Watchtower Sudy 12 July.the Kings of North & South (from 05/20 issue)

by BluesBrother 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Bobcat

  Most commentaries see Dan 11:2-20 as a step by step description of rulers starting from Persia down to Seleucus IV Philopator (c. 187-176 BCE). Then, Dan 11:21-35 goes into extensive detail about Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). Then Dan 11:36-45 is usually seen as some future mystery king (often explained as "the Antichrist").

  If I remember correctly, the WT explains Dan 11:2-19 the same way commentaries do, with the exception that Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV are lumped into Dan 11:13-19. But from Dan 11:20-45 WT commentary begins to leap frog thru history, thru the 1st century and on down to modern times.
• 

  nowwhat?

  Wow just checked biblehub.com myself. Every other translation clearly says it was the k.o.s. that was defeated. More wt lies
• 

  Vidiot

  TD - “...Why are they pedalling the King of the North & South thing at all?”

  ‘Cause Fred Franz died without leaving any kind of protege, and Ted Jaracz purged out all the creative-types...

  ...so there’s no one left with the necessary narrative chops to properly overhaul the WT’s eschatology.

  They’re essentially stuck with the old Cold-War-centric script.
• 

  RubaDub

  King of the North and South ... Wicked Witch of the East and West ....

  Life goes on.
• 

  Beth Sarim

  ""They’re essentially stuck with the old Cold-War-centric script.""

  &
  
  

  ""King of the North and South ... Wicked Witch of the East and West ....

  Life goes on.""

  Because they can't have one without the other. It's like their 1914 theology. They"re stuck with it. They just have to phase it out.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  sir82:

  Wasn't that all those ancient Egyptian, Greek, & Roman rulers? Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Augustus, etc.

  Sort of. Nothing beyond the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties until the death of Antiochus IV in 164 BCE was ever actually part of the 'fulfilment'.

  In 1958, the Watch Tower Society abandoned its association of Daniel 11:17-19 with Cleopatra VII, with a subtle 'bait and switch' instead noting Cleopatra I as the wife of Ptolemy V who was instead nominated as the 'king' identified in those verses. (Cleopatra VII is only briefly mentioned in Your Will be Done and the later Daniel's Prophecy but not identified with any specific verses of Daniel chapter 11.)
  
• 

  Bobcat

  Here are two graphics showing the difference between the standard understanding of Daniel chapter 11 and the WT's understanding:

  The historical fulfillment usually seen in commentaries:

  
  

  The WT understanding as seen in the Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy book:

  

  In the latest update, WT deletes Emperor Aurelius (King of North) & Queen Zenobia (King of South) on the line for Dan 11:25-26 and then moves everyone below that one line up. (If I don't have that correctly, please set me straight.)

  Notice, for example, how in the WT explanation Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV are removed from Dan 11:20 & Dan 11:21-35 and lumped in the line Dan 11:13-19. The next two lines are explained as Roman emperors and then the explanation moves to modern times.
• 

  Jeffro

  Bobcat:

  In the latest update, WT deletes Emperor Aurelius (King of North) & Queen Zenobia (King of South) on the line for Dan 11:25-26 and then moves everyone below that one line up. (If I don't have that correctly, please set me straight.)

  Notice, for example, how in the WT explanation Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV are removed from Dan 11:20 & Dan 11:21-35 and lumped in the line Dan 11:13-19. The next two lines are explained as Roman emperors and then the explanation moves to modern times.

  Their attribution of Daniel 11:20 has always been Augustus, and this can't be changed because, as with other Protestant interpretations, it (supposedly) links the 'prophecy' to Jesus. (The verse actually refers to Heliodorus confiscating treasures from the temple in 176 BCE.)

  The identification of the 'kings' in verses 25 and 26 previously said to be Aurelius and Zenobia have now been lumped in with their 'explanation' about the German Empire and Britain (verses 27 to 30a). The subsequent 'identifications' don't 'move one line up', only the portion attributed to the German Empire and Britain is extended upwards to include verses 25-26.

  (Also, the top chart you provided incorrectly associates verses 13 and 14 with Ptolemy IV instead of Ptolemy V. These verses allude to actions by Antiochus III after the death of Ptolemy IV.)
  

  See Daniel's dreams and visions.
• 

  Bobcat

  Thanks Jeffro, for setting me straight on that. I chose that top graphic because it had a similar design to the WT one and would make for a relatively easy comparison. Thanks for the link too.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  Bobcat, "The NWT uses "and" in Dan 11:25 since it first came out. But I saw no footnote explaining the reason. I don't think I have seen any other translation that uses "and." They all say "but" or something equivalent."

  Both Young's Literal Translation and Douay-Rheims Translation use "and".

  But, my question - after having read and reread the verse several times - what difference does it make? I fully understand the difference between the words "but" and "and" - but in this verse, I do not see how the meaning changes? Please enlighten me.