Monday, August 8, 2011

Daniel 9-12

The Facts (Chapter number: Verse)

Daniel 9 - No mention of any women.

Daniel 10 - No mention of any women.

11:6-7 - "After some years [the kings of the north and south] shall make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to ratify the agreement. But she shall not retain her power and his offspring shall not endure. She shall be given up, she and her attendants and her child and the one who supported her. In those times, a branch from her roots shall rise up in his place. He shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall take action against them and prevail."
11:17 - "In order to destroy the kingdom, [the king of the south] shall give him a woman in marriage; but it shall not succeed or be to his advantage."

Daniel 12 - No mention of any women.

My Comments

Oh, women. How they just can't do anything. Gotta leave it to a man to save them and fix their mess. Though WHY the daughter of the king was sent to ratify an agreement with an enemy king is just weird. So when she's alone, without a man, her power is taken. It's not until a male "branch from her roots" comes up that the south was able to prevail against the north.

And then we get a trickster woman to top it all off who is part of the plan to take down the kingdom of the north! So wait, a woman can't take care of negotiations by herself but a woman can most definitely take down a kingdom through use of sex and marriage? Once again, our power lies solely with our sexuality which is capable of taking down ANY man. Female sexuality is something to be feared and cautious about, lest a woman be the reason our lives and good future crumble before our eyes. A smart and capable woman, no worried there, but the power we hold between our legs is definitely something that, if left to its own devices and left unchecked, could destroy any man.

Anyone see how that basic idea is still around today?

Wednesday: Hosea


  1. I think that "the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to ratify the agreement" means she's given in marriage or concubinage as part of the deal, not that she had any ambassadorial standing in the negotiations. That was certainly the sort of thing done with princesses in Europe when treaties were being made between kings.

    "... she shall not retain her power" tells me that she loses standing in court in the the kingdom of the north. The consequences of that are her being given over for execution or other punishment along with her son and some court supporter (and all her attendants).

  2. That does make some sense, Efogoto. It does seem strange that a woman would be sent as an ambassador or negotiator. But also strange is the choice to phrase it that way when in every other instance words that sound more like "marriage" are used. And why would she be sent for marriage when she already had at least one child of her own. Was she taken from her own husband? Was she a widow? Even then, why would they send a non virgin to the king for marriage when non virgins are regarded as only slightly better than garbage? Both interpretations have their issues, so I'm unsure which would make more sense...

  3. I think that her son's father is the king of the north, so there's a time lag between her arrival and her fall. The insertion of one more 'after some years' would really have helped clarify that if I'm reading it correctly.

  4. "Pussy power" is the most power of everything that is powerful (too bad society doesn't respect that). On todays NPR there is a good article on the historical Adam and Eve and genetic diversity. Turns out that 'it' is not possible...therefore the second class-ness of women is not possible or correct either. awesome buddy.


  5. Well, the second classness of women IS possible since women are living it every day. But that second class status is, in fact, a load of bullshit. I always figured that only people who knew jack shit about basic genetics and breeding could buy into the whole "one woman, one man" idea. It's just impossible. I think I remember one time hearing in church or someplace similar that the "one woman, one man" thing was wrong, that god had actually created other men and women on the planet, Adam and Eve were just his favorites. The Bible (the version I'm reading anyway) doesn't support this notion at all, but biblical myths sometimes support this idea. Like Lilith was the first wife of Adam, before Eve, which would support the idea that there were more than just two people to start the world.

    I dunno, it's all just myth to me so it's like someone making something up when they realize their story doesn't make any sense. "Oh yeah, the people of Atlantis are still alive and well today. Wait, people can't actually live underwater? Well... ummm... they are... are FISH people! Yeah! I'll call 'em mermaids! That's how the people of Atlantis are still alive today!" Not that I don't enjoy the mythology aspect of it, I quite enjoy a good fantasy story, but so many people see these stories as REAL that it does concern me when they just bullshit something because someone pointed out a bit that doesn't make any sense.

    And Efogoto, the Bible would make more sense if it was clearer on A LOT of things, lol. The fact that pretty much everything is open to any interpretation is what makes the Bible the great book of multiple choice. It can't even get a simple narrative straight, so how is anyone expected to get moral teachings in this book straight? :\


Anyone posting anonymously is very likely to not have their comment published. If you do not have a Google/Blogger account you can use the Name/URL option to attach a name to your comment. And remember to try and stay on topic. :)