King of the North & South (page 3)

jayhawk1

Blondie, that's Watchtower-speak for, "Who do you think we are, God's Prophet Class on Earth?"

I'm curious, do you ever sleep?

jayhawk1....Verse 15 belongs to the section that relates the career of Antiochus the Great (223-187 BC); v. 12 relates the defeat of Ptolemy IV at the Battle of Raphia in 217 BC, and v. 13-16 describes what happened in 200-198 BC in the war between Scopas and Antiochus the Great, during which Judea passed between Egypt and Syria like a football. The consequence was the complete overthrow of Egyptian hegemony in Judea, giving the Syrians political control over Judea following over a century of Egyptian influence. Verse 43 belongs to an entirely different figure; note that in v. 20 someone else (i.e. Seleucus IV) "stands in his place", and then in v. 21 still another king (i.e. Antiochus IV) "stands in his place". The rest of the chapter relates the career of Antiochus IV. As for v. 44-45, this dovetails the scenario involved in the death of Cambyses II...he was engaged in a war against Egypt, he hears troubling rumors from the east that induces him to return home, and he dies in Coele-Syria between a mountain and a sea.

jayhawk1

So this stuff in Daniel 11 actually happened? Here I thought Daniel's brain got cooked when he was standing a little too close to that fire Nebuchadnezzar threw Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in. Thanks for the lesson Leolaia.

Leolaia

Everything in ch. 11 happened up to v. 40. This is where history ceases and prediction begins. But Antiochus IV never launched a third expedition against Egypt and he died in Persia not Coele-Syria. That is why later interpreters mentally inserted an artificial break here and ascribed these later verses to a far future Antichrist. The Society instead takes all the material that refers to Antiochus IV and ascribes it to a long line of "kings of the north" who switch identities over two thousand years -- conspicuously skipping over Antiochus IV himself -- allowing them to place v. 40-45 into the future.

Note how the Persian period is rather vaguely related in the beginning of the chapter, then the amount of detail about subsequent kings increases gradually until you reach the reign of Antiochus III who gets a big block of detailed material (v. 10-19) and then Antiochus IV gets the biggest amount of material of all (v. 21-45). The amount of detail increases the closer one gets to the second century BC, which is what one would expect for a book completed during the reign of Antiochus IV. In fact, the book itself claims that "vision" of Daniel would remain "sealed" until the "time of the end" (12:4, 9), and ch. 11 describes the "time of the end" as the time of Antiochus' persecution against the Jews which leads up until his death (11:31-35, 40), i.e. from 168-164 BC. The unsealing of the vision is commonly misinterpreted as referring to the making known of the meaning of the vision, but this is not what the text says. It is the book itself that is to be sealed until the "time of the end" (12:4). Thus, the book itself dates the time when it was published as 168-164 BC. That was the time when this "ancient" book made its appearance on the scene with a "timely" message. It is generally thought that the sealing/unsealing motif is an internal plot device that explains why no one in the second century BC had ever seen this supposedly old book before. The same motif occurs in many other apocalyptic books of the era. The Testament of Moses, for instance, relates how Moses was instructed to hide this book in clay jars so that it would be revealed "at the end of days" (1:16-18). Revelation however turns this motif on its head because it had no need to explain why centuries had gone by since the time it was written, thus it states the opposite of Daniel: "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near." (22:10). While the putative author of Daniel supposedly allowed centuries to elapse from the sixth century BC (i.e. the time when it portrays itself as written) and the second century BC (i.e. the time when it was actually published), this was not the intention of John of Patmos, as he wanted to get his message out right away.

jayhawk1

Leolaia, that is the clearest summary of Daniel 11 I've ever seen. A much better summary than Watchtower could ever hope to provide.

If I remember right, Watchtower even had England being the King of the North when the Colonies (USA... King of South) began the Revolutionary War. Again if my memory is right, isn't that strange how a nation can be both the North and South in order to fit Watchtower's plans?

Leolaia

It's pure unmitigated BS. The Society's interpretation of ch. 11 is a textbook example of eisegesis, i.e. of reading what one wants into the text. If one really followed what the text itself says, one would never go so far afield in reaching for latter day "fulfillments". It is really silly how they entirely skip over the reign of Antiochus IV, when all the stuff they want to put into the twentieth century or attribute to Queen Zenoba or whatever follows the reign of Antiochus IV to a tee. Heck, even 1 Maccabees which was written in the second century BC relates how Antiochus IV erected the "abomination of desolation" in the Temple (1 Maccabees 1:54, cf. Daniel 11:31). The funniest bit was their explanation of the "ships of Kittim" in the Daniel book. They argue in a very strained manner that these were naval ships involved in World War I. But elsewhere in the same book (p. 231), they relate in passing how Roman ships frustrated Antiochus' efforts of conquering Egypt, and their description of this event matches what is stated in Daniel 11.

*** dp chap. 14 p. 231 The Two Kings Change Identities ***
SYRIAN monarch Antiochus IV invades Egypt and crowns himself its king. At the request of Egyptian King Ptolemy VI, Rome sends Ambassador Caius Popilius Laenas to Egypt. He has with him an impressive fleet and orders from the Roman Senate that Antiochus IV renounce his kingship of Egypt and withdraw from the country. At Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Syrian king and the Roman ambassador come face-to-face. Antiochus IV requests time for consultation with his advisers, but Laenas draws a circle around the king and tells him to answer before stepping across the line. Humiliated, Antiochus IV complies with Roman demands and returns to Syria in 168 B.C.E. Thus ends the confrontation between the Syrian king of the north and the Egyptian king of the south.

Compare Daniel 11:29-30: "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before [i.e. it will be unsuccessful]. Ships of the western coastlands [i.e. Kittim] will oppose him, and he will lose heart". Gee, a perfect match! But this is not how the Society interprets Daniel 11:29-30. No, it has to refer to ships engaged in World War I!!!

Threestars

They're ALL silly. The KoN was Abe Lincoln and the KoS was Jefferson Davis!

nvrgnbk

Thanks threestars,

Now it all fits. And Megiddo must be Gettysburg. Sweet!

greendawn

The king of the north definitely was the Soviet Union. As for the Middle East being the new northern king that is nonsensical since that is a geographical term describing a region and not a political entity. There are in this region mainly moslem arab states but they are far from being politically united. The terrorist policy is in fact promoted by a minority of Moslems not having any back up from these states except perhaps Iran and Syria.

nvrgnbk

How about this?

The KON is the Eastern Hemisphere. The KOS is the Western Hemisphere. Armageddon will be fought on the Moon.

Thinking I could write for the WTBTS,

Nvr

King of the North & South

Share this