i just got through reading this.
it's long, but worth the read.
it nails the arguments with many points that i hadntt previously thought of.
Hi
I just got through reading this. It's long, but worth the read. It nails the arguments with many points that I hadntt previously thought of. I was still in 2 minds about blood before but not now.
http://meletivivlon.com/2013/09/10/jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-no-blood-doctrine/
FG
something happened recently, and i thought i would share a few comments.
first, lets set the stage..... if anyone is familiar with current events in the pacific northwest, you may have heard of the death of a beautiful young lady, whitney heichel, a short while ago.
in short, whitney was a young sister that was kidnapped and killed by a "congregation" friend.
Tech
I agree that those things take place all the time, and that we can tune into them.
However my personal stance is that I presume someone is genuine unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. In this case when I listened to the interview I found I had no personal reason to doubt that she meant everything she said.
I have close family members who believe primarily because not to believe would leave them without hope of seeing ones they have lost. I know this syndrome well. It's no logical basis for belief in anything in particular and yet it is a strong influencer, and those who have it as their foundation are not easily moved from that.
FG
something happened recently, and i thought i would share a few comments.
first, lets set the stage..... if anyone is familiar with current events in the pacific northwest, you may have heard of the death of a beautiful young lady, whitney heichel, a short while ago.
in short, whitney was a young sister that was kidnapped and killed by a "congregation" friend.
I agree with Oubliette. I don't believe that there is any reason to doubt that what was said was 100% genuine.
That has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
she was a 12 year old maltese.
the best pet in the world.
my wife and i never had kids, so she was our only daughter.
Very sorry to hear that. I love my animal friends, and the deep pain of losing pets is somthing that I have also had to go through a couple of times. Maltese are very cute and smart dogs. I bet she was lovely.
From time to time my wife and I will sit down with a glass of wine and go through some old photos of our pets. Now that the worst of the sadness is past it really does help us to remember the good times, and the good life that we gave them. I hope that when the immediate pain subsides a bit you will also be able to find happiness in remembering how good you were for her as owners, and how good a baby she was to you.
FG
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).
Hi Eden
One can hardly claim that the Babylonian empire was the "golden standard" or the "height of glory" of all the world powers that ever existed since antiquity until our days
I agree with that, but on the other hand would you say that human rulership has been steadily improving over the last 2500 years, or steadily declining? And here I am talking from a theocratic point of view only. (Not a JW view, and not a secular point of view.)
Now that doesn't mean that the decline has to be linear. There have been better and worse rulers in each worldly governmental power. None would be completely effective and some would be downright horrible. But if you drew the whole thing out, like you might graph a share price now, it might be a line with peaks and troughs, but always on the decline. But a dream that showed a stock market x-y graph wouldn't really fit well in the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures, so instead a dream that simply shows base materials of diminishing value is understandable to any audience.
That's the way I see it. But I remain open to persuasion.
FG
these are things that were said or insinuated, i start with the first 15.
enjoy!!.
1. working for a corporation in the city makes you fall out of the truth.. 2. if you become inactive or leave jehovah you will make your whole family sad and ruin everything.. 3. all worldly people cheat.. 4. all worldly people curse.. 5.
Weird ... why did my no.23 entry (between maninthemiddle and sir82) get deleted???
It wasn't anything bad.
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).
Hence, since from God's point of view no government is "gold", the fact that the statue of the dream has Nebuchadnezzar as the "gold head" can only be understood as his reign being the apogee of glory of the Neo-Babylonian empire, represented by the statue in its entirety. The succession of increasingly poorer materials represents its decadence.
I don't follow the logic.
Why "since ... can only be understood ..."?
Surely the exact same argument applies whether it is Nebuchadnezzar followed by his human successors, or Nebuchadnezzar's empire followed by the successive empires?
Either way the succession of increasingly poorer materials represents a moving towards something inferior that would ultimately be removed.
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).
Eden
But whether it's Nebuchadnezzer's rulership personally or the national rulership, it's still a head of gold. So the same argument applies against seeing it that way from God's point of view.
I agree that historically it appears to be true what you say about how they treated God's people, but all of those nations suppressed their absolute freedom to worship as God intended. So I don't think the whole thing is about how hostile they were on a scale of 1-10 against God's people, but rather the quality of human rulership in relative terms only.
Surely no human government is GOLD from God's POV so this all has to be relative in some way. Don't you think?
FG
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).
Hi Eden
I've reread your reply more carefully and I understand what you are saying now about the Hebrew and Aramaic. Nevertheless "olam/elam" in relation to kingdom/kingship only has those two instances in Daniel as far as I can see. (There are some toadies in the intervening chapters who say "live forever" to their kings but obviously that is just their custom rather than anything prophectic).
I just don't see sufficient evidence that the prophecy is not messianic when that is what it appears to be. I totally respect your line of reasoning, but there just seems to be too much weight on the other side of the scales.
Even if the gold is from God's standpoint I think it can still be understood as the "best" human government was ever going to achive, and it would decline from there.
Ultimately the gold is proven to be perishable, and the mountain that fills the whole earth is supreme. So regardless of the material and regardless from whose standpoint, there is a clear winner that is shown to be of more enduring value.
That's the way I see it anyway.
FG
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).
Hi Eden
Here I am not nit-picking - only seeking to understand.
You said ...
Therefore, you shouldn't limit the scope of "olam" to the aramaic variation of "elam".
Why would the scope of the Aramaic be limited at all if it is truly synonomous with the Hebrew?
Do you see what I mean?
FG
