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.

Léegi nag nuy wax ci ay doxalin yu am solo yu ñëw ci sarax bu fukk ak ñaar ba ci Daniel fukk ak benn, te gannaaw loolu, nu duggal ñetti rëdd yu “250” at ci jaar-jaaru sarax yi fukk ak benn ba fukk ak juróom, yi matoon ci xeexu Panium ci atum 200 lu jiitu Kirist. Rëdd bu “250” at bi tàmbalee ci 457 lu jiitu Kirist jeex na ci 207 lu jiitu Kirist, ci diggante jamono jooju juy tàmbalee ak xeexu Raphia te jeex ak xeexu Panium. “250” at yi nekk ci rëddum Nero jeex nañu ak jaar-jaar bu ñetti jéego yu Constantine, te at yi 313, 321 ak 330 moo leen di tegtal. “250” at yi aju ci États-Unis jeex nañu ci 4 Sulet 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.

Sàrtu Nero mi ngi tegtu jaar-jaaru nataalu rab wi ci waxtu nattu gi, njëkk ci États-Unis, te gannaaw ga ci àddina si. Sàrtu 457 BC mi ngi teg Trump ci digganteb xare ñaari xeex ci mbirum soldaar. Jamono ji law ba tàmbalee ci 1776 itam dafay màndargaal digganteb nguurug mujj gi Trump. Ngir teg sàrt yi ci seen barab bu wér, dinañu jëkk a jàngal aaya fukk ak ñaar, ak yàqub Russia ak Putin. Gannaaw loolu, ñetti sàrt yi “250” at, te gannaaw ga sàrtu Nguuru Hasmonéen yi. Bu sàrt yooyu tëjjee, dinañu teg Peter mu ànd ak Panium. Bu sàrt yooyu nekk ci seen barab, war nañu man a xàm ni yégleb 18 Sulet 2020 war nañu ko jubal tey waare ko, te mooy yégleb téereb Yoel.

King Uzziah of Judah & Ptolemy King of Egypt

Buur Uzziya bu Yudaa ak Buur Ptolemee bu Misra

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.

Jëfandikoo gi matal sarax fukki ak benn bi ci xareb Raphia, dafa méngoo ak jëfandikoo bu buur Uzziah. Ba Isaïe setee te am doole ngir yéglee ndawtal taw bu mujj bi, wooteem amoon na ci at mi Uzziah deewee.

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.

Ci atum buur Oosiya dee, maa gis Boroom bi mu toog ci kaw gangune gu kawe te yéeg, te ay yéreem feesal kër Yàlla ga. Esayi 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.

Ndeeji Osiyas bi jiitu, ndax dafa jiite ko mu wonee benn ngëmu réew mi méngoo te ànd ak ngëmu Ptolémée gannaaw ndam li ca xarebu Raphia. Osiyas ak Ptolémée ay njàngale lañu ci buur bu bëj-gànnaar, ki xolam kaweeloo, te ñu daan juuy ci wut a boolee sañ-sañu réew ak sañ-sañu kërgëm. Bi Osiyas jéemee boolee nguur ak kërgëm, gaana gu nekkoon ci jëwam dafa mel ni màndargabu rab wi.

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.

Te ñetteelu malaaka bi topp leen, di wax ak baat bu xumb: Ku nekk ju màggal rab wi ak nataalam, te nangu màndargaam ci boppam walla ci loxoom, kooku dina naan biiñu merum Yàlla, bi ñu sotti te jaxasuwul dara ci kaasu meram; te dees na ko sonal ak safara ak xons, ci kanam malaaka yu sell yi, ak ci kanam Xar mi. Te saxaaru seen sonal day yéeg ba fàww ak ba fàww; te amuñu noppalu guddi ak bëccëg, ñi màggal rab wi ak nataalam, ak képp ku nangu màndargu turam. Peeñu 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.

Kon Uziya dafa teew gu jëm kanam, dale ci waxtu bi mu defe jëf ju déggadi ngir boole mbooloom Yàlla ak réew mi. Gannaaw loolu, mu doon buur buy nguuru ak doomam ci anam wu néew doole di andal ak moom di co-regent diirub fukki at ak benn. Uziya dundaat na fukki at ak benn gannaaw ay déggadiam. Ndorteelu ay déggadiam mooy misaalub yoonu Dimaas, foofu lañuy boole mbooloom Yàlla ak réew mi, te mandarga rab gi diñu ko jëfandikoo ci doole. Fukki at ak benn gannaaw loolu mu dee, di tektal jeexital nguuram ni buur bu nguur gu bëj-gànnaar gu Yuda, mi doon suuf su tedd, te mooy Estados-Unis.

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.

Ci mbirum yonent ci Ptolemy, Uziya dafay tegtal Yudaa, suuf su tedd te Protestante yu dëddu, waaye Ptolemy dafay tegtal Misra, mi di kàttanu njaay mi, te diineem mooy spiritisme. Bu ñu seetee buur ñaar yi ni ñaari rëdd yu àndandoo, Uziya dootul misaal bu suuf su tedd, te ñoom ñaar dañuy nekk saxaaru ñaari réew. Misra ak Yudaa ay saxaar lañu ci diiney spiritisme ak Protestante yu dëddu. Ñuy saxaaru nguur ak kanamug jaamono. Politig nguur ak politig kërk gu ñuy tegtal, bu ñu booloo ci benn saxaar, dafay ëmb ñaari réew, ni Med ak Perse, ni Misra ak Sodom yu Farãs, ni ñaari kañ yu Républicain ak Protestante yu États-Unis, ni nguur gu bëj-gànnaar ak gu bëj-saalum yu Israyil ak Yudaa, noonu it ni Roomu pagan ak Roomu papal. Ci ni ñuy saxaaru ñaari nguur, ci waxu yonent ñu tëjoo ak njëgub Yerusalem, fa Uziya ak Ptolemy ñoom ñaar di wut a sarax ci njëg ba ca Yerusalem. Ñaari réew yu ñoom ñaar di fippu ci benn kër-yàlla bu njëkk.

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.

Ndax ñu seet bu baax ne, ñàkk dégg-dëggu ñaari buur yi ñoo jëm ci kër Yàlla ga nekk Yerusalem, te loolu mooy misaalu kër Yàlla ga Daniel gis Krist ci saraxteb fukki at ak benn. Jaar-jaari ñaari buur yooyu daje ci xareb Ukraine bi, te ci loolu lañuy tàmbalee seedeel seen ci atum 2014. Ñoom ñaar ñépp yékkatiwoon nañu leen ak ndam yu soldaar yi, yi ñu firndeel ak xareb Raphia bi ci benn-fukki at ak benn benn. Raphia mooy diggu àlluwaayu juróom-benni nguur gi ci waxi kàddu Yàlla, ak booloo bi am ñetti wàll ci yoonu Dibeer bi. Itam mooy diggu jéexital kër gi di xeex ba noppi jëm ca kër gi di not.

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.

Gannaaw 2014, buur bu gëna bare alal bi yégle na yéeneem ngir daw ci njiitu réew mi ci atum 2015. Ci 2020, buur bu gëna bare alal bi, miy teewal wàllug Répubilikeen bi, jot na ci gaawam gu dee, te gannaaw gi dina wér. Ci 2022, xareb Ukrain bi yokku na ba metti. Noonu Trump dellu na ngir matal kàddug saar fukki ñaareel bi ak ñetti, ci ndànkug woteb 2024 bi. Ci weeru Sulet 2023, baatu woon ci màndiŋ mi jolli na. Besub 31 Suwe 2023, wàllu Protestaaŋ bi dekki naat na, ni ko wàllug Répubilikeen bi itam dekki naat na ci woteb 2024 bi, ba Trump delloo, te gannaaw loolu ci 2025, nattu taxawaayu ndomboot mi jeex na ak dikkug nattu kër Yàlla gi.

1989

1989

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.

Dëgg-dëgg yi ñu ubbiwoon ci atum 1989 amoon ñaari wàll. Jëfandikookat yi ci yooni waxu Yàlla yu jëm ci yëngu-yëngui reform ak juróom-benn sarax yi mujj ci Daniel fukk ak benn dañu leen ubbiwoon benn waxtu. Am na ay sart yu waxu Yàlla yu ñu jëfandikoo ngir sampu bataaxal bu njëkk bi ci saar fanweer. Yenn ci dëgg yooyu sax, léegi, ñoo doon buntu ngir xam jaar-jaaru nettali gu nëbbu gi ci benn saar boobu sax, fa nga xam ne ay xonq yu rafet yu waxu Yàlla yooyu dañu fa gis. Dinaa la jox misaal.

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.

Ci atum 1989, amoon benn xam-xam bu booloo nekkul woon ci biir Adventisme ci li juróom-benn ay aaya yu mujj yi nekk ci Daniel di tekki. Rakk bu ñàkk boobu am na woon ñaari wàll. Benn déggoo amuloon ci tekkiinu aaya yi. Ñi doon wax ne dañoo am xam-xam ci aaya yooyu, dañoo joxe xalaati nit yu jaxase ak njàngum Protestant yu wacc ak Katolisism, moom seen ndono deret bu leen ñëwul ci seeni baay ak seeni maam ci ñàkk dégg-dëgg gu 1863, ba ca jamono ja ñuy matale wàllu yonent bi déggadi ci njàlbéenu Jeroboam. Xalaat yu nit ku nekk yooyu ci li aaya yi di tekki, bu ëpp, tekkiy bopp lañu woon. Seen xalaat ci aaya yi dafa nekkoon lu yokk ak yoonu jëfandikoo bu njëkk bu yonent, te lu bari sax dafa weddi woon dëggal gi ñoom ci seen bopp ñu wax ne mooy njàlbéenu aaya yi.

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!

Li nu gis gisoon ci ay saar yi, mooy benn xam-xam bu sax ci bépp juróom-benn saar yooyu. Mooy saxug wax ji nu gisoon tax mu may ma doole, ba ma jébbal sama xam-xam, sax te xam naa ne Mbooloom Adventisme bépp dafa weddi li ma déggoon. Li nu xamoon ci ay saar yooyu, ñu jëkk a siiwal ko ci atum 1996, te xam-xam boobu ñu fésal fa, nekk na gëna dëgër ba tey, ndaxte waxtu wéy na dox lu ëpp ñetti fukki at!

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.

Bu fekkee ci njort gi njëkk ci magazin bi *The Time of the End*, dinga gis *Testimonies*, wàll 9, xët 11. Juróomi at laata 9/11, magazin bi tàmbalee ak 9/11. Benn ci xam-xam yi ma dëgërale mooy ne ci “jamono mujj” bi ci saar fukki, buur yi bëj-gànnaaru ak bëj-saalumu yeneen doole yu ruu lañu woon, waaye duñu woon doole yu dëgg-dëgg yu bindu. Ca jamono jooju, xamoon naa ba noppi ne Sœur White wax na ne téereb Daniel ak Revelation benn téere lañu, te benn rëddub waxu yonent bi nekk ci Daniel, John jël na ko ci Revelation. Gisoon naa ne ci Revelation fukk ak benn, bi matoon ci jaar-jaari mboolem nettali yi wër jamono mujj ba ci 1798; te seetlu Sœur White ci sar wi day jàngale bu leer ne France mooy Misra gu ruu, te noonu itam mu wér na bu baax ne ci Revelation fukk ak juróom-ñaareel, jigéen ju bon ji nekk ci kaw rab wi mooy Babilon bu ruu.

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.

Màggat bu jigéen White ci ñaari kàttan yooyu nekk na ci The Great Controversy, te wax jooju yi dajal nañu seede Yowaana ak Daniyel. Tekkik baayu bëj-saalum bi ci saraxu fukki benn baat yi ci Daniyel mooy kàttan gi jiité Misra, te baayu bëj-gànnaaw bi mooy kàttan gi jiité Babilon. Bi Biibël bi ak Xel mu Yàlla may ci Kàddug Yàlla doxandoo bokk ngir samp dëgg, ci indi Daniyel ak Peeñu Yowaana benn ngir firndeel mbir mi, loolu dafa nekk lu ma masul a man a jébbal kenn ku ànd ak njàqare ci njàngum diine, walla kenn ku réer te fal boppam nekk njiitu ab ministère buy dox ci boppam.

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.

Ngir dégg Ptolemee ak Osiyas ni ay mandarga ci xareb Rafiya ak ci ay doxalin yu metti yi di am gannaaw ba seeni xol yéeg, mooy nga nangu ne Ptolemee dafa tegu ci dooley njaay mi di daane dooley wutukaay bu Room, waaye mujj a ñàkk ci dooley wutukaay bi doon na daane Ptolemee ci aaya fukk ak ci atum 1989. Wuutey taarix yi am na njariñ te am solo.

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.

Useya jot ci mandarga mala bu bonc bi moo mu rëcc ngir mu bëgga boole kërce ak nguur gi; Useya mooy suuf su tedd si, te suuf su tedd si nekkoon benn waxtaan wu mag ci njàlbéenub yégle bi ci atum 1989. Ndax suuf su tedd si mooy États-Unis, walla mooy kërceg Adventiste bu fanweeri bés ba? Ñi daan topp xalaat wu juum ne suuf su tedd si mooy kërceg Adventiste, ak képp ku ko bëggatee ba tey — dinañu wax ne tundu bu tedd bu sell bi ci aaya ñent-fukk ak juróom moom dafa leer ne mooy kërceg Yàlla, ba tax ci seen gis-gis tund ak suuf benn xeetu màndarga lañu. Xelum nit, defe naa foog.

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.

Usiyaa mooy suuf su màggaay, te Tolemee mooy Esipt. Usiyaa, ni mu di suuf su màggaay, am na ñaari nag yu di Protestantee ak Repiblikaanism. Njëfandikoo gu politig gu Tolemee mooy kominis, ak ay melokaanam yu wuute; te njëfandikoo gu diine gu Tolemee mooy spiritism, ak ay melokaanam yu wuute. Benn jikko ju dooleb ndragóŋ bi mooy ne, mooy ab konfederasiyoŋ; waaye yonent bu dul dëgg bi, kooku mooy suuf su màggaay, mooy benn réew rekk bu am ñaari nag.

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.

Dañeel fukki ak benn, sarax bu ñeent, taxawal na ne Etazini moo doon doole ju wuutu bu paapas bi ba Unie Sowietik génnee ci yoon ci atum 1989. Dëgg googu dëppook na ak role bu rab gu ñaaru wér-gi gu jóge ci suuf gi ci Peeñug Yàlla fukki ak ñett, ndaxte ñaari téere yi benn lañu.

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.

Noonu ma gis beneen rab buy génn ci suuf si; amoon na ñaari béjjén yu mel ni yu xarit, waaye dafa waxoon ni jinné. Te mu di jëfandikoo bépp sañ-sañu rab bu njëkk ba ci kanamam, di tax suuf si ak ñi ci dëkk yépp sujjóot rab bu njëkk ba, moom mi gaañu dee ga wér. Peeñu 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.”

Peeñ fukki ci Téereb Pacc gi 13 day xamale Mbooloom États‑Unis yi ni mooy doxandéemu kàttanu Papas bi, ndaxte rab wu suufe si “dafay jëfandikoo bépp sañ‑sañu” rab wi jóge ci géej gi, mi ñëw “ci kanamam.” Ci wërsëg 2, jinne ji bokkoon Room gu bokk ci yéefar gu ñaaw, moo jox Papas bi ay kàttan, toogu ak sañ‑sañ gu réy. Baat bi ñu tekki ne “power” dafay tekki kàttan, waaye ci wërsëg 12 am na beneen baat bu ñu tekki itam ne “power,” te mooy “sañ‑sañ bu ñu dénk.”

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 mooy dooley wuutu bu paapasi bi, bi ñu misaale woon ak Room gu ñuulug tuur; moom moo joxoon paapasi bi ndimbalum xare ak ndimbalum koom-koom, ni ko ñaareelu aaya bi waxe. Ci loolu, Room gu ñuulug tuur misaaloon na Etazini, mi di itam jox ay “watuur, gaal ak kawal yu war” ngir def liggéey bu baaxul bi ngir dooley paapasi bi.

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.

Bi ñetti xare yi nekk ci saar 10, 11 ak 15 amee ci jaar-jaari jamono, Antiochus Magnus nekkoon ci xare bu nekk. Dëgg gu mel nii mooy wone ne kàttan gi ñu tegtal ci ñetti xare yooyu, kàttanu wuutukaay la bu rab ba, ndaxte moom dafa doon saa su nekk Antiochus, te Antiochus ci 1989 mooy woon kàttanu wuutukaay buy taxawu ci turu États-Unis.

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.

Ñetti xare yi jiitu ci yoonu dundug dib dundub dib bi nekk ci benn-fukki juróom-benn fukk ak juróom-benn (verse sixteen) dañuy yor màndarga Alpha ak Omega, te itam tabaxu dëgg. États-Unis moo nekk ci xeex bu njëkk bi ak ci xeex bu ñetteel bi, di firndeel Alpha ak Omega ci xeex bu njëkk bi ak bu mujj bi. Ñetti xare yi jiitu ci yoonu dundug dib dundub dib bi nekk ci benn-fukki juróom-benn fukk ak juróom-benn dañuy itam yor màndargay dëgg. Dooley Nazi Ukraine bi mooy xeex bi ci digg, miy tegu ngir taxawal àgg ci waymark bu digg ba ci xayma kàddu hebere “dëgg.” Ñetti xare yooyu dañuy tegu 1989 ba ca yoonu dundug dib dundub dib, te loolu mooy ne dañuy tegu “hidden history” bi nekk ci benn-fukk.

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.

Aayaat fukki ci Peeñ mi fukk ak benn, dafay ràññee atum 2023 ni mooy fànn wi ñaari bëñ yi dekkiwaat. Dañeel fukk ak benn, aayaat fukki ak benn, moom itam dafay ràññee benn jamono ju mel noonu ci jaar-jaaru mbootaay. Rëdd wi ci biir bu njëkk ak rëdd wi ci biti bu njëkk, ñoom ñaar dañuy méngoo ci atum 2023. Rëdd wi ci biir mooy “mbir mi” Dañeel xamoon, te rëdd wi ci biti mooy “peeñ ma” mu xamoon.

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.

Nattu kërgub kërgub ga Dañeel di misaalal tàmbalee na ci ñaar-fukk ak ñaaréelu bés ba, te ñaar-fukk ak ñaar at gannaaw 9/11, muy foofa la Esayi dugg ci kër Yàlla gi, di leen yóbbu ci 2023. Esayi jàngale na ne deeji Oosiya gannaaw bi mu dundee ak gaana-gu-wee ñatt-fukk ak benn at, dafa ànd ak 9/11. Liggéeyu taxawal kër Yàlla gi mooy, bu jëkk, samp fondamaa, te gannaaw loolu, tabax kër Yàlla gi te teg doj wu mujjaay wi, te loolu nag di jur ñetteelu seetlu bu leer, bi ñu teewal ci màggalu trompet yi ci rëddinu Leewi ñaar-fukk ak ñett. Liggéeyu biir bu xibaar bu baax bu fàwwu bi matal nañu ko ci jamonoy rëddin bu biti. Ci sarax 11, Putin ñu ko misaalal na ak Ptolemee, te buur Oosiya dafay joxe ñaareelu seede ci misaalu buur bu bëj-saalum bi ñu yékkati ndax njàqarey xeex, te gannaaw loolu mu jéem a dugg ci kërgub diine.

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.

Te buur bérab bi dina mer lool, te dina génn ngir xeex ak moom, maanaam ak buur bëj-gànnaar bi; te dina waajal mbooloo mu réy; waaye mbooloo mi dees na ko jox ci loxoom. Te bu mu yóbbee mbooloo mi, xolam dina réy; te dina daan fankenni junni nit ñu bare; waaye loolu du ko dëgërël. Daniel 11:11, 12.

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

Uriya Smiit wax na ci jaar-jaaru Ptolemee Filopatoor ak jéemantam ngir jébbale sarax ci kër Yàlla ga nekk Yerusalem.

“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.

«Ptolemy amoonul woon ngir jëfandikoo njàllem bu baax. Su ko toppoon ndamam, xeyna dafa doon boroom bépp nguurug Antiochus; waaye ndax mu doyloo rekk ci ay ragal ak ay xuttali yu néew, mu def jàmm ngir man a jox boppam ci toppandoo bu sax te ñàkk kilifteef ak bëgg-bëggam yu soxor. Noonu, gannaaw ba mu daan noonam yi, ay ñaawtéefam daanu ko; te fàtte tur wu mag wi mu mana samp, mu jéexal ay fanam ci reer ak njaaloo.»

“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.

“Xolam dafa yékk ci ndamam, waaye ndam loolu doxalul ko ngir mu gëna dëgër; ndaxte ni mu ko jëfandikoo ak ñàkk màggal tax na ba ay waaam dëkk yu bokk ci nguuram fippuku ci kawam. Waaye yékkute xolam bi feeñ na gën-gën ci mbir yi mu jëfoon ak Yawut ya. Bi mu àggee Yerusalem, fa la jébbalee sarax, te mu bëgg lool a dugg ci bérab bu gëna sell bi ci kër Yàlla ga, lu juy wàññi yoonu ak diine bu bérab boobu; waaye bi ñu ko teree, doonte ak jafe-jafe yu bare, mu génn fa ak mer gu tàkk ci xeet bépp bu Yawut ya, te ci saa si mu tàmbali leen fitna bu metti buy wéy te amul yërmande. Ci Aleksandari, fa Yawut ya dëkkoon dale ci fan yi Alekxaandar nekkoon, te di am sañ-sañ yu mel ni yu waa dëkk yi gëna ñi ñu bëggal, ñaar-fukki junni ci limu Eusebius, juróom-benn-fukki junni ci limu Jerome, lañu rey ci fitna boobu. Fippug waa Misra ak bóom-bu-rey bi ñu defal Yawut ya, nekkuñu woon ay mbir yu man a ko gëna dëgëral ci nguuram; waaye dañoo doyoon ngir yàq ko, ba tax mu bëgga jeex ba noppi.” 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.

Ndamalu Ptolemy Philopator ci xare mu ñu doon wax Raphia atum 217 bala atum bi Kirist di juddu, gënuloon Ptolemy doole, waaye loolu tax na “xolam réy.” Ndam ci xare Ukrain bi it du gënal Putin doole, waaye dina “réy xolam,” ni ndamalu xare taxoon buur Oziyas mu réy xolam.

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.

Te Ujiyaar defaral leen ci biir mbooloo mépp ay pakk, ak ay xare, ak ay kaask, ak ay yére yu xare, ak ay xasaw, ak ay maxal yu ñuy sànni doj. Te mu def ca Yerusalem ay jumtukaay yu ñu sos ak xel mu rafet, ngir nekk ci kaw tur yi ak ci kaw tata yi, ngir sànni ay flet ak ay doj yu mag ak ñoom. Te turam siiw na fu sori lool; ndaxte dees na ko dimbali lu yéeme, ba mu am doole. Waaye bi mu amee doole, xolam réy na ba ci sankoom; ndaxte tooñ na Yàllaam Boroom bi, te duggu na ca kër Yàlla ga ngir taal cuuraay ci kaw sarxalukaay bu cuuraay bi. 2 Kronik 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.

Ñaari buur yu bokk ci bëj-gànnaaru bi, te seen xol yékk na ndax ndam yi ñu amoon ci xare, jéem nañu dugg ci benn kër Yàlla boobu ngir joxe sarax, te loolu nag ab sarax la woon bu ñu maye rekk saraxalekat. Ci ñaar ñi ñépp, saraxalekat ya bëggul woon nguur yu réy yu réyréylu yooyu def loolu. Benn buur ba noppi tàmbalee fey ci kaw Yawut ya, te ka ca des dañu ko dóoroon gaññu ga ci jë.

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.

Noonu Asarya, saraxalekat bu mag, dugg ak juróom-fukk yu Yàlla te ñu amoon fit. Ñu taxaw ci kanam buur Ussiya, ne ko: “Ussiya, du sa yoon nga taal cuuraay ngir Yàlla, waaye saraxalekat yi rekk, doomi Aaron, ñi ñu sellal ngir taal cuuraay. Génnal kër-gu-sell gi, ndaxte dangaa tooñ; te loolu du la indi màggal ci wàllu Yàlla Boroom bi.” Noonu Ussiya mer, te yoroon cib ndab ngir taal cuuraay; ba muy meral saraxalekat ya, gaana gi sax jolli ci jëram ci kanam saraxalekat ya, ca kër Yàlla ga, wet gu jege altar bu cuuraay ba. Asarya, saraxalekat bu mag ba, ak bépp saraxalekat, xool ko; te gis, gaana gi nekk ci jëramam. Ñu dàq ko fa; waaw, moom sax gaawoon a génn, ndaxte Yàlla dafa ko dóoroon. Buur Ussiya nag nekk gaana ba bésub dee ba, te dëkk ca kër gu weesu ga, ndaxte ku gaana la woon; ndaxte ñu dogale ko ci kër Yàlla ga. Yotam doomam moom nekkoon ci kaw kër buur gi, di àtte nit ñi ci réew mi. Lépp lu des ci jëf yi Ussiya, lu njëkk ak lu mujj, Esayi yonent bi, doomu Amos, moo ko bind. 2 Tariik ya 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.

Ci atum 2014, mondialiste yi nekk ci Érop ak rézim Obama tàmbaleeñu ab révolution bu mel ni “color revolution” ci réewum Ukraine. Ci atum 2022, Risi tàmbaliwul ab song, te mujj gi dina yóbbu ci ndamalu Putin ak Risi; ñu ngi leen tegtal ci Ptolemy ak Osias, buur yu bëj-gànnaar. Aaya fukk ak ñaar wax na ne gannaaw ndamalu Putin, “xolam dina kawe; dina daaneel ñu bare lool, fukki junni ak fukki junni: waaye du gëna am doole ndax loolu.” Gannaaw loolu, taarix bind na ne nguuram dafa yaatal ci yàqute gu njëkk ak gu sax.

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.

Néew-néew ba mu mujjee ci dee, te ba jamono bi Antiochus Mag bi dellu ngir fey li mu ñàkkoon ca Raphia, Antiochus dootul woon a jàppandikoo ak Ptolemy Philopator; jamono jooju Antiochus dafa doon jëfandikoo ak xale bu ndaw, mi nekkoon buurub Misra ca waxtu woowu. Xale dafay nekk misaal bu maanaawee njàngoro mu mujj gi, ba tax ci benn wàll buurub xale bi Antiochus daan ca Panium mooy maasinu jamono ji mujj ci nguur gu bëj-saalum. Waaye ci wàllu njariñu yoon, buurub xale bi mooy misaalu néew doole ci kanamu dooley Antiochus.

“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.

“Jàmm ji ñu tëjje entre Ptolemy Philopater ak Antiochus sax na fukk ak ñeent at. Ci diggante bi, Ptolemy dee na ndax yàqute ak jëfi saxal yaram, te doomam ju góor, Ptolemy Epiphanes, moo ko wuutu; xale la woon booba, am na woon ñeent walla juróom at. Antiochus itam ci jamono jooju, gannaaw bi mu nootalee kawees gi nekk ci nguuram, te delloo te sampu wàlli penku yi ci seen déggal, amoon na jot ngir jëf lu mu bëgg bés ba xale bu ndaw bi, Epiphanes, yéeg ci nguurug Misra; te yaakaar ne fursë bu baax boobu ngir yaatal sa boppu nguuram warul reere, dajale na mbooloom xare bu réy “gën a réy bi jiitu” (ndaxte dajale woon na mbooloo yu bare te amoon na alal ju réy ci wërugam ci penku), te jëm na ci kaw Misra, yaakaar ne dina am ndam lu yomb ci kaw buur bu ndaw bi. Naka la ci jóg, dinanu ko gis léegi; ndaxte fii la ay jafe-jafe yu bees di dugg ci mbirum yii nguur, te ay jëfkat yu bees di ñëw ci wàllu nettali istor bi.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 255.

The King of the South

Buur bi bëj-gànnaar gi

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.

Ngir mel ay mat yu mujj yiiru Rusi, mooy mel ay mat yu mujj yi buuru bëj-gànnaaw buy wax ci kàddug yonent bi. Benn melokaanu yonent bu buuru bëj-gànnaaw bu xel mu jot ci nettali yonent ci jamono mujj gi ci atum 1798—mooy ni muy dikk ba ci mujjam. Loolu itam mooy benn melokaanu yonent bu buuru bëj-gànnaaw, ak yonent bu fen ba. Kuññ ñatt yi di yóbbu àddina ji ba Armagedon am nañu mujj yu Kàddug Yàlla santale te wonna bu baax. Lu mu man a xew ci Putin ak Rusi, dees na ko fekk ne am na misaal ci rëdd yi weesu yi buuru bëj-gànnaaw.

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.

Misaalu ag buur gi nga xam ne mooy buur bu bëj-gànnaar ci yoonu ruu, ci ni mu jeexee, dañu ko misaale woon ak jeexital buur bi njëkk bu bëj-gànnaar ci yoonu ruu, moom di Farãs buy weddi Yàlla ca jamonoy Réewum Coppite ga. Jeexital nguurug bëj-gànnaar dafa ëmb jeexital buurub bëj-gànnaar bi. Jeexital Napolëoŋ méngook jeexital Farãs, te mu ànd ak jeexital nguur gu topp ca bëj-gànnaar, moom di Risi. Risi, nekk buur bu bëj-gànnaar bu jamonoy tey, tambalee na ci coppite, ni ko Farãs itam, ba mu nekk buur bu bëj-gànnaar, tambalee woon ci coppite.

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.

Réwolusiyoŋ mooy benn jikko bu ngeen xam ci njaay-mi, moom mi di misaal bu buur yu bëj-gànnaar. Njaay-mi, mi di misaal bu njëkk bu buur bu bëj-gànnaar, mooy Seytaane, te bi muy jéem a def ab réwolusiyoŋ ci mujug junni at yi, safara wàcc na jóge asamaan, lekk ko. Buntam ci asamaan ca njàlbéen ga mooy alfa bu buntam ci jeexitalu junni at yi.

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.

Ci atum 1798, Farãs jël na, ci mbind mi, gangune buur bu bëtu bëj-saalu bi ci bëgg-bëggu Farãs. Bëgg-bëgg boobu dafa daldi wër xeeti réewi Ërop yépp, te mu mujjee agsi ci Bëgg-bëggu Risi, te ci atum boobu benn la, Bëgg-bëggu Bolshevik ga topp ko gaaw.

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).

Réew mi Russi ci atum 1917 dafa amoon ñaari jëf yu mag: Révolution bu Février bi (mi daanale woon nguurug Tsar yi, jeexal nguur gu kennu-kërëm, te taxawal ab nguurug yoon wi diirub jamono ju amoon ñaari doole, mooy ak Soviet yi) ak Révolution bu Octobre bi (it ñuy wax Révolution bu Bolchevik bi, fa Bolchevik yi ci suufu njiitu Lenine jëlé woon katan gi ci ab copp, loolu jëmale ci taxawal nguurug Soviet ak yoonu jëm ci socialisme/communisme).

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:

Ci biir yu jëm ci màggalu jaar-jaari jamono ak xalaatu yëngu-yëngu soppiku biir réew (rawatina ci gis-gisu Marxist yi mel ni yu Trotsky, Luxemburg, ak ñeneen ñiy def méngale yu ni mel), Révolusiyoŋ Franse bi (1789–1799) dañu koy gis yoon wu bari ni muy tektal walla muy joxe ab pexe ngir jaar-jaaru mbir yi amoon ci Rusi. Ñaari jéego yu Révolusiyoŋ Franse bi yu doon tektal yooyu xaaj yu Rusi yooyii lañu di:

  • 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.

    Njëlbéenu njàlbéen mu njëkk, te doy waar wa ak yoonu ndawal bi (ci lu tollook 1789–1792), moom la méngoo ak Révolusiyoŋu Féwriyee bi. Xàllu Farãs bii tàmbalee ak jéggi Bastille bi, woo dëkkandoo bu mag bi/Assemblée nationale bi, farbaal njariñi feewal yi, Yégleb Sàqali Doomi nit ki, ak tabax nguuru bu dëkkandoo yoon di doxal ci suufu Girondins yi ak soppekatu yi te yem. Mu daaneeloon nguuru bu absolute, waaye mu des ba téye ay cér yu nguurug bourgeois/libéral ak doxalin yu ñaari kàttan walla kàttan yu di xuloo (misal, diggante Assemblée bi ak nguuru gi weesu woon te sax di des). Noonu itam, Féwriyee 1917 daaneel na Tsarisme, waaye jur na ab nguurug bourgeois bu provisoire ak ñaari kàttan ak Soviet yi.

  • 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.

    Xaalis/Jacobin bi (ci lu tollu 1792 ba 1794, te moom dafa boole tabax Njiitu Réew mu njëkk mi, rey Louis XVI, ak Jamono Njaxlaf gi ci suufu Robespierre ak Jacobins/Committee of Public Safety) méngoo na ak Révolusiyoŋu Oktoobar bi (Bolshevik). Jacobin yi jël nañu kàttan gi ci loxo Girondin yu gën a yem doole jaarale ko ci jëf yu xat, yégle Réewum askan wi, noot réew-kàttan gu weddi révolusiyoŋ bi, te yóbbu révolusiyoŋ bi jëm ci soppi gu gën a xóot ci mbirum dëkku nit ñi ak aar ci jafe-jafe yu biir ak yu biti. Loolu mel na ni Bolshevik yi daane nañu njiitu gu saxul ga, dëgërël nguuru proletaria bi/diktatiru proletaria bi, te yokk sosalisimu révolusiyoŋ bi.

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.

Melo yiiru yooyu di xamale ne, yëngu-yëngu yu soppi réew dañuy topp ab farata yu bari ci yoon: jëkk ci benn taxaw bu yaatu ci kaw nguur gu màgg ga (mi ñuy jiite ak nit ñi gën a ànd ak ñi bokk ci buurwasii), te gannaaw loolu, ñi gën a tar di jël kàttan gi ak doole ngir “musal” te yokk yëngu-yëngu gi bi diirub jafe-jafe. Bolshevik yi ci seen bopp dañoo jëfandikoo ci xel misaalu Farãs, te dañoo gis seen taxaw bu Oktoobar ni mu mel ni gépp gu Jacobin yi — lu waroon ngir tere yëngu-yëngu gu dellu gannaaw te matal dooley yëngu-yëngu gi.

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.

Xeetu misaal bii feeñ na ci jëfandikookat yu mel ni Trotsky, ci History of the Russian Revolution buum, (fu mu biral ci lu leer ne jamono ji ñaari kàttan yi doon bokk ci Russie, mengoo ak yeneen doxalini yu mel noonu ci France), ak ci mbind mi Rosa Luxemburg bindoon ci mbir yi xewoon ci Russie, fa mu wax ne jëf-jël bu njëkk bu Révolution russe bi (Mars–Octobre) topp na xereñu Révolution française bi (ak anglaise bi), te yégle gi Bolshevik yi jël kàttan gi, mengoo ak yéeg gi Jacobins yi yéegoon.

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.

Yeesu dafa jéem a melal jeexital bi ak tàmbali bi, te sankug Napoleyoŋ, mi nekkoon buur bu njëkk bu boppam ci suuf sañ-sañu noon, toppoon na màndargay yoon yi ca tàmbalug revolusiyoŋ bi; te ci loolu mu doon misaalu sankug Uñioŋ Sowiyetik bi.

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.

Réewum Napoléon, ci ni mu doon di wàññiku ndànk-ndànk (jéego-jéego), dafa méngoo lool ak ni Union soviétique daan di wàññiku ndànk-ndànk ba noppi génneeku ci 1991, ci benn doxalin typologique bi ci bi ñaari xaaj yu Révolution française ji jiitaloon waxtu yu Révolution russe ji ci Febriye ak Oktoobar 1917. Màggal gi dina yàgg ba jëfandikoo itam ci xàjnaf bu topp gannaaw jamono bu réew mi doon naxari bu tar bi, mooy jamono bu dëkkandoo ak dëgërandoo buy Bonapartisme, ak tas gi war a topp ci moom. Lii dafa jóge ci àtte yu mag yu jaar jaaru jaarooyu tarihi ak itam ci xalaat yu Marxist yi (rawatina yu Trotsky ci The Revolution Betrayed ak ay liggéeyam yu bokk), yi teg Napoléon ni misaal gu mag gu Bonapartisme: nguurug nit ku am doole buy juddu gannaaw njàqare bu gëna tar bu révolution, di jëfandikoo ndiggante diggante kilifaasi askan wi, di denc ba sax ay njariñ yu njëkk yu réew mi jële ci révolution bi (waaye di tëj doxalinam bu demokaraasi), di tabax mbooloom buur bu nit kenn moom ak doole xare ak burokrasi, di yaatal boppam ba weesu, te gannaaw loolu muy daj ci yoonu tas gu am ay xàjjaat, buy jëme ci dellusi gu wàññiku ci beneen ndomboorub poroksaŋ bu cosaan.

Napoleon’s Bonapartist Rise Parallels the Stalinist Consolidation

Yëkku Bonapartis Napoléon mi melo nirookug Bònapaart yi, dafa méngook ak njolloriŋ Stalinis bi.

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.

Gannaaw bi Jacobin yi di yëngal ci anam wu metti ak dellusiin bu Thermidorian (1794), Directory bi néew doole te sañul dal (1795–1799), coup d’État bu Napoleon ci 18 Brumaire (1799) taxawal na Consulat bi, gannaaw ga Empire bi (1804). Mu ngi bëggal ak yégle jariñi révolusion bourgeois bi te mu taxawal leen ci yoon (Code Napoléon, jeexital ay privilèges féodaux, ak réew mu dëgër te guñu ko sentralise), waaye mu teg leen ci suufu nguur gu autoritaire, ndamalu xare, ak ab elite bu bees.

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.

Gannaaw xàll biir Bolshevik/October bu radikal ak jéego yu njëkk yu Soviet, yàqute gu burokratik tàmbalee dugg (rawatina dale ci diggante at yu 1920 yi). Dëkkalug Stalin dafa daan Mboolem Bëj-gànnaaram, teg “sosiyalism ci benn réew rekk,” te sos ab nguur gu diktaator gu police/soxla xare/burokrasi. Ekonomi bi ñu tëral ak alal yu ñu nationalize woon (jëfandikoo yu mag yu October) ñu aar leen, waaye soppi leen ngir mujj ci jumtukaayi benn xeet gu am njariñ yu ëpp, fekk internasyonalism bayyi ko.

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).

Ci ñaari mbir yi, doole gu yëngu te di soppi réew mi “dee nañu ko” te delloo ko ci kàttanu nguur ak yaatalam, di jaar ci nit kenn walla masiina bu benn. Trotsky moom wax na bu leer ne nguurug Stalin mooy benn xeetu “Bonapartisme soviétique,” te mu gëna jege Nguuru Napoléon ba ñu doon wax Empire, lu gën a jege ko ginnaaw Consulat bi.

The Step-by-Step Collapse

Doon-doon bu Wàññiku Bëgg-Bëggi gi

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.

Lii mooy xëtu jëfandikookat bi—wàññi gi du benn xew-xew bu am benn yoon rekk, waaye ab séri yu toppantey yàqute yu ñuy yóbbu ndax jëfandikoo ju ëpp dayo, juuyoo yi nekk ci biir, mbëre yu sax te lëj, ñàkk man a yor suufu yi ci wet, coppite yu lajjul, ak mujj gi di tas walla delloo.

Napoleonic side (1812 to 1815)

Wàllu Napoleóon (1812 ba 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: Song aago bu metti ci Risi — Grande Armée (600,000 jàmbaar) yàqu na lool ndax jumtukaay yi, noflaay bi, ak bëgg-bañ bi. Mujj gu réy te yàqu-bopp la; perte bu mag ci daraja ak ci dooleb nit ñi.

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

    1813: Ab booloo daldi ci moom; daanu ca Leipzig («Xareb Xeeti Réew yi») — ñàkk ay àndandoo yu Alemaañ ak suufam yi; nguuram tàmbalee gàttiku.

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

    1814 : Kuréel yi songg Farãs bu dëgg; Pari daanu; Napoleon bàyyi nguur te ñu yóbbu ko ca Elba ngir génne ko rewmi.

  • 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: Dellu gaaw bu gàtt (Téeméeri Fan yi), bëgg-bët gu mujj gi ca Waterloo; rébbu guddi gu sax ca St. Helena; nguurug Bourbon dellusi na (dellu ginnaaw gu yëngu ci njariñi révolusiyoŋ bi, doonte ne du lépp—yenn coppite yu yoon ak yu nguur gi des nañu).

Soviet side (1970s to 1991)

Wet gu Sowiyet bi (1970 yi ba 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.

    Muju 1970 yi baaxul ak muju 1980 yi: taxawug ekonomi bi (“zastoi” ci jamonoy Brezhnev), ñàkk gu sax ci yëf yi, ginnaaw ci xarala yu teknologik yi, ak njàqareb làqute xare bu tar ak États-Unis/NATO—yaatalug sistem bi lu ëpp day tàmbalee yàq ekonomii bi ci biir.

  • 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: xareb Afghanistan bi—“Vietnam” bu Soviet yi; xaalis bu tarxiis, di na lekk alal, fitu xol, ak teraangaam ci biir àddina si (seetal ni meloo boobu di yéem: Napoléon sankoon na ca Russie; URSS deret jéex na ci kër gu metti te bëggul a dénk bopp).

  • 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: Yeesal perestroika/glasnost yu Gorbachev yi (jëfandikoo ngir “musal” sistem bi, ni ay coppite yu mujj yu Napoléon defoon) dafa feeñal te gëna gaawloo ay juuyoo ak ay wuuteyam; réew yi nekkoon ci Eastern Bloc daldi fippu te moom seen bopp (Berlin Wall daanu 9 Samwiyee 1989, te nguur yi daanu ci bépp 1989–1990)—ñàkk “emper bu biti bi,” lépp ni Napoléon ñàkkoon réew yi doon ay moroomam.

  • 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: jafe-jafe yu xeet yu réew mi biir, réew yi di yëgle seen bopp ngir moom sañ-sañu bopp; ci weeru Awgu 1991, pexe bu tarikat yu dëgër yi def ngir jël kàddu mi daanu lu leer lool; Gorbachev bàyyi liggéeyam 25 Desàmbar 1991; URSS tasarooku nekk 15 réew. Ginnaaw loolu, dellusiw gu kapitaalist topp ci (yoonu Yeltsin ji di “shock therapy”, oligark yi, ak privatization)—lu méngoo ak dellusiw Bourbon bi: ay cëram yu kilifa-jiitu-revolisyoŋ walla seen niroow yi dellusi, di wàññi bu mat mbindum moomeel yi revolisyoŋ bi sampoon, waaye di saxal yenn melokaan yu njiit ak saytu.

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.

Ci ñaar ñépp, “mbootaayu nguur” bi (French Continental System ak Soviet Eastern Bloc/walluwaayu COMECON) dafa tas jëm ci bitim-réew, yàqub bi nekk ci biir ga gëna gaaw, benn jafe-jafe bu mujj di feeñal ne amul dara ci biir, te doole yu mag ya woon ca jamono ju njëkk ya dellu di lajj-seen bopp (buur gi/capitalism). Bonapartism wone na ne du yàgg fenn—“ab piramid bu taxaw ci boppam,” ni ko Trotsky waxe—ndax mi ngi sukkandiku ci noyyi saxal dayooy demokaraasi yu revolusiyoŋ bi, fekk mi ngi aar (waaye di ko jéngal) dayooy koom-koomam ci diggante coono yu biti yu bëggul. Tasug Soviet bi nekkul woon lu “bët-set” bu nit di xool bu yàgg, waaye moo doon jeexitalu yàqub wu biir buy gën a yokku, ni itam nguurug Napoleon nekkul woon lu reer benn guddi, waaye dafa doon yàqu ba noppi ci ay daanu yu toppante ba dellusiwaat gi am.

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.

Njëlbéenu ak mujjug Farãs ak Réewum Sowiyeet mi méngoo na ak seede bu buur Oosiya ak Ptolemee. Ptolemee IV Filopator am na ndam lu mat sëkk ci xareb Rafiya (217 K.J.K.) ci kaw buur bu bëj-gànnaar bi (Antiochus III), waaye «du ko gën a dooleel»—def na jàmmu te bàyyi bañ a jëfandikoo njariñ li mu amoon, dellu ci bégte ak yékkati boppam, te gannaaw loolu (ni ko bind mi ñu denc ci 3 Maccabées 1–2 di waxe) Ptolemee dem na Yerusalem gannaaw ndamam. Xolam yékkati na ko, mu jéem a dugg ca Barab bu Gëna Sell ba te sarax boppam—jëf ju di nanguwul ak tooñ ci Yàlla dëgg gi. Yàlla dóor na ko (paralysie), toroxal ko, te mu walbatiku ci fitnaal askanu Yàlla. Buurug moom gannaaw loolu nekk na nguuru gu yokkute wéy ci wéy: yaxute yoon ak jikko, rebeliyoŋ yu biir, ak wàññiku kàttan ba ci deeŋam. Lii mooy seetu dëgg-dëgg gu yam ak Buur Oosiya (2 Chroniques 26:16–21), mi xolam yékkati woon gannaaw ndam yu xare, te mu dugge ca kër Yàlla ga ngir taal cuuraay (di nangu sarwi ji ñeeloon saraxalekat yi), te ñu dóor ko ay gaana ci kanamam, te loolu nekkoon àtte bu bir te feeñ. Booba ba pare Oosiya dund na ci wéyngal, dogoo ci kër Aji Sax ji, ba ci deeŋam—mujj gu yebul te yàgg, waaye du alkande.

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.”

Ñoom ñaar yii ay buur yu bëj-gànnaar lañu, te seen réy-réylu feeñ ci dugg gu ñu dugge ci kër Yàlla ga nekk Yerusalem, te loolu topp ak mujj gu ndànk-ndànk, buy yàq ndank, waaye du màbb gu gaaw. Lii mooy melokaanu misaal gi tegtal ñépp ñi ñëw ci gannaaw, ñi ñuy wax “buur bu bëj-gànnaar.”

1798: France Becomes the Spiritual King of the South

1798: Farãs nekk Buur bu bëgg ci xel bu Bëj-gànnaar bi

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.

Ca “jamono mujje” (1798), Fraas bu weddi Yàlla (doole bi doon feeñal jikko yu xel yu Misraam — weddi Yàlla bu leer, ni ko nekk ci Pexe 11:8) di jéggi buuru bëj-gànnaar bi (Papas bi) gannaaw jàpp Pope bi ne ko jaam. Napoleon mooy melokaan gu xareb gu jëmmal jéggi boobu. Fraas sol kaalaama bëj-saalum bi ci 1798, ndaxte mu kaweel xel bu weddi Yàlla boobu sax, bi Misraam gu yàggoon doon jëmmal.

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.

Waaye ni ni Ptolemy mënu woon “jariñoo bu baax ndamam,” noonu itam xaaj bu tar bu Réewum-soppig Frans mënu woon saxal walla yébbal ba noppi ay jëfam. Kaala bu bëj-gànnaar dafa jàll, bi xel mu atheism matée di gis baat bu bees ci nguur gi.

Progressive Leadership Symbols: Napoleon to Lenin to Stalin

Màndargayu Njiite yu Yeesal: Napoleon ba Lenin ba 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.

Ñetti ñaaru amul benn xew-xew bu xàjji rekk; ay jeexital lañu yu yokkuteel—ku nekk di wone jéego bu gën a sore ci yoonu buurub bëj-gànnaar bi jëm ci tasaaram bu ndank. Napoleon—mooy sëntukaay bu mag bu njëkk gannaaw 1798. Bi mu amee ndam ci Misra (bëj-gànnaar bu dëgg-bi), mu jéggi dayo (xareb Rusi bu 1812 dafa doon musiba buy tàmbalee ab séeri yàquute), mu ñàk ndam ci yeneeni wetu nguuram bu wër ko ndank-ndank (1813–1814), mu sonn ndam ju mujj (Waterloo 1815), te ñu dàq ko ñaari yoon. Napoleon mooy melokaanu yàqu gu yokkuteel, gu am ay xàjjaat—bu dëpp dëgg ak Ptolemy ak Uzziah.

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 jël nguur gi ci Réewum Oktobar 1917 bi. “Dëgg-dëgg buñ dëpp” bu Bolshevik yi taxawal na xeex bi ci kaw njëlbéen gu mag gi (boole ci kàttanu diine itam). Waaye jamono ju metti ju réy jooju manul saxal mbind mi; wér-gu-yaramu Lenin ci boppam dafa yàqu lu gaaw, te sistem bi tàmbalee soppiw ci birokrasi.

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, dajale sëmb, (Bonapartis bu Sowiyeet) dafay “fexe” révolusiyoŋ bi nekk nguur-gu xare ak burokrasi, di aar njariñ yu mag yi ci biiram (ekonomi bu ñu nasionalise, mooy melo anti-feodal bi ak Koodu Napoléon), waaye mu wëlbat sañ-sañ bi ci biir (setal yu metti yi) ak ci biti (yaatal). Waaye xol ba kawees na ci yëfandikukatadi Yàlla; sistem bi mënul dëgg-dëgg “jariñloo ndam-am ba mu ëpp.” Yeesal bu ëpp doole (Afganistaan, melo ak Rusi Napoléon), taxawaay, coppite yu antuwul (perestroika moo doon jéem ju mujj, ju metti lool), ñàkk ay satelit (1989–90 = ñàkk “àllikati” yi), ak fenn gu mujj gi (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).

Mbuurum Mbootaayu Soweetyé dafa nekkul lu gaaw—dafa doon lu yem ci ndank-ndank, ni noonu reewug Napoléon yaaxee di dem jéego jéego, te it ni noonu nguurug Ptolémée ak Uziya wowee gannaaw seen waxtu réy-réylu kër Yàlla gi. Buur bu “ruu” bi ci bëj-gànnaar (àddina baña gëm Yàlla ci melow nguur) jot na itam moom ay àttey yu yàgg: biñ ko xàllal ci biir, te mu mënul woon saxal fen ba, ñu jébbal ko ci yëngu-yëngu ngir dëlloo buur bu bëj-saalum bi (dellusi Papas bi ci biir suuf-sàmm bi).

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.

Réwoluysóŋ Franse bi (ñaari jéego) moo mel ni Réwoluysóŋ Rusi bi (Febriye ak Oktobar/Bolsewik). Bonapartismu Napoléon ak yàqute gu yokkute dafa mel ni daldi gu Stalinist ak yàqute gu yokkute gu Soviet bi. Lépp loolu mooy jëfandikoo gu jamono jii ci sàrtu buur bu bëj-gànnaar bi ci Daniel 11, dale ci lakkug Ptolemy ci Raphia ak réyréylu kër Yàlla ga, jaarale ci bàkkaar bu Uziya boo xam ne moom la woon, ak mujjug ndànk-ndànk, ba ci France ci 1798 ak ci doomam ju weddi Yàlla (jamonoy Lenin–Stalin), ji mënuloon a dooleel boppam ak ndam yi mu amoon.

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 mooy ki sos diine buy jëfandikoo doole mbaa moom sañ-sañ bi ci anam gu metti (lu mengook yéegug Jacobin/Bolshevik; “dëgg-dëggu jëf” gi gannaaw 1917, dafa mel ni waxtu ji njëkk ci Consulat-u Napoleon gannaaw Brumaire). Stalin mooy ki dajale ak dëgërël anam bu Bonapartist bi (tabax Mbooloom Soviet, setal yu metti, ndam li ci WWII, teeru xarebu Sedd bi; xolam yéegoon na ci bañ Yàlla, waaye mënu ko woon a dëgërël ndam li ba muy sax ci yàgg—tàmbali na fiis gu baaxul gu jéggi dayo).

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 moo doon “thaw” bu gannaaw njëkkub njolli bi la woon (1953–1964): mu daan Stalin (Baat bu Sootu bi, 1956), mu wone yenn yàqute ak xolu sàcc-sàcc, mu jéem yenn coppite yu yamul, waaye mënu koo saafara yëngal yi nekk ci doxalin bi ci sunu suuf. Loolu dafa méngoo ak jamono ju “Thermidorian” walla njëkkub wàññiku bi — tiit ba di yéex, fekk ndombo gi ci biir, buy weddi Yàlla, des na taxaw; waaye màggug teddin bi di wàññiiku (lu mel ni toroxalu yi ci Bët-setal yi Cubaa, 1962, di méngoo ak yàqu-yàqu yu ndaw yi Napoléon dajale woon lu jiitu yu mag ya).

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 moo doon wa jéexital buy sonal (1985–1991) ak perestroika (soppiinu tabax) ak glasnost (ubbeeku) ngir muy jéem a “musal” sistem bi ci mujj, waaye yooyu gaawoon nañu yombal ag daanu gi—ñàkk Mbooloom Penku Bëj-gànnaaru (1989 Miirum Berlin), ak fippu yu biir réew mi. Lii moo gën a leer ci tegtalu “mujj gu ndank-ndank”: ni Napoleon ci ay jéem-jéemam yu mujj ngir dëgëralaat mbaa soppi dara lu jiitu woon song gi ci 1814, walla ni Ptolemy/Uzziah ci wàññiku gu yàgg gannaaw réy-réylu ca kër Yàlla ga. Ndamboogu Gorbachev ak ndajeem 1989 ak Bàppa Jan Pol II (buur bu bëj-gànnaar) dafay melal noonu daanu gu xel mën a xam—gëmadi bu buur bu bëj-saalum bi di jébbalu ci yéegaatu pap bi.

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 moo doon nit ku mujj ci tasaaru gi (li dale ci 1991) te moo jiite woon jàmbaar yi aari naxe gu Awoot 1991, mu nekk prezidaaŋu Rusi, mu saytu tasaaru URSS bi (Desaambar 1991), privatizasiyoŋu “shock therapy”, ak dellu gi kapitalism. Moom dafay melal jeexital ju yàqu te doxalin wu ñakk yoon ak “restoration” bu benn xaaj ci mbir yi jiitu woon révolusiyoŋ bi (kapitalismu oligarki, ni dellusi Bourbon gannaaw Napoléon). Kërug buur bu bëj-saalum bi ñu balay ba tas ko, ngir matal Daniel 11:40, foofu bëj-gànnaar gi daan ay ngelawlu gi doxe ci ndam ak jàq, jaarale ko ci Papasi bi jaarale ci benn booloo ak US.

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.”

Misel bu melokaan mi ngi fésal yoonu àtte bu di yàgg te di dox ndànk-ndànk ba noppi, waaye du daanu gu gaaw; ni ndamug Raphia gu Ptolemy IV juraloon réy-réylu, dugg ci kër Yàlla, dóor gu jóge ci Yàlla, ak yàqute yu yàgg; ak ni Uzziah nekkoon ci tasaaru gaana ba baatam jot; ak ni Napoléon séddale ay yàquyam ci ay jéego yu toppante (Russi, Leipzig, Paris, Elba, Waterloo). Rëddwu Union Soviétique mi ngi tënk ndam li mu gëna kawe ci jamonoy Stalin, ak neentu gu di yokku ci biir jamonoy thawu Khrushchev, buy wone xar-yàqu ya nekk ci sistem bi. Gannaaw loolu, taxawaayu jamonoy Brezhnev ak coppitey Gorbachev dañuy doon yombal yàqu gi; jamonoy Yeltsin mooy mottali sellal gi (USSR tas na, melokaanu nguurug ateism jeex na). “Xol bi yékkati na boppam” dafay feeñ ci biir rëdd wi yépp (ñàkk worma ci Yàlla gu ateist), waaye kenn “deful lu ëpp ci ndamam.”

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.

Muuru buur yi bëj-saalum yi mooy lu ngir-jëm; ndoqalu Seytaane dafa tàmbali ci bant ba, te ci mujj dees na ko yónnee ci ngàddaay ngir 1,000 at, te gannaaw loolu mu dee.

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.

Noonu ma gis malaaka bu wàcce asamaan, yor caabi bu xóotul benn pëtëf ak jénj bu mag ci loxoom. Mu jàpp nag njaay, jiit ja bu yàgg ja, miy Seytaane bi, di Ibliis ak Saatan, te mu yeew ko junni at. Mu sànni ko ci pëtëf ba bu xóotul benn, tëj ko fa, teg ci moom màndarga, ngir mu bañati nax xeeti àddina yi ba junni at ya mat, te gannaaw loolu war nañu ko bàyyi mu génn ab diir bu néew.

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.

Te gis ma ay gangune, ñu toog ci kawam, te ñu jox leen àtte: te gis naa ruuy yi ñu dagg bopp ndax seedeel Yeesu, ak ndax Kàddug Yàlla, ak ñi bañoon a jaamu rab wi, mbaa nataalam, te jotul woon màndargaam ci seen jë, walla ci seen loxo; te dund nañu, nguuru ak Almasi bi di junni at. Waaye desit yi ci ñi dee, dunduñuati ba keraat junni at yi mat.

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.

Lii mooy ndekkite gu jëkk gi. Ku am cér ci ndekkite gu jëkk gi, barkeel na te sell na; dee gu ñaareel gi amul ci moom benn doole, waaye dañuy doon saraxalekat yu Yàlla ak yu Almasi bi, te ñuy nguuru ak moom diirub junni at.

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.

Te bu junni at, dees na ñu génne Seytaane ci kasoam; te dina génn ngir nax xeeti yi nekk ci ñeenti weti suuf si, Gog ak Magog, ngir dajale leen ci xare; te limu ñoom mel ni suufus géej gi. Noonu ñu yéeg ci yaatalug suuf si, te wër kéru gaayi yi sell ak dëkk bi ñu bëgg; te safara wàcc na jóge ca Yàlla asamaan, lépp rendi leen. Te Seytaane mi leen naxoon, ñu sànni ko ca dexu safara ak xonq, fa rab wa ak waxkatu fen ba nekk; te dees na leen mbugal guddi ak bëccëg ba fàww. Peeñu 20:1–10.

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

Nun dina yokk sunu xalaat ci buur bu bëj-saalum bi ci Daniel fukki benn, sarax yi fukk ak benn ba fukk ak juróom ci mbind mi di ñëw.

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.

Biiro Jamono Muji bi ñu siiwaloon ci atum 1996, te mooy wone waxu Yonent gi nekk ci téereb Daniel, bi ñu ubbee woon ci 1989. Yeesal nañu jàng biiro bi ci ChatGPT, te ñu laaj ko mu settantal wàllu Ukraine ci jaar-jaaru nettaliku saar ñaar-fukk bi, ni ko biiro bi di wone. Li war a topp mooy xayma bu leer bu biiro bi, bi nekkoon ci mbindum askan wi diirub fanweer at. Jëfandikookat bi njëkk ci mbind yi Ellen White bind ci biiro bi mooy Testimonies, volume 9, 11.

Overview: Ukraine in the Prophetic Framework

Xool bu Mbirum Yàlla bi ci Ukraine

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.

Ci biir bu jëfandikookat gu magaasin bi ci yoonu waxu yonent bu Daniel 11:40–45, Ukrain waxees na ci lu jëm ci tasaaroo Réew mi Sowiyet ak xeex bi nekk diggante Papasi bi (buur bu bëj-gànnaar) ak koomunism bu weddi Yàlla (buur bu bëj-saalum). Ukrain dañu ko wone ni mooy benn barab bu am solo lool ci diine ak ci politigu àddina ci jamono yi mujj yi ci proxy wars yi, rawatina ci lu jëm ci Eglise Katolig Ukrain bi ak ñemeelam ci yoon gannaaw ay fukki at yu bare yu ñàkka nañu ko ci suufu nguuru Sowiyet.

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.

Jurnal bi dajale Ukaren ci nekk benn cér ci matug yeneen waxi yonent yi gën a yaatu yi ci Daniel 11:40, te muy melal ni buur bu bëj-gànnaaw bi ñuy tas ba lewet ak dooleb benn àllians bu Vatikan ak Etazini. Ukaren feeñ na ni muy firndeel waññiku ateismu Sowiyet ak dellusi dooleb Katolisism ci Penku-Eropu.

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

Ukreen ci xare bi nekk diggante Buur bu Bëj-gànnaar ak Buur bu Bëj-saalum

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).

Ab jëfandikoo bi jàngale ne buurub bëj-gànnaar mooy ñàkk Yàlla, te ñu incarne ko njëkk ci Farãs (1798), gannaaw ga ci Rusi Suweyet. Buurub bëj-saalum mooy papaas, te Daniel 11:40 dafa mel ne muy far xel bu tàmbalee ci 1798 te jeex ci daggute Mbooloom Suweyet ci 1989. Ikrën feeñ na ci biir wér-giir boobu, ni benn cér ci mbooloo bu Suweyet bi ñuy jéema faral di ko sweepp ba mu wér ci matug Daniel 11:40. Mbind mi teg daggute Mbooloom Suweyet bi ni mooy jëf ju njëkk ci wéral gaaw wu dee woon ci papaas gi (Peeñu 13).

Suppression of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Quoted Sources)

Daanel Mbooloom Kàrtig Ukiirèn bu Katolig (Ay Tëral yu Niiñ Ci)

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

Jëfandikoo bi dafa ëmb ay firnde yu àddina ci mbindeef Katolig yi ñu fitnaaloon ci nguurug Sowiyet.

From Time Magazine, December 4, 1989:

Ci jële Time Magazine, 4 desàmbar 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.”

«Gannaaw Xareb Àddina bu Ñaareel bi, fitna yu metti waaye ci lu ëpp yuy tuuru deret lu néew law ci Ukrain ak ci kurél gu bees gu Soweet, te mu dal nit ñu bare milyoŋ yu bokk ci Katolig Room ak Protestaa, ak itam yi bokk ci Eglis Ortodoks.»

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

Ukrin dees na nekk benn waajur bu mag bi Katolisism ñàkk woon sañ-sañam ci suufu komunism.

Legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

Ngoneelal Këristaanu Katolig bu Ukrain```

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

Benn xët gu mag ci waxtaanu Ukraine mooy aji yoonalug Kàngam Katolik Ukrain biñ daan tere lu yàgg.

From Life Magazine, December 1989:

Ci majariin Life Magazine, Desàmbar 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.”

“Ñetti bisig katolik yu bees yees a ngi leen tànn nañu ci Czechoslovakia. Te ci weer wii, Gorbachev dina daje ak Baab Yowaana Pool II bi muy seeti Itali — mooy jëkk jëfandoo bu juboo ci kanam ak kanam diggante njiiti Kremlin ak Vatican. Waxtaan yooyu mën nañu jëm ci yoonal Kàngam Katolik Ukrain biñ ko tere woon lu yàgg ci U.S.S.R.”

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

Jëleefukaay U.S. News & World Report, 11 Desambar 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.”

«Yeesal nguurug yàlla ak sañ-sañu diine bi, dañuy séentu ne dina ànd ak yekkati ndigël gu resmi gi tere woon Mbooloom Katolig bu Ukrain, mi am juróomi milyoŋi nit ñu bokk ci moom, te mi dëkkoon ci suuf su baat ba dale ci 1946, ba Stalin santaane woon ñu boole ko ci Mbooloom Ortodoks bu Russie. Jotale ngëneel gu yoon ci Mbooloom Ukrain bi mooy benn ci yëngu-yëngu yu njëkk yu baab bi doon wut.»

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.

Magasiin bi jëfandikoo li ni seede bu xamle doole nguurug yàllaadiyul buy néewaat, ak delluwaatug kàttanug Katolig. Ñu xamale ne mooy njariñ bu jub ci biddéewug diplomasi bu Vatikan, te ñu teg ko ni ab xët bu mag ci matug Daniel 11:40, di jox Ukraine ni misaal bu feeñ buy wone ne Papasi baa ngi delloo ay yëngu-yëngoom ci suuf yi nekkoon ci nguurug komunism.

Ukraine as Evidence of the Papacy’s Advance

Ukrëen ni firnde ngir màggug Papauté bi

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.”

Wàññug komunism bi du rekk soppeeku politig, waaye dafa doon itam noot gu xel ci kaw weddi Yàlla, njëg gu geopolitig bu Paapaas bi am, ak tambali dellusi Paapaas bi ci nguurug àddina. Ukraina mi dafa nekk misaal bu leer ci tasare njàqare diine bu Sowiyet yi daan saxal, ak ndam gu strateesik gu Room ci Penku Tànk ci Bëj-gànnaar. Muy tegtal coppite gu visible bi nekk ci diggante weddi Yàlla gu ñu dogaloon ak delloo sañ-sañu Katolig bi, te mayug yoonu Kërceen Katolig bu Ukraina bi jëfandikoo nañu ko ni dëggal gu yonent ci ne buur bu bëj-gànnaar dafa doon “fëgg buur bu bëj-saalum mel ni ngelawluub.”

Ukraine and the Broader Prophetic Sequence

Ikraayina ak Jëfandikoo Yoonu Kàddug Yàlla gu Gëna Yaat

  • 1798 – Papacy receives deadly wound.

    1798 – Nguuru Pap bi jot gañu gu rey.

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

    1917 – Yàlla amul dara daldi toxal seen bérab bi jëm Risi (Révolution bolchévique).

  • 1989 – Soviet Union collapses.

    1989 – Uuris Sowiyeet daanu na.

  • Ukraine – Catholic Church legalized.

    Ukreen — dañu yoonal Mbooloom Katolik.

  • Papacy regains geopolitical influence.

    Pàppaas bi dellusiwaat na kàttanam gu mag ci mbirum politig ak diggante réew yi.

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

    Etazini, ci mujj, dina doon nekk suufu jàppug Pàpp bi (Daniel 11:41).

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

    Àddina bépp topp (Daniel 11:42–43).

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

Ukrin benne na ci jéego yi 3–4, ngir muy ab céru ci biir jélloo gi nekk diggante ateezu Sowiyet bu weddi Yàlla ak dooleb Pàppa bi ñu delloo.

Sources Referenced in Ukraine Discussion

Jumbe yiñ a bind ci waxtaanu Ukraine

  • Jeff Pippenger (primary theological framework)

    Jeff Pippenger (tàkkute yu mag ci yoonu xelmu Yàlla)

Spirit of Prophecy

Xelal-yi ci Kàddug Yàlla

  • The Great Controversy

    Jàmm bu Réy bi

  • Selected Messages

    Bataaxal yu Tànneef

  • Testimonies for the Church

    Seed yi ngir Këram gi

Secular Press

Pees bu àddina bi

  • Time Magazine

    Majali Time

  • Life Magazine

    Lif Magazine

  • U.S. News & World Report

    Xibaar yi ak Addina si U.S. News & World Report

Ukraine is mentioned in connection with:

Ukrin waxeesa ci wàll ak:

  • Post-World War II Catholic persecution

    Fitna bu Katolig gannaaw Xareb Addina Bi Ñaareel bi

  • Underground survival of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

    Dund gu suufu Kàngam Katolik Ukrain gi ci suufu suufal

  • Gorbachev–Vatican diplomacy

    Diplomaasi Gorbachev–Vatican

  • Legal restoration of Catholic hierarchy

    Yeesal yoon ci doxalin kurélug ndaw ñi Katolik

Summary of Ukraine’s Role in the Newsletter

Tënk bu gàtt ci wér-gu-yaramu Ukraine ci xibaar bi ci bataaxal bi

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.

Ukrin nekkoonoon na nekku Kaatólik buñ ñu boolewoon ci suufu ateis Soviyet. Nangu Yëngiis Kaatóliku Ukrin ci yoon tegtal na né buur bu bëj-gànnaar di néew doole. Yitte Vatikaan ci Ukrin won na dellu doole Papas bi, te coppite njàngu diineb Ukrin doonoon seede gu bonn ngir wone ne Daniel 11:40 di mat. Xew-xew yi wër Ukrin bokkoon nañu ci njëkk jéego ci faj ga ñuy faj baga bu rey bu Papas bi. Kon nag, ñu jébbal Ukrin du ni mbirum politig bu taxaw boppam rekk, waaye ni màndarga yu wax ci kanam yoon yu mujju yi nekk ci Daniel 11.