Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'king of north'.
Found 1 result
The following discussion will only have the objective of identifying "the little horn". Everything outside its mere identification (what it will do, what time, how is linked with other events) was not considered. This will be done in a future article. The article, it should be remembered, though cite Scripture to support the view presented, it represents the personal views of the author. And the goat, for its part, gave himself great airs to the extreme; but as soon as he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there grew dramatically four, toward the four winds of heaven. Â 9 And from one of them appeared another horn, small, and it was great toward the south and the east and toward the Decoration. 10 And he continued to be great until the army of heaven, so that he dropped to the ground part of the army and of the stars, and trampled. 11 And they gave great arias to the Prince of the army, and he was taken off the [sacrifice] continuous, and he was thrown down the established place of his sanctuary. 12 And gradually it was given a military itself, along with the [sacrifice] continuously, because of transgression; and he continued to throw truth to the ground, and acted and had success - Daniel 8: 8-12 Â All Jehovah's Witnesses are well aware who the goat as a few verses later comes clearly said "the hairy he-goat [is] the king of Greece" - Daniel 8:21 All Jehovah's Witnesses (or almost all) also know many details about Alexander the Great (the little horn that became large), the division of his kingdom etc. In verse 9 of chapter 8, however, Daniel sees another horn. There is more talking about Alessandro Magno and this part of the vision is fulfilled some time after the partition of the kingdom of Greece. What next? We will understand what we read about this horn. Meanwhile we see what it says about the slave in this horn. You can find the information in the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" at pages 137-144 (Italian edition of the book). Â We isolate some statements of the said book. We will do this not for critical spirit but simply to assess whether there may be other possibilities. Basically when the Bible simply leaves clues, it is logical to think that this happens so that people can try again and again until you come to the logical conclusion - Compare Proverbs 2: 1-5 Otherwise it would use clear language, unmistakably, as happened in the case of Cyrus the conqueror of you even knew the name of two hundred years earlier. In this case, as in the case of Babylon the Great, we get the identity of the subject considering whether the clues coincide with what we know. The book says that "in 55 BCE, Giulio Cesare invaded in command of a shipment Britannia but failed to establish a permanent settlement". "Then," continues "in 122 CE, Emperor Hadrian began to build a rampart from the mouth of the Tyne to the Solway Bay, which marked the northern boundary of the Roman Empire. At the beginning of the fifth century the Roman legions left the ' island". So it is clear that the Roman Empire, after over 170 years of settlement (from 55 BCE to 122 CE), was not yet able to completely conquer Britain, unlike what happened to much of Europe. Not only. The book specifically says that "in the early fifth century, the Roman legions left the island." So we should ask what was really in Rome from then on but probably, as we shall see, this is not a fundamental point. There are other problems, certainly significant from a biblical point of view. Undoubtedly England was "a little horn" which grew in many respects, however, the writing clearly says that this little horn would have brought down three kings. What is the slave's explanation? There is talk of Spain's defeat in the naval attack of the famous "armada" led, in 1588, by Philip II. It 'difficult to determine whether a defeat in battle can be equivalent to the defeat of a kingdom (the writing says that these horns were uprooted ... concept that seems to indicate something more than a battle went badly ) but in fact this great naval battle cosituÃ¬ loss as well as a great humiliation for Spain. Therefore it mantions France and it is said that "during the eighteenth century, British and French faced in North America and India, until it was signed the Treaty of Paris in 1763. In this treatise William B. Willcox wrote that" sanctioned the new Britain's position as a major European power in the world outside Europe "." Again we can say that England had the better ... but really tore the horn? But what about Holland, mentioned as second horn ripped from England? The book says ... "In the seventeenth century the Dutch possessed the largest merchant marine in the world. England, however, extending its colonial possessions ended prevail over the kingdom." So it does not mention any war or battle but simply commercial supremacy. If it is questionable whether a major battle can actually "pluck a horn", what about a trade war? It seems a rather forced concept because, in human history, many kingdoms were exceeded (even crushed) from an economic / business perspective and certainly England, with all its colonies around the world, can "boast "flattening of many other global businesses. If we do a search on Holland, in fact, we will read of conquests by the Saxons and Franks but never of the British. Also throughout the book of Daniel, when he mentions the "break the horn" or "horns", it refers to the war, so the military conquest of the kingdom or the death of the sovereign. In this sense it does not fit any of the three "battles" mentioned except, perhaps, the victory that gained much later in 1815 against Napoleon. Let us keep in mind the words of the angel, even in the book, about this power: the angel told Daniel that the fourth beast, or fourth kingdom ' would devour the whole earth '. (Daniel 7:23) There is another difficulty and is scriptural. If the Anglo-American empire is an extension of ancient Rome, explains the same book commenting on the immense image (Chapter 2), how come it is identified as the king of the south? Ancient Rome, in fact, was the king of the north . All the kings of Daniel's statue 2 can be identified as "king of the north"; it is possible that the last king (feet) is the king of the south? Â We should assume that the roots of the king of the north would have been born king of the south? If so, for what purpose or what benefit it would be to create these distinctions? It would not be enough, and clearer, saying that various nations will be at war for several centuries? In what is served to search the search for groped to understand what king or kingdom would have been the king of the south or the north if they were interchangeable? This leads to an even bigger problem. According to Daniel the last clash ends with the king of the north win and in fact, after Daniel 11:40 that mentions this battle, there is no longer any mention of the king of the south and even the king's winner says simply that "should be sent to its end "- Daniel 11:45 always Speaking of the king is said to "rise against the Prince of princes, but he shall be broken without hand" - Daniel 8:25 All this is in harmony with the account of Revelation which mentions a single dominant power, the last, it will fight against the Lamb - Revelation 13: 2; 19: 19-21 In the whole of Revelation, at least from Chapter 9 onwards, no mention of two antagonistic powers, but a single dominant power by Satan to be "his throne, his power and great authority" - Revelation 13: 2 This beast, just as Daniel writes, "devour the whole earth" - Daniel 7:23; Revelation 13: 7. At this point we are faced with an insurmountable problem. Or the Anglo-American power is actually the king of the north (and then matches a part of the words of Daniel and Revelation) or the little horn which became very great can not be England, nor the Anglo-American empire. Let's try to look for another political subject and also start from a logical assumption and scriptural. After the defeat of the last king, third, we talk of the Court sitting to remove this rule and destroy - Daniel 7: 24-26 There are mentioned other human wars or other dominant king in the meantime. So if this horn becomes the last ruling king, we must assume that at least the last of the three kings, the king of the south in fact , is still alive. If not we would be now in full the great tribulation or under the judgment of Armageddon. The kings fallen, useful to identify this little horn soared, they can be at most two. We begin the search for this horn is not losing sight of the king of the north. If we had the certainty of one who incarnates, over the centuries, the king of the north, we would not need to go "blind" to see how many small kingdoms have become great and to count the fallen King papal candidate for each nation. We have to find a nation that reasonably may identify themselves as kings of the north and at the same time, embodies the other features described. The summary mirror of these two groups are, respectively, on pages 228 and 246 of the mentioned book. The last two kings mentioned are the German Empire (in the king of the north cloths) and the Anglo-American empire (in the king of the south cloths). You will notice that one of the reasons why Germany is identified as "king of the north" is the fact that it is allied with Italy, that nation's history of ancient Rome, as well as links with the Holy Roman Empire. The other indication is that William I assumed the title of Kaiser (Caesar). Admitting that Nazi Germany was the king of the north we must ask who has assumed that role after the war. After all, as we saw from the previous kings or emperors, the two antagonists have always risen. The answer may be simpler than we have ever imagined. So far we have rebuilt the identity of their kings or because of bloodline or because of the occupied territories . When the identity of the two kings changes (see chapter fourteen) the whole question is played on the territory of Syria. Syria depicts King of the North while Egypt the king of the south. However, with the intervention of Rome between the two contenders, Antiochus IV (Syrian) should abandon its claims on Egypt. This puts an end to the rivalry between the two kings. We can say that the king of the north at that time no longer exist (but it would be better to say that it is not visible). Less than a hundred years after Syria became a Roman province. E 'for this reason that we are able to identify Rome as king of the north: the political / geographical connection. You could say that the king of the north (as well as his rival) is an extra-national entity that moves from country to country but, at every move, always starts from the last position where it was. So it does not matter what the nation, the bloodline, ethnicity or culture in which it will end this subject but only counts its last leg (and to limit the mark it has left in this final stage). Also, from what we've seen so far, the king of the north never becomes the king of the south and vice versa even if part and the conquered territories may be shared by both. P tarting from this assumption, we open the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" on page 257 (Chapter Fifteen). Â In this photo you can clearly see the winners of the last great war that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany, or the old king of the north. You see the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (then part of the king of the south), Franklin D. Roosvelt (president of the United States, which is also the king of the south) and Iosif Stalin (whom King?). About Nazi Germany was divided between these? Initially, in August 1945, it f u divided into four parts: south-west France, British in the northwest, south American and Soviet east. From one of these empires would have been born king of the north, but ... Britain and the United States, in the part of the king of the south, could not change his identity. The only two options remained so France and Russia. However Napoleon's France may have played the role of king of the South when dealt a deathblow to the Holy Roman Empire in 1805. Those who remained, then? Stalin's Russia, of course. Also perhaps few know that the yield Russian word "czar", just like in German kaiser, means Caesar * (see footnote). The last Russian tsar, Nicholas II, was deposed in 1917 and so far we have talked about the division of Germany took place almost thirty years later but it is interesting to note how "candidabile" this empire for his role as king of the north (as well as the ' clear Roman imprint). Russia, in its disproportionate growth, has also incorporated some nations that were originally Roman colonies. We dig, therefore, in the history of Russia to see if it matches the description given by the Bible. Do not get confused: any nation you play the role of the king of the north in our days, it does not have to identify themselves as such in its infancy (the important thing is that is not part of the king of the south). In fact, until the Second World War the king of the north is represented by Hitler's Germany. The clues to the identity of this king, who at the last moment will play the king of the north , may be much older. Exactly as with the explanation of the book mentioned, which points to England as the little horn, only many years later it was "growing a lot" (with the US alliance) but mentioned battles useful for identification (Spain, Holland, France) took place when it was still small (ie, the United States did not enter in these conflicts). Put simply: we find a nation that defeated two kings, which grows a lot, which is present in our day and that becomes the king of the north because of the territory conquered in the last war. Â Inhabited since ancient times, in the 1st millennium BC the territory of Russia was home to breed populations, different language and culture, among which emerged in the first place the Scythians and Sarmatians. Between 3rd and 9th century AD came to the land of the Goths, the Huns and then a series of slave populations who settled mainly in Ukraine and surrounding regions. An important turning point came in the second half of the 9th century, when a Scandinavian population, the Varangians, also called Rus (hence the name Russia), with Rurik founded the first nucleus of the Russian state around the Novgorod region http: / /www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/storia-della-russia_%28Enciclopedia-dei-ragazzi%29/ The birth of this small settlement, Rjurik, could be considered the little horn. Something really insignificant. Much more insignificant than he could be considered the England at the time of the Roman conquests. If we were to move six hundred years up to the Grand Duchy of Muscovy under the guidance of Ivan III (1462-1505), no one could deny that since this horn grew up in a truly disproportionate. This empire continued to expand exponentially until it reaches an area of over 17 million square chilomteri! Â The Rus' Rurik founded in the ninth century. Today more than 17 million square km Â One could quibble about the internal wars, how to aggregate, its time nonlinear ... never mind. The only thing that matters, in order to identify, is its disproportionate growth. The objection that many nations of the former Soviet Union can not be identified as the horn because they are divided by the empire Original becoming independent (fifteen states are post-Soviet) are not valid. Even the Anglo-American empire is considered as a single power but Britain and the United States were sovereign and independent of each other. Which and how many kings this horn defeated? Surely the first was Napoleon. In this regard, we read ... Â The losses of the Grand Army in Russia were catastrophic and irreversible had an influence on the military balance in Europe; according to Georges Lefebvre Napoleon had about 400,000 dead or missing and 100,000 prisoners  ; David G. Chandler speaks of 370,000 dead or missing and 200,000 prisoners, including 48 generals and 3,000 officers; in addition to the human losses, disastrous were also the material losses suffered by the army; French brought back from Russia only 250 guns, the Russians claimed to have captured 925; It was also very serious loss for the French more than 200,000 horses that deprived the cavalry napolenica the means to return to the original power in the next war campaigns (...) On the causes of the catastrophe of the Great Army, Napoleon in the 29th Bulletin and then the Memorial of St. Helena brought back the ruin of his business almost exclusively to Russian early winter weather that would have weakened the troops and transformed the Russian campaign in disaster [204 ] . This traditional interpretation was filmed by witnesses and by early French historians; Philippe-Paul de Segur , participatory and first great historical enterprise, explained the catastrophe also highlighting the precarious health of Napoleon, which would detract from the activity and resolution, and referring to external factors such as destiny; the lack of luck