It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Iran the King of the South?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I thought I was reading newsweek the other day in a waiting room but found out I was reading something related to bible prophecy instead. Anyway I read that Iran was the King of the South. This link here seems to make sense.

www3.sympatico.ca...

However, the article I read also stated that the King of the North (the new united EU I believe) would push back the aggressive King of the South.

Does this scenario makes sense to you guys? Do you believe Iran will gain the support of Iraq (assuming the US leaves) and then be ultimately defeated by a united and stronger EU?






[edit on 21-1-2006 by orionthehunter]




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Hi I am a new member and just saw your note! The King of the North is definitely Russia and its allies(Iran and others). The King of the South is definitely Israel(and ofcourse the US). Who else could be so aggressive?! Read Ezekiel 38!



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Ezekiel and Daniel are both set in Babylon, in the exile which was around 471 to 402 BC. Babylon is our present day Iraq and Iran was Persia. If anyone knew of the 'new world' then surely they would refer to it as 'western,' if at all. I doubt the Israelites in Exile knew of the future US, but who knows?

Both from Daniel and Ezekiel's point of view in Babylon as well as in relation to their homeland--which was the Canaanite lands divided up for the 12 tribes around the Jordan valley--both Iran and Media are Eastward. And Russia, while being North, was really North.

I think it's more than likely that the King of the North refers to the tribe of Dan's allotment, and the King of the South would then be from the tribe of Judah's territory.

The ancient Hebrews didn't really consider the world outside their lands of any importance, so I doubt that our modern day countries figured into Ezekiel's prophecies in this way.

[edit on 6/29/2006 by queenannie38]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
that chapter 11 of Daniel, really gets me confused..
(see: bible.cc... )

it jumps from Babylonian captivity to the end of years time
with a pause after the Greek empire was divided among the 4 generals

if the prophecy is true, then the battles of Gog/Magog
and the Anti-christs' armegeddon are initiated, conducted by a King
that comes from one of the 4 kingdoms arising from the Greek Empire.
(it could either be the King of the North or the King of the South...
but not both)

by geographical limitations of the 4 empires which sprang forth after
the death of Alexander the Great, of Macedonia/Greece
Egypt would be the most Southern
Persia(including Syria/Assyria/Babylon/Iran+Iraq) would be most Northern

So, the end-times Northern King could well be the alliance led by Iran
because it fufills the requirement that the 'despicable person'(?antichrist)
would issue forth from one of the 4 nations/kingdoms arising from the breakup
of the ancient Greek empire....
but that seems way too easy and fits too well with todays geo-political
alignments...scripture is rife with double meanings & bouncing between the
natural worlds and spiritual worlds and ultimately ~hiding~ the paths of fufillments of many prophecies...
why should Daniels End of Years be any different??



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
You make some good points...

I've been thinking about those odd chapters in Daniel quite a bit the last few days, and last night I read the 8 and 11 chapters meticulously--by that I mean I looked at the original words for almost all the words that weren't 'the' 'and' etc...

And I know that the language of Daniel is partly Chaldean, or something other than Hebrew (I need to check that out, because I'm not sure of details at all) which might change the ideas and idioms somewhat, but probably not that significantly. Still, it seems like there is a lot lost in translation when it comes to Daniel--way more than for the rest of the OT.

They are awfully enigmatic and somehow incongruent--I tend to think it is the translation lacking rather than the writer. But I'm going to try to look into it, in depth, when I get a chance.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join