WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy 147 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gumby

  Schizm,

  Below is what some commentaries say on the scripture being discussed (Dan. 2:38-40) bold type mine

  Matthew Henry,

  The extent of his dominion is set forth (v. 38), that wheresoever the children of men dwell, in all the nations of that part of the world, he was ruler over them all, over them and all that belonged to them, all their cattle, not only those which they had a property in, but those that were ferae naturae — wild, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven. He was lord of all the woods, forests, and chases, and none were allowed to hunt or fowl without his leave. Thus "thou art the head of gold; thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, for seventy years.’’ Compare this with Jer. 25:9, 11, especially Jer. 27:5-7. There were other powerful kingdoms in the world at this time, as that of the Scythians; but it was the kingdom of Babylon that reigned over the Jews, and that began the government which continued in the succession here described till Christ’s time.

  This one volume commentary below was prepared by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown and published in 1871.

  37. Thou . . . art a king of kings--The committal of power in fullest plenitude belongs to Nebuchadnezzar personally, as having made Babylon the mighty empire it was. In twenty-three years after him the empire was ended: with him its greatness is identified (Daniel 4:30), his successors having done nothing notable. Not that he actually ruled every part of the globe, but that God granted him illimitable dominion in whatever direction his ambition led him, Egypt, Nineveh, Arabia, Syria, Tyre, and its Phoenician colonies (Jeremiah 27:5-8). Compare as to Cyrus, Ezra 1:2.

  Scofield Reference: ( here's the one you'll enjoy

  2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

  wheresoever the children

  This is universal dominion. It was never fully realized, but power was given for it.

  So there you have it. Two commentators at least realised it meant those within an area he could bully and he could actually have power over.

  I noticed the statement..."wheresoever the children" This is universal dominion. It was never fully realized, but power was given for it" ... doesn't make any sense really. Either it ruled other people or it did not. That statement sounded like a biased believer actually.

  Gumby
• 

  Schizm

  Gumby,

  I actually have those commentaries by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. And if my memory serves me right they include comments by Matthew Henry. They consist of two huge books that each wiegh every bit as much as Miss Piggy. After having consulted them on several occasions I came to the conclusion that my money could have been put to better use.

  Matthew Henry,

  The extent of his dominion is set forth (v. 38), that wheresoever the children of men dwell, in all the nations of that part of the world .... There were other powerful kingdoms in the world at this time, as that of the Scythians....

  And just how does Massa Henry know such things to be factual? Well, he doesn't really say THAT does he! Which seems to be a fairly common practice for our so-called scholars and authorities.

  Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.

  37. Thou . . . art a king of kings... Nebuchadnezzar.... Not that he actually ruled every part of the globe, but that God granted him illimitable dominion in whatever direction his ambition led him, Egypt, Nineveh, Arabia, Syria, Tyre, and its Phoenician colonies (Jeremiah 27:5-8). Compare as to Cyrus, Ezra 1:2.

  But what do the scriptures cited at Jeremiah 27:5-8 actually say? Well, let's just see:

  5 ‘I myself have made the earth, mankind and the beasts that are upon the surface of the earth by my great power and by my stretched-out arm; and I have given it to whom it has proved right in my eyes. 6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

  8 “‘“‘And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘until I shall have finished them off by his hand.’

  I see nothing there other than what would support MY side of the argument.

  Now let's take a look at the other scripture that was cited, Ezra 1:2

  2 “This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

  Once again, I stand vindicated. The kingdom of Persia exercised universal rule, even as did its successor Babylon.

  Scofield Reference:

  2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

  wheresoever the children

  This is universal dominion. It was never fully realized, but power was given for it.

  And just how does Massa Scofield know what he says is factual? Well, like the others, he doesn't reveal THAT does he! Which, and I repeat, seems to be a fairly common practice for our so-called scholars and authorities.

  Thanks, Gumby, you did good!

  .
• 

  Schizm

  Once again, I stand vindicated. The kingdom of Persia exercised universal rule, even as did its successor Babylon. -- Schizm.

  I should have said "predecessor" rather than "successor".

  .
• 

  gumby

  Once again, I stand vindicated. The kingdom of Persia exercised universal rule, even as did its successor Babylon. -- Schizm.

  I should have said "predecessor" rather than "successor

  Crap! I was just going to correct you too. It's ok though, I have plenty of more things to pick apart out of the cesspool of your comment massa schizm. I'll bet you jumped up outta bed about 3 in the morning and corrected yourself.....didn't ya?

  7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

  8 “‘“‘And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘until I shall have finished them off by his hand.’

  I just figured out something Schizbastard.

  If we take your own definition/understanding of this scripture/s being discussed as literal.......then it makes god out to be a fibber (sounds better than liar)

  The scriptures above indicate that everything on the planet was subject to Nebuchadnezzar. It also says anyone that will NOT serve him...will be dealt with by Jehovah himself in that Jehovah would smite ANYONE who didn't submit to his rule with pestilence, famine, and the sword.

  So Massa Schizbastard, DID Jehovah REALLY do as he said he would do to all the nations in the earth? Was China dealt a deathblow by Jehovah for not putting their neck under nNebuchadnezars yoke? Show me in any history book where Jehovah back in that time......caused a famine and pestilence and the sword to befall all other nations. Show me I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Gumscholar Mayberry RFD
• 

  jgnat

  Ah, I get it now. Schizm says that these peoples did not have a rich pre-bible history. You claim they simply did not exist and these parts of the earth were uninhabited. As Leolaia has made very clear, the burden of proof lies with you. But I have plenty of evidence anyhow, besides the links I have already given. Calendars. Carved in stone, in case you think somehow "pagan scholars" diabolically reinvented the whole earth in order to discredit your bible interpretation.

  Can you, Leolaia (or jgnat), provide the evidence needed to back up your claim? Can you actually PROVE that the "Native American peoples" were in fact living over on this continent when Nebuchadnezzar ruled?

  Nebuchaddnezzar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II_of_Babylon reigned from 605 BC - 562 BC

  The Chinese calendar goes back to 2637 B.C.E http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-chinese.html

  The Mayan calendar goes back at latest to 3114 BC http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
• 

  gumby

  If Schizm can find supporting evidence from the Mayan or Chineese writings that Jehovah gave them a whoopin for not following orders from the Babylonian King....I'll eat his shorts.

  Gumby
• 

  startingover

  Why do I find myself searching out this thread? I'll tell you why. For the same reason I search out the threads I find scholar posting on.

  What we have here is one person that no one else on this board sees fit to agree with. But yet many others seem to have much to say in disagreement. This thread reminds of a recent thread by Seeker4 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/102871/1.ashx about being intolerant of stupid thinking. I'll bet my blood pressure rises everytime I read Schizm's posts. The mental gymnastics are just amazing, irritating yes, but amazing.
• 

  Schizm

  jgnat says:

  The Chinese calendar goes back to 2637 B.C.E http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-chinese.html

  Yet the source she pointed to said:

  Legend has it that the Emperor Huangdi invented the calendar in 2637 B.C.E.

  Now, the definition of "legend" is:

  leg·end

  (l µ j "… nd) n. 1.a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.

  Makes me wonder just how much more of what jgnat believes to be truly historical but is in reality only unverified stories.

  Then jgnat says:

  The Mayan calendar goes back at latest to 3114 BC http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html

  Let's take a look:

  The authorities disagree on what 13.0.0.0.0 corresponds to in our calendar. I have come across three possible equivalences:

  13.0.0.0.0 = 8 Sep 3114 BC (Julian) = 13 Aug 3114 BC (Gregorian)
  13.0.0.0.0 = 6 Sep 3114 BC (Julian) = 11 Aug 3114 BC (Gregorian)
  13.0.0.0.0 = 11 Nov 3374 BC (Julian) = 15 Oct 3374 BC (Gregorian)

  Assuming one of the first two equivalences, the Long Count will again reach 13.0.0.0.0 on 21 or 23 December AD 2012 - a not too distant future.

  The date 13.0.0.0.0 may have been the Mayas' idea of the date of the creation of the world.

  "Authorities disagree"; "possible"; "assuming"; "may have been" .... hummm.

  Those are all expressions of uncertainty. Are not expressions like these fairly common in such reports? There are some people who will accept what they read as factual simply because they see it in print. To them, if it wasn't really true then it wouldn't be in a "book". Please tell me you don't subscribe to those tabloids we see in a lot of stores, jgnat.

  Not really impressed by all this stuff myself, jgnat, but if you wish to place your confidence in things that the "authorities" "assume" are true then that's your prerogative.

  Oh, before I forget, I thought this was interesting:

  Legal disclaimer

  While we have used our best efforts to verify that the information contained herein is accurate, we make no warranties to that effect, and shall not be liable for any damage that may result from errors or omissions in this exhibit. -- http://webexhibits.org/calendars/credits.html

  .
• 

  jgnat

  OK, let's imagine that we have to live with a bit of uncertainty regarding the start of these calendars, say, give or take two hundred years. Heck, make it 500 years. They still start before Babylon was even conceived.

  You will note that the uncertainty regarding the start of the Chinese calendar was not around it's existence, only who created it. As for the Mayan, there are three possible start dates, all pre-dating Babylon generously.

  BTW, Schizm, do you come with a liability disclaimer? Just in case some poor sod sells his house in anticipation of the Big End...based on YOUR interpretation?

  You pick out the gnat to swallow the camel.
• 

  Finally-Free

  I'll bet my blood pressure rises everytime I read Schizm's posts.

  I bet it does. I have a blood pressure monitor that I now keep beside the computer, since this seems to be where it becomes most necessary to check it. The threads do serve a useful purpose though. They get my blood pressure up, and maybe a little bit of adrenalin flowing, and presto! I have enough energy to do some work around the house!

  W