G.B. via NWT hijacks the kingdom for themselves!

by BoogerMan 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BoogerMan

  (Daniel 7:27) "Then the kingdom, authority, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be delivered to the people of the holy ones of the Most High. His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; all authorities will serve him and obey him." (NET Bible)

  (Daniel 7:27) “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’ (NWT)

  But it looks like the Borg has "gone beyond what is written":

  (Daniel 4:3, 34) His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his rulership is for generation after generation.. . .because his rulership is an everlasting rulership and his kingdom is for generation after generation.

  (Daniel 6:26) His kingdom will never be destroyed, and his rulership...

  (Daniel 7:14) His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

  (Matthew 13:41) The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom....

  (Matthew 16:28) ...they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom....

  (Luke 1:33) ....and he will rule as King.....and there will be no end to his Kingdom.”

  (1 Thessalonians 2:12) ....who is calling you to his Kingdom and glory.

  (2 Timothy 4:1) ....and his Kingdom...
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Good catch Boogerman. Yes, the GB views themselves as the rightful rulers of planet earth, and they are not shy in telling you about it:

  
• 

  Biahi

  They truly are modern day Pharisees, Sea Breeze.
• 

  Earnest

  Boogerman, this part of Daniel was originally written in Aramaic and the relevant pronouns and suffixes (in Aramaic) can be read as singular ("his") or plural ("their"). The context is also ambiguous - Daniel 7:27 is talking about both "the Supreme One" (singular) and "the people who are the holy ones" (plural), so both readings make sense.

  Some translations like the NIV and ESV use "his kingdom," interpreting the kingdom as belonging to the Most High. Others like the NRSV, YLT and NWT use "their kingdom," understanding it as referring to the holy ones who will receive the kingdom.

  The broader context of Daniel 7 involves a vision about kingdoms, with the kingdom ultimately being given to "the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One". Doesn't it make more sense to have the plural reading?
• 

  blondie

  "Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings." 1 Corinthians 4:8 (WT 2008 1/15 p. 22) Perhaps these GB men should read the WTS own comments: "

  First-century Christians were declared righteous and anointed with holy spirit for the purpose of enabling them to receive their heavenly inheritance. Their anointing did not elevate them to kingship over fellow anointed Christians while still on earth. Evidently, some early Christians lost sight of that fact and began seeking undue prominence among their brothers in the congregation. As a result, Paul was moved to ask: “You men already have your fill, do you? You are rich already, are you? You have begun ruling as kings without us, have you? And I wish indeed that you had begun ruling as kings, that we also might rule with you as kings.” (1 Cor. 4:8)
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  BoogerMan,

  ûmalkûtâ wǝšālǝṭānāʾ ûrǝbûtāʾ dî malkǝwāt tǝḥôt kol-šǝmayyāʾ yǝhîbat lǝʿam qaddîšê ʿelyônîn malkûtēh malkût ʿālam wǝkōl šālǝṭānayyāʾ lēh yiplǝḥûn wǝyišǝtammǝʿûn

  Then the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness that are kingdoms under all the heavens shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High. Its kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey it.

  — Daniel 7:27

  You are correct to note that the pronominal suffix -ēh is singular rather than plural. It is specifically a 3rd person masculine singular pronominal suffix. The exegetical question is, what is the antecedent of the suffix? The immediately preceding sentence states that recipient of the kingdom is ʿam qaddîšê ʿelyônîn (“the people of the holy ones of the Most High”). The masculine singular noun ʿam (“people”) is a collective noun, a noun that refers to a plurality of individuals as a single group. Accordingly, the contextually most likely antecedent is “the people of the holy ones of the Most High.” This agrees with Daniel 7:18 which states,

  wîqabbǝlûn malkûtāʾ qaddîšê ʿelyônîn wǝyaḥsǝnûn malkûtāʾ ʿad-ʿālǝmāʾ wǝʿad ʿālam ʿālǝmayyāʾ

  Then the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and they shall possess the kingdom for ever and evermore, to all eternity.

  — Daniel 7:18

  So the translators of the New World Translation apparently sought to explicate the fact that the suffixes here refer to a plurality of individuals with their translations “their” and “them.” In this they agree with JPS, RSV, and others. However, a closer translation would use “its” and “it” to match the singular form while maintaining agreement with the antecedent “people.”

  Now I note among your citations is Daniel 7:14. This is a significant verse since it is part of the context in which Daniel 7:27 appears. The pertinent parts of that context may be organized as follows: Vision (Dan 7:2–14), Interpretation (Dan 7:15–18) and Elaboration (Dan 7:19–28). I note that the verse you cited comes from the vision. In that vision “one like a son of man” (kǝbar ʾĕnāš) is introduced (Dan 7:13) and, as you note, “to him” (lēh) is given an everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:14). And yet, when one turns to the interpretation and elaboration of the vision given in Daniel 7 itself, it is the collective “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” that are the recipients of the everlasting kingdom as already noted (Dan 7:18, 22, 27). So while the vision presents an individual, this individual represents a collective group within the symbolism of the vision as the interpretation and elaboration both make clear. Now it could be that the author envisioned some head to this collective, similar to how the “four great beasts” seemingly symbolize kingdoms and their kings simultaneously (Dan 7:17, 23), but this is not explicitly stated in the context of Daniel 7. Instead, within the interpretation and the elaboration prominence is given to a collective group without mention of any leader. So I will not “go beyond what is written” in the context of Daniel 7 to introduce extraneous theological views into the interpretation of the chapter. I will instead rely on the interpretation the author has explicitly included in the text to inform my understanding.