Posts by Vidqun

32

Cancer has been with us for a long time

by Coded Logic in

a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

Vidqun

Coded Logic, take note, according to Wiki Australopithecus sediba is classified as a primate which may have lived in savannas, eating fruit and other foods from the forest—behavior similar to modern-day savanna chimpanzees, thus non-human.

16

That Most Uneven of Judicial Procedures~The Gradual Lifting of Restriction After Reinstatement

by TMS in

those with substantial experience as jws will likely agree that judicial matters are handled with considerable inconsistency.

elders certainly vary in skill level, understanding, compassion or even knowledge of the talmudlike watchtower rules.

the punishment and, it is actually punishment, for similar offenses can result in anything from private or public reproof to disfellowshipping or sometimes an elder will choose to simply offer private counsel without even bringing the matter before the body of elders.

Vidqun

On the subject, I know of a sister that applied for reinstatement. The elders told her: "Don't call us, we'll call you." So they will decide whether the person has repented enough. They will decide whether the heart condition of a person has improved to such an extent that he/she can be reinstated. Methinks they have taken over Jesus' role as judge. Now that's presumptuous. What idiots!

11

Speculation about GT

by aintenoughwiskey in

what were/are your speculations about the great tribulation.

unless those days were cut short no flesh would be saved?.

Vidqun

I believe for God to be fair there must be a literal fulfillment of Rev. 11. When the two witness-prophets appear on the scene, they will make things clear. Their ministry will last 3 1/2 years, long enough for all to make up their minds as to which way they want to go.

47

here i am

by notalone in

i was a 4th gen born in.my adult children were the 5th.

my mother was one of the newly'anointed' we have all left.

i have been lurking since october.i was really too terrified someone would find out who i was and what would happen.well we are out now so here is a part of my story.

Vidqun

Notalone, welcome and thank you for sharing your story. I read it to my mother, who is on her way out if not out already. This is something I have predicted all along. How can an organization survive if molestors and predators are allowed the benefit of the doubt while the victims continue to be victimized? They are stumbling whole families. As a consequence, whole families will leave. They seem to be ignoring the following scriptures, which will be to their detriment in the end:

Because sentence against a bad work has not been executed speedily, that is why the heart of the sons of men has become fully set in them to do bad (Eccl. 8:11).

Then he said to his disciples, It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come!

2 It would be of more advantage to him if a millstone were suspended from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones (Luk. 17:1, 2).

32

God does not desire any to be destroyed?

by stuckinarut2 in

so if the idea is promoted that god doesn't want anyone to be destroyed, why does he make it so confusing for people to learn about him?.

why are there thousands of differing religions?.

why has "his only true organisation" even taught so many varying doctrines?.

Vidqun

Let’s look at another scenario. Two prophets appear on the world scene. They are able to perform miracles and cause drought. They play cat and mouse with the authorities. They kill with fire anybody that wants to harm them. Say the two of them carry on like that for three and a half years. At the end of three and a half years they are killed. After three and a half days, they are resurrected. Everybody on earth would be able to follow their activities and eventual demise on social media. Two choices would be available, one is either for them (and God) or against them. That would simplify matters, will it not? It will also prove God’s fairness, something the Witnesses will never be able to do with their skewed preaching work (cf. Rev. 11:3-12).

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

Steve2, if one compares the different versions, especially that of the Masoretic Text (MT), Theodotion, and the Old Greek Daniel, one notices that a lot of editorial work had gone into the book. The Jewish Talmud would imply that the “Men of the Great Synagogue” had edited parts of Daniel.[1] Then there are the additions (included in the Catholic Bibles). Most scholars prefer the Daniel of the MT. So, we are reasonably sure that the compilation we have before us today is not necessarily the version of the original writer or compiler of the work. Even if the original work had been inspired by God, what is left of it? At this stage, nobody knows. Nevertheless, whatever one believes, there’s some interesting material contained in the book, worthy of study.

[1] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Bathra folio 15a: “The men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, and the Scroll of Esther.” Rashi supposes that the reason why Ezekiel did not write his own book was that he lived outside Eretz Yisrael. The same goes for Daniel and Esther.

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.