i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?
Well, perhaps... Or it could indicate the violent and cruel nature of Syria and the battles between Egypt and Syria (with Judah caught in between)? According to Dan 8 and Dan 11, the diadochoi were new kingdoms. I also think Dan 8 has Media and Persia united. Here, the date given for Dan 8 (ca, 550 BCE) also is important.
-- Augustin --
i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?
peacfulpete,
We are not told why the second kingdom was "inferiour", but "Darius the Mede" does seem to be a (fictious?) Medo-Persian king (Dan 6:8, 12, 15; cf. Dan 5:28). Again, I see no reason for having a Median kingdom between Neo-Babylonia and Alexander's Greece.
-- Augustin --
i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?
Dear Leolaia,
I have Rowley's excellent study in my office. But I still don't see a Median kingdom in Dan 2.
-- Augustin --
i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?
peacefulpete,
How does the Book of Daniel make it "clear that the kingdoms are Babylon, Persian,Media, Greece, with the Greek kingdom figuring largest in the story with Antiochus as a blasphemous horn"? Why do you think there is a "Media" between Neo-babylonia and Persia?
-- Augustin --
i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?
The four kingdoms of Daniel should/could be identified with:
(1) Neo-Babylonia,
(2) Medo-Persia,
(3) Alexander's Greece,
(4) The 'rival diadochoi' Egypt and Syria (with Antiochus IV as the little horn)
-- Augustin --
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Narkissos,
I am sure the GB knows what Furuli is doing; and I am sure he would have been told to "wait for Jehovah" if the GB thinks he is on the wrong track, after all. Perhaps the GB is hoping that he will be able to fabricate some support for the strange doctrine of 607 BCE? If not, the Society will eventually be forced to change the doctrine. Wen? I really don’t know.
I don't know why the Danish version has "for" Babylon in Jer 29:10; probably because they who made the translation also made use of the Hebrew "Vorlage", not only the 'original' NWT. My guess would be that they who made the new Swedish version consulted the Danish version as well. And here they found "for" ('for'), not "i" ('at', cf. German "in", English "in"). The problem, of course, is that these translations make it difficult, actually impossible, to maintain the strange doctrine of 607 BCE
Best,
Augustin
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.
i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.
i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
The (new) Swedish version of the NWT has "för" ('for'); the Danish version has "for" ('for') in Jer 29:10. Interestingly, the Norwegian version still has "i" ('in') corresponding to the "original" NWT: "at". Perhaps Rolf Furuli had a saying when the Norwegian version was made?
The Norwegian version was made after the Danish, but before the new version of the Swedish edition. (One should note that the three Scandinavian languages are closely related; one should expect the same preposition used: Danish/Norwegian/Swedish: "i" ('in") or Danish/Norwegian "for" ('for') / Swedish "för" ('for').
earnest
for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.
Dear Narkissos,
I think you make many fine observations. As to your question, I don't have any reference at hand. But I'm sure that one has found the trigramm IAW ("IAO") especially on magic amulets etc. I think one has related these artefacts to some kind of Gnosticism.
I have found the following book very useful:
Sean M. McDonough: YHWH at Patmos: Rev 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. (WUNT 2/107) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
McDonough covers most if not all relevant points. He make interesting comments on IAW too.
Of course he rejects Howard's thesis.
(Regarding the Book of Daniel; I think the tetragrammaton is a relic from the original version.)
Regards
- Augustin -
earnest
for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.
Narkissos,
To what you say in your last message: Bon!
I would like to add that Jewish sacred writings from the 3-1 century BCE -- like Wisd, 1-2 Macc, Sir -- do not have the tetragrammaton. Thus, again we have a case for the non-use of the Divine Name in "sacred scriptures". One could also mention the Book of Daniel; however, as the date of this book is a highly complicated matter, it seems wise to leave it be -- at least for now.
Is it possible that IAW (IAO) was a "qere" for YHWH, much like "Adonay"?
- Augustin -
earnest
for example, the j7 to which you refer only supports 39 of the 52 occurrences of 'jehovah' in nwt of acts.
Narkissos,
You are right about "kurios" being the "qere" (for Greek speaking Jews/Christians). And we do know that it would be possible for a Jew to write the "qere" when quoting the LXX (with "YHWH"). We also know, from Qumran, that even Aramaic speaking Jews used "Lord" instead of YHWH in the last century BCE. Of course, there were other ways of avoiding a pronunciation of the Divine Name -- the use of various circumlocutions, which is also attested in the so-called NT.
In the first century CE, the only group with a great interest in the Divine Name as such seems to have been the Gnostics...
- Augustin -
