This fourth book, about Babylon the great, is almost complete.
While touching up the last chapter (its message being the whole point of the book), work is mostly focused on the book end material (appendices, notes) and other details.
The book content itself is about 150 pages making it half the size of Daniel Revisited, with another 50 pages of end material.
It should be made available to my reviewers in August.
I realize this book has taken longer than perhaps it should have by human standards, but the message must be correct. The words have only flowed in a start-stop mode.
Just as Daniel Revisited is a very different take on end-time prophecy, so this book is a very different take of the Harlot. I believe it is needed for proper preparation as the Second Signpost gets closer.
Fantastic news…thanks, Mark!
Will it be on Kindle at the same time? Or will that be later?
Does this book build on the others or does your further research alter any previous conclusions?
It’ll be on Kindle too.
Good question! This book builds directly on Chronicles and Daniel Revisited. The reader does not need to have read “Chronicles” at all to understand this one, but a reading of “Daniel Revisited,” though not completely necessary, would help.
Regarding earlier conclusions, they stand and are built on by this new book.
Look forward to purchasing it next month! Mark will it be selling on Amazon? Great timing with current events. It is so sad that this country and the so called Biden administration is being hijacked ideologically thus policy driven by approximately 80 politicians in the Congress- Senate and House- who are communists not socialists (per General Flynn)!!! AMERICA was finally energy independent in 2018-2019 and now?!? Jesus King of Kings is in control of the future and not Lucifer and those who in secret who pledge allegiance to Him and/or those who are dead in their trespasses and sins, who walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air and are spiritually blind yet unaware that they are serving the creature and not the Creator!!!
It will go to reviewers in August – sorry if there was misunderstanding. August will be spent with reviewers and editing. September will be the time for book design and whatnot. I’m aiming for early October at the earliest.
It will be on Amazon, as all my books are, Lord willing.
“The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers. Then the angel said to me, The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:12-18 NIV).
Since Mystery Babylon is to be destroyed during the reign of the Antichrist, anyone teaching that Saudi Arabia is Mystery Babylon must also teach that Saudi Arabia will exist until the reign of the Antichrist. Saudi Arabia is a major part of the Arabian Peninsula, which lies west and south of Iran, two of the three directions Iran will invade (Daniel 8:4 with 8:20). The Arabian Peninsula is the best candidate for the “desert by the sea” to be invaded by “Elam” and “Media,” which taken together designate Iran (Isaiah 21:1-2). I think that the “Babylon has fallen, has fallen!” of Isaiah 21:9 refers to Saudi Arabia’s second signpost fall, not the destruction of Mystery Babylon by the ten kings serving the Mahdi/Antichrist.
Isaiah 21:1-10 is the “oracle concerning the wilderness of the sea”, not “by” the sea. The original language is “of”. The oracle about Arabia is 21:13-17.
What could be the “wilderness of the sea”? There are two connections – both refer to Babylon the great, which will end not during Antichrist’s reign, but at the return of Christ, for though AC may tear down Babylon the great in his part of the earth, it will go on worldwide until Christ returns. The “wilderness” “of the sea” can refer to the wilderness of Rev. 17:3 which is not a physical wilderness but refers to desolation, and the many waters of Rev. 17:1 on which she sits.
In researching for this book, I have found, and write about, layer after layer of misconception much like an onion that needs to be peeled, brought about by assumptions and centuries of tradition.
“By the sea” was a quote from the NIV. “Of the sea” is fine by me. All geographic indications in Isaiah 21, except for the loaded word Babylon and the invaders from Elam and Media, are either in or near the Arabian Peninsula. To quote the NIV: southland, riders on camels, Dumah, Seir, caravans of Dedanites, thickets of Arabia, Kedar. “Desert of the sea” should not be ripped from its Isaiah 21 geography to mean something else. Iran invading toward the west and south means that the Arabian Peninsula is the desert of the sea referred to that will be invaded by Iran.
As per Revelation14:6-9 in chronological order
1 Gospel shall be preached all over earth
2 Fall of Babylon
3 Anti Christ arrival and mark of the beast introduction.
Pray and study above chapter
As part of this new book, I’ll be showing why I believe items 2 and 3 in your list are concurrent.
The way things are going, perhaps the U.S. is now Babylon. I guess we’ll learn Mark’s thinking when the book comes out.
I have just discovered your material. I’m reading Daniel Revisited. I really enjoy your writing and believe that you’re in the right direction with your take on prophecy. I have found a major error in your book about the Sunni and Shia topic which is very important. It’s simply reverse of what the book says. Shia are the ones believing that the succession is through Mohammad’s bloodline like his cousin Ali (who married Fatima) and his lineage. The Sunnis believe the succession is based on merit and capability, believing Abubakr, Omar, and Osman to be the first three real Khalifs after Mohammad. Please look into this as you prepare your next book for publishing. This is a glaring and obvious mistake for any Muslim and we would not want you to lose credibility. Many blessings to your ministry. God bless you.
Welcome to foursignposts.com. I appreciate your careful study of these topics, and thanks for your concern.
I was aware of this issue, and there is good news and bad news about this.
First, the bad news. I discovered the problem after publication of the Thomas-Nelson edition, but making changes would be rare if not impossible.
Now for the good news. The text in question is actually three-quarters correct and only one-quarter incorrect, roughly, sort of, so the situation isn’t as dire as being completely wrong. Let me explain. First, here is the text on page 46:
“There was a split within Islam, after Muhammad’s death, as to whom the successor should be. The majority of Islam—the Sunni sect—believed it should be the family of Muhammad. The minority—the Shia sect—believed it should be someone who had unique spiritual qualities from God, as Muhammad was believed to have had.”
The Shia sect really does believe Mohammad’s successor should have “unique spiritual qualities.” Another way to put it is, the successor should be divinely appointed. Though it could have been explained perhaps more thoroughly in the book, it is correct as it stands. Granted, it also could have been added that it is believed the divinely appointed should come from Mohammad’s family, but it is not as important as being divinely appointed. The most important factor was divine appointment. So as it stands in Daniel Revisited, the Shia part is correct, just not completely explained. There was pacing of the book and info overload for the reader to consider as well.
Regarding the Sunni sect, they believe that the Caliph is to be either elected by the Ummah (community), or seize power. Better yet, he should come from Mohammad’s family or tribe. Saying Mohammad’s successor should come from “the family of Mohammad” is correct, but the election or seizing power is what is more important. Therefore, on the Sunni side, I’m only half correct, maybe less.
A whole and a half make three-quarters, give or take.
I do appreciate you reminding me of this so as to make me better prepared for future forums and opportunities for revision.
I wish you blessing as you pursue truth.
Mark: You suggested that “Babylon the great … will end not during Antichrist’s reign, but at the return of Christ, for though AC may tear down Babylon the great in his part of the earth, it will go on worldwide until Christ returns.” If the parable of the wheat and tares is related to the fall of Babylon the great, your suggestion is wrong. Notice in Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 that the tares are first tied into bundles that are later burned. The destruction of the great whore by allies of Mahdi/Antichrist ends with burning what is left of her (Revelation 17:16). Her evil deeds are now being exposed (Isaiah 26:20-21). Before the end of 2022 there will be huge losses of her influnce as her operatives are bound for trial and punishment. Many nations will be freed from her dominion prior to her destruction by the forces of Mahdi/Antichrist. Heaven will rejoice over her destruction prior to the return of Christ (Revelation 19).
The key is understanding what Babylon the great truly is. You wrote, “Many nations will be freed from her dominion prior to her destruction,” which seems to indicate you and I have a difference of opinion as to who she is, for the nations will only be fully freed upon Christ’s return, according to my interpretation of who she is.
Also, mentioning Isaiah 26:21, “The LORD is about to come out from His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity,” doesn’t give the answer because the question is “when” – before or at, his return?