https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
No. It is superstition, it is an adaptation of an interpretation employed by earlier Adventists, and it is yet another attempt to portray the stories in Daniel as relevant for 'our day'.
It arises from a careful reading of the text, recognizing patterns from previous verses, and understanding the complex nature of prophetic conflict.
It arises from desperately wanting it to be a 'prophecy' relevant to 'our day' rather than a description of past events in the apocalyptic genre.
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
raymond frantz:
First of all, there is an ambiguity in the use of the pronoun, … This unclear pronoun ("him") suggests a distinct third party, separate from the king of the South and the king of the North.
First of all, this isn’t really a new take on interpreting the ‘kings’ at all. This is recycling Adventist interpretations of Daniel from the 19th and early 20th century (including, but not limited to or originating with, Charles Taze Russell), which portrayed Napoleon as a ‘third king’.
The ‘ambiguity’ isn’t particularly ambiguous when the whole context indicates two ‘kings’ interacting with each other:
At the time of the end, the King of the South will engage with [the king of the North] in a pushing, and against [the king of the South], the King of the North will storm with chariots and horsemen…It is neither new nor surprising that someone is attempting to reinvigorate the tedious superstitions about the passage, as usual seeking to apply it to ‘our day’.
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
Vidqun:
Take note, יַמִּ֖ים jammim “seas” (plural). What does it mean? Isaiah explains the symbolic use of “sea:”
It’s really funny how you get to arbitrarily decide what’s taken literally. 🤦♂️ When it’s shown directly that the tents were literally between the great sea and the holy mountain, suddenly we need to jump into symbolism from Isaiah. 🤣 May Elohim (plural) forgive you.
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
Vidqun:
Jeffro, for a Biblically based exegesis one takes the language as is:
For a valid analysis, one considers the actual context in which the work was written, including historical, political, cultural and religious factors, and the genre of the work. The blatantly obvious relation of Daniel to the Maccabean period makes other interpretations plainly absurd. But you can stick to your funny little superstitions and your trite interpretations that predictably put the ‘time of the end’ in ‘our time’🙄—wow, what a coincidence! 🤣
So when we read the following, we don't have to revert to “hyperbolic, open ended and superstitious phrasing.” We take it quiteliterally:
I bet they’re crafting palatial tents as we speak.
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
Vidqun:
Thus, the following passage cannot apply to Antiochus, for he died of illness: "And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him." (Dan. 11:45 ESV)
When Antiochus IV went to fight east of Syria, he left Lysias in charge against the Maccabees. What was the location that Antiochus had established where Lysias and the army were encamped? Emmaus. Where is that? It's "between the sea and the glorious holy mountain".
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
🤦♂️
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
🤦♂️ Don’t encourage them. They might believe it.
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
I’ve already explained to you that hyperbole is part of the genre. Daniel is religious propaganda, not a crystal ball. It’s time to let go. 🤦♂️
Towards the close of 164 BCE, he died at Tabea,
Yes. Tabae. East of Syria. Antiochus attacked Egypt (verse 40) then also attacked Jerusalem (41) but went to fight to the east and north-Parthia and Armenia (44) while he left his representatives in charge against the Maccabees but he died (45). Just like Daniel 11::40-45 says (minus the symbolic window dressing and exaggeration).
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
Vidqun:
Jeffro, it is impossible to fit Dan. 11:40-45 into the reign of Antiochus.
It clearly isn’t, because I have done so.
It is rather predictive prophecy, deferred to the end time, some future time.
Despite the hyperbolic, open ended and superstitious phrasing in Daniel (typical of the apocalyptic genre), the time period discussed in Daniel is well known to culminate in the restoration of Jerusalem’s temple in 165 BCE and Antiochus’ subsequent death. (Sources vary regarding placement of the period of desolation from 167-164 or 168-165; 165 BCE fits the Seleucid years better.) But you’re welcome to keep chasing your tail with fantasies.
https://youtu.be/w32nome-k20?si=a8bhxh5tjrkomgzq.
rather than seeing the king of the north as the final opponent of god’s people, i propose that daniel 11 points to a completely different figure.
while the watchtower society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the new world translation.
Verses 40–43 are set during the “time of the end” and include reference to the ‘land of the decoration’ (Jerusalem), indicating the attacks on Egypt in those verses to refer to events during the Sixth Syrian War rather than later events.
Verses 44-45 allude to Antiochus being ‘disturbed’ by ‘reports out of the east and north’, Antiochus IV attacked Parthians and sent other troops to deal with the Maccabees (167 BCE).
And beyond that failure of hyperbolic superstitious expectations does not mean ‘it must be still in the future’.
