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

Vidqun,

I had to walk away due to a telephone call. But I do have one thing to add in conclusion.

Appreciating your convictions and points, I also don't want you to see this as a cop out on my part. To illustrate how some of your points you presented may not stand under scrutiny, let me demonstrate a mistake you have been making in how you read my statements. You wrote:

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.

The Scripture texts I cited do not claim that Daniel lived during the time of Job or Noah, nor could that be considered the point. None of these persons listed are considered contemporaries in Judaism or their Scriptures, so how did you arrive at this interpretation of my words?

Neither did I claim that they were contemporaries in my writing. I merely stated that Daniel is a Jewish hero, and was considered to be one of those heroes before the Babylonian deportation according to Jewish history, Jewish legends, and the Scripture texts from Ezekiel.

You concluded something due to your point of view. That is natural, but this caused you to project these mistaken views onto my comments and you have reached incorrect conclusions.

Ask yourself: why did I conclude that David was saying Daniel was a contemporary of Noah and Job? How did I miss the actual point? Could views or habits learned while a JW still be lingering and keeping me from reading texts or comments colored by a particular approach? Could anything else I've concluded be based on a similar misreading, regardless of the cause, and could a more objective reading help me at least comprehend what was originally written and its aim?

Try to be a little more objective next time to avoid making conclusions never suggested by the material of others. It will help you understand them better, even if you never end up agreeing with them.

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

Vidqun,

Thanks for your critique.

Do note that though I am a Jew, I do not necessarily share the views I've posted that you have worked through. They represent a very brief explanation of certain Jewish theological theories and views but not necessarily my own. They are also not in any to be taken as exhaustive.

Because of this your very well-written comments have little effect on what I wrote as they aren't original personal views or convictions that I can change. There is, however, far greater explanations with even more pertinent and far more reliable data in multiple Jewish sources, as well as conflicting views.

Believe me, there are far greater minds than mine who developed such thoughts as I expressed, and your arguments can only be with them as only they can change them or declare you have a point. I cannot change views that aren't my own or that I don't even possess.

The information was presented to show there are counterpoints to consider. Unlike the JWs who see things in extremes, Judaism acknowledges that there is likely to be alternative views and those yet undiscovered that can only add to a better understanding regarding theology. Things are rarely "one thing or the other, but not both" as in Watchtowerland.

20

WT Article - David Versus Goliath—Did It Really Happen?

by ttdtt in

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no5-2016-september/david-versus-goliath-real/.

the article ends with this:.

there is no real basis for doubting the truthfulness of this historical account.

David_Jay

In Judaism we do not treat this account as literal history. It is more like legends told in American heritage history, like Washington chopping down a cherry tree and confessing it as a youth. The literary device used in Jewish Scripture is somewhat identical in purpose.

The text shows redactions added over the generations until the section was finalized into the form accepted as Scripture. The size of the enemy is obviously a narrative device to compare him to the "tiny" David, but it's creative liberties used to teach reliance on the Hebrew God gets lost when they are minimized or ignored by calling it literal history.

The legendary account actual contains a "legend within a legend." While originally meant to be a story like the young George Washington, the way the original story came to be repeated in Judaism was later added as a secondary addition within the original text. The later redaction is found within the original story, set by the latter author(s) at 1 Samuel 17.12-31, with details added in vss. 50-52 and a conclusion added in 17.55-18.5.

20

UPDATE: My existential crisis comes to a close

by Freeandclear in

jw
friends

in case you read my other thread regarding my existential crisis and how it was making my life miserable and left me feeling hopeless, purposeless and joyless i though i'd share what's recently happened to me and my way of thinking and have i've for the time being resolved my existential crisis.

i write every day in a journal.

i've been doing this for years.

David_Jay

I'm a religious man, and while what I practice may be quite opposite of a lot of people, I don't think I ever thought that without belief in God there would be "no hope, despair, and misery," as you put it.

I have a lot of friends who are atheist, I love them dearly, and I don't know any who are without hope, who are in despair or miserable. They have different convictions, yes, but aren't any less happy as I can tell.

Now I am very glad you have found peace with your state in life. Don't get me wrong. I myself am at peace on the path I walk.

But I am not a theist because I felt having this belief would bring me hope or end despair and misery for me. I don't walk in the path I do because I thought it was a 'better alternative,' as if being an atheist is somehow worse on any level or in any respect. I am not now somehow gifted with greater hope and freed from misery because I hold that God exists. Hope is not the exclusive property of theists, nor is it an automatic virtue of belief in a higher being.

I know we all go through things in life that bring pain, misery, despair, and rob us of our hope. Granted, but atheists are no less incapable of such hope or freedom merely because they have a different view on the existence of deities.

If you truly believe in God, then do more than merely believe. Imitate God. God doesn't give life and breath only to believers. Belief is not a requisite for these things. With each heartbeat there is hope for another. With the end of one day there is always the hope of another and seeing the end of misery. If this is what God gives to all, as you believe, and God does it without a sermon or requiring one accept a certain creed, then being in God's image you must not see your neighbor on a path different than yours. Your neighbor is on the same one. Same world with you, same planet, same path.

Stars are faithful in following the courses mapped out by God for them to follow. They are more faithful than you or I could ever be. Yet they have no belief in God, and compared to us they live virtually forever, almost it seems. So do not judge the way others go down the path set for them by their Maker. They may be more faithful in following it than you, even if like the stars they have no belief in God.

Do not see your atheist neighbor as without hope or in despair or without a future. And do not mistake your belief in God as something that guarantees such things either. Instead be grateful for the hope and peace you have and share the comfort it brings you with others, without a sermon just as God gives us gifts. For if there is a God, and God is love, then you are likely to be surprised with eternity and who you will find sharing it with you.

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

Perry,

The Septuagint is not regarded by Jews as a valid representation of Scripture.

It's version of Daniel in particular was one of the reasons the LXX was rejected (and to this day the Septuagint holds no place of importance in Judaism). There are huge additions in the Septuagint version of Daniel which, when the formalizing of the Jewish canon occurred in which Daniel was eventually placed among others in the Ketuivm (Writings), these Greek additions were excised.

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) Daniel is an important historical figure to us Jews, and the conclusions you have come to, while popular with Fundamentalist Christianity, is at odds not only with Judaism, but Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, teachings of the Church of England, Methodists, Presbyterianism, and most others mainstream Christians for this very fact regarding Jewish history.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognized the Alexandrine Septuagint and its contents as the Old Testament. Because the Book of Daniel appears in the Prophet section of the LXX, the Catholic Church has kept its placement where it appears in that Greek version, including the Greek additions found in the LXX (The Song of the Three Jews, which are additions to chapter 3, the story of Susanna and the Elders, which is marked as chapter 13, and the tale of Daniel, the priest of Bel and the Dragon, which makes up chapter 14).

When Protestants decided to reject the complete Alexandrine canon of the Hebrew Bible honored by Catholics, they did not immediately remove the texts from their Bibles. Instead they moved them and their additions to a section between the Old and New Testaments, marked "Apocrypha." They left the remaining books in the LXX order however, and some mistakenly made the claim they did this because they were following the approved Jewish canon (which has a different book order). Leaving them in the Catholic book order, many have mistakenly assumed Jews have viewed this book as prophetic since the Catholic order has the book among the prophets.

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. They has never been a formal place or order for these last books, so they could never have been moved to a different section as you cite.

Also, the Qumran texts represent collections of Hebrew texts preserved by a Jewish sect that existed on the outskirts of Judaism. While the find of these texts is quite phenomenal on the philology side of Scripture study, they play little more significance as they also contain a lot works not recognized by mainstream Judaism about the End of Days and how those who originally owned the Qumran texts believed they were God's only true religion that would survive to see paradise restored on the earth.

Their texts, remarkable as they are, are also the equivalent of someone finding preserved copies of the New World Translation among a few JW publications some 4,000 years from now. It would be remarkable, yes, to find them at that point, but hardly representative of what the rest of Christianity really believes nevertheless. Thus pointing to a version of Scripture, the LXX, that Jews don't find authoritative and the Qumran scrolls to support conclusions that clash with Jewish history of its own figures and the development of its own works of religious literature is an odd way to prove a point.

30

This is Why I Will Keep Explaining Evolution to ex-JWs

by cofty in

.

David_Jay

Regardless of any differences of opinion we have had on other subjects and the exchanges, I rather admire that you are doing this.

I am sickened by the numbers on this chart, in particular in reference to the JWs, and though a part of me has always known their stand it is still shocking to me to see it when it is presented in such an important perspective.

I tip my hat to you. Keep up the good work.

8

When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything - G KChesterton

by slimboyfat in

i have been reading rodney stark's new book triumph of faith, where he makes his argument afresh that religion is alive and well.

in fact he says it's doing better than ever, and we are in the middle of a revival of faith.

above is a particular quote he likes to use when refusing secularisation.

David_Jay

To add one more note (as if I haven't pontificated enough), to believe that God is not present in voids made by mere mortals is to belie a theist's claim of belief in God.

If one believes in the God of Abraham, one also believes that God is everywhere. One who believes that the Almighty can be fully excised by a mere mortal is one that doesn't really believe in God.

(This isn't saying that the atheist view that there is no God to begin with is wrong.)

8

When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything - G KChesterton

by slimboyfat in

i have been reading rodney stark's new book triumph of faith, where he makes his argument afresh that religion is alive and well.

in fact he says it's doing better than ever, and we are in the middle of a revival of faith.

above is a particular quote he likes to use when refusing secularisation.

David_Jay

Pardon my words, those of you who love Chesterton--and I do like some of his proverbial statements quite a bit--but I find this comment of his very offensive and very untrue.

I am not an atheist, but I have atheist friends who I have loved dearly and are like family to me. Just because one does not believe in Chesterton's Catholic notions of God (and they are very limited to Catholicism) doesn't make them more likely a fool who will fall for other things.

On the contrary, a house built on reason is a house where the owner knows where all the nails are holding his structure together. A house built merely on faith is one where the owner believes there are nails, even where there may not be.

Now to be fair, being atheist doesn't prevent people from being stupid anymore than being religious guarantees that a person will be just and good. Being Jewish there are many of my family members who hold on to and practice superstitions, even those beliefs that Jews are supposed to avoid, and it rubs me the wrong way. Living in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood growing up I can also list all the ridiculous things that many of these theists believed--knock on wood as I toss some salt over my shoulder. ;)

I know atheists who believe in UFOs (and I means "little green men"), Bigfoot, ghosts, and more. These are very rational people too. But nodody's perfect or immune from choosing to believe in things others think aren't real.

Having an ideology, taking ownership of a creed, siding with a philosophy, and even joining the Catholic Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses does not prevent people from failing to live up to their own standards that they make claim to. Belonging to the ethnic group that invented the God that Chesterton claimed to worship does not prevent my people from thinking and doing foolish things. Being able to quote the Ten Commandments and the Sh'ma in Hebrew doesn't prevent me from committing adultery, coveting, and worshipping idols.

Chesterton has written many clever things (my favorite line of his I like: Being found in a church every Sunday does not make one a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes one a car.) But alas, sayings are not the same as axioms based on reality.

No ideological or belief system, religion included, is an automatic preventative from being a fool, stupid, and outright wrong. Neither is being an atheist mean you have created a void that trolls, the Loch Ness monster, and Yetis must now fill because God is not there.

45

Do JW beliefs deserve respect?

by azor in

what say you?

.

David_Jay

Prologos,

Your are reading my word incorrectly.

I was speaking specifically about Henry Ford's personal rejection regarding his unique plans for a car motor that led to ridicule.

And my auto correct selected "teutonic" instead of the word "tectonic." It is called a "typographical error." Being that it was sandwiched between the words "plate" and "continental drift," I am surprised you didn't realize this.

Beliefs can indeed cause damage, including not believing that there is more to what one has written than meets the eye. I suffer from brain damage that has left me with mobility issues, and I must rely on computers to often generate my words due to problems I have with my hands. My speech is affected too, so computers often misspell words I intend to use or leave entire phrases out.

Now about showing respect, can you give me another lesson?

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,

You didn't touch a nerve. If you cannot figure out why I stopped conversing with you, then nothing I can say will help, and I am not going to try. Apparently you will have to come to this realization on your own.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay