Article

# Panium - Number Twenty-Three

Panium - Léka̱ ak pẽji̱ atọk na atọk-ladit

After the league he shall work deceitfully

Setelah perjanjian itu, ia akan bertindak dengan tipu daya.

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

March 20, 2026

Formats

PDF
Word

Daniel eleven verse twenty-four identifies the period which pagan Rome would rule supremely with the word “time.” A “time” represents 360 years in prophetic application, and those years began at the most famous naval battle of ancient history, the battle of Actium in 31 BC. There were other naval battles that were larger and strategically more sophisticated, but Actium was the most iconic naval battle through its association with Marc Antony and Cleopatra. Similar in historical significance to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in fulfillment of Daniel 11:40, and the Twin Towers of 9/11 in fulfillment of Revelation eighteen; for when God chooses the historical events to fulfill His prophetic Word, He does so in a fashion that reaches the attention of the largest possible audience.

Daniel kapitel elva, vers tjugofyra, anger den tidsperiod under vilken det hedniska Rom skulle härska suveränt med ordet ”tid”. En ”tid” motsvarar 360 år i profetisk tillämpning, och dessa år började vid den mest berömda sjösegern i den forntida historien, slaget vid Actium år 31 f.Kr. Det fanns andra sjöslag som var större och strategiskt mer sofistikerade, men Actium var det mest ikoniska sjöslaget genom sin förbindelse med Marcus Antonius och Kleopatra. Liknande i historisk betydelse som Berlinmurens fall i uppfyllelsen av Daniel 11:40, och tvillingtornen den 11 september i uppfyllelsen av Uppenbarelseboken arton; ty när Gud utväljer de historiska händelserna för att uppfylla sitt profetiska ord, gör han det på ett sätt som når den största möjliga publikens uppmärksamhet.

> And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. Daniel 11:23, 24.

> E ka morago ga kgolagano e e dirilweng le ene o tla dira ka boferefere; gonne o tla tla a tlhatloga, mme o tla nna yo o nonofileng ka batho ba bannye. O tla tsena ka kagiso le mo mafelong a a nonneng thata a porofense; mme o tla dira se borraagwe ba iseng ba se dire, le fa e le borraaborraagwe; o tla ba phatlalaletsa thopo, le se se gapilweng, le dikhumo: ee, o tla loga maano a gagwe kgatlhanong le dikago tse di thata, le fa e le ka sebaka. Daniele 11:23, 24.

Uriah Smith concludes his observations of the league between Rome and the Maccabees of verse twenty-three by commenting upon the small people of the verse.

Uriah Smith xijtim nws cov lus soj ntsuam txog txoj kev sib koom tes ntawm Loos thiab cov Maccabees hauv nqe nees nkaum peb los ntawm kev hais lus txog haiv neeg tsawg hauv nqe ntawd.

> “At this time the Romans were a small people, and began to work deceitfully, or with cunning, as the word signifies. And from this point they rose by a steady and rapid ascent to the height of power which they afterward attained.

> “Qhov no cov Loos tseem yog ib haiv neeg me, thiab lawv pib ua hauj lwm dag ntxias, los yog nrog kev txawj ntxias, raws li lo lus ntawd qhia. Thiab txij ntawm no mus lawv thiaj sawv nce mus tsis tu ncua thiab sai sai mus txog qhov siab ntawm lub hwj chim uas lawv tom qab no tau mus txog.

> “[Verse twenty-four quoted].

> “[Vaj lug nees nkaum plaub tau raug hais tawm].”

> “The usual manner in which nations had, before the days of Rome, entered upon valuable provinces and rich territory, was by war and conquest. Rome was now to do what had not been done by the fathers or the fathers’ fathers; namely, receive these acquisitions through peaceful means. The custom, before unheard of, was now inaugurated, of kings’ leaving by legacy their kingdoms to the Romans. Rome came into possession of large provinces in this manner.

> “Nggoloi ya kapolo to’o mena bhangsa-bhangsa, wuta Roma da’e, tama na provinsi soro no tana mona liu, iamo liwu hia no penaklukan. Mbana Roma na mawa adho to’o mone da’e ta pa’e ta ama-ama duka ama-ama no ama-ama; yakni, sima wa’a ka’a-ka’a ngara hia liwu dame. Adat, to’o da’e ta papahe, mbana ta lale, iamo jao-raja wea liwu-ndia kao warisan ba Roma. Roma sima tama no penguasaan provinsi-provinsi bhida wolo cara ne’e.

> “And those who thus came under the dominion of Rome derived no small advantage therefrom. They were treated with kindness and leniency. It was like having the prey and spoil distributed among them. They were protected from their enemies, and rested in peace and safety under the aegis of the Roman power.

> “И они, кои тако подпадоше под власт Рима, не малу корист отуда извлекоше. Са благошћу и снисхођењем беху третирани. То беше као да се међу њих раздељују плен и добыча. Беху заштићени од својих непријатеља и почиваху у миру и безбедности под окриљем римске моћи.

> “To the latter portion of this verse, Bishop Newton gives the idea of forecasting devices from strongholds, instead of against them. This the Romans did from the strong fortress of their seven-hilled city. ‘Even for a time;’ doubtless a prophetic time, 360 years. From what point are these years to be dated? Probably from the event brought to view in the following verse.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 272, 273.

> “လၢလံာ်ဆၢအံၤ အကတၢၢ်တပူၤန့ၣ်, Bishop Newton ဟ့ၣ်ထီၣ်တၢ်နၢ်ပၢၢ်တမံၤ လၢအမ့ၢ်ဝဲ တၢ်စံးပာ်စၢၤဆူညါ အတၢ်ကူၣ်ထီဒါ လၢတၢ်ဂၢၢ်ဆၢတဖၣ် အပူၤ, တမ့ၢ်ဘၣ် လၢအထီဒါအဝဲသ့ၣ်န့ၣ်ဘၣ်. တၢ်အံၤ ရိမ့ၤဖိတဖၣ် မၤဝဲ ဖဲအဝဲသ့ၣ် အဝ့ၢ်ဂံၢ်ဆူၣ်ဘါဆူၣ် လၢအိၣ်ဒီးကစၢၢ်နွံဖျၢၣ်အံၤ အပူၤန့ၣ်လီၤ. ‘ဒ်အိၣ်ဝဲလၢ အဆၢကတီၢ်တကတီၢ်အသိး;’ သပှၢ်တၢၢ်န့ၣ် မ့ၢ်ဝဲ မီၤထံတၢ်စံးပာ်စၢၤဆူညါ အဆၢကတီၢ်, အနံၣ် ၃၆၀ န့ၣ်လီၤ. အနံၣ်တဖၣ်အံၤ ကဘၣ်တၢ်ဒ့တၢ်နံၤထီၣ်အီၤ လၢတၢ်ဂ့ၢ်မနုၤတမံၤ အဖီခိၣ်လဲၣ်. ဘၣ်သ့ၣ်သ့ၣ် တၢ်မၤအသးတမံၤ လၢတၢ်ဒုးနဲၣ်ဖျါထီၣ်အီၤ ဖဲလံာ်ဆၢလၢအပိာ်ထွဲတဘျီအံၤအပူၤန့ၣ်လီၤ.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 272, 273.

Smith continues and identifies the battle of Actium in 31 BC as the starting point for the three hundred and sixty years. After quoting verse twenty-five Smith states the following.

Smith tseem hais ntxiv thiab qhia tias kev sib ntaus sib tua ntawm Actium hauv xyoo 31 BC yog qhov pib rau peb puas rau caum xyoo. Tom qab hais nqe nees nkaum tsib lawm, Smith hais raws li no.

> “By verses 23 and 24 we are brought down this side of the league between the Jews and the Romans, BC 161, to the time when Rome had acquired universal dominion. The verse now before us brings to view a vigorous campaign against the king of the south, Egypt, and the occurrence of a notable battle between great and mighty armies. Did such events as these transpire in the history of Rome about this time? — They did. The war was the war between Egypt and Rome; and the battle was the battle of Actium. Let us take a brief view of the circumstances that led to this conflict.

> “Ki i tyer 23 ki 24, wa cwalwa piny i yoo man pa lukor ma obedo i kin Lujuda ki Luo Rumi, BC 161, wa i kare ma Rumi otyeko yubo loc me piny ducu. Tyer ma kombedi tye i wangwa ni nyuto lweny matek i kom kabaka me cino, Ejipiti, ki timme pa lweny mo mapol bot jolweny madongo ki ma tye ki tek. Gin manok ma calo man onongo otime i historia pa Rumi i kare meno? — Ee, otime. Lweny meno obedo lweny i kin Ejipiti ki Rumi; dok lweny meno obedo lweny pa Actium. Wek wa nen maber i yoo mukene pe pi kare malac, kit ma jami ma otero i tungo pa lweny man.”

> “[Marc] Antony, Augustus Caesar, and Lepidus constituted the triumvirate which had sworn to avenge the death of Julius Caesar. This Antony became the brother-in-law of Augustus by marrying his sister, Octavia. Antony was sent into Egypt on government business, but fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen. So strong was the passion he conceived for her, that he finally espoused the Egyptian interests, rejected his wife, Octavia, to please Cleopatra, bestowed province after province upon the latter to gratify her avarice, celebrated a triumph at Alexandria instead of Rome, and otherwise so affronted the Roman people that Augustus had no difficulty in leading them to engage heartily in a war against this enemy of their country. This war was ostensibly against Egypt and Cleopatra; but it was really against Antony, who now stood at the head of Egyptian affairs. And the true cause of their controversy was, says Prideaux, that neither of them could be content with only half of the Roman empire; for Lepidus having been deposed from the triumvirate, it now lay between them, and each being determined to possess the whole, they cast the die of war for its possession.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 273.

> “[Marc] Antony, Augustus Caesar kaj Lepidus konsistigis la triumviraron, kiu ĵuris venĝi la morton de Julio Cezaro. Tiu ĉi Antonio fariĝis la bofrato de Aŭgusto, edziĝinte al lia fratino, Oktavia. Antonio estis sendita en Egiptujon pro registaraj aferoj, sed fariĝis viktimo de la artifikoj kaj ĉarmoj de Kleopatra, la diboĉema reĝino de Egiptujo. Tiel forta estis la pasio, kiun li ekkoncipis por ŝi, ke li fine alprenis la egiptajn interesojn, forpuŝis sian edzinon, Oktavia-n, por plaĉi al Kleopatra, donacis provincon post provinco al ĉi tiu por kontentigi ŝian avidecon, celebris triumfon en Aleksandrio anstataŭ en Romo, kaj alie tiel ofendis la roman popolon, ke Aŭgusto havis nenian malfacilon instigi ilin tutkore entrepreni militon kontraŭ tiu malamiko de ilia lando. Tiu milito ŝajne estis kontraŭ Egiptujo kaj Kleopatra; sed efektive ĝi estis kontraŭ Antonio, kiu nun staris ĉe la kapo de la egiptaj aferoj. Kaj la vera kaŭzo de ilia malpaco estis, diras Prideaux, ke neniu el ili povis kontentiĝi per nur duono de la Roma imperio; ĉar Lepidus estis forigita el la triumviraro, ĝi nun kuŝis inter ili, kaj ĉiu el ili, decidinte posedi la tuton, ĵetis la ĵetkubon de milito por ĝia posedo.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 273.

Prophetically the battle of Actium identifies the Sunday law, for it represented the third conquering of the three geographical obstacles which established pagan Rome’s “universal dominion,” as Smith describes it. As with pagan Rome, it was when the third obstacle of papal Rome was driven from the city of Rome that the “universal dominion” of papal Rome began in 538. Those two witnesses address the Sunday law where and when modern Rome overcomes both the sixth and seventh kingdoms of Bible prophecy, and in doing so, overcomes its third obstacle; thus, establishing “universal dominion” for forty-two symbolic months.

Na ka porofita, te tamaki i Akitiu e fakaʻilongaʻi ai te tulafono o te Aso Sa, me ne fai mo sui o te tolu o manumalo ki fakalavelave fakafanua e tolu kolā ne fakatu aka ei te “pulega i te lalolagi kātoa” o Loma fakapaupau, e pelā mo te fakamatala a Smith. E pelā mo Loma fakapaupau, ko te taimi ne tuli ei te tolu o fakalavelave o Loma fakapope mai te fākai o Loma, ko te taimi foki tenā ne kamata ei te “pulega i te lalolagi kātoa” o Loma fakapope i te 538. A molimau e tokolua konā e faipati ki te tulafono o te Aso Sa i te koga mo te taimi e manumalo ei a Loma i aso nei ki te ono mo te fitu o malo i te valoaga faka-te-Tusi Tapu, kae i te faiga tenā, e manumalo foki ki tena tolu o fakalavelave; tenā la, e fakatu aka ei te “pulega i te lalolagi kātoa” i loto i masina fakailoga e fasefulu-lua.

> And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Revelation 13:5.

> Nunei wu piakta jelaake lae jelaake maa ga'aga'ala; nutej iaa bejlawaa ni seli me' pua' rua bulan. Wahyu 13:5.

## Rome Against Egypt

कुन​ह्यौ‌म्‌ ङा इजिप्त​म्‌ञा खिलाफ

The prophetic dynamics of the war of Augustus of Rome, against Egypt and Cleopatra was motivated by the rebellion of Marc Antony, and those prophetic dynamics must of prophetic necessity represent the prophetic dynamics that are represented at the Sunday law.

Dinamika kenabian peperangan Augustus dari Roma melawan Mesir dan Kleopatra didorong oleh pemberontakan Markus Antonius, dan dinamika kenabian itu, oleh keharusan kenabian, harus mewakili dinamika kenabian yang direpresentasikan pada hukum hari Minggu.

At Actium Rome conquered Egypt, a power which consisted of an alliance between a rebellious man and an unholy woman. The alliance of Antony and Cleopatra is the combination of church and state. At Actium, Augustine’s Rome conquered a power represented by an unholy combination of church and state.

Na Actiumie Rzym podbił Egipt, moc, która składała się z przymierza między buntowniczym mężczyzną a nieświętą kobietą. Przymierze Antoniusza i Kleopatry jest połączeniem Kościoła i państwa. Na Actiumie Rzym Augustyna podbił moc przedstawioną przez nieświęte połączenie Kościoła i państwa.

## Image of the Beast

Laj txuj duab ntawm tus tsiaj qus

Cleopatra represents a corrupted church aligned with Antony, a symbol of Rome. Cleopatra was the ruler over their relationship, as represented by Uriah Smith, when he stated that Antony “fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen.” The alliance of church and state represented by Antony and Cleopatra identified Cleopatra as the power ruling in the relationship; so, the combination of church and state represented by their relationship meets the definition of the image of the beast—which is the combination of church and state with the woman in control of the relationship. Actium typified the soon-coming Sunday law.

Kleopatra okitwarisa yi yinsengero eyangwangwa, eyali mu bwetugagano ne Antony, ekimenyetso kya Rooma. Kleopatra ye yali afuga ku nkolagana yaabwe, nga bwe kyakiikirizibwa Uriah Smith bwe yagamba nti Antony “yagwa omusango gw’obukodyo n’eby’obulungi bya Kleopatra, kabaka omukazi wa Misiri eyali mu busiyazi.” Obwetugagano bw’ekkanisa n’eggwanga obukiikirirwa Antony ne Kleopatra bwalaga nti Kleopatra ye maanyi agaafuganga mu nkolagana eyo; kale, okutabagana kw’ekkanisa n’eggwanga okukiikirirwa enkolagana yaabwe kutuukiriza amakulu g’ekifaananyi ky’ensolo—kwe kugatta ekkanisa n’eggwanga nga omukazi ye afuga enkolagana eyo. Actium yali kifaananyi ekyategeeza etteeka lya Ssande erigenda okujja mangu.

Augustus, represents the papal power conquering the United States at the soon-coming Sunday law. Marc Antony is the Republican horn of the earth beast and Cleopatra is the Protestant horn. Antony and Cleopatra come together and speak as a dragon at the soon-coming Sunday law. Both Cleopatra and Antony are symbols of a dragon power, and when they are fully joined together at the Sunday law—they speak as a dragon.

Auguste kêsa pao pope mban ta conquérir Etazini lò lwa dimanch la ki pral vini talè a. Marc Antoine sé kòn républiken bèt latè a, é Cléopâtre sé kòn pwotestan an. Antoine é Cléopâtre vini ansanm é yo palé kouman an dragon lò lwa dimanch la ki pral vini talè a. Ni Cléopâtre ni Antoine toulédé sé senbòl on pouvwa dragon, é lè yo fin ini nèt ansanm nan lwa dimanch la, yo palé kouman an dragon.

## Dragons

Naga-naga

Both Greece and Egypt prophetically represent a dragon power, and Antony also represented a dragon power. Egypt was the south in Daniel eleven and Greece was the west. Egypt was taken by Ptolemy I after Alexander’s kingdom divided into four parts. Ptolemy I then became the first prophetic king of the south and Cleopatra was the last Ptolemaic ruler in Egypt. Ptolemy was born in Macedon, the birth place of Alexander the Great.

Na Grecia ma na Egipto ket ti mammadto a mangiparangarang iti pannakabalin ti dragon, ket ni Antonio ket impakitanan met ti pannakabalin ti dragon. Ti Egipto idi ti abagatan iti Daniel onse ken ti Grecia idi ti laud. Ti Egipto ket naala ni Ptolomeo I kalpasan a nabingay ti pagarian ni Alejandro iti uppat a paset. Ni Ptolomeo I ket nagbalin ngarud a umuna a mammadto a ari ti abagatan ken ni Cleopatra idi ti maudi a mamagturay a Ptolemaico idiay Egipto. Ni Ptolomeo ket naiyanak idiay Macedonia, ti lugar a pannakaiyanakan ni Alejandro nga Dakkel.

Macedon was in northern Greece, and claimed their ancestral origins were from Greek mythical heroes. The southern Greek city-states considered the Macedonians as more barbaric than the Hellenists of southern Greece. The Macedonians were a monarchy, and the southern city-states (poleis) like Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, etc., were in southern and central Greece and the Aegean islands. These poleis often had democratic, oligarchic, or mixed governments, while Macedon was a centralized monarchy with a strong royal dynasty (the Argeads). Still, they were all Hellenists, and when Rome came into history, they labelled the Hellenists Greek. Cleopatra was the last Ptolemaic ruler, which represented the northern kingdom’s monarchial tribe of Greeks from the area of Macedon, or northern Greece.

Macedon kꞌa pa norte cha Grecia, ne kinnajijoj chi riꞌ ketinaqibꞌal e qatiꞌt mam taq ri qachꞌabꞌal griego pa taq héroe mítico. Ri ajtinamit taq estado rech sur Grecia kekiqꞌijoj ri ajMacedonia chi más e barbario chuwäch ri helenista rech sur Grecia. Ri Macedonia jun monarquía kꞌo wi, ne ri ajtinamit taq estado rech sur Grecia (poleis) achiꞌel Atenas, Esparta, Tebas, Corinto, chꞌakaꞌ chik, e kꞌo pa sur xuqujeꞌ pa nikꞌajil Grecia, xuqujeꞌ pa taq isla rech mar Egeo. We poleis reꞌ jujun mul kꞌo wi gobierno democrático, oligárquico o mezclado, are kꞌu ri Macedonia jun monarquía centralizada rukꞌ jun nimaq tzijonel ajawarem qꞌijilaꞌj (ri Argeadas). Pune kꞌu, konojel e helenista, ne are xok ri Roma pa ri historia, xkiya ubꞌiꞌ ri helenista chi griegos. Cleopatra are ri kꞌisbꞌal ajchakanel Ptolemaico, ri xukꞌut ri monarquial tinamit rech ri ajgriego pa ri kꞌolibꞌal rech Macedonia, o sea, pa norte rech Grecia.

## King of the South

Mfalme wa Kusini

Cleopatra was the final ruler of the Ptolemaic kingdom that began with Ptolemy I when Alexander’s kingdom divided into four. At the battle of Actium the Ptolemaic kingdom, the literal king of the south, reached its end. The next king of the south would be spiritual Egypt, represented by atheistic France during the French Revolution history.

La Cleopatra a ni tlanahuatijquetl sa ika itlamiyan in Ptolemaico reino, in opeuh ica Ptolomeo I ijcuac in itlanahuatil Alejandro omoxelo ipan nahui partes. Ipan in yaoyotl de Actium, in Ptolemaico reino, in melahuac rey del sur, oajsic campa otlami. In ocse rey del sur yesquia in espiritual Egipto, in omixnextiaya ica in Francia ateísta ipan in historia de la Revolución Francesa.

> And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:8.

> Et leurs cadavres gîtront dans la rue de la grande ville, qui, spirituellement, est appelée Sodome et Égypte, où aussi notre Seigneur a été crucifié. Apocalypse 11:8.

Literal Egypt was the literal king of the south as related to the division of Alexander’s kingdom, but spiritual Egypt is represented as the king of the south by the prophetic attributes of Egypt, not a literal direction.

Egipti wa halisi alikuwa mfalme wa kusini wa halisi kuhusiana na mgawanyiko wa ufalme wa Aleksanda, lakini Misri ya kiroho inawakilishwa kama mfalme wa kusini kwa sifa za kiunabii za Misri, si kwa mwelekeo wa halisi.

## South and West

Abyaguasu ha Kuarahyreike hag̃ua hag̃uáicha

Cleopatra being the last Ptolemaic ruler of the kingdom was prophetically a twofold power of Greek (west) and Egypt (south), whereas; the next, and then spiritual king of the south would be France, also a twofold power represented in Revelation eleven as Egypt and Sodom. The licentiousness of Sodom aligns with the licentiousness of Cleopatra of the west, and Cleopatra of the south aligns with the atheism of Egypt. The last literal king of the south’s twofold nature aligned with the first spiritual king of the south.

Kleopatra, ki i bûn dawîn padîşahê Ptolemaî ya wê welatê, di peyxemberî de hêzek du-alî bû: Yewnanî (rojava) û Misr (başûr); lê ya dû re, û paşê padîşahê ruhânî yê başûr, dê Fransa be, ku jî hêzek du-alî ye ku di Vahîyê yanzdehan de wek Misr û Sedom tê nîşandan. Bêperwayîya Sedomê bi bêperwayîya Kleopatra ya rojava re li hev tê, û Kleopatra ya başûr bi bêbawerîya Misrê re li hev tê. Xwezaya du-alî ya dawîn padîşahê rastîn yê başûr bi yekem padîşahê ruhânî yê başûr re li hev hat.

The battle of Actium was the unholy alliance of Antony’s dragon of Rome and Cleopatra’s dragon of the south and west. Antony and Cleopatra represent a church and a state, so the conquering of Actium by Augustus of Rome, represents a conquering where Rome prevails over an unholy twofold union typifying the image of the beast. Three hundred and sixty years later, in fulfillment of Daniel 11:24, Constantine divided Rome into east and west, leaving the woman of Rome in the west and moving the man of Rome to the east. A conquering of south and west typified the division of east and west after a “time” of three hundred and sixty years, at the battle of Actium. In an earlier encounter Antony was given eastern Rome and Augustus the west, so Actium brought together east and west, but only for a “time.”

Pa mi qej ntawm Actium cuj ñom xob qhij ntawm zaj ntawm Loos uas yog Antony thiab zaj ntawm sab qab teb thiab sab hnub poob uas yog Cleopatra. Antony thiab Cleopatra sawv cev rau ib lub koom txoos thiab ib lub xeev, yog li ntawd, qhov Augustus ntawm Loos kov yeej Actium sawv cev rau ib txoj kev kov yeej uas Loos yeej saum ib txoj kev sib koom ua ke ob npaug uas tsis dawb huv, ua tus piv txwv txog tus duab ntawm tus tsiaj nyaum. Peb puas rau caum xyoo tom qab ntawd, raws li kev ua tiav ntawm Daniel 11:24, Constantine faib Loos ua sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob, tso tus poj niam ntawm Loos tseg rau sab hnub poob thiab txav tus txiv neej ntawm Loos mus rau sab hnub tuaj. Ib txoj kev kov yeej ntawm sab qab teb thiab sab hnub poob yog tus piv txwv txog kev faib ua sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob tom qab ib “sij hawm” ntawm peb puas rau caum xyoo, ntawm pa mi qej ntawm Actium. Hauv ib zaug ntsib ua ntej ntawd Antony tau txais Loos sab hnub tuaj thiab Augustus sab hnub poob, yog li ntawd Actium coj sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob los sib koom ua ke, tiam sis tsuas yog rau ib “sij hawm.”

## 31 BC and 330

31 BC ug 330

Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning, so the conquering of Actium in 31 BC typifies the division of the empire into east and west in 330. Actium of 31 BC was the alpha of the omega in the 360 years that concluded in 330. Both 31 BC and 330 typify the soon-coming Sunday law as represented in verse sixteen and forty-one of Daniel eleven.

Jesus satik lajeça qiprakun me qafyrjen, andaj pushtimi i Actiumit në 31 p.K. tipizon ndarjen e perandorisë në lindje dhe perëndim në vitin 330. Actiumi i vitit 31 p.K. ishte alfa e omegës në 360 vitet që përfunduan në 330. Si 31 p.K., ashtu edhe 330 tipizojnë ligjin e së dielës që po vjen së shpejti, siç përfaqësohet në vargjet gjashtëmbëdhjetë dhe dyzetenjë të Danielit njëmbëdhjetë.

## Another Symbol

علامة أخرى

Antony of Rome, aligned with Cleopatra of the south and of the west represents a threefold alliance within their twofold union of the image of the beast. The cross also aligns with the Sunday law, and therefore with Actium and 330. At the cross a twofold union of church and state is represented by the Jews (corrupted church) joining with Rome (state) to murder Christ. The third party in the union at the cross is represented by Barabbas, a false Christ, whose name means “son of the father.” Barabbas is symbolically a false prophet when contrasted with Christ as the true prophet. Rome was Antony, and Cleopatra of the south and west represented the Jews and Barabbas.

Antony of Rome, oporavúva iñembojoaju rupive Cleopatra pe yvy gotyo ha kuarahyreike gotyo reheve, ohechauka peteĩ joaju mbohapy hendáva ijaty mokõihápe mymba ra’ãnga rehegua ryepýpe. Kurusu avei oñembojoaju arapokõindy léi rehe, ha upévare Actium ha 330 rehe avei. Kurusupe peteĩ joaju mokõi hendáva tupaó ha tetã apytépe ojehechauka judío-kuéra rupive (tupao oñembyaíva) oñembojoajúvo Roma ndive (tetã) Cristo jejukápe g̃uarã. Mbohapyha oikéva upe joajúpe kurusupe ojehechauka Barrabás rupive, peteĩ Cristo japu, héra he’iséva “Túva ra’y.” Barrabás, simbolikamente, ha’e peteĩ proféta japu oñembojojáramo Cristo rehe, proféta añeteguáre. Roma ha’e vaekue Antony, ha Cleopatra pe yvy gotyo ha kuarahyreike gotyo rehegua ohechauka judío-kuéra ha Barrabás-pe.

The cross also aligns with Elijah on Mount Carmel where the choice was over who was the true or false prophet. The false prophet then was a twofold symbol consisting of the prophets of Baal and the priests of the grove. Baal is a male deity and the priests of the grove represented Ashtaroth, a female deity. The Jews at the cross were Ashtaroth, the female deity and Barabbas, the counterfeit of the Man of Sorrows, was the male deity Baal.

Kurwa msalaba ulandana na Eliya pa Phiri la Karmelo, apo chisankho chinali chakuti ndani anali mneneri woona kapena wonyenga. Mneneri wonyengayo pa nthawiyo anali chizindikiro cha magawo awiri, chokhala ndi aneneri a Baala ndi ansembe a m’nkhalango yopatulika. Baala ndi mulungu wamwamuna, ndipo ansembe a m’nkhalango yopatulikayo ankayimira Ashtaroti, mulungu wamkazi. Ayuda pa mtanda anali Ashtaroti, mulungu wamkazi, ndipo Baraba, wonamizira wa Munthu wa Zisoni, anali mulungu wamwamuna Baala.

Cleopatra was both the queen of the south and the queen of the west. Antony was the image of Rome, part of the threefold triumvirate sworn to avenge the assassination of Julius. Julius death by twenty-three wounds represented the papacies deadly wound in 1798, in fulfillment of verse forty of Daniel eleven. Augustine at Actium represents the healing of that deadly wound. The wound is healed when Antony and Cleopatra die. Antony and Cleopatra represent the image of the beast in the United States that is a threefold prophetic entity, consisting of the earth beast and its two horns. Antony is one part and Cleopatra represents the other two parts. Whether it is Antony’s Rome, or Cleopatra’s Egypt and Greece, they die together at the Sunday law when the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy ends. Prophetically Cleopatra in relation to Antony is the mixture of church craft and statecraft, with the church craft seducing and controlling the statecraft.

Kleopatra e ka mbretëresha e jugut dhe mbretëresha e perëndimit. Antoni ishte shëmbëllimi i Romës, pjesë e triumviratit trefish të betuar për të hakmarrë vrasjen e Julit. Vdekja e Julit nga njëzet e tre plagë përfaqësonte plagën vdekjeprurëse të papatit në vitin 1798, në përmbushje të vargut dyzet të Danielit njëmbëdhjetë. Augustini në Aktium përfaqëson shërimin e asaj plage vdekjeprurëse. Plaga shërohet kur Antoni dhe Kleopatra vdesin. Antoni dhe Kleopatra përfaqësojnë shëmbëllimin e bishës në Shtetet e Bashkuara, që është një entitet profetik trefish, i përbërë nga bisha e tokës dhe dy brirët e saj. Antoni është një pjesë dhe Kleopatra përfaqëson dy pjesët e tjera. Qoftë Roma e Antonit, apo Egjipti dhe Greqia e Kleopatrës, ata vdesin së bashku në ligjin e së dielës, kur mbretëria e gjashtë e profecisë biblike përfundon. Profetikisht, Kleopatra në marrëdhënie me Antonin është përzierja e mjeshtërisë kishtare dhe mjeshtërisë shtetërore, ku mjeshtëria kishtare e josh dhe e kontrollon mjeshtërinë shtetërore.

## The Second Death Typified

Otrā Nāve Attēlota Priekšzīmē

At another prophetic level Cleopatra’s relation to Julius Caesar and Marc Antony represents two times that the church craft of Cleopatra is in a relationship with the statecraft of the Roman Empire. She was left by Julius in 1798 at her first symbolic death, in fulfillment of verse forty of Daniel eleven; and then she comes to her end with none to help, at Actium in fulfillment of verse forty-five of Daniel eleven. Verse forty is the alpha of her first deadly wound that is to be healed and the omega of verse forty-five is where she receives her second and final death.

Nyob rau lwm theem yaj saub, kev sib raug zoo ntawm Cleopatra rau Julius Caesar thiab Marc Antony sawv cev rau ob lub sijhawm uas txoj kev txawj tswj hwm pawg ntseeg ntawm Cleopatra nyob hauv kev sib raug zoo nrog txoj kev txawj tswj hwm xeev ntawm Lub Tebchaws Loos. Julius tau tso nws tseg rau xyoo 1798 thaum nws thawj txoj kev tuag cim xeeb, raws li kev ua tiav ntawm nqe plaub caug hauv Daniyees kaum ib; thiab tom qab ntawd nws los txog nws qhov kawg yam tsis muaj leej twg pab, ntawm Actium raws li kev ua tiav ntawm nqe plaub caug tsib hauv Daniyees kaum ib. Nqe plaub caug yog alpha ntawm nws thawj qhov txhab tuag uas yuav raug kho zoo, thiab omega ntawm nqe plaub caug tsib yog qhov chaw uas nws txais nws txoj kev tuag zaum ob thiab zaum kawg.

As with the four Roman powers of verse sixteen through twenty-two, Cleopatra as a biblical symbol has more than one meaning, based upon the context. Julius left her in 1798 when kingly support was removed, and then her deadly wound is healed at the Sunday law, but the ten kings of Revelation seventeen ultimately destroy her with fire, when she meets her second and final death.

तँ जेना पद सोरह से बाइस तक के चार रोमी शक्तियन के विषय में अछि, ओहिना क्लियोपेट्रा सेहो बाइबिलिक प्रतीकक रूप में संदर्भक आधार पर एकसँ बेसी अर्थ रखैत अछि। जूलियस ओकरा 1798 में छोड़ि देलक, जखन राजकीय समर्थन हटा देल गेल, आ तखन रविवारीय व्यवस्था पर ओकर घातक घाव चंगा कएल जाइत अछि; मुदा प्रकाशितवाक्य सत्रह के दस राजा अंत में ओकरा आगि सँ नाश कए देताह, जखन ओ अपन दोसर आ अंतिम मृत्यु सँ भेंट करैत अछि।

Cleopatra is a symbol of the twofold nature represented by the atheism of Pharoah’s Egypt, and the religious philosophy of Greece. Her twofold nature represents the statecraft of Egypt and the church craft of Greece. Greek religious philosophy is represented by the Greek goddess Athena, who was enshrined as a statue in her temple, called the Parthenon. Athena is the symbol of wisdom, and as a woman she represents a religion of human education, in contrast with Divine education.

Kleopatra është një simbol i natyrës së dyfishtë të përfaqësuar nga ateizmi i Egjiptit të Faraonit dhe filozofia fetare e Greqisë. Natyra e saj e dyfishtë përfaqëson mjeshtërinë shtetërore të Egjiptit dhe mjeshtërinë kishtare të Greqisë. Filozofia fetare greke përfaqësohet nga perëndesha greke Athena, e cila ishte vendosur si statujë në tempullin e saj, të quajtur Partenoni. Athena është simbol i urtësisë dhe, si grua, ajo përfaqëson një fe të edukimit njerëzor, në kontrast me edukimin Hyjnor.

The two horns of the United States are Republicanism and Protestantism, which were typified in France by Egypt and Sodom. Egypt is statecraft and Sodom is church craft; thus, Republicanism aligns with Egypt and Protestantism with Sodom. Republicanism is Egypt and Protestantism is Sodom and Greece. The symbol of human education is the Greek goddess Athena, whose temple was the Parthenon that finds its modern twin in Nashville, Tennessee’s Parthenon temple. The symbol of the corrupt church that aligns with the Republican horn in the United States at the Sunday law is represented as Cleopatra, Ashtaroth, Salome and Sodom.

मितानाम् संयुक्तराज्यानां द्वे शृङ्गे रिपब्लिकनवादश्च प्रोटेस्टण्टवादश्च स्तः, ये फ्रान्सदेशे मिस्रसदोमाभ्यां प्रतिरूपितौ आस्ताम्। मिस्रं राज्यकौशलम्, सदोम तु गिरिजाकौशलम्; अतः रिपब्लिकनवादः मिस्रेण, प्रोटेस्टण्टवादश्च सदोम्ना सह संबध्यते। रिपब्लिकनवादः मिस्रं, प्रोटेस्टण्टवादश्च सदोम यवनदेशश्च अस्ति। मानवीयशिक्षायाः प्रतीकं यूनानीदेवी एथेना अस्ति, यस्याः मन्दिरं पार्थेनोन् आसीत्, यत् अधुना टेनेसी-राज्यस्य नैशविल-नगरस्थिते पार्थेनोन्-मन्दिरे स्वस्य आधुनिक-यमकं प्राप्नोति। सा भ्रष्टगिरिजायाः प्रतीकात्मक-प्रतिमा, या संयुक्तराज्येषु रविवासर-नियमकाले रिपब्लिकन-शृङ्गेण सह संधीयते, क्लियोपात्रा, अष्टारोथ्, सलोमे, सदोम च इति निरूप्यते।

Cleopatra portrays the atheism of Pharoah and the religion of the Greeks. The religion that accompanies the philosophy of atheism is the worship of Greek education. Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning and the tree in the garden that was forbidden to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, typifying the religion of Greek philosophy that Sister White calls, “higher education.” It identifies and emphasizes Cleopatra’s Greek religion of wisdom as the corrupted and counterfeit of true education in the great controversy between Christ and Satan.

ཀླེའོ་པ་ཏྲ་ནི་ཕཱ་རོའི་ལྷ་མེད་ལྟ་བ་དང་། གྷི་རིགས་པའི་ཆོས་ལུགས་མཚོན་པ་ཡིན། ལྷ་མེད་ལྟ་བའི་མཐུན་པར་འགྲོགས་པའི་ཆོས་ལུགས་ནི་གྷི་རིགས་པའི་ཤེས་ཡོན་ལ་མཆོད་པ་ཡིན། ཡེ་ཤུས་རྟག་པར་མཇུག་མཐའ་དེ་ཐོག་མ་དང་སྦྱར་ནས་མཚོན་པར་མཛད་ལ། ཚལ་ནང་གི་ཟ་མི་ཆོག་པའི་ཤིང་དེ་ནི་དགེ་བ་དང་ངན་པའི་ཤེས་པའི་ཤིང་ཡིན་ཞིང་། དེས་སིས་ཊར་ཝཱའི་ཊས་ “སློབ་གསོ་མཐོན་པོ།” ཞེས་གསུངས་པའི་གྷི་རིགས་པའི་རྟོག་དཔྱོད་ཀྱི་ཆོས་ལུགས་མཚོན་པ་ཡིན། དེས་ཀླེའོ་པ་ཏྲའི་གྷི་རིགས་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཆོས་ལུགས་དེ་ཡེ་ཤུ་དང་སཱ་ཏན་གྱི་བར་གྱི་འཐབ་རྩོད་ཆེན་པོའི་ནང་། བདེན་པའི་སློབ་གསོའི་འཕྲུལ་བཟོས་དང་རུལ་བའི་གནས་སུ་ངོས་འཛིན་དང་ནན་ཏན་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན།

Nashville, Tennessee is called the “Athens of the south,” and Cleopatra was the last literal queen of the south. The last queen of the south typified the next and first spiritual king of the south, fulfilled by atheistic France. Atheistic France typifies the United States, where in Nashville, Tennessee, “Athens of the south” the Parthenon temple for the goddess Athena is symbolically represented. The temple is located at 2500 West End in Nashville. The number twenty-five represents the closed door of Matthew twenty-five’s three parables. Cleopatra as both the queen of the “south” and “west” comes to her “end” in Athens of the south.

Nashville, Tennessee, tsi hu ua “Athens ntawm sab qab teb,” thiab Cleopatra yog tus poj huab tais tseeb kawg ntawm sab qab teb. Tus poj huab tais kawg ntawm sab qab teb ntawd yog ib tug qauv qhia txog tus vaj ntxwv ntawm sab qab teb tom ntej thiab thawj tug ntawm sab ntsuj plig, uas tau ua tiav hauv Fabkis uas tsis ntseeg Vajtswv. Fabkis uas tsis ntseeg Vajtswv yog ib tug qauv qhia txog Tebchaws Meskas, qhov chaw uas nyob hauv Nashville, Tennessee, “Athens ntawm sab qab teb,” lub tuam tsev Parthenon rau tus vajtswv poj niam Athena raug sawv cev raws li cim. Lub tuam tsev ntawd nyob ntawm 2500 West End hauv Nashville. Tus lej nees nkaum tsib sawv cev rau lub qhov rooj kaw ntawm peb zaj lus piv txwv hauv Mathais nees nkaum tsib. Cleopatra, raws li nws yog tus poj huab tais ntawm ob sab “qab teb” thiab “hnub poob,” los txog rau nws “kawg” hauv Athens ntawm sab qab teb.

With these considerations of Actium, Cleopatra, Augustus and Antony we return to verse twenty-four through verse thirty of Daniel eleven. Perhaps, the vaguest part of the passage is when they speak lies at one table.

Iká itlahtolmeh tlen Actium, Cleopatra, Augusto ihuan Antonio, timocuepah in versículo cempohualnahui hasta versículo cempohualmahtlactli ipan Daniel once. Auh quizá, in ocachi ahmo nelli machiyotl tlen in pasajeh, yejua cuix tlahcuilohuah istlacatlahtolli san ce mesa ipan.

> And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Daniel 11:27.

> Jam ambas ëmi mbretërve do të jenë të prira për të bërë të keqen, dhe do të flasin gënjeshtra në një tryezë; por kjo nuk do të ketë mbarësi, sepse fundi do të vijë ende në kohën e caktuar. Danieli 11:27.

The time appointed in the verse is 330, the end of the “time” of verse twenty-four. The time appointed represents the Sunday law for the United States and it also represents the close of human probation for the world. Before the Sunday law the two kings, whose hearts were to do mischief will speak lies to one another at one table. Before the Sunday law of verses sixteen and forty-one of Daniel eleven, two kings will speak lies at one table, but their lies do not prosper. Who are the two kings that speak lies to one another? Before we answer that thought, I will remind us of some symbolism we have previously addressed in this series.

Waktu yang ditetapkan dalam ayat itu adalah 330, yaitu akhir dari “masa” pada ayat dua puluh empat. Waktu yang ditetapkan itu melambangkan undang-undang hari Minggu bagi Amerika Serikat, dan juga melambangkan berakhirnya masa kasihan bagi umat manusia di dunia. Sebelum undang-undang hari Minggu, kedua raja, yang hatinya hendak berbuat jahat, akan saling mengucapkan dusta pada satu meja. Sebelum undang-undang hari Minggu dalam ayat enam belas dan empat puluh satu dari Daniel sebelas, dua raja akan mengucapkan dusta pada satu meja, tetapi dusta mereka tidak berhasil. Siapakah kedua raja yang saling mengucapkan dusta itu? Sebelum kita menjawab pemikiran itu, saya akan mengingatkan kita akan beberapa lambang yang sebelumnya telah kita bahas dalam rangkaian ini.

The four Roman rulers represent a variety of prophetic symbols depending on what context they are considered. Though Roman rulers, as a symbol they essentially represent the prophetic history of ancient Judah as they transitioned from the Seleucid domination into the domination of the Romans.

Neljëri romake qeveritare përfaqësojnë një larmi simbolesh profetike, varësisht nga konteksti në të cilin merren në shqyrtim. Ndonëse janë sundimtarë romakë, si simbol ata në thelb përfaqësojnë historinë profetike të Judës së lashtë, teksa ajo kalonte nga sundimi i Seleukidëve në sundimin e Romakëve.

Pompey was a general and the next three Roman rulers were all Caesars. Julius in relation to Augustus represented two threefold unions with the two triumvirates, the first unofficial, the second official. All four rulers represent the Sunday law in certain contexts. Pompey conquered the glorious land, Julius, represented by twenty-three stab wounds is the first angel, for he is the first Caesar, and he typifies the third angel, which was Tiberias. Tiberias at the cross, which is the Sunday law is also represented by twenty-three, for twenty-three represents the at-one-ment; and the cross is a most essential part of the work of Christ in combining His Divinity with our humanity. So, Julius and Tiberias are the first and third message, represented by twenty-three.

Pompej był generałem, a trzej następni rzymscy władcy byli wszyscy Cezarami. Juliusz w odniesieniu do Augusta przedstawiał dwa potrójne związki z dwoma triumwiratami, pierwszy nieoficjalny, drugi oficjalny. Wszyscy czterej władcy w pewnych kontekstach przedstawiają ustawę niedzielną. Pompej podbił ziemię chwalebną, Juliusz, przedstawiony przez dwadzieścia trzy rany kłute, jest pierwszym aniołem, gdyż jest pierwszym Cezarem, i jest typem trzeciego anioła, którym był Tyberiusz. Tyberiusz przy krzyżu, który jest ustawą niedzielną, również jest przedstawiony przez liczbę dwadzieścia trzy, ponieważ dwadzieścia trzy przedstawia pojednanie; a krzyż jest najistotniejszą częścią dzieła Chrystusa w połączeniu Jego boskości z naszym człowieczeństwem. Tak więc Juliusz i Tyberiusz są pierwszym i trzecim poselstwem, przedstawionymi przez liczbę dwadzieścia trzy.

Julius was not the romantic figure he is often portrayed as in Hollywood lore; he was a ruthless man bent on power. Tiberias was worse than Julius, for his vileness is even addressed in the verse, for the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet is twenty-two and the first letter is one. The alpha is smaller than the omega and Tiberias’ vileness is located in verse twenty-two, which is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and in between the two vile persons represented by Julius and Tiberias was Augustus. Augustus represents the height of the glory of Rome’s power and prestige. As the opposite of the first and third message he is represented by the letter thirteen, which is a symbol of rebellion. Augustus secured his kingdom by subduing the rebellion of Antony and Cleopatra, the most famous rebellion of Rome’s history.

Julius មិនមែនជាបុគ្គលរ៉ូមែនទិកដូចដែលគេតែងតែពណ៌នាគាត់ក្នុងរឿងព្រេងហូលីវូដទេ; គាត់ជាមនុស្សឃោរឃៅម្នាក់ដែលប៉ងប្រាថ្នាអំណាច។ Tiberias អាក្រក់ជាង Julius ទៀត ពីព្រោះសេចក្តីទាបថោករបស់គាត់ត្រូវបានលើកឡើងសូម្បីតែក្នុងខនេះផង ដ្បិតអក្សរចុងក្រោយនៃអក្ខរក្រមហេព្រើរមានលេខម្ភៃពីរ ហើយអក្សរដំបូងមានលេខមួយ។ អាល់ហ្វាតូចជាងអូមេហ្គា ហើយសេចក្តីទាបថោករបស់ Tiberias ស្ថិតនៅក្នុងខទីម្ភៃពីរ ដែលជាអក្សរចុងក្រោយនៃអក្ខរក្រមហេព្រើរ ហើយនៅចន្លោះមនុស្សទាបថោកទាំងពីរដែលតំណាងដោយ Julius និង Tiberias នោះ គឺ Augustus។ Augustus តំណាងឲ្យកំពូលនៃសិរីល្អនៃអំណាច និងកិត្យានុភាពរបស់រ៉ូម។ ក្នុងនាមជាសេចក្តីផ្ទុយនៃសារទីមួយ និងសារទីបី គាត់ត្រូវបានតំណាងដោយអក្សរលេខដប់បី ដែលជានិមិត្តសញ្ញានៃការបះបោរ។ Augustus បានធានានគររបស់គាត់ដោយបង្ក្រាបការបះបោររបស់ Antony និង Cleopatra ដែលជាការបះបោរដ៏ល្បីល្បាញបំផុតក្នុងប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្ររបស់រ៉ូម។

Augustus is the Roman power who conquered the third obstacle and in doing so he represented the Sunday law, and the Roman power who reigns during the forty-two symbolic months of Revelation thirteen’s chapter of rebellion. When placed before the Sunday law Pompey is both 1798 and 1989, making Pompey a symbol of Antiochus Magnus ending the fourth Syrian War from 219 unto 217 BC, in fulfillment of verse ten of chapter eleven. Julius Caesar is then aligned with verses eleven and twelve and the battle of the borderline, the battle of Raphia in 217 BC. There Julius is also Antiochus Magnus, and Augustus Caesar is also Antiochus Magnus in verse fifteen’s battle of Panium. Then in verse sixteen Tiberias is the Sunday law, but he is not Antiochus Magnus, for there he is Pompey, for Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning. The verse marks the end of the Seleucid Empire typifying the end of the United States as the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy.

Augustus je rimska sila koja je osvojila treću prepreku, i time je predstavljao zakon o nedjelji, te rimsku silu koja vlada tijekom četrdeset i dva simbolična mjeseca pobune iz trinaestoga poglavlja Otkrivenja. Kada se postavi prije zakona o nedjelji, Pompej je i 1798. i 1989., čineći Pompeja simbolom Antioha Velikoga koji završava četvrti sirijski rat od 219. do 217. pr. Kr., u ispunjenju desetoga retka jedanaestoga poglavlja. Julije Cezar se potom usklađuje s recima jedanaestim i dvanaestim te s bitkom na granici, bitkom kod Rafije 217. pr. Kr. Ondje je Julije također Antioh Veliki, a August Cezar je također Antioh Veliki u bitci kod Panija iz petnaestoga retka. Zatim je u šesnaestome retku Tiberije zakon o nedjelji, ali on nije Antioh Veliki, jer je ondje Pompej, budući da Isus uvijek kraj prikazuje početkom. Taj redak označuje kraj Seleukidskoga Carstva, što predoznačuje kraj Sjedinjenih Država kao šestoga kraljevstva biblijskoga proroštva.

There are more alignments to be made of the four Roman rulers, and the line represents the hidden history of verse forty. The Maccabean line of verse twenty-three also illustrates the hidden history of verse forty. Then in verses twenty-four, the story of pagan Imperial Rome is represented by a time—three hundred and sixty years. The line of Roman history represented from verse twenty-four through to verse thirty is also an illustration of the hidden history of verse forty. It ends in verse thirty-one when the subject changes from pagan to papal Rome. Pagan Rome is still in the verse, but there it is not represented as the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy, but as the political power that placed the papacy on the throne in 538. In 538 the papacy passed a Sunday law, so verse thirty-one is aligning with verses sixteen and forty-one. Verse twenty-four introduced the battle of Actium and the history associated with the line.

Mbiñe’ẽve oĩ oñemohenda hag̃ua umi irundy mburuvicha guasu romano rehegua, ha pe línea ohechauka versíkulo cuarenta rembiasakue kañymby. Pe línea macabea versíkulo mokõi paapy pegua avei ohechauka versíkulo cuarenta rembiasakue kañymby. Upéi versíkulo mokõi irundy-pe, Roma Imperial pagana rembiasakue ojehechauka peteĩ ára pukukue rupi—mbohapycientos sesenta ary. Pe línea tembiasakue romano rehegua, ojehechaukáva versíkulo mokõi irundy guive versíkulo mbohapy pa peve, avei ha’e peteĩ ta’anga versíkulo cuarenta rembiasakue kañymby rehegua. Upéva opa versíkulo mbohapy peteĩ-pe, upe jave pe tema oñemoambue Roma pagana-gui Roma papal-pe. Roma pagana gueteri oĩ pe versíkulope, péro upépe ndaikatúi ojehecha hag̃ua Biblia marandu’ẽme pe irundyha reino ramo, síno pe pokatu polítiko ramo omoĩ vaekue pe papado tróno ári ary 538-pe. Ary 538-pe pe papado ombohasa peteĩ léi domingo rehegua, upévare versíkulo mbohapy peteĩ oñemohenda versíkulo paapy seis ha cuarenta y uno ndive. Versíkulo mokõi irundy omboypy pe ñorairõ Actium pegua ha pe línea ndive ojoajúva rembiasakue.

Verse twenty-four is identifying when pagan Rome began to rule supremely for three hundred and sixty years, and then in verse thirty-one papal Rome begins to rule supremely for twelve hundred and sixty-years. The beginning and ending of the line bear the signature of Christ, the Alpha and Omega. In the verses we have the history of Marc Antony, Cleopatra and Augustus Caesar. In verse sixteen pagan Rome conquered the Seleucid Empire in 65 BC, and then Judah in 63 BC. The third obstacle of Actium in 31 BC identified the end of the kingdom of Egypt, as typified by the first obstacles of the Seleucid’s in 65 BC. Once again, we find the signature of the First and the Last. 65 BC was the first of three obstacles and it represented the conquering of the king of the north and 31 BC represented the third of three obstacles and it represented the conquering of the king of the south. Judah, as the middle obstacle of the three obstacles, was having a civil war within the walls of Jerusalem when Pompey arrived in 63 BC. The second obstacle is a symbol of rebellion.

Verse twenty-four q’ijoq’ej ri tiempo are’ tok ri Roma pagana xuchap uq’atal tzij pa ronojel oxib’ ciento saqirixik junab’, k’a ri’ pa verse thirty-one ri Roma papal xuchap uq’atal tzij pa ronojel kab’lajuj ciento waqib’ oxlajuj junab’. Ri qallarik chuqa’ ri k’isib’al rech ri línea kek’utuwi’ ri retal ri Cristo, ri Alpha y Omega. Pa taq ri versículo k’o wi ri historia rech Marc Antony, Cleopatra chuqa’ Augustus Caesar. Pa verse sixteen ri Roma pagana xuq’ijchup ri Imperio Seleúcida pa 65 BC, k’a ri’ Judá pa 63 BC. Ri rox uq’aten ri Actium pa 31 BC xuk’ut ri k’isib’al rech ri ajawarem rech Egipto, jas ri xetyipixik ruk’ ri nab’e taq uq’aten rech ri aj Seleúcida pa 65 BC. Junmul chik, niqariq ri retal rech ri Nab’e chuqa’ ri K’isb’al. 65 BC are ri nab’e rech oxib’ uq’aten, chuqa’ xuk’exelij ri ch’akatoj rech ri ajaw rech ri norte, k’a ri’ 31 BC are ri rox rech oxib’ uq’aten, chuqa’ xuk’exelij ri ch’akatoj rech ri ajaw rech ri sur. Judá, jas ri nik’aj uq’aten rech ri oxib’ uq’aten, k’o jun ch’oj pa taq rij ri tz’aq rech Jerusalén are xopan Pompey pa 63 BC. Ri ukab’ uq’aten are jun símbolo rech ri rebelión.

In 538, the third obstacle for papal Rome was driven out of the City of Rome. That obstacle was the Goths, and there the fifth kingdom of Bible prophecy began; right where the fourth kingdom ended. And just as the fourth kingdom began at its third obstacle, the kingdom of Egypt was defeated, as had been typified in the first obstacle of the Seleucid kingdom. This identifies that the prophetic testimony found in verses twenty-four through to verse thirty, represent a line that is also to be located in the hidden history of verse forty. For this reason, it is essential to consider the various prophetic relationships that are represented by Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Pompey and Augustus Caesar.

[Error: Unknown target language code "laj". Please provide the language name or correct ISO code.]

So is the vaguest part of the passage of verse twenty-four unto thirty, when they speak lies at one table?

Ne la, vagiausji teksto dalis nuo dvidešimt ketvirtos iki trisdešimtos eilutės yra ta, kai jie kalba melą prie vieno stalo?

> And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Daniel 11:27.

> Mbi yimbilika bi bilongi bya batu ba bana ba ntwa bi mwena mabe, ne bika baamba bufi pa mesa mosi; kadi kabiyi kufuluka nansha, pashishe nsuka ukekala ku ntangu wakutongama. Daniel 11:27.

Uriah Smith identifies the two kings as Marc Antony and Augustus Caesar.

Uriha Simi qaqa nayrïri reyinakaruxa Marc Antony ukat Augustus Caesar satawa sapxi.

> “Verse twenty-seven quoted

> “Guutuu lammaffaa fi torbaffaa keessaa caqasame”

> “Antony and Caesar were formerly in alliance. Yet under the garb of friendship they were both aspiring and intriguing for universal dominion. Their protestations of deference to, and friendship for, each other, were the utterances of hypocrites. They spoke lies at one table. Octavia, the wife of Antony and sister of Caesar, declared to the people of Rome at the time Antony divorced her, that she had consented to marry him solely with the hope that it would prove a pledge of union between Caesar and Antony. But that counsel did not prosper. The rupture came; and in the conflict that ensued, Caesar came off entirely victorious.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 276.

> «Antony bersama Caesar pa masa lalu sa bersekutu. Namun, baweh pakaian persahabatan, duanya sama-sama bercita-cita sereta berhelah kena pemerintahan sejagat. Pengakuan sida ti nangatka hormat ngagai pangan diri sereta persahabatan ngagai pangan diri nya, semina jaku orang munafik. Sida bejaku pemesu ba semeja. Octavia, bini Antony sereta menyadi indu Caesar, madah ngagai rayat Rome lebuh Antony menceraika iya, ka iya udah nyetuju deka nikah enggau iya semina laban pengadang ka pekara nya deka nyadi tanda jamin penyatuan entara Caesar enggau Antony. Tang nasihat nya nadai berjaya. Perpecahan nya pen datai; lalu ba konflik ti nyusul nya, Caesar pegai pemenang sepenuh iya.» Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 276.

When Octavia identified that her marriage to Antony was as a pledge of union, it identified the marital alliance which had been typified earlier in chapter eleven with the Hellenistic-era marriage of Berenice to the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos around 252 BC. Berenice was the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Octavia and Berenice represent diplomatic marriages or prophetically, treaties. Verses five through ten identify the history of the diplomatic marriage between the southern and northern kingdoms, and when Marc Antony and Octavian, later known as Augustus Caesar, arranged the marriage, they also divided the kingdom into east and west.

Tajba Octavia puka amojtlaliaj inemikilis ihuan Antonio katka ken se tlatlajtoltilistli tlen se tlatskanilistli, omochi nesi in tlanamikilistli tlen achto omotipifikaroa ipan capítulo once ika in tlanamikilistli tlen época helenística de Berenice ihuan in rey seléucida Antiochus II Theos ken 252 a.C. Berenice katka ichpōch Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Octavia ihuan Berenice kipanextiaj tlanamikilistin diplomáticos o, proféticamente, tratados. Versículos cinco hasta diez kipanextiaj in historia de in tlanamikilistli diplomático entre in reinos del sur ihuan del norte, ihuan ijkuak Marc Antonio ihuan Octaviano, satepan known as Augusto César, okichijkej in tlanamikilistli, noijki okixexelokej in reino ipan oriente ihuan occidente.

The Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) was a negotiated settlement between Marc Antony and Octavian (later Augustus) to resolve tensions in the Second Triumvirate after near-civil war. It involved dividing Roman territories (Antony east, Octavian west) and was sealed by Antony’s marriage to Octavia (Octavian’s sister). In 39 BC the original five-year Triumvirate term expired, Antony sailed to Italy with 300+ ships that were initially denied to land at Brundisium, so they ultimately docked at Tarentum. Octavian met him there after prolonged mediations produced by an unwillingness of Antony’s army to fight with Octavian’s army and vise versa. Octavia played a key mediating role, persuading Antony to support Octavian against Sextus Pompey. They renewed the Triumvirate for another five years (to 32 BC), with Antony providing Octavian 120 ships in exchange for promised troops (which Octavian later withheld).

Пакт Брундизија (40. п. н. е.) био је договорено поравнање између Марка Антонија и Октавијана (касније Августа) ради разрешења напетости у Другом тријумвирату након готово грађанског рата. Он је подразумевао поделу римских територија (Антонију исток, Октавијану запад) и био је запечаћен Антонијевим браком са Октавијом (Октавијановом сестром). Године 39. п. н. е. истекао је првобитни петогодишњи рок Тријумвирата; Антоније је отпловио у Италију са више од 300 бродова, којима у почетку није било допуштено да се искрцају у Брундизију, те су на крају пристали у Таренту. Октавијан се тамо састао с њим након дуготрајних посредовања до којих је дошло услед неспремности Антонијеве војске да се бори против Октавијанове војске, и обрнуто. Октавија је имала кључну посредничку улогу, наговоривши Антонија да подржи Октавијана против Секста Помпеја. Обновили су Тријумвират на још пет година (до 32. п. н. е.), при чему је Антоније Октавијану дао 120 бродова у замену за обећане трупе (које је Октавијан касније ускратио).

In 32 BC there was an open break between the two antagonists. Relations had deteriorated through propaganda, Antony’s eastern focus (with Cleopatra), and Octavian’s consolidation in the west. Octavian rejected later conference proposals from Antony before Actium.

Mu 32 BC panali kusiyana kowonekera poyera pakati pa adani awiriwo. Maubwenzi awo anali ataipa chifukwa cha mabodza ofalitsidwa poyera, kuyang’ana kwa Antony kum’mawa (limodzi ndi Cleopatra), ndi kulimbitsa kwa Octavian mphamvu zake kumadzulo. Octavian anakana malingaliro otsatira a msonkhano ochokera kwa Antony asanakhale Actium.

In the diplomatic marriage with the king of the north (Antiochus) and the king of the south (Ptolemy), it was the southern king that supplied the bride, with the diplomatic marriage of Antony (the east) and Octavian (the west); the bride was supplied by the west. Both diplomatic marriages failed and the supplier of the daughter or sister was ultimately victorious over the power who broke the treaty.

Ɨm kƗp nyam ma ben kƗ raja kƗ iŋut (Antiochus) kɛ raja kƗ anyut (Ptolemy), raja kƗ anyut e cɔl nyan awɛr; ku m kƗp nyam ma ben kƗ Antony (arɔk) kɛ Octavian (barɔk), barɔk e cɔl nyan awɛr. KƗp nyam ma ben gɔɔr dɔŋ kɛnɛ gɔt, kɛ jan cɔl nyaan yɔw pan nyan awɛr aciɛk ke raan cɔk nhom ku pɛi kƗ cɔl wɔt kɛ ben tɔ.

## The Testimony of Three

Kesaksian Tiga Orang

At the end of the Seleucid Empire there was a third treaty where lies were spoke at one table. This occurred in the context of the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BC), when Antiochus III Magnus exploited the weakness of the Ptolemaic Kingdom after Ptolemy IV Philopator’s death in 204 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Ptolemy V) ascended the throne as a child (around age 5–6), leaving Egypt under regents and vulnerable to internal chaos, native revolts, and external threats.

ဍုင် Seleucid အင်ပါယာ အဆုံး၌ သဘောတူစာချုပ် တတိယမြောက်တစ်ရပ် ရှိခဲ့ပြီး၊ ထိုနေရာတွင် လိမ်လည်စကားများကို စားပွဲတစ်ခုတည်း၌ ပြောဆိုကြလေ၏။ ဤအမှုသည် ပဥ္စမမြောက် ဆီးရီးယားစစ်ပွဲ (202–195 BC) ၏ အခြေအနေအတွင်း ဖြစ်ပွားခဲ့ခြင်းဖြစ်ပြီး၊ Antiochus III Magnus သည် 204 BC တွင် Ptolemy IV Philopator ကွယ်လွန်ပြီးနောက် Ptolemaic Kingdom ၏ အားနည်းမှုကို အသုံးချခဲ့လေသည်။ Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Ptolemy V) သည် ကလေးအရွယ် (အသက် ၅–၆ ဝန်းကျင်) ၌ နန်းတက်ခဲ့သဖြင့်၊ အီဂျစ်နိုင်ငံသည် အုပ်ချုပ်သူကိုယ်စားလှယ်များ၏ လက်အောက်တွင် ကျန်ရစ်ကာ၊ အတွင်းရေးမငြိမ်သက်မှု၊ ဒေသခံပုန်ကန်မှုများနှင့် ပြင်ပအန္တရာယ်များအပေါ် လွယ်ကူစွာ ထိခိုက်ခံရနိုင်သော အနေအထားသို့ ရောက်ရှိခဲ့လေသည်။

Antiochus Magnus had already invaded and seized much of the Ptolemaic territories in Coele-Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor after victories like the Battle of Panium (200 BC). Rather than fully conquering Egypt (which risked Roman intervention, as Rome was pressuring him to stay out of certain areas), he pursued a diplomatic marriage alliance as a “protector” figure. In 197/195 BC, as part of the peace treaty ending the war, Antiochus Magnus betrothed and then married his young daughter Cleopatra I Syra (also called Cleopatra Syra) to the child Ptolemy V (the marriage took place in 193 BC at Raphia; Ptolemy was 16, Cleopatra 10).

Antiochus Magnus pakatmë nyet zaptué shumë nga trevat ptolemaike në Koele-Siri, Palestinë e Azi të Vogël pas fitoreve si Beteja e Paniumit (200 p.K.). Në vend që ta pushtonte plotësisht Egjiptin (gjë që rrezikonte ndërhyrjen romake, pasi Roma po i bënte trysni të qëndronte larg disa viseve), ai ndoqi një aleancë martesore diplomatike si figurë “mbrojtësi”. Në vitet 197/195 p.K., si pjesë e traktatit të paqes që i dha fund luftës, Antiochus Magnus e fejoi dhe pastaj e martoi bijën e tij të re Cleopatra I Syra (e quajtur edhe Cleopatra Syra) me fëmijën Ptolemy V (martesa u bë në vitin 193 p.K. në Raphia; Ptolemy ishte 16 vjeç, Cleopatra 10).

This was framed as a generous gesture: Antiochus positioned himself as an ally and “protector” of the young king, securing peace while retaining gains in Asia. The marriage gave him indirect influence over Egypt through his daughter (he hoped she would remain loyal to her Seleucid roots and act as a pro-Syrian voice in the Ptolemaic court). The ploy backfired for Cleopatra sided with her husband and Egypt, not her father, undermining Antiochus’s long-term control. This mirrors the Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) and related to Roman events in several ways.

Nei ci was pe drunjaske dade: Antiochus pozicionisardas pes sar jekh alijato thaj “arakhnutno” e tarne kraljesko, sigurindoj mir thaj kerdo te ačhol leske labhja andre Azija. O bibaxhtalo drom leske das indirektno influenco upral Egiptos prekal leski ćhaj (vov sperdjas kaj voj ačhola lojalno lake Seleucidne korenjaqe thaj kerela pro-syrijako glaso andre Ptolemaicne dvoro). O trik backfired, soske Cleopatra xutisardas pes ki rig le lakere romeski thaj Egiptoski, na ki rig lakere dadeski, thaj kerdas te marolpe Antiochusko lunge-vremesko kontrola. Kada si sar i Soglasba e Brundisiumeski (40 BC) thaj si phandlo e Rimske godyaenca andre but droma.

Just as Antony married Octavia (sister of Octavian) to bind rival powers after near-war, Antiochus used his daughter’s marriage to Ptolemy V to formalize a temporary peace and territorial division (Seleucids kept conquests in the north, Ptolemy retained Egypt the south).

ਖੁੰਝ-ਯੁੱਧ ਦੇ ਕਿਨਾਰੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਅੰਤੋਨੀ ਨੇ ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ ਕਰਦੀਆਂ ਤਾਕਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੱਝਣ ਲਈ ਔਕਟੇਵਿਆਨ ਦੀ ਭੈਣ ਔਕਟੇਵਿਆ ਨਾਲ ਵਿਆਹ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ, ਤਿਵੇਂ ਹੀ ਅੰਤੀਓਖੁਸ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੀ ਧੀ ਦਾ ਪਟੋਲਮੀ V ਨਾਲ ਵਿਆਹ ਵਰਤ ਕੇ ਅਸਥਾਈ ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ ਅਤੇ ਭੂਮੀਕ ਵੰਡ ਨੂੰ ਆਧਿਕਾਰਿਕ ਰੂਪ ਦਿੱਤਾ (ਉੱਤਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਜਿੱਤਾਂ ਸੇਲਿਊਸਿਦਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਰਹੀਆਂ, ਅਤੇ ਦੱਖਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਪਟੋਲਮੀ ਨੇ ਮਿਸਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਹੱਥ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਿਆ)।

Antiochus acted as a de facto guardian over the child-king Ptolemy V (via family ties), similar to how Octavian (and the Triumvirate) positioned themselves amid power vacuums or rivalries. In both cases, the “stronger” figure (Antiochus/Octavian) sought leverage over a vulnerable counterpart through kinship. Both arrangements brought short-term stability but ‘did not prosper’ long-term due to underlying distrust—Cleopatra favored Egypt (undermining Antiochus), while Antony’s eastern focus (Cleopatra VII) led to the breakdown with Octavian.

Antiochus u veprua si një kujdestar de facto mbi mbretin-fëmijë Ptolemeu V (nëpërmjet lidhjeve familjare), ngjashëm me mënyrën se si Oktaviani (dhe Triumvirati) u pozicionuan mes boshllëqeve të pushtetit ose rivaliteteve. Në të dy rastet, figura “më e fortë” (Antiochus/Oktavian) kërkoi epërsi mbi një palë të cenueshme përmes farefisnisë. Të dyja këto rregullime sollën qëndrueshmëri afatshkurtër, por “nuk patën mbarësi” në planin afatgjatë për shkak të mosbesimit të nëndheshëm—Kleopatra anoi nga Egjipti (duke e minuar Antiochus-in), ndërsa përqendrimi lindor i Antonit (Kleopatra VII) çoi në prishjen me Oktavianin.

Ptolemy V’s minority under regents parallels the instability after Julius Caesar’s death (leading to the Triumvirate’s formation and power struggles). The marriage of Berenice to Antiochus marked the beginning of the Seleucid Empire’s history in Daniel eleven, and the marriage of Antiochus Magnus daughter to the Egyptian child king, marked the ending of the Seleucid Empire. The ending of the marriage of Marc Antony to Octavia marked the ending of the Ptolemaic kingdom. The ending of Judah as God’s covenant people took place at the cross, and that Judean kingdom began with the Maccabees and the league they made with Rome. All of these prophetic lines are represented within the narrative of Daniel chapter eleven, and they all align with the hidden history of verse forty. Beginning in verse five we have the treaty of Berenice, that leads to Antiochus the Great and the treaty of his daughter Cleopatra Syra, that takes place in the history of the Maccabees of verse twenty-three. The Maccabees become part of the line based upon their rebellion against Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the last of the Seleucid Dynasty.

Ptolemaios V ning vasiylar qoʻl ostidagi voyaga yetmaganlik davri, Yuliy Tsezarning oʻlimidan keyingi beqarorlikka (Triumviratning tuzilishiga va hokimiyat uchun kurashlarga olib kelgan beqarorlikka) muvofiq keladi. Berenikaning Antiox bilan nikohi Doniyor oʻn birinchi bobda Salavkiylar imperiyasi tarixining boshlanishini belgilagan boʻlsa, Antiox Magnusning qizining Misrdagi bola-shohga nikohlanishi Salavkiylar imperiyasining yakunini belgiladi. Mark Antonining Oktaviya bilan nikohining tugashi Ptolemeylar shohligining tugashini belgiladi. Yahudoning Xudoning ahd xalqi sifatidagi yakuni xochda sodir boʻldi, va oʻsha Yahudiya shohligi Makkabiylar hamda ular Rim bilan tuzgan ittifoq bilan boshlangan edi. Ushbu bashoratli yoʻnalishlarning barchasi Doniyor oʻn birinchi bob rivoyati doirasida ifodalangan boʻlib, ularning hammasi qirqinchi oyatning yashirin tarixi bilan uygʻunlashadi. Beshinchi oyatdan boshlab biz Berenikaning sulhini koʻramiz; u Buyuk Antioxga va uning qizi Kleopatra Siraning sulhiga olib boradi, bu esa yigirma uchinchi oyatdagi Makkabiylar tarixida yuz beradi. Makkabiylar Antiox Epifanga, yaʼni Salavkiylar sulolasining soʻnggilaridan biriga qarshi koʻtargan isyoni sababli ushbu yoʻnalishning bir qismiga aylanadilar.

Antiochus Epiphanes is the Antiochus who was in Egypt in 168 BC near Alexandria during the Sixth Syrian War. Antiochus Epiphanes had invaded Egypt and was on the verge of capturing Alexandria. The Ptolemaic rulers appealed to Rome for help. Rome sent Popillius Laenas (with just a small entourage—no army) to deliver an ultimatum from the Senate; Antiochus must immediately withdraw from Egypt and Cyprus, or face war with Rome. When Antiochus received the letter and asked for time to consult his advisors, Popillius—described as stern and imperious—took his walking stick and drew a circle in the sand around the king’s feet. He then declared, “Before you step out of that circle, give me a reply to lay before the Senate.”

ਅੰਤਿਓਖੁਸ ਏਪੀਫਨੇਸ ਉਹੀ ਅੰਤਿਓਖੁਸ ਸੀ ਜੋ 168 ਈਸਾ-ਪੂਰਵ ਵਿੱਚ ਛੇਵੀਂ ਸੀਰੀਆਈ ਜੰਗ ਦੇ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਅਲੈਕਜ਼ੈਂਡਰੀਆ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਮਿਸਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੀ। ਅੰਤਿਓਖੁਸ ਏਪੀਫਨੇਸ ਨੇ ਮਿਸਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਹਮਲਾ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਅਲੈਕਜ਼ੈਂਡਰੀਆ ਨੂੰ ਕਬਜ਼ੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਬਿਲਕੁਲ ਨੇੜੇ ਸੀ। ਪਟੋਲਮੀ ਵੰਸ਼ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਾਸਕਾਂ ਨੇ ਸਹਾਇਤਾ ਲਈ ਰੋਮ ਨੂੰ ਅਪੀਲ ਕੀਤੀ। ਰੋਮ ਨੇ ਸੈਨੇਟ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਇੱਕ ਅਲਟੀਮੇਟਮ ਪਹੁੰਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਪੋਪਿਲੀਅਸ ਲੀਨਸ ਨੂੰ ਭੇਜਿਆ (ਕੇਵਲ ਇੱਕ ਛੋਟੇ ਜਥੇ ਨਾਲ—ਕੋਈ ਫੌਜ ਨਹੀਂ); ਅੰਤਿਓਖੁਸ ਨੇ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਮਿਸਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਈਪ੍ਰਸ ਤੋਂ ਹਟ ਜਾਣਾ ਸੀ, ਨਹੀਂ ਤਾਂ ਰੋਮ ਨਾਲ ਯੁੱਧ ਦਾ ਸਾਹਮਣਾ ਕਰਨਾ ਸੀ। ਜਦੋਂ ਅੰਤਿਓਖੁਸ ਨੇ ਪੱਤਰ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਲਾਹਕਾਰਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਸਲਾਹ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸਮਾਂ ਮੰਗਿਆ, ਤਾਂ ਪੋਪਿਲੀਅਸ—ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਵਰਣਨ ਕਠੋਰ ਅਤੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਸ਼ੀਲ ਵਜੋਂ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ—ਨੇ ਆਪਣੀ ਲਾਠੀ ਲਈ ਅਤੇ ਰਾਜੇ ਦੇ ਪੈਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਚਾਰੇ ਪਾਸੇ ਰੇਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਗੋਲ ਘੇਰਾ ਖਿੱਚ ਦਿੱਤਾ। ਫਿਰ ਉਸ ਨੇ ਘੋਸ਼ਣਾ ਕੀਤੀ, “ਇਸ ਘੇਰੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਕਦਮ ਰੱਖਣ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ, ਮੈਨੂੰ ਉਹ ਜਵਾਬ ਦੇ ਜੋ ਮੈਂ ਸੈਨੇਟ ਦੇ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਰੱਖ ਸਕਾਂ।”

The implication was clear; Antiochus could not leave the circle without committing to Rome’s demands—crossing it without agreement would mean war. Stunned and humiliated, Antiochus hesitated briefly but then agreed to comply, withdrew his forces from Egypt, and returned to Syria. This bold act of diplomacy (backed by Rome’s growing reputation for power) forced the retreat without a battle, showcasing Rome’s emerging dominance in the eastern Mediterranean. It’s widely cited as an origin for the phrase “drawing a line in the sand” (though it was literally a circle).

Tišimpikasyona ay malinaw; hindi maaaring lumabas si Antiochus sa bilog nang hindi nangangakong susunod sa mga hinihingi ng Roma—ang pagtawid doon nang walang kasunduan ay mangangahulugan ng digmaan. Nabigla at napahiya, sandaling nag-atubili si Antiochus, ngunit saka pumayag na sumunod, inalis ang kaniyang mga hukbo mula sa Egipto, at nagbalik sa Siria. Ang matapang na gawang ito ng diplomasya (na sinuhayan ng lumalaking reputasyon ng Roma sa kapangyarihan) ay pumilit sa pag-urong nang walang labanan, na nagpapakita ng umuusbong na pangingibabaw ng Roma sa silangang Mediteraneo. Malawak itong binabanggit bilang isa sa mga pinagmulan ng pariralang “pagguhit ng guhit sa buhanginan” (bagaman sa literal ay isang bilog iyon).

Antiochus Epiphanes also became the Protestant understanding of the power that exalts himself, falls and establishes the vision in verse fourteen of Daniel eleven.

អង់ទីយ៉ូកុស អេពីផានេស ក៏បានក្លាយជាការយល់ឃើញរបស់ប្រូតេស្តង់អំពីអំណាចដែលលើកតម្កើងខ្លួនឯង ដួលរលំ ហើយបង្កើតឲ្យមាននិមិត្តក្នុងខទីដប់បួននៃដានីយ៉ែល ជំពូកដប់មួយ។

> And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.

> And in those times, ki pilin e mute li kama tawa jan lawa pi ma anpa; kin, jan pi weka ike tan kulupu jan sina li sewi e ona sama ni: li wile pali e sitelen lukin; taso, ona li kama anpa. Tanije 11:14.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned 175–164 BC, and was the eighth of thirteen Seleucid kings. He sought to impose Hellenistic culture and unify his empire under Greek religious practices. He plundered the Temple in 169 BC, banned Jewish practices (circumcision, Sabbath observance, Torah study), and forced sacrifices to pagan gods. In December 167 BC he erected a pagan altar (to Zeus) on top of the Jewish altar of burnt offerings in the Temple and sacrificed a pig, along with other profane acts. The desecration was the final straw for observant Jews, who saw it as the ultimate violation of the Temple’s sanctity and God’s law. It sparked immediate resistance when Mattathias (a priest from Modein) refused a Seleucid officer’s order to sacrifice to pagan gods and killed an apostate Jew and the officer, then fled to the hills with his sons (the future Maccabees). This ignited guerrilla warfare and revolt from 167–160 BC which aimed to restore Jewish worship, leading to the rededication of the Temple (Hanukkah) in 164 BC under Judas Maccabeus.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes pub kav 175–164 BC, hab txug tug yim ntawm kaum peb tug vajntxwv Seleucid. Nws nrhiav kom yuam kom muaj kab lis kev cai Hellenistic thiab koom nws lub tebchaws kom sib haum nyob hauv kev coj dab qhuas Kili. Xyoo 169 BC nws txeeb thiab nyiag lub Tuamtsev, txwv cov kev coj Yudais (kev cai txiav tawv qau, kev ce Hnub Xanpataus, kev kawm Torah), thiab yuam kom xyeem rau cov vajtswv cuav. Lub Kaum Ob Hlis xyoo 167 BC nws tsa ib lub thaj teev dab qhuas cuav (rau Zeus) saum lub thaj hlawv xyeem ntawm cov Yudais hauv lub Tuamtsev thiab tua ib tug npua fij rau ntawd, nrog rau lwm yam kev qias vuab tsuab. Qhov kev ua kom qias tsis huv ntawd yog qhov kawg uas cov Yudais uas rau siab cevcai yuav tiv tsis taus lawm, vim lawv pom tias nws yog txoj kev ua txhaum loj tshaj plaws rau txoj kev dawb huv ntawm lub Tuamtsev thiab Vajtswv txoj kevcai. Qhov no tam sim ntawd ua rau muaj kev tawm tsam thaum Mattathias (ib tug pov thawj ntawm Modein) tsis kam ua raws li ib tug thawj tub ceev xwm Seleucid tau hais kom nws xyeem rau cov vajtswv cuav, thiab nws tua ib tug Yudais uas muab txoj kev ntseeg pov tseg nrog tus thawj tub ceev xwm ntawd, ces nws nrog nws cov tub (cov uas tom qab hu ua Maccabees) khiav mus rau tej roob. Qhov no thiaj ua rau muaj kev ua rog nkaum tua thiab kev ntxeev siab txij xyoo 167–160 BC uas npaj yuav rov tsa kev pe hawm ntawm cov Yudais dua, ua rau lub Tuamtsev raug muab rov fij dua tshiab (Hanukkah) xyoo 164 BC nyob hauv Yudas Maccabeus.

At the beginning and ending of the Seleucid Empire there was a significant treaty represented by a diplomatic marriage that possessed the element of division of either east and west, or north and south. As the Seleucid Empire waned Antiochus Epiphanes becomes the symbol of the rising Roman power, and the focus of the Maccabean’s indignation. Later in history he becomes the counterfeit of the prophetic symbol that establishes the vision. The power in verse twenty-two of chapter eleven is broken when the prince of the covenant was broken.

Pa xôqâ c’ôq qhê paq đâq Seleucid Empire, mii tới một hiệp ước hết sức quan trọng, được biểu thị bằng một cuộc hôn nhân ngoại giao, mang yếu tố phân chia hoặc giữa đông và tây, hoặc giữa bắc và nam. Khi Seleucid Empire suy tàn, Antiochus Epiphanes trở nên biểu tượng của quyền lực La Mã đang dâng lên, và là trọng tâm của sự phẫn nộ của những người Maccabean. Về sau trong lịch sử, ông trở nên bản giả mạo của biểu tượng tiên tri lập nên khải tượng. Quyền lực trong câu hai mươi hai của chương mười một bị phá vỡ khi vua chúa của giao ước bị phá vỡ.

> And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. Daniel 11:22.

> Y con los brazos de una inundación serán arrasados de delante de él, y serán quebrantados; sí, también el príncipe del pacto. Daniel 11:22.

Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign ended in 164 BC, almost two hundred years before Christ, “the prince of the covenant” was “broken” at the cross. What we wish to note here is that the Seleucid Empire began and ended with a diplomatic treaty marriage where the deceit between the two parties is a matter of the historical record. During the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabean revolt began, which typified the American Revolution. In the history of the Maccabees their struggle to throw off the Seleucid power included a significant treaty with Rome. The verse that identifies the treaty directly identifies Rome as working deceitfully, or telling lies at the treaty table.

Ukutwala kuka-Antiochus Epiphanes kwaphela ngo-164 BC, cishe eminyakeni eyizinkulungwane ezimbili ngaphambi kukaKristu, lapho “inkosana yesivumelwano” “yephulwa” esiphambanweni. Esifisa ukukuqaphela lapha ngukuthi uMbuso wamaSeleucid waqala waphela ngomshado wesivumelwano sobudlelwano bezombusazwe, lapho inkohliso phakathi kwala maqembu amabili iyindaba eqinisekiswe ngumlando. Ngesikhathi sokubusa kuka-Antiochus Epiphanes kwaqala ukuvukela kwamaMaccabee, okwakuyisifaniso se-American Revolution. Emlandweni wamaMaccabee, umzabalazo wabo wokulahla amandla amaSeleucid wahlanganisa isivumelwano esibalulekile neRoma. Ivesi elikhomba leso sivumelwano ngokusobala libuye likhombe iRoma njengosebenza ngenkohliso, noma ekhuluma amanga etafuleni lesivumelwano.

> And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. Daniel 11:23.

> Pe, qaŋgwi kan man ya omikɛl ki li, in oɓɛl maŋgəl ma vɔr: pan in ya kɔm təŋ, pe ya ŋgəŋgəl, ki pəla tə́k ki ndəm maŋgəl. Daniel 11:23.

Every prophetic line that precedes the time of the end in verse forty contains a broken treaty. Uriah Smith commenting on verse thirty’s “them that forsake the holy covenant” records the following:

Ka jingïathuhlypa baroh kaba lam shuwa ïa ka por jong ka jingïkut ha dkhot ba sawphew ka kynthup ïa ka jutang ba la pynkheiñ. U Uriah Smith haba u kren halor ka “kito kiba iehnoh ïa ka jutang bakhuid” jong dkhot ba laiphew, u thoh kumne:

> “‘Indignation against the covenant;’ that is, the Holy Scriptures, the book of the covenant. A revolution of this nature was accomplished in Rome. The Heruli, Goths, and Vandals, who conquered Rome, embraced the Arian faith, and became enemies of the Catholic Church. It was especially for the purpose of exterminating this heresy that Justinian decreed the pope to be the head of the church and the corrector of heretics. The Bible soon came to be regarded as a dangerous book that should not be read by the common people, but all questions in dispute were to be submitted to the pope. Thus was indignity heaped upon God’s word. And the emperors of Rome, the eastern division of which still continued, had intelligence, or connived with the Church of Rome, which had forsaken the covenant, and constituted the great apostasy, for the purpose of putting down ‘heresy.’ The man of sin was raised to his presumptuous throne by the defeat of the Arian Goths, who then held possession of Rome, in A.D.538.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 281.

> “‘Ingnasion kontra lallian;’ saie, a Sagrada Skriptura, a libru di lallian. Un revolusion di esta naturesa ya ser kumpli na Roma. E Heruli, Gotos, i Vandalos, ken a conquista Roma, a abraza e fe Ariana, i a bira enemigas di la Glesia Katólika. Tabata espesialmente pa e propósito di ekstermina esta heresia ku Justiniano a dekreta ku e papa lo ta e kabesa di la glesia i e korektor di heretikonan. Pronto e Biblia a bira konsiderá komo un libru peligroso ku no mester ser lesí pa hende komun, sino tur kuestionnan den disputa mester ser someté na e papa. Asina indignidat a ser amontoná riba e palabra di Dios. I e emperadónan di Roma, ku su division oriental ainda a sigui eksistí, tabatin intelijensia, òf a konive ku la Glesia di Roma, ku a bandona e lallian, i a konstituí e gran apostasía, ku e propósito di suprime ‘heresia.’ E hende di peká a ser hisá na su trono presuntuoso pa medio di e derota di e Gotos Arianos, kende den e tempu ei tabatin posesion di Roma, den A.D.538.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 281.

Verse five of Daniel eleven identifies the line of history where the king of the south provides a diplomatic bride as a symbol of a treaty that was thereafter broken by the king of the north. The retaliation of the king of the south typified the retaliation of Napoleon’s spiritual king of the south against the papal king of the north in 1798. The broken treaty of verses five through nine typified Napoleon’s broken treaty of Tolentino, which typified Putin’s claim of a broken treaty by NATO. The retaliation of Napoleon typified the retaliation of Putin against the Ukraine in 2014. Verse ten’s retaliation of Antiochus Magnus ending the fourth Syrian War aligns with Napoleon in 1798 and also Putin in 2014. Following verse fifteen’s battle of Panium n 200 BC, Antiochus arranged a diplomatic marriage with the hidden intent of taking Egypt under his command without employing military boots on the ground. Antiochus Magnus throne was passed to his son, who was assassinated which brought Antiochus Magnus’s youngest son, Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne. His actions in implementing Greek customs and religion brought about the Maccabean revolt, that led to the deceitful treaty with Rome in verse twenty-three. Verse twenty-four introduces pagan Rome and identifies Antony and Augustus’s table of lies. In verse thirty pagan Rome enters into dialogue with the papal church, who are noted as them that had broken the holy covenant.

ဒံယေလ အခန်းကြီး ၁၁ ၏ အပိုဒ် ၅ သည် တောင်ဘက်ရှင်ဘုရင်က သံတမန်ရေးရာ သဘောတူစာချုပ်၏ သင်္ကေတအဖြစ် မင်္ဂလာဆောင်သမီးကို ပေးအပ်ခဲ့သော်လည်း၊ ထိုစာချုပ်ကို နောက်ပိုင်းတွင် မြောက်ဘက်ရှင်ဘုရင်က ချိုးဖောက်ခဲ့သည့် သမိုင်းလိုင်းကို ဖော်ထုတ်ပြသည်။ တောင်ဘက်ရှင်ဘုရင်၏ လက်စားချေမှုသည် ၁၇၉၈ ခုနှစ်တွင် ပုပ်ရဟန်းမင်းဆိုင်ရာ မြောက်ဘက်ရှင်ဘုရင်ကို ဆန့်ကျင်၍ နပိုလီယံ၏ ဝိညာဏတောင်ဘက်ရှင်ဘုရင် ပြုလုပ်ခဲ့သော လက်စားချေမှု၏ ပုံရိပ်ဖြစ်ခဲ့သည်။ အပိုဒ် ၅ မှ ၉ အထိရှိ ချိုးဖောက်ခံရသော စာချုပ်သည် နပိုလီယံ၏ Tolentino စာချုပ် ချိုးဖောက်မှုကို ပုံဆောင်ခဲ့ပြီး၊ ထိုအရာသည် NATO က ချိုးဖောက်ခဲ့သည်ဟု ပူတင်၏ အဆိုကိုလည်း ပုံဆောင်ခဲ့သည်။ နပိုလီယံ၏ လက်စားချေမှုသည် ၂၀၁၄ ခုနှစ်တွင် ယူကရိန်းကို ဆန့်ကျင်၍ ပူတင်၏ လက်စားချေမှု၏ ပုံရိပ်ဖြစ်ခဲ့သည်။ အပိုဒ် ၁၀ တွင် စတုတ္ထ ဆီးရီးယားစစ်ပွဲကို အဆုံးသတ်စေသော Antiochus Magnus ၏ လက်စားချေမှုသည် ၁၇၉၈ ခုနှစ်ရှိ နပိုလီယံနှင့်လည်းကောင်း၊ ၂၀၁၄ ခုနှစ်ရှိ ပူတင်နှင့်လည်းကောင်း ကိုက်ညီနေသည်။ ဘီစီ ၂၀၀ ခုနှစ်ရှိ Panium စစ်ပွဲအပြီး အပိုဒ် ၁၅ ၏ နောက်တွင်၊ Antiochus သည် မြေပြင်တပ်ဖိနပ်များကို အသုံးမပြုဘဲ အီဂျစ်ကို မိမိ၏ အာဏာအောက်သို့ သွင်းယူရန် ဖုံးကွယ်ထားသော ရည်ရွယ်ချက်ဖြင့် သံတမန်ရေးရာ အိမ်ထောင်ရေးတစ်ရပ်ကို စီမံခဲ့သည်။ Antiochus Magnus ၏ ရာဇပလ္လင်ကို သူ၏သားက အမွေဆက်ခံခဲ့သော်လည်း၊ ထိုသူသည် လုပ်ကြံသတ်ဖြတ်ခံရသဖြင့် Antiochus Magnus ၏ အငယ်ဆုံးသား Antiochus Epiphanes သည် ရာဇပလ္လင်ပေါ်သို့ ရောက်ရှိလာခဲ့သည်။ ဂရိဓလေ့ထုံးတမ်းများနှင့် ဘာသာတရားကို အကောင်အထည်ဖော်ရာ၌ သူ၏ လုပ်ရပ်များကြောင့် Maccabean ပုန်ကန်မှု ပေါ်ပေါက်လာပြီး၊ ထိုအရာက အပိုဒ် ၂၃ တွင် ပါရှိသော ရောမနှင့် လှည့်ဖြားသော စာချုပ်ဆီသို့ ဦးတည်စေခဲ့သည်။ အပိုဒ် ၂၄ သည် အယူမှား ရောမကို မိတ်ဆက်ပေးပြီး Antony နှင့် Augustus ၏ လိမ်လည်မှု စားပွဲကို ဖော်ပြသတ်မှတ်သည်။ အပိုဒ် ၃၀ တွင် အယူမှား ရောမသည် ပုပ်ရဟန်းမင်း၏ အသင်းတော်နှင့် ဆွေးနွေးဝင်ရောက်လာပြီး၊ ထိုသူတို့ကို သန့်ရှင်းသော ပဋိညာဉ်ကို ချိုးဖောက်ခဲ့သောသူများအဖြစ် မှတ်သားထားသည်။

Verses twenty-four to thirty is the testimony of pagan Rome and verses thirty-one to forty provide the testimony of papal Rome. Every line of Daniel eleven verse one on through verse forty represents a line of prophecy that is applied in the hidden history of verse forty. The line of the Seleucid kingdom, the line of the Ptolemaic kingdom, the line of the Judean kingdom of the Maccabees, the line of pagan Rome and the line of papal Rome all illustrate the history of 1989 unto the Sunday law. Each of those lines identify a broken treaty as a major element of the history.

Ayat dua puluh empat sampai tiga puluh adalah kesaksian Roma kafir, dan ayat tiga puluh satu sampai empat puluh memberikan kesaksian Roma kepausan. Setiap baris Daniel pasal sebelas ayat satu sampai ayat empat puluh merupakan satu garis nubuatan yang diterapkan dalam sejarah tersembunyi ayat empat puluh. Garis kerajaan Seleukia, garis kerajaan Ptolemaik, garis kerajaan Yudea dari kaum Makabe, garis Roma kafir, dan garis Roma kepausan, semuanya menggambarkan sejarah dari tahun 1989 sampai kepada undang-undang hari Minggu. Masing-masing dari garis itu menunjukkan suatu perjanjian yang dilanggar sebagai unsur utama dari sejarah itu.

It is Rome that establishes the vision of Daniel eleven, and both pagan and papal Rome’s prophetic treaties of deceit are marked as progressive and as occurring before Rome ruled supremely for their respective and distinct prophetic periods. Both powers marked the beginning of the prophetic period of supremacy as beginning when their third obstacle was overcome. Before the soon coming Sunday law in the United States there will be a treaty of deceit between two powers. Four times the two powers have been the kings of the south and the north, once between the glorious land of Judah and Rome, once between two parts of the Roman triumvirate and once between pagan and papal Rome. In both deceitful treaties concerning Rome it amounted to a treaty between one half of the Roman empire, whether Antony of the east, Augustus of the west, or pagan Rome of the east and papal Rome of the west. Four treaties of deceit between the kings of the north and south, two between the kings of the east and west and one between the soon-to-be king of the north and the glorious land.

La Roma es la que establece la visión de Daniel once, y tanto los tratados proféticos de engaño de la Roma pagana como de la Roma papal quedan señalados como progresivos y como ocurridos antes de que Roma gobernara supremamente durante sus respectivos y distintos períodos proféticos. Ambos poderes señalaron el comienzo del período profético de supremacía como iniciando cuando fue vencido su tercer obstáculo. Antes de la ley dominical, que pronto vendrá en los Estados Unidos, habrá un tratado de engaño entre dos poderes. Cuatro veces esos dos poderes han sido los reyes del sur y del norte: una vez entre la tierra gloriosa de Judá y Roma, una vez entre dos partes del triunvirato romano y una vez entre la Roma pagana y la Roma papal. En ambos tratados engañosos concernientes a Roma, ello equivalía a un tratado entre una mitad del imperio romano, ya fuese Antonio del este, Augusto del oeste, o la Roma pagana del este y la Roma papal del oeste. Cuatro tratados de engaño entre los reyes del norte y del sur, dos entre los reyes del este y del oeste, y uno entre el rey del norte, que pronto ha de serlo, y la tierra gloriosa.

This concludes our initial presentation of the book of Daniel. The Panium series represents the conclusion of the series on the book of Daniel, which is the introduction to the hidden history of verse forty which we will continue to consider in the next article.

Aka ka pasiunang panagtangtangadmi iti libro ni Daniel ket agpatingga ditoy. Ti Panium a serye ket isuna ti panagpatingga ti serye maipapan iti libro ni Daniel, nga isu ti panangipakdaar iti nailemmeng a pakasaritaan ti bersikulo a uppat a pulo, nga itultuloymi a sukimaten iti sumaruno nga artikulo.

Back to Articles