Posts by KalebOutWest

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

KalebOutWest

My trip resumes today. I will be out of range for quite some time. All my best.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

KalebOutWest

What I often tell students is there is one question just as important as "What is true?" And that is: "Why are you asking?"

While most of what we understand about the authors of Scripture is based on critical theory and thus subject to change as we gather more data and understand it better, we do have a clear conclusions made by sound methodology and agreed consensus.

In Judaism we have something called "argument for the sake of heaven" meaning debate between sages for the sake of finding a right answer or solution. There is also "argument for sake of victory" which one does with an opponent just to win a battle for the sake of pride.

When there are sound answers based on sound, proven critical methods, one should employ them. If one does not trust them, one should learn the methods used to arrive at the answers. Many scholars and academics over many generations often worked hard to arrive at finding the solution they have provided, 'arguing for the sake of heaven,' so to speak.

But one cannot come to a solution on their own. A critical answer is not a critical answer if it is not tested by independent and disinterested parties and then the work approved and accepted by consensus. Otherwise it is just a personal opinion. When you stick to this view and worse, try to promote it view debate, it is an "argument for the sake of pride."

There are many possible solutions to who wrote Daniel but there is also a general consensus on the matter based on a very sound critical methodology. In fact, there is almost no tradition whatsoever used for Daniel's authorship. It comes from Judaism and is highly critical of both the religion, the history of my people, and the history of the Hasmoneans themselves.

For many exJWs this is not easy. Trust in authority is not something they are likely to do a second time in life, even if it comes from a "trusted source," or especially if it comes from a so called "authorized" source. Most I've talked to from the Watchtower do not avail themselves of mainstream materials but cling to something or more often someone with a particular unique idea. They seem to identify with the independent over the learned, and I don't blame them when the Governing Body lied to them by claiming they were learned and authorized though they were neither.

Also learning the various methods is not something that is simple without personal experience. Sometimes taught in primary educational systems, it usually isn't found until secondary, and most Jehovah's Witnesses aren't ever taught how it is done, especially in reference to Biblical studies.

Instead of inventing the wheel, I can only offer the advice of finding out for yourself why you are searching for answers that already have a consensus. Why are you not satisfied with what is out there? If it is because you are a learned scholar, I understand. But you would not be here. Academics don't learn in a vacuum. Scholars have jobs with schools and academies, etc. You learn with other academics.

Only you you can answer this question. You can't find the answers you need until this one gets settled.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

KalebOutWest

I have been approached by several scholars of now popular, mainstream Bible translations who had questions about how everyday liturgical Hebrew users employ certain things. I got a chance to ask them how they settle things when they "favor" one view over another.

For the most part, they agreed to always do the same thing. Do the most painful, and follow the data of someone who checks your methodology for bugs. If your method is solid and your conclusion has support, that is what you "favor."

But never go with your gut. Don't follow your belief system. Don't choose what you like. Reject what sounds novel. If someone checks your method and says, "Sorry kid, do it again..." Well, it doesn't feel good, but you got to let it go.

When in doubt, throw it out. If it's right, there'll be light.

"I don't know" is also a correct answer.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

Scholar,

And all I asked is why you can't read Hebrew?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

Why should I, a Jew, whose third language is English, translate a paper from years and years ago out of the language it was primarily written?

Can't you read Hebrew? I can speak English. And several other languages as well as sign in two different forms of sign language.

If you are a scholar, why do you need anything translated for you?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

Scholar,

You would like me to post a dissertation of 270+ pages that is written Hebrew here?

Jewish culteral studies, bubbale. That was some time ago in Tel Aviv. What on earth do you want with that old thing? Do you even know what is on it?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

KalebOutWest

You may think I am 110% crazy for doing this:

Jeffro is correct. Everything, absolutely everything Jeffro has stated is right.

I teach Jewish cultural studies, and have even done a thesis on VAT 4956.

Though it helps to supply us with the date for the Exile, it is pretty much an boring piece of rock that nobody but Jehovah's Witnesses worry about these days.

It's a significant find, mind you, and it plays a most important point in astronomical and historical science. But so much of this has already been confirmed by other methods.

We may have our differences, but Jeffro's work here is solid. Running a computer simulation and drawing cartoon pictures won't teach you anything new that centuries of watching these things play out in the heavens and using good ole math can't.

Besides, it's written in stone.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

KalebOutWest

I would rather become one of Jehovah's Witnesses once again.

Talk to Jeffro. He apparently claims to be far more versed on any subject than me. This is what you will be left with.

And if it makes you feel better, Jeffro: I am completely wrong. I know nothing. I never have. You are 100% right about everything. Apologies. I am sorry to have ever doubted you.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

KalebOutWest

The dates do not fluctuate. New information has changed since that older article on MyJewishLearning you searched for to back up your insufferable need to correct everyone on this forum and belie your lack of education.

There has been an influx of new data since the beginning of the 21st century that set the date to 164 BCE.

Hanukkah commemorates the Maccabean (Hasmonean) victories over the forces of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164 BCE) and the rededication of the Temple on Kislev 25, 164 BCE. --https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hanukkah

And while I hate to use it, the data has also found its way here:

Timeline:
164 BCE: The Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy is successful in recapturing the Temple, which is liberated and rededicated (Hanukkah).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah

I never said there was new information regarding where Antiochus died. I wrote that we may have a new picture of who the man was when he died, which is very different. He still died in the year I claimed:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes , (born c. 215—died 164 BC, Tabae, Iran), Seleucid king of the Hellenistic Syrian kingdom (175–164 BC). --https://www.britannica.com/summary/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes

This is what I wrote. If you don't personally agree with the majority of academia, guess what? Academia doesn't care.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

KalebOutWest

Jeffro, your citation from MyJewishLearning is based on a book Celebrate! The Complete Jewish Holiday Handbook. It was published in the year 2000.

Mine didn't even come from that website. Around 2015 or so academics began questioning not only the dates we had been using but regarding what was usually believed to have occured (i.e., had there even been a battle to win back the Temple or did a dying Seleucid king graciously give it back?).

The date was moved up to 164, to coincide with new data on the death of Antiochus as no battle in 165 can be confirmed. You are aware of the "no battle, Antiochus just gave it back and the Hasmoneans lied" theory that is gaining in several quarters, no?

I merely pointed to the later article in MyJewishLearning that uses the new dates to save time. Most of what I have is in books. You can, obviously, find multiple articles on that site using data that has not been updated or support various views since Judaism is a spectrum. I was only using it to show you a recently published article that employ the 164 date.

I am on my way to a trip to prepare for Purim. While I don't have time for anymore, I want to thank all of you for this short break. It's been fun.