Posts by Vidqun

35

Dualism in new WT theology?

by Thoughtless in

i am not the most "deep" wt student, and i am trying to beef up on wt theology so i can reassess my belief system and prove to myself that what i am planning to do is the right thing.

but what i lack in wt theology knowledge, i make up in some philosophical knowledge.

wt theology teaches a purely physicalist standpoint, in which our soul is limited to our bodies, no spirit.

Vidqun

Datadog, what gives you the impression that "it" is not in heaven? Don't believe everything you hear at a Kingdom Hall. The following scriptures tell a different story:

22 But you have come to Mount Zion, the city31 of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the assembly

23 and congregation of the firstborn, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous, who have been made perfect,

24 and to Jesus, the mediator32 of a new covenant (Heb 12:22-24 NET)

Here the writer of Hebrews mention God, the angels, the congregation of the firstborn [according to the WT, this is the 144000], and Jesus. Now who are "the spirits of the righteous made perfect?" They can't be the 144000. Why would these be repeated? So this is another group. We know Ecc. 12:7 says the spirit returns to God who gave it. Now look at the following passage. Where are these? I believe they are in heaven where the altar is.

9 Now when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given.

10 They cried out with a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Master, holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood?"

11 Each of them was given a long white robe and they were told to rest for a little longer, until the full number was reached of both their fellow servants and their brothers who were going to be killed just as they had been. (Rev 6:9-11 NET)

30

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

Vidqun

Official Aramaic, an international language, was spoken in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Court. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, few Jews could converse in Hebrew. It was necessary for Jewish leaders to translate their holy writings in Aramaic, from there the Aramaic Targums (cf. Neh. 8:8).

I subscribe to the five-fold scheme for the phases of the Aramaic language as proposed by J. A. Fitzmyer: (1) Old Aramaic, ca. 925–700 BCE; (2) Official Aramaic, ca. 700–200 BCE; (3) Middle Aramaic, ca. 200 BCE–200 CE; (4) Late Aramaic, ca. 200–700 CE; (5) Modern Aramaic, 700 CE-present.

A language shift occurs in chapter two of the Book of Daniel. Dan 2:4b–7:28 is written in Aramaic, whereas the remainder of the book is written in Hebrew. [1] The language of the Aramaic portion of Daniel has certain affinities with that of extra-biblical Aramaic documents of the fourth and fifth centuries BCE and may be thought of as generally belonging to the phase of Aramaic history sometimes called Reichsaramäisch or Official Aramaic.

[1] On possible correlations between BA (Daniel) and the corpus of early Aramaic inscriptional material see the following discussion: Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic (JSOTSup 129; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

134

Who left or got stumbled over the 1995 generation thing?

by Julia Orwell in

or the 2000's generation thing?.

how did you feel?

how did it help you wake up?

Vidqun

I allowed the GB to think for me and dictate my conscience. If the GB says so, it must be true. And then I woke up....

30

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

Vidqun

This is what HALOT has to say about "satraps." Although being an Old Persian loanword, it is also found in cuneiform writings and Late Babylonian. So it does not constitute proof of second century writing for the book of Daniel. To the contrary, it rather points to an earlier date of authorship. These administrative terms are predominently Persian and not Greek. One would have expected Greek terms to dominate in a second century MS, while Persian loanwords are well attested in Aramaic papyri of the fifth century.

*’ähhasheddarepan, Or. ’a?š`sub’ea: → Heb. *’athashäda-rpan (Ellenbogen Foreign Words 23 :: HAL 36a; HALOT 37a); loanword < Old Persian Xša<grc>qrapaµvan “protector of the empire” (Kent Grammar §78); also in cuneiform (AHw. 21a); Middle Persian s’trp (Herzfeld Paikuli 706), ?Ìštrp “in monumento Andabani V Susae invento”, see<spa> Parola del Passato </spa>31 (1953), 307); Late Babylonian a?šad(a)rapanu (AHw. 21a; CAD A/1: 195a); > Syr. ?tÌrp’ and ?tÌrpys (Brockelmann Lexicon 469a), corresponding to KBL s?trapa; Greek ( ? ) ξετρ?πη? σατρ?πη? (e.g. Liddell-Scott 1585; Hübschmann Armenische Gramm. 208; Montgomery Daniel 199); Palm. divine name, σατραπη? (for the divine name, cf. Haussig Wb. 1: 287f; J.G. Février La religion des Palmyréniens (1931), 139nd.147; Pauly-Wissowa (Kl.) 4:1566f): pl. det.: satrap Da 3 2f . 27 6 2nd.5 . 7f . †

35

Dualism in new WT theology?

by Thoughtless in

i am not the most "deep" wt student, and i am trying to beef up on wt theology so i can reassess my belief system and prove to myself that what i am planning to do is the right thing.

but what i lack in wt theology knowledge, i make up in some philosophical knowledge.

wt theology teaches a purely physicalist standpoint, in which our soul is limited to our bodies, no spirit.

Vidqun

JWs are anti-spirit, especially when it is mentioned in connection with a human. See how they translate (and interpret) the following scriptures:

7 Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it. (Ecc 12:7 NWT)

30 When, now, he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, It has been accomplished! and, bowing his head, [he stopped breathing, footnote “delivered up the breath (spirit) NWT1950] he delivered up [his] spirit. (Joh 19:30 NWT)

22 But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels,

23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and [to the spirits of the righteous, NET] the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect, (Heb 12:22, 23 NWT)

6 And he said to me, These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah the God of the inspired expressions of the prophets [God of the spirits of the prophets, NET] sent his angel forth to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. (Rev 22:6 NWT)

81

What Is The Most Absurd JW Belief or View?

by minimus in

jw
friends

there are many silly doctines and viewpoints.. one of the strangest ones is the blood doctrine.. why anyone could logically accept this belief is beyond reason..

Vidqun

Another one: The "millions now living will never die!" pronouncement should have warned one that something wasn't right with this lot.

81

What Is The Most Absurd JW Belief or View?

by minimus in

jw
friends

there are many silly doctines and viewpoints.. one of the strangest ones is the blood doctrine.. why anyone could logically accept this belief is beyond reason..

Vidqun

The Beard thing!

40

Now that I am out, which bible should i read? Feeling free at last!

by Freethinking76 in

jw
friends

so, now that i am out for good, which bible should i read?

there is no way i will read the wt one..so i still want to have a relationship with god but don't know how to choose a bible.

it is very hard to dewired yourself and ,sometimes i feel that i don't have a relationship with him.the what ifs come and go still.last night i was up all night reading and researching , can't shake off the shock still to know ttatt.

Vidqun

I prefer the combination of HCSB (Holman Christian Bible), ESV (English Standard Version) and NET (New English Translation) Bibles (all those with extensive footnotes).

90

Can this logic be refuted?

by notsurewheretogo in

i was an elder until march 2012 until i resigned.

i then stopped going to meetings in october 2012 and have enjoyed 9 months of freedom that i have found to be jouful!

i loved learning ttatt and sites like this and jwfacts.com have been excellent.. i told the elders that i needed a break and that they should not contact me unless it was a social visit and true to their word they have done that.

Vidqun

Notsurewheretogo, welcome! I agree with Nugget. They're not interested in logic. You either toe the line or you're out.

25

NEW ARTICLE - Commentary on Daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4.

by EdenOne in

ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.

its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.

(click the title for link).

Vidqun

Eden, I agree with your view of `olam. I have researched its development, and you're right. The root of the word means "hidden." But it would be unwise to build your arguments on this word, because its meaning would change over time (I removed the Hebrew fonts, they don't transfer well).

Times indefinite. Hidden or remote time. Aram. (sing.) or (plur.); 2 44b ; Heb. sometimes m., pl.—what is hidden; specially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else not defined. 2 44a never. According to context, it could point to: 1) Of time long past, antiquity, e.g., Deut. 32:7; Am. 9:11; Mic. 7:14; Is. 63:9. 2) Mostly it refers to future time, in such a manner, that what is called the terminus ad quem, is always defined from the nature of the thing itself.

Its etymology has been and remains disputed or at best uncertain, and the various studies suggest that no real progress has been made. Following E. Jenni, most scholars translate `oulam as “long time” or “farthest, remotest time.” Various nuances of this translation must then also be distinguished contextually. See TDOT, vol. X, p. 531. [1]

[1]

The book of Daniel contains 5 occurrences in Hebrew (9:24; 12:2[bis]; 3, 7), 18 in Aramaic (2:4, 20[bis], 44[bis]; 3:9; 4:3; 4:34[bis]; 5:10; 6:6, 21, 26; 7:14, 18[ter], 27) of which 9:24 (Hebrew) and 2:4, 44; 3:9; 5:10; 6:6, 21, 26 (Aramaic) as well as one of the occurrences in 7:18 are plural. Dnl. 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:21 belong to the royal greeting (cf. also 6:6). Dnl. 2:44; 4:3; 4:34, and 6:26 also make clear that the concern (as in the book of Daniel in a larger sense) is not only with the coming divine rule “forever,” but also with extolling the present and the future rule as being perpetual.

The assertion that “everlasting righteousness” (9:24) will be brought to the people and the city (cf. 11QPs a 16) then focuses more unequivocally on the new future, and Dnl. 2:44; 7:14, 18; 12:2f. make clear that, and how, the present “age of the world” will end and the new age (this age too, as the final one!) will commence. At that time “many” will be raised to “everlasting life” (12:2), others to everlasting shame and contempt.

Resurrection thus functions here as a solution to the problem of theodicy [2] [2] and as instrument for balancing things out between the good and the wicked, neither of whom will or may be permitted to end with death only. Here `oulam/`alam acquires the meaning of “world/age of the world” (cf. already Ps. 104:5; 148:6; Is. 40:28), something that then developed further in early Jewish literature. See TDOT, vol. X, pp. 542, 543, and TDNT, vol. I, pp. 202-206 under aioun, aiouvios.

[1]

According to TDOT, vol. XI, p. 149, an etymological relationship between `lm and `oulam seems unlikely.However, I believe that the word is indeed semantically related to the verb `alam and the noun ta`älumâ belonging to the semantic field “to hide.”

[2] Theodicy (= God + justice): “A justification of the existence, justice, and goodness of God in the light of the existence of evil” (cf. Webster).

Yes, Nabonidus (iron) and Belshazzar (clay) fit the picture. Belshazzar's knees turned to jelly (clay) when he saw the hand writing on the wall.

But coming back to Dan. 2: First of all, the stone striking the image, pulverized it. Even though the Babylonians were subjugated, as a nation they continued to exist (cf. Dan. 7:12). Secondly, the phrase "mixed with the seed of mankind," (Dn. 2:43) in connection with the iron and clay, point to people not mixing (because of different ideologies?). Some of the seeds (or offspring) were of iron variety, and some were of clay variety. Not sure about your application here. Nabonidus would share his kingdom with Belshazzar willingly.

That brings me to the different metals. Nebuchadnezzar was the supreme autocrat. His word was law. He decided whether you lived or died. But in connection with the Medes and Persians, Darius could not save his friend Daniel because the order was promulgated into law, and not even the king could change that (same happened in Esther’s case). Now what about Alexander the Great? He surrounded him with his generals and they would decide on strategy together. Certainly the autocracy became watered down over the years. Law, generals and advisors began to have more and more say.