The explanation I offered does not fly in the face of reason, yours does by presuming supernatural soothsaying. My explanation is consistant with the known apocalyptic religious environment of the time and the very real anachonisms in the book. Your favored interpretation while clever dismisses all the evidence recognized by mainstream secular and religious scholarship. As well as adding a word here and there such as "THE" messiah (anointed). Do not get hung up on exact phraseology as much is left to the translators. If you read these passages in a Jewish translation it becomes obvious how much the meaning can be altered by honest yet differently oriented translators. Would a God be so poor at communicating?
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
50
The Book of Daniel
by SwedishChef inthe following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.
it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".
modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.
-
-
-
10
Isaiah 9 is it about Jesus?
by peacefulpete inpelejoezelgibborabiadsarshalom (wonderful councelor mighty god eternal father prince of peace) is the name/title given in isaiah 9:5 to someone, but who?
(look it up or this next part will make little sense.
) the piece is an expression of faith that yahweh will bless the people and the government as long as they have a king (or when they get a king, as may be implied by referring to a birth of this king) who honors him (yahweh) with words of praise.
-
-
peacefulpete
Pelejoezelgibborabiadsarshalom (wonderful councelor mighty god eternal father prince of peace) is the name/title given in Isaiah 9:5 to someone, but who? (Look it up or this next part will make little sense.) The piece is an expression of faith that Yahweh will bless the people and the government as long as they have a king (or when they get a king, as may be implied by referring to a birth of this king) who honors Him (Yahweh) with words of praise. The confusion is in part due to the fact that the translators have to discern whether the expression found after "to us a son is given" refers to Yahweh or the king. They are split and so in some cases you see the "His" as capitalized referring to God and in others not implying reference to the king. Also this section is separated by a semi-colon or not. It is then either Yahweh who "shoulders the government" and "sustains it with justice and righteousness" or this representative king. The least complicated understading is that these expressions in question refer to Yahweh, given the reference to the "throne"(kingship) as a separate entity being blessed in verse 6. These glorious epithets then are applied to Yahweh not any man.
The writer of Isaiah may provide another interpretation of this passage by his use of other name/titles in naming his legendary sons. (Maher-shalal-hash-baz,Shearjashub) Where the "names" refer to activity of Yahweh. Therefore another possible way to understand Is 9:5 is that the phrase after "a son given to us" does refer to the king and not Yahweh in which case the name Pelejoazelgibbor....is an expression of confidence in Yahweh's direction and protection. In either case nothing here compels unbiased readers to see a prophecy of Jesus.
In most Christian Bibles the name has been translated in the text rather than using a footnote and misleadingly made to appear through punctuation to be separate name/titles attatched to Jesus in prophecy. Further, by the choice of "name WILL be called" ,suggesting a prophecy as is in many translations, rather than "name IS called" ,as is in others, the translators are doing "interpretive" translating.No Gospel writer used this verse in this way dispite it's seeming usefullness for proving the divinity of the Christ figure. This like all passages used by modern and first/second century Christian apologists must be wrenched from the original context and reinterpreted to be seen as prophecies about Jesus.
I had to correct my wording, sorry if I confused anyone. I also changed the title hoping to attract some responses.Edited by - peacefulpete on 8 January 2003 11:40:31
Edited by - peacefulpete on 8 January 2003 12:19:32
Edited by - peacefulpete on 8 January 2003 13:16:39
Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 2:23:58
-
14
Who Created Jehovah (Yahweh)?
by Satanus inwhy, the jews, of course.
they wrote the ot god stories that collesced into the entity that ended up being called yahweh.
chistians stole their god from them, renovated him, gave him psychotherapy, then gave him new life.
-
-
peacefulpete
interesting post ss. These legends probable reflect a thread of historicity. There is in fact every reason to believe that Solomon was like David a mythological King. His name means "peace" and is a literary cue that this charactor was invented or reshaped. David meaning "beloved" is pulled right from the story of how this favored warrior king was beloved of Yaweh. Also the story parallels other nations "golden age" of legendary kings. Golden temples also were the stuff of legend. The divine temple plan of 3 chambers with a Most Holy reserved for high priest is found throughout the Middle East in various ancient cultures. Not unless the rest of these cultures had earlier received the same dream could we say the design was "inspired". Every element from animal sacrifice,circumsision,cherubs(winged bulls),Seraphs(winged,firey serpants),seasonal harvest festivals,sabath,legal code,covenants with patron god on smoking mountains, even the name YHWH were extractions from neighboring tribes and civilizations. Yesterday I learned the eponym Adonai (lord,master) is nothing but the hebrew pronuciation of Adonis(lord, master) the Phoenician-Syrian god whose worshipers were forbidden to eat pork.
It is time to move on in our lives, and stop raking over coals long dead seeking enlightenment.
-
50
The Book of Daniel
by SwedishChef inthe following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.
it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".
modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.
-
-
peacefulpete
I said I would detail my earlier comment and so I will dispite the belligerence displayed by swedishchef. The author of Daniel was writing at a time of unparallelled persecution of the Jews. Antiochus VI Epiphanes had initiated a pogrom of the jewish religion and culture in 168 BC. First I must repeat that a modern Christian reading of the passage has contributed to the confusion. So I will use the Jewish Publiation Society transltion. The context in chapter 9 is clearly about Isreal and specifically Jerusalem, the chapter opens...seventy years are repeated as the symbolic time of cleasing Isreal in Babylon. Actual time was 49-50 years.(587-538bc)as most scholars agree. The writer of Daniel himself uses this 49 year period as the first leg (7 weeks)of a period he calls 70 weeks (of years.) He declares that at the end of these 7 weeks an "anointed one, a prince" will appear.This is reasonably referring to high priest Joshuah and possible Zerubbabel as both are referred to as "anointed" or alternately the phrase can properly be understood to mean both...an anointed one and a prince. These were of course the key leaders at the time of return to "rebuild and restore" Jerusalem. The following 62 weeks are "troubled times" but Jerusalem is standing with "squares and conduit".Then it continues.."an anointed one will be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy( or desecrate) the city and the sanctuary."
Who was this second anointed one? High priest Onias III was deposed and later killed (170 bc)by Antiochus and his henchmen. He desecratd the temple by sacrificing to Baal Shamen on the alter, (167 bc)he turned the city over to the Syrian garrison and may have even forcibly displaced the entire jewish population. The city itself was sacked in 168 BC. (1 macc.1:29).
The "firm covenant with many for one week"(7 years) made by this invading prince(Antiochus)refers to the league with the hellenizing Jews referred to in 1 Macc.1:43. After 3 1/2 years the invading prince "shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease." According to 1 Macc 1:54-4:58 the temple was then out of service to the Jews from 15 Chislev 167 BC till 25 Chislev 164 BC. It was then that our author speaks of imminent exterminaion of these invading Syrians with their Prince. This last element is the only part that was written before the fact and the author had confidence that YHWH would see the rampant corruption and repeat a great cleansing destruction as he had done in Noah's and Moses' day (flood allusion in verse 26).
The above time span of course do not equal exactly 490 years. This is not at all surprising as the author may not have known the precise year of exile into Babylon. Or he did know, the seventy weeks period was symbolic as was the seventy years period. 7 and 70, as has been often comented on here, were astrologically significant numbers and their use in these passages may be for that reason. The details of the text match actual history and therefore justify the explanation offered here. The Christian version of this "prophecy" was not in vogue for hundreds of years after Christ and then not in the form used today. The numbers must be played with and the text strained to make it appear to apply to Jesus.
Edited by - peacefulpete on 8 January 2003 2:3:55
-
53
Staying Awake Or Keeping In A Frenzy?
by AlanF inwe ex-jws know very well how much the watchtower society put us under pressure to believe that "armageddon is just around the corner".
they've been doing it in one form or another ever since charles taze russell began publishing his nonsense.
in 1877 he advocated that true christians should believe that christ would "take them home" in 1878. when that didn't happen he moved the event up to 1881. after that he focused on 1914.. the society is still doing pretty much the same thing, building up expectations and then revising them, decade after decade.
-
-
peacefulpete
At least 10 years ago they changed their position on 2 Tim 3 being a "sign" at all. At the time it was refreshing as many knew the the Romans passage was near verbatim and was spoken of as cotemporaneous with the writer. It was then simply remarked that these ungodly traits would CONTINUE until the end came. It was not more than a few mags later that it was again referred to as a sign. I only want to add that these verses reflect the standard apocolyptic motif of tragic and difficult events escalating into a Divine battle of good vs. evil. This is why the writer of Daniel imagined he was living in the end days as he witnessed religious division and political autrocities of the middle 2nd centuy BC.
-
15
My JW Wife Is Going To See Harry Potter Tonight!
by SpannerintheWorks ini thought jws were discouraged from subjects such as witchcraft, wizardry, magic etc.
i've not asked yet, but i wonder why she feels it's all right to go and see a "demon" picture!
and her dad (elder) has read all the hp books!
-
-
peacefulpete
Rarely does the Wt condemn movies by name. Although it has. And although it is true that some circuits are more liberal than others (British Columbia for example) generally any movie, show or book featuring witchcraft or ghosts etc. is strongly discouraged as an invitation for demons to trouble you and your family. A little usolicited advice, I hope you think twice before throwing this at her. If she is going, she likely is already uncomfortable about it and if you remind her of her training she is likely to stay home and feel like a martyr. Her final unreasonablness may be worse than the former. Sometimes it is best to quietly let people test the waters on their own and draw their own conclusions about what is acceptable. Besides noone likes to be shown to be a hypocrite.
-
14
Wish I wasn't wishy-washy!
by rebel inno - i'm not talking about the pantomime character.
i'm talking about my beliefs.. i really envy those of you who say "there is no god" or "there is a god" because at least you have a belief one way or the other.
some say they believe in the trinity, others say it is rubbish, some say when we die we go to heaven, others say we go to the grave, others say there is no resurrection hope.
-
-
peacefulpete
Resent it all you like. But I was actually refering to fundamentalism. I have friends who are Wicca and the same retreat of the mind to give place for belief has taken place in them. Most are frank about this. And tell me that "more exists than can be proven" or something like that. To which I say "sure, but what has been proven answers all my questions. And I hate the smell of incense."
Edited by - peacefulpete on 7 January 2003 13:55:37
-
50
The Book of Daniel
by SwedishChef inthe following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.
it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".
modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.
-
-
peacefulpete
onacruse...I will provide details later as the book is not handy this morning, but the 70 weeks prophecy is part of the reason scholars attribute the work to an author around the time of the rededication of the temple. Other extent texts from this period reveal similar expectation of imminent liberation of the jews. The translating these passages by Christians has slightly tainted the reading in our Bibles. The reading in a jewish translation gives an entirely different meaning.The mesiah in the verse was the high priest (anointed) who was killed by Antiochus three years after the rededication. The whole passage has been warped from it's meaning. This is by the way in part why dates of Isreal's return are set as they are. And why Jesus is believed by many to have died in 33ce without solid corroborating evidence. In fact there are many different suggestions as to this date using various methods. Later I will explain in detail.
-
10
Link Between Obesity, Premature Death
by Sam Beli inas a kid growing up in the jw world it always bothered me that the wts placed so little emphasis on obesity when it sought to place so much control on other aspects of the life of the rank-in-file.
personally, i have no use for smoking, but i always thought that being overweight was at least as "bad" as smoking for ones health and i never understood why they ignored (and left in place fat elders) obesity while dfing smokers.
it seemed hypocritical to me; still does.
-
-
peacefulpete
Not to defend any position of the JWs but this is not a legitimate beef. Smoking is a voluntary behavior and in at least SOME cases obesity results from pychological and/or physical abnormalities. It is like saying really tall people should be df'd. And no I'm not overweight. I do remember a funny comment made some years ago in the WT made in an effort to define gluttony. It remarked that "if your days activities revolve around your meals then you may have an idolotrous view of food". Guess thats everyone.
-
14
Wish I wasn't wishy-washy!
by rebel inno - i'm not talking about the pantomime character.
i'm talking about my beliefs.. i really envy those of you who say "there is no god" or "there is a god" because at least you have a belief one way or the other.
some say they believe in the trinity, others say it is rubbish, some say when we die we go to heaven, others say we go to the grave, others say there is no resurrection hope.
-
-
peacefulpete
Your feelings are those of billions of fellow humans, even among those "devout" the faith is sythetic, forced by necessity. This is the result of 400 years of revelations that have made the concept of a beneficent Universal King manifestly outdated. Not just science but social and economic change have created a world wherein certainty is a liablity. Bible interpretors in an effort to defend it have reduced the book to symbolism and morally edifying literature. Others have discarded rational thought to preserve a measure of the "old time religion" of their ancestors. Frustration presides in debates rather than the peaceful resolution of faith.The modern skeptic does not wantonly reject belief as churchgoers assert. Our situaton is more serious , with the best of intentions we simply find ourselves not quite believing. It is into this void that humanism will eventually rise. It will not have the power to blind as religion of the past but it can unite in a sense of community. But for now know that there is nothing wrong with you and your approach has been admirable. Do not deny yourself the joy of learning. The advice to stop and smell the roses is of course healthy but stopping the education is not.The next step may be to ask the whys. Why does belief in gods not go away? why do people believe in angels, demons and UFOs even today? Why am I drawn to these concepts dispite my seeing nothing to recommend them? As a suggestion please read :How We Believe,the search for God in an age of reason by Michael Shermer. It and books of its kind provide valuable insight into the human mind. This is where much of your uncertainty will vanish. You can get it at the Skeptic Society web page in hardcover for $10.00. It will have anther price listed but it is on sale. I remember all too well your feelings, but be assured you can reach the light at the end of the tunnel as long as you keep moving forward. Best wishes.
Edited by - peacefulpete on 7 January 2003 10:42:40