Daniel wrote "Daniel 1:21 .Is he prophesying his his own demise or is there something wrong with your understanding?
Is The Book Of Daniel Wrong?
- Thread starter BibleScribe
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical USSR withdrawals:
U.S.S.R. AFRICAN WITHDRAWAL -- (1986)
This 28th verse tells of a “return” that appears to be in reference to the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from the African continent. However, history demonstrates at least three potential fulfillments:
1.) In Africa, (Ref. Daniel 11:23-24), Soviet and Cuban troops were deployed in ten different countries with political involvement in several others. Billions of dollars of military equipment was employed to effect economic and political gain in the continent of Africa over the tumultuous years of 1974 to 1986.
2.) In Nicaragua, (Ref. Daniel 11:25-26), May of 1988, the Soviet/U.S. arms and war materials were winding down. In the end, the two superpowers ceased their interference, and that nation melded into relative obscurity without significant riches or rewards for either side. The net result was that the region was left without the radical Marxist ideology, and Soviet hegemony was rebuffed.
3.) In Afghanistan, the Soviets spent more than seven years (1979 to 1987) deploying up to 115,000 troops in a futile attempt to prop up a puppet Marxist government. Like the African adventurism, the Soviet forces were countered by not only the Mujahedeen rebels with support from the C.I.A., but also by the support of the unexpected bedfellow Red China. The U.S.S.R. suffered 10,000 killed and 20,000 wounded in this Soviet “Vietnam.”[1]
Of these three events, the African interpretation would fulfill the caveat of returning with “great substance” as dictated by natural resources, some of which are found in abundance only in Africa:
African natural resources[2]
Diamonds Nearly all
Chromium Nearly all
Cobalt 90%
Cocoa 65%
Gold 50%
Platinum 40%
Uranium 33%
Bauxite 25%
Coffee 25%
Copper 20%
Natural Gas 12%
Petroleum 8%
Please allow the evaluation of the historical USSR withdrawals:
U.S.S.R. AFRICAN WITHDRAWAL -- (1986)
DANIEL 11:28 “And he shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land.”
This 28th verse tells of a “return” that appears to be in reference to the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from the African continent. However, history demonstrates at least three potential fulfillments:
1.) In Africa, (Ref. Daniel 11:23-24), Soviet and Cuban troops were deployed in ten different countries with political involvement in several others. Billions of dollars of military equipment was employed to effect economic and political gain in the continent of Africa over the tumultuous years of 1974 to 1986.
2.) In Nicaragua, (Ref. Daniel 11:25-26), May of 1988, the Soviet/U.S. arms and war materials were winding down. In the end, the two superpowers ceased their interference, and that nation melded into relative obscurity without significant riches or rewards for either side. The net result was that the region was left without the radical Marxist ideology, and Soviet hegemony was rebuffed.
3.) In Afghanistan, the Soviets spent more than seven years (1979 to 1987) deploying up to 115,000 troops in a futile attempt to prop up a puppet Marxist government. Like the African adventurism, the Soviet forces were countered by not only the Mujahedeen rebels with support from the C.I.A., but also by the support of the unexpected bedfellow Red China. The U.S.S.R. suffered 10,000 killed and 20,000 wounded in this Soviet “Vietnam.”[1]
Of these three events, the African interpretation would fulfill the caveat of returning with “great substance” as dictated by natural resources, some of which are found in abundance only in Africa:
African natural resources[2]
Diamonds Nearly all
Chromium Nearly all
Cobalt 90%
Cocoa 65%
Gold 50%
Platinum 40%
Uranium 33%
Bauxite 25%
Coffee 25%
Copper 20%
Natural Gas 12%
Petroleum 8%
[1] “End to Afghan War?,” Editorial, Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 11, 1988, p. A4
[2] “Kissinger In Africa - A Bid To Stave Off Race War,” p. 28
BibleScribe
BibleScribe
Daniel wrote"Daniel 1:21". Is Daniel prophesying his own death in this scripture or is there something wrong with your understanding?
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical action against the "holy covenant":
The reference of the Soviets being “set against the holy covenant” is less certain, as Warsaw Pact nations have historically based their Marxist philosophy in atheism. But in this verse, Daniel sets the gears turning toward a certain anti-Semitic ‘bent.’ In accordance with this initial inkling, several events eventually transpired which could have been inferred:
Please allow the evaluation of the historical action against the "holy covenant":
DANIEL 11:28 “And he shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land.”
The reference of the Soviets being “set against the holy covenant” is less certain, as Warsaw Pact nations have historically based their Marxist philosophy in atheism. But in this verse, Daniel sets the gears turning toward a certain anti-Semitic ‘bent.’ In accordance with this initial inkling, several events eventually transpired which could have been inferred:
- In December of 1985, the U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz, broke new ground by linking the Romanian government’s human rights abuses, “especially affecting [the] practice of religion” with the U.S. Most Favored Nation trade status.
- On Sept. 6, 1986, two terrorists under the leadership of Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, (who was directly sponsored by Libya), conducted an attack on the main synagogue in Istanbul Turkey. Of the 26 worshipers, they killed 21, wounded 4, and left 1 teenage boy unscathed.* (Ref. Dan. 8:13 & 11:29)
- In early October of 1986 the Israelis conducted a raid on the Tunis, Libya PLO headquarters in which 60 people were killed. In response, PLO Chairman, Yassir Arafat, orchestrated the infiltration of an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, with the intent of shooting up an Israeli harbor during a scheduled port call. However, after the ship’s crew discovered the cache of weapons, the terrorists panicked and took the ship captive prematurely. As a demonstration of their intent, one of the passengers, an elderly wheelchair dependent American, was shot in cold blood and his lifeless body and wheelchair were thrown over the ship’s rail.
- It was on October 13, 1986 that Mikhail Gorgachev was quoted as saying “I’d hate to be a Jew living in Soviet Russia today.”
“Shultz Links Romanian Religious Rights to Trade Policy,” Reuter, Albuquerque Journal, Dec. 16, 1985, p. A9
The New York Times - Page One, p. 315
BibleScribe
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical "return into his own land":
THE U.S. IN CENTRAL AMERICA, (1978-1990)
Please allow the evaluation of the historical "return into his own land":
THE U.S. IN CENTRAL AMERICA, (1978-1990)
DANIEL 11:28 “And he shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land.”
Nicaragua
As interpreted in the Daniel 11:25-26 Nicaraguan sequence of events, the Soviet/Cuban sponsored rebels overthrew the Somoza Dictatorship and established a Marxist Sandinista government. The U.S. reacted quickly to this potential communistic entrenchment in Central America with a reciprocal guerrilla war.
This nation’s twelve long years of internal struggle and international complicity ceased on February 25, 1990, when the corrupt and nepotistic Marxist government of President Daniel Ortega Saavadra[1] was replaced by a government acceptable to the U.S., -- a democratically elected Sra Violeta Chamorro.[2] (Ref. Dan 11:28)
However, this was not the only “work his will, and return to his own land” during this period of Central American regional involvement.
Panama
On April 19,1978, under the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the U.S. agreed to turn over the Panama Canal to the nation of Panama, effective on Dec. 31, 1999. But ten years later, on Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. found cause to militarily invade Panama with the intent of arresting Panamanian military strong man Manuel Antonio Noriega on drug trafficking charges. After hiding out for ten days, Noriega surrendered to U.S. Federal law enforcement officers, and flown to Miami, Florida for prosecution.[3]
Although this action was taken with the approval of Panamanian President Eric Arturo Delvalle, the response by his army was somewhat less enthusiastic: “‘We have been conversing with (Delvalle) constantly, and he knows that our position has been that there is too much American interference in this Panamanian affair. We are not here denying or refusing this post because it’s not our place, because we have a commander -- commander Noriega.’”[4]
Thus not only did Russia withdraw from international meddling, but the U.S. also retreated from their extended involvements.
Nicaragua
As interpreted in the Daniel 11:25-26 Nicaraguan sequence of events, the Soviet/Cuban sponsored rebels overthrew the Somoza Dictatorship and established a Marxist Sandinista government. The U.S. reacted quickly to this potential communistic entrenchment in Central America with a reciprocal guerrilla war.
This nation’s twelve long years of internal struggle and international complicity ceased on February 25, 1990, when the corrupt and nepotistic Marxist government of President Daniel Ortega Saavadra[1] was replaced by a government acceptable to the U.S., -- a democratically elected Sra Violeta Chamorro.[2] (Ref. Dan 11:28)
However, this was not the only “work his will, and return to his own land” during this period of Central American regional involvement.
Panama
On April 19,1978, under the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the U.S. agreed to turn over the Panama Canal to the nation of Panama, effective on Dec. 31, 1999. But ten years later, on Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. found cause to militarily invade Panama with the intent of arresting Panamanian military strong man Manuel Antonio Noriega on drug trafficking charges. After hiding out for ten days, Noriega surrendered to U.S. Federal law enforcement officers, and flown to Miami, Florida for prosecution.[3]
Although this action was taken with the approval of Panamanian President Eric Arturo Delvalle, the response by his army was somewhat less enthusiastic: “‘We have been conversing with (Delvalle) constantly, and he knows that our position has been that there is too much American interference in this Panamanian affair. We are not here denying or refusing this post because it’s not our place, because we have a commander -- commander Noriega.’”[4]
Thus not only did Russia withdraw from international meddling, but the U.S. also retreated from their extended involvements.
[1] Anderson, and Van Atta, “Greed of Sandinista Gand of Three Rivals That of Somoza,” p. A5
[2] Ben Box, Mexico & Central American Handbook, Passport Books, Chicago, IL., Sept. 1994, p. 673
[3] “The New York Times - Page One,” p. 336
[4] “Panama President Fires Noriega,” A.P., Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 26, 1988, p. A1
BibleScribe
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by against the United States by Lybia, -- Part 1 of 3:
LIBYAN INCIDENT -- (1986)
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by against the United States by Lybia, -- Part 1 of 3:
LIBYAN INCIDENT -- (1986)
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. [sup]30[/sup] For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.”
Historical Perspective
In establishing key players and key events, one must appreciate sponsorship roles. In the case of Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Khaddafi, the Soviets played a free-wheeling and successful military role in Libya which started in the late 1960’s, and is presented in this April 1986 snap-shot-in-time:
LIBYAN/SOVIET SHARED RESOURCES AND MATERIALS
Historical Perspective
In establishing key players and key events, one must appreciate sponsorship roles. In the case of Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Khaddafi, the Soviets played a free-wheeling and successful military role in Libya which started in the late 1960’s, and is presented in this April 1986 snap-shot-in-time:
LIBYAN/SOVIET SHARED RESOURCES AND MATERIALS
- 35,000 - 75,000 Soviet and East European civilian workers
- 4,000 - 6,000 military advisors
- $4 - 6 billion in arms sales advances, by the Soviets
- $1 billion in yearly arms sales, (one of Moscow’s biggest customers)
- (3) SAM-5 sites
- 150,000 - 200,000 barrels of oil sent daily to the U.S.S.R. for debt servicing
- (6) Foxtrot-class submarines
- Several radar-homing missile equipped Nanuchka-class corvette fast attack surface ships
- (50) MIG-25’s
- (175) MIG-23’s
- A squadron of Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers
- SS-1 Soviet Scud B missiles with “non-persistent lethal nerve agent”
“London Paper Reports Libya Has Nerve Gas,” A.P., Albuquerque Journal, Nov. 24, 1986, p. A2
Marc Duvoisin, “Russians Quietly Establish Presence in Libya,” Knight-Ridder, Albuquerque Journal, April 13, 1986, p. B7
“U.S. Fleet Faces 3 Libyan Threats,” Knight-Ridder, Albuquerque Journal, March 25, 1986, p. A1
BibleScribe
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by against the United States by Lybia, -- Part 2 of 3:
LIBYAN INCIDENT -- (1986)
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by against the United States by Lybia, -- Part 2 of 3:
LIBYAN INCIDENT -- (1986)
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. [sup]30[/sup] For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.”
In September of 1969, military officer Col. Muammar Khadafy led a bloodless coup and formed a Revolution Command Council, with himself as Chairman. After subduing his fellow countrymen, he interjected himself into the problems of both African and European nations, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of international terrorism between the 1970’s and the mid 1980’s.
1. In 1977 Muammar Khadafy airlifted 2,500 troops to Uganda in an unsuccessful effort to prop up the government of Idi Amin against rebel factions. Amin was ultimately deposed in 1979.
2. During 1981, Khadafy’s asserted that Libyan territorial waters extended from the greater mouth of the Gulf of Sidra, -- approximately 360 miles east to west, and up to 160 miles from its shores. (International norm is 12 miles from the nearest coast.) In response to the proclaimed “line‑of-death”, President Reagan deployed the U.S. Navy to assert international rights of passage. On August 19, two Libyan jets were sent aloft, and upon encountering two U.S. carrier based F14 “Tomcat” fighter aircraft, the Libyan aircraft hastily launched air-to-air missiles. The U.S. fighters quickly downed both aircraft.
3. During the years of 1981 to 1985, Khadafy sent “huge shipments of arms” to a new Ugandan rebel leader in the successful overthrow of the pro-Western Gen. Tito Okello.
4. In 1983 he sent troops into Chad in support of the anti-government rebels. To protect their former colony, the French responded by sending in 3,000 troops. After a year of fighting, an agreement for mutual pull-out was made, but only the French withdrew. Within a year, continued Libyan-backed rebel attacks prompted the French to re-deploy 1,500 troops and tactical fighter aircraft.
5. During the early 1980’s Libyan intelligence agents would tip-off European authorities of terrorist intentions against European targets. However by 1984/85, the Libyan anti-terrorist assistance ceased. Although mounting evidence of Libyan complicity would seemingly coalesce international anti-Libyan sentiments, the $12 billion of European trade, along with tens of thousands of European workers in Libya, would hamper a truly unified response.
6. In July of 1982, a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd was uncovered.
7. In December of 1982, a Libyan plot to support Italy’s Sardinia separatists was uncovered. This conspiracy included plans for sabotage and kidnapping.
8. In March of 1984, a Libyan plot to destroy the Jordanian Embassy in Libya was uncovered.
9. In June of 1984, a Libyan airline employee shot and wounded a Libyan‑born Athens, Greece publisher of an anti‑Khadafy newspaper. Within one month, three other Libyans residing in Greece were killed.
(...to be continued...)
In September of 1969, military officer Col. Muammar Khadafy led a bloodless coup and formed a Revolution Command Council, with himself as Chairman. After subduing his fellow countrymen, he interjected himself into the problems of both African and European nations, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of international terrorism between the 1970’s and the mid 1980’s.
1. In 1977 Muammar Khadafy airlifted 2,500 troops to Uganda in an unsuccessful effort to prop up the government of Idi Amin against rebel factions. Amin was ultimately deposed in 1979.
2. During 1981, Khadafy’s asserted that Libyan territorial waters extended from the greater mouth of the Gulf of Sidra, -- approximately 360 miles east to west, and up to 160 miles from its shores. (International norm is 12 miles from the nearest coast.) In response to the proclaimed “line‑of-death”, President Reagan deployed the U.S. Navy to assert international rights of passage. On August 19, two Libyan jets were sent aloft, and upon encountering two U.S. carrier based F14 “Tomcat” fighter aircraft, the Libyan aircraft hastily launched air-to-air missiles. The U.S. fighters quickly downed both aircraft.
3. During the years of 1981 to 1985, Khadafy sent “huge shipments of arms” to a new Ugandan rebel leader in the successful overthrow of the pro-Western Gen. Tito Okello.
4. In 1983 he sent troops into Chad in support of the anti-government rebels. To protect their former colony, the French responded by sending in 3,000 troops. After a year of fighting, an agreement for mutual pull-out was made, but only the French withdrew. Within a year, continued Libyan-backed rebel attacks prompted the French to re-deploy 1,500 troops and tactical fighter aircraft.
5. During the early 1980’s Libyan intelligence agents would tip-off European authorities of terrorist intentions against European targets. However by 1984/85, the Libyan anti-terrorist assistance ceased. Although mounting evidence of Libyan complicity would seemingly coalesce international anti-Libyan sentiments, the $12 billion of European trade, along with tens of thousands of European workers in Libya, would hamper a truly unified response.
6. In July of 1982, a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd was uncovered.
7. In December of 1982, a Libyan plot to support Italy’s Sardinia separatists was uncovered. This conspiracy included plans for sabotage and kidnapping.
8. In March of 1984, a Libyan plot to destroy the Jordanian Embassy in Libya was uncovered.
9. In June of 1984, a Libyan airline employee shot and wounded a Libyan‑born Athens, Greece publisher of an anti‑Khadafy newspaper. Within one month, three other Libyans residing in Greece were killed.
(...to be continued...)
Anderson and Van Atta, “Libya’s Role in Terrorism Documented,” Syndicated Columnists, Albuquerque Journal, April 9, 1986, p. A4
“Libya Helped Arm Rebels In Uganda, Khadafy Says,” A.P., Albuquerque Journal, Jan. 30, 1986, p. A13
“In Past, Khadafy Has Backed Off,” Knight-Rider, Albuquerque Journal, Mar. 25, 1986, p. A8
“Libya Helped Arm Rebels In Uganda, Khadafy Says,” p. A13
“French May Send Troops Into Chad,” A.P., Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 15, 1986, p. A19
“Libya Used To Expose Terrorists,” p. A13
Anderson and Van Atta, “Libya’s Role in Terrorism Documented,” p. A4
BibleScribe
BibleScribe
Daniel wrote"Daniel 1:21". Is Daniel prophesying his own death in this scripture or is there something wrong with your understanding?
Context gentleman.
Daniel 1:19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.
20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
21 And Daniel continued (to commune with the king) even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
And he evidently then went out from the king (or, the king had ceased communing or consulting with him) because as chapter two continues on:
Daniel 2:1 ¶And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
Daniel 2:10 The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king's matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean.
11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
12 For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.
13 And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.
14 ¶Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king's guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon:
And so Daniel makes his way back to the king at this point.
Daniel stayed in commune (that is, in communication with) with the king "until or unto the first year of king Cyrus."
He left that communing and then was later called to return.
Daniel 1:19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.
20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
21 And Daniel continued (to commune with the king) even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
And he evidently then went out from the king (or, the king had ceased communing or consulting with him) because as chapter two continues on:
Daniel 2:1 ¶And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
Daniel 2:10 The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king's matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean.
11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
12 For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.
13 And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.
14 ¶Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king's guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon:
And so Daniel makes his way back to the king at this point.
Daniel stayed in commune (that is, in communication with) with the king "until or unto the first year of king Cyrus."
He left that communing and then was later called to return.
Hi Vengle,
Please see Page 1, Post #8.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/14309-is-the-book-of-daniel-wrong/
BibleScribe
Please see Page 1, Post #8.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/14309-is-the-book-of-daniel-wrong/
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by against the United States by Lybia, -- Part 3 of 3:
LIBYAN INCIDENT -- (1986)
.
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by against the United States by Lybia, -- Part 3 of 3:
LIBYAN INCIDENT -- (1986)
.
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. [sup]30[/sup] For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.”
.
(List continued ... )
.
.
(List continued ... )
.
10. In 1981, the Israeli’s launched a precision air strike against the French designed nuclear reactor in Osiraq, leveling the facilities. (During the 1970’s to late 80’s the French had become Iraq’s second largest trading partner, exchanging oil for military and consumer goods.) These facilities were carefully cultivated by Saddam both as a miltary nuclear ‘equalizer’ and the political icon of a significant regional power.
.
.
11. In the 1982 Fez Arab summit, Saddam joined other Arab leaders in the consensus that the states of Israel and Palestine could both exist. He later went even further and publicly supported “‘the existence of a secure state for the Israelis.’”
.
.
12. Starting in 1982, the U.S. sought to use Iraq against the Iranian government (partly in retribution for the 1980 to 1981 hostage crisis) by authorizing agricultural credits, providing satellite and communications information on Iranian troop movements, and indirectly supplying U.S. arms. By 1984, U.S./Iraqi diplomatic relations, severed during the 1967 Six Day War, were restored. By 1987, Iraq was receiving $1 billion in agricultural credit, the largest U.S. loan to any country.
.
.
13. In 1985, Saddam offered $700 million for Israel’s consensus to the laying of an oil pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba, Jordan.
.
.
14. In early 1987, news of the U.S. administration’s Iran-Contra arms for hostages (held in Lebanon) was made public. A few short months later, in May, an Iraqi Mirage attacked the U.S. frigate Sark with two Exocet missiles, killing 37 sailors. Apologies over “mistaken identity” were accepted.
.
.
15. During the years 1988 to 1989, clearly four challenges were made to Saddam’s leadership. The first was a near mutiny by his military officers, openly challenging his ability to provide military strategy during the Iran/Iraq War. The second was a plan to shoot down his plane on the return leg of an Egyptian trip. A third coup attempt was aborted; and the fourth, an assassination attempt, was unsuccessful.
.
.
16. In 1988, at the end of the Iran/Iraq war with the inherent impact on the Iraqi standard of living, Saddam, feeling compelled to demonstrate a “peace dividend,” liberalized the Iraqi political climate and economic system. He also continued his moderate foreign policies by using statesmanship to effect the formation of the Arab Co-operation Council, and by signing a non-agression pact with Saudi Arabia.
.
.
17. In December of 1988, Saddam joined Egypt’s Husni Mubarak in sponsoring the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist, in spite of Syrian opposition.
.
.
18. In September of 1989, British citizen Farzad Bazoft, a journalist for the British newspaper, the Observer, investigated an explosion in a military complex near Bagdad. He taken under arrest, and within six months he was tried, sentenced, and executed.
.
.
Over the course of the prior year, western intelligence noted significant conventional and nuclear weapons development. One of particular significance was a ‘supergun’ capable of launching artillery payloads as far as Israel and possibly into orbit. The Canadian large bore gun genius, Dr. Gerald Bull had been commissioned by Saddam to design and build this ‘supergun.’ Unfortunately for Dr. Bull, he was assassinated, (whether by agents of western or Israeli agencies is uncertain) after warnings not to complete the weapon’s construction.
.
.
Now with the execution of this journalist, Western governments seized Iraqi bound nuclear and conventional weapons components. Under a near circus of media cameras, British, Greek, and Turkey customs agents impounded crate after crate of Iraqi bound hardware.
.
.
19. Also, still in 1990, U.S. agricultural credits had exceeded $1 billion, but Iraq was under investigation for trading these goods to other countries for arms (known as the Italian Banca Nazionale Lavoro --BLN -- scandal). In addition, increasing U.S. criticism was leveled at Saddam for “‘gross violations of human rights.’” In response, Saddam denounced the U.S. Persian Gulf presence, and escalated anti‑American sentiments.
.
.
20. Still at this same time period, the Soviets were allowing a mass Jewish exodus to Israel, and secret meetings were being held between Israel and Syria which alarmed Saddam. Fearing a conspiracy, he warned Israel against attacking his scientific or military facilities (anticipating a replay of the 1981 raid against the Osiraq reactor, but this time against his super-gun and other capabilities), hinting at retaliation by chemical warheads. The Israelis responded by inferring a nuclear counterstrike. Saddam subsequently used several diplomatic channels to successfully defuse the rhetoric.
.
And please recall, -- where the Soviets previously entered Africa without a U.S. counter, this time the U.S. would act.
.
.
And please recall, -- where the Soviets previously entered Africa without a U.S. counter, this time the U.S. would act.
.
IBID, pp. 23, 24, 32
IBID, p. 21
Thomas B. Allen, and F. Clifton Berry, and Norman Polmar, CNN: War in the Gulf, Turner Publishing, Inc. Atlanta, GA, 1991, p. 49
Freedman, and Karsh, pp. 29-30
IBID, p. 22
IBID, pp. 26-28, 31
IBID, p. 32
.
.
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by the United States against Lybia:
The Ships Of Kittim*
On Monday, April 14, in response to the continued Libyan sponsored terroristic provocations, President Reagan ordered a direct attack on Libya. The U.S. naval task force carriers America and Coral Sea launched 15 A-6 and A-7 (medium bomber and light attack) aircraft, for a coordinated attack with 18 Air Force F‑111 tactical bombers flying from England. The F‑111’s struck targets in Tripoli (including Khadafy’s headquarters, a military airbase, and a terrorist training base); and the A-6 and A-7’s struck targets in Benghazi (a command post and airbase).[1] (This attack occurred before the American and European civilians could be deployed as human shields.) The attack against Khadafy’s “headquarters” included his private residence. One of his children was killed in the residence, but Khadafy was in his ‘prayer’ tent on the lawn, unscathed.
Reagan’s justification was based on two intercepted cables between the Libyan embassy in East Berlin and Khadafy’s headquarters in Tripoli. The first was sent on April 4, advising Khadafy that a terrorist attack would occur the next day. The second cable was sent April 5, the day of the West Berlin disco bombing, advising Khadafy of the success “‘which could not be traced to Libyan people.’”[2]
The history of these events establish four basic premises. The first was that the king of the north (the Soviet Union, through a Libyan front) would again return to play a disruptive role in world affairs. The second was that this presence would extend into the realm of the king of the south (the European airports, West Berlin disco, etc.). Thirdly, the Soviet’s previously uncontested intrigue in Africa would be directly countered in their Libyan schemes by way of a direct U.S. military strike. And fourth, that this action should be by the ships of "Kittim". Each of these criteria were succinctly fulfilled.
Please allow the evaluation of the historical attack by the United States against Lybia:
The Ships Of Kittim*
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. [sup]30[/sup] For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.”
.
.
* (As historically established, Kittim refers to the island of Crete, and specifically to a seaport town that, in Daniel’s day, had the most powerful navy in the Mediterranean.)
On Monday, April 14, in response to the continued Libyan sponsored terroristic provocations, President Reagan ordered a direct attack on Libya. The U.S. naval task force carriers America and Coral Sea launched 15 A-6 and A-7 (medium bomber and light attack) aircraft, for a coordinated attack with 18 Air Force F‑111 tactical bombers flying from England. The F‑111’s struck targets in Tripoli (including Khadafy’s headquarters, a military airbase, and a terrorist training base); and the A-6 and A-7’s struck targets in Benghazi (a command post and airbase).[1] (This attack occurred before the American and European civilians could be deployed as human shields.) The attack against Khadafy’s “headquarters” included his private residence. One of his children was killed in the residence, but Khadafy was in his ‘prayer’ tent on the lawn, unscathed.
Reagan’s justification was based on two intercepted cables between the Libyan embassy in East Berlin and Khadafy’s headquarters in Tripoli. The first was sent on April 4, advising Khadafy that a terrorist attack would occur the next day. The second cable was sent April 5, the day of the West Berlin disco bombing, advising Khadafy of the success “‘which could not be traced to Libyan people.’”[2]
The history of these events establish four basic premises. The first was that the king of the north (the Soviet Union, through a Libyan front) would again return to play a disruptive role in world affairs. The second was that this presence would extend into the realm of the king of the south (the European airports, West Berlin disco, etc.). Thirdly, the Soviet’s previously uncontested intrigue in Africa would be directly countered in their Libyan schemes by way of a direct U.S. military strike. And fourth, that this action should be by the ships of "Kittim". Each of these criteria were succinctly fulfilled.
[1] “Land-Based, Carrier Jets Flew in Raid,” p. A2
[2] “Cables to Khadafy Provided Evidence,” L.A. Times & Washington Post Service, Albuquerque Journal, April 15, 1986, p. A1
.
BibleScribe
.
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the evaluation of the historical disinformation campaign by the United States against Lybia:
The Disinformation Campaign
Please allow the evaluation of the historical disinformation campaign by the United States against Lybia:
The Disinformation Campaign
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. 30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.”
The air attack against Libya was designed to overtly deter Libyan aggression and covertly kill Khadafy. During the months preceding the attack, the CIA conducted a sophisticated dis-information campaign which was designed to threaten and taunt Khadafy. Immediately after the attack, Khadafy fled into the vast expanse of Libyan desert in fear for his life, while meantime, the U.S. government was still keeping busy preparing a second dis-information campaign.[1]
The air attack against Libya was designed to overtly deter Libyan aggression and covertly kill Khadafy. During the months preceding the attack, the CIA conducted a sophisticated dis-information campaign which was designed to threaten and taunt Khadafy. Immediately after the attack, Khadafy fled into the vast expanse of Libyan desert in fear for his life, while meantime, the U.S. government was still keeping busy preparing a second dis-information campaign.[1]
[1] Seymour Hersh, “North Tries, Unsuccessfully, to Alter Plans for Raid on Libya,” The Kansas City Star, Feb. 27, 1987, p. 6B
BibleScribe
Hi Biblescribe, Daniel need not necessarily have died but a tradition in the British royal family may give a clue as to whats occuring. When a senior member dies, ALL of their staff are released from service! Something similar may be happening here.
Hi Craig Farrow,
I think the significance of 1:21 is not so much that he ~died~, (although this chapter covers the span of his life), but rather that we resolve the context of 10:1. And toward this resolution, we should perceive that the "third year of Cyrus king of Persia" pre-dates the "first year of King Cyrus". Furthermore, we should also discover that in Daniel 11:1, Cyrus had not yet conquered the Babylonians, as Darius was the last Babylonian king.
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow that the history of the nations (for which Daniel was called to prophesy to) occasionally transcends the gentiles. In these occurrences Scripture converges to include the Jews. Part I of II
JEWISH SYNAGOGUE MASSACRE -- (1986)
Within five months of the Libyan attack, a particularly egregious act of terrorism occurred against Istanbul, Turkey’s, main Jewish synagogue, the “Jews of Neve Shalom.” On Saturday, September 6, 1986, at 9:20 a.m., two attackers, in their 20’s, entered the synagogue shortly after the start of services. They locked the main door behind them, and standing 30 feet apart, started spraying the all-male congregation, young and old, with machine gun fire. They killed 21, wounded 4 (one seriously), and left one 17 year old unscathed (he pretended to be dead). They then poured gasoline over seven of the bodies, and set fire. Finally, they pulled the pins on their handgrenades, and blew themselves apart. Seven rabbis were among the dead, and Istabul’s chief rabbi was wounded. The ten women upstairs were unharmed.
There was immediate widespread suspicion who these men were, and that “in such a well planned terrorist action that they had no accomplices.” It was speculated that their automatic weapons and grenades entered Turkey through diplomatic means, and although several groups claimed responsibility, Abu Nidal was the leading suspect. (As described previously; during 1985, Libya provided Abu Nidal a home base of operations which produced 33 attacks in which 90 people were killed and 350 wounded.) Fifteen months after this attack, an article in the U.S. News & World Report (without divulging the intelligence source) pointed to Abu Nidal as the culprit.
While the entirety of this work demonstrates that Daniel is called to prophesy to the nations, in this context we find that this Jewish massacre crosses the limiting line of Jewish pertinence to become an internationally acknowledged event.
But the account of this event is not limited to this eleventh chapter of Daniel. It is also presented in the Daniel 8:11 & 12 commentary, (confirming the Soviet sponsorship of this horrific deed). When we explore this prophetic event even further, we find additional confirmation in the book of Psalms for that year of 1986.
Please allow that the history of the nations (for which Daniel was called to prophesy to) occasionally transcends the gentiles. In these occurrences Scripture converges to include the Jews. Part I of II
JEWISH SYNAGOGUE MASSACRE -- (1986)
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. 30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.
Within five months of the Libyan attack, a particularly egregious act of terrorism occurred against Istanbul, Turkey’s, main Jewish synagogue, the “Jews of Neve Shalom.” On Saturday, September 6, 1986, at 9:20 a.m., two attackers, in their 20’s, entered the synagogue shortly after the start of services. They locked the main door behind them, and standing 30 feet apart, started spraying the all-male congregation, young and old, with machine gun fire. They killed 21, wounded 4 (one seriously), and left one 17 year old unscathed (he pretended to be dead). They then poured gasoline over seven of the bodies, and set fire. Finally, they pulled the pins on their handgrenades, and blew themselves apart. Seven rabbis were among the dead, and Istabul’s chief rabbi was wounded. The ten women upstairs were unharmed.
There was immediate widespread suspicion who these men were, and that “in such a well planned terrorist action that they had no accomplices.” It was speculated that their automatic weapons and grenades entered Turkey through diplomatic means, and although several groups claimed responsibility, Abu Nidal was the leading suspect. (As described previously; during 1985, Libya provided Abu Nidal a home base of operations which produced 33 attacks in which 90 people were killed and 350 wounded.) Fifteen months after this attack, an article in the U.S. News & World Report (without divulging the intelligence source) pointed to Abu Nidal as the culprit.
While the entirety of this work demonstrates that Daniel is called to prophesy to the nations, in this context we find that this Jewish massacre crosses the limiting line of Jewish pertinence to become an internationally acknowledged event.
But the account of this event is not limited to this eleventh chapter of Daniel. It is also presented in the Daniel 8:11 & 12 commentary, (confirming the Soviet sponsorship of this horrific deed). When we explore this prophetic event even further, we find additional confirmation in the book of Psalms for that year of 1986.
“Gunmen’s Identities Stump Investigators,” A.P. - Istanbul, Turkey, Albuquerque Jorunal, Sept.9, 1986, p. A8
Patricia Cullen Clark, “Washington Whispers -- Abu Nidal, Challenging Arafat,” U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 30, 1987, p. 15
BibleScribe
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow that the history of the nations (for which Daniel was called to prophesy to) occasionally transcends the gentiles. In these occurrences Scripture converges to include the Jews. Part II of II
JEWISH SYNAGOGUE MASSACRE -- (1986) ... continued ...
Clearly, Daniel 11:30 and 8:11 & 12 refer to this same event. But the Psalms is a little different. The many chapters of Psalms are full of references to enemies, and calls for the thwarting of their misdeeds and misbegotten gains. Similarly, this defensive perspective has already been presented in context with the seventy ‘years’ of Jeremiah (Daniel 9). In verse 25 Daniel describes, and history documents, that the nation of Israel is built with “squares and moat” -- defensive fortifications. Likewise, it should come of no surprise that, with or without any specific prophetic significance that the book of Psalms could be randomly interpreted as presenting Israel’s plea for God’s favor against any one of the many onslaughts of “ruthless men.”
But this Psalms 86 passage (19th book, 86th Chapter, -- for the year 1986) is more. In verse 16, the son of a “handmaid” is in jeopardy. In this verse, we find a plea for God’s protection for that singular son. Once again, God provides a key clue for interpretative confirmation, and I again cite the Istanbul synagogue massacre and the fact that only one person was unscathed, -- a seventeen year old boy.
BibleScribe
Please allow that the history of the nations (for which Daniel was called to prophesy to) occasionally transcends the gentiles. In these occurrences Scripture converges to include the Jews. Part II of II
JEWISH SYNAGOGUE MASSACRE -- (1986) ... continued ...
DANIEL 11:29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. 30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant.
.
.
.
.
PSALMS 86:14 “O God, insolent men have risen up against me; a band of ruthless men seek my life, and they do not set thee before them. 15 But thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. 16 Turn to me and take pity on me; give thy strength to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid. 17 Show me a sign of thy favor, that those who hate me may see and be able put to shame because thou, Lord, hast helped me and comforted me.”
Clearly, Daniel 11:30 and 8:11 & 12 refer to this same event. But the Psalms is a little different. The many chapters of Psalms are full of references to enemies, and calls for the thwarting of their misdeeds and misbegotten gains. Similarly, this defensive perspective has already been presented in context with the seventy ‘years’ of Jeremiah (Daniel 9). In verse 25 Daniel describes, and history documents, that the nation of Israel is built with “squares and moat” -- defensive fortifications. Likewise, it should come of no surprise that, with or without any specific prophetic significance that the book of Psalms could be randomly interpreted as presenting Israel’s plea for God’s favor against any one of the many onslaughts of “ruthless men.”
But this Psalms 86 passage (19th book, 86th Chapter, -- for the year 1986) is more. In verse 16, the son of a “handmaid” is in jeopardy. In this verse, we find a plea for God’s protection for that singular son. Once again, God provides a key clue for interpretative confirmation, and I again cite the Istanbul synagogue massacre and the fact that only one person was unscathed, -- a seventeen year old boy.
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the history of the Tiananmen Square, Part I of II:
CHINA - Tiananmen Square
Please allow the history of the Tiananmen Square, Part I of II:
CHINA - Tiananmen Square
DANIEL 11:32 “He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. 33 And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days. 34 When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery; 35 and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.”
Perspective
In the scope of human affairs, governments have run the extremes, from espousing inherent God ordained ‘human rights,’ to denying any basic individual rights in deference to governmental goals and objectives. It is in this context that this first verse commences an extended scathing indictment of the nation of China.
Newspaper articles and investigative reporting still remind the world of the event in which peaceful protest by this country’s young idealists was met with violence by a government willing to sacrifice compassion and tolerance for unbending rule. This event is known as Tiananmen Square, a populist gathering in the same location where in 1949 Mao proclaimed the defeat of the Chinese Nationalists and the founding of a “New China.” [1]
During the years 1981 to 1987, Hu Yaogang was General secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and was viewed by the populous masses as being lenient towards intellectuals and students. His abrupt dismissal in January of 1987, by Deng Xiaoping (then chairman of the Party Central Military Commission (considered China’s supreme leader), was a disconcerting event for those expecting greater liberalization of thought.
Upon his death in mid-April of 1989, a group of university students marched on Tiananmen Square to express dismay with the slow progress of political reform and were joined by thousands of other young idealists. Deng Xiaoping offered restrained response. However, after several more demonstrations, the April 26 official Party newspaper, People’s Daily, accused the students of an “organized conspiracy to sow chaos.”[2]
Perspective
In the scope of human affairs, governments have run the extremes, from espousing inherent God ordained ‘human rights,’ to denying any basic individual rights in deference to governmental goals and objectives. It is in this context that this first verse commences an extended scathing indictment of the nation of China.
Newspaper articles and investigative reporting still remind the world of the event in which peaceful protest by this country’s young idealists was met with violence by a government willing to sacrifice compassion and tolerance for unbending rule. This event is known as Tiananmen Square, a populist gathering in the same location where in 1949 Mao proclaimed the defeat of the Chinese Nationalists and the founding of a “New China.” [1]
During the years 1981 to 1987, Hu Yaogang was General secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and was viewed by the populous masses as being lenient towards intellectuals and students. His abrupt dismissal in January of 1987, by Deng Xiaoping (then chairman of the Party Central Military Commission (considered China’s supreme leader), was a disconcerting event for those expecting greater liberalization of thought.
Upon his death in mid-April of 1989, a group of university students marched on Tiananmen Square to express dismay with the slow progress of political reform and were joined by thousands of other young idealists. Deng Xiaoping offered restrained response. However, after several more demonstrations, the April 26 official Party newspaper, People’s Daily, accused the students of an “organized conspiracy to sow chaos.”[2]
[1] John K. Fairbank, Children of the Dragon, Macmillan Publishing Co., NY, 1990, p. 11
[2] IBID
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the history of the Tiananmen Square, Part II of II:
CHINA - Tiananmen Square
Please allow the history of the Tiananmen Square, Part II of II:
CHINA - Tiananmen Square
DANIEL 11:32 “He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. 33 And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days. 34 When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery; 35 and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.”
Tiananmen Square
During the following weeks, up to 150,000 students[1] participated in various demonstrations. However, by the first few days of June, with students fully occupying Tiananmen Square and having issued the May 16 Declaration, the attention gained by this event was dealt with by force.
By the evening of June 3, under the shroud of darkness, soldiers started killing civilians.[2] By 06:15, the square had been cleared with the exception of about 50 people.[3] After the troops subdued the populous (some troops were sympathetic while others were oppressive and murderous), the Chinese government announced that “6,000 fully armed soldiers were killed and hurt..., while only 300 students and bystanders were killed by mistake.”[4] Western analysts estimated that 200,000 troops were called to Beijing, partly to suppress the student revolt, but more significantly as leverage in a perceived internal power struggle.[5] Actual student/civilian deaths have never been independently verified.
Surprisingly, considering the instant world wide knowledge and recognition of this event, Tiananmen Square was a short lived experiment in civil liberties. Still today, recognized Chinese dissidents are still being arrested and persecuted, and recently one, Liu Nianchun, has abruptly disappeared after overt government threats.[6]
The U.S. State Department accuses China of “repressing dissenters and abusing prisoners” and bemoans “an unsatisfactory year on human rights.”[7] Sixty Minutes also reports on China’s systematic starvation of orphans,[8] but the Chinese government rigidly limits journalists and suppresses much information including forced prison labor, forced abortions, religious persecutions, and untold repressions.
According to Daniel, it appears that the rigidity of this Chinese government will endure “until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.”
Tiananmen Square
During the following weeks, up to 150,000 students[1] participated in various demonstrations. However, by the first few days of June, with students fully occupying Tiananmen Square and having issued the May 16 Declaration, the attention gained by this event was dealt with by force.
By the evening of June 3, under the shroud of darkness, soldiers started killing civilians.[2] By 06:15, the square had been cleared with the exception of about 50 people.[3] After the troops subdued the populous (some troops were sympathetic while others were oppressive and murderous), the Chinese government announced that “6,000 fully armed soldiers were killed and hurt..., while only 300 students and bystanders were killed by mistake.”[4] Western analysts estimated that 200,000 troops were called to Beijing, partly to suppress the student revolt, but more significantly as leverage in a perceived internal power struggle.[5] Actual student/civilian deaths have never been independently verified.
Surprisingly, considering the instant world wide knowledge and recognition of this event, Tiananmen Square was a short lived experiment in civil liberties. Still today, recognized Chinese dissidents are still being arrested and persecuted, and recently one, Liu Nianchun, has abruptly disappeared after overt government threats.[6]
The U.S. State Department accuses China of “repressing dissenters and abusing prisoners” and bemoans “an unsatisfactory year on human rights.”[7] Sixty Minutes also reports on China’s systematic starvation of orphans,[8] but the Chinese government rigidly limits journalists and suppresses much information including forced prison labor, forced abortions, religious persecutions, and untold repressions.
According to Daniel, it appears that the rigidity of this Chinese government will endure “until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.”
[1] IBID, p. 11
[2] IBID, p. 126
[3] IBID, p. 174
[4] IBID, p. 204
[5] “Students Pledge To Hold Square,” A.P., Beijing, Albuquerque Journal, May 29, 1989, p. A8
[6] Susan Lawerence, “The Ghosts of Tiananmen,” U.S. News & World Report, June 5, 1995, p. 38
[7] “Chinese Official Appeals For Warmer Ties With U.S.,” Amarillo Globe, Apr. 20, 1996, p. 12A
[8] “Sixty Minutes,” CBS Television, broadcast Jan. 21, 1996
BibleScribe
To All,
Please allow the history of Iraq and the Gulf Wars, -- Desert Shield / Desert Storm, Part I of III:
SADDAM HUSSAIN -- (1970 -- 2006)
Upon closely reading Daniel’s depiction, one is struck with the many facets of description. This passage offers approximately 15 clues to this ruler and his methods. Interestingly, there appears to be several historical circumstances that can be considered in determining the accuracy of the fulfillment.
Contextual Note: In this 11th Chapter of Daniel there are three instances where ~women~ are cited: Daniel 11:6, 11:17, and this 11:37. In all three instances I would propose that this is NOT a literal reference to the female gender, but must be understood in the context of international politics. Specifically, where there are Leaders, so too there are support organizations typical of the State Department, the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Department, etc. As such these are those ~help-mates~ to that leader. And in the case of Saddam Hussein, he was so self-centered that he did not depend upon anyone, and in fact would kill a general if he was too successful in battle or too popular with his troops.
Historical Perspective
The pro-western Hashemite dynasty ruled the country of Iraq from its inception in 1921, until a military coup by General Abd al-Karim Qassem in July 1958. Five years later Qassem was ousted. leaving the country racked with political turmoil for another five years until July 1968, when the Baath Arab Socialist Party gained control. Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr was President ,but by early 1970, acting Vice President Saddam Hussain was already recognized as the “de facto ‘strong man in Bagdad.’” In July of 1979 Saddam accepted the post of President, albeit merely a formal gesture.
Political Maneuverings - (1970 - 1990)
The sequence of milestones during Saddam’s reign are presented as follows:
Please allow the history of Iraq and the Gulf Wars, -- Desert Shield / Desert Storm, Part I of III:
SADDAM HUSSAIN -- (1970 -- 2006)
DANIEL 11:36 “And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done. 37 He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.”
Upon closely reading Daniel’s depiction, one is struck with the many facets of description. This passage offers approximately 15 clues to this ruler and his methods. Interestingly, there appears to be several historical circumstances that can be considered in determining the accuracy of the fulfillment.
Contextual Note: In this 11th Chapter of Daniel there are three instances where ~women~ are cited: Daniel 11:6, 11:17, and this 11:37. In all three instances I would propose that this is NOT a literal reference to the female gender, but must be understood in the context of international politics. Specifically, where there are Leaders, so too there are support organizations typical of the State Department, the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Department, etc. As such these are those ~help-mates~ to that leader. And in the case of Saddam Hussein, he was so self-centered that he did not depend upon anyone, and in fact would kill a general if he was too successful in battle or too popular with his troops.
Historical Perspective
The pro-western Hashemite dynasty ruled the country of Iraq from its inception in 1921, until a military coup by General Abd al-Karim Qassem in July 1958. Five years later Qassem was ousted. leaving the country racked with political turmoil for another five years until July 1968, when the Baath Arab Socialist Party gained control. Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr was President ,but by early 1970, acting Vice President Saddam Hussain was already recognized as the “de facto ‘strong man in Bagdad.’” In July of 1979 Saddam accepted the post of President, albeit merely a formal gesture.
Political Maneuverings - (1970 - 1990)
The sequence of milestones during Saddam’s reign are presented as follows:
1. In September of 1970, with Iraqi troops deployed in Jordan, Saddam prevented Iraqi involvement in clashes between the Jordanian military and the resident PLO.
.
2. In October of 1973, while Egypt and Syria combined forces for a concerted attack on Israel, Iraqi forces and support were uncommitted.
.
3. In March of 1975, Saddam settled a longstanding Shatt Al-Arab waterway dispute with Iran by conceding to Iranian demands. This was adhered to by Saddam until the end of that decade.
.
4. After the January 1979, overthrow of the Iranian Shah, Saddam made open expressions of welcome to ingratiate himself with this new Islamic regime. To his disappointment, there was no reciprocation.
.
5. In March of 1979 Saddam hosted an all-Arab conference which resulted in Egypt’s expulsion from the Arab League due to Sadat’s peace agreement with Israel (signed on March 27, 1979). One year later found Saddam courting Sadat in a successful coaxing for military support. Over time, Egypt developed into a key provider, and Saddam inturn worked tirelessly to restore Egypt’s membership in the Arab League.
... to be continued ...
.
.
... to be continued ...
.
.
Lawrence Freedman, and Efraim Karsh, The Gulf Conflict, 1990 - 1991: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1993, p. 29, 44
Freedman, and Karsh, p. 19
IBID
IBID
Freedman, and Karsh, p. 20
The New York Times - Page One, p. 285
IBID, p. 21
BibleScribe
Similar threads
