ships of kittim

by buffalosrfree 19 Replies latest jw friends

  • rebel8

    LOL, yes they are all bizarre. PS, I was out for Valentine's dinner last night and on the wine list was Australian Shiraz. I was telling my husband about your affection for it! My wine these days is white merlot though. mmmm

  • greendawn

    Kittim in the Bible refers to Cyprus an island not very far away from Syria and Palestine, apparently back in those days they were very good at constructing ships.

  • Elsewhere

    I've got a video of those Ships of Kittens...

  • stillajwexelder

    Yes I was at the bookstudy when this was discussed - the ships of kittim are indeed the British Navy later on allied by the US navy after Woodrow Wilsons congress decalred war on Germany. I agree one of my top 5 all time favorite most ridiculous teachings of the WTS

  • peggy

    OZZIE: you are wrong, at least about my loyal BS conductor. He is not embarrassed because he doesn't understand it anymore then anyone else nor does he want to! Last night at BS, he went off on a tangent about how we studied some time back about the ships of Kittim. He said it was really good information but he can't remember what it was about! Then why bring it UP, was my question! BS this past six weeks has been more boring and agonizing then usual!

  • Leolaia

    By the second century BC (when Daniel was written), Kittim had become the general Jewish name for the Romans. The mid-second century AD translator of the Daniel into Greek thus renders the Hebrew "Kittim" as Romaioi "Romans" (Daniel 11:30 LXX), and the Latin Vulgate renders it as Romani. There is also, of course, the Commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab) in the Dead Sea Scrolls that repeatedly refers to the Romans as "Kittim", and the Targums of Numbers 24:24 also identify them with the Romans (which the author of Hebrew Daniel seems to be doing as well, viewing that oracle as being fulfilled in Antiochus IV). That it no longer meant just "Cyprus" is indicated by Josephus (Antiquities 1.6.1) who claims that the Jews use the term "for all islands and most maritime countries" in the Mediterranean, including Italy but also Macedonia (as it is in 1 Maccabees 1:1).

    The whole of ch. 11 (with the exception of the verses following v. 40, in which the author ventures his own prediction) follows Seleucid history very closely, and is exquisite in detail in relating the careers of Antiochus III (v. 10-19) and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (v. 21-39). It is therefore absolutely clear what historical event is being described in v. 30, because the verse is patently about the second campaign of Antiochus IV against Egypt (see v. 25 for the first campaign, and v. 29 for the second), and its abrupt cessation due to the intervention of Romans, an embarrassing event for the king related in multiple Greek and Roman histories. The identification of the "Kittim" is thus secure; it was Romans, not Cypriots, who did this very thing.

    DobBob....That is hilarious! The British Navy during WWI? LOL!!! Unfortunately, they want to stretch Daniel 11 into the twentith century and thus arbitrarily take the whole section that applies to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and apply it to kings throughout history that came AFTER him. Note in particular how they follow Seleucid history for most of ch. 11 and agree that v. 13-19 refers to Antiochus III, but then instead of continuing with Seleucid history and recognizing that v. 21-39 OBVIOUSLY refers to Antiochus IV, they lump Antiochus IV somehow into the end of v. 13-19 and suddenly launch forth outside of Seleucid history, taking v. 20 to refer to Tiberius Caesar, v. 21-24 to refer to the Roman Empire, v. 25-26 to refer to the break down of the Roman Empire and Queen Zenoba (WTF?), and then the rest of the chapter zips centuries ahead to the twentieth century. The funny thing about all of this is that the bits they do talk about Antiochus IV embarrassingly correspond to the sections of the vision that the Society wants to apply to the twentieth century. So for instance, concerning Antiochus IV (which the Society is unable to find a clear reference to him in the prophecy), they write:

    ***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.

    Now doesn't that sound A LOT like what is described in Daniel 11:29-30? "In due time he will make his way southwards again but this time the outcome will not be as before. The ships of Kittim will oppose him, and he will be intimidated. He will retire and take furious action against the holy covenant..." But noooooo! This verse cannot refer to Antiochus IV, it has to refer to British ships in WWI!! Same thing applies to Antiochus IV's attack on the Temple, razing of Jerusalem, and installation of the Abomination of Desolation: "On the fifteenth day of Chislev in the year one hundred and forty-five [i.e. 167 BC] the king erected the abomination of desolation above the altar" (1 Maccabees 1:54). The Society also describes this event in the Daniel book, but fails to match it with any corresponding verse in Daniel 11:

    ***dp chap. 13 p. 227 Two Kings in Conflict ***

    The new king of the north, Antiochus IV, sought to show himself mightier than God by trying to eradicate Jehovah’s arrangement of worship. Defying Jehovah, he dedicated Jerusalem’s temple to Zeus, or Jupiter. In December 167 B.C.E., a pagan altar was erected on top of the great altar in the temple courtyard where a daily burnt offering had been made to Jehovah. Ten days later, a sacrifice to Zeus was offered on the pagan altar. This desecration led to a Jewish uprising under the Maccabees.

    This pagan altar was called "the abomination of desolation" by the Maccabees. This event is clearly described in 11:31: "Forces of his will come and profane the sanctuary citadel; they will abolish the perpetual sacrifice and install the abomination of desolation there". But the Society cannot have this refer to such a historical event (which Josephus regarded as a fulfillment of this prophecy). Nooooo... it has to refer to the United Nations established after WWII!! LOL!!

    If anyone is interested in what this chapter is really about, just pick up just about any good Bible commentary on Daniel (cf. the ones by Collins, Montgomery, Charles, Gowan, Goldingay, Hartman & DiLella, Porteous, Lacocque, etc.), and see for yourself what a travesty the Society's Daniel book is (tho this should be obvious already ).

  • ozziepost
    one of my top 5 all time favorite most ridiculous teachings of the WTS

    Neatly put - I can feel a poll coming on!

  • fullofdoubtnow

    I remember reading the wts 's "interpretation" of the ships of kittim, and meekly accepting it, yet it certainly has to be one of their more bizarre teachings, if thats what you can really call it.

    It perhaps ranks even higher on the bs scale than the 7 trumpet blasts of revelation being 7 conventions in the 1920s. And I believed that at the time as well........just gullible I suppose.

  • stillajwexelder

    Actually if you put the Daniel Book and Revealtion Grand Climax books together, I think they contain some absolute gems of BS - together they contain the most ridiculous teachings of the WTS

  • ozziepost


    Yup, now I know there's a poll coming outa this? I can just see it: What's the dubs' most ridiculous teaching? Here it is:

Share this