by prophecor 53 Replies latest jw friends
Terrorism and the Middle East is the King of the North... That's weak! Clearly Watchtower isn't going to point to any particular nation right now for fear of being wrong... AGAIN.
Leolaia, No doubt Rutherford was cheering for Germany and Italy, after all the King of the South made it harder for him to get drunk. You don't suppose that might be one of the reasons, Watchtower picked the United States to be the King of the South?
Rutherford did say that the totalitarian combine will grab control of the United States and Britain, and that it was useless to resist. That's right, he actually said that the Allies should "wait on Jehovah" to fix the problem.
Ok so tell me, who does the bible say will prevail? The King of the north, or the King of the south?
J-G, in one sentence...
The North will dominate the South followed by the North getting nervous as God's Kingdom starts making itself known.
Rutherford did say that the totalitarian combine will grab control of the United States and Britain, and that it was useless to resist. That's right, he actually said that the Allies should "wait on Jehovah" to fix the problem.
That wacky Rutherford... I wonder why he picked the United States and Britain to be the South. Sure, Germany and Japan would have defeated the Allies had they "waited on Jehovah." It's a good thing Rutherford didn't have FDR's ear.
It says that Antiochus IV would invade Egypt once successfully (171-170 BC, cf. Daniel 11:25-27, 1 Maccabees 1:16-19), a second time unsuccessfully (169-168 BC, cf. Daniel 11:29-30, Polybius, Historiae 28-29), and a third time which never took place because Antiochus died in 164-163 BC before mounting a third campaign against Egypt. In the biblical narrative however, Antiochus would not be successful in his third invasion (depicted as a widescale war involving all the nearby nations) and would perish in the land of Judea. This may draw on Hellenistic traditions about the death of Cambyses II, whose death was described in similar terms. In short, neither Egypt or Syria would prevail; it is at this eschatological moment that both parts of Greek kingdom are replaced by the eternal kingdom of God (cf. the scenarios in ch. 2 and 7, and especially the timeline in ch. 9).
Probably because by 1941, Germany has already initiated hostile action against Allied nations, and in the historical context of Daniel 11, it was Antiochus IV (King of the North) and his father Antiochus the Great who repeatedly tried to overthrow the king of Egypt (King of the South), not the other way around, so positing the United States and Britain as the aggressor wouldn't make sense. And probably because Rutherford's real beef was against the Roman Catholic Church, which he saw as the real fascist power that was using the Axis nations to accomplish its ends. Since Rutherford hated fascism and regarded the Catholic Church as led by the Devil, and since Germany was then engaged in persecuting JWs in Europe, the totalitarian combine (read: Nazi Germany and the Vatican) was a natural fit for the King of the North since it was the King of the North who in Daniel persecuted God's people, who blasphemed and idolatrously claimed to be God himself, who tried to turn people away from godly worship, etc.
Leolaia, When I read Daniel 11, verse 15 says the North will lay siege to the South. Then later on in verse 43 it says he will rule over Egypt, the Libyans and the Ethiopians will be at his steps. Isn't verse 43 talking about the King of the North? Verses 44 and 45 speak of "him" (King of North?) becoming "disturbed" and chapter 12 starts off with Michael the great prince coming on the scene.
Of course, there is always the WTS CYA clause:
*** w04 2/1 p. 21 par. 13 "The Scene of This World Is Changing" ***
Since Bible prophecies are often fully understood only after they are fulfilled or are in the process of fulfillment, we will have to wait and see.
Thanks everyone for the input and ammunition to take on this subject.
