Posts by Vidqun

27

The Watchtower Society is confused over its “Seventy Years” and "Seven Times"

by Doug Mason in

until now, the watch tower society [wts] has argued that the 70 years was a period during which judah was totally and completely depopulated.

for this reason, it constantly argued that the period commenced when the jews left judah and entered egypt.

jerusalem was destroyed in the fifth month (two months before october/tishri).

Vidqun

By the way, the Society prefers the first century Jewish view. They are wrong.

27

The Watchtower Society is confused over its “Seventy Years” and "Seven Times"

by Doug Mason in

until now, the watch tower society [wts] has argued that the 70 years was a period during which judah was totally and completely depopulated.

for this reason, it constantly argued that the period commenced when the jews left judah and entered egypt.

jerusalem was destroyed in the fifth month (two months before october/tishri).

Bennyk, the first century Jewish view was that the land would lay desolate (for seventy years) after the destruction of Jerusalem. This one can see from their rendering of Dan.9:2 in the Masoretic Text and LXX Theodotian. The Hellenistic historian Berossus was right, whereas Josephus and the first century Jewish view was wrong. Jerusalem and surroundings were not desolate for seventy years. Here is an excerpt from one of my studies:

Berossus vs. Josephus: Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 BCE), he took Jewish captives into exile, confirming that the 70 year period, as a period of servitude to Babylon, would begin in 605 BCE. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 BCE. Berossus also insists that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year. No cuneiform documents support this. Yet, the book of Daniel (1:1-3) mentions a minor deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim, which would correspond to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 25:1; 46:2). As a minor deportation, it is not surprising that it does not feature on the list of Jeremiah 52:28-30.

The Jewish historian Josephus respected Berossus. However, he states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar would conquer all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1 [10.86]. Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, ix, 7 [10.184]). He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus” (Josephus, Against Apion I, 19 [1.132]). Here he shares the misconception of a later editor and/or redactor of the book of Daniel, “fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years” (cf. Dan. 9:2). The same goes for the second-century (CE) writer Theophilus of Antioch who believed the 70 years would commence with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years. As seen, Jeremiah applied the seventy years to the Judahites’ Babylonian servitude, and not to the desolation of the land.

Dan. 9:2: In the OG we have oneidismos, meaning “reproach” (singular). See NETS. This is viewed as an error in the transmission: Jer. 25:9 and (I turn them) into a disgrace is read for MT and (I will turn them) into desolations. However, as seen, Dan. 9:2 is not drawn from Jer. 29:10, but Jer. 25:9-12. Here it could mean “reproach, disgrace, insult” (cf. Jer. 18:16; 19:8; Ezek. 5:13, 14). Specifically Jer. 25:9 “and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite.” See BHS footnote. KBLex, in accordance with the textcritical note suggests an emendation to (“as a disgrace”). See J. Lust, E. Eynikel & K. Hauspie (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart. According to secular chronology, Jerusalem did not lie desolate for seventy years, but her reproach and humiliation could have started with Jehoiakim’s three year servitude, completing Jeremiah’s seventy year cycle (2 Kings 24:1, 2; cf. Is. 25:9, 11).

15

First post I’ve seen where a Circuit Overseer is trying to denigrate the Royal Commission. Are these new instructions from WT?

by John Aquila in

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/3mxy3t/circuit_overseers_giving_anti_royal_commission/.

Vidqun

My uber-Dub brother, an elder, and his wife are visiting. He's from Down Under, and according to his version, the elders put up a spectacular defense before the RC. I am sure he never watched the proceedings because he works full time. That must be the official WT reaction, what he was told by the CO and fellow elders. It's pathetic to say the least. Or it's a bad case of theocratic warfare, and he is lying.

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

The Bible portrays spirit creatures in different forms, but I think that's mostly for our benefit, and to distinguish their functions. A spirit creature is a spirit creature. Question is: What does "angel" mean? If it is a rank of a spirit creature, then the problem is not so big after all. Jesus' rank definitely improved after he came to earth, if one reads the first chapter of Hebrews. According to Genesis, an angel could materialize into a man. If that was the case, then Jesus being born as a human should not pose a problem for the Creator. Now what "woman" is being referred to in Genesis? Is it literal or symbolic? In Galatians (1:26) Paul refers to Jerusalem above as their "mother," which would be a figurative woman.

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

It seems to me that the writer of the book of Daniel believed that Michael will rule as king:

Dan 12:1. Michael to stand up. “Michael will stand up.” Daniel often uses the phrase “to stand up” to mean standing up as king. In other parts of Daniel, as well as this prophecy, the term “stand up” means that the person assumes authority to rule as a king (cf. Dan. 8:22, 23; 11:2, 3, 4, 7, 20, 21). Hence, when Michael ‘stands up’ he, too, starts to rule as a king.

arise, appear, come on the scene, esp. in the book of Daniel, to arise, come on the scene: Dn 8:22, 8:22, 8:23, 11:2, 11:3, 11:4, 12:1, cf. 11:7, v. 20, v. 21. See BDBLex.

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

Again, here I prefer evidence from the OT and NT. Micah 5:2 says he has an "origin" (see HALOT). Rev. 3:14 says he has had a "beginning." He is also referred as God's firstborn son, etc. (Col. 1:18; Hebr. 1:6). So I am not at all convinced that he was not an angel (literal meaning: "messenger") before. Jesus, as co-worker, is clearly subservient to his father the Creator (1 Cor. 15:25-28).

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

Caleb, I'm really struggling with your logic here. As a Christian I believe in the OT and NT. Above is the totality of Biblical evidence. In addition, the Bible refers to specific ranks in heaven, e.g., angels, cherubs, seraphs, elders, etc. Can you see the dual function of Jesus and Michael? Can you see the overlap? The evidence is not clear cut at all.

Would you be able to call out with an archangel’s voice if you’re not an archangel (meaning “a member of the higher ranks in the celestial hierarchy, chief angel, archangel,” according to BDAG)? According to the book of Enoch, there are four angels of senior rank, and according to Tobit, seven. Aforementioned Biblical books refer to only one, Michael.

The majority of Christians do not want to equate Jesus with an angel because of Hebrews. Notice Hebrews 1:4 says: “he has become better than the angels…” But even if he did hold the rank of angel at one time, that has changed. He has received a promotion and now holds the rank of king. All the verses in Hebrews 1 point in this direction (future). As king he could be head or leader of the angels as Rev. 19 indicate? Michael seems to have the same function according to Rev. 12.

And really, does “with the sound of God’s trumpet,” equate him with God? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I am sure as God’s designated king, he, that is God, would allow him to use his (God’s) trumpet on occasion. His voice might also sound like God's trumpet, still doesn't make him equal or the same as God.

Leaving quietly, yes, I follow what you are saying, but I interpret the evidence differently. As has been mentioned, that is my privelege and I cannot be disfellowshipped twice. Phew! Hurray!

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

This is not an open and shut case. Consider the evidence:

At the time of greatest tribulation ever the angel-prince Michael shall contend for Daniel’s people. Everyone that is found written in the book shall be saved, and the dead shall rise again, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting shame (Dan. 12:1–3; cf. Is. 9:6, 7; 25:7, 8 Sym; cf. Matt. 24:21, 29-31). He is the prince of Jehovah’s army (Dan. 8:11; cf. Josh. 5:13-15), the prince and protector of God’s people (Dan. 10:21; 12:1). The spirit person who bears the name Michael is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people” (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1).

Since Michael is a prince and protector of God’s people, he could be identified with the unnamed angel that God had sent ahead of the Israelites: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him” (Ex. 14:19; 23:20, 21; cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-4). This reminds one of the visions in Daniel’s prophecy. Kingship would be conferred on “someone like a son of man.” Michael would then stand up as king and champion of his people (cf. Dan. 7:13, 14; 10:13, 21; 12:1).

The final appearance of the name Michael in the Bible is in the book of Revelation. There he takes the lead in cleansing the heavens. Michael and his angels would oust the Devil and his angels from heaven: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail” (Rev. 12:7, 8). Here we see Michael in action as God’s archangel. He, along with “his angels,” defeats Satan and casts him down to the earth (Rev. 12: 9, 10, 12; cf. 19:11-16). Not only does he take the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty, but he is also a destroyer of God’s enemies.

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 identifies the archangel with Michael. Michael was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thes. 1:7; Rev. 19:11-21). Either their roles overlap or it is the same person.

21

What are JWs saying about the Royal Commission?

by LexIsFree in

i am wondering if there are any pro-jw blogs/sites that any of you visit and whether or not jws are aware of what is going on in australia.

also, what is there reaction to it?

(i may already know the answer to that last question.

Vidqun

A standard reply I have heard. This from my SiL in Australia, an uber-dub: "These are not real Witnesses. These are bad people that have infiltrated the congregations." A while back my mother quizzed the CO's wife about their involvement in the OSCE: Again the reply: "These are not real Witnesses but people using the good name of Jehovah's Witnesses for their own selfish purposes." Seems to me this reply comes from higher up, to answer queries from studies and interested ones.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

Vidqun

But how to avoid confirmation bias? I notice it in religionists as well as non-religionists. Are we naturally inclined towards evidence that favor our beliefs, tendencies or hypotheses or has it been acquired over time? Something to do with pride, perhaps? Or has it to do with the way we think, and/or collect information?