by punkofnice 11 Replies latest watchtower bible
How would you answer the JW that says that the vision of Daniel predicting world powers into the future (where the toes have no significance according to the WBT$), is proof of the inspired prophecy in the bible?
Could it be that the 'powers' are not actually named and can be interpreted any way you want?
JWs say that Jehovah doesn't look into the future as doing so takes away our free will and makes Jehovah responsible for our evil choices.
Yet through Daniel (according to JWs) Jehovah prophesied the rise of Naziism, thus guaranteeing it would happen (since his prophesies can't fail) which according to JW logic makes Jehovah responsible for WW2.
Daniel was written around 170BCE, being finished either shortly before or at the death of Antiochus 1V Epiphanes in 164 BCE.
It is therefore not prophesying in the sense of prediction, it is referring to events already in the past.
JW's will simply not acknowledge the above, so any discussion with them on this is about as sensible as discusssing the prophecies found in Nostradamus, less sensible really.
Far better to get them to read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm and ask, was he prophesying about the present day WT ?
I think you could get any vague writing like Daniel 2 and make it fit what you want.
I find it hilarious that end time prophecy just happens....quite by coincidence....to arrive at where we happen to be living in time too. Seems there are those desparate for 'heaven' or 'paradise(TM)' to happen now so they don't have to die.
Even C T R-asshole said the end would be in his day....so did Boozerford if I'm not mistaken with that Beth Sarim scam.
I honestly believe that God will step in and do a tidy up. But what I don't believe (or have trouble excepting) is Wt spin on things. But hey that is my opinion.
joe -
I honestly believe that God will step in and do a tidy up.
I respect your belief Joe, not looking to debate, but what brings you to this conclusion?
Ok I don't want to sound to dubbie. I think the world has changed a lot in my life time. Unfortunately not for the better. For example some years ago i can remember hearing of a person dieing on the street in New York City and people walking over him. This i found horrifying. There was an article in a local news paper here a few weeks back where they staged the same thing. Sure enough people failed to give assistance.
Now on saying this. Do I believe 1914 was when things took a major turn for the worst and all the other cap from WT. Absolutely not.
Thanks Joe. Like I said I aint gonna debate...just interested.
I wonder if we notice things more now due to population increase and the media bringing them to our attention? Oh well, who knows ay?!
Could it be that the 'powers' are not actually named and can be interpreted any way you want?
Could be. There's quite a bit of scholarly debate (even non-scholarly) about this supposed march of world powers. The only one we know for sure is the head of gold. It is attributed specifically to Nebuchadnezzar. That may or may not mean Babylon as a whole. Daniel specifically said "you yourself are the head of gold" (vs. 38)
After that, it's anyone's guess. But, what is interesting is that there are FOUR kingdoms listed, not five as JWs would have us think. The generally accepted order: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome.
vs. 41 says: "And just as you saw the feet and the toes to be partly of clay of a potter and partly of iron, the kingdom will be divided." This is where JWs say that Britain, and by extension, the United States come out of the Roman Empire and thus make up the feet and toes. But, that's not what this verse says. It says "the kingdom." What kingdom? The fourth kingdom.
Then, in verse 44, it says: "In the days of those kings..." What kings? The kings of the fourth kingdom? Or the days of all the kingdoms from Babylon to Rome? Doesn't specify, and doesn't matter. Sometime in there. This is more in line with Christ being given all authority after he was resurrected (Matt 28:18), and Paul referrring to him as king then (1 Tim 6:15: "He is King of those who rule as kings...")
Daniel 2:1
"In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had a series of dreams, he was perturbed by this and sleep deserted him."
So this means Daniel was already in the service of Nebuchadnezzar before any of the Jerusalem sieges.
Later:
At this, King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel; he gave orders for Daniel to be offered an oblatin and a fragrant sacrifice. The king said to Daniel: "Your god is indeed the God of God, the Master of kings, and the Revealer of Mysteries..."
But Nebuchadnezzar goes off to besiege and capture Jerusalem and, eventually leveling it entirely, desecrates its temple. So why are we informed of his declaration. Either it was empty or it never occurred. When all of Daniel is read, you have to wonder if there is any historicity to it.
Question:
Is there any evidence that Babylonian kings were described as divine? Now how about Antiochus IV - Epiphanes?
Chapter II concludes with Shadrach, Meshach and AbedNego appointed to provincial rulers.
In chapter III, the King builds a golden statue of himself, confounding the lesson he supposedly learned in the previous chapter and threatens to burn the trio to death in an oven. In calling high officials to admire and worship the statue, he includes "Satraps" - a Persian Empire official ( an Empire yet to be invented). People "heard the sound of "horn, pipe, lyre, zither, harp, bagpipe and other instruments."
Strange? Not only he desecrate the temple of the God he acknowledged, but claims he himself is divine to boot amid anachronistic descriptions.
If you want to consider two empires encountering each other, study in detail how the Romans displace the Seleucids that ruled Palestine in the mid second century BC. Antiochus III ("the Great") was defeated by the Romans in Asia minor in 190 BC. Rolled back. The Greek mainland sought Rome's protection. The Romans spread around the Mediterranean and then (drawing from sources):
---------------------
...In 168 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before reaching Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single, old Roman ambassador named Gaius Popilliu Laenas, who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus, or consider themselves in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around him and said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate" – implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus IV Epiphanes decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.
While Antiochus was busy in Egypt, a rumor spread that he had been killed and The High Priest appointed by Antiochus, Menelaus, was forced to flee Jerusalem during a riot. On the King's return from Egypt in 167 BC enraged by his defeat, he attacked Jerusalem and restored Menelaus, then executed many Jews.
"When these happenings were reported to the king, thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery." - 2 Maccabees 5:11-14
To consolidate his empire and strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to side with the Hellenized Jews by outlawing religious rites and traditions kept by observant Jews and by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god (2 Maccabees 6:1–12). This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree. Because of the resistance, the city was destroyed, many were slaughtered, and a military Greek citadel called the Acra was established...
------------
The book of Daniel is NOT history of Babylonia. For further evidence, compare Daniel Chapter 4 and Dead Sea Scroll 4Q242"The Healing of King Nabonidus".
"I Nabonidus wsa smitten with a severe inflammation lasting seven years ... I was thus changed becoming like a beast. I prayed to the Most High and he forgave my sins. An exorcist, a Jew, in fact, a member of the community of exiles, ..."
Daniel is un-named in the scroll, but Nabonidus is. As recounted by the editor of the DSS, "the name was changed not to protect the innocent, but to implicate guilty ... who had sacked Jerusalem, burned the Temple and carried the people into exile in 586 BCE." Repeat: 586 BCE.
Any resemblance here to Antiochus IV?
Curiously enough, events in chapter 5 pick up the Nabonidus story again, without using his name, when Cyrus acquires the city for the Persian Empire.
It seems to me that ,the more people talk about how Daniel seems to concern the present day, the less they seem to dwell on Daniel in context. ...But this could go on forever.
