| AnnOmaly, Hi. Regarding: ------------ "40 questions"? ...The only way you'll make your (and their) letters public record is, of course, to post them on the 'net. There are a few individuals who have chosen to do that (thinking of Jonsson [link above], The only benefit you'll get from it is for yourself (catharsis) or to give your fiancee and the local JWs the satisfaction of knowing you did as they asked - you consulted the Society directly. But the WTS will have seen your questions and objections all before, a gazillion times - if indeed they bother reading your book-sized letter ;-) ----- ANS: That is exactly what is going on here. One of the questions which I thought was important to detail- and I promised to address above - I just loaded on as a separate topic: "Has anyone read Thucydides beside the author of Daniel?" I hope to get it on this topic in a more brief form, but what few posts that have come in so far, there been comments to the effect that they hadn't heard that discussion before. And neither have I. Now why should I only discuss it very discretely with the anonymous guys in HQ answering department, whom I presume have just moved to Patterson, NY? ---- Your trucker friend has probably had WTS connections in the past if he supports 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall. I'd be very interested to know if this definitely ISN'T the case! If he's using Barnes', as you noted, those commentaries do not support that date, so he won't have got it from there. The only reason why Russell favored 606 (as it was then) was because he agreed that Cyrus' 1st year was 536 (as it was thought then from secular history) when he repatriated the exiles, and because he insisted that the land was 'desolate, without an inhabitant' for 70 years which would have become such ONLY when Zedekiah was dethroned. Russell and subsequent WTS leaders would not budge from that notion, other than adjusting the 70 year period by a year (607 - 537). ---- ANS. "Chuck the Trucker" comes from the perspective of The United Church of Christ. He latched onto one Barnes Bible note quote to place the sacking in a chronology, but he ignored the other citation for 2 Kings. Don't ask what he thinks of JWs. Much the same as Catholics. Which in either case seems to count for something when you look at an open landscape or a philosophical assertion. As I had said above, I got a quote from Russell in Studies in the Scriptures. Vol. II, as it turns out, addresses what you mention. Volume III was the supporting "pyramidal" argument. That was one of the few incidents, I believe, that the organization engaged in any scientific field work - and judging from the results, it might have got caught filing down some of the sandstone there too to meet its preconceived notions. Anyway, here's Russell on 606 BC: The Time Is At Hand, pp. 79 – 80 Chapter IV 2 nd Volume of Studies in the ScripturesTHE BEGINNING OF GENTILE TIMES, 606 B.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Lord's words, "until the times* of the Gentiles be fulfilled," imply that the times of the Gentiles must have a definitely appointed limit; because an unlimited, indefinite period could not be said to be fulfilled. So, then, Gentile rale had a beginning, will last for a fixed time, and will end at the time appointed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The Greek word here rendered "times" is kairos. which signifies a fixed time. It is the same word translated "times" in the following passages: Mark 1:15; I Tim. 6:15; Rev. 12:.4; Acts 3:19; 17:26. The word "seasons" in Acts 1:7 is from the same Greek word. 79 The beginning of these Gentile Times is clearly located by the Scriptures. Hence, if they furnish us the length also of the fixed period, or lease of Gentile dominion, we can know positively just when it will terminate. The Bible does furnish this fixed period, which must be fulfilled; but it was furnished in such a way that it could not be understood when written, nor until the lapse of time and the events of history had shed their light upon it; and even then, only by those who were watching and who were not overcharged by the cares of the world.
The Bible evidence is clear and strong that the "Times of the Gentiles" is a period of 2520 years, from the year B. C. 606 to and including A. D. 1914. This lease of universal dominion to Gentile governments, as we have already seen, began with Nebuchadnezzar - not when his reign began, but when the typical kingdom of the Lord passed away, and the dominion of the whole world was left in the hands of the Gentiles. The date for the beginning of the Gentile Times is, therefore, definitely marked as at the time of the removal of the crown of God's typical kingdom, from Zedekiah, their last king. According to the words of the prophet (Ezek. 21:25-27), the crown was taken from Zedekiah; and Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar's army and laid in ruins, and so remained for seventy years - until the restoration in the first year of Cyrus. (2 Chron. 36 : 21-23.) Though Jerusalem was then rebuilt, and the captives returned, Israel has never had another king from that to the present day. Though restored to their land and to personal liberty by Cyrus, they, as a nation, were subject successively to the Persians, Grecians and Romans. Under the yoke of the latter they were living when our Lord's first advent occurred, Pilate and Herod being deputies of Caesar. With these facts before us, we readily find the date for 80 the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date - both secular and religious historieswith marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B. C. 536. And if B. C. 536 was the year in which the seventy years of Jerusalem's desolation ended and the restoration of the Jews began, it follows that their kingdom was overthrown just seventy years before B. C, 536, i. e., 536 plus 70, or B. C. 606. This gives us the date of the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles - B. C. 606. Recognizing God's lease of power to these worldly or Gentile governments, we know, not only that they will fail, and be overthrown, and be succeeded by the Kingdom of Christ when their "times" expire, but also that God will not take the dominion from them, to give it to his Anointed, until that lease expires - "until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Consequently, we are guarded right here against the false idea into which Papacy has led the world - that the Kingdom of God was set up at Pentecost, and more fully established when, as it is claimed, the Roman empire was converted to Christianity (to Papacy), and it attained both temporal and spiritual empire in the world. We see from this prophecy of the Times of the Gentiles that this claim made by the church of Rome, and more or less endorsed by Protestants, is false. We see that those nations which both Papacy and Protestantism designate Christian Nations, and whose dominions they call Christendom (i. e. Christ's Kingdom), are not such. They are "kingdoms of this world," and until their "times" are fulfilled Christ's Kingdom cannot take the control, though it will be organizing and preparing to do so in the few years which close the Gentile Times, while these kingdoms will be trembling, disintegrating and falling into anarchy. During the Gospel age, the Kingdom of Christ has existed ...81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russell invokes Ptolemy to start the backward chronology off. Then he resorts to prophets because they are prophets. The king list of Berosus tells historians something quite different than what Russell claims; archeological and astronomical evidence he runs up against as well. But the society claims Russell was spot on except - when he was talking about things like pyramids - which were Satanic - or the exact year which was makes his start point a year off, - or where God resides (Alcyone) - which he thinks he got the goods on from lunar cartographer von Maedlin - and Rutherford sticks his neck out on this one as well in the Harp of God. Imagine all the astronomical and astrophysical reasoning that went into that - circa 1845. -- So what's the point? I am new to this forum and this set of topics. I have yet to get a sense of the demographics in these discussions. Some, I suspect, are currently practicing JWs who sought this site to discuss a range of issues. And some, I suspect, have decided that the JW organization is way out of kilter. But in the latter case, including myself, I think there is a tendency to concede to the organization most of the field. For myself, I am not going to go off about Darwinism, cosmology or geology. It would just appear as a vain snow job. And if I quote from those that have left, those that are still in assume they have the right to act like they have been confronted with vampires. However, I would say that reading Olofson or Ray Franz is like reading Trotskij or Bukharin ( The Party could be so wonderful if ...). Why should all arguments be assumed futile? It is all too clear that it is not going to slow down on forcing people to confront people with scripts that simply are not true from the get-go. Why should it be allowed that the organization can say anything that it wants? Why should I accept that it should be allowed to channel any rebuttal to a post office box in the age of the Internet? Why should it be accepted that any Elder has no responsibility for what he says and that no one would counter what he says when it is entirely clear that he is wrong? Where should I stand if I hear of young people targeted by pioneers in their neighborhood? Should I say, "Yes, that's right. We are privileged to live after the end of Gentile Times. And someday you are going to be a pioneer publisher too whose come to see the Gettysburg Address in a new and important way...And the more catastrophe we hear about this year, the more certain we are that the time is nigh." This is not hypothetical. |
kepler
JoinedPosts by kepler
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
-
51
Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?
by kepler inbelshazzar was the son of nabonidus the king.
darius i was a persian king who reigned after cyrus from 522 to 486 bc.
he succeeded the son of neriglissar, labashi-marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.. .
-
-
kepler
Question 28: Darius the Mede of Daniel: Has anyone read Thucydides – beside the author of Daniel?
In the 1934 JW Yearbook, as in a number of other annual editions, for each day of the year there is a scriptural passage with a several fold longer commentary extracted from the previous year’s Watchtower. As I read through these entries one day, I decided to do some analysis, to check which books were quoted most frequently and which passages.
Here is the table that I was able to construct.
-----------------------------------Books Quoted over 365 Entries ---------------------------------------------
Book Number Quotations Book Number Quotations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psalms 58 Daniel 51
Matthew 49 Luke 9
John 7 Mark 2
Acts 5 Revelations 12
Romans 12 (every month) Hebrews 6
Jude 6 Deuteronomy 23
Exodus 18 Job 5
Ezekiel 7 Isaiah 15
Jeremiah 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever the results could have been, it would be easy to second guess or criticize. If one were to decide to cite a book x times, someone else could either argue in criticism that it was too often or not enough. This is entirely a matter of discretion… And yet it still warrants study. In my personal background, on each day of the year the Mass had a different reading of the Epistles and the Gospels with additional books such as Acts to commemorate the Pentecost. These would be roughly a chapter of each in its entirety, perhaps more for a high mass during a holiday such as Holy Week or Christmas.
But the readings in 1934 are consistent with a pattern that I detect today, an emphasis on certain chapters of Matthew, Daniel and Revelations either related to prophetic dreams or of apocalyptic battles. Since Jude is only two pages in most Bibles, it is remarkable that it is quoted 6 times; but it is also a book which quotes apocryphal texts such as the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Each of these texts are fundamental to Jude’s position, but they raise theological questions all their own which would have to be examined separately. Safe to say that the Epistle of Jude with six citations is the most concentrated reference for word of text.
In the case of Daniel, the quoted passages concentrate in several chapters and frequently are overlapping verses repeatedly cited. I had expected to encounter Revelations more frequently since there is a connection between Daniel and Revelations perceived by many Christians – and the fact that they both rely on dreams or visions to convey their points of view. They are also two books whose authorship have been contested for centuries; since the first attempts to construct a canon.
But let us consider the 51 days devoted to contemplating Daniel. When you look at these references separately, one discovers that many of the quotations are examined several times, quotations a verse or two apart or in the same chapter. With citations three or four times, the total individual verses in Daniel reduces to 25. Some citations are cut up and Yearbook commentary goes off on its own tangents about Satan and Armageddon, generally. It would be very difficult to discern what the author of Daniel, Romans oeJob is talking about with the limited amount of text, but the chances would be increased if we were to read the texts for ourselves with perhaps some footnotes attached. Or we can just let suffice the coverage in the 1934 Yearbook.
Daniel Instance Daniel Instance
Citation citation
1 7:2,3 2 8:25
3 7:10 4 8:10,11
5 11:31 6 8:11 2
7 12:11 8 4:1
9 4:2 10 4:3
11 8:25 2 12 4:8
13 7:25 14 4:10,11
15 4:10,12 2 16 4:36
17 18 4:14,16
19 4:17 20 4:17 2
21 4:23 22 8:11 3
23 4:20 24 4:34
25 4:34 2 26 4:36
27 7:21 28 4:3 2
29 8:14 30 4:13
31 4:14 2 32 8:11 3
33 4:24,26 34 8:14 2
35 4:14 2 36 4:14,15 3
37 7:26 38 12:12
39 4:26 2 40 4:15
41 8:13 42 4:14,16 3
43 4:37 44 4;17 3
45 4:24,25 2 46 4:17 4
47 4:35 48 4:31
49 4:33 50 8:14 3
51 4:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beside the above noted devotional verses, I would like to add a few other verses from Daniel for consideration.
Daniel 1:21 He became a member of the king’s court..Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus
Daniel 6:28 This Daniel flourished (Aramaic) in the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Daniel 9: 1 It was the first year of Darius son of Artaxerxes, a Mede by race who assumed the throne of Chaldea.
Daniel 10:1 In the 3rd year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a revelation was made to Daniel known as Belteshazzar.
Daniel Chapter 5
King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for his noblemen, a thousand of them and, in the presence of the thousand, he drank his wine. Having tasted the wine, Belshazzar gave orders for the gold and silver vessels to be brought which father Nebuchadnazzar had taken from the sanctuary in Jerusalem…
( to Belshazzar:) King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, made him head of the magicians….
That same night, the Chaldean king Belshazzar was murdered,
Daniel Chapter 6
And Darius the Mede received the kingdom at age of sixty-two.
------
From what can be determined from archeology and other classical sources - and stone monuments of the time...
Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus the king. He was defeated in the field of battle by the Persians at Opis when the Persian army overran the Babylonian flank defending Babylon, described in detail in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Darius I was a Persian king who reigned after Cyrus from 522 to 486 BC. Nabonidus was UNRELATED to Nebuchadnezzar, but reigned from 555/556 to 539 BC. He succeeded the son of Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk who reigned for only nine months and was put to death in a conspiracy.
Name Berossus Royal Canon BC
Nabopolassar 21 21 625-605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 43 605-562
Awel Marduk 2 2 561-560
Neriglissar 4 4 559-556
Labashi Marduk 9 months - 556
Nabonidus 17 17 555-539
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhere above I might have got off the chronological track, according to one authority. But I suppose the readers know where to insert the extra 20 or so years required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Persian monarchs are as follows:
Cyrus II 559-530
Cambyses II 530-522
Darius I 522-486
Xerxes I 485-465
Artexerxes I 464-424
Darius II 423-405
Artexerxes II 404-359
Artexerxes III 358-338
Darius III 335-331
Alexander the Great (336-323) 331-323 (enters & dies in Babylon)
2 nd century Greek theater
Note that there appear 3 Persian Darius - after Cyrus.
The Cyrus Cylinder records that Cyrus entered Babylon accompanied by Gubaru the governor of Syria who had gone over to his side. Cyrus was succeeded by his son Cambyses in 528. When Cambyses died in 522, he was succeeded by Darius, also a Persian. Darius immediately put down a Babylonian revolt headed by a Nebuchadnezzar who claimed he was a son of Nabonidus. He was succeeded by Xerxes.
Since Darius, Artaxerxes (in some translations) and Nebuchadnazzar are mentioned in Daniel, possibly the author is referring to events after the Jews are released by Cyrus to return to their homeland. The details of these violations also resemble events in Jerusalem during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the mid 2nd century BC more than anything else. These are recorded in the Maccabees without prophecy or metaphor.
But the story in Daniel centers on violation of temple vessels that the Babylonians had already taken home with them as well. And, since, as stated earlier, we also have the account of how these events are suppose to have transpired from the book of Isaiah, one would wonder (once again) if the author or authors of Daniel had read Isaiah chapters 40-55.
Has anyone read Thucydides – beside the author of Daniel?
Since I had personal reasons to be concerned about some of the apocalyptic issues surrounding the Bible and where in the text these beliefs originated, my attention was drawn to a number of issues relating to 8th through 5th century BCE history. The matter of "Darius the Mede" was among them. Just fortuitously over one weekend last month I encountered two clues to examine. I happened to read an article about the Behistun Rock inscription in Iran attributed to Darius I of Persia, an exercise in stone tablet writing of Mount Rushmore proportions; and then a few hours later I listened to a lecture about Thucydides and his "History of the Peloponnesian Wars" and how Thucydides frequently referred to the Persians as Medes.
I did some checking.
Thucydides Peloponnesian War history was written around 430 BC. My Penguin paperback edition of Thucydides translated by a certain Rex Warner seemed to dispense with such references to "Medes"; it spoke of the earlier invaders (circa 500-480) as either Persians or "barbarians". But as for other translations I located on line, these references were abundant enough to note (e.g., Crawley, Strassler), especially when they surrounded the battle of Marathon in the author's introduction to the current events of Spartan-Athenian hostilities.
Though my Greek is limited, looking at Thucydides original texts, it was clear enough that the Medes were mentioned often where many translators simply had substituted Persians or "the barbarians". I have attached a sample passage below about the battle of Marathon (490 BC) during the reign of Darius (521-486 BC). Throughout I counted ~50 references to Medes plus descriptions of the invasion as the Median war and the process of Greek states becoming "Medized".
On the other hand, Darius I identifies himself at Behistun Rock very clearly as a Persian of Achaemenid descent. He also states very emphatically he is an adherent of Ahuramazda, a Zoroastrian: "Eight of my dynasty were kings before me. I am the ninth....By the grace of Ahuramazda am I king; Ahuramazda has granted me the kingdom....23 lands in all." article.
"The following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me." A pretender who named himself Smerdis was in revolt while Cambyses was on campaign in Egypt where he died. Full text is available in a Wikipedia article. To succeed Cambyses, Darius had to contend with this and many other rivals, including a revolt in Babylon by a supposed son of Nabonidus named Nebuchadnezzar. .. All sorts of events similar to what is related in Daniel, but yet unlikely - since this Darius did not reign before Cyrus (550-529 BC). And he was not a Mede. Right?
As opposed to the Rex Warner translation used by Penguin paperbacks, Richard Crawley's, archived by Google, had at least 50 references to "Medes", plus the "Median" war and becoming "Medized". The case is similar for a text by Robert Strassler. I have attached a sample passage below which is a discussion of an event in 490 BC during the reign of the first Persian Darius. Unfortunately Borders Bookstore went out of business; so there was no ready access to Loeb bilingual classics. But I found Greek originals on line. What little Greek I know was enough to confirm that this was an accurate, literal translation. The chairmen of the editorial committee must know how that is.
While true enough, Thucydides was chronicling the war among Greeks, the Peloponnesian War, he was telling us also something about what Greeks thought about their war with an Asian power.
So, where does this take us? How about if I start with Daniel chapter 9, verses 1 to 2 in which he gives testimony?
It was the first year of Darius son of Ataseurus (in some Artaxerxes), a Mede by race who assumed the throne of Chaldea. In the first year of his reign, I Daniel was studying the scriptures counting over the number of years - as revealed by Yahweh to the prophet Jeremiah - that were to pass before the desolation of Jerusalem would come to an end, namely seventy years.
Let's just suppose that Daniel worked for Darius and had the goods on him, that he really was a Mede... The Jews in captivity in Babylon have already left, freed by Cyrus.
But does it really matter whether Darius in his own testimony is not a Mede if all the Greeks since Thucydides think he is one? Including the Hellanized Jews sick of the tyranny of Antiochus IV in the mid 2nd century BC.?
I find this the most compelling piece of evidence on the question of when the book of Daniel was written. While the author was quite exact about events during the 3rd and 2nd century, the "coincidental" characterization of Persian monarchs as Medes by the conquerors and subject people seems to suggest a view through the same distorted prism. Daniel is also out on a limb about Belshazzar being a son of Nebuchadnezzar and a king; he never mentions Nabonidus and attributes satrapies to the same Darius he places before Cyrus. By the mid 2nd century BC, the Persian reign in Judea was as temporally distant as colonial America is to the United States of today. While I have heard it argued that Daniel was written during the 160s BC, I have never heard anyone cite Thucydides as an argument. I submit it for consideration.
Chapter 18 -Book 1 Thucydides -The Landmark Thucydides – R. B. Strassler
[1] But at last a time came when the tyrants of Athens and the far older tyrannies of the rest of Hellas were, with the exception of those in Sicily, once and for all put down by Lacedaemon; for this city, though after the settlement of the Dorians, its present inhabitants, it suffered from factions for an unparalleled length of time, still at a very early period obtained good laws, and enjoyed a freedom from tyrants which was unbroken; it has possessed the same form of government for more than four hundred years, reckoning to the end of the late war, and has thus been in a position to arrange the affairs of the other states. Not many years after the deposition of the tyrants, the battle of Marathon was fought between the Medes and the Athenians.
Introduction Section – Penguin- Rex Warner
18) Finally, however, the Spartans put down the tyranny in the rest of Greece, most of which had been governed by tyrants for much longer than Athens. From the time when the Dorians first settled in Sparta there had been a particularly long period of political disunity; yet the Spartan constitution goes back to a very early date, and the country has never been ruled by tyrants. For rather more than 400 years, dating from the end of the late war, they have had the same system of government, and this has beennot only a source of internal strength, but has enabled them tot intervene in the affairs of other states.
Not many years afer the end of tyrannies in Hellas, the battle of Marathon was fought between the Persians and the Athenians.
My count: Strassler and similar translations:
Mede/Medes: 49
Median: 17
Medism: 5
Medize: 3
If the figure is visible,
In the fourth and third line from the bottom, note the reference to Marathon, Medes and Athenians.
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
Yes, this does sound like Johnny One Note, but there are some more implications to the assertion about Babylon's fate. When you consider that the concept of a 70-year desolation is borrowed from the Assyrians and the fact that the Assyrians could find mechanisms to revoke or give amnesty on the sentence, what kind of limb does that leave a hundred years of Russell and Rutherford followers on this matter?
Ex-Bethelite, on your idea about the signature... Instead how about over night COD attached to a brick?
Question 7: “What the Bible Really Teaches”– Sennacherib and Esarhaddon and 70 year periods of desolation
When I was visited and instructed by delegations of Jehovah’s Witnesses at my home, we conducted our studies based on the pamphlet “What the Bible Really Teaches”. As a result of reading this booklet carefully, almost immediately I came to believe that I (along with any other interested reader) was being manipulated and deceived.
In the sections discussing the downfall of Babylonian rulers to the Persians, I was led to believe by the text and the selected Bible verses that Jehovah had utterly destroyed Babylon in 538 BC for wicked deeds performed by the reigning king. …
Despite what is depicted in “What the Bible Really Teaches” on pages 23-24, I can find no evidence that Cyrus destroyed Babylon. To the contrary, cuneiform accounts relate that he was warmly received there. Babylonian and Persian records on clay tablets and stone before and after make that quite clear. What destruction there was of Babylon was almost exactly 100 years before Nebuchadnezzar brought down Jerusalem. This was the result of an attack by Sennacherib, the same Assyrian monarch who had besieged Jerusalem in Isaiah’s time.
Strangely enough the expected 70 year desolation period for Babylon (not Jerusalem) decreed by Sennacherib was revoked by his son Esarhaddon in a ceremony also recorded in stone, recovered and translated by Assyrianologists. The destruction is well recorded and Isaiah’s reference to it in the pamphlet Isaiah 14:22-23 (its flooding) is edited out in “What the Bible Really Teaches” so one can’t spot the connection. It is hard to interpret this omission as anything other than deliberate deception about the events.
It was D. D. Luckenbill in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, Vol. 41, April 1925, pp. 165-173, who translated the Black Stone of Esarhaddon and its description of the rescinding of the sentence of 70 year desolation. The stone, residing in the British Museum is dated to the accession year of the Assyrian monarch Esarhaddon, son and successor to Sennacherib.
Line (incomplete notation) Line
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 [70 ] sanate mi-nu-ut 12 Seventy years as the period
13 ni-du-ti-su is-tur-ma 13 of its desolation he (Marduk) wrote down ( in the
Book of Fate)
14 ri-mi-nu-u d Marduk 14 But the merciful Marduk
15 sur-ris lib-ba-su i-nu-uh ma 15 in a moment his heart was at rest (appeased)
16 e-lis a-na sap-lis 16 turned it (the book) upside down
17 us-bal-kit 17 and for the eleventh year
18 sanate a-sab-su ik-bi 18 ordered its restoration
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last line of the Black Stone inscription shows the nature of the document:
“The sons of Babylon, who had been brought to servitude, who had been apportioned to the yoke and the fetter, I gathered together and accounted them Babylonians. Their freedom anew I established. The Black Stone contains the city's charter.”
A full translation of the text was to appear in D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (1926–27).
And when Esarhaddon’s remedy of his father’s desolation decree for Babylon is rescinded, it becomes clear that Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s insistence on 70 year desolations is a cultural inheritance from Assyria. Esarhaddon had a high priest read the 70 year desolation decree on Babylon upside down so that it read as an effective sentence of 11 years. Do you suppose that it is really pleasing to Jehovah to have city desolations attributed to Him when they did not happen as described and in practice were an instrument of Assyrian war policy?
I find abundant evidence in history that Babylon continued as a thriving city for centuries. Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon record many events there and Persian cuneiform records address events in the city without any significant interruption. In fact, the only evidence I see of a destruction of Babylon in accordance with prophetic utterances by Isaiah in chapters 13 and 14 was a destruction that included flooding in the year 689 BC. This was undertaken not by the Persians or Medes but Isaiah’s contemporary the Assyrian King Sennacherib. Are the authors of the pamphlet aware of this? I noticed that in quoting Isaiah 14:21-22
“… Never again must they rise to conquer the world and cover the face of the earth with their cities.
I will rise against them declares Yahweh Sabaoth, and deprive Babylon of name, remnant, offspring and posterity, declares Yahweh…”
The pamphlet stops short of quoting Isaiah about how Babylon was turned into a swamp as a result of Jehovah’s wrath.
“I shall turn it into the haunt of hedgehogs, a swamp. I shall sweep it with the broom of destruction, declares Yahweh Sabaoth.”
Questions for study
In "What the Bible Really Teaches", was the excerpt from Is 14 stopped short with full knowledge of the implications of the statemen? Or was this some sort of coincidence? If reference to the flooding was willfully omitted because of its connection to Sennacherib's operation, how can we say that the pamphlet is exploring what the Bible really teaches unless it really is about distorting historical events? Is it necessarily a matter of faith that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Babylon was destroyed by Jehovah as a punishment? Is it also necessary that we come to understand Jehovah as an adjunct to Assyrian culture and politcal philosophy? Is that the sort of consolation and glad tidings from the Gospel that we should seek, that we are as one with the Assyrians? What is this all about?
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
AnnOmaly,
Greetings. Yes I have a copy of Alcyone Ephemeris. Also, I downloaded the letters and and other Alcyone version. Although the principal reasons I use ephemeris programs are NOT related to challenging the WatchTower, I am curious if the alternate version of the program would be more convenient for a notebook vs. laptop application.
To have come as far as I have, I am fully aware of how many ways I can either be intimidated or brushed off. But at the same time, the process generates some imperatives of its own, some obviously personal. And it not simply to address 1 question. I hope to have at least 40 in the envelope and also make many of them a matter of public record. That's not the ususal way these things are submitted, right?
So since we are talking about 607 BC, some introduction.
Some Problems
Since the most detailed critical information related to Jehovah Witnesses is usually written by people who have left the organization, it is almost impossible to introduce their remarks to those remaining within based on the organizational attitude toward those who have left. As a result, I have found myself examining other old publications of the organization. These have included yearbooks (e.g. 1934 and 1928), plus books by Russell and Rutherford. In addition there is the public testimony of the Members of the Governing Board in the 1954Scotland legal case L. Strachan vs. E. Walsh.
In the case below (and elsewhere), I have drawn some from the 1934 Yearbook to supplement discussions in “What the Bible Really Teaches”. The 1934 Yearbook is also well known for its appendix enclosure of Joseph Rutherford’s open letter to Adolph Hitler, declaring his shared disdain for Jews, priests and Jesuits and how he would like to work with the new Herr Chancellor; for details read the Declaration of Facts. But also enclosed in the yearbooks of those days were daily scripture readings, expanded on several fold by passages from Watch Tower articles probably written under Rutherford’s direction as well. Here are some illustrative cases.
-------------------------------
September 20, 1934
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them: until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High. Dan. 7: 21, 22.
Jehovah’s faithful devoted ones on the earth constitute his sanctuary class, and hence his saints. While speaking great words with its mouth, like its father, Satan, the seventh world power does violence to Jehovah’s people. It was "Christendom", the Anglo- American empire system, made up of political, commercial, military elements, clergy, secret-service spies, and the strong-arm squad, that made war on the saints following the casting of Satan out of heaven. This war against God’s people reached a climax in 1918, at which time this beastly seventh world power did "wear out the saints of the Most High". But now the time has arrived to execute destructive or fiery judgment against the world organizations that have so long defamed the name of the Most High.
Watch Tower -15 June 1933
----
November 20, 1934
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. John 17: 19.
It cannot be said positively why the Lord permitted the thought of ’going to heaven’ to have the chief place in the mind of so many of his people, but we do know that the Lord permits men to exercise their own free will. If one has a selfish motive in understanding the truth of God’s Word it is likely he will fall into error. Jesus and the apostles stressed the importance of love for God, which means an unselfish devotion to Jehovah; yet many deemed it of greatest importance to get themselves ready to go to heaven rather than to show their love for God. It may be asked: Does error or misconception matter much, as long as one is honest and does the best he knows how? Does it affect one seriously? It certainly does! Sincerity and honesty in following an error does not build one
up. It is the truth that sanctifies.
Watch Tower- 15 January 1934.
--------
November 27, 1934
Hew down the tree . . . : let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. Daniel. 4: 14, 16.
The tree stump (picturing mankind) with bands iron and copper around it shows the non-existence or non-activity of God’s kingdom in the earth. The beginning of the counting of the "seven times" must wait until the overturning of Israel’s last king, Zedekiah, in 606 B.C. From that time the scripture applies: "It shall be no more, until he come whose right it is" to have the kingdom arid rulership of the world. At Zedekiah’s overthrow this decree against Israel was entered and there it was that Satan became the god of the whole world. Then and there the seven times began to count; meaning that God would not interfere with the beastly rule of earth until the end of that specific period of time. Those seven times, beginning in 606B.C. and extending over 2,520 years, ended in 1914, when Christ was enthroned by Jehovah.
Watch Tower 15 February 1934.
----------------------------------------------------
There are some problems with the devotional daily readings excerpted above. In the last reading above for 27 November 1934, note the scriptural date. In the book “What Does the Bible Really Teach?, left at my office door in May of 2009 with a cheery endorsement ( “I thought you might enjoy this book.”), on pages 216-217 this same matter is discussed as follows:
“How and when though, did God’s rulership begin to be ‘trampled by the nations’? This happened in 607 BCE when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the time of the kings who descended from David was interrupted (2 Kings 25: 1-26). Would this trampling go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king Zedekiah: ‘Remove the turban and lift off the crown… It will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right and I must give it to him’.”
The Ezekiel quote is from chapter 21. But did you notice the change of date there?
The later publication says that Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians in 607 BCE. At the bottom of the page there is a footnote explaining that there was no year zero in either BC or AD chronologies.
Yet the date of Christ’s “rulership” and Satan’s casting down from heaven remained the same? Why was it not moved to 1915? Was there an announcement from heaven to the theocratic ministry to the effect that “basically you were right about the arrival time, but actually your calendar of events should be corrected to a year earlier”?
Let us consider again the reading for 24 November 1934: “Does error or misconception matter much?”
------------------------------------------------------
Any evidence at all for 607 or 606 BC?
Both Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Rutherford grew up as Presbyterians. Before they both went on their own printing sprees, prior to the American Civil War an earlier American Presbyterian minister created a publishing sensation known as “Barnes Bible Notes”. A 17-volume set of commentaries on nearly every verse of the Bible prepared over several decades, the work is filled with cross references to other verses and exegetical texts. Used by ministers across the country to prepare sermons and originating with Dr. Barnes’ lectures to his Bible study classes, the books were purchased and read by maybe millions of American churchgoers. As a matter of fact, I have heard that it was even used for many decades, if not to the present day, at the JW Brooklyn headquarters.
During the last year, I met a trucker and retired railroad engineer who was setting up a website with ancient history chronologies where he relied greatly on Barnes. As a result of discussions from time to time, he decided to give me a preview look. I have to say that he is the ONLY other instance I have ever encountered beside the Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 607 BC. My acquaintance based this assertion on a Barnes citation. I tracked down Barnes to find out why or how he came up with that and here is what it says.
Daniel 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem - This event occurred, according to Jahn ("History of the Hebrew Commonwealth"), in the year 607 b.c., and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, Kings2 22:2; Chronicles2 35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, Kg2 23:30; Ch2 36:1. He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-Nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, Kg2 23:34; Ch2 36:4.
-----
He speaks of Nebuchadnazzar but nothing of king Zedekiah. But now look at what Barnes says for
2 Kings 25:8 the verse being
On the seventh day of the fifth month in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzarking of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.
The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar - 586 B.C., if we count from the real date of his accession (604 B.C.); but 587 B.C., if, with the Jews, we regard him as beginning to reign when he was sent by his father to recover Syria and gained the battle of Carchemish (in 605 B.C.).
On that day (verse 9 NJB)“He burned down the Temple of Yahweh, the royal palaces and all the houses in Jerusalem.”
Now, how about the earliest assertion of this date within the organizations publications - and why.
Question 13: Destruction of Jerusalem, Origins of 606/607 BC from Charles Taze Russell Writings
The earliest instances that I can find of attributing Watch Tower dates to the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem (606 or 607 BC) is to the works of Charles Taze Russell, Studies of the Scripture. Because this date was later revised by a year after the passing of both Russell and Rutherford, I say dates. In any case, Russell gives two basic arguments for 606 BC: one is derived from Ptolemy’s King’s list which he appears to be alone even in his era as interpreting as such. The other was his studies in pyramidology – also included in the Studies of the Scriptures series sold by the Watch Tower Society for about a decade after Russell’s death. The second argument, however, was discredited by the Society during Rutherford’s administration and in fact proclaimed as “Satanic”. Thus, while this removes at least half of the support for Russell’s argument, it also brings up another question. Based on advertisements emplaced in the Society Year Books during the 1920s, I believe that the Studies in Scriptures hardbound were priced at about since dollars and many hundreds of thousands were sold. Furthermore, in divorce proceedings, C. T. Russell made it clear that proceeds from the purchase of these books were not his property but those of the Society. But since the book promoting this argument was distributed by the Society and then declared highly defective, was there any effort to recall the product and refund the customers? If not, what was done with the funds that were obtained by distributing a book and theory which the Society declared to be Satanic?
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
AnnOMaly,
Greetings. In reply to your query on constructive criticism, quite all right. My main immediate problem is not getting swamped with the problem of immediate presentation of position and addressing a wide range of responses.
Speaking in general, by no means did I want to be the most radical in position on these issues in the discussion, but I personally feel reluctant to pursue some of the more radical lines of inquiry such as examining the primitive paganism or Freudian substrata in the scripture. For a start, I am not qualified. Secondly, since what I have been through the last few years was unexpected and very unpleasant, my immediate objective is to show that there are ways to stand up to what has been a steam roller process. Perhaps the way MacDuff gots a shot at MacBeth, speaking of prophecy. Or tying down a slippery eel.
But back to your question.
Reconstructing an exercise ( or two ) from over a year ago, given that that years in the Babylonian, Assyrian or Persian systems recorded on tablets were measured in terms of the accession and death of kings, then it is understood that events in the reign of a king such as Nebuchadnazzar have to be identified based on a system that transcends this type of chronology - unless he is continued to mentioned as reference point for subsequent kings. However, as probably many of our readers are already aware, the Babylonian calendar is very similar to the Hebrew calendar ( including names for months and start in the spring). In all likelihood the Hebrew calendar was so derived. With the aid of the book cited above( Babylonian Chronology 626BC to AD 75 by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, Providence RI, 1956), it is possible to transform from present day calendars to corresponding dates described by reigning king, month and day of month. The reasons for this are the lunar and solar eclipses themselves. In addition, Babylonian and English texts of the first raid on Jerusalem, 597 BC, can be examined in Chronicle of Chaldean Kings by D. J. Wiseman, British Museum. Other regnal records include those of Nabonidus. These were published by Chicago University press about 1925.
But when it comes to nailing dates in the mideast in the first millenium it is the the solar eclipse of 15 June 763 BC provided by the Assyrians.
From my spreadsheet records, it was not clear to me how many eclipses in total were available to bracket the 586/87siege period, but the four dates selected I obtained from the LBAT 1419 and LBAT 1420 record sets, otherwise referred to by their British Museum catalog numbers,BM 38462 for Nebuchadnazzar II records between 604 BC and 576 BC, the 6 month 29 year of his reign. Elsewhere I believe there is some redundancy.
In loading the dates into the Alcyone software I discovered I had to "re-correct" for the fact that the software had a year zero, so the dates had to be adjusted by a year. But I searched for 180 degree right ascension differences between the sun and the moon (opposite sides of the earth) and declinations of the same magnitude but opposite sense ( e.g., 15 degrees north and south celestian latitude). It worked on all four.
Now, I suppose reservations can be raised about the scientific procedure or the data set, but then again, I am not an archeo-astronomical laboratory but someone with some reasonable technical and language training and a personal computer. I didn't have all this ready for the discussion when some gentlemen came to my door and insisted on a 607 BC date for Jerusalem's fall to Babylonian siege. But in the future, perhaps these issues might be possible to resolve or study with more accuracy with an appropriate phone app.
Will try to get a new "question" post out later.
Best regards to all.
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
First of all, I deeply appreciate getting your informed comment on these matters. If I have had to mull over these issues for 3 or 4 years, I can only be thankful that I haven't had to deal with these issues for decades as I am sure many people who have posted their comments have.
I notice that several people have suggested sources for further study such as Raymond Franz's books. I have looked at them and often go back to check what he had said. When I started to notice the chronological discrepancy regarding the end of the first temple, the trail eventually led to Carl Olofson's book as well. Others have remarked that they can see some sense in posting my questions on line for the record's sake; and others have told me what to expect after I place an envelope in the mail.
I haven't mailed off as of yet, but I would like to continue with sharing my list of questions. Even as I am in the process of editing them, I suspect that it will not be possible to present them all. I just hope that I can release ones that fit this format or perhaps cover not just the same old ground.
About a year or two ago there was an article in the Watchtower titled "Six Myths about Christianity". It was provided to me somewhat as a supplement to the reading of "What the Bible Really Teaches". Looking at the six items I would say that these were not myths but issues about Christianity in varying degrees. Issues that Christians or others should be aware of to think about. And I hope I do not lose that perspective in submitting any questions which follow.
Question 9: Destruction of the Jerusalem, the Temple and Chronology
After reading a discussion about the arguments for the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, whether it was in 586/87 or 607 BC, I did an experiment. I used some astronomical software for predicting the positions of the sun, moon and planets and checked the position of moon for four eclipses reported during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. I used a commercially available code named Alcyone [More on Alcyone the star later].
To elaborate, the Babylonians in terms of Nebuchadnezzar’s years of reign have written in stone when they captured Jerusalem the first time in 597 BC in the seventh year of his reign (1 st day of Addar or 15 th of March 597BC). Accounts of the first occupation and the second can be correlated with accounts in 2 nd Kings. From these records, in my office I can sit at my desk and verify with my own calculations four lunar eclipse record from the same system of Babylonian dates: three before the destruction of the temple and one lunar eclipse after the destruction.
15 September 591 BC
08 February 579 BC
02 March 567 BC
05 September 563 BC
I used the same tools that I used to project positions of the moon for lunar missions a decade or two in the future. By themselves these calculations confirm the accuracy of 586 BCE for destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. If Nebuchadnezzar reigned from September 605 BC to October 562 BC ( documented by British Museum clay tablets BM21946 and BM92472 – see Parker and Dubberstein, 1956 Brown University Press) and all the above eclipses are recorded based on what year they occurred during his reign, and if you can re-calculate them and find chronicles of his Jerusalem attacks as well (BM21946), I would think that is very good confirmation that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed in 607 BC – unless, of course, an adherent of this date can duplicate the lunar eclipse calculations?
Can the Society provide such proof for its own time table?
Question 10: Biblical Inerrancy - Jeremiah
What is the meaning of Jeremiah 8:8? Does it have any significance for the current theocratic government?
Question 11: Scriptures Identified after Constantine by Apostate Church
It is the assertion by Joseph Rutherford and successors that Christianity was distorted by clerics when Constantine (280-336AD) came to power. From what I can tell, it is assumed that clerics usurped scriptural authority and that primitive Christianity was closer to what Christ desired than what followed. In fact, it is claimed that the organizational church became a tool of Satan, leaving to conjecture if anything done in the Christian community prior to 1914 or 1919 was to any effect at all.
Yet it is quite clear that The Bible was not canonized until decades after the reign of Constantine and the contents of a proposed Bible or canon were deliberated on by these same clerics. The current canon was first suggested by Athanasius in 367 AD. Joseph Rutherford in this would appear to be his most orthodox of followers. Adoption of the canon had to await church councils at the end of that or the next century. Prior to this, in the first century – the books were not written at all – and in the 2 nd only a few books were used by any Christian groups and often of a conflicting nature. Many books, gospels, epistles and revelations were debated hotly for decades and the arguments against some of the existing canon resonate today. In fact, one of the oldest existing Bibles the Syriaic codex in Chaldean did not include Revelations.
So, in effect, how is it possible that the Christians which compiled the Scriptures are apostate from the church when Christianity prior to this exercise had no canon or common Bible to serve them at all?
Question 12: Daniel and Hebrew Testament: Among the Prophets or Writings
At least for the past thousand years, in the Jewish equivalent of the Old Testament ,the TaNaKh, written and studied in Hebrew, there are three main divisions of the books contained therein. The first section is basically the Torah or Penteteuch sometimes referred to as the Law; the second is the Nev’im or Prophets; and the third is the Kethuvim or Writings.
It is significant to note that Daniel is NOT placed among Prophets, but in the Writings.
It was the Protestant Reformation Bible in which it was assumed that Daniel was not only history but the writings of a prophet. Did the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society ever give consideration to the reason why there is such a discrepancy between the two groups, assuming as claimed, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not in effect a branch of Protestantism? And if the translation provided should be called the Hebrew Scriptures, why then does it resemble the Protestant Old Testament more than the Septuagint or Masoeretic Text?
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
Here are some initial very general questions. More specific and detailed ones are in queue. Should anyone wish to reply or answer on these, I think that is fair game. Some questions such as matters of organization can problably be answered by anyone who understands the administrative setup. I am not a member, but someone who received instruction and did some of my own research. And after all, I just might have some things wrong....
Question 1: Organization and Responsibility
As a result of contact, instruction and discussion, I have found many discrepancies in Jehovah’s Witnesses publications which the pioneers, publishers or elders I have spoken with have been unable or unwilling to explain. In some cases they say, “Well, this is simply what I believe.” But that is not the point, especially if they are unaware of the issue or details in the first place. The problem is that I often find that information provided in publications is false, distorted or attributed incorrectly. I often go to check on the Bible passages, the cited articles or the stated information and find it distorted, missing important details or simply false.
Were similar tactics and distortions used in political campaigns, there would be widespread public protest.
I am aware that in the past decade there has been significant reorganization of the Society with several new companies responsible for various parts of its operation. So, as a result, in cases where publishers, ministers or elders cannot provide an answer, whom do I contact if I have questions about:
a. texts presented in Ministry School?
b. text of the pamphlet “What does the Bible Really Teach?”
c. articles included in the “Watch Tower”?
d. explanations and translations of texts in the Bible?
Question 2: NWT and Anonymity – Of Translations and the Scriptural Authorship Itself
Regarding the “Anonymity of the translators of the New World Testament”:
In some discussions of the New World Testament, official spokespersons have indicated that the original translators in the 1940s and 50s requested that their identities remain anonymous, citing a scriptural tradition of anonymity. If the anonymity is in accordance with “the humble tradition of the authors of Scripture”, to which books of the Bible are the Watch Tower officials referring? In many instances, where authorship is indicated, it is often a matter of controversy. In fact, as illustrated by the writing of Eusebius, claims of authorship were often a controversy in collecting and reviewing a set of books to make up Old and New Testaments. However, examining the appendices to the New World Testament, all the books of the Bible are identified by where, when and by whom they were written. Pamphlets, Watch Tower articles and elders very emphatically state that this or that epistle, gospel, revelation or book of the Pentateuch is written by an apostle, prophet or, in the last case, Moses. An egregious example in the NT would be attributing Hebrews to Paul since he is no way identified as the author; only by its placement following his other writings where he is so named. In cases where there are issues with the translation, how can it be argued that anonymity is a profession of modesty based on a Scriptural tradition ( in fact argued mostly to the contrary), especially if translational objectivity or accuracy is called into question?
Question 3: Genesis and Satan
In the sequence of events begun in Genesis, chapter 3 with the temptation of Eve by a serpent and Adam’s capitulation and complicity in the crime, the story is subsequently dropped - in Genesis and as far as I can tell for the rest of the Old Testament. Can you tell me which books and chapters in the OT or Hebrew Scriptures pick up the story again? Can you tell me where in the OT the serpent in the Garden is identified as Satan? Then, finally, when we begin to read the New Testament where we find Satan and his demon hosts hiding behind nearly every tree, what happened in the meantime?
-
60
Society tells us to stop asking questions...
by cedars ini was just glancing at the back of the october 15th watchtower and the questions from readers.
the question under discussion is "what should i do when i have a question about something i read in the bible or when i need advice about a personal problem?".
the article goes on to discuss how we should consult the watch tower publications index among the many 'tools' that have been provided by the faithful and discreet slave whenever we have a question that is not directly discussed in the publications.. one statement really caught my eye, because it's the first time i've ever seen the society actually dissuade people from writing in with questions.
-
-
kepler
Magwitch,
Thank you. I took up your suggestion and started a topic Sunday night (25 March 2012): On the Receiving End of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
If I can find it again, I will provide background for a number of questions exposure to this type of evangelizing provides. Strange: often what is alerting is that the purveyed news hardly stands as glad tidings of any sort.
Kepler
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
kepler
Several years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a JW.
As a result she insisted that we read "What the Bible Really Teaches". Then later I agreed to take instruction with house visits by an Elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.
Although I have a background very foreign to all of this, I took the matter very seriously and studied the material presented very carefully, doing a lot of research. My suspicions were immediately aroused when the pamphlet and my instructors kept insisting that Babylon was destroyed by Jehovah (via some Isaiah citations, Cyrus and hand-waving) as punishment for desecration of the Temple. Things took off from there and I assumed that every other line in the document and citation was a manipulation, misconstrued or a lie. I want to tell someone, but everyone locally brushes me off - and my relations with my former fiance disintegrated to zero. In that regard we may as well have been trapped in the final pages of Orwell's "1984" after respective visits to Room 101...
But to sum up, one of her last correspondences to me was not to disturb the Elders or Overseers at the local congregations. Take my issues to Headquarters.
Recently I wrote back to her that now I am ready. How do I do it? But in response she wrote , "You have to write to them like the rest of us - and I don't want to get involved in this." I discovered that if I go to the official website or the Watch Tower, I can fill out a page to arrange for more home visits and the equivalent of another series of inoculations.
When I reported back to the Kingdom Hall elders - they added the note that I had to write via the mail. "Would it be answered?" "Oh, yes. They answer all of them." I've got a long list of questions and issues and it is growing. But I want to make sure that someone sees the result of my research. I want to make sure that my questions exist on line somewhere. I hope that this will be the means to do that. And I can report back on the answers as well...
...That's how I introduced this topic when I found a discussion on the topic: "The Watchtower is telling us to stop asking questions", based on a reply to readers' questions in the 15 October 2010 edition. One of the followers of the discussion topic had suggested that I start a new topic regarding the above. The pamphlet "What the Bible Really Teaches" looked like as good a place to start as any. All the anonymous contributors to that document helped make 2009-2012 possible.
As I expect to report in further detail, I had never thought much about the destruction of the ancient world's cities and capitals in the first millenium BC. But yet when I was given "What the Bible Really Teaches" as an introductory guide, I was astounded at the levels of deception surrounding this topic.
To start with, the only evidence I could find of Babylon's destruction (introduced as a concept in page 23 to support the notion of the Bible as a book of prophecy) was its complete leveling by Assyrian monarch Sennacherib in 689 BC, matching up very well with the truncated Isaiah 14:22-23. For good measure he FLOODED it, as Isaiah notes in the full quotation. In something of a bait and switch we are led to believe by the "WTBRT" text that the arrival of Cyrus in Babylon augured its destruction and then we are given Daniel's account of reading the handwriting on the wall for Belshazzar... and the quick succession after the banquet.
Not to get too diverted by this, I can cite numerous instances of Babylon continuing to exist for hundreds of years including Alexander the Great contemplating it as one of his capitals and hence dying there. If I look in the back of the NWT there is an appendix that claims Peter wrote his epistles there. Not that I necessarily believe that, but can we have it two ways either?
We are also left wondering why Daniel in his official duties did not see fit to have Belshazzar read chapters 44 and 45 of Isaiah himself. Right? But even taking into account discrepancies related to Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction between all other sources and the version initiated by Charles Taze Russell and successors, it is difficult for me to accept the idea that Babylon was destroyed early in the 7th century BC for acts it perpetrated ( to punish Israel or not) in the 6th. Even to suggest that Is 14:22-23 supports this - there is some explaining to do.
By other accounts, including Scriptures, Cyrus was received as a conquering hero by the Babylonians dissatisfied with Nabonidus absenteeism. Nabonidus, the guy who had a son named Belshazzar who Daniel thought was Nebuchadnezzar's son. Anyway, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon ( the restorer of Babylon in an official Assyrian ceremony), the Babylonian and Persian kings all left stone or original records. And it gets much better than this. When I connected Daniel 9:1-2 with two other such sources (Greek and Persian), I just about fell out of my chair. But if anyone already knows what I am talking about here, then you are welcome to come to the punchline.
Recently though, I noticed that the Watchtower had an article about how the first chapter of Exodus was accurate because Israelites in Egypt just might actually have done some brickmaking there like they surely would have been doing in Mesopotamia. I am sure we are all glad to know this, but did someone ask this question via a post in the mail and expressed their concerns? Or did the authors simply anticipate the question and provide an anwer? Before I provide such anonymous assist to the Editorial Committee I would like for my questions at least to see the light of day.
Some of these questions are of historical nature; some, the contemplation of cherry picking scriptural verses and building logical structures (?) from the result. Also, now and then I was actually able to make a test.
Best regards.
If I am going over
-
60
Society tells us to stop asking questions...
by cedars ini was just glancing at the back of the october 15th watchtower and the questions from readers.
the question under discussion is "what should i do when i have a question about something i read in the bible or when i need advice about a personal problem?".
the article goes on to discuss how we should consult the watch tower publications index among the many 'tools' that have been provided by the faithful and discreet slave whenever we have a question that is not directly discussed in the publications.. one statement really caught my eye, because it's the first time i've ever seen the society actually dissuade people from writing in with questions.
-
-
kepler
Several years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a JW.
As a result she insisted that we read "What the Bible Really Teaches". Then later I agreed to take instruction with house
visits by an Elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.
Although I have a background very foreign to all of this, I took the matter very seriously and studied the matters presented very carefully, doing a lot of research. My suspicions were immediately aroused when the pamphlet and my instructors kept insisting that Babylon was destroyed by Jehovah (via some Isaiah citations, Cyrus and hand-waving) as punishment for desecration of the Temple. Things took off from there and I assumed that every other line in the document and citation was a manipulation, misconstrued or a lie. I want to tell someone, but everyone locally brushes me off - and my relations with my former fiance disintegrated to zero. I may as well have been trapped in the final pages of 1984.
But to some, up one of here last correspondences with me was not to bother the Elders or Overseers at the local congregations. Take my issues to Headquarters. I wrote back to her that now I am ready. She said, "You have to write to them like the rest of us - and I don't want to get involved in this." I discover that if I go to the official website or the Watch Tower, I can fill out a page to arrange for more home visits and the equivalent of another series of inoculations.
When I reported back to the Kingdom Hall elders - they added the note that I had to write via the mail. "Would it be answered?" "Oh, yes. They answer all of them." I've got a long list of questions and issues and it is growing. But I want to make sure that someone sees the result of my research. I want to make sure that my questions exist on line somewhere. I hope that this will be the means to do that. And I can report back on the answers as well.