So what is the deal with Daniel 1:1, and why does it put a crimp in their string of dates?
-ithinkisee
ithinkisee
JoinedPosts by ithinkisee
-
8
Book Study Week 2 (7/4): DanielA Book on Trial
by ithinkisee inbook study week 2 (7/4): pay attention to daniel's prophecy
the daniel book is a verse-by-verse.
i'll be highlighting each verse each week.
-
-
-
17
How/Why were the Jehovah Witnesses chosen?
by Hondo ini am not a jw, never have been, but lost my wife (a japanese national) to them in 2003. i have been in and out of some of these forums trying to learn as much as possible about what drove my ex-wife to, for the most part, reject me and take her jw congragation as her new family, her new counselors, her new best friends, etc.
a jw doctrine that has always bugged me is the belief that jesus came to earth in 1918/19, or there-a-bouts, and chose them as his one and only representative orgainization on earth (i think i have it right).
some may take this the wrong way, as it may sound a bit glib, and i apologise in advance if this is the case and i offend anyone, but my ex-wife truely believes, no matter that she can't explain why (and maybe this is my answer.
-
-
ithinkisee
If your spouse has no biblical reason for leaving/divorcing you, demand your rights. Go to the local congregation and expose your case.
What? That would only help legitimize them and their so-called "authority". It's almost like admitting you are willing to play by their rules. I suggest you DON'T do that. (only my suggestion though ... and I'd be interested in hearing the opposing argument)I've never heard them say to break up the marriage to any sister/brother. If anything, I've heard them teach for the sister (mainly) to hang in there, praying to Jehovah, in hopes that she'll gain the husband's approval and he'll become a JW himself.
Bull-crap. Anyone familiar with WT B*llsh*t knows that what they write in print and what happens in actuality are far far different. I came from a divided family and I can tell you there were many brothers that - while not outright SAYING that my mom would be better off without him - quite often said what a loser my dad was for not taking to the truth, and how he was arrogant and self-absorbed and a test from Satan.
The poor elders are on the frontlines of the WT authority structure, and they don't need strongminded opposers around.
If you ask LEGITIMATE questions about them ... and expose the JW religion for the fraud that it is .... I guarantee you they won't want you around.
They call it "spiritual endangerment".
-ithinkisee
-
35
The GB of the JWs guilty or naive and ignorant ?
by greendawn insome people believe that the gb of the jws are a bunch of well meaning but naive and ignorant individuals who do not really mean to cause the harm they do cause in the r & f and they may not even be aware of it.
i personally disagree with that and believe that everything they do is based on shrewd cold blooded calculations that are meant to promote their interests, that they sold their souls to the devil as it were in exchange of a huge intoxicating power trip.
they are fully aware of the harm they cause but their conscience is singed beyond all sensitivity.
-
-
ithinkisee
I too think they are trying to just plug holes. I think they do believe they have the truth and they are feeling the same that many of us felt at times - that it was OUR fault and we need to do more.
On the other hand ... their prophecies so OBVIOUSLY do not stack up ... that I just can't imagine that NO ONE stands up in those meetings (the meetings where they are trying to find some sort of legitimacy for themselves) and says, "Who are we KIDDING here?".
-ithinkisee
-
16
Kinesiology - what is the current stand? (Any elders?)
by ithinkisee ini don't feel like pretending i have genuine concern to go to a local elder and ask ... so i ask you .... what is the deal with kinesiology as far as jws?
the 94 wt where they talk about it sounds generally like the answer is no.
everything i read about the origins are traced back to some chiropractor who supposedly had occult origins ... .
-
-
ithinkisee
I don't feel like pretending I have genuine concern to go to a local elder and ask ... so I ask YOU ...
What is the deal with kinesiology as far as JWs? The 94 WT where they talk about it sounds generally like the answer is NO.
Everything I read about the origins are traced back to some Chiropractor who supposedly had occult origins ...
But almost all JWs I know have something to do with it ...
Is it just a typical JW non-sequitor?
-ithinkisee
-
8
Book Study Week 2 (7/4): DanielA Book on Trial
by ithinkisee inbook study week 2 (7/4): pay attention to daniel's prophecy
the daniel book is a verse-by-verse.
i'll be highlighting each verse each week.
-
-
ithinkisee
And here's the questions for the study:
1, 2. In what sense does the book of Daniel stand accused, and why do you think it is important to consider evidence in its defense?
3. What does The New Encyclopædia Britannica say regarding the authenticity of the book of Daniel?
4. When did criticism of the book of Daniel begin, and what fueled similar criticism in more recent centuries?
5. Why is the question of the authenticity of Daniel an important one?
6. What charge is sometimes made regarding the history in Daniel?
7. (a) Why did Daniel’s references to Belshazzar long delight critics of the Bible? (b) What happened to the notion that Belshazzar was merely a fictitious character?
8. How has Daniel’s description of Belshazzar as a reigning king been proved true?
9. (a) In what sense may Daniel have meant that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar? (b) Why are critics wrong to assert that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus?
10. Why is Daniel’s account of the Babylonian monarchy more detailed than that of other ancient historians?
11. According to Daniel, who was Darius the Mede, but what has been said of him?
12. (a) Why should Bible critics know better than to state categorically that Darius the Mede never existed? (b) What is one possibility regarding the identity of Darius the Mede, and what evidence indicates this?
13. What is a logical reason why Darius the Mede is mentioned in the book of Daniel but not in secular records?
14. Why is there no discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah regarding the years of King Jehoiakim’s reign?
15. Why is it a weak argument to attack the dating found in Daniel 1:1?
-
8
Book Study Week 2 (7/4): DanielA Book on Trial
by ithinkisee inbook study week 2 (7/4): pay attention to daniel's prophecy
the daniel book is a verse-by-verse.
i'll be highlighting each verse each week.
-
-
ithinkisee
Book Study Week 2 (7/4): Pay Attention To Daniel's Prophecy
The Daniel book is a verse-by-verse. I'll be highlighting each verse each week. Sometimes if I have time I'll add comments.
Chapter Two
Daniel—A Book on Trial
IMAGINE yourself in a court of law, attending an important trial. A man stands accused of fraud. The prosecuting attorney insists that the man is guilty. Yet, the accused has a long-standing reputation for integrity. Would you not be interested in hearing the evidence for the defense?
2 You are in a similar situation when it comes to the Bible book of Daniel. Its writer was a man renowned for integrity. The book that bears his name has been highly regarded for thousands of years. It presents itself as authentic history, written by Daniel, a Hebrew prophet who lived during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. Accurate Biblical chronology shows that his book covers the period extending from about 618 to 536 B.C.E. and was completed by the latter date. But the book stands accused. Some encyclopedias and other reference works imply or assert outright that it is a fraud.
3 For example, The New Encyclopædia Britannica acknowledges that the book of Daniel was once “generally considered to be true history, containing genuine prophecy.” The Britannica claims that in reality, however, Daniel “was written in a later time of national crisis—when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under [Syrian King] Antiochus IV Epiphanes.” The encyclopedia dates the book between 167 and 164 B.C.E. This same work asserts that the writer of the book of Daniel does not prophesy the future but simply presents “events that are past history to him as prophecies of future happenings.”
4 Where do such ideas originate? Criticism of the book of Daniel is not new. It started back in the third century C.E. with a philosopher named Porphyry. Like many in the Roman Empire, he felt threatened by the influence of Christianity. He wrote 15 books to undermine this “new” religion. The 12th was directed against the book of Daniel. Porphyry pronounced the book a forgery, written by a Jew in the second century B.C.E. Similar attacks came in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the view of higher critics and rationalists, prophecy—the foretelling of future events—is impossible. Daniel became a favorite target. In effect, he and his book were put on trial in court. Critics claimed to have ample proof that the book was written, not by Daniel during the Jewish exile in Babylon, but by someone else centuries later. Such attacks became so profuse that one author even wrote a defense called Daniel in the Critics’ Den.
5 Is there proof behind the confident assertions of the critics? Or does the evidence back the defense? A lot is at stake here. It is not just the reputation of this ancient book but also our future that is involved. If the book of Daniel is a fraud, its promises for mankind’s future are just hollow words at best. But if it contains genuine prophecies, doubtless you will be eager to learn what these mean for us today. With that in mind, let us examine some of the attacks upon Daniel.
6 Take, for example, the charge made in The Encyclopedia Americana: “Many historical details of the earlier periods [such as that of the Babylonian exile] have been badly garbled” in Daniel. Is this really so? Let us consider three alleged mistakes, one at a time.
THE CASE OF THE MISSING MONARCH
7 Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, a “son” of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown. (Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30) Critics long assailed this point, for Belshazzar’s name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings. Thus, in 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig said that Belshazzar was obviously a figment of the writer’s imagination. But does not Hitzig’s opinion strike you as a bit rash? After all, would the absence of any mention of this king—especially in a period about which historical records were admittedly scanty—really prove that he never existed? At any rate, in 1854 some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient Babylonian city of Ur in what is now southern Iraq. These cuneiform documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for “Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son.” Even critics had to agree: This was the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel.
8 Yet, critics were not satisfied. “This proves nothing,” wrote one named H. F. Talbot. He charged that the son in the inscription might have been a mere child, whereas Daniel presents him as a reigning king. Just a year after Talbot’s remarks were published, though, more cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having secretaries and a household staff. No child, this! Finally, other tablets clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time. These tablets also showed that during these periods, he “entrusted the kingship” of Babylon to his eldest son (Belshazzar). At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king—a coregent with his father.
9 Still unsatisfied, some critics complain that the Bible calls Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Some insist that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus. However, both objections collapse upon examination. Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.” (Compare Matthew 1:1.) Further, the Bible account does allow for Belshazzar to be identified as the son of Nabonidus. When terrified by the ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words. (Daniel 5:7) Why third and not second? This offer implies that the first and second places were already occupied. In fact, they were—by Nabonidus and by his son, Belshazzar.
10 So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of “badly garbled” history. On the contrary, Daniel—although not writing a history of Babylon—offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries.
WHO WAS DARIUS THE MEDE?
11 Daniel reports that when Babylon was overthrown, a king named “Darius the Mede” began to rule. (Daniel 5:31) Darius the Mede has not yet been found by name in secular or archaeological sources. Thus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica asserts that this Darius is “a fictitious character.”
12 Some scholars have been more cautious. After all, critics once labeled Belshazzar “fictitious” as well. Undoubtedly, the case of Darius will prove similar. Already, cuneiform tablets have revealed that Cyrus the Persian did not assume the title “King of Babylon” immediately after the conquest. One researcher suggests: “Whoever bore the title of ‘King of Babylon’ was a vassal king under Cyrus, not Cyrus himself.” Could Darius have been the ruling name, or title, of a powerful Median official left in charge of Babylon? Some suggest that Darius may have been a man named Gubaru. Cyrus installed Gubaru as governor in Babylon, and secular records confirm that he ruled with considerable power. One cuneiform tablet says that he appointed subgovernors over Babylon. Interestingly, Daniel notes that Darius appointed 120 satraps to govern the kingdom of Babylon.—Daniel 6:1.
13 In time, more direct evidence of the precise identity of this king may come to light. In any case, the seeming silence of archaeology in this regard is hardly grounds to label Darius “fictitious,” much less to dismiss the entire book of Daniel as fraudulent. It is far more reasonable to see Daniel’s account as eyewitness testimony that is more detailed than surviving secular records.
THE REIGN OF JEHOIAKIM
14 Daniel 1:1 reads: “In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.” Critics have found fault with this scripture because it does not seem to agree with Jeremiah, who says that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. (Jeremiah 25:1; 46:2) Was Daniel contradicting Jeremiah? With more information, the matter is readily clarified. When first made king in 628 B.C.E. by Pharaoh Necho, Jehoiakim became a mere puppet of that Egyptian ruler. This was about three years before Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father to the throne of Babylon, in 624 B.C.E. Soon thereafter (in 620 B.C.E.), Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and made Jehoiakim a vassal king under Babylon. (2 Kings 23:34; 24:1) To a Jew living in Babylon, Jehoiakim’s “third year” would have been the third year of that king’s vassal service to Babylon. Daniel wrote from that perspective. Jeremiah, however, wrote from the perspective of the Jews living right in Jerusalem. So he referred to Jehoiakim’s kingship as starting when Pharaoh Necho made him king.
15 Really, then, this alleged discrepancy only bolsters the evidence that Daniel wrote his book in Babylon while among Jewish exiles. But there is another gaping hole in this argument against the book of Daniel. Remember that the writer of Daniel clearly had the book of Jeremiah available and even referred to it. (Daniel 9:2) If the writer of Daniel were a clever forger, as the critics claim, would he risk contradicting so respected a source as Jeremiah—and in the very first verse of his book at that? Of course not!
END OF STUDY
-ithinkisee
-
5
Non-threatening anti-dub websites - help
by TheListener ini am familiar with most apostate sites but i need some help finding websites that will help a dub think.
i would rather not discuss how i plan to use them or with who (for obviousl reasons) but a simple list would be beneficial.. for example, quotes is a good site but may put off a dub as apostate feeling.
i know i know it's their own literature but it definitely shows the foolishness of the society.. i need website that are pretty neutral but may show research on something that would affect a dub.
-
-
ithinkisee
What you might want to consider is some Christian Apolagetics sites, in particular something like:
What is nice about that site is they talk about many other cult-like groups in a matter-of-fact manner.
You could even send someone a link like:
Biblical Response To Mormons
http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsresponse.htmand say something like "Hey check out this link on "Biblical Responses to Mormons". There is some good stuff there for when going door-to-door"
That is a good link to send because (1) some of the biblical responses to mormons apply to JWs as well, and (2) there is a link to "Jehovah's Witnesses" on the left-hand side of the navigation menu. Chances are the may click through and look around.
hope that helps.
-ithinkisee
-
Anyone have these kinds of JW elders?
by ithinkisee inin most congregations i have been in in various parts of the country there is a certain type of elder that is such a contradiction i wonder how they sleep at night.. there are some elders that do a cycle.
they go full steam for about a month - taking on additional responsibilities, etc.
then when they just about get to where they can't handle the regimen anymore - they "reset".
-
ithinkisee
In most congregations I have been in in various parts of the country there is a certain type of elder that is such a contradiction I wonder how they sleep at night.
There are some elders that do a cycle. They go full steam for about a month - taking on additional responsibilities, etc. Then when they just about get to where they can't handle the regimen anymore - they "reset". How? By going on a vacation - skiing, cruise, cabin in the mountains, etc. THen they come back and go extreme-JW again for a month or so ... then head out to "reset" again.
I'm not complaining about vacation - but it just seems an extreme pattern - hardcore JW-ism, and then getting completely away to clear the mind for a few days/weeks.
The thing that bothers me is the "regular" paycheck-to-paycheck JW's that have to stick around because they don't have the financial luxury to get away from the madness for awhile.
Then these wealthy extreme-JWs come back from their vacations all tanned and/or refreshed and get to sit on the Judicial Committees of the people that were stuck in JW-land while they were gone.
I almost think I could stand dealing with being a JW if I could do that type of regimen.
Anybody have these kinds of elders/families in your hall?
-ithinkisee
-
43
Was it really so peaceful prior to 1914?
by ithinkisee inwas it really so peaceful before 1914?.
the society loves to claim there was an unprecedented amount of peace prior to 1914 and that wwi was a complete shock to the world when it began.
yet history claims otherwise:.
-
-
ithinkisee
On another note I think we have to move away from the notion of looking at that year with skepticism just because that year is pivotal point for WTBS. First and foremost, that was a turning point of our modern civilization. Hopefully we as humanity can learn something from it.
Certainly. I'll agree it was a momentous year. No doubt about it. I just question the "artistic license" the Society uses in exaggerating claims to fit their doctrine (though I shouldn't be surprised anymore I guess).
-ithinkisee
-
39
well, in our cong. service is now "expected" on Saturday.
by ?me? ina few months ago we had a local needs part about supporting the cbs field service on saturday.
it was given by a nice older elder, but what he said was pretty scary.
he used all the phrases and logic that are usually used for meeting attendance.
-
-
ithinkisee
Welcome to the forum.
I haven't been out in service for almost two months now.
Now I have to come up with an excuse for tomorrow ....
-ithinkisee