The Start Of The End Is Near

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
Yithian said:
Fantastic. These are my favourite kinds of threads.

June2019, here's a heads up - it is hard to see if English is not your first language, but Yithian and PeteS were being sarcastic. They don't like seeing these kinds of threads cycling in every few months claiming to have the good oil on the end of the world. Many of the members here have seen this many times before. Spend some time looking through this website's previous threads and you will see that claims such as yours are a dime a dozen. Sorry to be so direct, but it's true.
Thanks skinny, for this humor escaped me. That was very funny, actually. Maybe I could use it too. :D

Nobody doubts your sincerity. It's just tiresome and annoying to be given the same old spiel time and again - "But truly I have been given the really real revelation by [insert deity here]!" You haven't. Yours is just another in a long line of very personal responses, none of which have been proven in any way accurate or even useful by my reckoning. By all means share your interpretation of your scriptures, but that is all they are - interpretations of apocalyptic text, the true meaning (if there is one) of which the most highly-educated liturgical scholars haven't been able to uncover with any semblance of clarity. That is the nature of apocalyptic literature.
There is no deity to insert anywhere for I just studied Christ's own prophetic words. The version (interpretation) I offer is unique and accurate, and proven by historical facts until now. It's not a brainer, and the impending future should prove it right...again. The Bible scholars have not being able to decode these prophecies due to prejudices and preconceptions, and because this is highly sensitive and 'incorrect', politically speaking. They could not risk their jobs, nor their reputation, if any. It's like the scientists with ufology.

I disagree with you. This is not the nature of the apocalyptic literature to be obscure forever. The visions, again, speak about images. And they now are clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
This place is open to weird theories. We tend not to think that a subject can be finished and wrapped up.

Yes, it would be useful if @JUNE2019 looked at the site both widely and in depth, but also the rush of someone's enthusiasm can be engaging and interesting.

We will be poorer if we can't juggle the balance of this :)

Please continue @JUNE2019 So long as you manage to keep on being polite (even responding to irony/sarcasm), don't tell people they are all going to burn and so on, you will be able to post your theories here.

.../...
Frides
Thanks Frides for your friendly post. Promised, you are not ALL going to burn in hell. :bish: :D
 

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
Which version of the NIV?.
This one:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+1&version=NIV

I've watched all of the second video now (first part of full video). You seem to pick and choose what things mean without ever giving and adequate evidence, except that sometime things look like other things. Also some of your illustrations seem incorrect.

Where did you get the duchy of Brittany coat of arms from? I cant find a source for that, and I don't believe it was ever used by the norman kings. Not in that form, its far too late.

Also you seem to confuse the scottish version of the current royal coat of arms with the Stewart coat of arms. Likewise Henry vii and henry viii.

I will watch the next video later, if I can.
Thanks again for your interest. You know, the video(s) comes after a long process of study, and is not a scholarship work by itself. It intends to just bring images matching the characters and the historical periods for the laymen in a time as short as possible. Look, the three first beasts of Daniel 7 are described in just one verse each, despite there are many details to decode. Evidence can be discussed in a forum, not in a video covering the whole end times calendar (about 60 years + 1,000 years) with so numerous details.

But again, put your feet in the shoes of the prophets for a while. They are not provided with a course in 'future' history (lol), just glimpses of situations, events and characters. Visions are extremely short. Tell me what seems incorrect for you, however.

The Duchy of Britanny (or Brittany) coat of Arms comes from here:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duché_de_Bretagne
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ardamez_Dukelezh_Vreizh.jpg?uselang=fr

This is the first coat of Arms of the Duchy of Britanny, as far as I know. Why is this specific coat of Arms showed to Daniel? Because the angel wants us to link Britanny to Britannia due to the root of the name of the kingdom the angel wants to speak about (GB), even if the dates are not accurately matching, and even if the Duke of Normandy (future WIlliam I) temporarily owned this Duchy through alliances. What matters here are the strong links between France and UK. So, this coat of Arms is a masterpiece because it unveils the starting point in history of the four beasts, just at the beginning of the second 'Day of God' (beyond the year 1,000), and because Britanny was really lost before the end of the full Norman / Plantagenet dynasty period (I watched until...), the (use of) coat of Arms of which perfectly corresponds to the period before the Hundred Years War.

I don't see the confusions you are speaking about regarding the Tudor's and Stuart's coats of Arms. I have properly done my researchs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
.../...
Also you seem to confuse the scottish version of the current royal coat of arms with the Stewart coat of arms. Likewise Henry vii and henry viii.
.../...
Coats of Arms used in the video(s):

Coat of Arms of Henry VIII:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Henry_VIII_of_England_(1509-1547).svg

You certainly noticed that the dog on the right side of this coat of Arms is not the bear describing Henry VIII. The bear was the closest animal looking like his appearance and behavior. This is the only exception among the four beasts of Dan 7 because THIS king got back the King David's supreme spiritual authority over his people in UK, due to his direct bloodline link to him. This move (making himself the Head of the Anglican church) was a milestone for the following British kings (and queens) who remained the Heads of that specific church until today (what was not obvious at the scale of history).

Coat of Arms of the Stuart - Scottish kings of UK (1603-1649):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Scotland_(1603-1649).svg
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
Thanks for the link.
If you check that image here https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duché_de_Bretagne
You will see that it is an image drawn in 2008 by Mael vreizh who claimed it as his own work. It does not give any indication where the image came from, wether it was copied from a old source or just made up.

I am trying to find proper sources for the other two points (not wikipedia) it may take some time.
You could well be right about the stuarts, but I was under the impression that Henry VII was the only monarch to use the greyhound as a supporter. Though of course I could be wrong.

However, if you could find some images of actual usage, such as a coat of arms on a document, painting or a carving on a building, it would be very helpful. And would provide a more positive identification than just some wikipedia image.

Regardless, this kind of evidence is a big problem for me. You say

It intends to just bring images matching the characters and the historical periods for the laymen in a time as short as possible. Look, the three first beasts of Daniel 7 are described in just one sentence each, despite there are many details to decode.
And yes, just one verse per beast. But you support your contention only through the use of these wiki sourced images. Your only 'proof' that the 4 wings relate to the stuarts seems to be that the 4 tufts of the lions tail look like wings. There is no evidence for what you say other than a visual similarity.
Then you write 'fulfilled' like something has been proved. Nothing has been proved because something looks like something else. Do you have any substantial evidence for these claims? Or is the visual similarity all there is?

In your reply you say this
This is the only exception among the four beasts of Dan 7 because THIS king got back the King David's supreme spiritual authority over his people in UK, due to his direct bloodline link to him.
What direct bloodline connection? To who? King David?
How and in what way was Henry VIII descended from King David?
And can I have proper sources for that, please. It is a dramatic claim and need some supporting evidence.

Personally, if I were to interpret Daniel 7.5 as Henry VIII I would think that the three ribs were this three children, all of whom were monarchs in their own right, and were 'filled' (created) with his flesh (his natural born children).
 

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
Thanks for the link.
If you check that image here https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duché_de_Bretagne
You will see that it is an image drawn in 2008 by Mael vreizh who claimed it as his own work. It does not give any indication where the image came from, wether it was copied from a old source or just made up.
If you check many works in heraldry in wikimedia commons there are a lot of 'own works'. This doesn't mean that they are the figments of the authors' imagination. For example Mael Vreizh is a specialist of old monuments and Arms in Britanny:

Mael vreizh 1

Mael vreizh 2

Look at this coat of Arms of Princess Diana (again: 'own work'):

Princess Diana' coat of Arms

The griffin is on the right side and is full of the specific Britanny' s hermines.

I will answer to the rest of your post later. Thanks for your patience.
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
Yes, that's fine. I understand that. But he fails to say where the original is from. And without that information it is like an orphaned image. It has no meaning because it has lost its context.

I dont want to get hung up on this heraldry thing, because it's kind of beside the point, but it is fascinating!
with regard to the Henrys. The following is from The manual of heraldry by Francis J Grant.

2015.21360.The-Manual-Of-Heraldry_0150.jpg


And this from The oxford guide to heraldry by Woodcock ans Robinson

Screenshot_20190616-205837.png


So, it looks like the greyhound supporter was Henry VII, but Henry VIII used his fathers arms for a short while at the beginning of his reign, before adopting his own.

Where did you get the information that a lion facing forward is a leopard? Apparently a lion standing on hind legs, facing forward, is a lion rampant guardant. I can give sources for that too, if you like. but I dont want to spam the thread with old book screen shots.
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
And please tell me about the henry king david thing. That sounds really interesting.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,651
Reaction score
11,850
Points
309
I’m getting a bit of an ‘Eric’ vibe about this thread. That one escalated and didn’t end well..
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
Who is Eric?

Also I just like talking about this stuff. It's interesting to me. I am not going to escalate anything.
 

Austin Popper

Emperor of Antarctica
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
2,170
Points
154
Location
Colorado, where the gold is still elusive
Our friend Eric is infest--er, um, present on another board right now, with what is or might as well be that same video.

Fortunately, I am well stocked with popcorn!
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
Ah, well. Hmmmm...

I'm not a believer. I've got no particular axe to grind. It's just that I was brought up with all this stuff. I enjoy a good 'living in the last days' discussion.

50 years ago I was told I was living in the last days. I sort of believed it then because I was 5.

Still waiting, but I love a good theory.
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
Interesting. A little googling tells me that this is the same guy, or at least the same theory.

Which is great, cos its all written down and I don't have to work through the videos.
 

henry

still speeding
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
1,246
Points
15
plus its revelation not revelations, i mean dont you know your iron maiden, jesus
 

Austin Popper

Emperor of Antarctica
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
2,170
Points
154
Location
Colorado, where the gold is still elusive
Revelations is by Vallee. Vastly more useful.
 

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
If you check many works in heraldry in wikimedia commons there are a lot of 'own works'. This doesn't mean that they are the figments of the authors' imagination. For example Mael Vreizh is a specialist of old monuments and Arms in Britanny:

Mael vreizh 1

Mael vreizh 2

Look at this coat of Arms of Princess Diana (again: 'own work'):

Princess Diana' coat of Arms

The griffin is on the right side and is full of the specific Britanny' s hermines.

I will answer to the rest of your post later. Thanks for your patience.
I want to add that the official British royal coat of Arms of the present monarch has Britanny's (h)ermines (also called 'fleurs de lys') in the mantling:

British royal coat of Arms

In this page, it is also specified: 'own work'.

The same (Britanny's (h)ermines and 'own work') for the Scottish version:

Scottish royal coat of Arms
 

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
.../...
I am trying to find proper sources for the other two points (not wikipedia) it may take some time.
You could well be right about the stuarts, but I was under the impression that Henry VII was the only monarch to use the greyhound as a supporter. Though of course I could be wrong.

However, if you could find some images of actual usage, such as a coat of arms on a document, painting or a carving on a building, it would be very helpful. And would provide a more positive identification than just some wikipedia image.
I saw that you've done some researchs after your post above. Thanks for that. I know that wikipedia is not always accurate but, for this kind of info, mistakes are rather very rare. Besides, the coat of Arms of Henry VIII - the bear - is not really important since the second 'beast' of Daniel 7 doesn't describe a symbol but the man himself (Henry VIII really looked like a bear with his beard, uncommon extravageant clothes and behaviors) to 'honor' his particularity: 'first Head of the Church starting a new royal age', King David likewise.


Regardless, this kind of evidence is a big problem for me. You say



And yes, just one verse per beast. But you support your contention only through the use of these wiki sourced images. Your only 'proof' that the 4 wings relate to the stuarts seems to be that the 4 tufts of the lions tail look like wings. There is no evidence for what you say other than a visual similarity.
Then you write 'fulfilled' like something has been proved. Nothing has been proved because something looks like something else. Do you have any substantial evidence for these claims? Or is the visual similarity all there is?
You raised the point of the visions:

Dan 7:6 ...And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird.

Each description LOOKS LIKE something else as in:

Dan 7:4 ...it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being...
DAN 7:5 ... And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear....

So, why would you go beyond what is just written? The similarity IS the evidence!

Besides, these 'wings' are not the only 'proof'. There are the 'four heads' (only four legit kings) and the 'authority to rule given to them' (Scottish kings ruling over England), expression which would be unnecessary if naturally expected (local kings rule, but 'foreigners' don't).


In your reply you say this


What direct bloodline connection? To who? King David?
How and in what way was Henry VIII descended from King David?
And can I have proper sources for that, please. It is a dramatic claim and need some supporting evidence.
Regarding the King David's bloodline, this needs a long answer due to several 'theories'. I hope I will have time to elaborate later.

Personally, if I were to interpret Daniel 7.5 as Henry VIII I would think that the three ribs were this three children, all of whom were monarchs in their own right, and were 'filled' (created) with his flesh (his natural born children).
The very point of the 'ribs' is their biblical meaning. The ONLY reference is in Genesis where 'rib' means 'woman'. In the Henry VIII's case, the three ribs are in the bear's mouth, between his teeth. This supports the idea of death rather than birth. There have been ONLY three wives, among six, who brutally died (as if eaten by the bear) while STILL being married to him, and due to his orders (coming from the mouth: two executions, one reckless birth follow up).

Regarding the 'flesh', the end of the verse says: 'It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'

What matters here is 'GET UP' as in 'RAISE'...as 'HEAD of your own church'! What, precisely, makes him different from the other beasts, hence the second beast depicting the man (bear) rather than the dynasty. That is even why his father (Henry VII) is mentioned as 'one of its sides', hence ONLY one king before the bear. Again, 'eat' is related to death, not birth. So, to raise as the head of his church, he had to make war against the Catholics who plotted against him. He and his descent survived as a third dynasty thanks to this move, what was a key point, of course, for the whole future of the British royal destiny.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
Yes, that's fine. I understand that. But he fails to say where the original is from. And without that information it is like an orphaned image. It has no meaning because it has lost its context.
I showed you that most of the wikimedia commons files display the mention 'own work', even when the works are recognized as official, and don't provide the initial sources. So, this is not a 'source' of trouble. However, getting more info would be great, even if the links of Mael vreizh's other works clearly show that he is a real specialist of Britanny' history.

I dont want to get hung up on this heraldry thing, because it's kind of beside the point, but it is fascinating!
with regard to the Henrys. The following is from The manual of heraldry by Francis J Grant.

View attachment 18135

And this from The oxford guide to heraldry by Woodcock ans Robinson

View attachment 18136

So, it looks like the greyhound supporter was Henry VII, but Henry VIII used his fathers arms for a short while at the beginning of his reign, before adopting his own.
Great research! Thanks so much. :bthumbup: This confirms mine.;)

Where did you get the information that a lion facing forward is a leopard? Apparently a lion standing on hind legs, facing forward, is a lion rampant guardant. I can give sources for that too, if you like. but I dont want to spam the thread with old book screen shots.
I started with wikipedia and ended with several books speaking about heraldry, all confirming that the difference between lion and leopard FIRST comes from the position of the head.

Leopard in heraldry
The leopard in heraldry is traditionally depicted the same as a lion, but in a walking position with its head turned to full face, thus it is also known as a lion passant guardant in some texts, though leopards more naturally depicted make some appearances in modern heraldry. The Oxford Guide to Heraldry makes little mention of leopards but glosses leopard as a "term used in medieval heraldry for lion passant guardant. Now used for the natural beast."

In the same link:

the distinction between lions (which were constantly rampant) and leopards (which were necessarily walking) originated in French heraldry and was brought into English heraldry along with so much else of English language and custom deriving from French traditions.

So, the French tradition says:

Leopard in French heraldry

En héraldique, le lion et le léopard désignent le même animal, mais avec une position de tête différente.
  • Avec la tête de profil, c'est un lion.
  • Avec la tête de face, c'est un léopard. [with a head turned to full face, it is a leopard]
La position du corps n'influe pas sur le nom [the position of the body does not influence the name], mais les deux « jumeaux » ont des positions préférées [preferred positions]: ainsi le lion est « rampant » (debout), le léopard est « passant » (allongé).

In other words, only the position of the face matters between lion and leopard. Nevertheless:

Le léopard rampant (c’est-à-dire regardant de face, mais en position dressée) peut être blasonné léopard lionné.

So, the 'lioned leopard' is a leopard in a walking position.
 

Newt

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
176
Reaction score
365
Points
63
Hmmm. I think there may be a difference between french and english terminology in heraldry. I will look futher into it. Heraldry is fast becoming my new big thing.
As far as I can make out, lions have manes and leopards don"t. Or at least that's what the pictures seem to show.
Have you seen a book called The Art of Heraldry? Its available on archive.com. Very beautiful, lots of illustrations. Worth a look.

I know someone who is descended from the tudor, Henry vii, even, maybe Henry viii (if you count catherine carey). So if they turn out to be descended from the biblical kings that would be fascinating.

Regarding the ribs, it could be argued that the instruction in older sources 'arise and devour much flesh' is given to the ribs, the children of the beast. And of course they did, as these were the monarchs who lit the pyres of the heretics.

I am not impugning Mael Vreizh in any way, but without a source that image is meaningless. If it exists it must be sourced somewhere.

My 'research' (if you can call it that) did not confirm yours, in any great way. It simply showed that H8 used his fathers coat of arms, and that his own, when he took them, were different. No dog. Lion instead.
Dogs are quite rare in heraldry.
You are just reading into the facts what you want to hear. This is a flaw that runs through all of your work that I have seen. You give over proportionate weight to small things becaue they fit your theory, and ignore the ones that don't. This cherry picking of history is bad practice.

Why doesnt your theory use an actual bear? I would have thought that the badge of Warwick The Kingmaker was perfect. And of course that was such a trerribly turbulent time, that led, eventually, to the reign of the Tudors.

Poor Prince Harry... He gets a raw deal, but he has a better head of hair than his brother.

With regard to the second half of the 1/5 video, regarding the 4 broken off horns. These you say depict the break up of the British Empire. You seem to just pick 4 arbitary countries that suit you best. You ignore all the other countries we won and lost because they do not suit your
theory. Again, the cherry picking. What about Egypt for instance?
Your video shows the African colonies, simply (it seems) for the purposes if a visual similarity with a picture that you chose BECAUSE of its visual similarity.
Again just more cherry picking.

And by the way, what is this weird obsession with the royal family? Your country could have had one too, but you decided to kill them instead.
Just people. Heads come off like anyone else's. Your country proved it.

Oh! and whats the problem with William iii? You just cast him aside as 'not legit' without any reasoning. Is there a reason? or did he just get left out because he doesnt fit?

Will try and look at the 2/5 today, if I have time.

I see you once had all this as a book, but it is no longer avaliable. What a shame!

THE BIBLE PROPHECIES EXPLAINED AT LAST

ERIC JULIEN

What happened? Did your prophesies fail to come true?
 
Last edited:

EricJulien

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
335
Reaction score
45
Points
29
Hmmm. I think there may be a difference between french and english terminology in heraldry. I will look futher into it. Heraldry is fast becoming my new big thing.
As far as I can make out, lions have manes and leopards don"t. Or at least that's what the pictures seem to show.
Have you seen a book called The Art of Heraldry? Its available on archive.com. Very beautiful, lots of illustrations. Worth a look.
Good for you to continue your research in heraldry. Nevertheless, what I said is still true.

I know someone who is descended from the tudor, Henry vii, even, maybe Henry viii (if you count catherine carey). So if they turn out to be descended from the biblical kings that would be fascinating.
Sure! Maybe I will have time to address that topic. Maybe not.

Regarding the ribs, it could be argued that the instruction in older sources 'arise and devour much flesh' is given to the ribs, the children of the beast. And of course they did, as these were the monarchs who lit the pyres of the heretics.
One can argue about a lot of things. I gave my interpretation...which perfectly matches the second beast's description. Rib = woman is Genesis. 'Rib' is provided nowhere else. And the three ribs are in the mouth of the bear. That's a given.

I am not impugning Mael Vreizh in any way, but without a source that image is meaningless. If it exists it must be sourced somewhere.
Sure, it should be sourced somewhere. Like all the other coats of Arms with the mention 'own work', that is 90 to 95% of the files in wikimedia commons. At least, this griffin is the best interpretation of the first beast's initial symbol with a creature being a lion AND an eagle (which is not the case of the 'usual' Babylonian creature often people serve us), for which a reason exist for the wings of the eagle to be torn off (unlike the Babylonian creature) since the lion remained in the English and British royal coat of Arms, the name of the country (Britannia / Britain) of which derived from.the name of the Duchy (Britanny) from which is the said griffin.

My 'research' (if you can call it that) did not confirm yours, in any great way. It simply showed that H8 used his fathers coat of arms, and that his own, when he took them, were different. No dog. Lion instead.
Dogs are quite rare in heraldry.
You are just reading into the facts what you want to hear. This is a flaw that runs through all of your work that I have seen. You give over proportionate weight to small things becaue the fit your theory, and ignore labe ones that don't. This cherry picking of history is bad practice.
Not a lion, a red dragon instead. The lion is on the left side, replacing the red dragon (remember that all the supports used for the beasts descriptions are all on the right side). I used the coat of Arms with the Greyhound ( Coat of Arms of Henry VIII ) to link the son (Henry VIII, the bear) to the father (Henry VII). It doesn't matter if Henry VIII changed his' since he, himself, is the bear I said to be the closest animal creature describing him, physically and psychologically. This is not cherry picking at all.

Otherwise, you also have these ones:
Coat of Arms of the kingdom of England used by Henry VIII
Coat of Arms of Henry VIII of England

These other coats of Arms could also explain why the bear is the man himself, and not one of the supports of those coats of Arms.

Why doesnt your theory use an actual bear? I would have thought that the badge of Warwick The Kingmaker was perfect. And of course that was such a trerribly turbulent time, that led, eventually, to the reign of the tudors.
Because:

Daniel 7:17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the kingmaker, never was king. That's why. In addition, the four beasts are THE FOUR UNINTERRUPTED British royal dynasties.

Poor Prince Harry... He gets a raw deal, but he has a better head of hair than his brother.
Well, this doesn't change the prophecies. Note that the souls switch with Satan will be a last minute change in late 2022. Harry will be a good person until then.

With regard to the second half of the 1/5 video, regarding the 4 broken off horns. These you say depict the break up of the british empire. You seem to just pick 4 arbitary countries that suit you best. You ignore all the other countries we won and lost because they do not suit your
theory. Again, the cherry picking. What about Egypt for instance?
Your video shows the African colonies, simply (it seems) for the purposes if a visual similarity with a picture that you chose BECAUSE of its visual similarity.
Again just more cherry picking..
Maybe you were not attentive enough when you watched the video. I explained that these four Nations (UK, India, Pakistan and Israel) are also called 'horns' from the main 'horn between the eyes' which broke off because THEY DID NOT EXIST BEFORE the splitting of the British Empire, UNLIKE the other countries, hence the four winds of heaven, aka the four religions of these four countries (note that even the NEW UK changed due to the splitting of Ireland). Again, this is not cherry picking. THIS IS STICKING THE THE LEAST DETAILS.

And by the way, what is this weird obsession with the royal family? Your country could have had one too, but you decided to kill them instead.
Just people. heads come off like anyone elses. Your country proved it.
I am not the one who decided UK to be the 'New Israel' where come Daniel's four beasts, the Two Witnesses, Christ (and his parents the woman giving birth and the red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns, linked to John's FIRST beast) and the antichrist, aka Satan incarnated, linked to John's SECOND beast. So, there is no obsession but a PROPHECY...which is not mine.

Oh! and whats the problem with William iii? You just cast him aside as 'not legit' without any reasoning. Is there a reason? or did he just get left out because he doesnt fit?
William III was not a legit king. He just married Mary, the legit queen. But queens are never mentioned in the prophecies. The texts are clear. THIS IS JUST ABOUT KINGS, the legit kings from an uninterrupted royal dynasty (even if there were family leaps between dynasties, the very reason of those different dynasties: British royal family tree ).

Will try and look at the 2/5 today, if I have time.

I see you once had all this as a book, but it is no longer avaliable. What a shame!

THE BIBLE PROPHECIES EXPLAINED AT LAST

ERIC JULIEN

What happened? Did your prophesies fail to come true?
Thanks to continue to proceed with the video(s). The book, like I said, is not properly finalized. The prophecies are still valid...MORE THAN EVER...:cool:
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
32,763
Reaction score
40,619
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Thread locked while we decide what to do with this boomerang jetsam.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,605
Reaction score
6,720
Points
309
Solution - we merge it with the earlier thread on exactly the same theme by the same person. I'll shortly merge his two personas (personae?). And then, reopen it, as Eric is banned anyway.
 
Top