Posts by Vidqun

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Vidqun

Then we agree to disagree. I can assure you there is no other book, prophetic, apocalyptic, or otherwise that can compare with the book of Daniel. I do have a problem with the terminology of modern scholars and critics though. Seeing that these view Daniel as a fraud and a charlatan, they should rather speak of Pseudo-Daniel, his pseudo-prophecy, as well as his pseudo-apocalypticism.

I have read an interesting pdf dissertation by A. Y. Reed, "Body, Soul and Immortality in Hellenistic Judaism." Therein he discusses Hellenistic Judaism "reserved for those forms of Judaism that most actively absorbed, reworked and integrated ancient Greek traditions and the Hellenistic culture of the time." He sees some of these tendencies in the LXX. His dissertation concentrates on Enoch I, II, the Wisdom of Solomen, Ben Sirach and Philo.

In addition, the term "watcher" came from Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king. The possibility exists that these Jewish apocalyptics copied the book of Daniel, and not the otherway round.

What bothers me, is that we have gone off the rails with this thread, completely off the topic. Perhaps we should continue this discussion under the Daniel-thread.

18

Analysis of the Book of Daniel

by Londo111 in

i had hoped one or two others were about to start a thread on the book of daniel, springing off from the nwt conversation, but alas, nobody has yet.

therefore, i thought i'd start one--i hope that was not too presumptuous of me.

personally, i have nothing meaty to contribute to this thread, only questions and gut feelings.

Vidqun

GL, here I prefer a christological explanation of the material. Dan. 11:22 mentions the "Leader of the covenant" which I believe to be the Christ (cf. Dan. 9:26, 27).

Exactor (of Taxes) (Dan. 11:20)

And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom, and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare.

???????? : Verb Qal Participle, one who is collecting taxes = a tax collector Dan. 11:20 (HALOT).

?????? : Verb Qal Perfect, an exactor of tribute (BDBLex). To collect (offerings) 2 Kings 23:35. [“ And the silver and the gold Jehoiakim gave to Pharaoh. Only he taxed the land, to give the silver at the order of Pharaoh. According to each one's individual tax rate he exacted the silver and the gold from the people of the land, to give it to Pharaoh Nechoh.”]

In the book of Daniel “stand up” often refers to a king starting his reign (cf. Dan. 8:23; 11:3, 7, 20, 21; 12:1). In A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by John J. Collins, pp. 381, 382, we read: 20.In his place will arise one: Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175 B.C.E.). His reign was dominated by financial exigency, because of the tribute to Rome.

who will make a tribute collector of royal splendor pass through : This is most probably a reference to Heliodorus, whose attempt to despoil the Jerusalem Temple is recounted in 2 Maccabees 3.

in some days he will be broken : Seleucus reigned for twelve years, but his reign is dismissed as short and inconsequential. He fell victim to a plot by Heliodorus, hence the emphasis on the secrecy of his death.

21. In his place will arise a contemptible man: The contemptible man is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is consistently derided in Daniel, etc.

Keil & Delitzsch found it hard to place the verse in such a historical setting. They gave the following reasons for their misgivings: “Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, to whom v. 20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriae opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis (Liv. xli. 19, cf. App. Syr. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2 Macc. 3:4ff. The ????????? (shall be destroyed) of this king ????????? ???????? (within few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years’ reign.

Thus, Dan. 11:20, mentions an exactor (of taxes, cf. 2 Kings 23:35) that will pass through the splendid kingdom, taking the place of the King of the North. As an alternative interpretation, we look to Caesar Augustus, enrolling the people. During this time Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (cf. Luk. 2:1-5).

Above explanation is in harmony with the facts. The Roman Empire would flourish under the reign of Caesar Augustus. He would order the registration of “all the inhabited earth” for tax purposes as well as military conscription (cf. Luke 2:1). Augustus will then be broken, “but not in anger nor in warfare”. He would die of illness. His successor, “one to be despised”, would take over the kingdom “by means of smoothness” (cf. Dan. 11:20, 21).

“Tiberius,” says TheNewEncyclopædiaBritannica, “played politics with the Senate and did not allow it to name him emperor for almost a month [after Augustus died].” He told the Senate that no one but Augustus was capable of carrying the burden of ruling the Roman Empire and asked the senators to restore the republic by entrusting such authority to a group of men rather than to one man.

“Not daring to take him at his word,” wrote historian Will Durant, “the Senate exchanged bows with him until at last he accepted power.” Durant added: “The play was well acted on both sides. Tiberius wanted the principate, or he would have found some way to evade it; the Senate feared and hated him, but shrank from re-establishing a republic based, like the old, upon theoretically sovereign assemblies.” Thus, in a crafty way Tiberius would take hold of the Roman Empire by means of smoothness .

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Vidqun

Leolaia, in the Introduction to Maccabees, the editors of the Jerusalem Bible [p. 656] says: “The book is important for its affirmation of the resurrection of the dead, see note to [2 Macc.] 7:9; 14:46; sanctions in the afterlife, prayer for the dead, 12:41-46f and note; the spiritual fruits of martyrdom, 6:18-7:41; the intercession of the saints, 15:12-16 and note.”

7:9 With his last breath he exclaimed, ‘Inhuman fiend, you may discharge us from the present life, but the King of the world will raise us up, since it is for his laws we die, to live again forever.’

Note: Belief in the resurrection of the body, not clearly expressed in Is. 26:19 and Jb 19:26-27 is here asserted for the first time, vv. 9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36, and in Dn 12:2-3… Cf. also 2 Macc 12:38-45+; 14:46. By the power of the Creator the martyrs will rise again, v. 23, to a life, v. 14, cf. Jn. 5:29, which is eternal, vv. 9, 36. At this point we encounter the doctrine of immortality which will be developed in the atmosphere of Greek thought and without reference to the resurrection of the body, by Ws 3:1-5:16, etc.

I believe that there exists a huge chasm between the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul. The latter was introduced by the Greeks. There is no mention of it in early Jewish writings. Consequently, the book of Daniel dates to a much earlier period than the Maccabees or Ben Sirach.

Another reason for my early dating of Daniel is his use of the Tetragrammaton (Dan. 9). Here a lot of editorial activity was involved (much later). Then there is the Aramaic portions of the book. Most scholars believe it to be Reichsaramaic or Official Aramaic. Where would a Maccabean Jew pick up Official Aramaic?

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Vidqun

This is one of the reasons why I believe that Dan. 12 indicates an early date for the book of Daniel. Under Greek influence later Jews would have adopted the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. However, Daniel confirms his belief in both the resurrection and the book of life. Some will outlive the tribulation, others will lose their lives in the persecution, later to rise from the dead (cf. Dan. 12:2, 13). Keil & Delitzsch surmise that the book of life contains a list of the citizens of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Ex. 32:32; Is. 4:3; Mal. 3:16; Phil. 4:3). Daniel’s name would feature prominently in this book. At “the end of the days”, he will be remembered and stand up to be rewarded for his faithfulness (cf. Dan. 12:9, 13).

22

How Dangerous Is Putin?

by scotoma in

jw
friends

russia is facing the same dilemma that the dictators in the middle east have been facing.. in the middle east the leaders have tried to kill or at least beat up demonstrators.

this hasn't worked.. putin has been watching this and he has been opposed to the west getting involved.

he no doubt knows what the consequences.

Vidqun

This is my analysis, granted, with a prophetic bent. You can laugh it off, or you can take note. Time will tell:

The iron legs of the image of Daniel 2 end in a mirror image of feet and toes of iron, mixed with clay. This is an indication that the leadership of both iron and clay component would be a dual entity. Here we take a cue from Josephus, finding significance in the duality of the silver shoulders, arms, and hands, which would constitute the dual empire of the Medes and the Persians (cf. Dan. 2:39; Josephus, Antiquities 10.10.4 §208).

As seen, the clay component points to the democratic Anglo-American world power. History informs us that early in this partnership the British would dominate. After the two World Wars the Americans would take the lead.

Like the composite Anglo-American power, making up the King of the South, the final form of the King of the North would also be a dual power, consisting of Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Both are autocratic nuclear nations with a communistic background and highly regulated economy (contrast this to the “free economies” of the West).

As seen, the iron of the composite image of Dan. 2, signify strength as well as hardness, shattering all opposition and dissent. The feet and toes are “partly of molded clay of a potter and partly iron, the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it” (cf. Dan. 2:40, 41).

The USSR, behind its “iron curtain”, used to be the senior partner, with the People’s Republic of China, behind its “bamboo curtain”, acting as the silent partner. But contrary to current opinion, it was actually direct Chinese participation, and to a lesser extent Russian involvement (with the help of military advisors), that would successfully repulse the King of the South in Korea, and Vietnam.

Today their roles are reversed. Russia would take the back seat, while China would become the dominant partner. This new King of the North would act effectively because of two merging thought processes: 1) Lateral and diffuse (“spider web”) Chinese thinking; 2) Strategic (“chess master”) Russian thinking, a very dangerous combination indeed!

For the past 30 years, Chinese leaders have been following Deng Xiaoping’s strategy of tao guang yang hui, caution being their watchword. They avoid the limelight, prefer listening to speaking, and try their best to be humble. And now that they are thrust into the spotlight, China’s leaders are going about the job in a workmanlike fashion. Unlike their predecessors, the current generation does not make grand geopolitical gestures. When they travel abroad, it is strictly business.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has emerged as a dark horse. Who controls China’s arsenal, the politicians or the military? Fact of the matter is: China’s nine-man Politburo Standing Committee, the nation’s top political body, is staffed with technocrats, and has no military representative. The Americans would coin the phrase “the Chinese civilian-military disconnect”.

Nevertheless, the motto of the King of the North would remain: Lateral thinking and strategic diffusion in plain sight. Especially the Chinese have allowed their people to diffuse into most countries and communities. Bright young students are sent to study the world over. They are encouraged to stay and “put down roots” (e.g., Australia). A nation of “sleepers” to be activated when their master calls. Against such a powerful juggernaut the unsuspecting King of the South will have no chance at all. He will be caught napping and lose all his valuables.

With the dragon being the national symbol of the Chinese, Satan the great Dragon, would be ready to assist them in their quest (cf. Rev. 13:4). They will conquer the West without firing a single shot.

18

Analysis of the Book of Daniel

by Londo111 in

i had hoped one or two others were about to start a thread on the book of daniel, springing off from the nwt conversation, but alas, nobody has yet.

therefore, i thought i'd start one--i hope that was not too presumptuous of me.

personally, i have nothing meaty to contribute to this thread, only questions and gut feelings.

Vidqun

Allow me to fire the first salvo:

The first to question the authenticity of the book, would be the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (ca. 232-303 CE). This is not surprising. He hated Christianity. Ironically, Daniel is a much maligned book today, but this time targeted by Christian Bible scholars. These would continue where Porphyry had left off. The reason: Most attempt to pin Daniel’s prophecies to events during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. These follow the interpretation found in the book of Maccabees, one that Jesus rejected outright (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54, 59; Matt. 24:15, 16). Even the angel in Daniel’s final vision would doom a Jewish uprising, saying: “And the sons of the robbers [“violent ones”, CSBO] belonging to your people will, for their part, be carried along to try making a vision come true; and they will have to stumble”, i.e., die [1] (cf. Dan. 11:14b).

Modern scholars, with Porphyry, insist that there can be no predictive element in prophecy. By refusing to consider a post-Grecian interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies, these place an impossible burden on the interpreter as well as an insurmountable obstacle on the road to a satisfactory exegesis. These maintain that ancient wisdom cannot stand against the onslaught of modern criticism. No wonder the skeptics reign supreme. A similar situation existed in Asaph’s day: “Our signs we have not seen; there is no prophet any more, And there is no one with us knowing how long” (cf. Ps. 74:9).

[1] The Hebrew word for stumble is kâshal (= “to cause to fall”). Especially in the book of Daniel this verb refers to a literal stumbling because of war (cf. Dan. 11:33b). In most cases the Syriac interprets it as “to overthrow.” This fact is corroborated by HALOT: to fall, collapse (of a government, dynasty) Dan. 11:14, 19, 33, 35, 41. In each of these cases, the verb refers to people, not countries. The Maccabean dynasty, and all break-away groups, disobedient to God, would come to a violent end.

13

Crisis of Conscience within the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses - Part 1

by sizemik in

this press release on steven unthank's website yesterday is worth a read .

it's a fuller version .

more details.. http://jwnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/traralgon-congregation-crisis-of-conscience-part-1/.

Vidqun

Is there going to be a change in terminology yet again? The Theocratic Ministry Gettogether? I think the word "school" is going to disappear. Just because they do not want to give to Caesar what belongs to him.

22

How Dangerous Is Putin?

by scotoma in

jw
friends

russia is facing the same dilemma that the dictators in the middle east have been facing.. in the middle east the leaders have tried to kill or at least beat up demonstrators.

this hasn't worked.. putin has been watching this and he has been opposed to the west getting involved.

he no doubt knows what the consequences.

Vidqun

Where does Putin (and the Russians) fit in? Here's a suggestion:

Different guises of the King of the North : The Syrian Seleucid dynasty would be established to the north of “the beautiful land”, Israel. Daniel was to call it King of the North. Under the Seleucids the Israelites would suffer. Determining the identity of the King of the North from here on would prove to be more problematic, since he would undergo many identity changes. His chief identifying mark would be his vehement opposition to the King of the South. In Dan. 11:20 Rome would don the mantle of the King of the North. This would muddy the waters somewhat. Eventually his identity would migrate from the Syrian Seleucid-line of kings and Rome to the Germanic Empire.

The new King of the North, with his Axis powers, would oppose the King of the South and his Allies in two World Wars (cf. Dan. 11:28, 29a). One of his predecessors will unleash a new, oppressive force on mankind, called Communism. In 1917, after Russia’s czar abdicated, Kaiser Wilhelm sent Nikolai Lenin from Switzerland across Germany and Sweden to Russia to spread Bolshevism (or Communism), for the purpose of weakening the Russian armies. The King could not foresee the dire consequences of his actions. He would awaken a cruel giant that would come back to haunt him (cf. Dan. 11:31a, 36-39).

True to form, after subjugating the Germans in 1944, the USSR and fellow Communists would take over the mantle of King of the North. This King of the North would rid himself of all Roman influence. He would be one of the primary movers behind “the disgusting thing that is causing desolation” (cf. Dan. 11:31b), supposedly a peace keeping organization.

Even so, those countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact, a cooperative treaty organization of European Communistic nations, would wage a protracted war of attrition, the “Cold War”, against NATO, the defensive arm of the King of the South (cf. Dan. 11:40). With the demise of the communistic USSR, the waters would become murky yet again. The King of the North would crawl into a hole of inactivity and lick his wounds.

The King of the North would undergo a complete make-over. A rejuvenated King of the North would crawl out of his hole, surrounded by a troupe of allies. Of this grouping, Russia and the People’s Republic of China would take the lead. Russia is a major energy exporter. The nations of the world, especially those in the West, would become dependent on its oil and natural gas. China, on the other hand, is renowned for its impregnable State-controlled “closed” economy with its powerful industries. The Chinese economy has recently surpassed that of Japan, becoming the second largest economy of the world. Not only would this new King of the North alter his outward appearance, he would also change his strategy. He would initiate a new kind of war, i.e., economic warfare, against the King of the South. The King of the North would attack the King of the South and his allies by means of BRICS, a powerful economic conglomerate of emerging nations, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, representing the African Continent.

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Vidqun

Agreed. I'll wait for that Daniel thread. Daniel is a certain favorite of mine. In the main I follow the aim and methodology of Keil & Delitzsch: “In the great multiplicity of opinions, in order to give clearness to the interpretation, we shall endeavour first of all to ascertain the meaning of the words of each clause and verse, and then, after determining exegetically the import of the words, take into consideration the historical references and calc ulations of the periods of time named, and thus further to establish our view.”

C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 9, p. 716 (Dan. 9:24–27). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

83

Examples of Bias/Discrepancies in the New World Translation

by Londo111 in

to be fair, translating the bible is a huge undertaking, and in doing so, there are bound to be mistakes, or even limits to a committee's knowledge.

obviously, we cannot read the hearts of the four translators of the new world translation committee to know when they consciously or subconsciously altered renderings in to support doctrinal bias.

but more and more, i do come across things that feel askew to me.

Vidqun

Leolaia, thanks for your informative posts. There's always something useful in there that makes me think (I believe one must exercise one's brain otherwise it'll turn into mush).

I think that was a major mistake of the Society for not keeping up to date with the latest developments. Theoretically, the Scriptures should have been a major concern. They had virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. In the late eighties I wrote to them to remind them that the age of Westcott & Hort (1881) was finally over. By then it was over a hundred years old. The Egyptian papyri were discovered long after W&H came into being. They should rather start using the Standard text as a basis for the NW. But by then the deterioration had already set in.

I have Collins' Daniel, a mine of information. Especially informative was his discussion on Eschatological Markers, on p. 161. However, I cannot agree with the statement that "there can be no predictive element in prophecy." That's a paradox if there ever was one. Collins, with most modern scholars and critics, refuse to consider a post-Grecian interpretation of Daniel's prophecies, especially Dan. 2 & 7. They relegate the book of Daniel to the category of imperfect and dishonest history (by a deluded Maccabean Jew). There I tend to be more conservative or old-fashioned, accepting Jesus' statement that Dan. 9:27 referred to the Roman invasion, and not the occupation of Antioches IV Epiphanes (cf. Matt. 24:15).

I have a list of changes from the 1960 to the 1970 version (the small red NWT), but the print is very small. I'll go through it and see if I can pick out word changes that have to do with doctrinal changes. If I unearth anything dramatic, I will post it.