Posts by David

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!

David_Jay

Purrpurr,

There are also certain key features to Daniel besides how the Jews traditionally view the book that support the mainstream views, such as:

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 atfer 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.

The Book of Daniel pokes fun at Babylonian political and religious culture by satirically mocking the way the Chaldeans made formal listings of everything. The author employs this technique in the narrative section of the book when describing things the Babylonians were highly serious about and felt we all so important. The author does this in describing the astrologers, wise men, political figures and the musical calls to worship to the point that it gets ridiculous. Because Babylon is no more, the author can get away with it.--Daniel 3.2,3, 5, 7, 15, etc. as one set of examples.

The Book of Daniel describes a historical event that actually involved Nabonidus, father of Belshazzar, as happening to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4. The all-important tree dream used by Jehovah's Witnesses is nothing more than a narrative device aimed at countering the pride of the Seleucid dynasty of the period of the book's composition. By claiming that God did this to Nebuchadnezzar, once considered Babylon's greatest ruler, the author was implying it would happen to the proud officials of his day even more easily. History knows for sure that these events happened to Nabonidus who went to live in Teima during his "madness." The historical notion was strengthened by the discovery of the Prayer of Nabonidus among the Qumran scrolls.

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.

The book, nevertheless, has great value as it is one of the few links the Jews have in their Scriptures to God's redemption during the days leading to the rise of the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) and the rededication of the Temple (Hanukkah). Christians see in the reference to the composite Jewish nation (called "son of man" in Daniel 7.13, 14) a foreshadow predicting the coming of Christ, so it is not totally disconnected to the future.

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!

David_Jay

I'm Jewish, returned to that after leaving the JW religion. So here is some more that will probably shock you.

The Book of Daniel is not located among the other prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible. It is found among the writings, like the books of Ruth, Samuel, and Kings.

Daniel is not one of the Jewish prophets. We have an official list of men and women who were prophets to our people, and Daniel was not one of them.

There are many legends about Daniel, and the book with his name just happens to be the most famous of them all. There was likely a historical Daniel, but he likely lived many years before the deportation to Babylon. Daniel is known for being a Jew who, due to circumstances unknown, ended up living among the Gentiles, proving faithful to the Law despite being separated from his people. But if there was such a real man, he died long before the stories in Daniel take place.

Daniel is a legendary figure used by Jews to teach moral lessons. Unlike what JWs teach, the character of "Daniel" is merely a Jewish ideal, like Uncle Sam is for the USA. The Biblical book has two parts, the first where Daniel is used to teach Jews living during the Hasmonean period to "be more like Daniel" who resisted giving up his culture despite living within another. The second-half is an apocalypse, a story of hope written as if Jews have a prophecy from "Daniel" promising that the foreign powers that had invaded Israel at the time and dedicated the Temple to a heathen deity would be vanquished.

Catholics and mainstream Protestants also agree. Yep, this ain't news to the rest of the world either. Since the 1950s, and even earlier in some quarters (a little later in others) Christianity in general adopted this view through critical analysis. Today it is the common view of almost all Christians as well as Jews.

While Christians still find a few texts in Daniel being prophetic of Jesus, they are minor ones. Even the 70 weeks prophecy is no longer used in mainstream Christianity as a prophecy about Jesus.

Two NRSV major study or annotated editions will give more information, as will the NABRE official US Catholic Bible or the NJB with study notes used mostly in the UK. The new CEB study edition has great information on it, as do all Jewish commentaries and study books.

3

The Ten Commandments in stone / the Golden Calf in gold.....,Pose a problem for GOD?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

in exodus 32 aaron made a golden calf at the jews request from the gold jewelry they had in their possession .. did they use more common sense / ability than jehovah ?.

problem 1 .would the egyptians have allowed them to flee with their valuable possessions ?

( side point ).

David_Jay

Many Jewish exegetes see these stories you mention as allegorical details. While there might have been genuine historical basis for what was written, the point for these interpreters is how and why the composition is presented.

The detail that the Egyptians were "stripped" by the exiting slaves is a cultural detail, shared not only by the Jews, but their neighbors in Egypt and Ur. The items represent the "spoils of war." The cultures from that area would take the riches of the conquered, which these had usually dedicated to their own gods, to show defeat over not only the conquered nations but also its deities. Note that it is from these items that the tabernacle and its utensils are later built, but previous attempts to use them to make a golden calf get rebuked. This is a symbol that these were not meant to be spoils for the Israelites as much as spoils for God who "defeated" the Egyptians. They are "God's spoils of war" and not those of Israel. Whether the Israelites historically took such things from their taskmasters is not as important as how they are used in the morality plays that follow.

And as for the Ten Commandments: note that the version followed by the Israelites as God's Word is not the version inscribed by God but the second pair inscribed by the "hand of Moses," a human being.

Again this is also an allegorical morality play, regardless of its historical validity. The lesson is that God uses humans to transmit his laws, that without tempering divine revelation with human hands and interpretation the result would have been slavery again but this time to divine standards. Blindly following divine revelation without adjusting it for humanity is not God's intention as God's commands must also be fitted to the current needs of humans.

Granted these ideas may seem shocking to some so used to Watchtower interpretation. I had a lengthy argument with several Fundamentalist Christians who felt it was wrong for Jews to view their own written texts this way, that unless these were viewed as historically correct details the Jewish exegesis was false, even audacious. "Who do those Jews think they are to be interpreting the Bible that way?" one even said to me. But for whatever it's worth, it is one approach that Jews find popular to build their theology upon, though it is not meant to be exhaustive or the only possibility, nor does it claim there are not problems with the text it interprets.

It should be noted that my posting this information in no way should be construed as any personal investment in it or representative of my personal convictions. The above is merely a posting of generalities of exegetical approaches taken from several Jewish sources which were not created by me and I don't necessarily subscribe to any of them personally,

22

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

by Tenacious in

(cnsnews.com) -- dr. michio kaku [1], a theoretical physicist [2] at the city college of new york (cuny) and co-founder of string field theory [3], says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.. after analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, kaku concluded [4] that the universe is a “matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.. “i have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.

believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” kaku said, according [5] to an article published in the geophilosophical association of anthropological and cultural studies.. “to me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”.

“the final solution resolution could be that god is a mathematician,” kaku, author of the future of the mind: the scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind [6], said in a 2013 big think video [7]posted on youtube.. “the mind of god, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”.

David_Jay

When I was 13 my family and I moved out of our house because it got too difficult to live in it.

Objects would fly out of closets and crash against walls. Hanging light fixtures would begin to swing, sometimes violently, all on their own. Curtains and blinds would open and close, sometimes slowly, sometimes with sudden force. Tables shook and moved. Horrible sounds would come from the middle of the house in the dead of night. It was frightening.

My sister said it was proof of evil spirits and ghosts of the dead, and therefore she believes to this day that wicked and inhuman spirits caused the events we all witnessed growing up.

What does this have to do with the subject. A lot.

While I have to admit that most people who hear of such things will say that I lived in a haunted house, and speaking conventionally I can't come up for a different set of words for it, yet just because these things happened (and yes, just because it more than often frightened all us, parents included), I can't say that what we witnessed was evidence or proof of anything.

Mind you, I'm a theist. I believe in God and spirits, etc. But just because we experienced a series of inexplicable phenomenon in a house we grew up doesn't mean that such was proof positive of ghosts, spirits, the supernatural, demons, life after death, etc. All I can say is we went through some pretty scary days and nights living there and left because we could not deal with what it was like. Who knows what caused it?

Just because you can't explain something or most people would come to a certain conclusion does not mean you have proof positive for such-and-such. Sure it could have been ghosts or spirits (if such exist) but just because a rocking chair moves back and forth on its own while you hear disembodied laughter doesn't mean you have a ghost or spirit behind it. You only have have evidence that when you see something like that, it scares you.

Just because you see a UFO doesn't mean you have proof positive that alien life exists. It is only proof that you saw an object flying that you can't identify.

Even though I believe in God, I don't think there is empirical evidence for God. The Jewish view of God is that God is transcendent, which means God can't be measured, poked, tested, etc. A God you could sample and manipulate, even parts of, to test and have mortals define as fitting their definition of a deity isn't much of a God, in my humble opinion.

Maybe a scientist or two is on to something, but maybe, like so many others, being so desperate to prove their own convictions right they are anxious to make conclusions that may not really be there under disinterested re-testing.

Again, I'm a theist. I'm not so convinced by this or other claims of empirical evidence of God.

Not everything that goes bump in the night is a ghost. Just because it scares you and just because you can't find any other explanation that fits what you think it must be doesn't mean your dead Uncle Carl is trying to play Ouija with you.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

David_Jay

Myelaine,

There are definitive answers for each of these, and they are very simple. The first you don't even attempt. The second you attempt to change from Jesus' statement of food to hand washing (the answer is about food only). And you flat out tell me you didn't know the third, which at least was honest.

So if you who claim to have all this spiritual insight or at least expect me to see your answers as trustworthy, if you are suddenly going to give me answers like: I don't know...Well, then I am going to do what Jesus did when those he questioned answered him the same way.--See Matthew 21.23-27.

If you are going to challenge someone on a forum and demand answers from them, then you need to be able to answer back. Otherwise you can't expect your own posts to be viewed as efficacious. But to merely answer back, "I don't know" like those who opposed Jesus after he questioned them, then I will be like Jesus and tell you, "Neither will I answer your questions."

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

David_Jay

Myelaine,

If you answer these Scriptural questions for me, then I will believe that your current convictions represent the truth of God. But fail to answer them and it will prove you are on the wrong path:

1. If the Bible is true, how did the livestock of the Egyptians keep coming back to life during the plagues? In Exodus 9.6 the Bible states that the 5th plague killed all the livestock owned by the Egyptians. Then during the 7th plague in Ex 9.13-26 the Egyptians all of sudden have livestock again, and those who believe that God was bringing the hail bring their livestock in but those who leave them out subject their livestock to death once again. Then, though most of these animals have died before, the firstborn from among them die once more during Passover as stated in Ex 12.29. How could the same livestock die three times?

2. Mark 7.19 states that Jesus declared "all foods clean," but at Acts 10.14 Peter tells the Lord that he, himself is still eating according to kosher rules and that he in fact still considers some food "unclean." Mark is said to have derived his Gospel account from Peter, yet Peter responds in Acts as if he never heard of Jesus' teaching in Mark. How is this?

3. Many Christians reject the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon) which is found in the Catholic canon, but Wisdom 2.12-20 has one of the clearest and detailed prophecies of the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish leaders, including their motives and behavior that led up to his Passion and death. How can this be if it was not inspired? Where did the author get such information on how the Messiah would be rejected?

14

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Pretending to Be Alive?

by David_Jay in

according to market analysis, the e-book market has taken a dip in 2015. because companies that publish e-books can (and do) monitor the use of the e-books materials they release, not only their sales but the individual e-book’s use gets tracked.

companies like amazon and kobo as well as nielsen book research in the uk all report that while the format remains popular, sales have dipped more than a quarter last year in some places like britain, and that hard copies of books still are preferred.. amazon (u.s.a.) sales figures give an example of how things are working on the world scene.

for instance non-fiction hard copy printed books sales (including religion) made up a healthy 42% of their purchased books in 2015. in the same category, however, e-books made up only 6% of the sales.. kobo monitored its e-book sales and found that 60% of the electronic versions never even got opened.

David_Jay

According to market analysis, the e-book market has taken a dip in 2015. Because companies that publish e-books can (and do) monitor the use of the e-books materials they release, not only their sales but the individual e-book’s use gets tracked. Companies like Amazon and Kobo as well as Nielsen Book Research in the UK all report that while the format remains popular, sales have dipped more than a quarter last year in some places like Britain, and that hard copies of books still are preferred.

Amazon (U.S.A.) sales figures give an example of how things are working on the world scene. For instance non-fiction hard copy printed books sales (including religion) made up a healthy 42% of their purchased books in 2015. In the same category, however, e-books made up only 6% of the sales.

Kobo monitored its e-book sales and found that 60% of the electronic versions never even got opened.

Amazon UK reported that 15% of its e-book sales were made up of Amazon and self-published titles and not mainstream publications.

While paperback sales have still exceeded hardback over the recent years, printed copies of books continue to be popular and sell far more than e-books. In the field of religion, printed Bibles and other religious books are still highly prized in their printed form and often preferred. The printed Bible market has seen soaring numbers, with printed Catholic Bibles becoming one of the most expansive genre of religious printing in recent years.

Non-mainstream publications made up around 2% of the e-book market according to some reports for 2015. Tablets and e-readers are still inaccessible to large numbers around the world, even in developed countries.

The United Bible Societies, while having some of their publications they distribute available to e-readers, has seen a surge in their Bible publication and distribution work. In 2014 the UBS distributed 428.2 million copies of the Bible, in whole or in part, around the world in a dizzying number of languages. That was a 17% increase in partial Bibles from 2010-2014 and a record 14% rise in full Bibles over the same period. Almost all these numbers are printed hard copy books.

To concentrate on merely e-books like the Watchtower is now doing would signal a death knell not merely for mainstream publishing but the UBS as well. Hard copy printing is only increasing, especially in the field of Bibles and religious materials, and despite the convenience of tablet readers and e-books. The demand for a hard copy book is only growing in 2016.

In the face of this, it seems odd that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is printing less and less. The demand that Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world rely on tablets and electronic book readers is not indicative that it is measuring or even considering the needs and demands of the public at large. Either those running the show are ignorant of what it means to run a real Bible society or they cannot continue to do so for other reasons.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

David_Jay

Maybe I should explain what I don’t believe in.

I don’t believe that religion of any kind holds all the answers, neither on an individual or worldwide basis. But I don’t believe that just because something is a “religion” somehow automatically disqualifies it from being something good.

I don’t believe that living one’s life according to an ancient text, as if it was the basis for all truth, is logical. To me the Bible is the Word of God, but it’s not an exhaustive font.

I don’t believe that atheism or agnosticism have no value. On the contrary, I know the world will be a lot better if we listen more than we speak, if we use a little more logic than blind zeal, and if we apply more critical analysis than credulity. I don’t think we can put faith, hope, and trust on the side (how can we have faith in one another if we do?), but neither do I believe that such or any other real virtues are the exclusive property of religion.

I don’t think that the Judeo-Christian model of religion is superior, though I am a Jew. I don’t think that it is somehow more valuable, more “right” than Islam or Buddhism. But I also know there is a significant difference between the Catholic nun who spends her days bringing medicine and food to people in slums regardless if they ever convert and the Jehovah’s Witness who spreads false doctrine while judging all who do not accept his pamphlets as worthy of death in an imminent Armageddon.

I don’t believe religion is supposed to give you all the answers.

I don’t believe religion makes you better than a person who chooses not to be religious.

I also don’t believe that having faith that a mountain will move and waiting for God to move it is what Jesus had in mind when he said “faith can move mountains.” If you don’t get up and attempt to move the mountain itself, then you don’t really have the faith that God will help you move it.

And lastly I don’t believe in “believing” in God. Having a “mental concept” that God exists and fighting any doubt from coming in to challenge my ability to hold on to this conviction of the mind is a waste of precious time, mine and God’s.

If I really believe there is a God, and I mean in a real way that makes that “belief” really mean something, I shouldn’t have to preach it or advertise it or print it up on a flashy website or well-illustrated book. Real things don’t need such trappings.

My “belief” will be visible in how I don’t judge others. It will show in how I spend my time to be part of the solution, not one who complains there is a problem.

It will be apparent in how I am more interested in you and what you cherish and in supporting you when you are down and need my help than converting you to my way of thinking. It will shine through in how I leave my precious beliefs and what I feel comfortable behind to fight outside my comfort zone for something that is right and important for you because you are more friend or neighbor.

And my belief in God should never make you feel like I think you have to change whatever you are or whatever you believe in order to be happy. It should build you up in whatever you believe (or choose not to believe in).

And lastly, it doesn’t have to be based in things that have “proof.” I can’t always prove that I have love in my heart, but I can show it. Some will likely judge my convictions as blind credulity, and that is their right, but they should never be able to say I leave them without proof by my actions, by what I do.

God is not what we believe in or don’t believe in. It’s less important to argue about such things if we can’t keep from hating one another or killing one another or seeing ourselves as “us” and building up walls to separate us from “them.” If we don’t get along with what and who we can see, it’s a little illogical to argue and debate about something or someone we can’t.

I can say that I believe this and that all day long, debate it with you until I am breathless even. But it really define me. What I am and what I do with my life defines me, not the creed I chisel into some lifeless stone.

9

Fact : 1 We live in the 21st Century Fact : 2 Why do we tolerate Religions of yesteryear that dominate ,interfere with our progress

by smiddy in

jw
friends

why in this 21st century are we still cow towing to religions that are based in the distant past, of thousands of years ago , whether it be christian islam or whatever.?

and not to restrict it to just those two , but all ancient religions.. all of them are hypocritical , on the one hand rejecting modern day society and it`s technology and on the other hand embracing it for their own advantage .. when is the human race ever going to rid itself of pie in the sky beliefs.?.

smiddy.

David_Jay

Of course religion is not any more ancient than atheism. Atheists may have often found themselves to be in the minority in many cultures, and at different times but they are not new nor have they all been free of making humans bow in slavery to their non-religious ideals (North Korean leaders are just one example).

Humanity has the ability to embrace the transcendent, the intangible, the dream. Even secular cultures have their mythology. Did George Washington really chop down a cherry tree as a child and claim he cannot tell a lie? Call it by any name you want but we are a people who put our ideals into morality plays and place these on high pedestals to admire, secular or not.

Perhaps the question is can humans ever have a philosophy, view, or set of convictions that can ever prevent us from our own failings, that prevent our darker sides from taking over?

Whether it is a religion that throws stones at its own prophets and burns them at the stake or a regime that outlaws relgious thought and replaces it with poverty and oppression, can humans ever have any ideals that we won't twist into an excuse to do the evil we often believe we can never do?

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

David_Jay

I pushed the "Post Reply" button to early. I meant to add...

Being objective isn't easy for many, and I am no different. But I do try to standup and argue for things that are right, even if they are things I don't necessarily find appealing, things I would not subscribe to, things which I don't like. Sometimes, I humbly believe, you have to support things outside your comfort zone not because you practice them, but because it is right.

I cannot say you don't do that, but I have come to understand it is a bit more rare than I ever thought it was for people to take up a side of an argument that they are not personally invested in. This is a new thing for me.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay