Posts by Vidqun

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

Sorry, David, I have had it before. I find it difficult to express myself. I am working on it.

According to J. J. Collins, Jewish tradition related the end of the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the temple, an interpretation that may already be implied in Josephus: “Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken by them and the temple laid waste.”[1]

And according to Josephus: “Alexander came into Syria, and took Damascus, and when he had obtained Sidon, he besieged Tyre, when he sent an epistle to the Jewish high priest, to send him some auxiliaries, and to supply his army with provisions; and that what presents he formerly sent to Darius he would now send to him, and choose the friendship of the Macedonians, and that he should never repent of so doing; (318) but the high priest answered the messengers, that he had given his oath to Darius not to bear arms against him and he said that he would not transgress this while Darius was in the land of the living.” [2]

Alexander and his army were on their way to Jerusalem to destroy the city, when the priests met him and showed him that he featured in prophecy. He was so impressed he that spared the city. Fact of the matter is (and for whatever reason), Alexander never attacked Jerusalem.

Josephus referred to Daniel as “one of the greatest prophets,” because not only did he prophesy future things, but he also fixed the time during which these should come to pass. He was also of the opinion that the book of Daniel was in existence prior to the arrival of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE. He viewed the third kingdom of Dan. 2 as Greece, “from the west,” intimating that the fourth would be Rome. Elsewhere Josephus interprets the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as being the fulfillment of prophecies made by Daniel in the 6th century BCE. He also tells of a tower that Daniel had built at the height of his fame, at Ecbatana or Susa (according to Jerome’s copy) that became the burial place of kings. This structure was still in existence in his day, so his detractors could go and see it.[3]

I believe “where there is smoke, there is fire.” If none of this were true, he would have been ridiculed by his enemies and detractors. Would Josephus have mentioned the above, knowing that Daniel was only written 200 years before him? Would he not have mentioned that Daniel was a Maccabean production? Speaking of the Maccabees, in the first book of Maccabees (ca. 100 BCE), Daniel is viewed as one of “our ancestors.” They make many references to the book of Daniel (1 Macc. 2:51-60 JB). Would they have respected him if they knew he was a fraud and a liar? Just too many coincidences there, I’m afraid.

And then, we haven't even touched on the language. The Hebrew of Daniel is written in the same style as Chronicles and Ezra. The Aramaic of Daniel can be classified as Imperial Aramaic (not Western Palestinian Aramaic as the Genesis Apocryphon found amongst the DSS).

[1] John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia-series, p. 356, footnote 82. See Josephus, Antiquities, Book X, Chapter XI, § 7 [10.276].

[2] Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson [Antiquities 11.317, 318].

[3] Josephus, Antiquities, Book X, Chapter XI, § 7 [10.267]; Book XI, Chapter VIII, § 5 [11.337]; Book X, Chapter X, § 4 [209, 210]; Book XI, Chapter VIII, § 5 [10.276]; Book X, Chapter XI, § 7 [10.264] (W. Whiston translation).

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

David, I think you misunderstood. I take exception to the fact that scholars use those scriptures "to prove" Ezekiel's Daniel was not the same as the writer of the book. Those scriptures, especially the one at Ezek. 28:2, 3, actually proves the opposite, that Daniel was indeed a contemporary of Ezekiel. Would he have compared the Prince of Tyre to a well-known person living at the time, or would he have compared the Prince of Tyre with an obscure historical figure? Would a Jewish hero from the past even be known to the Prince of Tyre? And if he didn't know who Ezekiel was referring to, he wouldn't get the point, would he?

I'm with you, Joe134cd. I think this might be what you are referring to:

Belshazzar vs. Nabonidus: The relationship of Belshazzar in Daniel 5:11 is stated to be that of a “son” to Nebuchadnezzar, whereas it is known that Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus. Dougherty, professor of Assyriology at Yale University, dealt with this question in a thorough and satisfying manner in 1929. The Yale scholar shows that Nabonidus was in all probability married to Nitocris, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, at least as early as 585 BCE.[1] It hardly needs to be added that a grandfather in Hebrew usage is often referred to as a “father,” as, for example, in Genesis 28:13 and 32:10. Indeed, there is no other term for “grandfather” besides this in the Old Testament.[2] [3]

Belshazzar is referred to as “king” in Daniel 5:1–30. Cuneiform temple receipts from Sippar attest that Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen there as “an offering of the king.”[4] While it is true that no cuneiform record refers to Belshazzar by the explicit term sharru (“king”), it is clear that during the latter years of Nabonidus’s reign, while the latter made his headquarters at Teima in Arabia, Belshazzar ruled as his viceroy, with all the authority of the king. That this fact was well known to the author of Daniel is clearly implied by the fact that in Daniel 5:7, 16 the viceroy could promise to the successful interpreter of the handwriting on the wall only the honor of third ruler in the kingdom. Obviously Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler.[5]

[1] R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), pp. 60-68.

[2] (1979). Bibliotheca Sacra, 136(542), p. 135.

[3] (1979). Bibliotheca Sacra, 136(542), p. 134.

[4] R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), p. 88.

[5] (1979). Bibliotheca Sacra, 136(542), pp. 134, 135.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

David_Jay, in the end we are all searching for truth, not so? We all have the freedom of putting forth theories, whether our own or of others, for these to be tested by our peers.

E.g., modern scholars say: “No Old Testament contemporary of the sixth-century Daniel makes any reference to him. The Daniel referred to in Ezekiel (14:14, 20 and 28:3) must have been the ancient hero named Dan’el, whose life story is narrated in the Ugaritic legend of Aqḥat (dating from about the fifteenth century B.C.).”

I have a problem with above theory. Here are some of my reasons: Dan’el was an idol-worshiper, a drunken party goer, contemplating murderous revenge. Ezekiel, a zealous prophet and the son of a priest, would never have used a Baal-worshiper as a paragon of righteousness and purity.

E.g., you say: “The idea that Daniel was a prophet is incompatible with our history for, as noted in my previous post, the historical Daniel is supposed have died many years before the Babylonians invaded.” Then you refer us to the following scriptures. (Ezekiel 14.14, 20; 28.3) I have a problem with your statement and the scriptures you use to back up your statement.

Many modern scholars insist that the persons mentioned in above scriptures are examples from the past and has nothing to do with the writer of the book of Daniel. Note, they use the same scriptures as you do. By the way, here they are:

CJB Ezekiel 14:14 even if these three men were in it- Noach, Dani'el and Iyov- they would by their righteousness save only themselves," says Adonai ELOHIM. (Ezek. 14:14 CJB)

CJB Ezekiel 14:20 even if Noach, Dani'el and Iyov were in it, as I live," says Adonai ELOHIM, "they would save neither a son nor a daughter; they would save only themselves by their righteousness." (Ezek. 14:20 CJB)

Ezekiel was to give the Prince of Tyre the following message:

2 "Human being, tell the prince of Tzor that Adonai ELOHIM says: 'Because you are so proud and have said, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of God, surrounded by the sea"; yet you are a man, not God, even though you think that you think like God.

3 Sure, you are wiser than Dani'el! No secret can be hidden from you! (Ezek. 28:2-3 CJB)

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

David_Jay, thanks for your illuminating posts. I have a few criticisms though:

The first verse is a narrative device commonly employed in Semitic literature to tell the reader the stories are not meant to be read as historical. The opening verse states that Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, King of Judah." (1.1) However the siege of Jerusalem occurred after the death of Jehoiakim, a death which occurred likely after his own individual capture by the Babylonians prior to their invasion. It is common in the Hebrew Scriptures for authors to take poetic liberties (much like movie makers today) when merely using history as a generic setting.

Above verses are written in a condensed format. Actually there were three sieges and five deportations during their seventy year servitude. Daniel and his companions were deported during the third/fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., 605 BCE (Dan. 1:1; cf. 2 Kings 24:1, 2; Jer. 25:11; 46:2; 2 Chron. 36:23). This deportation would be followed by four major deportations (2 Kings 24:10-16; Jer. 52:28-30). This agrees with the Babylonian Chronicle.

The Book of Daniel contains no oracles to Israel or Judah. For a book to be considered a valid prophetic message inspired by God it must contain oracles or pronouncements from YHWH to his people. The phrase in most English Bibles in the Prophets is: "Thus sayeth the LORD." The phrase in Hebrew is actually, "Oracle of the LORD." The book of Daniel has no such phrase and none of its visions or "prophecies" are for Israel or Judah. They are all addressed to non-Jews and Gentile nations.

This must be a modern Jewish development, but whether this has always been the case, remains to be seen. E.g., 1) Dan. 9:24-27 is directed at God’s people and Jerusalem, and 2) the book of Nahum, although one of the prophets, contains an oracle against Nineveh.

The Septuagint is not regarded by Jews as a valid representation of Scripture.

Remember, originally the Septuagint was translated by Alexandrian Jews for Alexandrian Jews. Only later, in the first century, were the book replaced by Greek translations that closely followed the MT of today, eg., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

The idea that Daniel was a prophet is incompatible with our history for, as noted in my previous post, the historical Daniel is supposed have died many years before the Babylonians invaded. (Ezekiel 14.14, 20; 28.3)

Although Daniel is here included with Job and Noah, this does not mean that Daniel lived in their day. He was a contemporary of Ezekiel who had great respect for him.

There was no "shift" of the book of Daniel to the Writings section around the 5th - 8th century C.E. "as confirmed by Koch" as there has never been formal codification of the books that follow the Hamesh Megillot. These "last books" following Megillot are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

The current classification comes from the Masoretes (ca. 8-10th century CE). In the day of Jesus and Josephus, the scripture classification was the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets (cf. Luke 24:44).

Also, the Qumran texts represent collections of Hebrew texts preserved by a Jewish sect that existed on the outskirts of Judaism.

Some view the Qumran library to have been collected by the inhabitants of Qumran. Some MSS were added by them, but with the bulk of it would come from Jerusalem, especially the rolls containing Scripture.

21

Can you relate?

by TimeBandit in

jw
friends

i used to try really hard to fit in when i was an active, true blue jw.

somehow it hardly ever paid off.

time after time i attempted to mingle and make jw friends.

Vidqun

TimeBandit, this reminds me of "London hospitality" amongst JWs. I coined the phrase. It means "no hospitality whatsoever." I worked for a few months in London. In the different congregations I attended, I was always looked upon as something the dog dragged in. I had to mingle with those that were visiting from elsewhere.

I can remember two outstanding examples. I worked in field service with a "pioneer-ministerial servant." We had a pleasant morning and a few good calls. I thought wow! at last I have made a friend. But from that moment onwards I was ignored flat. My presence was not even acknowledged at the hall. But lo and behold! a few months later the said "brother" came biking in my part of the world. He was in my area and needed a place to stay. Unfortunately I was unable to help him.

I chatted with another brother. A mutual acquaintance introduced us. He was selling vitamins or something, but when I showed no interest in his products, I was again ignored. Even in conversation the one time, he actually turned his back on me and started chatting with someone else. I have never encountered such rudeness ever. Ah, fond memories indeed!

9

"holding the anointed elders in his right hand"

by oppostate in

(ks10 p11:1) revelation 1:20 depicts jesus as holding the anointed elders in his right hand, thus, by extension, indicating that he controls all bodies of elders for the purpose of accomplishing jehovah’s will.

(re pp.

in the shepherding book it says "holding the anointed elders in his right hand".

Vidqun

My “elder” brother also insisted that he and his fellow elders were stars in Jesus’ right hand. They better watch out. Not sure what the current interpretation of the following scriptures are, but at some stage some of the stars are going to be thrown to the ground and trampled, and the holy ones ‘dashed to pieces.’

10 And it kept getting greater all the way to the army of the heavens, so that it caused some of the army and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it went trampling them down.

11 And all the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant [feature] was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down (Dan. 8:10, 11 NWT).

7 And I began to hear the man clothed with the linen, who was up above the waters of the stream, as he proceeded to raise his right [hand] and his left [hand] to the heavens and to swear by the One who is alive for time indefinite, It will be for an appointed time, appointed times and a half. And as soon as there will have been a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces, all these things will come to their finish (Dan. 12:7 NWT).

So, one should be careful what you wish for. Similarly the GB, insisting they are the fds, must watch out. If that slave goes bad, the fate of that slave is disastrous (cf. Matt. 24:45-51).

133

Why Are You Here?

by Believer in

i'm wondering why believers remain members of this forum which is clearly hostile to believers.

as one member said, nonbelievers pounce on any semblance of belief like piranhas on prey.

as former jws we should have had our fill of judgmental know-it-alls, but here we are.

Vidqun

Believer, I also come here to find out what's new in JW land. An additional reason for me: The forum is a place to test what you believe in. If your faith or facts are flimsy, these will be shot down (and burn). Somewhere in Corinthians Paul explained one must build with fire-resistant materials. I looked it up, 1 Cor. 3:11-15. Another reason, if at all possible, you want to help others.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

Purrpurr, I guess it depends on how one views the book of Daniel. Perhaps looking from a different perspective might help. The following article was a great help to me:

In his article “The Writing of Daniel,” Jan-Wim Wesselius compares the structure of Daniel to that of Ezra. He refers to the book of Daniel as the Daniel Dossier, a collection of separate documents, dealing with the life, career, and visions of Daniel, which he attributes to the writing style of the author of the book of Daniel. This, he asserts, would account for the discontinuity of the book, being an ancient dossier, unmodified, while retaining some of the characteristics of its sources. At the same time, the assembled material, left relatively unpolished and deviating from chronological order, having all the hallmarks of a complicated history of composition, is structured in such a way that it forms a harmonious whole. I, with Wesselius, ascribe this phenomenon to the brilliance of the author. Wesselius concludes his article: “The book was to appear to its readers as a collection of separate documents, dealing with the life, career and visions of Daniel. At the same time, however, it retained the marks of literary unity, thus inviting the reader to achieve the unity of the book through making his own synthesis of its parts - one of the most successful literary enterprises in history.”

71

Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty in

in 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.

he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.

most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.

Vidqun

Cofty, it's like I am talking to a brick wall. I did my degree approximately 36 years ago, and I haven't work in my field for the last 24 years, so that's why I am somewhat rusty. But that's not important. We are talking in circles, so I have decided to put up a video to explain my stance. I know it's not in my own words, but what the hell, I cannot say it better. It's called "How DNA killed evolutionism," and discusses the laws of information. I am especially fond of the linguistics part. This has been my study field for nearly three decades. Bullshit you might say, but follow the laws of information and work from there. The following paragraphs sum up the main points:

The existence of DNA has proven evolution false and proven both Intelligent Design and Special Creation to be true. It is impossible for evolution to happen or be true because of what genetics has revealed. The reason evolutionists do not give up defending evolutionism despite modern scientific knowledge is because they are dedicated to the materialist idea that they have no creator God to answer to and are not guilty of sin. The evolution theory became prominent in science because certain men of the early 19th century performed a coup in the scientific community by publicly ridiculing men of science who believed in creation, who were the majority at the time, and covertly appointing believers in evolution to key seats in universities and science associations. Among these men were Charles Lyell and others who formed the X-Club for the purpose of displacing creation believers with evolution believers in science circles. This clandestine protection of evolutionism has continued to this day, and it is very difficult and often impossible, depending upon the university, for anyone who does not believe in the fallacy of evolution to become hired as a professor. The opinion of the world public has never fully accepted evolutionism, and the number of it's believers is dwindling because of what science has revealed since the days of Charles Darwin. Eventually, evolutionism will be relegated to history as the greatest and most fervently protected hoax of all time.

Evolution is an ancient religious concept, originating in Dagon and other "gods" who supposedly created man from fish, and picked up again by humanists in the 18th century seeking a logical reason to deny the existence of God in rebellion to His moral law. The basic tenants of evolution such as Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution were put forth by Greek philosophers in a day when man had little scientific knowledge and before the idea of scientific investigation by observation and testing was conceived. Thales of Miletus put forth the idea that water itself brought forth life, just as the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians did. Anaximander put forth the idea that all things consisted of fire and water, and this brought forth the universe from nothing - an idea that is known now to be impossible without a supernatural cause. He also said animals came out of the sea and diversified - a claim still held today by evolutionists with their idea that fish evolved into land animals.Democritus claimed the universe was occulting - exploded and imploded continuously - an idea known false by modern astronomy but clung to by evolutionists until Hubble disproved it in the early 20th century. The classification scheme evolutionists apply to life originated with Aristotle, who believed life evolved into various forms from some original form. Humanist god denialist philosophers of the 18th century, picked up the ideas of the ancients thinking they would provide an excuse for denying God, and other humanist attempted to claim that science supported these ancient, false ideas. Evolutionism has never been science or scientific. It is a package of ancient ideas to which modern humanists have attempted to force science to conform. Darwinism in any form is a nonscientific idea which science has destroyed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35fulERIUnU

71

Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty in

in 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.

he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.

most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.

Vidqun

Cofty, this is sort of a free-for-all debate with various individuals taking part. I believe it to be good manners to answer those that question me and my motives. And as far as I am concerned, the principles involved here are exactly the same as with endosymbiogenesis and the like. It boils down to the same thing. You believe it happened randomly and spontaneously many aeons ago, and I believe in ID, two philosophies very far removed from each other.

Island Man, very interesting video. This is exactly what I was referring to. There is a certain lack of logic in comparing the syringe of Yersinia pestis to the rotary motor of Escherichia coli, even though they have a molecular similarities. That's like comparing apples to pears.

I like the illustration of the mouse trap, a very simple and basic instrument that can also be used as a tie clip. I wonder who designed the first mouse trap? A clever guy indeed. Who designed the rotary motor of E. coli? Nobody, it designed and manufactured itself: A ridiculous notion indeed! Like I said, if those pathways are discovered one day, I will reconsider my position. Until then I will follow the path of logic which do not lead me to evolution, that's for sure. However, each of you should feel free to follow your own path wherever it leads.

You all seem to have latched on to a common theme, referring to me as a professional microbiologist (I take it you use it as a form of ridicule). I repeat, I haven't practiced Medical Microbiology since the early nineties. My registration with the HRC has lapsed. That's approximately 23 years ago. And no, I did not keep up with the latest developments, as you might have noticed. I have said this before and I say it again. So, let's not harp on this unnecessarily. It serves no purpose whatsoever.