Article

# The Book of Daniel - Number One-Hundred and Thirty-Eight

Daniels Bog – nummer et hundrede og otteogtredive

Unveiling Daniel 11: A Prophetic Journey through History

Afsløringen af Daniel 11: En profetisk rejse gennem historien

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

March 15, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

Verse forty of Daniel chapter eleven, represents one of the most profound verses of God’s Word. The prophetic histories that are represented therein are where the wheels within the wheels of Ezekiel’s vision are brought together. With the time of the end of the Millerite movement in 1798, and also the time of the end of the movement of the third angel in 1989, the internal and external histories of God’s people of the last days are portrayed. Within the verse is the announcement of the approaching judgment which arrived with the first angel in 1798, all the way until the Sunday law of verse forty-one. The verse therefore represents the investigative judgment of God’s church beginning with the dead, through to the sealing of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, and God spewing Laodicean Adventism out of His mouth.

Vers fyrre i Daniels ellevte kapitel repræsenterer et af de mest dybtgående vers i Guds Ord. De profetiske historier, som dér fremstilles, er dér, hvor hjulene inden i hjulene i Ezekiels syn føres sammen. Med endetiden for Miller-bevægelsen i 1798 og også endetiden for den tredje engels bevægelse i 1989 skildres Guds folks indre og ydre historier i de sidste dage. I verset findes kundgørelsen om den forestående dom, som ankom med den første engel i 1798, helt frem til søndagsloven i vers fyrre-en. Verset repræsenterer derfor den undersøgende dom over Guds menighed, begyndende med de døde, frem til beseglingen af de hundrede og fireogfyrre tusind og Gud, som udspyr laodikeisk adventisme af sin mund.

The history where the papacy received its deadly wound in 1798, until the deadly wound is healed in verse forty-one is represented in the history of the verse. Verse forty-one onward is set within the context of the escalating executive judgments of God, which begin in that verse. In this prophetic sense, verse forty is the end of Daniel chapter eleven, and verses one and two, of the chapter are the beginning. Chapter eleven presents the rebellion of the antichrist, and chapter ten represents the beginning of the Hiddekel River vision, and chapter twelve represents the end. Chapters ten and twelve represent the first and the last, and chapter eleven is the rebellion in the middle.

Historien fra den tid, hvor pavedømmet modtog sit dødelige sår i 1798, og indtil det dødelige sår læges i vers enogfyrre, er fremstillet i versets historie. Fra og med vers enogfyrre er dette sat ind i sammenhængen af Guds tiltagende eksekutive domshandlinger, som begynder i dette vers. I denne profetiske forstand er vers fyrre afslutningen på Daniels bog, kapitel elleve, og kapitrets vers et og to er begyndelsen. Kapitel elleve fremstiller antikrists oprør, og kapitel ti repræsenterer begyndelsen på synet om floden Hiddekel, og kapitel tolv repræsenterer afslutningen. Kapitel ti og tolv repræsenterer den første og den sidste, og kapitel elleve er oprøret i midten.

Chapters ten and twelve are the same, for, unlike chapter eleven, they represent Daniel’s experience in relation to the vision, and chapter eleven is the vision. Chapter ten is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, chapter eleven is the thirteenth rebellious letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and chapter twelve is the last letter of the alphabet. The Hiddekel River vision is the “Truth.”

Kapitel ti og tolv er det samme, for de fremstiller, i modsætning til kapitel elleve, Daniels erfaring i relation til synet, og kapitel elleve er synet. Kapitel ti er det hebraiske alfabets første bogstav, kapitel elleve er det hebraiske alfabets trettende, oprørske bogstav, og kapitel tolv er alfabetets sidste bogstav. Synet ved Hiddekel-floden er „Sandheden.“

In chapter eleven, the beginning illustrates the end, for Christ never changes. The final history represented in verse forty, is the testing time of the image of the beast. That testing time concludes with the mark of the beast, which is represented in verse forty-one. Verses one and two, must therefore address the sealing time of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, for that period of time is also the period of the formation of the image of the beast.

I kapitel elleve illustrerer begyndelsen enden, for Kristus forandrer sig aldrig. Den afsluttende historie, fremstillet i vers fyrre, er prøvelsestiden for dyrets billede. Denne prøvelsestid afsluttes med dyrets mærke, som er fremstillet i vers enogfyrre. Vers et og to må derfor omhandle beseglingstiden for de et hundrede og fireogfyrre tusind, for denne tidsperiode er også perioden for dannelsen af dyrets billede.

> “The Lord has shown me clearly that the image of the beast will be formed before probation closes; for it is to be the great test for the people of God, by which their eternal destiny will be decided. . ..

> "Herren har tydeligt vist mig, at dyrets billede vil blive dannet, før nådetiden afsluttes; for det skal være den store prøve for Guds folk, hvorved deres evige skæbne vil blive afgjort...."

> “This is the test that the people of God must have before they are sealed.” Manuscript Releases, volume 15, 15.

> "Dette er den prøve, som Guds folk må gennemgå, før de bliver beseglet." Manuscript Releases, bind 15, s. 15.

There are always two waymarks that identify a time of the end. In the reform movement of Moses, it was Aaron’s birth followed three years later with Moses’ birth. In the reform movement to come out of Babylon and rebuild the temple it was king Darius, followed by king Cyrus. In the reform movement of Christ, it was the birth of John the Baptist, followed in six months by the birth of Christ. In the reform movement of the Millerites it was the death of the papal system in 1798, followed by the death of the pope in 1799. In the reform movement of the third angel, it was president Reagan and president Bush the first, who both represented 1989. In Daniel chapter ten, verse one, we find king Cyrus identified.

Der er altid to vejmærker, som identificerer en endetid. I Moses’ reformbevægelse var det Arons fødsel, efterfulgt tre år senere af Moses’ fødsel. I reformbevægelsen for at komme ud af Babylon og genopbygge templet var det kong Darius, efterfulgt af kong Kyros. I Kristi reformbevægelse var det Johannes Døberens fødsel, efterfulgt seks måneder senere af Kristi fødsel. I milleritternes reformbevægelse var det pavedømmets død i 1798, efterfulgt af pavens død i 1799. I den tredje engels reformbevægelse var det præsident Reagan og præsident Bush den første, som begge repræsenterede 1989. I Daniels bog, kapitel ti, vers 1, finder vi kong Kyros identificeret.

> In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. Daniel 10:1.

> I Kyros’, Persiens konges, tredje regeringsår blev et ord åbenbaret for Daniel, som fik navnet Beltsazzar; og ordet var sandt, men den fastsatte tid var lang; og han forstod ordet og havde indsigt i synet. Daniel 10:1.

In the following verses of chapter ten, we see the experience of Daniel represented in advance of Gabriel delivering the vision of prophetic history in chapter eleven. Cyrus marks the time of the end, for previously Cyrus, Darius’ nephew, had been Darius’ general who slew Belshazzar, thus marking the end of the seventy years of captivity, which typified the twelve-hundred and sixty-year captivity of spiritual Israel in spiritual Babylon from 538 unto 1798.

I de følgende vers i kapitel ti ser vi Daniels erfaring fremstillet på forhånd forud for, at Gabriel overbringer synet af den profetiske historie i kapitel elleve. Kyros markerer endetiden, for tidligere havde Kyros, Darius’ nevø, været Darius’ general, som dræbte Belsazzar og således markerede afslutningen på de halvfjerds års fangenskab, som var et forbillede på det tolvhundrede og tresårige fangenskab for det åndelige Israel i det åndelige Babylon fra 538 til 1798.

> “God’s church on earth was as verily in captivity during this long period of relentless persecution as were the children of Israel held captive in Babylon during the period of the exile.” Prophets and Kings, 714.

> „Guds kirke på jorden var i sandhed i fangenskab under denne lange periode med ubarmhjertig forfølgelse, ligesom Israels børn blev holdt fangne i Babylon under landflygtighedens tid.“ Profeter og konger, 714.

The end of the twelve hundred and sixty years in 1798, marked the time of the end, so the end of the seventy years marked the “time of the end” for that history. Both Darius and Cyrus are represented at the death of Belshazzar and end of the kingdom of Babylon, for as Darius’s general who accomplished the work, Cyrus was representing Darius. When George Bush the first was inaugurated on January 20, 1989, Reagan had been president for the first nineteen days of 1989.

Afslutningen på de tolv hundrede og tres år i 1798 markerede endetiden; således markerede afslutningen på de halvfjerds år „endetiden“ for denne historie. Både Darius og Kyros fremstilles ved Belsazzars død og afslutningen på Babylons rige, for idet Kyros som Darius’ general udførte værket, repræsenterede han Darius. Da George Bush den første blev indsat den 20. januar 1989, havde Reagan været præsident i de første nitten dage af 1989.

The vision of the Hiddekel began at the time of the end, in the third year of Cyrus. When Gabriel begins to unfold to Daniel the prophetic history of chapter eleven, he first references the first year of Darius, to establish clearly that the vision of prophetic history that he was about to present to Daniel begins in the last time of the end, in 1989, for all the prophets speak more of the last days than the days in which they lived.

Synet ved Hiddekel begyndte ved endens tid, i Kyros’ tredje regeringsår. Da Gabriel begynder at udfolde den profetiske historie i kapitel elleve for Daniel, henviser han først til Darius’ første regeringsår for klart at fastslå, at det syn af profetisk historie, som han stod i begreb med at fremstille for Daniel, begynder i den sidste endens tid, i 1989, for alle profeterne taler mere om de sidste dage end om de dage, hvori de levede.

> But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. Daniel 10:21, 11:1.

> Men jeg vil kundgøre dig det, som er optegnet i sandhedens skrift; og der er ingen, som står mig bi i disse ting, uden Mikael, jeres fyrste. Også jeg stod i mederen Darius’ første regeringsår frem for at stadfæste og styrke ham. Daniel 10:21; 11:1.

In the first year of Darius, which represents the time of the end in 1989, Gabriel “stood”, thus identifying that at a “time of the end”, an angel arrives. In 1798 the first angel arrived, and in 1989, the third angel arrived. It wasn’t until the message of the third angel was empowered in 2001 that the sealing of the third angel began, but the movement of the third angel arriving in 1989, is represented by Gabriel standing at the time of the end. Gabriel is going to show Daniel “that which is noted in the scripture of truth,” and the vision of the Hiddekel possesses the signature of “Truth,” which Gabriel is about to set forth.

I Darius’ første regeringsår, som repræsenterer endetiden i 1989, “stod” Gabriel frem og identificerede derved, at der ved en “endetid” ankommer en engel. I 1798 ankom den første engel, og i 1989 ankom den tredje engel. Det var først, da den tredje engels budskab blev bemyndiget i 2001, at den tredje engels besegling begyndte, men bevægelsen med den tredje engels ankomst i 1989 er fremstillet ved, at Gabriel stod frem ved endetiden. Gabriel vil vise Daniel “det, som er optegnet i sandhedens skrift,” og synet ved Hiddekel bærer “Sandhedens” signatur, som Gabriel nu er ved at fremlægge.

In verse fourteen of chapter ten Gabriel had already informed Daniel that what he was addressing in the vision of the Hiddekel was “what would happen to God’s people in the last days.”

I vers fjorten i kapitel ti havde Gabriel allerede underrettet Daniel om, at det, han omtalte i synet ved Hiddekel, var „det, der ville ske med Guds folk i de sidste dage“.

> Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days. Daniel 10:14.

> Nu er jeg kommet for at lade dig forstå, hvad der skal hænde dit folk i de sidste dage; thi synet gælder endnu mange dage. Daniel 10:14.

Verse two of Daniel chapter eleven represents the knowledge that was unsealed at the time of the end in 1989, and which identifies what “shall befall” God’s people “in the latter days”.

Andet vers i Daniels ellevte kapitel repræsenterer den kundskab, som blev åbenbaret ved endens tid i 1989, og som identificerer, hvad der „skal tilstøde“ Guds folk „i de sidste dage“.

> And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. Daniel 11:2.

> Og nu vil jeg kundgøre dig sandheden. Se, endnu skal tre konger fremstå i Persien; og den fjerde skal være langt rigere end dem alle; og ved sin styrke gennem sine rigdomme skal han ophidse alle mod Grækenlands rige. Daniel 11:2.

Cyrus prefigures the second king since 1989. He is the king of the Medo-Persian Empire, which represents the kingdom of Bible prophecy in the last days that is made up of two horns, represented by the Medes and the Persians. After the second king of the kingdom of the two-horned earth beast at the time of the end in 1989, there would yet be three kings (Clinton, Bush the last, Obama), and then there would be a king that was far richer than they all were. The three kings that followed Bush the first, got wealthy after their presidencies, and only because they had become president. Trump, the fourth that was far richer, and was the wealthiest president ever, did not make his money because he had been president, but primarily through his work in real estate investments, well before he ran for president.

Kyros er et forbillede på den anden konge siden 1989. Han er konge over det medo-persiske rige, som repræsenterer bibelprofetiens rige i de sidste dage, der består af to horn, fremstillet ved mederne og perserne. Efter den anden konge i riget hos jorddyret med de to horn ved endetiden i 1989 skulle der endnu være tre konger (Clinton, Bush den sidste, Obama), og derpå skulle der være en konge, som var langt rigere end dem alle. De tre konger, som fulgte efter Bush den første, blev velhavende efter deres præsidentperioder, og kun fordi de var blevet præsident. Trump, den fjerde, som var langt rigere, og som var den rigeste præsident nogensinde, tjente ikke sine penge, fordi han havde været præsident, men først og fremmest gennem sit arbejde med ejendomsinvesteringer, længe før han stillede op til præsidentvalget.

Formerly the richest president in American history, relatively speaking, was the first president of the United States. Prior to Donald Trump, George Washington was the richest president in American history, and he made his money as did Donald Trump, through real estate investments. Both Washington and Trump came to the presidency from non-traditional political backgrounds. Washington was primarily a military leader before becoming president, and Trump was a businessman and television personality, who like unto Washington was without any prior political experience.

Tidligere var den rigeste præsident i amerikansk historie, relativt set, USA’s første præsident. Før Donald Trump var George Washington den rigeste præsident i amerikansk historie, og han tjente sine penge, ligesom Donald Trump, gennem ejendomsinvesteringer. Både Washington og Trump kom til præsidentembedet fra utraditionelle politiske baggrunde. Washington var primært en militær leder, før han blev præsident, og Trump var forretningsmand og tv-personlighed, som, ligesom Washington, var uden nogen forudgående politisk erfaring.

Both presidents were known for their strong personalities and leadership styles, although they manifested these traits quite differently. Washington was known for his stoic, calm, and confident leadership and unifying presence during the Revolutionary War and the early years of the Republic, while Trump is known for his assertive approach to leadership and governance. Both Washington and Trump were figures of significant controversy, albeit for very different reasons. Washington, while widely revered, faced criticism during his time for various issues, including his views on slavery. Trump’s presidency was marked by numerous controversies, including his use of “mean tweets” on social media, his America-first policy decisions, and his own self-awareness.

Begge præsidenter var kendt for deres stærke personligheder og ledelsesstile, skønt de gav disse træk udtryk på ganske forskellig vis. Washington var kendt for sin stoiske, rolige og selvsikre ledelse samt sin samlende tilstedeværelse under Revolutionskrigen og i Republikkens første år, mens Trump er kendt for sin selvhævdende tilgang til ledelse og regeringsførelse. Både Washington og Trump var skikkelser forbundet med betydelig kontrovers, om end af vidt forskellige grunde. Washington, skønt almindeligt æret, blev i sin samtid mødt med kritik for forskellige forhold, herunder sine synspunkter om slaveri. Trumps præsidentskab var præget af talrige kontroverser, herunder hans brug af “onde tweets” på sociale medier, hans politiske beslutninger under devisen America first og hans egen selvbevidsthed.

The richest and sixth president was to stir up the globalist dragon powers. When we lay the history of verse two of chapter eleven, upon the history of the period of 1776, 1789, and 1798, we find further information addressing the last president of the earth beast, for Jesus illustrates the end with the beginning. The first two periods represented by 1776, and 1789, provide two witnesses that the final president, will be the eighth president, who was of the seven. Trump was the sixth president after Reagan, and as the eighth president, he will be “of the seven”. The final, and eighth president will rule when the United States forms the image “to and of” the beast.

Den rigeste og sjette præsident skulle ophidse de globalistiske dragemagter. Når vi lægger historien i vers to i kapitel elleve over historien for perioden 1776, 1789 og 1798, finder vi yderligere oplysninger, der vedrører jorddyrets sidste præsident, for Jesus fremstiller enden ved begyndelsen. De første to perioder, repræsenteret ved 1776 og 1789, giver to vidner om, at den endelige præsident vil være den ottende præsident, som var af de syv. Trump var den sjette præsident efter Reagan, og som den ottende præsident vil han være „af de syv“. Den sidste og ottende præsident vil regere, når De Forenede Stater danner billedet „til og af“ dyret.

The president who rules when the image of the beast is formed by the United States, must be the eighth, that is of the seven, as witnessed to by Peyton Randolph, and John Hancock. The papacy is the eighth head that was of the seven, and it received a prophetic deadly wound. To be an image of the papacy, the eighth president that is of the seven, must also have a prophetic identification of being prophetically “wounded” or “killed”.

Den præsident, som regerer, når De Forenede Stater danner dyrets billede, må være den ottende, det vil sige én af de syv, sådan som det bevidnes af Peyton Randolph og John Hancock. Pavemagten er det ottende hoved, som var af de syv, og den modtog et profetisk dødssår. For at være et billede af pavemagten må den ottende præsident, som er af de syv, ligeledes have en profetisk identifikation som én, der profetisk er blevet „såret“ eller „dræbt“.

The papacy received its deadly wound from a dragon power (France), a dragon power who the papacy had been struggling against since the time when Paul identified that, the mystery of iniquity (the man of sin), did already work at that time. The dragon of paganism was restraining the papacy from taking the throne, which it did in 538.

Pavedømmet modtog sit dødelige sår fra en dragemagt (Frankrig), en dragemagt, som pavedømmet havde kæmpet imod siden den tid, da Paulus fastslog, at lovløshedens hemmelighed (syndens menneske) allerede var virksom på den tid. Hedenskabets drage holdt pavedømmet tilbage fra at bestige tronen, hvilket det gjorde i 538.

From the beginning of the papacy unto its final demise it struggles against dragon powers. An image of the papacy requires that the image struggles with a dragon power. In Revelation seventeen the papacy, who is the eighth head, that is of the seven heads, is ultimately burned with fire and her flesh is eaten by the ten kings. In both deaths (1798 and the last days), the papal beast is killed by a dragon power. In order for the United States to form an image of the beast, the eighth president would also need to be killed by a dragon power that it was at war with, and the sixth king after the time of the end in 1989, is the king that stirred up all the dragon powers.

Fra pavedømmets begyndelse og indtil dets endelige undergang kæmper det imod dragemagter. Et billede af pavedømmet kræver, at billedet kæmper imod en dragemagt. I Åbenbaringen sytten bliver pavedømmet, som er det ottende hoved, og som er af de syv hoveder, til sidst brændt med ild, og dets kød fortæres af de ti konger. I begge dødsfald (1798 og de sidste dage) bliver det pavelige dyr dræbt af en dragemagt. For at De Forenede Stater kan danne et billede af dyret, må den ottende præsident også blive dræbt af en dragemagt, som det var i krig med, og den sjette konge efter endetidens begyndelse i 1989 er den konge, som ophidsede alle dragemagterne.

Ronald Reagan was an apostate Protestant, but George Bush the first, was a classic globalist. One of his famous quotes is where he lied by saying, on August 18, 1988, “And I’m the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he’ll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that’s one resort he’ll be checking into. My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I’ll say no. And they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and all I can say to them is: read my lips: no new taxes.”

Ronald Reagan var en frafalden protestant, men George Bush den første var en klassisk globalist. Et af hans berømte citater er det, hvor han løj ved den 18. august 1988 at sige: “Og det er mig, der ikke vil forhøje skatterne. Min modstander siger nu, at han vil forhøje dem som en sidste udvej eller en tredje udvej. Men når en politiker taler sådan, ved man, at det er et feriested, han vil tage ind på. Min modstander vil ikke udelukke at forhøje skatterne. Men det vil jeg. Og Kongressen vil presse mig til at forhøje skatterne, og jeg vil sige nej. Og de vil presse, og jeg vil sige nej, og de vil presse igen, og alt, hvad jeg kan sige til dem, er: læs mine læber: ingen nye skatter.”

Other than that public lie, which is an attribute of a representative of the dragon power, his most famous quote was at a joint session of Congress on September 11, 1990, where he said, “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a ‘world order’ in which ‘the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong …’ A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” Bush the senior was a globalist, even if he identified as a Republican.

Bortset fra den offentlige løgn, som er et kendetegn ved en repræsentant for dragemagten, var hans mest berømte udtalelse den ved en fælles samling i Kongressen den 11. september 1990, hvor han sagde: “Nu kan vi se en ny verden træde frem. En verden, hvori der foreligger det helt reelle perspektiv om en ny verdensorden. Med Winston Churchills ord en ‘verdensorden’, hvori ‘retfærdighedens og fair play’s principper … beskytter de svage mod de stærke …’ En verden, hvor De Forenede Nationer, befriet fra den kolde krigs fastlåsning, står rede til at opfylde sine grundlæggeres historiske vision.” Bush den ældre var globalist, selv om han identificerede sig som republikaner.

Bill Clinton was the first president to hold his inauguration ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial, which means he turned his back to Lincoln and faced the obelisk of Washington’s monument, an obelisk that is internally filled with symbols of Freemasonry. Both the obelisk and the symbols of Freemasonry he chose to face as he falsely swore his allegiance to the Constitution, represented not only that he had turned his back upon the anti-slavery symbol of the Lincoln Memorial, but Clintons’ chosen historic positioning, agrees with his acceptance speech, where he praised a professor whom he had studied under in the Jesuit University that he had attended.

Bill Clinton var den første præsident, der afholdt sin indsættelsesceremoni ved Lincoln Memorial, hvilket betyder, at han vendte Lincoln ryggen og stod vendt mod obelisken i Washington-monumentet, en obelisk, som indvendigt er fyldt med frimureriets symboler. Både obelisken og frimureriets symboler, som han valgte at vende sig mod, da han på falsk vis svor sin troskab mod Forfatningen, viste ikke blot, at han havde vendt ryggen til slaverimodstandens symbol i Lincoln Memorial, men Clintons valgte historiske placering stemmer også overens med hans takketale, hvor han priste en professor, som han havde studeret under på det jesuitiske universitet, han havde gået på.

That professor, Carroll Quigley, wrote the book: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, which was published in 1966, and is correctly and widely understood to represent “the Bible for globalist ideas”. As the Koran is to Islam, and as Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, written by Albert Pike, and published in 1871, is considered the most comprehensive exposition of the esoteric teachings of Freemasonry; or as The Book of Mormon is to the Latter Day Saints, Quigley’s book is the Bible of globalist philosophy. Most would have known if Clinton praised Mohammed of the Koran, or if he praised Joseph Smith of The Book of Mormon, and some would have known who Albert Pike was, but few knew that Clinton’s praise of Quigley was consistent with his own globalist agenda, and his rejection of the principles represented by Abraham Lincoln.

Den professor, Carroll Quigley, skrev bogen *Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time*, som blev udgivet i 1966, og som med rette og i vid udstrækning forstås som »Bibelen for globalistiske idéer«. Som Koranen er for islam, og som *Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry*, skrevet af Albert Pike og udgivet i 1871, betragtes som den mest omfattende fremstilling af frimureriets esoteriske læresætninger; eller som Mormons Bog er for de sidste dages hellige, således er Quigleys bog den globalistiske filosofis bibel. De fleste ville have vidst det, hvis Clinton havde lovprist Muhammed i Koranen, eller hvis han havde lovprist Joseph Smith i Mormons Bog, og nogle ville have vidst, hvem Albert Pike var, men få vidste, at Clintons lovprisning af Quigley var i overensstemmelse med hans egen globalistiske dagsorden og hans forkastelse af de principper, som Abraham Lincoln repræsenterede.

In the speech, Clinton said: “As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest nation in history because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.” Carroll Quigley’s idea on how to “make America great again”, was for the United States to surrender its national sovereignty to the United Nations. Clinton was a Democrat, globalist, representative of the dragon.

I talen sagde Clinton: »Som teenager hørte jeg John Kennedys kald til borgerskab. Og siden, som studerende ved Georgetown, hørte jeg dette kald præciseret af en professor ved navn Carroll Quigley, som sagde til os, at Amerika var den største nation i historien, fordi vort folk altid har troet på to ting: at i morgen kan være bedre end i dag, og at hver eneste af os har et personligt moralsk ansvar for at gøre det til virkelighed.« Carroll Quigleys idé om, hvordan man kunne »make America great again«, var, at De Forenede Stater skulle opgive sin nationale suverænitet til De Forenede Nationer. Clinton var demokrat, globalist, repræsentant for dragen.

“Like father, like son”, George Bush the last, was a globalist, and just as was his father, a globalist who professed to be Republican. The apple does not fall far from the tree. The Bible raises the rhetorical question, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” One simply needs to track the many enterprises that Bush the last, accomplished together with Bill and Hillary Clinton to see who Bush the last agreed with.

»Som far, så søn«: George Bush den sidste var globalist, ligesom hans far var det, en globalist, der bekendte sig til at være republikaner. Æblet falder ikke langt fra stammen. Bibelen stiller det retoriske spørgsmål: »Kan to vandre sammen, uden at de er enige?« Man behøver blot at følge de mange foretagender, som Bush den sidste gennemførte sammen med Bill og Hillary Clinton, for at se, hvem Bush den sidste var enig med.

Barack Hussein Obama made a statement about fundamentally transforming the United States during a campaign rally shortly before he was elected as President. On October 30, 2008, in Columbia, Missouri, Obama said: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” The statement was part of Obama’s broader message of “hope and change”, which was a central theme of his 2008 presidential campaign, emphasizing his commitment to significant policy reforms and a different direction for the country. The direction he turned the country was into the dragon policies of globalism, anti-white, pro-abortion, anti-carbon fuels, anti-America pro-globalism, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, the false history of Critical Race Theory, and on and on. Obama was not simply a community organizer; he was and still is a representative of the dragon power’s globalist agenda.

Barack Hussein Obama fremsatte en erklæring om grundlæggende at forvandle De Forenede Stater under et valgmøde kort før, han blev valgt til præsident. Den 30. oktober 2008 sagde Obama i Columbia, Missouri: »Vi er fem dage fra grundlæggende at forvandle Amerikas Forenede Stater.« Udtalelsen var en del af Obamas bredere budskab om »håb og forandring«, som var et centralt tema i hans præsidentkampagne i 2008, og som understregede hans forpligtelse på betydelige politiske reformer og en anden kurs for landet. Den kurs, han drejede landet ind på, var globalismens dragepolitik: antihvid, pro-abort, imod kulstofbaserede brændstoffer, anti-Amerika, pro-globalisme, Diversitet, Lighed og Inklusion, den falske historieskrivning i Critical Race Theory, og så videre. Obama var ikke blot en lokal samfundsorganisator; han var og er stadig en repræsentant for dragemagtens globalistiske dagsorden.

Trump however, unlike a typical modern politician, kept more promises than all the other seven presidents in the period beginning in 1989, combined. He was committed to making America great again, and in so attempting, he stirred up the globalist powers that be, not only in the United States, but in the entire world.

Trump holdt imidlertid, i modsætning til en typisk moderne politiker, flere løfter end alle de øvrige syv præsidenter i perioden begyndende i 1989 tilsammen. Han var besluttet på at gøre Amerika stort igen, og idet han søgte at gøre dette, vakte han de herskende globalistiske magter til modstand, ikke blot i De Forenede Stater, men i hele verden.

Joe Biden has no evidence whatsoever that he is anything other than another globalist.

Joe Biden har overhovedet intet bevis for, at han er andet end endnu en globalist.

The beast of Catholicism waged a long-drawn-out war with the dragon powers, and the president that is reigning when the United States forms an image of the papacy, will, of prophetic necessity, be in a struggle with the dragon powers. None of the living presidents, other than Donald Trump, would wage war with the dragon powers, for the Democrats are openly globalist (dragons), and George Bush the last, was, as his father was (a professed Republican, that is actually a globalist dragon), for Jesus always illustrates the last with the first.

Katolicismens dyr førte en langvarig krig mod dragemagterne, og den præsident, som regerer, når De Forenede Stater danner et billede af pavedømmet, vil af profetisk nødvendighed være i strid med dragemagterne. Ingen af de nulevende præsidenter, bortset fra Donald Trump, ville føre krig mod dragemagterne, for demokraterne er åbenlyst globalister (drager), og den sidste George Bush var, ligesom hans far var det (en erklæret republikaner, som i virkeligheden er en globalistisk drage), for Jesus fremstiller altid den sidste ved den første.

We will continue this study in the next article.

Vi vil fortsætte dette studium i den næste artikel.

> “A great crisis awaits the people of God. A crisis awaits the world. The most momentous struggle of all the ages is just before us. Events which for more than forty years we have upon the authority of the prophetic word declared to be impending are now taking place before our eyes. Already the question of an amendment to the Constitution restricting liberty of conscience has been urged upon the legislators of the nation. The question of enforcing Sunday observance has become one of national interest and importance. We well know what the result of this movement will be. But are we ready for the issue? Have we faithfully discharged the duty which God has committed to us of giving the people warning of the danger before them?

> „En stor krise venter Guds folk. En krise venter verden. Den mest skelsættende kamp gennem alle tidsaldre ligger umiddelbart foran os. Begivenheder, som vi i mere end fyrre år på det profetiske ords myndighed har erklæret for forestående, finder nu sted for vore øjne. Allerede er spørgsmålet om en ændring af forfatningen, som indskrænker samvittighedsfriheden, blevet fremført for nationens lovgivere. Spørgsmålet om at håndhæve søndagshelligholdelse er blevet et anliggende af national interesse og betydning. Vi ved udmærket, hvad udfaldet af denne bevægelse vil blive. Men er vi rede til den afgørende prøve? Har vi trofast opfyldt den pligt, som Gud har betroet os, nemlig at advare folket om den fare, der ligger foran dem?“

> “There are many, even of those engaged in this movement for Sunday enforcement, who are blinded to the results which will follow this action. They do not see that they are striking directly against religious liberty. There are many who have never understood the claims of the Bible Sabbath and the false foundation upon which the Sunday institution rests. Any movement in favor of religious legislation is really an act of concession to the papacy, which for so many ages has steadily warred against liberty of conscience. Sunday observance owes its existence as a so-called Christian institution to ‘the mystery of iniquity;’ and its enforcement will be a virtual recognition of the principles which are the very cornerstone of Romanism. When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism.

> „Der er mange, selv blandt dem, der deltager i denne bevægelse for håndhævelse af søndagen, som er blændede for de følger, der vil blive resultatet af denne handling. De ser ikke, at de dermed retter et direkte slag mod religionsfriheden. Der er mange, som aldrig har forstået den bibelske sabbats krav og det falske grundlag, hvorpå søndagsinstitutionen hviler. Enhver bevægelse til fordel for religiøs lovgivning er i virkeligheden en indrømmelse til pavedømmet, som gennem så mange tidsaldre utrætteligt har ført krig mod samvittighedsfriheden. Søndagshelligholdelse skylder sin eksistens som en såkaldt kristen institution til „lovløshedens hemmelighed“; og dens håndhævelse vil være en faktisk anerkendelse af de principper, som udgør selve hjørnestenen i romerkirken. Når vor nation således fornægter sit styres grundprincipper ved at vedtage en søndagslov, vil protestantismen ved denne handling række hånden til pavedømmet; det vil ikke være andet end at give liv til det tyranni, som længe ivrigt har ventet på sin lejlighed til på ny at bryde frem i aktiv despotisme.״

> “The National Reform movement, exercising the power of religious legislation, will, when fully developed, manifest the same intolerance and oppression that have prevailed in past ages. Human councils then assumed the prerogatives of Deity, crushing under their despotic power liberty of conscience; and imprisonment, exile, and death followed for those who opposed their dictates. If popery or its principles shall again be legislated into power, the fires of persecution will be rekindled against those who will not sacrifice conscience and the truth in deference to popular errors. This evil is on the point of realization.

> „Den nationale reformbevægelse, som udøver den religiøse lovgivnings magt, vil, når den er fuldt udviklet, åbenbare den samme intolerance og undertrykkelse, som har rådet i tidligere tider. Menneskelige råd tilranede sig dengang guddommens forrettigheder og knuste under deres despotiske magt samvittighedsfriheden; og fængsling, landsforvisning og død fulgte for dem, der modsatte sig deres påbud. Hvis pavedømmet eller dets principper atter lovgives til magt, vil forfølgelsens ild atter blive antændt mod dem, der ikke vil ofre samvittigheden og sandheden af hensyn til de folkelige vildfarelser. Dette onde står på tærskelen til at blive virkeliggjort.“

> “When God has given us light showing the dangers before us, how can we stand clear in His sight if we neglect to put forth every effort in our power to bring it before the people? Can we be content to leave them to meet this momentous issue unwarned?” Testimonies, volume 5, 711, 712.

> ”Når Gud har givet os lys, som viser os de farer, der ligger foran os, hvordan kan vi da stå rene for Hans åsyn, hvis vi forsømmer at gøre enhver anstrengelse, som står i vor magt, for at fremholde det for folket? Kan vi være tilfredse med at lade dem møde dette skæbnesvangre spørgsmål uden advarsel?” Testimonies, bind 5, 711, 712.

Back to Articles