I have been away from the forum for a while, I beg the pardon of any who were interested.
I mentioned this in passing, but did not develop it.
In Daniel 11 we have a long and detailed account of a series of wars between "the king of the North" and "the king of the South." Although some have questioned a complete fulfilment of a few of the details in this account, most students agree that the first 27 verses of this account exactly describe a series of ancient wars that took place between the Selucids (who reigned out of Antioch in Syria) and the Ptolemies (who reigned out of Alexandria in Egypt.)
But the thirty-fifth verse of this chapter describes a situation that will last "until the time of the end." (NKJV) The account then continues, but none of the events after these words have happened. Many commentators, myself included, have therefore contended that these words divide this prophecy into an "already fulfilled" part and an "unfulfilled" and therefore "end times" part.
For some reason I cannot comprehend (except that their system of interpretation requires it) many also claim that at this point "the king of the North" changes from the Selucid ruler to the Russian one. Why would the Holy Spirit devote such a large passage to identifying "the king of the North," only to have that identification change as soon as we come to the future application of the prophecy? This, in my opinion, defies reason. In every case where "the king of the North" can be clearly identified, he is the current king of the Selucid empire. How can the significance of this be wasted on so many?
If you look up a map of the ancient Selucid empire and compare it with a map of the previous Assyrian empire, you will quickly see that these two empires covered essentially the same areas. (I tried to post a map from my book, showing one superimposed on the other, but I have not yet figured out how to do this.) There are a few differences in these empires at the edges, but these areas were sparsely populated.
This, I contend, is evidence that "the king of the North" in Daniel 7 is the same future individual as "the Assyrian" in the prophecies I have already discussed.
Micah 5:5a and Isaiah 30:31 could refer to Jesus'
future defeat of the Antichrist at the second coming,
when the Antichrist makes a final attack on Jerusalem
(Zechariah 14:2-4). Micah 5:5b-6 could be the same as
Zechariah 14:14, 12:6-9.
Isaiah 10:5-34 and Isaiah 14:25 could refer to
Sennacherib (Isaiah chapters 36-37). Isaiah 10:10-11
doesn't say that the attack of Judah and Jerusalem had
already occurred. The prophesied boasting in Isaiah
10:9-11 was fulfilled by Sennacherib in Isaiah 36:19-20.
Isaiah 10:12,20 could have been fulfilled in Isaiah
37:31-38. Isaiah 10:12 could simply mean the whole
work with regard to Sennacherib's invasion. Isaiah
10:20 could simply refer to the Jews alive right
after Sennacherib's defeat. Isaiah 10:25 could simply
mean the indignation with regard to Sennacherib's
invasion. 2 Kings 18:5-6 is referring only to Hezekiah,
not to the general population of Judah, which could
have been hypocritical. 2 Chronicles 30:12 was a single
instance of keeping the Passover in the first year of
Hezekiah's reign (2 Chronicles chapters 29-30).
Sennacherib didn't invade until 14 years later (Isaiah
36:1), ample time for the general population of Judah
to have backslidden into hypocrisy.
There's no historical proof that Isaiah 10:28-32
couldn't have been fulfilled by Sennacherib, for he
could have led an expeditionary force down the ridge
while the bulk of his army proceeded down the coast.
The towns on the ridge could have been considered too
insignificant to list on any monument, and the rapid
movement of Sennacherib's forces down the ridge need
not have left any archaeological record. Sennacherib
could have wanted to spy out Jerusalem for himself to
see what it would take to lay siege to it. Then he
could have simply shaken his fist at it (Isaiah 10:32)
before returning to the bulk of his forces along the
coast.
Later, while he was besieging Lachish, he could have
started to worry about his planned siege of Jerusalem,
thinking that it could take years. 2 Kings 18:17-37,
2 Chronicles 32:9-19, and Isaiah 36:2-22 refer to him
sending some forces to Jerusalem to try to simply scare
it into submission with words.
Isaiah 31:8-9 could refer to Sennacherib (Isaiah
37:36-37). The Hebrew word translated as "discomfited"
in Isaiah 31:8 can simply mean faint; it doesn't have
to mean placed into slavery. Regarding Isaiah 31:6-7,
nothing requires that the general population of the
Jews hadn't made personal idols by the time of
Sennacherib's invasion.
---
Isaiah 14:29-31 could refer to the ancient Philistines
around the time of Ahaz (Isaiah 14:28). They could have
been smitten by Tilgathpilneser (cf. 2 Chronicles
28:18-21), and then later by Sennacherib.
Isaiah 7:17-20 could also refer to the time of Ahaz
(Isaiah 7:12), when Judah was invaded by both
the Philistines and Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles
28:18-21). The "rivers of Egypt" (Isaiah 7:18) could
mean the wadis near and at the border between the land
of the Philistines and Egypt, for "the river of Egypt"
was a wadi at the southern border of the land of the
Philistines (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4,47).
---
Daniel 11:31 isn't fulfilled yet (Matthew 24:15), and
it's just part of an entire sequence related to the
same person (Daniel 11:21-45), who will be the
Antichrist, "the little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 8:9); he
could be an Arab who will come out of Tyre, Lebanon
(Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4). So there
could be a king of the north (possibly an Iraqi
General in 2010) who will defeat Israel and Egypt
(Daniel 11:15-16), but then disappear from the scene
(Daniel 11:19), shortly before the Antichrist is first
given some power (Daniel 11:21).
---
Nahum could refer to the destruction of ancient Ninevah.
Nahum 1:9 could mean that God would make an utter end of
ancient Ninevah, and wouldn't have to afflict it more
than once. Nahum 1:12-13 could mean that God would not
afflict Israel with Ninevah any more. Mosul is located
across the river from the site of ancient Ninevah.
In Micah 5:5, the Assyrian could refer to the
Antichrist, who will be defeated by Jesus at the
second coming (Isaiah 30:30-32) when the Antichrist
makes a final attack on Jerusalem right before the
second coming (Zechariah 14:2-4). The subsequent
successful fighting by the Jews in Zechariah 14:14
(cf. Zechariah 12:6-8) could be what Micah 5:5b-6 is
referring to.
In Isaiah 14:25 and Isaiah 10:24-32, the Assyrian
could be Sennacherib (cf. Isaiah 37:36-37). There is
no historical proof that Sennacherib didn't fulfill
Isaiah 10:28-32. His main army could have gone down
the coast while he led an expeditionary force quickly
down the ridge (leaving no archaeological markers) to
check out the approaches to Jerusalem and get a sense
of the best way to lay siege to it. Then he could have
shaken his fist at Jerusalem (Isaiah 10:32) and
rejoined his army along the coast. Later, while he was
besieging Lachish, he could have worried how long it
would take to besiege Jerusalem, and so sent some of
his forces to try to scare-talk Jerusalem into
surrender (2 Kings 18:17-37) so he wouldn't have to
actually return and lay siege to it. Note the
similarity of the actual boasting in 2 Kings 18:34-35
and that prophesied in Isaiah 10:9-11.
Isaiah 10:5-6 could have been fulfilled by Sennacherib
(Isaiah 36:1). 2 Kings 18:5-6 doesn't say that the
masses of Israel weren't hypocritical. 2 Chronicles
30:12 refers only to them keeping a single Passover
in the first year of Hezekiah's reign, not to how they
were generally after that. 2 Kings 18:13 didn't happen
until fourteen years later; they could have fallen into
gross hypocrisy by that time.
Isaiah 10:12,20-21 could have been fulfilled in
Isaiah 37:31-38.
Isaiah 7:17-25 is addressed to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:12), and
so the king of Assyria in Isaiah 7:17 could refer to
Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles 28:19-21, cf. 1 Chronicles
5:6). The "rivers of Egypt" (Isaiah 7:18) could mean
small rivers near the southern end of Philistia and
its border with Egypt, for the "river of Egypt" was a
small river at the southern border of Israel in the
land of the Philistines (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4,47).
So Isaiah 7:18 could refer to the invasion of Judah by
both the Philistines and Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles
28:18-21).
Isaiah 14:28-29 could refer to Palestina (the ancient
Philistines) possibly being smitten by Tilgathpilneser
king of Assyria in the time of Ahaz (2 Chronicles
28:18-21). Palestina could then have been smitten again
later by a subsequent king of Assyria, such as
Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13),
the son of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:1).
Daniel 11:31,36 (cf. 2 Thessalonian 2:4) has yet to
be fulfilled, per Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:15.
And Daniel 11:21-45 is all referring to the same
individual, the Antichrist. A defeat of Israel (and
Egypt) happens in Daniel 11:15-16, shortly before the
Antichrist arises in Daniel 11:21. This defeat of
Israel (and Egypt) could come in 2010 at the hands of
a huge Iraqi Army, built up by the U.S. to invade Iran
instead. Shortly after the leader of the Iraqi Army
disappears from the scene (Daniel 11:19), the
Antichrist (who could be an Arab) could arise as "the
little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 8:9) out of Tyre, Lebanon
(Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and be given
control of a three-nation Arab Baathist confederation
of Iraq, Syria (including "Palestine", i.e. a defeated
Israel) and Egypt, which had been put together by the
Iraqi Army leader, who could have been a Baathist (in
Daniel 11:17, the Hebrew word translated as "daughter"
is "bath").
It's neither unprofitable nor vain for believers to
propose and consider different scenarios that "could"
fulfill an eschatological prophecy, so long as these
scenarios are continually tested against what the
scriptures themselves say. For we don't want to get
locked into our own little theories too tightly in
case they're wrong; we should always be prepared to
see other scenarios occur which will fulfill the
scriptures.
Regarding the scenarios which have been proposed about
what might have happened in ancient times to fulfill
some prophecies made in ancient times, not a scrap of
evidence has been presented which proves them to be
nonsense.
Greetings. How does one concentrate on stated prophecies without interpreting them and making sure translations are accurate first? Just curiousI am firmly of the opinion that the vast difference between various schools of interpretation comes out of a very basic error. We are all trying to interpret hard places in scripture without first learning the simple parts in regard to the same subjects.
Much of Bible prophecy is stated in terms that can be interpreted in various ways. ..........
........................If we leave the arena of interpretation for a while and concentrate on expressly stated prophecies, we can learn much that will later guide us into realistic interpretations of the more difficult parts.
Greetings. How does one concentrate on stated prophecies without interpreting them and making sure translations are accurate first? Just curious
Luke 21:28 Beginning yet to-be-becoming/ginesqai <1096> (5738) these-things, up-bend!, and lift up! the heads of ye, thru-that is nearing the Loosing/apo-lutrwsiV <629> of ye [Daniel 12/Reve 16/19]
Reve 21:6 And He said to me: "it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). [Reve 16:17]
I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I, to the one thirsting, shall be giving out of the spring of the water of the life gratuitously.
The same unfulfilled prophetic scripture could be
fulfilled in any one of various ways, so we need to
remain open to seeing any one of various possible
fulfillments. It's in no way unprofitable or vain to
explore these, and so become prepared no matter which
one actually happens.
---
No evidence has ever been presented which proves
that Sennacherib couldn't have fulfilled Isaiah
10:28-32 with an expeditionary force as part of his
invasion of Judah in Isaiah chapters 36-37, which
invasion was right in line with what was prophesied in
Isaiah 10:5-34.
For example, the boasting of Isaiah
36:19-20 was clearly the fulfillment of the boasting
prophesied in Isaiah 10:9-11, and the miraculous defeat
of Sennacherib by God himself in Isaiah 37:36-37 was
clearly the fulfillment of the miraculous defeat
prophesied in Isaiah 10:16-19.
---
No one has claimed that all other references to "the
Assyrian" in prophetic scripture refer to Sennacherib,
nor have any of the other such references been ignored.
For example, it was stated that some of them could
refer to the coming Antichrist. It hasn't been shown
that anything which has been stated contradicts
anything which the scriptures themselves actually say.
We mustn't ever confuse our own personal, longtime
view of what some prophetic scriptures could mean,
with what the scriptures themselves actually say, for
what the scriptures themselves actually say could be
fulfilled in a way different than what we've come up
with in our own little pet theory.