Western Empire -- the “willful king”? (for futurists ONLY)

[seanD]

Sorry, I see a much different picture than what you are suggesting

So you will just have to take your issue with my view of the future related to Bible prophecy

Time will tell regarding the unfulfilled portion of the prophetic scriptures which I believe are all scheduled for the coming "time of the end" still pending

I typically do not debate prophetic issues because of the subjectivity to interpretation .... there are many and only one comprehensive view can be correct

Some understand ..... and some do not

If there are reasonable questions regarding my interpretations I will respond

If not .... there is really no need to discuss

I share my views on public forums and those who read them must decide for themselves

That's cool. It's possible the "willful king" of Dan 11:36 is the white horseman, the conqueror, of Rev 6:2, but other than that, I don't see anywhere in scripture where the willful king fits any other biblical descriptions. It doesn't fit the description of the beast of Rev because the beast is worshiped by the world whereas the willful king has enemies among nations that it is warring against, nor does it function the same way or do any of the things that the beast of Rev does. I don't think the willful king is history either because the closest historical individual is Antiochus, but there are military campaigns that Antiochus didn't fulfill.

And you're right, there is only one comprehensive view that is correct, and the only way to determine who's correct is by comparing it to world events and the fulfillment thereof. I wouldn't debate the issue because at this point, I consider this still in the theoretical stage. But so far, I see US fulfilling Dan 36:11 pretty accurately as I indicated in the OP. It fulfills all the characteristics. It's self-worth and arrogance, it's historical meddling and involvement in foreign governments (something the forefathers were against), it's huge bloated defense budget, etc. Now the US doesn't even regard the Constitution when it goes to war, but follows a UN mandate (he will honor a foreign god?). Libya has been fulfilled. Ethiopia, which is Kush, or Sudan, might be next on the US/NATO slate. I think the Middle Eastern campaign, which the west planned long ago (see here), will end up as a world war and will be the downfall of the western empire, but we'll have to wait and see what transpires of these events in the Middle East.

[4 Zion]

Hi MH,

Dont mean to interrupt your discussion with Sean. But dont you think its possible that the U.S. may be so devastated economically at some point in the near future that we may not be viable. Or at least unable to extend ourselves as a military power. Therefore becoming more of a satellite country or fading into the shadows?

[seanD]

America's defense war machine just keeps bloating more and more out of control, even in spite of its economic dire straits looming on the horizon. The pompous king of Daniel 11:36 wages war against anyone at will. New US "war legislation" just keeps adding more and more credence to the comparisons...

"The Authorization for Use of Military Force, approved by Congress a week after Sept. 11, 2001, gives the president the power to go after anyone who committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks, or who harbored such people, to prevent acts of terrorism. It was this document that authorized the war in Afghanistan and the raid on Bin Laden’s compound.

A new bill, approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee and heading for the floor this month, would go much further. It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also any “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” That deliberately vague phrase could include anyone who doesn’t like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.

It allows the president to detain “belligerents” until the “termination of hostilities,” presumably at a camp like the one in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Since it does not give a plausible scenario of how those hostilities could be considered over, it raises the possibility of endless detention for anyone who gets on the wrong side of a future administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/op...=1&ref=opinion

Could the "king of the South" be Pakistan or Iran? Could the "king of the North" be Syria or Turkey? With past aggressions against Iran (and rumors about Iran's present meddling in Syria and Bahrain), present aggressions against Pakistan and Syria, things unraveling in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Israeli borders, China and Russia's aggressive tone against Us intervention in these countries, there is no doubt in mind that we're headed towards a world war in the Middle East, even if my theory here itself about the US/Daniel correlation is incorrect. But it will be interesting for me personally to see how things develop in relation to Daniel 11:40-45 when that happens.

[theblueprint_Ni]

seanD,

I wish I would have joined this discussion earlier to clarify your position on a few things you mentioned. I'm having difficulty interpreting what you're saying, especially in terms of the Antichrist and the 70th week of Daniel. I'm unfamiliar with your position so please do bear with me. Please explain in brief about your views on the 70th week.

Also, in response to the "willful king", I can't say that I'm convinced of the US fitting in to that role. I don't believe we're imperialistic enough nor quite as self-exalted as the king in Daniel 11. I know that corruptions and atrocities have surely taken place, but that's not unique to American military conduct. The willful king of Dan 11 is vicious and exceedingly boastful. The only way I can see the US fulfilling a role here is to perhaps pave the way as a kind of forerunner, creating an avenue into the middle east either prior to it's collapse or before it's conversion to dictatorial totalitarianism. If the US was the war machine of the caliber that you make it out to be, I doubt we would be nearly as restrained as has been the case (imo) since entering Iraq.

[seanD]

seanD,

I wish I would have joined this discussion earlier to clarify your position on a few things you mentioned. I'm having difficulty interpreting what you're saying, especially in terms of the Antichrist and the 70th week of Daniel. I'm unfamiliar with your position so please do bear with me. Please explain in brief about your views on the 70th week.

Also, in response to the "willful king", I can't say that I'm convinced of the US fitting in to that role. I don't believe we're imperialistic enough nor quite as self-exalted as the king in Daniel 11. I know that corruptions and atrocities have surely taken place, but that's not unique to American military conduct. The willful king of Dan 11 is vicious and exceedingly boastful. The only way I can see the US fulfilling a role here is to perhaps pave the way as a kind of forerunner, creating an avenue into the middle east either prior to it's collapse or before it's conversion to dictatorial totalitarianism. If the US was the war machine of the caliber that you make it out to be, I doubt we would be nearly as restrained as has been the case (imo) since entering Iraq.

It’s complicated because you put a lot of topics in there, but I’ll try and explain it the best way I can. As a futurist, there are a lot of things I’m still not sure of, but the thing I’m probably most sure about (though never 100%) is that the Beast of Revelation is not the same Beast of Daniel, nor is it the “willful king” of Daniel 11:36. The Beast in Rev is not a warmonger other than against the saints, and though the world marvels at its might, it may just have usual powers or capabilities which amazes everyone, and is worshipped by the world, whereas the willful king has many enemies and is warring against nations all the way up to his demise. There is no reason for me to assume they are the same since their descriptions and their roles are vastly different, and I think this is where a lot of confusion lies.

I’m also of the same view concerning the 70th week. The jury for that view is still out for me. There are quite a few views about the 70th week, and this is the case because they are all but theories with very little evidence or scriptural support. The problem for me is that the so-called “7 year Tribulation period” which is solely indicative of one of these theories, cannot be demonstrated anywhere in the NT. Not saying it’s not true, but it’s an unproven theory that I’m not really convinced of, and I realize that this ties into a whole slew of other theories about antichrist and peace covenants with the Jews, which I feel just obfuscates the issue even more. I have no clue who or what the little horn is of Dan 7, but I’m also convinced that the Beast of Dan is not the Beast of Rev. There is no eleventh horn that uproots three of the horns/kings in Rev, the ten horns/kings of Rev are intact and ruling unto the day Christ returns, there are no multiple heads in Dan, and the horns are the focus in Dan where the heads and the Beast itself is the main focus in Rev. I’ve heard some convincing arguments that the Beast of Dan is the Roman empire and the little horn is Vespasian, and though I subscribe to this, I’m still not really sure, but it’s the best explanation I’ve heard thus far. I also believe that futurists are mistakenly associating the descriptions of corporal empires and kings with the supernatural ruler itself (as indicated in Dan 10), which is causing the confusion, trying to associate all these descriptions of kings and empires to the same passages and correlating them to one monolithic human ruler they call “the antichrist,” instead of an actual demonic prince(s) that is perhaps associated with these different characters.

Nonetheless, since I’m about 95% sure the Beast of Rev is not the willful king of Dan 11:36, then I don’t find it hard to make this connection with the US. Now with that said, if you carefully read the OP, it will give you the reasons why I believe the descriptions fit the US, though obviously in a very colorful and ancient pre-modern way. The moral aspect of the US and its history is subjective and not the reason for my belief on this issue. Obviously there has been no other empire, in its global capacity and influence, like the US (or really the western Anglo-American/British empire) since the Roman Empire. But the course the US is heading is extremely self-destructive, much like the Roman Empire, only they didn’t have WMDs to contend with back then. The Constitution is becoming less and less effectual, particularly in regards to our foreign policy (not to mention our monetary policy, but that’s a nuther subject). Obama totally disregarded the Constitution and followed a UN mandate to wage war against Libya, and the “new bill” that I noted in post #33 puts emphasis on this. Read the PNAC manifesto (you can read outlines of it on wiki, though I suggest reading the actual document itself) and how US boasts that its principles and dominance must be established throughout the world, even if this requires military intervention, particularly in the Middle East and Europe. You don’t hear any other country proclaiming this, not even China or Russia. PNAC is much more than just a think tank and is important because we see the US following this blueprint militarily to a tee, regardless of the president and his so-called partisan stance. This is even evident with liberals and progressives who bemoan over this fact and can’t figure out why Obama is carrying on the legacy of the neocons and extending beyond what even Bush did. I believe we have yet to see the full military action that is coming which involves the US, but it has 700 military installations around the world and the biggest global defense budget that is bankrupting the single biggest economic power in the world. This is not unique military conduct? And the US is domineering but in an era of WMDs it’s certainly not stupid, obviously more covert and crafty, and often guises its actions with NATO, which we all know is just a subordinate foreign arm of the US, and they’ve been doing this since the days of Bush Sr. If an individual personally told you that their principles were good for the world and should be something that the world must adopt, and that he had to do anything to achieve this including military intervention, yet he didn’t at all mention God or the Lord anywhere in these plans to you, what would you conclude of this individual?

But of course the jury is still out for me on the US/Daniel correlation, as I continue following the events transpiring in the Middle East.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Sorry for the multiple topics. I'll narrow it to be more in line with the OP and withhold on the others for now.

About PNAC, I think the connections between the military and this organization is very loose, if there is even a connection at all. I looked it up and did just a little reading so I won't say that it was thorough, but it was enough for me to dismiss the connection. I realize that you are connecting their ideas with existing military strategy and not their actual influence on the military, but I still think that it's probably more coincidence than anything. You almost have to want it to be there for it to really exists. The chairman of that organization is the editor of The Weekly Standard, though great in itself, is hardly worthy of influence or representation of what true America really is, at least insofaras the military is concerned.

WW2 would have been the perfect opportunity for the US to assert it's dominance and spread over the globe. I can't think of a better opportunity in history, but that's not what happened. We left Japan and withdrew from Europe, and that was pretty much the end of it. I'm not denying that we had a presence afterward, but we could have done just the opposite and capitalized on the weakened nations and swept over through China and Russia and claim the continents as under American control.

Also, I do understand that we have a very large military budget (that we can't afford). But this is dwarfed by our welfare budget (social security, medicare/medicade), which I doubt is typical of an imperialistic state, but maybe I'm wrong because I'm far from an expert. The last time I checked the budget, which I think was 2009 and 2010, they consumed nearly 50% of the entire budget. The military was something like 20-25%. I have to leave so I gotta stop here :(

[seanD]

Sorry for the multiple topics. I'll narrow it to be more in line with the OP and withhold on the others for now.

About PNAC, I think the connections between the military and this organization is very loose, if there is even a connection at all. I looked it up and did just a little reading so I won't say that it was thorough, but it was enough for me to dismiss the connection. I realize that you are connecting their ideas with existing military strategy and not their actual influence on the military, but I still think that it's probably more coincidence than anything. You almost have to want it to be there for it to really exists. The chairman of that organization is the editor of The Weekly Standard, though great in itself, is hardly worthy of influence or representation of what true America really is, at least insofaras the military is concerned.

WW2 would have been the perfect opportunity for the US to assert it's dominance and spread over the globe. I can't think of a better opportunity in history, but that's not what happened. We left Japan and withdrew from Europe, and that was pretty much the end of it. I'm not denying that we had a presence afterward, but we could have done just the opposite and capitalized on the weakened nations and swept over through China and Russia and claim the continents as under American control.

Also, I do understand that we have a very large military budget (that we can't afford). But this is dwarfed by our welfare budget (social security, medicare/medicade), which I doubt is typical of an imperialistic state, but maybe I'm wrong because I'm far from an expert. The last time I checked the budget, which I think was 2009 and 2010, they consumed nearly 50% of the entire budget. The military was something like 20-25%. I have to leave so I gotta stop here :(

Few people would argue that Obama is not pushing Bush’s foreign agenda because we see these things taking place right before us, and this is well documented. He’s continuing operations in Europe, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in fact increasing the military activity in those regions (a few sources: here, here, here, and here), and now Libya (in spite of public opinion against it), possibly funding terrorist proxies in Iran, and now he’s pushing it further with increased veiled aggression against Sudan, Pakistan, and Syria which we see in the news today. Whether it actually aligns to what is stated in PNAC is a matter of opinion. I think it does, and I think this is a pretty good explanation for the enigma that is Obama’s (the so-called democratic president) foreign policy, the same policy that is one of the chief factors leaving many of his supporters disillusioned in him. I mean I hear this bemoaning from progressive and liberal commentaries and columnists everywhere, at least the ones not still drinking the Obama-Messiah koolaide. But the comparison between his actions and PNAC is just my opinion, and is neither here nor there. The bigger issue is what is actually taking place, something we all can see and judge thusly.

Even though Daniel expresses this character as a willful warmongerer, as a Christian, I still believe that God is ultimately in control. Everything happens in his good timing, so my explanation for the timing of the US is simply that it wasn’t God’s time until now. Though my theory may be wrong for many reasons, I don’t think brining up the timing of the US itself is a good counter against it.

And I’m not really interested in getting into a political debate about the US budget overall. This usually ends up in left/right partisan nonsense. It isn’t relegated to just budget, it’s other factors that I pointed out. Even if the budget of entitlements and other things dwarfs in comparison to defense, this isn’t really relevant since it still remains the biggest defense budget than any other country in the world. So even though our defense budget may only be 20-25% (though I question the accuracy of that figure), our overall debt is $14 trillion. So it’s kind of like arguing whether a wealthy person spends too much on shoe shines because he only spends 0.5% of his salary compared to 10% on limo service. But when you compare his billion dollar salary to the average person, this puts it in a different perspective.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Few people would argue that Obama is not pushing Bush’s foreign agenda because we see these things taking place right before us, and this is well documented. He’s continuing operations in Europe, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in fact increasing the military activity in those regions (a few sources: here, here, here, and here), and now Libya (in spite of public opinion against it), possibly funding terrorist proxies in Iran, and now he’s pushing it further with increased veiled aggression against Sudan, Pakistan, and Syria which we see in the news today. Whether it actually aligns to what is stated in PNAC is a matter of opinion. I think it does, and I think this is a pretty good explanation for the enigma that is Obama’s (the so-called democratic president) foreign policy, the same policy that is one of the chief factors leaving many of his supporters disillusioned in him. I mean I hear this bemoaning from progressive and liberal commentaries and columnists everywhere, at least the ones not still drinking the Obama-Messiah koolaide. But the comparison between his actions and PNAC is just my opinion, and is neither here nor there. The bigger issue is what is actually taking place, something we all can see and judge thusly.

Even though Daniel expresses this character as a willful warmongerer, as a Christian, I still believe that God is ultimately in control. Everything happens in his good timing, so my explanation for the timing of the US is simply that it wasn’t God’s time until now. Though my theory may be wrong for many reasons, I don’t think brining up the timing of the US itself is a good counter against it.

And I’m not really interested in getting into a political debate about the US budget overall. This usually ends up in left/right partisan nonsense. It isn’t relegated to just budget, it’s other factors that I pointed out. Even if the budget of entitlements and other things dwarfs in comparison to defense, this isn’t really relevant since it still remains the biggest defense budget than any other country in the world. So even though our defense budget may only be 20-25% (though I question the accuracy of that figure), our overall debt is $14 trillion. So it’s kind of like arguing whether a wealthy person spends too much on shoe shines because he only spends 0.5% of his salary compared to 10% on limo service. But when you compare his billion dollar salary to the average person, this puts it in a different perspective.

I'd like to think I'm pretty non-partisan when it comes to these issues. The numbers speak for themselves, and it bewilders me that it even becomes a party issue. Each party claims exclusive rights to spend the US to financial oblivion. In this, they are the same.

This will pull up a PDF of the US budget from the '50's up through 2009, with projections in the following years. It's from the Government Printing Office, and you can probably find the same thing from the Congressional Budget Office as well. You may be able to find an updated profile for 2010, but I haven't looked.

To back up what I said earlier and to respond to your doubts, the percentages I gave were relatively accurate. Of a roughly $350 billion ($3.5 trillion) budget for 2009, the defense budget was $656 billion, while it was $677 billion for Social Security alone, and $488 billion for entitlements (primarily Medicaid). (**NOTE, I don't know if it's on that document, but I'm pretty sure actual tax receipts were something like $2.3 trillion for 2009, so relative to actual tax receipts, the spending percentages are obviously much higher) I'm not disputing the fact that the shear number of defense dollars is probably far greater than any other country, but relative to the other sources for which the govt allocates funds, it's completely trumped by spending for the welfare of it's citizens. I'm not interested in whether it's right or wrong to spend so much money on welfare programs, and I don't mean to divert the subject with that observation, I just wanted to make a point about the relative percentages of military spending compared to other forms of spending. I think it is very relevant to note that where the budget actually directs it spending is quite telling of the will and mind of the country overall, and it doesn't seem to be the military if you judge by the raw dollars being cashed out.

So no worries brother, there's no debate here about the budget, but of course we can differ in opinion about our interpretations of what the numbers of the budget actually suggest. If we continue to go back and forth about these matters, I hope you'll find that I'm fairly mature about letting things go partisan, which imo is often semantics anyway (unless it concerns marriage or abortion).

Honestly, I'm not against the US playing a part in biblical prophecy, or even being the main player. As of right now, though, I support the Dan. - Rev. beast/antichrist connection, 70th week/tribulation connection, and the 10 horn/little horn futurist interpretation. But again, I'm not solid on this either, like you, and I'm open to being wrong, especially as events unfold in the mideast while having the US as a key figure.

My view about the US is that it will either completely collapse from irresponsible fiscal policy and diminish its influence to utter insignificance, or it will go the way of pre-WW2 Germany and give way to a powerful dictatorial figure (perhaps THE antichrist) who promises great things amidst our overwhelming depression.

[seanD]

I'd like to think I'm pretty non-partisan when it comes to these issues. The numbers speak for themselves, and it bewilders me that it even becomes a party issue. Each party claims exclusive rights to spend the US to financial oblivion. In this, they are the same.

This will pull up a PDF of the US budget from the '50's up through 2009, with projections in the following years. It's from the Government Printing Office, and you can probably find the same thing from the Congressional Budget Office as well. You may be able to find an updated profile for 2010, but I haven't looked.

To back up what I said earlier and to respond to your doubts, the percentages I gave were relatively accurate. Of a roughly $350 billion ($3.5 trillion) budget for 2009, the defense budget was $656 billion, while it was $677 billion for Social Security alone, and $488 billion for entitlements (primarily Medicaid). (**NOTE, I don't know if it's on that document, but I'm pretty sure actual tax receipts were something like $2.3 trillion for 2009, so relative to actual tax receipts, the spending percentages are obviously much higher) I'm not disputing the fact that the shear number of defense dollars is probably far greater than any other country, but relative to the other sources for which the govt allocates funds, it's completely trumped by spending for the welfare of it's citizens. I'm not interested in whether it's right or wrong to spend so much money on welfare programs, and I don't mean to divert the subject with that observation, I just wanted to make a point about the relative percentages of military spending compared to other forms of spending. I think it is very relevant to note that where the budget actually directs it spending is quite telling of the will and mind of the country overall, and it doesn't seem to be the military if you judge by the raw dollars being cashed out.

So no worries brother, there's no debate here about the budget, but of course we can differ in opinion about our interpretations of what the numbers of the budget actually suggest. If we continue to go back and forth about these matters, I hope you'll find that I'm fairly mature about letting things go partisan, which imo is often semantics anyway (unless it concerns marriage or abortion).

Honestly, I'm not against the US playing a part in biblical prophecy, or even being the main player. As of right now, though, I support the Dan. - Rev. beast/antichrist connection, 70th week/tribulation connection, and the 10 horn/little horn futurist interpretation. But again, I'm not solid on this either, like you, and I'm open to being wrong, especially as events unfold in the mideast while having the US as a key figure.

My view about the US is that it will either completely collapse from irresponsible fiscal policy and diminish its influence to utter insignificance, or it will go the way of pre-WW2 Germany and give way to a powerful dictatorial figure (perhaps THE antichrist) who promises great things amidst our overwhelming depression.

Normally I would let this go if it weren’t so off the point. Comparing what the US allocates to defense within its own budget has no significance relative to what the rest of the world spends on defense. I agree that our entitlements are insanely more costly, which just shows we are an extremely decadent and spoiled empire compared to everyone else, but this doesn’t change the imbalance of defense spending relative to the rest of the world. Our defense is costlier than any other country, and this is where it’s relative, in fact our costs dwarf the GDP of many countries. This fact alone proves that the US has a warmongering mentality, notwithstanding our military activities aboard which is evident of the US and its military outlook (something our forefathers were adamantly against). But even a warmongerer only needs to spend so much where they feel the defense is adequate to support their warmongering activities against other nations and their own defensive capabilities that would pale in comparison. I go back to the billionaire analogy. There’s no sense comparing what a billionaire spends on shoe shines to his own limo costs in order to prove he doesn’t think shoe shines are that important when his monthly shoe shines alone would equal the yearly salary of the average person. And also remember, the US has its toady NATO to off-balance some of that cost.

But I definitely agree with you that both the US and EU are going to collapse economically very soon (the only thing I'm 100% sure of), which will have catastrophic global reverberations. No other empire like these have collapsed or become extremely unstable in an era of WMDs, nor has there ever been an era where the global markets and currencies were so immensely over-leveraged and so integrated and intertwined with each other, and this alone tells me that something cataclysmic is going to happen, has to happen, as a result of this inevitable event. So whether my theory is correct or not, fact is, something big and very tragic is coming down the pike and it will be on a global scale. Though this is a separate issue, this sort of bolsters this theory for me even more.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Sorry, this is probably late. Anyway, I see your points, and I guess we'll know soon enough how this all plays out. Thanks again for another good dialogue.

[seanD]

I thought this was an interesting and coincidental parallel to Daniel 11:43, being that the king's conquest in the countries of Africa directly correlates with the US's current (and very covert) campaign in Africa...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44603201...ors_picks=true

Seeing how things are really heating up in this region between Egypt, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Syria and the whole Palestinian issue will be interesting to see how this develops and if there is a king of South and king of North that manifest themselves.

[MegaHertz]

Doesn't this whole chapter in Daniel apply to the iron.clay empire which is also the 4th beast of Daniel 7? If that applies the it also applies fo some parts of Revelation, namely yje time that is given to the Beast from the Pit and that has a finite time of 42 months (1260) days.

Why couldn't the whole are for the past decade at least just be part of the prophecy given in Matthew 25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 as being the 'wars and rumors of wars', same as all the wars in the 20th Century as being part of that also.

All of Daniel 11 should be able to be aligned with Revelation 6, the 5th and 6th trumps. That means 1/3 of the worlds population should be killed, Killer drones are just a way to keep that American causalities down so public approval from their own citizens doesn't go the way it did for the Vietnam war.

[seanD]

The only theological view I base this on is my belief that the king of Dan 11 is not the Beast of Rev. Other than that I try and separate by theological views on this issue. Though I'm reluctant to subscribe to it 100% for obvious reasons, there are too many coincidences for my taste.

The king of Dan 11 is a warmonger. US has become a warmongering nation. Everyone is noticing this and something that is viewed as being unusual of late and is a very hot political and economic topic, even among those on the right.

The king uses foreign elements to defeat military strongholds. The US uses the UN and Nato and even terrorists factions, such as we see in Libya, to do its dirty work.

The king puts into power political rulers that are friendly to him, something the US has been doing in other countries for decades.

The king seizes the treasures of Libya. The west has seized Gaddafi's banking assets, has taken over much of Libya's oil production, and seized most of Gaddafi's gold assets.

The king engages in military activity in parts of Africa, something the US is doing. He sets up his facilities in the "land between the seas" which I think is Saudi Arabia (the "holy mountain" being Mt. Sinai, which I believe is in Median, Saudi Arabia). The US has set up military facilities in the Saudi Arabian Peninsula as that article in my previous post indicates.

In fact, the only puzzle piece missing is who the king of the South and king of the North are. I think the way things are building up in that region, we're about to find out.

I could be wrong, but there are too many coincidences so far to convince me of any other alternative theological interpretation.

[MegaHertz]

Have you considered that the kings of the north and south are acting together 'behind the scenes' to come up with a common agenda, control of Jerusalem.
Da.11:26
Yea,
they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him,
and his army shall overflow:
and many shall fall down slain.
Da.11:27
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.

Who would you 'identify' as the kings daughter? Taking Revelation into account it would be Satan's harlot.

Da.11:6:
And in the end of years they shall join themselves together;
for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement:
but she shall not retain the power of the arm;
neither shall he stand,
nor his arm:
but she shall be given up,
and they that brought her,
and he that begat her,
and he that strengthened her in these times.
Da.11:7
But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate,
which shall come with an army,
and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north,
and shall deal against them,
and shall prevail:

Re.17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness:
and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast,
full of names of blasphemy,
having seven heads and ten horns.
Re.17:4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,
and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,
having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Re.17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written,
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Re.17:6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints,
and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus:
and when I saw her,
I wondered with great admiration.

Re.17:12
And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings,
which have received no kingdom as yet;
but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Re.17:13
These have one mind,
and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Re.17:15
And he saith unto me,
The waters which thou sawest,
where the whore sitteth,
are peoples,
and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Re.17:16
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast,
these shall hate the whore,
and shall make her desolate and naked,
and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

If Daniel 11 is tied to Revelation it will be entailed in just the 5th and 6th trumps and the preceding 4 have a time-span of just 3 1/2 days (call it 4 if you like) which would be enough to have most of the world come under Marshall Law and the 10 Kingdoms would be a back-room take-over as it happens in just one hour. Further there should be some sort of change at the 5 month mark and the 37 months after that would be when 2 billion people are killed by the 200M angelic horsemen. Rev.13 should also be able to be applied to that scenario with the 5 months being when the '2nd' beast appears in which Re.13:11. That point should also tie in with some verses from Daniel 7, namely the one below but anything to do with the 4th beast would be applicable to the time the 5th and 6th trumps take up, a full 3 1/2 years.

Da.7:8: I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Da:7:20
And of the ten horns that were in his head,
and of the other which came up,
and before whom three fell;
even of that horn that had eyes,
and a mouth that spake very great things,
whose look was more stout than his fellows.
Da.7:21
I beheld,
and the same horn made war with the saints,
and prevailed against them;

The last verse above should be linked to the deaths of the two witnesses in Re.11, 3 1/2 days later that is reversed when the 7th trump sounds. The 1/2 day mark would be considered to be sunrise as the Bible says a new day starts at dusk. In that single day all 7 vials are poured out and the resurrection that is going to happen is also complete by the time evening falls on that same day. If you want a 'sot of confirmation', Re.9 is the 5th and 6th trumps and Re.10 is how the righteous see that next day unfold, the unrighteous see that day unfold as detailed in Re.16, that plague of the 7 vials.

I still haven't got it all down pat yet but it certainly seem like a better option than some of the things being promoted for Da.11, especially the ones that demand a time jump from before Rome has control all the way up to the actual return of Jesus so the first few verses in Da.12 can unfold on the heels of the last verse in Da.11. Anyway if you are into doing some reading the above might/might not seem plausible after reading it as I didn'tr cover every single verse so some details are not in this post.

Later

[seanD]

Mega, the problem is you're putting too much theological interpretation into it beforehand than I want to. It's a simple theory I put fourth in comparison to some of things that have already happened. Now I'm just letting it happen and seeing where it goes on the world scene, and then seeing how it compares as world events transpire. I could be wrong, but so far so good.