Had the book study (Daniel book) tonight.

by ithinkisee 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ithinkisee

  Man, I had to READ at the book study tonight (which is still at my house BTW).

  This was the first of the real "meat" of the Daniel book (SPAM more like it, actually).

  Anyways, for those of you that don't know I am trying to get up the nerve to explain to my wife what I have been learning. I found tonight was a good night to make some comments in a non-threatening "book study" environment that she (hopefully) will remember.

  This weeks book study lesson is posted here, by the way:
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/93670/1.ashx

  Anyways, the question for paragraph 5 is:

  "Why is the question of the authenticity of Daniel an important one?"

  I answered and said:
  

  "It is important because of many of the dates it helps to confirm. If Daniel is not true, then 607 is not true, and the 70 years the Society assigns to that prophecy is not true, and then that leads up to 1914 when Christ supposedly returned ... I mean ... RETURNED and then in 1919 he chose the Organization as HIS one sole channel.

  "If 607 is not true then all of the Watchtower doctrine falls like a house of cards."

  The conductor said,

  "Yes, yes ... very good!"

  Later on another question came up on the authenticity of Daniel in spite of critics attempts. Question:

  "What happened to the notion that Belshazzar was merely a fictitious character?" (par. 6)

  (BTW, this was a question to demonstrate how secular evidence later proved the critics wrong)

  After that was cleared up in the book study I decided to add some more information, I raised my hand and said:
  

  "It is funny how these critics bash on the book of Daniel and then all these documents turn up proving the authenticity of Daniel. I love that!

  "I looked up some Babylonian history at the library and it turns out there was this accounting firm that worked for Nebuchadnezzar, called 'The Sons of The Egibis'. It was a regular accounting firm like what we would have today. If Nebuchadnezzar bought a chariot, they would make a document that basically said 'Nebuchadnezzar bought xx amounts of chariots on the fifth day of the eighth month of his 5th year of rule.' What was nice about these records is they HAD to be accurate - they were an accounting firm - so there is an almost impossible chance of them screwing up dates like some of the historians might. All these records show clearly the years of rule of each Babylonian king."

  The conductor said,

  "Wow! Thank you for that! That is great information!"

  Anyways ... it was kinda cool. I got some good points in, in a non-aggressive environment, that I can later "recall" to my wife when we have "the talk".

  Just thought I would share.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  claytoncapeletti

  I like your style, how covert, working from the inside to bring down the borg.

  It would drive me crazy to have to regularly sit thorough meetings, knowing what I know now. I was crawling out of my skin just sitting in the Memorial last year. I wish you the best of luck (it's it nice to be able to wish that to someone) and hope that your wife is willing to be free, like you appear ready to be.

  "Men want the same thing from their underwear that they want from women: a little bit of support, and a little bit of freedom." Jerry Seinfeld
• 

  Es

  you have a great manner about you keep up the good work and not only will you convince your wife its not the truth but you may convince your whole book study es
• 

  sweet tee

  The conductor said,

  "Yes, yes ... very good!"

  Does he realize what he was agreeing to? If you showed him secular evidence that Babylon DID NOT fall in 607 would he be as agreeable?

  Good method btw.
• 

  Shania

  We know of an elder that is conducting out of the Daniel BK........he told us " I don't understand a thing about this book, but all I have to do is just sit there and let the rest teach me by their answers and all I have to do is say "yes, very good point, read the next parg. please," it is the best place to sit, to be the teacher of something you don't have a clue what it means............" So there are your Teachers........this brother wasn't even listening what was being said.....................keep up the fine work.
• 

  greendawn

  With most dubs tight info control works well they probably don't know that the WTS are the only people in the world who believe in the 607 BC date obviously so as not to be greatly inconvenienced.
  
  And they must have heard nothing about Russell's pyramidology calculations that also very conveniently point to 1914 as the beginning of the last generation... ah no to Armageddon.
• 

  RunningMan

  A few years ago at the district convention, the Watchtower article for the week was presented (05/15/2000 p11,12). It dealt with the authenticity of the book of Daniel. The article stated that Daniel was written by the historical figure of Daniel in the 6th century B.C., while critics place the writing in the 2nd or 3rd century B.C.

  The article then put forward the straw man. It portrayed the critic’s argument like this:
  - secular records did not mention Belshazzar as a historical figure
  - the book of Daniel refers to Belshazzar
  - so, the book of Daniel must have been written by someone who was not contemporary with the events.

  It then proceeded to knock down the straw man by saying that later archaeological discoveries proved that Belshazzar did indeed exist. So, the critic’s argument fell apart, and the Bible was exonerated, once again proving literally true in every detail.

  Well, something seemed wrong to me about this. When we got home, I looked up the chapter in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. What was wrong with the society’s argument?

  Well first of all, it misrepresented the critic’s side. It presented only one of many solid critical points, and the one that it used, turned out to be over 150 years old, and is no longer considered valid.

  Additionally, they did not reveal the full implications of the discovery. They pointed out that new developments had damaged the critic’s argument, but they didn’t point out that it also damaged their argument. The archaeological discovery proved that yes, Belshazzar did exist, but he was not Nebuchadnezzar’s son as the Bible says, he was the son of Nabonidus, who ruled 4 kings after Nubuchadnezzar, and was no relation to him.
  
  The society set up a weak argument, misrepresenting the true nature of the issues, knocked it down using incomplete and misrepresented evidence, and then declared victory. People in the audience never knew the difference, unless they took the time to research it independently.

  The Balshazzar argument is very intellectually dishonest. Not only is it logically flawed, but it misrepresents the critics real arguments. It also misses the point that even though archeology proved the critics wrong in this case, it also proved the Bible wrong. Yes, Balshazzar existed like the Bible said, but he was not Nebuchadnezzar's son either. So, both were wrong. They also didn't mention that this argument was laid to rest over 150 years ago. The society conveniently leaves out the detail that no one has seriously had this argument for a long long time.
• 

  BONEZZ

  ithinkisee...You the man! Wish I coulda been there.

  -BONEZZ
• 

  grissom

  If 607 is not true then all of the Watchtower doctrine falls like a house of cards."

  Watchtower doctrine? What is that? What about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses

  as we don't have doctrine?

  All the Watchtower doctrines? Are you sure you would want that?

  As stated in watchtower.org

  What a comfort it is to know that human suffering is temporary! Under the rule of God's Kingdom, children and adults who are now victims of crime, injustice, or prejudice will rejoice. As foretold in a prophetic psalm, Jehovah's appointed King, Jesus Christ, "will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper." Moreover, "he will feel sorry for the lowly one and the poor one, and the souls of the poor ones he will save." Indeed, "from oppression and from violence he will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes."—Psalm 72:12-14.

  Why would anyone not want this to come true?
• 

  RunningMan

  we don't have doctrine

  Yes you do. Get a dictionary:

  Doctrine: A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;