DISCLOSURE - A lot of this is a historical analysis of the Watchtower's claims about the accuracy of biblical prophecies and the Seven World Powers. If you can't stomach anything related to history, scroll down toward the end where I began to talk about their crafty spin on certain scriptures about the end times.
I've been sorta kinda keeping up with the magazines...if you haven't heard..the Awake journal has a running series of articles on the 7 world powers of bible prophecy. I don't even know why they refer to them all as "world powers" anyway. Egypt was only a mighty nation, and merely a local hegemon, not an empire or a world power by any means. It had no means of projecting its power outside of its immediate geographical sphere of influence. Assyria was an empire in the true sense of the word..but its empire was limited to Mesopotamia and the Levant region..a very small area and certainly not a "world" power. Babylon's empire was limited to the exact same region (even less actually as the Assyrian empire was divided equally between Babylon and Media), and that empire only lasted approximately 70 years. Even better, during Babylon's supposed supremacy..it wasn't even the most powerful nation among its immediate neighbors! The Median empire was far greater in terms of size and population and military might! The Neo-Babylonian kings built up massive defensive fortifications around their capital city instead of expanding their empire because they were so fearful of their more powerful neighbor - the Medes!
The "Medo-Persian" empire as the Watchtower calls it was the first actual empire in the bible that could possibly be given the title of "world power". The size of the empire, its duration, and its cultural influence were all unprecedented, and it was the greatest, most formidable power in the known world, from India to Europe. Yet the bible has Daniel saying that the "Medo-Persian" empire would not be as great as the Babylonian one! Hello??? False prophecy?? Also..although the Watchtower loves using the term "Medo-Persian World Power", the reality is that it was simply a Persian empire, not some kind of alliance or dual-empire. The Persians subjugated the Medes, assumed control of their empire, and then went on to utilize the man power of Media along with its own forces to conquer Babylon and the rest of Mesopotamia. The WT tries to portray the Medes as being co-rulers or on equal footing with Persia..but the fact is the center of power was always in Persia and Persian dynasties always ruled the empire..It was a PERSIAN empire, and Media was nothing more than one of many provinces within the Persian empire, loyal to the Persian crown - they were a humbled power, brought down by Persia and subservient to them. Think about it..when you read a history book when do historians ever refer to the Persian empire as the "Medo-Persian" empire? They never do. That would be like saying because Alexander conquered Persia and used its vast wealth and man power to conquer other more distant lands afterwards, and appointed Persians to prestigious administrative positions at court in his new regime, that somehow Alexander's empire was a "Perso-Greco" empire! It's silly...but the WT loves to use the term because of how the book of Daniel always speaks of the Medes and Persians jointly, and because Hebrew prophecies spoke of the Medes conquering Babylon, with absolutely no mention of their overlords and the true conquerors - the Persians.
That brings me to another point. The prophecy in Isaiah (or is it Jeremiah) which speaks of the Medes and Elamites conquering Babylon is not nearly as impressive as the WT would like to make it seem. In reality..it was nothing more than an educated guess..a prediction made based on observing the contemporary geo-political state of affairs. The writer or writers of Isaiah took a look at the geo-political landscape of their time and would have probably noticed the following:
- Babylon was stupendously wealthy, and a commercial powerhouse - the hegemon of Mesopotamia, yet not very militaristic and surely vulnerable to invasion, as the city itself had been invaded and conquered multiple times in the recent past. It was not seen as "impregnable" or "invincible" as the WT claims
- Babylon was also subject to a great deal of political instability and religious infighting. Weakness from within always makes a power vulnerable
- Media - the great empire to the North and Babylon's partner in crime used to topple the Assyrian empire, was vast, powerful and very war-like, eager to expand, and certainly more powerful than Babylon.
- Persia..somewhat of a distant cousin of the Medes was a distant kingdom that wasn't too significant on the world stage and nothing to fear..not even worthy of being mentioned.
With the above facts in mind..is it any wonder that Isaiah worded the prophecy the way he did? In his prophecy of Babylon's demise..he makes the best prediction available based on the facts of his day. It took no supernatural direction for him to predict that Media would swallow up their weaker rival Babylon. It was the most obvious conclusion and the most probable outcome. He made a logical inference based on his limited knowledge and the situation of his time.
So he predicts that the Medes would conquer Babylon, with absolutely no mention of Persia. Even the kingdom of Elam is mentioned as serving as side-kicks to the Medes..but not Persia..the foremost nation and leader of the coalition. This would be like a 19th century crack-pot prophesying that a coalition of nations would invade and conquer Iraq in 2003, while neglecting to even mention the principal nation involved in the assault - the United States - and instead attributing the conquest to a minor role player like the U.K.
He also goes on to predict that Babylon would not just be conquered and assimilated into a new empire, but that it would be utterly destroyed, razed to the ground and left desolate, without a single inhabitant! Is that what history shows? NOPE! Babylon was a highly regarded religious center in the Near East, and it had a lot of symbolic power as the seat of authority for any claimaint to kingship in Mesopotamia. It was such a prosperous and important city, that the Persians never touched it. Throughout the duration of the Persian empire, Babylon remained a thriving metropolis, and a very prominent city. It was a regional capital and even hosted the Persian king's court on occassion. Even 300 years later when Alexander the Great came along, the city was still so awe-inspiring in size and population, that he planned on making it the capital and pre-eminent city of his empire. Still, 500 years after the Persian conquest of Babylon, it was still one of the greatest cities in the world. Peter is spoken of as preaching there, and he founded whole congregations there in the 1st century AD. EVIDENTLY, Babylon was still inhabited and doing just fine.
Yet, Babylon is no longer around today. The Watchtower loves this point. The JWs just love to get all worked up about how wonderful it is that bible prophecy is so accurate and precise..they especially love to talk about how Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled down to the last detail with such astonishing accuracy..This just PROVES beyond all doubt that it was Jehovah's words spoken..and oh gee golly how thrilling it is to know that other bible prophecies will without fail come true in our day as well!! Blah blah blah.
They take the fact that Babylon no longer exists to mean that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled...but Isaiah didn't say that Babylon would be conquered..then go on to enjoy another 700 years of continued existence and prosperity..only to finally, after CENTURIES..become depopulated as just about every other ancient city in the history of mankind! The context of Isaiah clearly indicates that he was referring to a conquest of the city, followed by a violent destruction (and desolation) of it and its inhabitants.
His words did not come true!
He predicted two things.
1. - The Medes would conquer Babylon (with no mention of Persia)
2. - Babylon would be destroyed and depopulated in the process
He was wrong on both accounts. Little did he know at the time of the prophecy that the little insigifcant Persian kingdom to the East would one day be ruled by an ambitious and brilliant military commander who would suprisingly go on to conquer Media. He could not have known that..and his prophecy clearly shows that he did not know it.
In summary, his prophecy failed. History did not unfold as he predicted at all!
Next come the Greeks and then the mighty Roman Empire..a true world power.. Yet of course.. the rest of the great world powers, some of which were far greater and lasted far longer than any power in the Western World..such as the Maurya empire in India or the Chinese Empire in east Asia, are never mentioned..as the Hebrews had absolutely no freakin clue about their existence. To them the "whole world" was limited to about as far east as Persia/Afghanistan, and as far west as Greece, and as far south as Ethiopia.
After Rome...Daniel's next "world power" fails to show up for dress rehearsals. No successor shows up to take Rome's place for about 1,700 years. This is strange considering that all of the other "world powers" mentioned previously succeeded one another immediately after the prior's demise. There's all this talk about 10 horns, and how three horns fight for supremacy, and then how one little horn manages to outlast his competition and take the position of the Seventh King in bible prophecy..According to WT, these horns are supposed to be former provinces of the Roman Empire..or offshoots of Rome's power...they arose from within Rome itself and inherited Rome's supremacy.
So..the WT loves to point out how the island of Britian was once a Roman province..Their story is that this little Roman province sprouted out from among the ashes of Rome's former glory and assumed the imperial mantle of their dead daddy. Is that what history shows? NOPE.
First of all it is true that Britain was a former province in the Roman Empire. The southern portion of Roman Britannia was inhabited by Celtic speaking peoples, who later adopted a veneer of Roman culture and came to be called Romano-Britons. The upper-class spoke Latin, and the mass of common folk continued on with their Celtic culture, and language, while enjoying the amenities Roman life had to offer such as public bathouses and amphitheaters, etc. Yet, it was not THIS nation of Celtic speaking, Romano-Britons who would inherit Rome's position, but an entirely different one. It would not go on to be a successful offshoot of its parent. Instead, after the breakup of the Roman Empire, it itself was brutally savaged, and conquered by a NEW people. These people were foreigners and were never part of the Roman Empire at all!. They were Anglo-Saxons. They thoroughly conquered most of Britain, killed and drove off a sizeable portion of its population, and supressed the language, culture, legacy and institutions of Romano-Celtic Britain. They replaced the langauge of the people, as the Germanic "Anglo-Saxon" tounge displaced Celtic entirely. The new people gave their name to the land they had conquered and settled, and this is how England was born. In short, England, and what would later go on to be the United Kingdom, was not a "horn" that grew from out of the Roman Empire. England was a Germanic nation, whose people and history bear no affiliation with the Roman Empire (ie. - they were never part of the Roman Empire at any point). The English were never Roman subjects, possessed no Roman heritage, and ENGLAND was never a Roman province. Thus, the WT's claims about the U.K. being the little horn that gained supremacy over the others is all a bunch of BS with no basis in historical fact!
Page 15 of the May 2011 awake tries to instill a sense of urgency in the reader by pointing out that we are supposedly living in the days of the "last king in bible prophecy". In an effort to show how little time is left before the Big-A, they quote Revelation 17:10 which says:
"There are seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while."
SEE! The end must be really super uber-close because the seventh king can only remain for a brief duration, a "short while". But what does a "short while" mean? We all know that the bible's idea of time is to say the very least.."relative" and "God's timetable" is a bit puzzling from a human perspective. So to answer this question, let's consider the context of John's words in Revelation shall we?
John believed he was living in the very last of the last days. He repeatedly preached an imminent second coming of Christ, the need for urgency among Christians, and said Jesus was "coming quickly". (Rev. 7:11). He no doubt rememered Jesus' promise that the generation of his day would by no means pass away before Jesus' returned to the earth in heavenly glory to execute judgement upon the ungodly. As he was very advanced in age, and one of the last remaining members of that generation, he felt that he and his contemporaries were living on the cusp of a new age and would see Jesus return. This belief of his is reflected in his letters to the congregations. He not only felt that he was living in the last "days", but in the last HOUR. He says at 1 John 2:18:
"Dear Children, this is the last hour. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antrichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour."
So with the above context in mind, if John knew that a seventh king would have to appear, it would mean that a new power would have to replace Rome. Yet, if they were living in the "last hour" of the world, the brief amount of time left would only allow for the last king to remain for a very short while, a very short while indeed. Hence, he says that when the seventh king does arrive, "he must remain a short while".
The Watchtower loves to jump on this and say.."Look! The Anglo-American dual world power has been the preeminent power since the 1760s..We're now in the 2000s..so its time as the world power must almost be up!"
Yet, IF the "Anglo-American" world power was what John and Daniel were truly referring to, we must ask ourselves the following question: Has the "Anglo-American" world power remained for only a "short while"? Do you consider a nation or alliance which has managed to maintain its position as a global hegemon for over 250 years, to have remained for only a "short while"?
A "short while" may be difficult to define, but as time is relative, we should judge it within the context of the other 6 powers mentioned in bible prophecy, to see how the seventh king's time on the world stage relates to the previous powers, who by comparision were not said to reign for only a short while.
I will use round figures/estimates for the approximate duration of some of the "world powers" in bible prophecy:
Assyria was only the preeminent power of its area for less than 200 years.
Babylon only enjoyed its reign at the top for a period of about 70 years.
Alexander the Great's empire didn't last for more than a matter of months after his death.
The Persian empire only lasted for 200 years (537-336 BC)
In fact, the only real hegemon mentioned in the Bible that lasted for longer than 200 years was Rome.
If we are to believe that together the U.K and the United States represent the seventh king of bible prophecy, its time should have been up decades, if not centuries ago, if we are to believe the Apostle John's words.
Far from "remaining for a short while", this Seventh King has outlasted all of its predecesors except for one! In comparison to the other world powers of bible prophecy, it has been one of the most durable and long lasting of all of them!
The article goes on talk about how the Bible is a book of accurate prophecy and is a "Hope You Can Trust". Yep, just like when Ezekiel prophesied the desolation/depopulation of Egypt for 40 years, or the destruction of Tyre, a city that would never be rebuilt..blah blah blah.
The next subheading is "Recognize the Sign!"
It appears the writing department no longer tries to insinuate that earthquakes, famine, or pestilence have worsened in the last century, but simply states that they exist, and therefore consitute a sign of the last days. Sure..when the apostles asked Jesus for a sign of his coming and the end of the world as they knew it..he just told them that everything was going to continue on as it always had..with aboslutely no demarcation in world events..hmmm..some sign! Jesus might as well have said, "Babies will be born..rain will fall from the skies...and the sun will come up in the morning everyday".
Realizing that when compared to the rest of mankind's history, the past 100 years have actually been relatively peaceful and that there has been an absence of any major wars in the past 70 years, they distort Jesus' words about "wars in one place after another" and lyingly assert that Jesus spoke of "global wars". What a way to put words in the Messiah's mouth! Go get 'em Writing Department boys!
Lastly, comes the most sickening part of all - the utopian paradise picture and the list of prophecies taken out context that don't pertain to a future world at all.
They quote extensively from Isaiah's restorationist prophecies that were clearly applied to the Jews of over 2500 years ago. "Everyone will have a comfortable home." (What they don't tell you is that they cherry picked these irrelevant scriptures out of context, and that the real words of the biblical passage would lead you to believe that you better build your home on Mt. Zion in Judah.) It looks like we better get packing and prepare to move to Palestine! lol.
I particularly can't stand it when they quote scriptures out of context, with an obvious reference to times having long ago passed, and try to pass them off as prophecies about our imminent future.
Take Hab. 2:3 for example:
"Even if it should delay, keep in expectation of it. For it will without fail come true. It will not be late."
This scripture is a reference to the impending destruction of Jerusalem in the ancient world! Yet JWs love to throw this scripture at you.
"You see brothers, although it seems like Jehovah is delaying...never let us lose our sense of urgency and never let us stray from the protective folds of Jehovah's organization...because notice what the bible promises regarding our day in Habakkuk 2:3....")
I've heard this scripture, as well as many others misapplied enough times to make me vomit! Yet no one in the audience is smart enough to realize the blatant distortion and misapplication of that text!
Anway..this article in the May Awake was of interest to me because it talks about the world powers and the Seventh World Power in particular..I have a feeling this series of articles in the Awake have been a run-up to the big bombshell of "new light" that is going to be revealed at the upcoming district convention..I wonder what it will be...
Time will tell..and time is the Watchtower's worst enemy.
