Thursday, June 16, 2016

Daniel's End-Time Vision


Daniel refers to the vision of Daniel 10:1-6 as the "great vision" (10:8). The account of the vision and the angel's interpretation of the vision extend from 10:1 into the 12th chapter of the book of Daniel.

The "certain man" of the "great vision" is revealed in the Angel's interpretation to be the "vile person" (11:21), who dominates in the Tribulation period.

The fact that the vision refers to the future period of Tribulation is indicated by Daniel 10:1 ("the time appointed was long"); the Angel's words in Daniel 10:14 ("Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days;" and in Daniel 12:1:

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."

This corresponds to Jeremiah 30:7, "the time of Jacob's trouble," the Tribulation period.

Bob L. Ross

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

"Gold of Uphaz" & Antichrist


Daniel 10:5 --

"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:"

If this "certain man" of Daniel's vision in 10:5, 6 is a representation of the Antichrist, as indicated in the Angel Gabriet's interpretation in 11:21-45, the reference to the "gold of Uphaz" apparently indicates where the Antichrist will come from, which would be the Middle East.

There is only one other Scripture about "Uphaz," namely, Jeremiah 10:8, 9 where the "gold from Uphaz" is associated with idol worship. Jeremiah was in Babylonian captivity and he writes about this idolatry in chapter 10. This places the "gold from Uphaz" in the Middle East which at that time was under Babylonian rule.

This "gold of Uphaz" symbol indicates that the
"certain man" (Antichrist) will come from the Middle

For more of my articles on prophecy, go to Calvinist Flyswatter blog.

Bob L. Ross
(713) 477-2329

Note: The "beryl" in Daniel 10:5, 6 is associated with SATAN in Ezekie 28:13. 

Monday, February 01, 2016

The False Prophet = The Strange god

THE "STRANGE god" OF DANIEL 11:38, 39?

Daniel 11:38-39 King James Version:
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

I put the word "god" in small letters in the headline so as to distinguish it from being any reference to the true God.

I understand that this "strange god" apparently is the very same person as "The False Prophet" of Revelation 13, 16:13, 19:20, and 20:10, and will be fulfilled in due course of time by the Pope.

The words "strange god" in Daniel 11:39 can be translated as "alien deity," or "foreign deity," or "foreign god."

The "god" in Daniel 11:38, 39 is obviously a person who simply makes a pretense of deity in some sense; or, he is held in high esteem by some who lay claim to his being a person of a very spiritually superior significance; or, he is supposedly a "vicar" or substitute for God on earth who speaks "as if" he vicariously utters the infallible "Word of God" -- that is, "Ex Cathedra." Such attributes are consistent with what is claimed for the Papacy of Rome.

This "strange god" (or "foreign deity") joins up (Daniel 11:38, 39) with the "Vile person" (11:21) who is the Antichrist, for their mutual advantage. The Antichrist is served in his pernicious scheme by the influence of the "strange god" and the latter is glorified, embellished, and enriched by the Antichrist.

This "strange god" of Daniel 11:39 appears to be the same person who is revealed in Revelation 13:11-18. He is later identified by the label of "The False Prophet" in Revelation:

Rev 16:13 (KJV) "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet."

Rev 19:20 (KJV) "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Rev 20:10 (KJV) "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

The False Prophet of Revelation joins up with the Beast (Antichrist) to assist him in his purposes. With wide influence, he causes millions to take the 666 "mark of the beast." Who could possibly have more influence in this regard than the Pope?

Revelation refers to this man as a "lamb with two horns" ( Rev. 13:11). The Pope is supposedly the vicar of Christ, the Lamb of God, and he has two horns or kingdoms--the spiritual and the secular, or church and state. (The Bull of Boniface VIII, Schaff. Vol. 2, page 606, 607),

So it appears that BOTH Daniel and Revelation reveal BOTH the Antichrist (Beast) and the False Prophet (strange god) and their uniting together. 
And inasmuch as we understand Daniel to prophesy that the Antichrist will originate in the Middle East, you might find the following meeting of some interest.

Bob L. Ross

(713) 477-2329

Friday, January 15, 2016

Arab History in Daniel?


Daniel 10:14, 21:
Gabriel speaking to Daniel about the vision of the "certain man" (the Antichrist):

14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days. . . .
21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Chapter 23 of my 1993 book, Not One Stone, is entitled, "Arab History in the Book of Daniel?" and I contended that it is. I still hold the same interpretation.

In Chapter 11 of Daniel, the angel Gabriel, who is giving this prophecy to Daniel as an understanding of the vision in Chapter 10, is obviously giving a summary of future history. This corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue, recorded in Daniel 2, from the time of Babylon to the end-time.

By the time of Chapter 11, Babylon had already been conquered by Medo-Persia (see Daniel 5:30), so the angel Gabriel begins in 11:1-4 with Medo-Persia which is followed by Greece.

After Greece, the angel goes to "the king of the south" (11:5) followed by "the king of the north" (11:6).

The "south" and the "north" are not identified by name in the text. One of the most prevalent theories imposed upon the passage in "study Bibles" and commentaries is that the south refers to the Ptolemies of Egypt and the north refers to the Seleucids of Assyria (332 - 168 BC). There is no scripture for this.
This theory originated during the years of pre-Christian history between Malachi and the New Testament. It first appears in the Maccabees' writings in the uninspired Apocrypha, and it alleges that the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanies, fulfilled Daniel 11:21 onward.
Of course, I differ with this theory, as I understand 11:5-45 applies to the divided Arab empire from the 7th century onward.
In my studies of Arab history, Arab ancestry goes back to Abraham and Haggar in the book of Genesis, chapter 16. The offspring of the "mix" of Abraham, a Chaldean, and the Egyptian handmaid, Haggar, was ISHMAEL He is the father of the Arabs and is described as a "wild man" whose "hand will be against every man" (Genesis 16:12).
Ishmael also took an Egyptian wife (Genesis 21:21). He fathered twelve sons which dwelt in Havilah and Shur (Genesis 25:13-18). Havilah is the original name of the desert later to be called Arabia, and Shur is in the Sinai peninsula. Jeremiah 25:24 refers to the "kings of Arabia," and the "kings of the mingled [arab] people that dwell in the desert." The word for "mingled" is "Arab" in the original language (See Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, #6151).
The Ismaelites dwelt in Arabia until after the death of Muhammad who managed to make them Muslims. After his death, the Muslims invaded countries in the Middle East, conquering other people, and appropriating women for multiple wives to "mingle [arab] with the seed of men" (Daniel 2:43).
However, soon after Muhammad's death they split up into two major groups -- northern and southern -- over the issue of who is qualified to be the head man, the "Caliph." They have been warring over this ever since the 7th century. The factions became known as Sunni and Shia. I understand this division to be what is prophesied in Daniel 11 as to the north and south, corresponding to the "two legs" of the statue in chapter 2.
Eventually, out of this division comes the "vile person" (11:21) who is the "Little Horn" (Antichrist), the Beast of Revelation 13.
-- Bob L. Ross
(713) 477-2329

Monday, January 11, 2016

Prophecy Theories Die Hard

I stumbled upon a web site recently which apparently is extremely devoted to a particular "die hard" view of end-time Bible prophecy. The writer seems to be concerned about a growing understanding on the part of some others who hold that the Antichrist will come from the Middle East rather than the more popular modern theory that he will come out of Europe.
Among other things, the writer alleges that the view about the Antichrist's Middle East origin is due to the influence of recent happenings in that part of the world.

While that perhaps could be the case with some, my own understanding of Antichrist's Middle East origin dates back to the early 1980's and was set forth in my little book on "The Little Horn of the Book of Daniel" (pages 72,73,89 etc.)
The very fact that even some Middle East nations are specifically mentioned by name as being conquered by the Antichrist is indicative of his center of operation (See Daniel 11:42, 43 where Egypt, Lybia, and Ethiopia are specified).
Three other Middle East nations are said to "escape out of his hand" (Daniel 11:41, Moab, Edom, and Ammon, which are now Jordan).
Daniel chapter 11:21-45 reveals that he will conquer "many countries" in the Middle East area, but he will also have considerable opposition (Daniel 11:32-35).
While the "European" theory has been made popular by several modern "prophecy teachers," books such as "Left Behind," and "study Bibles," it is significant that not a single European nation is mentioned by name in the book of Daniel. The Scriptures in Daniel focus on the Antichrist's activity in the Middle East if we must judge by what nations are mentioned by name.
One has to have a very expansive imagination to come up with a European Antichrist in the book of Daniel.
--Bob L. Ross
(713) 477-2329

Thursday, January 07, 2016

Sunni and Shia Muslims -- the difference


Daniel 11:5-6 -- King James Version (KJV):
5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.
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.

The news reports about the Middle East often use the terms "Sunni" and "Shia" (or "Shiite") in regard to the conflicting differences between Muslim nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, the reports seldom if ever define the differences. I have asked several people if they know the difference, and they don't know.

The basic difference dates from the 7th century A. D., after the death of Muhammed in 632, and it relates to qualifications for being the "caliph" (ruler) of the empire.

The Shia say the chief ruler musts be in the genealogical bloodline of Muhammad. The Sunni say that it is not necessary to be a bloodline descendant of Muhammed to be the supreme ruler.

The following link is to a web site where the difference is explained:

The Independent

My understanding of Daniel 11:5, 6 is that this difference between the Muslims was involved in the civil war conflict between Muhammed's widow, Aishah, the daughter of Abu Baker the first caliph, and Muhammed's cousin and son-in-law, Ali, who was married to Fatimah. These two went to war over their differences, which I understand to be referred to in Daniel 11:5, 6. Their conflict is known as "The Battle of the Camel."

I understand Abu Bakr to be the man who is called the "king of the south," Aishah to be the "king's daughter of the south," and Ali to be the "king of the north" in Daniel 11:6.

I do not understand this passage to refer to the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Assyria, as is often taught by writers, commentaries on Daniel, and notes in "study Bibles." This imposition on Daniel 11 apparently originated with Jewish sources which hold that Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in pre-New Testament times.

However, the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on Daniel discloses a dozen or more historical inaccuries in the Ptolemies/Seleucids theory on Daniel 11. I have one book which was written to present this theory, and the author, Walter K. Price, acknowledges he is "following the chronology" taught by a Jewish writer, Solomon Zeitlin (In the Final Days by Walter K. Price, page 114).

-- Bob L. Ross
(713) 477-2329

Monday, January 04, 2016

A "certain man" in Daniel 10:5


Daniel 10:5, 6 --
"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:
"His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude."
I must warn you right up front that my understanding of this vision of Daniel chapter 10 differs extremely from what is often taught by others who comment on the vision. For instance, the following are just a few of the notables who teach that the vision depicts Christ:
Clarence Larkin: "Lord of Glory" (Commentary on Daniel, page 220.
John Gill: "Son of God" (Commentary)
John MacArthur: "He is described almost identically to Christ (Rev. 1:13, 14)" (MacArthur Study Bible, page 1245).

Scofield Reference Bible: "The vision of the glory of God" (Daniel 10, chapter heading.
Could you believe these notable men and others who hold this interpretation are mistaken and that the "certain man" vision actually depicts the ANTICHRIST?
I do believe for certain that they are wrong.
In the early 1980's when I began to study Daniel as never before, I noticed that so many writers were simply "going along" with previous sources, just repeating the same ideas. You could almost wrap up all the comments on Daniel 10 in one package and toss it aside, they were so similar in interpretation.
I could never accept the foregoing interpretation, and I became certain that the "certain man" vision represented the Antichrist. And here is why:
1. All of the symbols adorning and embellishing the "certain man" are impressive, but they fall far short of the superior symbols pertaining to Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:13-16.
In my "Little Horn" book in chapter 7 I discuss the contrasting symbolism item-by-item. I urge you to do the same, and I think you will see that the symbolisms are not "almost identically." The symbols associated with Christ are far superior to those of the "certain man."
The "gold of UPHAZ" is associated with idolatry in
Jeremiah 10:3-9

The "beryl" is associated with Satan in Ezekiel 28:13.

The face of the "certain man" was "as the appearance of lightning" (10:6), whereas the countenance of Christ was "as the sun shineth in its strength" (Rev. 1:16). You can look at lightning all day and all night, but you can't look at the sun but for an instant!

The eyes of the certain man "as lamps" but not equal to the eyes of Christ which are "as a flame of fire" (Rev. l:14).
His arms and feet "like in colour to polished brass" -- which does not match the superior symbolism of Christ's feet which were as "fine brass as if they burned in a furnace" (1:15).
The voice of a "multitude" is not comparative to Christ's voice as the "sound of many waters" such as an ocean (1:15).
2. The effect on Daniel was a degenerating effect -- See 10:8. He was corrupted.
3. The angel Gabriel, who was sent to interpret the vision, goes on to do so in chapter 11 (Daniel 10:14, 21; 11:1-45). After the historical summary presented in 11:1-20, from 11:21 thru 11:45 Gabriel describes the "vile person" who becomes the wilful "king" (11:36), the end-time Antichrist.
4. This same person depicted by the "certain man" in Daniel 10:5 is the same certain man who is responsible for the "abomination of desolation" in Daniel 11:31 -- the future Antichrist (Matthew 24:15).5.
The angel Gabriel's interpretation tales the interpretation of the "certain man" to the end-time events just prior to the return of Jesus Christ (11:15-12:1).
-- Bob L. Ross
(713) 477-2329
Read my previous articles on prophecy at

Saturday, January 02, 2016

Daniel: already fulfilled?


C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892), of unforgettable stature in Christian history, referred to a commentary on the book of Daniel as setting forth the "absurd hypothesis" that all of Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in the period between the Old and New Testament -- that is, the years between Malachi and Matthew (See Spurgeon's Commenting and Commentaries, page 126, review #770).
A good friend and customer, a former missionary to Honduras, was in my book store recently, and I raised the question of his views on the prophecies in Daniel.
"They have all been fulfilled," he said, and indicated they were fulfilled before the coming of Christ.

I then asked, in as gentle a manner as I could muster, "If they have all been fulfilled before Christ, what did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:15 when He referred to the 'abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,' as being yet in the future?"

He instantly replied, "I have got to go," and immediately left the store.

The theory that Daniel's "abomination of desolation" had a pre-New Testament fulfillment by Antiochus Epiphanes is a Jewish idea first alleged in the Jewish book of First Maccabees 1:54, which appears in the Apocrypha. Later,the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, bought into this alleged past fulfillment, and the idea has since gained a place in many subsequent sources. No one knows what the "abomination of desolation" is, and it is not defined in the Scriptures. Certainly, Josephus, a Pharisee priest, did not know.

Also, Josephus apparently is the "father" of the idea that Daniel also prophesied of Rome's destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Quite a number of sources have passed this idea along, but these ideas about Daniel's prophecies cannot be substantiated by Scripture or history.

 Although we find these alleged fulfillments often accepted and perpetuated in commentaries and notes in so-called "study Bibles," there is nothing in Daniel about Antiochus Epiphanes, Rome, or A. D. 70; Daniel's prophecies are about the end-time.

 -- Bob L. Ross
(713) 477--2329 

Thursday, December 31, 2015


"THE DESIRE OF WOMEN"? --12/31/15

In my small 1983 book on the "Little Horn of the Book of Daniel," I set forth an interpretation of a phrase in Daniel 11:37 which I later came to regard as a misinterpretation (pages 111, 112).

The verse in Daniel 11:37 refers to the "Vile Person" (Antichrist) of 11:21 as having "no regard for the desire of women" (11:37), and I interpreted this as meaning that the Antichrist would be "homosexual." I no longer believe this is the proper meaning of "the desire of women."

Rather, I understand the phrase to refer to "what women desire." The verse specifies the desire "OF" women, not the desire "FOR" women.

The Biblical definition of the "desire" OF women is set forth in Genesis 3:16: The woman's "desire shall be to her husband," meaning that Biblical women desire a one-on-one MONOGAMOUS married relationship, not a marriage involving multiple wives or multiple husbands.

Polygamy (multiple wives) is practiced by Muslims. Polygamy eliminates Monogamy. A Polygamist has "no regard for the desire of women" for the Monogamous marriage relationship as taught in Genesis 3:16.

This appears to be another characteristic of the Antichrist -- that is, he has no regard for monogamous marriage. This does not prove he is a Muslim, but it is consistent with what Muslims practice.

 -- Bob L. Ross

(713) 477-2329

Monday, December 28, 2015



My eyesight continues to decline. While I have enough vision to use the computer, I want to pass along some of the descriptions in the book of Daniel in regard to the "Little Horn" [Antichrist].

There are several characteristics about the end-time Antichrist revealed in Daniel:
1. He "peaceably" obtains power in the northern area of the Middle East (Daniel 8:9; 11:25, 40).
2. He conquers "many countries" in the Middle East, some specified by name: Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia (Daniel 11:41-43; 7:24)

3. He hates the Jews and will attack and subjugate Israel (Daniel 8:11, 12; 9:27; 10:14; 11:28, 31). He even builds his "palace" in Jerusalem (11:45).
4. He employs coded language ["dark sentences," 8:23], i.e. encryption.

5. He "thinks to change times and laws" (7:25). Does this refer to the Muslim calendar and Sharia law?
6. He professes "peace" but uses forces to advance his cause (11:38).
7. He comes up from among the "ten horns" of the fourth beast which has "iron teeth" (7:7) representing the use of the sword to devour, corresponding to Muslim history in the Middle East from the seventh century on to the present time.

8. He "forecasts" his "devices," which corresponds to what is practiced by the Middle East terrorists of our time.

9. He is said to "destroy wonderfully" but "not by his own power" (8:24). Could this refer to the type of terrorist methods and weapons we have witnessed in our time?

10. He is not an idolater, for he has no regard for "any god" (idol; Daniel 11:37). This is consistent with the view that he is a Muslim.

11. He has no regard for what women desire: "no regard for the desire of women," or what women desire (Daniel; 11:37). The "desire" of women is stated in Genesis 3:16: "Her desire shall be to her husband," which simply means a monogamus marriage. The practice of polygamy (many wives) destroys monogamy (one wife, one husband). A Muslim polygamist has no regard for the desire of women to have a one woman one husband marriage.
12. He will "stand up against the Prince of princes" (8:25), which I understand to refer to the leading ruler or the most notable ruler among the rulers.

These are some but not all of the descriptions in Daniel that have to do with the Antichrist. If you wish to comment, call me at --

(713) 477-2329
-- Bob L. Ross

Sunday, December 27, 2015

My View about Antichrist:


Many on my email list will remember my understanding of prophecies in the book of Daniel:

My understanding is that the "Little Horn" in Daniel's visions (Daniel chapter 7:8, 24, 25; chapter 8:9, 23-25) is also called the "certain man" in another later vision (Daniel chapter 10:5, 6). He is an imposter, as the symbols identified with him are inferior to the symbols identified with Christ in Revelation 1:13-16.

This "certain man," is described by Gabriel in his interpretation of the vision as the "vile person" whose end-time destructive career is prophesied by the Angel in Daniel 11:21-45.

I understand that he is the future Antichrist or "Beast" of Revelation 13. His origin is in the Middle East, not in Europe, the United States, Russia, or elsewhere.

In 1983, I published a small book on the "Little Horn of the Book of Daniel" in which I said the following:

"His central power will be in he Middle East, not in the western Gentile kingdoms, as is so often advocated. The theory of a "restored Roman Empire," composed of European Common Market nations, has no foundation in Scripture." (page 89).

I repeated this same understanding of Daniel's visions in a later book, NOT ONE STONE, in 1993 (pages 1, 71-73), and I continue to maintain this understating of Daniel's prophetic visions.

I contend that there are several misleading ideas in a number of "study Bibles," commentaries, radio and television programs, and other sources dealing with the Book of Daniel. For instance --

The Scofield idea that the "Little Horn" of Daniel 8 is not the same as the "Little Horn" of Daniel 7, but rather refers to Antiochus Epiphanies in pre-Christian history. This theory originated with the Jews during the Old Testament period between Malachi and Matthew (See First Maccabees 1:54 in the Apocrypha). I don't find Antiochus anywhere in Daniel.

A similar idea is that the "king of the south" and the "king of the north" in Daniel 11 refer to the Ptolemies and Seleucids of Egypt and Assyria. I understand these verses to apply to the southern Arabs (Sunni) and northern Arabs (Shia) from the 7th century onward to the coming of the "vile person" in 11:21to 45

Another popular theory is that the "ten toes" of Daniel 2:43 which are "divided" and "shall not cleave one to another" are an end-time "restored Holy Roman Empire."

I understand the "ten toes" of Daniel 2:43 to represent divided Arab nations in the end-time. The word "mingle" in Daniel 2:43 is the word "Arab" (See Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, #6151). Rome is never mentioned anywhere in Daniel.

What is currently taking place in the Middle East appears to be very similar to what we read in Daniel about the "Little Horn" and his characteristics and end-time career.

Is Bible prophecy coming to pass? Of course, I do not know. My "standard" answer about the end-time is that "We are closer to the end than we were yesterday."

Any question or comment about this article? Call me at --
713) 477-2329
-- Bob L. Ross


Thursday, December 17, 2015

By Bob L. Ross
It may simply be coincidental, but has there been a recent fulfillment of an item of Bible prophecy in Daniel 8:23?
In this vision in chapter eight, Daniel is informed that the "Little Horn" [the Antichrist of the end-time] will have understanding of "dark sentences."
"And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full , a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up."
This past week, the news media reported that the terrorists of the Middle East are using "DARK ENCRYPTION" to convey their destructive exploits. Is this what Daniel 8:23 refers to, or is it merely coincidental?
Pass this along to Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and Irving Baxter for their analysis.
-- Bob L. Ross
(713) 477-2329

Monday, November 02, 2015


By Bob L. Ross

Daniel 11:21-35: History or Future? | Joel's Trumpet
by Joel Richardson

In his book, The Mid East Beast, Joel Richardson followed the theory on Daniel 11:21-35 which is presented in several "study Bibles," including Scofield's and those which follow the idea of two "Little Horns" (Daniel chapters 7 & 8), one of them supposedly being Antiochus Epiphanes of pre-Christian years.

This theory was evidently first imposed on Daniel and taught by the Jews in the book of First Maccabees where it is alleged that Antiochus set up the "abomination of desoltation" (1 Mac/ 1:54), thus fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel on that matter. Christ refuted this idea in Matthew 24:15, KJV.

Subsequent study on Daniel 11 has led Joel to adopt the view which is presented on his website. This view (which I have held for years) is that Daniel 11:21-35 is simply a part of the chapter from Daniel 11:21-45 which details the Middle East career of the "vile person" who is the Antichrist. Antiochus is not in the prohecy at all.

Daniel had been given a vision of this Antichrist in chapter ten where he is identified as the "certain man." Although impressively adorned, all of the symbols of that man are inferior to the symbols representing by Jesus Christ in the vision in Revelation 1. The "certain man" in Daniel 10 a certain imposter, and Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel in chapter 11 (Daniel 10:14-21, KJV)

Hopefully, Joel Richardson's change of views will inspire other students of the book of Daniel to reconsider their thinking on this passage, if they have followed the idea that Antioch us fulfills anything prophetic in this book on the endtimes.

For my own views on Daniel 11, see this short article on the Internet:

 Please forgive any typographical errors in this article, as I am writing it with less than normal eyesight.

 Bob L. Ross

Wednesday, March 05, 2014



I understand Daniel chapter eleven to be prophetic of (1) the origin of the Arab Empire (Muslims) in the 7th century A. D. and that (2) the ultimate source of the "Little Horn" (Antichrist, per 11:21-45) is the northern area of the Middle East. In my book, NOT ONE STONE (page 27) I refer to Clarence Larkin, H. A. Ironside, and Arthur W. Pink who held this latter view. Larkin calls the Antichrist the "Syrian Horn" (The Book of Daniell, page 248, unabridged edition).

1. Daniel 11:5, 6 is "key" to the view that 11:5-45 focuses on the Arab Empire's Arabian origin in the 7th century and the eventual rise of the end-time Antichrist who takes control of the Middle East countries and builds his "palace" in Jerusalem before he is destroyed (verses 41-45). The "SOUTH" in Daniel 11:5, 6 refers to Arabia, not Egypt. Notice this example: The "queen of the SOUTH" (Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31) was the queen of SHEBA, located in southern Arabia,"the uttermost parts of the earth." So "The South" refers to Arabia, not Egypt.

2. The first Muslim "king of the SOUTH" [Arabia] was ABU BAKR (632-634 A. D.), the father of AISHA, the favorite wife of Muhammad. The second king, or caliph, was OMAR (634-644 A.D.), also a father-in-law of Muhammad. During these few years following the death of Muhammad in 632, in the SOUTH (Arabia) a "great dominion" originated, even greater than any previous Middle East empire, according to Sir John B. Glubb's history, "The Empire of the Arabs." You can find more information on these two Caliphs on Wikipedia. The "SOUTH" in Daniel 11 (negeb; see Strong's Dictionary #5045) refers to the vast desert called "ARABIA," where the cities of Mecca and Medina are located. AISHA, Muhammad's favorite wife, was the daughter of Abu Bakr -- therefore, she was the "king's daughter of the SOUTH" (11:6). Her opposition to Ali (Muhammad's son-in-law who was married to Fatima) helped create the South vs North Muslim division which has lasted ever since -- Sunni vs Shia. Shiites believe that direct descendants of Muhammad thru Ali's lineage are qualified to be "caliph" in Islam, whereas Sunnis believe direct lineage is not essential to being "caliph." See Wikipedia for information on this split among the Muslims.
3. In Daniel 11:6, I understand the unique expression, "END OF YEARS," to be indicative of the Muslim calendar of time. It begins in 622, the year in which the migration (Hegira) by Muhammad and his disciples from Mecca to Medina took place. The Muslim calendar thereby indicates an "end of years." I understand the "king's daughter of the south" in Daniel 11:6 is applicable to AISHA, daughter of the first Caliph of the South, ABU BAKR. I think this verse refers to the battle between Aisha's forces and Ali's forces, known as the "Battle of the Camel," which introduces the history of the Muslims from the seventh century,(11:5-45) -- out of which eventually arises the Little Horn or Antichrist (11:21-45). The "Battle of the Camel" took place in 656 A. D. in the "end of years" perind of time, and was the initial civil war in Islam between Sunni and Shiites. This was a battle between Arabs allied with Aisha, Muhammad's widow who rode around on a prized red camel named Askar, and Arabs which supported Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law, the "Solomon of the Shiites." See the particulars about this battle on Wikipedia.

4. Contrary to the view that the Ptolemies, Seleucids (332-168), and Antiochus Epiphanes somehow fulfill much of Daniel 11, the prophecy does not refer to them. Rather, the "north" refers to the northern division of the Arabs and the "south" to the southern (Early Islam by Desmond Stewart, page 63)

5. The "Abomination of Desolation" (Dan. 11:31) is yet in the future, according to Jesus (Matthew 24:15). The idea that it was fulfilled by Antiochus derives from Jewish presumptions in First Maccabees 1:54 in the Apocrypha, uninspired Jewish writings before the first coming of Christ. A supposed "chronology" is presented by Solomon Zeitlin in The Rise and Fall of the Judean State). Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on Daniel cites historical inaccuracies in this chronology.

6. The supposed "restored Holy Roman Empire," or the "European Union," is not in Daniel 11. There are 27 nations in the EU, and none of them is in the Middle East. Daniel eleven does not mention any nation except those in the Middle East. The EU theory was championed by the late Herbert W. Armstrong and is perpetuated by his followers such as Gerald Flurry and the "Philadelphia Church of God."

7. The two legs in the image of Daniel chapter 2 are not Rome, but rather they correspond to the two divisions which arose among the 7th century Arabs -- the southern Arabs and northern Arabs (EARLY ISLAM by Desmond Stewart, page 63). The ten toes of the image represent Arab nations which developed thru "mingling" of "seed," according to Daniel 2:43: the word "mingle" in the original is "ARAB." (See Strong's Hebrew Dictionary #6151). Islamic polygamy "Arabized" the Middle East countries from the 7th century A. D. -- Bob L. Ross (713) 477-2329

Monday, December 24, 2012

Merry Christmas

The Calvinist Flyswatter hopes that you have a very Merry Christmas and that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, establishes His peace in your heart and life.

Merry Christmas to all!


Thursday, December 20, 2012

Violence In America - Where Are The Pastors?

My heart was sad upon hearing the news of the school shooting in Connecticut.  Scared little children gunned down like it was nothing.  So tragic.  Our prayers are with the families during this time.

The causes of the shootings will be discussed and debated for years as will the ways to prevent future tragedies.  Guns, mental illness, video games, etc., -- no stone will go unturned in a search for answers.

As is the nature of tragedy, pastors will also seek to provide answers.  To help them, I would like to ask one question:  Where were you?  Did you preach on the pervasive culture of violence in America?  Whether it's music, TV, movies, or video games, violence is graphic and celebrated.  Were you men of peace who preached that Christians should stay away from such things?  Or like Pastor Jared Moore did you celebrate the violence and encourage others to get their enjoyment and entertainment from it?

I believe pastors like Jared Moore have a lot to answer for.  Not in a court of criminal law but in the high court of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

Pray for pastors to do the right thing.


Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Pastor Jared Moore Celebrates Zero Baptisms!

Perhaps in anticipation that someone would look at the Annual Church Profile and discover his church baptized no one during past year,  Pastor Jared Moore has written a blog posting patting himself on the back for his fruitlessness.

Most pastors would be ashamed of taking a salary from a church for twelve months without finding one lost person to lead to the Lord and baptize.  Not Brother Jared!  The quintessential Crybaby Calvinist, Jared believes his labors were just peachy-keen in the Lord's eyes.

One must wonder -- what has Jared been doing all year?  Has he been doing "the work of an evangelist" as Paul said to Timothy (2 Tim 4:5)?  It would seem not.  We do know, however, that Jared has spent quite a bit of time watching ungodly, extremely violent TV shows such as The Walking Dead.  He claims the grace of God drew him to such violent entertainment. (No, I'm not making this up, read his article about it here.)

I've seen a preview or two for The Walking Dead and honestly, the preview alone almost makes me ill.  Or as Jared says, "It’s just as bloody and gory as any movie I’ve ever seen."

I'm going to be blunt.  Scripture is clear, God is not pleased with senseless violence and a pastor who is entertained by it and encourages others to be entertained by it has failed in his duty.  The Bible commands a pastor to be "not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome" (1 Tim 3:3).  Remember God's description of how the world was before Noah's flood?  "The earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence" (Gen 6:11).

Christians are not to love violence.  In more than one place, God  describes lovers of violence as ungodly and unbelievers.  The Bible says,

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness... (Rom 1:29).

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence (Psa 11:5).

With regard to the works of man, by the word of your lips I have avoided the ways of the violent (Psa 17:4).

Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways (Pro 3:31).

For they cannot sleep unless they have done wrong; they are robbed of sleep unless they have made someone stumble. For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence (Pro 4:16-17).

From the fruit of his mouth a man eats what is good, but the desire of the treacherous is for violence (Pro 13:2).

Be not envious of evil men, nor desire to be with them, for their hearts devise violence, and their lips talk of trouble (Pro 24:1-2).

Remember what was said of our Lord Jesus Christ by the prophet Isaiah?  "And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth" (Isa 53:9).

Here's a challenge to Jared.  Instead of watching this season's The Walking Dead, consider that God's grace may be drawing you to go house to house (Acts 20:20) in order to share the good news of Jesus. (Of course I know as an extreme Calvinist you believe it's not good news for them if God has not preselected them for salvation but you know what I mean.)  Don't be satisfied with fruitlessness. Remember, Jesus' words: "Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned"(John 15:5-6).  As I taught you previously Jared, the Lord delights in sinners being saved in great numbers!

Anyway -- try it Jared.  Just skip The Walking Dead and go knock on some doors at random and start sharing.  Then write another blog post next year and let us know what happened.  I'll covenant to pray for you during this next year.


Friday, September 21, 2012

Radical Calvinist Set To Become President Of Midwestern Seminary!

The search committee of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has nominated a radical Calvinist to become president of the seminary. The candidate, Dr. Jason K. Allen, hails directly from Southern Seminary (ground zero for the radical/hybrid/hyper/new/neo Calvinist movement in the SBC. He also has ties to Founders Ministries, a church splitting Calvinist "ministry" of which our readers are familiar.

Peter Lumpkins has done the heavy lifting on breaking this story and we urge our readers to read what he has to say and to contact the trustees of Midwestern.

Check Peter's articles,

Courting Disaster: The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary: Part I

No answers about Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary presidential candidate Jason K. Allen's theology until after trustees vote

Comparing what we were told about Midwestern's former presidents with what we're told about Jason K. Allen

Midwestern's Presidential Search Team encouraged to abandon their policy of silence Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Trustees

The Calvinist Flyswatter urges our readers to contact Midwestern's trustees!  The Southern Baptist Convention cannot afford to have an Al Mohler clone as the head of one our our pastor training institutes.


Monday, September 17, 2012

Son of Bob Ross Goes To Be With The Lord

Brother Bob Ross' son, Michael Joseph Ross, went to be with the Lord on September 5th.  I have not been "Flyswatting" for a couple of weeks and so did not hear of his dead until just today.  Our prayers are with Brother Bob and his family.

Many of you know that Brother Bob has had some eye trouble and so does not blog as frequently as in days past.  We miss his insights and pray for the strengthening and healing of his eyesight.

God bless you, Brother Bob, during this time.


Wednesday, August 08, 2012

More Proof Of The Deadness Of Reformed Calvinist Doctrine

The Calvinist Flyswatter has long warned Southern Baptist pastors about the deadness of the new/hybrid/hyper/neo/extreme Calvinist doctrine of "regeneration before faith" as taught and promoted by Southern Seminary and Founder's Ministry (yes, they actually call it a ministry). We have provided biblical and "real world" evidence of its evils.  Now Brother Peter Lumpkins has delivered a crushing blow to the Flounders and their Deformed Reformed friends who promote this hellish doctrine.

Read  "Preaching "Regeneration precedes faith" deadly for Baptists in the Mississippi Valley in the 19th century" at Peter's blog.

Plus, check Bob Ross's powerful historical analysis of the origins of the doctrine and his strong arguments against it.

Isn't it curious how Tom Ascol and his band of bloggers continue to ignore all the historical evidence found on The Flyswatter?  I wonder when Tom Nettles is going to repent of his lying to his students now that Peter has exposed Tom's historical narrative as Calvinist propaganda.  No Tom and Tom, the SBC historically was not what you have tried to make it out to be.