayninpi kimsa pachak soqta chunka watata reqsichin, chay watakunaqa qallarin ñawpa pacha historiapa aswan reqsisqa hatun lamar maqanakuypi, Actium maqanakuypi, 31 a.C. watapi. Huknin lamar maqanakuykunapas karqan aswan hatun, estrategia nisqapi aswan allin yuyaychasqa, ichaqa Actiumqa aswan rikch’arisqa lamar maqanakuy karqan Marc Antonywan Cleopatrawan tinkisqanrayku. Historiaq ancha chaninchasqanpi rikch’akun Berlín llaqta perqaq urmananman, Daniel 11:40 nisqapa hunt’akuyninpi, hinallataq 9/11 nisqapi Twin Towers nisqakunaman, Apocalipsis chunka pusaqniyuq nisqapa hunt’akuyninpi; Diosqa historiaq ruwasqankunata akllan Simi profético nisqanta hunt’achinampaq churaqtiqa, chayta ruwan aswan achka runakunaq umallinkuman chayananpaq hina.
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.
Paywanwan ruwasqan qhepamanqa payqa llullakuypi llamk’anqa; ichaqa wicharimuspaqa kallpachasqa kanqa aslla runakunallawan. Allin thakpiqa yaykunqa, suyupaq aswan wiran chiqninkunamanpas; hinaspan ruwanqa mana taytan ruwasqanta, nitaq ñawpa taytankunapas ruwasqankuta; paykunaman rakinqa apaqa, qichusqa imakuna, qhapaq kaytawan; arí, sinchi pukarakunapaq contranpi yuyayninkunata wakichinqa, huk pisi tiempollapaq. Daniel 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.
Uriah Smithqa tukuy rikch’ayninkunata tukuchan, versículo iskay chunka kimsayoqpi Roma llaktawan Macabeokunawan rurasqa huñunakuymanta, chay versículopi aslla runakunamanta rimarispa.
“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.
“Kay pachapi Romanokunaqa huk pisi llaqtallas kachkarqanku, hinaspataq qallarirqanku llullakuspa llamk’ayta, utaq yachaywan, imaynachus simi nin. Hinaspataq kaymanta pacha wiñarirqanku mana sayk’uspa, utqaymanta wichariyniyoqta, chay qhepaman chayashqanku atiyninkupa ancha hatun kayninman.”
“[Verse twenty-four quoted].
“[Chunka tawa chunka tawa ñisqa chaskisqa].”
“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.
Roma p’unchaykuna manaraq chayamushaqtinraq, nacionkunaqa ancha allin provinciakunaman, qhapaq hallp’akunaman haykunakuq kanku maqanakuywan hinaspa atipaywan. Kunanqa Romaqa ruwanantaq karqa, imatachus mana rurasqachu karqa taytakuna nitaq taytakunapa taytankunapas; chayqa, kay jap’iqkuna chaskiy samayllawan chaskiymi. Ñawpaqpi mana hayk’aqpas uyarisqa costumbreqa kunan qallarin, reykunaqa testamentopi qhawaspa reinokunata Romanokunaman saqespa. Chaynaqtinmi Romaqa hatun provinciakunata jap’irqan.
“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.
“Chayna hina Romaq kamachikuynin uraman haykurqankuqa, manan pisilla allinchasqachu chaymanta chaskirqanku. Qhuyapayawan llamp’u sonqowanmi tratasqa karqanku. Hinallataqmi karqa, hinaq michiqtawan apaq qichusqata rakisqanku hina. Awqankumantam waqaychasqa karqanku, hinaspan hawka kawsaypiwan allin sayaq kaypiwan samasqa karqanku Romaq atipayninpa amachasqan urapi.
“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.
“Kay versículopa qhipa chiqninmanmi, Obispo Newton yuyayta qon, sinchi pukllaykunamanta ñawpaq rimaykuna llaqtap sinchi hark’anankunamanta ruwasqa kasqanmanta, manam paykunapa contranpichu. Kaytam Romanokuna ruwarqanku, qanchis urquniyoq llaqtankupa sinchi hark’asqa llaqtanmanta. ‘Huk p’unchawkama hina;’ mana iskayrayaypaqchu, huk proféticotiempom, 360 wata. ¿Mayqen puntomantataq kay watakuna yupasqa kanan? Ichaqa qatiqnin versículopi rikuchisqa ruwaymanta.” 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.
Smithqa qatiqllanmi, hinaspataqmi 31 a.C. watapi Actiumpi maqanakuyta kimsa pachak soqta chunka watakunapa qallariynin hina reqsichin. Chaymanta, iskay chunka pisqayniyuq versículota citaqta, Smithqa kayhinata nishan.
“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.
“23, 24 nisqakunawanqa pusamuwanchik judíokuna Romakunawan ruwasqa alianzamanta kay laduyman, ñawpaq wata 161 manaraq Cristo paqarichkaptin, chay pacha Romaqa tukuy pachapi kamachiyta hap’irqanña. Kunan ñawpaqninchikpi kaq nisqaqa qhawachin uray llaqtapa reyninpa contranpi, Egiptomanta, kallpasapa sinchi kampañata, hinallataq hatun, atiyniyuq soldadokunapa chawpipi huk reqsisqa maqanakuy pasasqanta. ¿Kay hinakunaqa cheqaqchus pasaran Romaq historiapin kay pachakunaqa? — Arí, pasaran. Chay guerraqa Egiptowan Romawan guerra karqan; chay maqanakuytaq Actiumpa maqanakuy karqan. Huk pisi qhawariyta qhawarisunchik kay tinkuyman apaq imakunamanta.”
“[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.
“[Marc] Antonio, Augusto César, hinallataq Lepidoqa triunvirato nisqa huñuyninta ruwarqanku, Julius Césarpa wañusqanman kutichispa chaninchayta jurarqanku. Kay Antonioqa Augustoq cuñadan tukurqan, panin Octaviawan casarakuspa. Antonioqa Egiptoman apasqa karqan gobiernomanta llamk’aykunapi; ichaqa Cleopatrapa, Egiptopa mana allin kawsayniyuq reyna warmip, yachaykunanwan hinallataq sumaq kayninwan atipasqa rikurqan. Chay warmiman munakuyninqa sinchi hinan karqan, chaymi qhipaman Egiptoq interesesninkunata hap’iq tukurqan, warmin Octaviata saqerqan Cleopatrata kusichinapaq, provincia tras provincia payman qorqan paypa mana saqsay munayninta hunt’achinapaq, Alejandriapi triunfo raymita ruwarqan Roma llaqtapi mana ruwaspa, hinallataq hukniraq imaymana ruwaykunawan Romapi runakunata ancha phiñachirqan; chayrayku Augustoqa mana sasachakuywan paykunata pusarqan llapan sonqowan kay suyunkupa awqantaq contra guerraman yaykunankupaq. Kay guerraqa hawkallamantaqa Egipto contra hinallataq Cleopatra contra karqan; ichaqa cheqaqmantapuni Antonio contra karqan, paymi kunanqa Egiptoq asuntosninkupa umalliqninpi sayasqa karqan. Hinaspa paykunapa ch’aqwayninkupa cheqaq causanqa, Prideaux nisqanman hina, iskayninkumanta mayqenpas mana kusisqa kayta atirqanchu Romapa imperionninpa kuskanllawan; Lepidoqa triunviratomanta urmachisqa kaptin, kunanqa paykunapuraqña chayqa karqan, sapankanku llapanta hap’iyta munaspa, guerraq suerteninta wikch’urqanku chayta hap’inankupaq.” 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.
Profecíapiqa Actium maqanakuyqa domingo p’unchaw kamachiyta reqsisichin, imaraykuchus chayqa kimsa geografíamanta hark’akunaq kimsakuti atipayninmi karqan, chaymi pagano Romaq “llapan pacha kamachikuyninta” sayarichirqan, imayna Smith nisqanman hina. Imanam pagano Romawan karqan hina, chaynallataqmi papal Romaq kimsan kaq hark’akuynin Roma llaqtamanta qarqosqa kasqan p’unchawpi, papal Romaq “llapan pacha kamachikuynin” qallariyta ruwarqan 538 watapi. Chay iskay testigokunaqa domingo p’unchaw kamachiyta rimanku maypichus hinallataq hayk’aqchus kunan pacha Roma Biblia profeciapi soqta kaq hinallataq qanchis kaq qhapaq suyu-kunata atipan, chayta ruwaspataq kimsan kaq hark’akuynintapas atipan; chay hinaqa “llapan pacha kamachikuyta” sayarichin tawa chunka iskay simbólico killakunapaq.
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.
Paymanpas simi jatun karqan hatun rimaykunata, Diospa contranpi rimaykunatapas rimanampaq; hinaspapas payman qosqa karqan tawa chunka iskay killa pacha llamk’ananpaq. Apocalipsis 13:5.
Rome Against Egypt
Romaqa Egiptopa contranpi
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.
Roma llaqtamanta Augustoq Egipto llaqtapaq, Cleopatrawan ima awqanakuyninpa profetiko dinamikanqa Marco Antonioq hatarinanraykum kallpachakurqa, hinaspataq chay profetiko dinamikaqa profetika necesidadrayku domingo kamachikuypi rikuchisqa profetiko dinamikakunatam rappresentayta atinan.
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.
Actiumpi Romaqa Egiptota atiparqan, huk atiyniyoqta, mayqanqa huk hatarikuq qhariwan huk mana ch’uya warmiwan huñusqa kasqa. Antonioqwan Cleopatrayuq huñunakuyninqa iglesiatawan estadotawan hukchasqa kasqanmi. Actiumpi, Agustínpa Romaqa atiparqan huk atiyniyoqta, mayqanqa iglesiatawan estadotawan mana ch’uya huñunakuyninwan rikuchisqa kasqa.
Image of the Beast
Uywaq Animalkunaq rikchaynin
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.
Cleopatraqa rikuchin huk qichkasqa iglesiata, Antoniowan hukllachasqa, Romaq unanchan kasqanta. Cleopatraqa paykunaq tupanakuyninkupaq kamachiqmi karqa, Urías Smith nisqanpi chayta rikuchispa, maypichus Antonioqa “Cleopatraq, Egiptoq qollu qhuchuq reinanpa, yachayninman hinaspa sumaq kayninman urmasqa víctimam tukurqa” nispa nirqan. Iglesiapaq hinallataq estadopaq Antonio hinaspa Cleopatrawan rikuchisqa hukllayqa Cleopatra-ta reqsichin chay tupanakuypi kamachiq atiy hina; chayrayku, iglesiapaq hinaspa estadopaq paykunaq tupanakuyninwan rikuchisqa huñuyninqa bestiapa rikch’ayninpa sut’inchasqanman hinam tarikun—chayqa iglesiapaq hinaspa estadopaq huñuyninmi, warmiqa chay tupanakuypi kamachispa. Actiumqa utqayman hamuq domingo kamachiyta unanchasqa karqa.
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.
Augustusqa sut’inta papal atiynin Estados Unidos suyuta atipayta, utqaylla hamuq domingo kamachiypi. Marc Antonyqa allpa uywapa Republicano wakranmi, Cleopatrataq Protestante wakran. Antonywan Cleopatrataq huñunakunku, hinaspa dragón hina rimanku utqaylla hamuq domingo kamachiypi. Cleopatrapas Antonypas iskayninku dragón atiyniyoqpa unanchasqanmi kanku, hinaspa domingo kamachiypi hunt’asqa hukllachasqa kaspankutaq—dragón hina rimanku.
Dragons
Dragones
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.
Greciapas Egiptupas profecía nisqapi huk dragón atiyniyuqta rikuchkanku, hinaspapas Antonioqa huk dragón atiyniyuqta rikuchillarqataq. Egiptoqa Daniel chunka hukniyuqpi uray suyusqa karqan, Greciataq inti haykuy llaqtasqa karqan. Egiptoqa Ptolomeo I-pa makinkama hap’isqa karqan Alejandro-pa qhapaq suyunnin tawa rak’iman rakisqa qhipaman. Chaymanta Ptolomeo I-qa uraymanta profético ñawpaq reymi tukurqan, Cleopatrataq Egiptopi qhipa Ptolomeo ayllupa kamachiq karqan. Ptolomeoqa Macedoniapi paqarisqa karqan, chaymi Alejandro Hatunpa paqarinan llaqta karqan.
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.
Macedoniaqa karqa Grecia llaqtap norte cheqninpi karqan, hinaspa ñawpaq ayllunkup paqarisqankuta griego willakuykunapi sinchi ñawpa héroekunamanta kasqanta nispa sut’incharqan. Grecia urayninpi kaq llaqtakuna-estadokunaqa Macedoniakunataqa uray Grecia Hellenistakunamanta aswan bárbarokunata hina qhawarqanku. Macedoniakunaqa monarquía karqanku, hinaspa uray llaqtakuna-estadokuna (poleis) hina Atenas, Esparta, Tebas, Corinto, hukkunapas, Grecia urayninpi chaymanta chawpi cheqninpi, Aegeo watakuna ukhupipas karqanku. Kay poleiskunaqa achka kuti democracia, oligarquía, utaq chay iskayninmanta t’aqllasqa kamachiykunayuq karqanku, ichaqa Macedoniaqa huk chawpinchasqa monarquía karqan, kallpasapa reykuna aylluyuq (Argeadas). Chaywanpas llapankum Hellenistakuna karqanku, hinaspa Roma historiaman haykuspaqa, Hellenistakunata griegokuna nispa suticharqan. Cleopatraqa qhipa Ptolemaico kamachiqmi karqan, mayqinchus norte reinopa monarquía ayllunpi griegokunata rikuchirqan, Macedonia suyupi, icha norte Grecia cheqninpi.
King of the South
Uraypi Reyninpa Kamachiqnin
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.
Kleopatraqa Ptolemaico qhapaq suyuq qhipa kamachiqninmi karqa; chay suyuqa qallarisqa karqa Ptolemaio I-wan, Alejandroq qhapaq suyunchik tawa rakikuna-man rakikusqan pacha. Actium maqanakuypi Ptolemaico qhapaq suyuqa, chiqap uray llaqtapaq qhapaqnin kaspa, tukukuyninman chayarqa. Qatiq uray llaqtapaq qhapaqninqa espiritual Egipto kanqa, Francia mana Diospi iñiq kayninwan sut’ichasqa, Francia Revolución nisqapa historiankupi.
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.
Paypa wañusqa cuerponkunaqa hatun llaqtapa calleyninpi siraykunku, chay llaqtataqa espiritualmente Sodomapas Egiptopas sutichanku, maypichus Señorniykupas chacatasqa karqa. Apocalipsis 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.
Alejandroq suyuynin rakikuyninman hina tupachisqa chiqaq Egiptoqa chiqaq uray rey karqa; ichaqa espiritwan Egiptoqa Egiptopa profetik attributunkunawanmi uray rey hina rikuchisqa, mana chiqaq mayman rikuchiq kayninnaqchu.
South and West
Urinanpiwan Intinpiwanpas
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.
Cleopatraqa Ptolemaico ayllupa qhepa kamachiqnin kasqanrayku, willakuy-hamutanapi iskay rikch’aq atiy karqan: Grecia-manta (inti yaykuna llaqtamanta) hina, hinaspa Egipto-manta (uraymanta) hina; ichaqa qatiqnin, chaymanta qhepaman espiritual uraymanta qhapaq kamachiqqa Francia kanqa, chaypas iskay rikch’aq atiyyuqmi, Apocalipsis chunka hukniyuqpi Egipto hina hinaspa Sodoma hina rikuchisqa. Sodomaq qhelli mana allin kawsayninqa inti yaykuna llaqtamanta Cleopatrayuq qhelli mana allin kawsayninwan tupayan, hinaspa uraymanta Cleopatraqa Egiptoq Dios mana kasqanta yuyaywan tupayan. Uraymanta qhepa literal qhapaq kamachiqpa iskay rikch’aq kayninqa uraymanta ñawpaq espiritual qhapaq kamachiqwan tupasqa karqan.
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.”
Actiumpi maqanakuyqa karqan mana ch’uya huñunakuymi: Antoniyopa Roma dragonninwan, Cleopatrapa uraymantaq inti hayk’aq llaqtakunamantaq dragonninwan. Antonywan Cleopatrawan iglesiatapas estadotapas rikuchkanku, chayrayku Actiumpi Roma llaqtapa Augustospa atipayninqa rikuchin huk atipayninta maypichus Romaqa mana ch’uya ishkay kuti huñunakuypa hawanpi sayan, animalpa rikch’ayninta yachachispa. Kimsa pachak suqta chunka watakuna qhipaman, Daniel 11:24 nisqapa hunt’akuyninpi, Constantinoqa Romata rakirqan inti lluqsimuypiwan inti yaykumuypiwan, Roma warmita inti lluqsimuypi saqespa, Roma qaritaq inti yaykumuyman apaspa. Uraymantaq inti lluqsimuymantaq atipayqa rikuchirqan inti yaykumuypiwan inti lluqsimuypiwan rakikuyta, kimsa pachak suqta chunka watayuq “pacha” qhipaman, Actiumpi maqanakuypi. Ñawpaq tinkuyninpi Antoniyoqa chaskirqan inti yaykumuypi Romata, Augustostaq inti lluqsimuypi kaqta; chaymi Actiumqa inti yaykumuypiwan inti lluqsimuypiwan huñurqan, ichaqa huk “pacha”llapaq.
31 BC and 330
31 a. C. hinallataq 330 hinallataqpaqmi
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.
Jesúsqa tukuy kuti qallariyta tukukuyninwan rikuchin; chayrayku, Actiumpi atipay 31 a.C.-pi, 330 watapi imperiopa inti lloqsiyman chayri inti yaykuyman rakikuynta rikch’achin. Actiumpi 31 a.C.-pi karqa, 330 watapi tukukuq 360 watakunapi omegapa alphanninqa. Iskayninpas, 31 a.C. hinallataq 330, Daniel chunka hukniyuq qillqapi chunka suqtayuq versículopi chayri tawa chunka hukniyuq versículopi rikuchisqa hina, utqay hamuq domingo kamachikuyta rikch’achinku.
Another Symbol
Huk Simboluqaña
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.
Roma llaqtamanta Antony, uraymanta haqmanta Cleopatrawan chaymanta inti haykuy llaqtamanta Cleopatrawan hukchasqa, uywapa rikchayninpa iskaychasqa hukllachasqan ukhupi kimsa kuti huñunakuyninta rikuchin. Chakanaqa Domingo kamachikuywanpas tupachisqa kashan, chayrayku Actiumwanpas, 330wanpas. Chakanapi, iglesiatawan estadotawan iskaychasqa hukllachakuyninmi rikuchisqa kashan: judíokuna (waqllichisqa iglesia) Roma (estado)wan huñunakuspa Cristota wañuchinankupaq. Chay hukllachakuypi kimsakaq parti chakanapiqa Barrabásm rikuchin, llulla Cristo, sutinri “taytapa churin” nin. Barrabásqa unanchasqa hina llulla profeta kashan, Cristowan chiqaq profeta hina tupachisqa kaptin. Romaqa Antony karqan, uraymanta haqmanta Cleopatraqa judíokunatawan Barrabástawan rikuchirqan.
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.
Chakataspas Elíaswanpasmi tupun, Carmelo Urqupi, maypichus akllasqa karqa pichus cheqaq willakuq profeta kasqanmanta utaq llulla willakuq profeta kasqanmanta. Chay p’unchaypi llulla profetaqa iskayraq simbólo karqa, Baalpa profetankunamanta hinallataq sach’a muyupi sacerdotekunamantapas. Baalqa qhari diosmi; sach’a muyupa sacerdotekunaqa Ashtaroth-ta rikuchirqanku, warmi diosata. Chakatasqapi judíokunaqa Ashtaroth karqanku, warmi diosata; Barabástaq, Llaquypa Qaripa llulla rikch’aynin kasqanrayku, qhari dios Baalmi karqa.
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.
Kliyupatraqa iskayninta uray llaqtapa reyna karqan, chaymanta inti hayk’aq llaqtapa reynapas karqan. Antonyqa Romaq rikch’ayninmi karqan, Julio wañuchisqa kasqanman kutichiyta jurakusqa kinsa-rakiy triunviratopaq huknin rakinmi karqan. Julioq wañusqan iskay chunka kimsayuq k’irisqawanmi 1798 watapi papakunapa wañuy hina k’irisqanta sut’incharqan, Daniel chunka hukniyuq t’aqapi tawa chunka versiculopa hunt’akusqanman hina. Augustoqa Actiumpi chay wañuy hina k’irisqapa allinyachisqanmi rikuchin. Chay k’irisqa allinyachisqa kan Antonywan Kliyupatrawan wañusqankupi. Antonywan Kliyupatrawanqa Estados Unidospi uywapa rikch’ayninta sut’inchanku, chayqa kinsa-rakiy profetiku kaymi, allpa uywapi iskay waqrankunawan kuska. Antonyqa huk rakiymi, Kliyupatraqataq iskay huk rakikunata sut’inchin. Antonyq Roma kasqanpas, icha Kliyupatraq Egiptunwan Gresyan kasqanpas, iskayninku kuskallam wañunku domingo kamachikuypi, Bibliapa profeciankunapi soqtaq qhapaq suyupaq tukukuynin chaypi chayamushqanrayku. Profetikuta qhawarispan, Kliyupatraqa Antonywan tupachisqa kasqanpi iglesiapa yachay-sapa rurayninwan estadopa yachay-sapa rurayninwan chaqrusqa kaymi, chaypi iglesiapa yachay-sapa rurayninqa estadopa yachay-sapa rurayninta llullachispan kamachin.
The Second Death Typified
Iskay Wañuy nisqapa rikch’aynin
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.
Huk profético nisqapa huknin nivelpi, Cleopatraq Julius Caesarwan Marc Antonywan kasqan tinkuynin iskay kuti rikuchin iglesiaq Cleopatra nisqa artesaníankunata Roma Imperioq estadonpa artesaníanwan huknin relaciónpi kasqanta. Payqa Juliusmanta saqisqa karqan 1798 watapi, ñawpaq simbólico wañuyninpi, Daniel once nisqapi tawa chunka versiculopa hunt’akuyninman hina; hinaspataq Actiumpi tukukuyninman chayan, mana pipas yanapananpaq kaptin, Daniel once nisqapi tawa chunka pichqa versiculopa hunt’akuyninman hina. Tawa chunka versículoqa alpha nirqan hina ñawpaq wañuypaq nanayniyuq k’irisqanmanta allchakuq ñawpaq qallariyninmi, hinaspataq tawa chunka pichqa versiculopa omega nirqan hina iskay kaq, tukupaq wañuyninta chaskin chaypim.
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.
Imaynanpas chunka suqtaq t’aqaymanta iskay chunka iskayniyuqkama chay tawa Roma atiyninkuna karqan, hinallataq Cleopatraqa bíblico símbolohinaqa hukmanta aswan achka niyuqmi, contexto nisqaman hina. Julioqa payta saqirqan 1798 watapi, reyhina yanapaynin qichusqa kaptin; chaymantaqa wañuchiq ch’akiyñin hampisqa kan domingo kamachiypi, ichaqa Apocalipsis chunka qanchisniyuqpi chunka reykunaq tukukuyninpi ninawan payta chinkachinku, iskay kaq, tukupaq wañuyninwan tinkusqan p’unchawpi.
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.
Cleopatraqa iskay sapa kayninta rikch’achisqa unanchaqa kachkan Faraonpa Egiptomanta atheísmo nisqapi, hinallataq Greciaq religión yachay-simipipas rikuchisqa kayta. Chay iskay sapa kayninqa Egiptoq estado kamachiyta, hinallataq Greciaq iglesia kamachiytapas rikuchin. Greciaq religión yachay-simiqa Grecia mama diosata Athena sutiyuqwanmi rikuchisqa, payqa templonpi estatuaram hina churakusqa karqan, chay temploqa Parthenón sutiyuqmi karqan. Athenaqa yachaypa unanchaqan, warmi kasqanraykutaq runapa yachachisqan religiónta rikuchin, Diospa yachachisqanman contrastaq.
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.
Estados Unidos nacionpa iskay waqrankunaqa Republicanisñom Protestantismom kanku, chaykunataq Franciapi Egiptowan Sodomawan rikuchisqa karqan. Egiptoqa estadomanta kamachiy yachaymi, Sodomaqa iglesiamanta kamachiy yachaymi; chayrayku Republicanismoqa Egiptowan tupachisqa kachkan, Protestantismoqa Sodomawan. Republicanismoqa Egiptom, Protestantismoqa Sodomam Greciawanpas. Runapa yachachikuyninpa unanchanqa griego diosa Atenea-mi, paypa templonqa Partenón karqan, chaypa kunan pacha iskaychasqanmi Nashville, Tennessee llaqtapi Partenón templo nisqapi tarikun. Iskay kaq waqrawan hukllachasqa, Domingo kamachiy p’unchawpi Estados Unidospi kawsaq waqlliq iglesiapa unanchasqanqa Cleopatra, Astarot, Salomé, hinaspa Sodoma hinam rikuchisqa kachkan.
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.
Cleopatraqa faraonpa atheismon nirqanta rikch’arin, hinallataq griegokunapa religionnintapas. Atheismopa filosofianwan kuska puriq religionqa griegokunapa yachachikuyta yupaychaymi. Jesusqa sapa kuti qallariyta tukukuyninwan rikuchin, hinaspa huertapi mikuyta ama nisqa sach’aqa allinmanta mana allinmanta yachay sach’ami karqan; chayqa griegokunapa filosofiapa religionninta rikch’achin, chaytan Hermana White “yachay aswan hatun” nispa sutichan. Chaymi reqsichin hinaspa kallpachin Cleopatraq griego yachay religionninta, Cristowan Satanaswan hatun ch’aqwaypi cheqaq yachachikuyq musuqchasqa hinaspa llulla rantin kasqanta.
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.
Nashville, Tennessee sutiyoq “uraypi Atenas” nisqawan sutichasqa, hinaspata Cleopatraqa uraypa qhipa chiqap reina karqa. Uraypa qhipa reinam uraypa hamuq ñawpaq espiritual reyta rikch’achirqan, chaytaqa mana Diospi iñiq Francia hunt’arqan. Mana Diospi iñiq Franciaqa Estados Unidos-ta rikch’achin, maypichus Nashville, Tennessee llaqtapi, “uraypi Atenas” nisqapi, diosa Atenapa Parthenón templon simbólicamente rikuchisqa kachkan. Temploqa Nashville llaqtapi 2500 West End nisqapi tarikun. Iskay chunka phisqa yupayqa Mateo ishkay chunka phisqapi kimsa parábolakunapa wisq’asqa punkunta rikch’achin. Cleopatraqa “uray” hinallataq “inti haykuna” reina hina, uraypi Atenas nisqapi “tukukuyninman” chayan.
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.
Kay Actium, Cleopatra, Augustus, Antony ima yuyaykunaq qhawariyninwanmi kutimunchik Daniel chunka hukniyuq kapítulonpa iskay chunka tawaq versículomanta kimsa chunkaq versículokama. Ichapas, kay pasajepa aswan mana sut’i kaqninqa chay huk mesapi llullakuykunata rimashaqtinku.
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.
Kay iskaynin reykunapa sonqonkukunaqa mana allinta ruraymanmi kanqa, huk mesallapim llullakuykunata rimarinqaku; ichaqa manam allinta lluqsinqachu, imaraykuchus tukukuyninqa churasqa pachallapiraqmi kanqa. 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.
Kay versículopi ñisqa pachaqa 330mi, versículo iskay chunka tawañiq “pacha”pa tukukuynin. Chay churakusqa pachaqa Estados Unidos llaqtapa Domingo kamachiyta rikuchin, hinallataq kay pachapi runakunapa probaciónnin tukukuynintapas rikuchin. Manaraq Domingo kamachiy hamuchkaptin, iskay reykuna, sonqonkupi mana allinta ruray munayniyoqkuna, huk mísapi kikinpurapi llullakuykunata rimarinqaku. Manaraq Daniel chunka hukniyuqpa versículo chunka suqtañiqwan tawa chunka hukniyuqpi nisqa Domingo kamachiy hamuchkaptin, iskay reykuna huk mísapi llullakuykunata rimarinqaku, ichaqa llullakuyninkuqa mana allinllachu lluqsinqa. ¿Pitaq chay iskay reykuna, mayqinakunachus kikinpurapi llullakuykunata rimanku? Manaraq chay yuyayta kutichisun, kay seriepi ñawpaqtaña rimasqanchik wakin simbolismokunamanta yuyarichisqaykichik.
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.
Tawa Roma kamachiqkunaqa imaymana profetika símbolokunatan rikuchinku, ima contexto-pi qhawasqa kasqankuman hina. Roma kamachiqkuna kaspapas, símboloman hinaqa, aswantaqa unay Judápa profetika historianta rikuchinku, Seleúcida kamachiy mantam Romakunaq kamachiyninman tikrasqankupi.
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.
Pompeyqa huk heneral karqan, hinaspa qhipanman kimsa Roma kamachiqkuna llapankupas Caesar karqanku. Juliusqa Augustuswan tupachisqa kaqninpi iskay kimsa-kutin huñunakuykunata rikuchirqan, iskay triunviratokunawan: ñawpaq kaqqa mana oficialchu karqan, iskayñiqin kaqqa oficial karqan. Chay tawa kamachiqkunaqa wakin contexto-kunapi domingo kamachiyta rikuchinku. Pompeyqa hatun sumaq hallp’ata atipaykurqan; Juliusqa iskay chunka kimsayuq t’uqsisqa ch’akiykunawan rikuchisqa, ñawpaq angelmi, payqa ñawpaq Caesar kasqanrayku, hinaspa kimsañiqin angelta unanchan, chaymi Tiberias karqan. Tiberiasqa chakatanapi, chaymi domingo kamachiyqa, iskay chunka kimsayuqwanpas rikuchisqa kashan, imaraykuchus iskay chunka kimsayuqqa at-one-ment nisqata rikuchin; hinaspa chakataqa ancha esencialmi Cristo ruwanasninpi, Paypa Dios Kayninta ñuqanchik runa kayninchikwan huñunankupaq. Chayrayku, Juliuswan Tiberiaswanqa ñawpaq hinaspa kimsañiqin willakuymi, iskay chunka kimsayuqwan rikuchisqa.
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.
Julius manam Hollywoodpa willakuykunapi sapa kuti munaychaq runa hina rikuchisqachu karqa; payqa mana kuyapayuq, atiyniyuq kayman sonqon churakusqa runam karqa. Tiberiasqa Juliusmanta aswan millaymi karqa, imaraykuchus chay millayninqa versopi pas rimarisqa kachkan; hebreo simikuna alfabitopa qhipa killqanqa iskay chunka iskayniyuqmi, ñawpaq killqataq hukniyuqmi. Alphaqa omegamanta aswan huch’uyñam, Tiberiaspa millaynintaq versículo iskay chunka iskaynipi churakusqam kachkan, chaymi hebreo alfabitopa qhipa killqan; chay iskay millay runakuna Juliuswan Tiberiaswan sutichasqa ukhupitaq Augustus karqa. Augustusqa Roma atiyninpa hinallataq hatun kayninpa ancha qhapaq k’anchayninmi karqa. Ñawpaq kaqwan kinsa kaq willakuypa contran hina, payqa chunka kinsayuq killqawanmi rikuchisqa, chayqa hatarikuypa unanchanmi. Augustusqa qhapaq suyunta takyachirqa Antoniowan Cleopatrawan hatarikuyninta urmachispan, chaymi Roma historiapi aswan reqsisqa hatarikuynin karqa.
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.
Augustusqa Romapi atiynin kallpantaqmi, kimsa kaq hark’ayta atipaq, chayta ruwaspanmi domingo p’unchaw kamachiyta rikuchirqan, hinallataq Apocalipsis chunka kimsa ñiqi capitulopi hatarikuypa tawa chunka iskay simboliku killakuna ukhupi kamachiq Romapi atiynita rikuchirqan. Domingo p’unchaw kamachiypa ñawpaqman churakuspa, Pompeyoqa iskaynintaq 1798 hinallataq 1989 nisqakunam, chayraykum Pompeyoqa Antiochus Magnuspa unanchaqnin tukupun, paymi Siria suyupi tawa kaq awqanakuyta 219 manta 217 Cristo manaraq paqarisqan watakama tukuchirqan, chunka hukniyuq capitulopa chunka kaq versiculon hunt’akusqanpi. Chaymantataq Julio Césarqa chunka hukniyuq hinallataq chunka iskayniyuq versiculokunawan tinkuchisqa kachkan, lindero nisqa mayupi maqanakuywan, 217 Cristo manaraq paqarisqan watapi Raphia maqanakuywan. Chaypim Julioqa hinallataq Antiochus Magnus kashan, hinallataq Augustus Césarqa versiculo chunka pichqapi Panium maqanakuypi Antiochus Magnusmi kashan. Chaymantataq versiculo chunka suqtapi Tiberiasqa domingo p’unchaw kamachiymin, ichaqa mana Antiochus Magnuschu, chaypim payqa Pompeyo, imaraykuchus Jesusqa tukukuyninta qallariyninwan sapa kuti rikuchin. Chay versiculoqa Seleucid imperiopa tukukuyninta señalan, Biblia profecíapi suqta kaq qhapaq suyukuna ukhupi Estados Unidospa tukukuyninta unanchaqta.
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.
Astawanmi tinkuchinakunaraqmi kan chay tawa romano kamachiqkunapaq, hinaspataq chay siqi rikuchin chusku chunka kaq versiculopi pakasqa historiata. Iskay chunka kimsayoq kaq versiculopi Macabeokunapa siqinpas rikuchinmi chusku chunka kaq versiculopi pakasqa historiata. Chaymantataq, iskay chunka tawayoq kaq versiculopi, ñawpa romano imperyal paganoq willakuyninmi huk pacha-wan rikuchisqa kachkan—kimsa pachak soqta chunka watakuna. Romano historiapa siqin, iskay chunka tawayoq kaq versiculomanta kimsa chunka kaq versiculokama rikuchisqa, chaypas huk rikuchiylla kachkan chusku chunka kaq versiculopi pakasqa historiapaq. Chayqa tukukun kimsa chunka hukniyoq kaq versiculopi, maypichus rimay tikran paganomanta papal romanoman. Pagano Romaqa chay versiculopipas kashanraqmi, ichaqa chaypiqa mana Bibliapa profeciankunapi tawa kaq qhapaq suyu hinachu rikuchisqa, aswanpas chaymi política atiy hina rikuchisqa papado-ta 538 watapi tronoman churariq. 538 watapi papadoqa domingo p’unchaw kamachiyta pasarqan, chayrayku kimsa chunka hukniyoq kaq versiculoqa tinkuchkan soqta chunka kaq hinaspa chusku chunka hukniyoq kaq versiculokunawan. Iskay chunka tawayoq kaq versiculoqa Actium maqanakuyta hinaspa chay siqiwán tinkisqa historiata qallarichin.
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.
Chunka iskay chunka tawaq versículopi riqsichin imayna pagano Roma qallarin hatun kamachiq hinakuyta kimsa pachak suqta chunka watakunapaq, hinaspataq kimsa chunka hukniyuq versículopi papal Roma qallarin hatun kamachiq hinakuyta chunka iskay pachak suqta chunka watakunapaq. Chay siq’ipa qallariyninpas tukukuyninpas Cristopa sellonta apamun, Alpha y Omega nisqapa. Versículokunapi kachkan Marcu Antoniopa, Cleopatrayuq, hinaspa Augusto Césarpa historianku. Chunka suqtayuq versículopi pagano Roma atiparqan Seleúcida imperiota 65 a. C. watapi, chaymanta Judátapas 63 a. C. watapi. Actiumpa kimsay kaq hark’aynin 31 a. C. watapi riqsichirqan Egiptopa qhapaq suyupa tukukuyninta, imaynachus 65 a. C. watapi Seleúcidakunapa ñawpaq hark’aykuna rikch’achisqan hina. Huk kutitawan, tarisun Ñawpaq kaqpa hinaspa Qhipa kaqpa sellonta. 65 a. C. wata karqan kimsa hark’aykunamanta ñawpaq kaq, chaymi rikch’achirqan norte kaq reyniyoqpa atipaykusqanta; 31 a. C. watataq karqan kimsa hark’aykunamanta kimsay kaq, chaymi rikch’achirqan sur kaq reyniyoqpa atipaykusqanta. Judáqa, chay kimsa hark’aykunamanta chawpi kaq hark’ay hina, Pompeyo chayamushaptin 63 a. C. watapi Jerusalén llaqtapa perqankunapa ukhupi huk llaqtamasinkuna pura guerrapi kasharqan. Iskay kaq hark’ayqa huk sayariykachaypa unanchanmi.
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.
538 watapi, papa Romaq kimsa kaq harkayninmi Roma llaqtamanta qarqosqa karqan. Chay harkayqa Gothokuna karqan, chaypim Bibliamanta profecíaq pichqa kaq qhapaq suyunkuna qallarin; tawa kaq qhapaq suyu tukukusqan kikin cheqllapi. Hinaspataq, imaynan tawa kaq qhapaq suyu qallarisqan kimsa kaq harkayninpi, chay hinallataq Egiptoq qhapaq suyuntapas atipasqa karqan, imaynachus Seleúcidakunaq qhapaq suyunpa ñawpaq kaq harkayninpi rikuchisqa karqan. Kaymi reqsichin, iskay chunka tawaqniyuqmanta kinsa chunka kama versículokunapi tarikusqa profético testimoniota, huk siq’ipi kasqanta, chay siq’ipas tawa chunka kaq versículopa pakasqa historiapi churanapaq kasqanta. Chayraykun, ancha allin yuyaywan qhawarinapaqmi Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Julio César, Pompeyo, hinallataq Augusto César nisqakunaq rikuchisqan imaymana profética t’inkiykunata.
So is the vaguest part of the passage of verse twenty-four unto thirty, when they speak lies at one table?
Chaymi pasajepa aswan mana sut’i kajnin, iskay chunka tawayoj versículomanta kinsa chunka kama, maypichus huk mesallapi llullakuykunata rimanku?
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.
Kay iskay reykunap sonqonkupis mana allinta ruwanankupaqmi kanqa, huk mesallapim llullakuyta rimankaku; ichaqa chayqa manam allinllachu lluqsinqa, imaraykuchus tukukuyninqa chay churaska p’unchayllapiraqmi kanqa. Daniel 11:27.
Uriah Smith identifies the two kings as Marc Antony and Augustus Caesar.
Uriah Smithqa ishkay kamachiqkunata reqsisqa Marc Antonyta hinaspa Augusto César-ta kasqankuta.
“Verse twenty-seven quoted
«Chunka qanchisniyuq versículom nisqanta citarqa»
“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.
«Antonywan Caesarwan ñawpaqta hukllachasqa kasharqanku. Chaywanpas, masi kaypa p’achallan ukhunpi, iskayninkupas llapallan pachapi kamachiyta munaspa, chayrayku pakasqa yuyaykunawan purirqanku. Hukninmanta hukninman yupaychakuyninkupas, hinallataq masi kayninkupas, iskay uya runakunapa rimayninkunallan karqan. Huk mesallapi llullakuykunata rimarqanku. Octavia, Antonypa warmi, Caesarpa panin ima, Antony paymanta t’aqakusqan pachapi Roma llaqtapa runankunaman willarqan: paywan kasarakuyta chaskisqanta sapallañan Caesarwan Antonywan tinkuchisqa hukllachakuyta takyachinapaq suyayninrayku. Ichaqa chay yachachikuyqa mana allin ruwasqachu karqan. T’aqanakuy chayamurqan; hinaspapas chay maqanakuy qatiyninpi, Caesarqa tukuypi atipaq lloqsirqan». 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.
Octaviaqa riqsisqan hina, paypa Antonywan kasarasqanku huk huñunakuyta qispichiq prenda hina kasqanta, chaymi reqsichin warmin-qhari alianza kasarasqanta, mayqinchus ñawpaqta chunka hukniyuq kapítulopi rikuchisqa karqa, helenístico pacha Berenicepa Seleucida qhapaq Antiochus II Theoswan kasarasqanwan, 252 a.C. watapi muyuriqpi. Bereniceqa Ptolemy II Philadelphuspa ususinmi karqa. Octaviawan Berenicewanmi diplomático kasarakuykunata ichaqa proféticamente, tratadokunata rikuchinku. Pichqa kaqmanta chunka kaq versículokama reqsichinku uray llaqtapa hanaq llaqtapa qhapaq suyunkuna ukhupi diplomático kasarakuypa historianta, hinaspa Marc Antonywan Octavianwan, qhipaman Augustus Caesar sutiyuq hina reqsisqa, chay kasarakuyta allichaspa, paykunapas qhapaq suyuta inti lloqsimuyman inti yaykuymanwan rakirqanku.
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).
Brundisiumpa Paktun (40 ñawpaq Cristo) huk rimanakuywan churasqa allinyachiy karqan Marc Antonywan Octavianwan (qhipaman Augustus sutiyuq) chawpipi, iskay kaq Triunvirato ukhupi casi guerra civilman chay tensionsnisninkuta allichanankupaq. Chaypi Romanopa suyunkuna rakisqa karqan (Antony inti lloq’e kaqman, Octavian inti haykuy kaqman), hinaspapas Antonypa Octaviawan kasarakusqanwan (Octavianpa ñañan) takyasqa karqan. 39 ñawpaq Cristopi ñawpaq pichqa watayuq Triunviratopa tiempo kasqan tukukapuqtin, Antony Italya suyuman wayrurqan 300 aswan buqukunawan; qallariypi mana saqisqa karqanku Brundisiumman uraykunankupaq, chayrayku qhepaman Tarentumllapi sayarqanku. Chaymanmi Octavian tariparqan, unay mediacionkuna qhipaman, Antonypa ejerciton mana munasqanrayku Octavianpa ejercitonwan maqanakuyta, chaynallataq wakinpas. Octaviaqa ancha hatun yanapakuy mediacionpi ruwarqan, Antonyta yuyaychananpaq Sextus Pompey contra Octavianta yanapananpaq. Triunviratota yapamanta musuqyachirqanku huk pichqa watapaq (32 ñawpaq Cristokama), Antonyqa Octavianman qorqan 120 buqukunata, prometisqa soldadokunapa rantinpi (chaykunataq qhipaman Octavian mana qosqachu).
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.
Wata 32 a.C. nisqapi, iskaynin awqakuna ukhupi sut’i rakiy pasariq karqan. Paykunapura tupanakuyqa aswan mana allinman tukusqa karqan willakuy waqlliyninrayku, Antoniyupa inti llaqtakunaman qhawariyninrayku (Cleopatratawan), hinaspa Octavianopa inti yaykuna ladupi kallpanta huñuyninrayku. Octavianoqa Actium manaraq chayaykaptinmi Antonioq qhipa tantanakuy mañakusqankunata mana chaskirqanchu.
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.
Urayku qhapaqkunaq kasarakuy alianzanpi, chay hanaq suyuq reywan (Antíoco) uray suyuq reywan (Ptolomeo), uray suyuq reymi kasaraq warmita qusqan; Antonioq (inti lloqsiymanta kaq) Octavianowan (inti yaykuymanta kaq) uraychasqa kasarakuy alianzanpiqa, qharitapas inti yaykuymanta kaqmi qusqan. Iskay diplomático kasarakuykunaqa mana allin tukurqankuchu, hinallataq ususin otaq panin qusqaqa, tukuy tukukuyninpi, tratota p’akirqan chay atiyniyuqpa contranpi atipaq karqan.
The Testimony of Three
Kimsaq Testimonyonqa
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.
Seleukida Imperiopa tukukuyninpiqa kimsa kaq tratadom karqan, maypichus llullakuykuna huk mesapi rimakurqan. Kayqa phisqa kaq Siriya Awqanamanta (202–195 a.C.) contexto ukhupin pasakurqan, maypichus Antioco III Magnoqa Ptolemaik Reinoq pisi kallpayasqanman aprovechakurqan, Ptolomeo IV Filópatormanta wañusqan qhipanpi, 204 a.C. watapi. Ptolomeo V Epífanesqa (Ptolomeo V) wawalla kaspa tronoman wicharqan (5–6 watayuq hina), chaymi Egiptoqa regentekunapa makinpi saqisqa karqan, ukhu pantaq kayman, llaqta runakunapa hatarikuyninkunaman, hawanmanta amenazasmanpas mana hark’asqa.
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).
Antíoco Magnoqa ñamña yaykuspa hapisqañam karqa Ptolemeyokunaq allpankunamanta achka chiqnikunata Coele-Siriapi, Palestinapi, hinaspa Asia Menorpi, Panium Maqanakuy hina atipayninkunamanta qhipaman (200 a.C.). Manam Egiptota tukuy hinantinpi atipayta munarqachu (chayqa Romamanta haykuy atiyta apamunman karqa, imaraykuchus Romaqa payta ñit’isharqa wakin suyukunamanta karunchakunanpaq), aswanqa qatirqa huk diplomático kasarakuy rimanakuyta, “amachaq” runa hina. 197/195 a.C. watakunapi, maqanakuq tukukuyninpaq allin kawsay rimaypa huknin rakinan hina, Antíoco Magnoqa sipas ususin Cleopatra I Syra-ta (sutinchasqa hinapas Cleopatra Syra) watuchispa chaymanta kasararqa wawa Ptolomeo V-wan (chay kasarakuyqa karqa 193 a.C. watapi Rafiapi; Ptolomeoqa 16 watayuq karqa, Cleopatraqa 10).
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.
Kaymiqa sumaq sonqowan rurasqa hina qhawachisqa karqan: Antiocusqa pay kikinta wayna qhapaqpa yanapakuqninman churaspa, “waqaychaqnin” nisqahina rikuchikurqan, thak kayta takyachispa, chaypachallataq Asyapi atisqankunata hap’iq kachkarqan. Chay kasarakuyqa ususinrayku Egiptopi mana chiqanmanta atiyniyuq kayta qorqan (payqa suyaspam yuyarqan ususinqa Seleucidakunapa saphiymanta sutinchasqa kaspalla qhipaykunqa, Ptolemaic court nisqapi Siriapa favorninpi rimariq hina ruranapaq). Chay yachachisqa ñanqa mana munasqanmanchu tukurqan, imaraykuchus Cleopatraqa taytanpaqa mana yanaparqunchu, aswanqa qosanta hinallataq Egiptotam yanaparqan, chaymi Antiochuspa unay watakunapaq kamachiyta qhatiyninta urmachirqan. Kayqa Brundisiumpa Pactonwan (40 BC) tupachkan, hinallataq Roma llaqtapi kaq ruwanakunawan achka imaymanapi t’inkisqa karqan.
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).
Imaynanmi Antoniyqa Octaviawan (Octavianopa ñañanwan) casarakurqa maqanakuy qayllapi kachkaq atipanakuykunata huñunankupaq, chayhinallataqmi Antiochuspas usasirqan ususipa Ptolemy Vwan casarakusqanwan huk pisi tiempollapaq kachkaq hawka kayta, hinallataq allpakuna rakisqanta kamachiyta allinta churananpaq (Seleucidkunaqa uray wichay ladopi atipasqankunata hap’ispa qhiparirqaku, Ptolemytaq Egipto suyuta, uray ladonta, katipaylla qhiparirqan).
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.
Antíocoqa rurashqanqa huk chiqaq waqaychaq hina karqan wawa-rey Ptolomeo V-pa hawanpi (ayllu tinkuykunamanta), imaynachus Octaviano (hinallataq Triunvirato) churakusqanku atiyniq pisi kasqan utaq atipanakuykuna chawpinpi. Iskaypiqa, “aswan kallpasapa” runa (Antíoco/Octaviano) maskarqan huk hawaylla, mana kallpayuq tinkisqanta hawanpi ayllu kaywan. Iskay kamachiykunapas apamurqanku pisi p’unchawkunaq takyaq kayninta, ichaq mana unaypaq allinta lluqsirqankuchu, ukhu-pi mana atinakuq sonqo kasqanrayku—Cleopatraqa Egipto llaqtamanmi sayarqan (Antíoco-ta urmayachispa), chaymanta Antonio-pa inti lloqsiy suyu-man yuyaynin (Cleopatra VII) apamurqan Octaviano-wan t’aqasqa tukuyta.
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.
Ptolomeo V paqarin kaqninpi, regentekunapa kamachisqan ukhupi, Julio César wañusqan qhipa mana takyaq kaywan tupachkan (chaymi Triunvirato nisqapa sayariyninman, hinallataq atiyninkunapa ch’iqanakuykunaman pusarqan). Berenicepa Antiochuswan kasarakuyninmi Daniel chunka hukniyuqpi Seleucida Imperiopa willakuynin qallariyninta señalarqan; hinaspataq Antiochus Magnuspa ususinpa Egipto llaqtapi wawa reywan kasarakuyninmi Seleucida Imperiopa tukukuyninta señalarqan. Marc Antonyopa Octaviawan kasarakuynin tukukuyninmi Ptolemaico qhapaq suyupa tukukuyninta señalarqan. Judá llaqtapa Diospa rimaywan rurasqa runankuna kasqan tukukuyninqa cruzpi ruwakurqan, chay Judea qhapaq suyuqa Macabeokunawan, hinallataq Romawan rurasqanku ligawanmi qallariq. Kay llapa profético siq’ikunaqa Daniel chunka hukniyuq capítulo ukhupi willakuypi rikuchisqa kanku, llapankutaq tawa chunka versículopi pakasqa historiwan tupanku. Pichqa versículomanta qallarispa Berenicepa tratadonta tarinchik; chaymi Antiochus Hatunman pusawan, hinaspataq ususin Cleopatra Syrapa tratadonman, chayqa iskay chunka kimsa versículopi Macabeokunapa historiapi ruwakun. Macabeokunaqa siqi ukhiman yaykunku Antiochus Epífanes contra hatariyninku rayku; payqa Seleucida dinastíapa qhipa runankunamanta huknin karqan.
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.”
Antiochus Epiphanesqa kay Antiochusmi karqan Egiptopi 168 a.C. watapi, Alejandríaman qayllapi, Soqta Siria Awqapi. Antiochus Epiphanesqa Egiptoman yaykuspaña karqan, hinaspataq Alejandríata hap’iytaña qayllachakusqa karqan. Ptolemaico kamachiqkunaqa Romanman yanapay mañakurkanku. Romaqa Popillius Laenasta cacharqan (pisilla qatiqninkunallawan, mana ima ejercitowanpas) Senadoq huk kamachisqa qillqata apachinampaq; Antiochusqa chaylla Egiptomanta Cyprusmantawan lloqsinan karqan, mana chayqa Romawan awqanman chayananpaq. Antiochus chay qillqata chaskispa, yuyayniyoq yanapaqninkunawan rimarinanpaq p’unchay mañakusqanpi, Popilliusqa—sinchi, kamachikuq hina nisqa—purinan tukrunta hap’ispa, aqopi muyuriqta siq’irqan reypa chakin kunata muyuriqninta. Chaymantataq nirqan: “Manaraq chay muyuriqmanta lloqsinki chaykama, Senadoq ñawpaqman apanaypaq huk kutichiyta quy.”
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).
Yuyaymi sut’ita karqa; Antiocoqa mana atirqachu muyuyta lluqsiyta mana Romaq mañakusqanman churaspa—mana rimanakuywan chayta chimpasqaqa maqanakuymi kanman karqa. Manchachisqa hinaspa p’enqachisqa, Antiocoqa huk pisi ratollata iskayrayarqa, ichaqa chaymanta kasukuyta ari nispa, Egiptomanta soldadonkunaqa lluqsichirqan, hinaspa Siriaman kutirqarqa. Kay sinchi diplomacia ruwayqa (Romaq wiñaq atiyninmanta sut’inchasqa allin reqsichisqanwan yanapasqa) mana huk maqanakuyniyuqta kutichiyta atichirqan, inti hayk’aq Mediterráneo lamar qichwa kaq chiqampi Romaq paqarimusaq kamachikuyninta rikuchispa. Ashkha kuti willakuykunapi churasqa kachkan “aqullapi huk siq’ita chutay” nisqa rimaypa qallariynin hina (ichaqa cheqaqpiqa huk muyuy karqa).
Antiochus Epiphanes also became the Protestant understanding of the power that exalts himself, falls and establishes the vision in verse fourteen of Daniel eleven.
Antioquio Epífanespas Protestantekuna yuyaypiqa tikrarqanmi chay atiyta, pay kikin hatunchakuspa, urmaspa, Daniel chunka hukniyuq t’aqapi, chunka tawayuq versículopi rikuchisqa musquyta sayachiq.
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.
Chay p'unchaykunapin aswan achka runakuna hatarinqaku uray llaqtapa reyninpa contranpi; llaqtaykimanta suwakunapas hatarinkaku ricuyta sayachinankupaq; ichaqa urmanqaku. 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.
Antíoco IV Epífanesqa kamachikuyta ruwasqa 175–164 a.C. watakunapi, hinaspa chunka kimsayuq Seleúcida reyninkunamanta pusaqniyuq karqa. Payqa munarqa helenísticokuna kawsayta churananpaq, hinaspa imperionta hukllachaspa griegokunaq religioson ruwanakunawan huñunaypaq. Payqa Templota saqmasqa 169 a.C. watapi, judíokunaq ruwanakunata hark’aspa (circuncisión, sábado p’unchaw waqaychay, Torá yachay), hinaspa pagano dioskunaman sacrificiokunata kallpachisqa. 167 a.C. watapi diciembre killapi, Templopi judíokunaq rupachisqa sacrificiokuna altarpa hawanman paganokunaq altarta (Zeuspaq) sayarichirqa, hinaspa huk kuchita sacrificasqa, wakin qhellichasqa ruwanakunawan kuska. Chay qhellichayqa allinta kasuk judíokunapaq qhepa aswan mana much’uy atina karqa, paykunaq rikusqanman hina Temploq santu kayninpa hinaspa Diospa leyinpa tukukuynin hucha pampachay mana atisqa qhispichiynin karqanrayku. Chaymi chaylla pacha hark’akuyta paqarichirqa, Matatías (Modein llaqtamanta sacerdote) mana munaspa huk Seleúcida oficialpa kamachisqanta kasuyta pagano dioskunaman sacrificananpaq, hinaspa wañuchirqa huk apostata judíota hinaspa chay oficialtapas, chaymanta qhispiykuspa urqukunaman ayqekurqa churinkunawan kuska (qhipa Macabeokuna). Chaymi guerrilla maqanakuyta hinaspa hatarikuq tikrayta hap’ichirqa 167–160 a.C. watakunapi, judíokunaq yupaychayninta kutichinapaq mask’aspa, chaymanta Templo musuqmanta dedicakuyman pusarqa (Hanukkah) 164 a.C. watapi Judas Macabeo kamachisqan ukhupi.
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.
Seléucidakuna qhapaq suyupa qallariyninpi hinallataq tukukuyninpipas karqan huk hatun tratadu, diplomático kasarakuywan rikuchisqa, maypichus t’aqanakuypa imayna kaynin tiyan: inti lloqsimuq ladowan inti yaykumuu lado ukhupi, utaq hananwan urin ukhupi. Seléucidakuna qhapaq suyu pisiyamushaqtin, Antioco Epífanes tikrakun hatarimuchkaq Roma atiyniyuq kallpapa unanchanman, hinaspataq Macabeokunapa phiñakuyninpa chawpinman. Qhepa historiapi payqa tukukun visión nisqanta sayachiq profético unanchapa llulla rikch’ayninman. Chunka hukniyuq qhapaq ñiqinpi iskay chunka iskayniyuq versículopi nisqa atiyniyuq kallpaq p’akikun, imaraykuchus pactopa príncipe nisqapas p’akisqa karqan.
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.
Paypaq aycha hina makinkunawanmi ñawpaqninmanta apasqa kanqaku hinaspa pakisqa kanqaku; arí, rimanakuy pactop apuqninpas. 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.
Antiochus Epiphanespa kamachikuyninqa 164 a. C. watapi tukukapun, Cristomanta casi iskay pachak watakuna ñawpaqta, “rimanakuypa príncipe” nisqaqa cruzpi “pakisqa” karqan. Kaypi qhawarisun nisqanchikqa kaymi: Imperio Seléucida qallarispa tukukapunpas huk diplomático tratadopi kasarakuywanmi; chaypi ishkaynin partikunapuram llullakuyqa historia qillqasqakunapi sut’inchasqa kashan. Antiochus Epiphanespa kamachikuynin p’unchaykunapiqa revuelta macabea qallarikurqan, chaymi Revolución Americanata rikch’achirqan. Macabeokunapa historiankupiqa, paykunapa maqanakuy Seleucidapa atiniyninta qichuyta munaspa, Roma llaqtawan huk hatun tratadotam oqarirqan. Chay tratadota chiqanmantapuni riqsichiq versículoqa, Romatapas chiqanmantam llulla llamk’asqayuq kasqanta, icha tratadopa mesanpi llullakunata nisqanta, sut’inchan.
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.
Paywan rurasqa khipataqa llulla kaywanmi ruwanan; imaraykuchus wicharimuspa, pisilla llaqtawanmi kallpachasqa kanqa. 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:
Tukuy proféticopi rimaykuna, chusku chunka versículopi pacha tukukuyman ñawpaqta riykak, llikisqa tratadotam hap’in. Uriah Smith, kinsa chunka versículopi “santo pactota saqeqkunamanta” nisqata rimarispa, kayta qillqarqan:
“‘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.
“‘Rimanakuy contrapi pacto-ta’; chayqa, Qhelqa Sagrada-kunam, pacto-pa libro-nin. Kay hina tikrayqa Roma llaqtapi hunt’akurqan. Heruli-kuna, Godos-kuna, vandalos-kunapas, Roma-ta atipaqkuna, arriano iñiyta chaskirqanku, hinaspataq Iglesia Católica-pa awqankuna tukurqanku. Kay herejía-ta tukuchinapaqmi aswanqa Justiniano kamachirqan papaqa iglesia-pa uman kananpaq, hereje-kunata allinchajpas kananpaq. Bibliaqa utqhayllam rikurirqan huk peligrosa libro hina, mana runa masi-kuna ñawinchananpaq; ichaqa llapa ch’aqwaypi tapukuykunata papa-manmi apachina karqan. Chhaynatan Diospa siminman p’enqay churakurqan. Hinaspataq Roma-pa emperadorninkuna, inti lloq’e lado-ninraq kawsashaqtin, yachayniyoq karqanku, utaq yanaparqanku Roma Iglesia-ta, mayqinchus pacto-ta saqespa jatun apostasia-man tukurqan, ‘herejía’-ta ñit’ichinankupaq. Hucha runaqa hatarichisqa karqan mana manchakuyniyoq t’oqonman, arriano godos-kunapa atipaykuyninwan, paykunaqa chay pacha Roma-ta charirqanku, A.D.538 watapi.” 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.
Daniel chunka huk ñiqin versículonqa reqsichinmi historiapa siq’ininta maypichus uray llaqtapa reyqa huk diplomático kasarakuy warmita qun, qhepanpi wichq’asqa tratadopa unanchaqnin hina, chaytaqa hanaq llaqtapa reymi p’akirqan. Uray llaqtapa reypa kutichisqanqa rikuchirqanmi Napoleónpa espiritual uray llaqtapa reyninpa kutichisqanta, papal hanaq llaqtapa reyninpa contranpi 1798 watapi. Pichqa chunka versículomanta isqon chunka versículokama p’akisqa tratadoqa rikuchirqanmi Napoleónpa p’akisqa Tratado de Tolentino nisqanta, chayqa rikuchirqanmi Putinpa nisqanta NATO paqta p’akisqa tratado kasqanmanta. Napoleónpa kutichisqanqa rikuchirqanmi Putinpa Ucraniapa contranpi 2014 watapi kutichisqanta. Chunka versículopi Antíoco Magno pa kutichisqan, tawa kaq Siria maqanakuyta tukuchiq, tupanchakuninmi Napoleónwan 1798 watapi, hinallataq Putinwanpas 2014 watapi. Chunka pichqa versículopi Panium maqanakuy qhepanpi, 200 a.C. watapi, Antíocoqa huk diplomático kasarakuyta wakichirqan pakasqa yuyayninwan Egiptota kamachikuyninman apayta, mana allpapi sayaq soldadokunata llamk’achispa. Antíoco Magno pa tronoqa churinmanmi pasakurqan; payta wañuchisqankum, chaymi Antíoco Magno pa sullk’a churin, Antíoco Epífanes, tronoman chayarqan. Griego costumbrekunatawan religionninta sayarichisqanraykunmi Macabeo hatarikuymanta rikhurirqan, chaymi pusarqan Roma llaqtawan llulla tratadoman iskay chunka kimsayuq versículopi. Iskay chunka tawayuq versículoqa pagan Roma llaqtatam riqsichin, hinaspa reqsichin Antoniowan Augusto pa llullakuy mesa ninku. Kimsa chunka versículopi pagan Romaqa rimanakuyta qallarin papal iglesiwan, paykunataq reqsisqa kanku ch’uya pactota p’akiqkuna hina.
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.
Chunka iskay chunka tawaqniyuqmanta kimsa chunka kamaq ayakunaqa runakuna yupaychasqan Romaq willakuyninmi, chaymanta kimsa chunka hukniyuqmanta tawa chunka kamaq ayakunaqa papal Romaq willakuyninta qun. Daniel chunka hukniyuq, huk ayapi qallarispa tawa chunka ayakama sapa siq’iqa huk profecía siq’imi, chay siq’itaq tawa chunka ayapa pakasqa historiapi churakun. Seleucida qhapaq suyuq siq’in, Ptolemaico qhapaq suyuq siq’in, Macabeokunaq Judea qhapaq suyuq siq’in, runakuna yupaychasqan Romaq siq’in, hinaspa papal Romaq siq’inpas llapallanmi 1989 watamanta domingo kamachiy kama historiata rikuchin. Chay siq’ikuna sapa hukninmi p’akisqa tratadota chay historiapa hatun kaqnin hina reqsichin.
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.
Roma llaqtammi Daniel chunka hukniyuq qhawayta sayachin, hinallataq Roma pagana nispapas Roma papal nispapas llullakuq rimanakuykuna proféticokuna progresivokas kasqankuta, hinaspa Roma ancha kamachiq tukusqanman ñawpaqta, sapaqninmanta t’aqasqa profético pachakunapi pasasqankuta sut’inchanku. Iskay atiyniyuqkunaqa profético pacha qallarichisqankuta señalan, chayqa kimsa kaq hark’ayninta atipaspanku qallarirqan. Estados Unidos llaqtapi utqay hamuq domingo ley manaraq chayamuchkaptinmi, iskay atiyniyuqkunapura huk llullakuq rimanakuy kanqa. Tawa kutinmi chay iskay atiyniyuqkuna ura suyuq reykuna hinaspa hanaq suyuq reykuna karqanku: huk kuti Judápa sumaq allpanwan Romawan chawpipi, huk kuti Roma triunviratopa iskay rak’inakuna chawpipi, huk kuti Roma paganawan Roma papalwan. Iskay llullakuq rimanakuykunapi Romamanta rimakusqankupiqa, chayqa Roma imperiopa huk kuskanwan huk kuskanwan rimanakuylla karqan, yaqa inti lloqsimuy kaq Antoniowan, inti yaykumuy kaq Augustowan, utaq inti lloqsimuy kaq Roma paganawan inti yaykumuy kaq Roma papalwan. Tawa llullakuq rimanakuykuna hanaq suyuq hinaspa ura suyuq reykuna chawpipi, iskay inti lloqsimuy hinaspa inti yaykumuy reykuna chawpipi, hinaspa huk utqay hanaq suyuq rey tukunanpaq kaqwan sumaq allpawan.
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.
Kaymi tukuchan ñawpaq rikuchisqayku Daniel qillqamanta. Panium sutiyuq serieqa Daniel qillqapi seriepa tukukuyninmi, chaymi versículo tawa chunkaq pakasqa historianta qallarichiq, chayta qatiq artículopi mast’arispa qhawarisunchik.