Is U.S. last world power?

by 2tone 32 Replies latest jw friends

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    Granted, if you do not believe in the God of the Bible, and the Bible as His word, you will view the book of Daniel as an imperfect chronicle of history. Ignore this post then.

    Phizzy, have you read the book? Then you will know it refers to "the latter part of the days" (Dan. 2:28; here use Is. 2:2 as reference) and the "end time" (Dan. 11:40) respectively. Only in this Bible book is the "end time" mentioned (cf. Dan. 8:17, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9). The writer(s) had a world view (cf. image of Dan. 2). Here is a few internal reasons why I believe the book of Daniel to concentrate on the future:

    The book of Daniel is first and foremost a book of prophecy. It concerns the future. This we see from the arrangement of the contents. One quarter describes happenings in the life of Daniel and his friends. Three quarters contain prophecy.

    This we also determine from the book itself. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar: “However, there exists a God in the heavens who is a Revealer of secrets, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what is to occur in the final part [’acharith] of the days” [“the latter days”, KJV] (Dan. 2:28).

    Later the angel Gabriel would inform Daniel: “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of [the] end” [“the end time”, NAB] (Dan. 8:17b). He continued: “Here I am causing you to know what will occur in the final part [’acharith] of the denunciation, because it is for the appointed time of the end” (cf. Dan. 8:19; 11:36). The small horn or fierce king will rise “in the final part [’acharith] of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to completion” (cf. Dan. 8:23). Gabriel concluded: “And you, for your part, keep secret the vision, because it is for many days” [“it concerns the distant future”, NIV] (cf. Dan. 8:26b).

    Concerning the final vision, the angel revealed: “And I have come to cause you to discern what will befall your people in the final part [’acharith] of the days, because it is a vision yet for the days [to come]” [“for the vision pertains to future days”, NET] (cf. Dan. 10:14). [Cursive script added.]

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    Sinis, as I understand it, the Libyans and Cushites fall in behind the King of the North. From what I can gather, the Libyans stands for the Arab block, and the Cushites for the African Union. Why do I say that? This is why:

    The prophecy of Dan. 11:43 confirms what we already know. Libyans and Ethiopians “will be at his steps”. The expression indicates submission to authority. These will follow in the procession or train (crowd, LXX) of the King of the North. They will actively support the King of the North in his quest. In the MT and LXX these appear without the definite article, an indication that the words “Libyans” and “Ethiopians” are used in a general, wide-ranging and non-specific sense. In Bible times these would fight as mercenaries in Egypt’s armies, alongside the Sukkiim (cf. 2 Chron. 12:3) :

    a. As seen, “ Libyans” would here be a collective name, referring to representatives of Arabic nations (Arab. lubí for all of white North Africa). As will be seen, the Bible refers specifically to the Putians (= inhabitants of Put) as living in the geographic area of the Libya of today. The Greek terms libues (LXX) and libuoun (Theodotion) seem to be even more comprehensive than Hebrew lubhîm according to Herodotus (II, 32), “Libyans, many tribes of them”.

    Originally these Libyans would be incorporated in the Egyptian army. Eventually these would conquer Egypt (cf. 2 Chron. 12:3). The majority of nations formed by these tribes would adhere to the Muslim faith. This would serve as a unifying factor. Under the Islamic Ottomans, these tribes would eventually dominate southern Europe, as well as the Middle East. The Arab League, officially known as the League of Arab States, was formed in 1948. It is based in Cairo, Egypt, and consists of 22 members.

    As seen, these are the ones in control of the world’s oil reserves, their cartel commonly known as OPEC. This is their stronghold (Theodotion). These would be included in the retinue of the King of the North. Over the years they would have amassed billions of Petrodollars which could effectively be used to manipulate world markets, to the detriment of the King of the South.

    b. The designation “Ethiopians” of the LXX and Vg point to the only noteworthy black nation of Bible times. Quite a few modern translators prefer the literal “Cushites” as it has a broader meaning (Cushite = black man). Here it would be a collective name, referring to the African block of nations.

    African nations would be grouped under the African Union or AU, formed in 2002, consisting of 53 states. The AU, successor of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), w ould serve as their stronghold. Ironically, t he AU’s secretariat, the African Union Authority, would be based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

    The seat of the Pan-African Parliament, the highest legislative body of the AU, would be situated at Midrand, South Africa. The latter belongs to IBSA, an international tripartite grouping, promoting economic cooperation between South Africa, Brazil, and India. Under the leadership of Jacob Zuma, South Africa would be invited to join BRIC, another powerful bloc of emerging nations, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

    The AU would represent the aspirations of black African nations, controlling a substantial percentage of the world’s oil reserves and natural resources. These will also be at the steps (or follow at the heels) of the King of the North. These would support him in his economic attack on the King of the South.

    I try and fit in history with prophecy. Sheer speculation, you might say. Well, why not. Who of us don't love to speculate. And this is what is happening today, whether we like it or not.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Daniel is not a book of prophecy, if you wish to read into it, or any similar book, the fulfillment of what you see as prophecy you are free to do so and it is easily done, just for fun once I did a similar exercise with a bit of "Revelation" , my efforts made as much sense as Russells, Rutherfords and Freddie Franz et al

    Read some scholarly commentaries where the writer has no "End Times" agenda and you will appreciate what the book of Daniel really is.

    Beware of eisegesis.

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    Fizzy, here's some research on "the final part of the days" and "the end time" from external sources. If you are interested in the subject, you will find it thought-provoking. If not, ignore the post.

    a) Latter days: ’acharith hayyamim = latter (part of the) days

    ’acharith = end, issue: spatial meaning, hind part of cow, remote sea (cf. Ps. 139:9); temporal meaning, end (of the year), in future days, outcome, result, in the end, finally. Antonym: qêdêm (= formerly).

    The formulaic expression be’acharith hayyamim is generally used in the sense “time to come” (e.g., Gen. 49:1), then the “future”, and “the end of time” as we know it (e.g., Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Hos. 3:5; Ezek. 38:16; Dan. 2:28; 10:14). See TDOT, vol. VI, p. 19.

    Moses, in his farewell song, summons all to remember the days of old, and to consider the years of past generations. The same song says concerning foolish apostates: “If they were wise, they would understand this, they would discern their afterward [le’acharitham]” (cf. Deut. 32:29). Similarly, the psalmist, in Ps. 73:17, says that he would go into the sanctuary of God in order to discern their future, i.e., the future of the ungodly. Those that disregard Him, He will tear down (cf. Ps. 28:5).

    According to the editors of TWOT, “E. H. Wolff likens the Hebrew conception of time to the situation of a man rowing a boat. He sees the past as before him (qêdêm); the future is behind his back (’acharith).” The interpretation depends on the context. It is possible to use the latter for the eschaton as well as the general future because obviously all eschatology is future, but not all future is eschatology. John J. Collins, i n the Daniel commentary of the Hermeneia-series, p. 161, comments:

    28 . what will be at the end of the era: The biblical phrase ’acharith hayyamim typically refers to some decisive change at a future time. It has been argued that in some of the early uses (Num 24:14; Gen 49:1; Deut 4:30; 31:29) the reference is to a limited future time. In Numbers 24 and Genesis 49, however, the phrase is not part of the ancient poetry. These passages were read as classical eschatological texts in the post-exilic period, and such an understanding was probably implied already by the introduction of the phrase ’acharith hayyamim. In Deuteronomy the reference is to future turning points in Israel’s history, in relation to the covenant. In other passages the phrase has a more specifically eschatological meaning (Isa 2:2/Mic 4:1; Hos 3:5; Ezek 38:16). In Isaiah/Micah and Hosea the reference is to a definitive transformation in Israel in the distant future. In Ezekiel the reference is to the advent of Gog, as part of the drama that will precede the definitive transformation. Even in these cases, however, the conventional translation “end of days” is questionable, since an end of the world or history is not envisaged. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the phrase is used with reference to the messianic age (1Qsa 1:1; 4QpIsa 7.3.22; CD 6:11; 4Qflor 1:2, 12). In Daniel, too, the reference is to a definitive change in the future but not to an end of history.

    In the majority of cases the phrase “(in) the latter part of the days” could be defined as “the end of human history as we know it” (cf. Jer. 30:24; Is. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Ez. 38:8, 16). More specifically, in the book of Daniel: “(God in heaven) has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the ’acharith of the days (2:28). The point of the vision does not lie in the course of future events, but in the destruction of the colossus and in the coming of an indestructible kingdom (v. 44). Thus the outcome of the future is what is intended, and not the future in general. Similarly, 10:14 says: “I (the angel that had appeared) came to make you understand what is to befall your people in (at) the ’acharith of the days. For the vision is for days yet to come.” Since the following material deals with the stages of history from Cyrus to Antiochus IV, the meaning “future” cannot be excluded here; but the real purpose of the vision is to show how history will culminate, thus its outcome. Therefore, this passage has in mind the end, and not merely the future.” (TDOT, vol. I, pp. 211, 212)

    Daniel asked, “What will be the final part of these things?” (cf. Dan. 12:8) The reference to “after(wards)” does not necessarily point to a chronological end, but “to show how history will culminate, thus its outcome” (TDOT, vol. I, p. 212). Such a biblical concept is not far-fetched at all. A similar view is held by political economist and author, Francis Fukuyama, in his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man . He is quoted as saying: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

    b) End time: `eith qeits = end time

    `eith : “time”. (Sept. 162 times kairos, 26 times houra, twice khronos). Time of judgement, time of the end (Is. 13:22 of Babel; Ez. 22:3 of Jerusalem), time of final punishment (Ez. 21:30, 34; 35:5).

    qeits : “end”. The noun qes derives from the common Semitic root qtsts “cut off”, “cut to pieces”, end, temporal (period of time), 1) end (of lifetime), 2) period of time, 3) historical period, 4) eschatology, or spatial, end (edges) of earth, heavens, cf. Jer. 49:36. Antonym: ro’sh (= beginning).

    Historical period : Often qeits denotes a specific span of time in the past or future. The expression `eith `äwon qeits (Ez. 21:30, 34 [25, 29]; 35:5) refers to the period of the monarchy, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem on account of Israel’s sins. Similarly, in Dan. 9:26 the phrase weqitstsou bashshêthêph we`adh qeits milhhâmâh is to be understood as referring to a historical period of devastating wars that mark the culmination of divine judgement.

    The connotation “historical period” or “age” is sometimes, as above, made explicit by association with other temporal terms: qeits par. `eith (Jer. 50:26, 27; Ez. 7:6, 7), `eith qeits (Dan. 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9); inverted qeits hâ`ittîm (Dan. 11:13; expanded: Ez. 35:5) or made manifest by added terms kî-`odh lammou`eidh (Dan. 11:35)… The phrase weyâpheiahh laqqeits in Hab. 2:3, explained by `oudh hâzoun lammou’eidh, refers to an event expected to occur in the near future kî-bo’ yâbhou’ lo’ ye’ahheir, not in an apocalyptic time frame. This historical interpretation is reflected in 1QpHab. 7:1ff. (cf. TDOT, vol. XIII, pp. 82, 83).

    Time of [the] end (= [the] end time): This phrase occurs six times in the Bible and is exclusive to the book of Daniel. “The expression qes in the book of Daniel (8:17, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9; cf. Hab. 2:3) clearly aims to convey a juxtaposition of the present and the eschatological future; for, although “the time of the final phase” refers primarily to the period of persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, this period is also the time of tribulation that marks the opening phase of the eschaton” (TDOT, vol. XI, p. 450). Daniel had to seal the book till the “end time”. From there he would “go toward the end”, i.e., rest, and then stand up to collect his reward (cf. Dan. 12:4, 9, 13).

    Eschatology : Only in a few late biblical texts does qeits occur in an eschatological context. The expression laqqeits and leqeits hayyamîn in Dnl. 12:13 clearly refer to the “end of time”. This does not mean that time will stop, but that history as we know it, will come to an end. In this context the phrase qeits happelâ’outh in verse 6 can also be interpreted eschatologically; but the meaning “appointed age” is preferable to an eschatological interpretation. The expression qeits happelâ’outh anticipates a “wonderful age,” the beginning of which is determined by preceding period of “two and a half times” (v. 7). In Ezk. 7:2-6, similarly, (haq)qeits denotes an age of destined punishment of the people (cf. vv. 7-8, qâroubh miqqâroubh); and Amos 8:2 should not be equated with the eschatological “day of Yahweh” of Amos 5:18ff. (TDOT, vol. XIII, p. 83)

    Coming back to the book of Daniel, according to the angel, the big horn or fierce king, later introduced as King of the South, will stand up during the “[the] end time” (cf. Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14, 20, 26, 27; 8:17, 19). This King will then become involved in a final military confrontation with the King of the North, a most trying time for God’s people (cf. Dan. 11:35, 40). During this time Michael will stand up (as king), his people will escape, and [true] knowledge will become abundant as the seal on the book of Daniel is broken (Dan. 7:13, 14; 8:26; 9:24; 12:1, 4, 9). The big horn and fierce king, alias King of the South, will then be destroyed, broken without a [human] hand (cf. Dan. 7:26; 8:25b). A similar fate awaits the King of the North. He will come “all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him” (Dan. 11:45; cf. 2:44, 45).

  • transhuman68
    transhuman68

    Humans have always lived in the ‘end-times’. This is the end of time- we can look back into the past, but we can’t look into the future- so time has stopped. The past is history: the future is mystery. We are stuck in 2012, and won’t get to 2013 for almost 12 months.

  • Kensei01
    Kensei01

    China a world power? Interesting question. China is certainly a nuclear power. It is also a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with veto voting rights. Yes China has a history of voting with the then Soviet Union. At the moment all indicators in the past two years point to a coming full on military alliance with Russia. They signed an energy agreement to assist in accessing Siberian crude; since the U.S. has made it very clear that they will not allow China to have all the oil it wants due to their human rights policies; and the money is flowing from Beijing to Moscow. Certainly China is a regional power, but to conclude that China is a world power on its own is ambitious. China has immense internal problems to solve before being able to project its influence internationally. As well; although being numerous, China's armed forces do not possess the ability to project their power anywhere other than within their own area and its navy; other than ballistic missile submarines; can really only control its coastline, and that includes its naval aviation.

    So at the moment it is reasonable to conclude that China; although powerful in its region, and with economic influence with its trading partners; is not a world power. Coming global polarization may include a Sino-Russo military alliance(it is interesting to notice that the U.S. and India have entered in to some initiatives together, so that two most numerous nations in Asia do not come together) and perhaps even Iran.

    Just my two cents, and that's about all it's worth..have a great day everyone.

    Kensei

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    True, the Essene break-away group at Qumran also interpreted the prophets as though they were living in the "end time." In a manner of speaking their end did come when they were destroyed by Roman legions. For the Jewish zealots the last stand was Masada. Up to this day, the Jews take their army recruits up there and tell them: "Remember Masada." But here we are, going into 2012, all wondering what the future holds.

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    I don't think the United Tyranny of Stupidity (once upon a time, the United States of America) is the last world power. First, China is fast coming up.

    And second, King Rothschild is going to soon take claim of the whole world, and we will then get our One World Totalitarian Government. And that will be our last world power--in fact, it will be the only world power, until the earth is rendered uninhabitable by the sun running out of time or getting knocked out of orbit some billions of years from now.

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    WTWizard:King Rothschild is going to soon take claim of the whole world, and we will then get our One World Totalitarian Government.

    It may appear that way but not everybody is on the same page with the Rothschild Dynasty. In fact, the rest of the world is sick of being held hostage by them, and there is a coalition of 122 nations right now implementing a plan to end their financial tyranny. Whether or not that is what actually leads to WWIII remains to be seen.

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

    It's hard to see how the Chinese would become a worldwide power without overseas possesions and colonies. A regional power to be sure, but they have historic and bitter rivalries with the Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese. They also have an unresolved conflict with Taiwan, a Muslim uprising in the far west, the Tibetan question, and the emergence of an economically powerfully and soon to be more populous India directly to the south. No matter how much their Navy and Army grows, they still will only be a threat to their immediate neighbors. With a nuclear armed world, China can ill-afford a conflict with India or Pakistan, let alone Russia, the US and the West. The emergence of nuclear arms and the fact that several countries have them (9 total, and 10 if you count Iran) makes the age of worldwide empires obsolete. Many say that China will eventually take over much of Siberia, but I don't believe for a second that Russia is letting that go without a fight. Russia wont even relinquish a handful of sparsely inhabited Japanese islands that they hold. What we are looking at is a multi polar world. The Anglo-US alliance is alive and well and covers much of the Anglosphere. Russia has shown itself pretty testy over former Soviet territory and will be so in the future. Europe may look like they're in decline, but they have the solid economic anchors of Germany and France. The Muslim empire could coalesce around the newly free "republics" of the Arab Spring. And then there's China. There's just too many regional powers that prevent anyone from just coming in and just taking over.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit