Posts by kepler

2

How many JWs does it take to ....

by 00DAD in

.

q: how many jws does it take to .... figure out the meaning of the word "generation"?

they've had millions of people working on it for about a century and they still haven't figured it out yet!!!!

kepler

How many JWs does it take to ...

...screw in a light bulb?

... What does the Watchtower say?

... distribute its publications?

All of them.

... write them?

None of them.

... filll up the anointed class?

Who's counting?

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

Well, doing some more background research. AnnOMaly had inquired about the lineage of Belshazzar on his mother's side.

One piece of data is the mother of Nabonidus, described variously as 94-104 years old when she died. One brief account provided by a genealogical organization, something of a skit:

Daughter of King Assurbanipal ll and Queen Ashursharrat [ASSYRIAN]. I was born in 649, in Harran. I married Nabu-balatsu, a Prince of Babylon.

He was a good man and the marriage was successful. We had two sons. Nabonidus, King of Babylon NN of Babylon. I lived 98 years. I witnessed the fall of the great Assyrian Empire and the establishment of the Babylon Empire by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar ll. I lived long enought to see my son Nabonidus sit on the throne of Babylon, well, that took awhile. All of Nebuchadnezzar's immediate successors had to be murdered first, but that is another story.

In an on-line encyclopedia article he refers to his otherwise unknown father, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, as "wise prince." I don't have a fix on whom he married. But so far, if we were to take the line of reasoning of the"son of" argument, Daniel might have been able to say "son of Assurbanipal". This does not help Daniel.

In commentary connected with the Nabonidus Chronicle, it is pointed out that Nabonidus had returned from Tayma (Arabia) in time for the new year (April 2nd - TODAY!) festival, but the battles with Cyrus were several months later. It is argued in this source that Nabonidus had dismissed Belshazzar and taken field command. Then, it was also suggested elsewhere that Belshazzar might have passed away earlier anyway. 50 -50. Belshazzar excused from duty and available to party - or Belshazzar had a legitimate alibi for absence.

OFF in another direction.

The discussion of Danel and the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 draws me back to explorations leading to my first post on this topic. I was fascinated by the way Bible quotes and Watchtower paragraphs were used in the 1934 Yearbook. But it was in the introductory article of that publication where Joseph Rutherford provides a summary or framework around the movement. Beside his distinctive style, a number of things leaped out at me or stuck in memory for later investigation. But I suspect that someone with life-long involvement might have noticed even more.

Yearbook 1934 Excerpt beginning on Page 21:

..The beginning of creation was his beloved Son, whose first title is the Logos. (John 1: 1; Col. 1: 15;Prov. 8: 22-29). Thereafter all things created were created by Christ Jesus as the active agent of Jehovah.(Eph. 3: 9). Among the creatures created was Lucifer, who was made the overlord of man and all other creation of earth.

God created the earth as a place for man’s home, and the earth shall abide forever and be inhabited by those who love and serve Jehovah God.--Isa. 45-12,18; Eccl. 1: 4.

The Bible is God’s Word of truth and is given as a guide and for the instruction of man in the way of righteousness, and it contains the expressed purpose of Jehovah; and those who study it may ascertain his purpose.--Isa. 46: 9-12; 55.11; John 17: 17.

God created man of the dust of the earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives, and man thereby became a living, moving creature called a "soul". (Gen.2: 7) The first man Adam was perfect, and it was his duty and obligation to obey God. (Deut. 32 ¯ 4) He was plainly informed by Jehovah that a willful violation of His law would mean death. Lucifer, the overlord of man, rebelled against God, and Adam, the first man, [p. 22 Year Book] followed the lead of Lucifer in sin and was sentenced to death. (Ezek. 28: 13-15; Gen. 3: 3-19). The power to produce children was exercised by Adam between the time of his sentence to death, which deprived him of the right to live, and the time of his actual dissolution; hence all of his children inherited the result of that death sentence and all the human race have been born as sinners. (Rom. 5: 12) Jehovah God changed Lucifer’s name to that of Serpent [ Sidebar: Was Rutherford reading the Bible backwards?], meaning deceiver; Satan, meaning opposer; Dragon, meaning destroyer; and Devil, meaning the slanderer of God. Ever since Satan has been the opponent of Jehovah God and the persecutor of all who serve God.

---------------------

Sidebar on Ezekiel 28 – Against the King of Tyre (using New Jerusalem Bible text)

1. The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows, ‘Son of Man, say to the ruler of Tyre, “The Lord Yahweh says this:

2. Because your heart has grown proud, you thought, I am a god; I am divinely enthroned far out to sea. Though you are human, not divine, you allowed yourself to think like [a] god.

3. So you are wiser than Danel; no sage as wise as you!

4. By your wisdom and your intelligence you made yourself a fortune, you have put gold and silver into your treasuries.

5. Such is your skill in trading, your fortune has continued to increase,…

11. The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows,

12. Son of man, raise a lament for the king of Tyre. Say to him, “The Lord Yahweh says this: You used to be a model of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty;

13. You were in Eden, in the garden of God. All kinds of gem formed your mantle: sard, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphier, garnet, emerald, and your ear pendants and spangles were made of gold; all was ready on the day you were created.

14. I made you a living creature with outstretched wings, as guardian, you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked amid red-hot coals.

15. Your behavior was exemplary from the day you were created until guilt first appeared in you,

16. because your busy trading has filled you with violence and sin. I have thrown you down from the mountains of God and destroyed you, guardian winged creature, amid the coals.

17. Your heart has has grown proud because of your beauty, your wisdom has been corrupted by your splendor. I have thrown you to the ground.

Sidebar comments: Do I know what Joseph Rutherford was talking about in the excerpt or do I know what he was doing? Ostensibly the Lord is addressing the King of Tyre, under siege by King Nebuchadnezzar, speaking via prophet Ezekiel. Yet Rutherford in selecting and quoting the verses would never let the reader guess from context. But let us suppose even that Rutherford were right about whom the Lord was addressing. Would this not throw a wrench [28:16-17] into the events of 1914?

---------------------

[1934 YB continued] The Scriptures further teach that Satan the Devil challenged Jehovah God to put on earth any man that would be faithful and true to God at all times, Satan claiming that all men, under certain conditions, would curse God to his face. (Job 2: 1-9) From that time until the present the human race has suffered woe, sickness, sorrow and death. In order that all creation might be able to intelligently determine who is supreme, and from whom the blessings of life and happiness proceed, and who is the just, wise and loving one, Jehovah or Satan, the great Jehovah God permitted or suffered Satan to put forth his endeavors to prove his wicked challenge, declaring His purpose in due time to bring the knowledge of the truth to all creation and to fully vindicate his own name. (Ex. 9: 16, Leeser) From the very beginning of man’s experience Satan has carried forward an organized opposition to God and to righteousness, and continues so to do, and will continue so to do until he and his organization are destroyed.

Early in the history of man Jehovah God made promise and stated this promise to Abraham that he [1934 Year Book p 23] would raise up a seed which would redeem the human race from death and through which seed all the families and nations of the earth should have opportunity for blessings. That promised seed is Christ, the Anointed of Jehovah God.--Gen. 12: 1-3; 22: 18;Gal. 3 : 16-29. [Sidebar: To be honest, I do not see a promise of release from death in the verses cited in Genesis. What Abraham knew of the contents of Galatians, I cannot say, but reading that specifically, I did not see a release from death there either. If someone would like to pick up on that (e.g., it's elaborated by Paul elsewhere), and considering the season, I will certainly listen]

In due time Jehovah God sent his beloved Son, the Logos, to earth, who was made a man or human, instead of a spirit, that he might be the redeemer of mankind and the vindicator of Jehovah God’s name.--Heb. 2:9; 5:7-9; John 3:16; Phil. 2:7.

When on earth Jesus was a perfect man, holy, sinless, and therefore competent to be man’s redeemer. (Matt. 1: 18-25; Gal. 4: 4; Luke 1: 35) He began his ministry at the age of thirty years, and testified boldly to the truth, and for this reason was the object of constant and wicked persecution by the religionists of his time, and which religionists caused him to be crucified upon the tree. His lifeblood, poured out in death, provided the redemptive price for the human race.--Matt. 4 :1-9; John 8: 40-44; 1 Tim. 2 : 5, 6, Heb.9: 22-26; 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19.

Jehovah God raised up Jesus out of death and exalted him to heaven and gave him a name above every name and committed into his hands all power in heaven and in earth and made him the Executive Officer of Jehovah to carry out his purposes---Eph. 1:20-22; Heb. 1:3,4; Matt. 28:18, Heb. 2.7,8; 1 Pet. 3: 21,22; Ps 2:6, John 5:21-27, Isa. 9:6,7; Ps. 45:6.

When on earth Jesus emphasized the fact that he came to be a witness to Jehovah’s Word of truth and that he spoke only what God had commanded him to speak. (John 18: 37) Just before his crucifixion especially impressed upon the minds of his disciples that he must die and go away to heaven to receive the

------------------------------------------------------------

The summary continues for a few more pages and the annual report by nations begins on page 27. Clearly, I can't see how he can rationalize his use of Ezekiel other than to manipulate, but I also wonder what others think of this.

Just wondering: Would Rutherford in the rank and file remain a JW in good standing or would he be subject to disciplinary hearing? Or would he just need to clean up his vocabulary?

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

AnnOMaly,

I will try to address as much of what issues you raised as I can. And I want to be on record to say that you are bringing up good debate points.

-----

Going back to:

Ezekiel identifies the date ( if we assume Jerusalem's fall in 586) as the same year as Jerusalem's fall. If this is indeed a reference to the king of Tyre in Ez 28:3 - "So you are as wise as Daniel/Danel; no sage as wise as you." - this would be very early in Daniel's career.

And considering it was Nebuchadnezzar that was laying siege to Tyre, it sounds a little implausible at that. But according to the text of Daniel, this was a period in which Nebuchadnezzar was off track for 7 years, having gone mad.

And you note:

If Daniel, not 'very' early in his career. He would have clocked up about 20 years' experience by then, and in a prestigious, official capacity too (2:48).

-----

Regarding dates we have a double system of book-keeping. The translator of Annals of the Chaldean Kings concedes evidence for a raid on Jerusalem that carried off hostages circa 603 BC, but his chronology has its ultimate destruction in 586. If you are saying that Daniel should be presumed to have a 20-year career with Nebuchnezzar as a sage, let us remember that the Tyre siege and Jerusalem's destruction occurred about the same time. IF Daniel were hauled into Babylon earlier than that (603), he arrived as hardly even an adolescent. According to chapter one, his first sage accomplishment was a 10-day diet plan that made him look healthy to the chief eunuch. Maybe in 586 he was about 33. If he came in later (597 or 586), he was much younger.

Tyre, held by the way. It was Alexander that actually delivered on Ezekiel's prophetic threats.

Now is there any mention of Daniel or Beltazzar in Babylonian or Persian cuneiform records? They certainly mention a lot of other individuals.

Prophecies are indeed murky waters. Over the decades I had not been tracking those of the JW, but I was aware of other people's notions of the layout of history. Even had a weird deju vu dream or two myself. But I would still have to say that the guys that get the best score on these tests seem to be surrounded with suspicions of falsified postmarks on their letters. Occam's Razor.

And, of course, there are other religious traditions that have prophecies of their own. Perhaps we could swap tales with discussions about Catholicism's own apocalyptic tradition - "Our Lady of Fatima". JWs can describe what their expectations from God were for the late 20th century and I can relate the tradition and the outcome of the other. Of the two I like the Fatima version better. There was a dilemma on Earth, presented at about time Russell and Rutherford presented theirs; but there was also eventual divine mercy and the faithful participated in the solution through prayer. It does not bring us to the end, but it wasn't a morbid apocalypse either. Even had a hero or two. But that's not the only tradition on the block.

The issue of translating Danel vs. Daniel illustrates another aspect of dealing with the uncertainties of translation. In the case I have presented, it becomes clear ( at least to me) that the NJB translators were not simply confronted with three consonants and no vowels from an ancient text, but deciding on what the vowels ought to be based on other documents they had access to. Admittedly not all of us reading these words will agree on their choices, but I suspect that it can be understood how evidence in Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus and world view would influence their choice. Their perspective is also based on hierarchies of evidence. These include classifying Biblical sources into Gospel, Epistle, Acts, Revelations, and Old Testament categories as well.

Let's take a different perspective. A 19th century Anglo American perspective is that Scripture is inerrant and does not contradict itself. Yet at the same time to explain the state of the world, consideration of organizational church abuses over centuries engendered a doctrine of a widespread millenium long apostasy that assured reformers they had God's guidance and that they would be his logical intermediaries when his Son returned. In this line of reasoning dreams recorded in apocalyptic books, whether initially intended or not, tended to have a trump effect over Gospels. If you would like an example, consider the NWT of Jesus speaking with the Good Thief in Luke 23:42-43 "And he went on to say:"Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdoms". And he said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."

It is in behalf of doctrines derived from dreams in Daniel about 2520 year intervals that just have to limit the ability of the Son of God to deliver on this promise. Apocalyptic literature has trumped over the Gospel in a translation decision. The result is that (as far as I understand this) to Watchtower readers the Good Thief is still waiting for what Christians elsewhere interpreted as an immediate entry. Otherwise, I don't think there would have been significant numbers of Christians around in 1914, if the original followers and adherents had understood the words in 30 AD the way the NWT has them interpreted today.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

AnnOMaly,

Of those three Ezekiel verses, I checked the New Jerusalem Bible - which I had referred to earlier - the JPS TaNaKh, the NWT and the KJ. Of those named, only the New Jerusalem Bible translated the name in Ezekiel as Danel.

Rationale for Danel are described in this excerpt from the Wikipedia:

The Book of Ezekiel in three verses (14:14. 14:20, and 28:3) writes "Danel", which according to the Masoretic Text should be read as "Daniel". This notwithstanding, parallels and contrasts with the righteous and wise Danel (without i) [8] of the Book of Ezekiel, placed between Noah and Job [9] and invoked as the very example of righteous judgement, [10] first pointed out by René Dussaud in 1931, [11] have led readers commonly to accept [12] or occasionally to reject [13] a degree of identification with Ugaritic Danel of the "Aqhat text", amounting virtually to the same figure. [14] The three figures referred to in Ezekiel 14:14 — "Even if Noah, Danel and Job were in it..." — links the name with two non-Israelites of great antiquity. In Ezekiel 28:3 , Danel is one noted for his wisdom in the prophecy addressed to the king of Tyre: "you are indeed wiser than Danel, no secret is hidden from you". The name, "Danel", had a long tradition in Hebrew culture: he is supplied as the father-in-law of Enoch in Jubilees. [15]

To this I would add that Ezekiel in addressing the King of Tyre, the Ezekiel assumes that the king and Tyre is going to go down. This would be early in the the siege. Ezekiel identifies the date ( if we assume Jerusalem's fall in 586) as the same year as Jerusalem's fall. If this is indeed a reference to the king of Tyre in Ez 28:3 - "So you are as wise as Daniel/Danel; no sage as wise as you." - this would be very early in Daniel's career. And considering it was Nebuchadnezzar that was laying siege to Tyre, it sounds a little implausible at that. But according to the text of Daniel, this was a period in which Nebuchadnezzar was off track for 7 years, having gone mad.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

Soft+Gentle, AnnOMaly,

First, thanks for the lead to the Omega. Slow and painstaking, but this is the essential phrase that I wanted to illustrate:

τησ Ελλαδοσ ου πολλοισ ετεσιν υστερον και η εν Μαραθωνιμαχη Μηδων προσ Αθηνιουσ...

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.

Both of you had some questions about the connections between Daniel and Maccabees. As one of you put it, can I show that events described in Daniel and Maccabees are the same; or as the other put it, "How do times and events in Maccabees negate the historicity of events recorded in Daniel?"

We'll have to get to some specifics. After all, I am not saying that everything recorded in Daniel, including "a" and "the" is false. And I believe it was D. Wisemen who noted that at least one of the entries of the Annals of Chaldean Kings gave evidence of a raid on Jerusalem prior to 597 in which captives were taken. But saying that, that particular entry by no means said "Hey, we've got the young prince Daniel; let's turn him into a courtier."

Where we left off, I said that there is clear proof of who Belshazzar was ( son of Nabonidus; neither king nor son of Nebuchadnazzar). AnnOMaly said, well there is the POSSIBILITY that he is related to Nebuchadnezzar through a maternal line. OK. Then, Daniel said that Darius the Mede arrives in Babylon before Cyrus and he was his adviser, sometimes in 3rd person, sometimes in 1st; sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic. Nobody supports this chronology except Daniel. The first Darius carves in rock who he was and that he succeeded Cyrus. The second Darius who establishes the Satrapies reigned when Daniel was over a century old. Both of these guys put down Babylonian revolts where principal figures had names like Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus...And the third Darius got whacked in battle by Alexander's forces in the 4th century. And Daniel never mentions Nabonidus. Never.

Regarding Belshazzar and Opis: In writing my post I did say that Roux claimed Belshazzar was lost in battle at Opis. And that is the why I phrased it that way.

I cannot verify his argument. I might have the data from previous research - and then maybe not. But I see no evidence in Herodotus for Belshazzar attending a dinner, gazing at handwriting on the wall and calling on Daniel for clarification, nor in any other source. The idea that he was on the front at Opis, I would not dismiss out of hand. There was nothing secret about the mass of Persian troops; only that the Assyrian allies of Babylon (Gubaru /Gobryas ) went over to the Persian side.

Now what about the Maccabees? When the dreams are discussed in chapters seven, eight and eleven, many of the details can be matched up with events during the Seleucid era: the ten kings and ten horns, the short horn still growing and the reigning king Antiochus IV epiphanies. Even the Roman intercession in his plans to take on Egypt. Now when people talk about these dreams, I am not sure that everyone is talking about the same thing. I never had bothered to read the novels, but back in the 1970s Hal Lindsay must have made a fortune describing Armageddon in a series of novels about the armies of the North and South coming together in pitched battles right about now. I don't know how he handled 4th to 1st century BC history, but I suppose that was an interpretation of Daniel. Yet the most straight-forward interpretation of his "prophecies" would be accounts of events that were going on in his own day and preceding it. If it were done today, a magician's hat would be waved over a newly opened time capsule extracted from a building cornerstone.

Getting to assertions of desecrations of the Temple and its vessels, the accounts of the Maccabees and the historical revolt are definite events that can be corroborated with documents and archeological remains. Now as to whether there was a corresponding desecration of the Temple in the presumed time of Daniel, I would be fairly sure that the sacking in 586/587 BC would constitute such, but the account in Daniel indicates it was part of a feast more akin to what was going on during the reign of Antiochus. The king who should have been responsible had not been in town for years, but in Arabia. Too observant of moon god Sin vs.

Marduk. Belshazzar should have been too busy...

Yet as I indicated in posts on another topic, I was led to believe by the elders who instructed on What the Bible Really Teaches, that Babylon was literally destroyed for what had gone on at Belshazzar's feast - by Cyrus. This was certainly far from the truth and the details and Isaiah verses cited fit the actions of

Assyrian Sennacherib 100 years before Jerusalem's sacking by Nebuchadnezzar. So you can see why I am sceptical of this line of argument.

To get more specific about Daniel,

In 7:7 -7:8, ten horns on the fourth beast are mentioned and one is still growing: the Seleucid Dynasty had ten kings and Antiochus IV Epiphanes was tenth still reigning – thus, the horn was still growing.

“Thrones set in place and the one most venerable took his seat” can be regarded as a reference to the Book of Enoch also referenced in NT by Jude. The fourth beast vision is repeated toward the end of the chapter with variations and some of it could refer again to Antiochus IV, who “will plan to alter the seasons and the Law and the Saints will be handed over to him, for a time, two times and half a time” about the same period as his 3.5 year persecution.

Chapter 7 was written in Aramaic. Chapter 8 is in Hebrew. Dan 8:8 describes the breakup of the Alexandrian Empire at his death into four kingdoms and again concentrates on Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

When we consider the accounts of the Maccabees regarding the Temple and the Law during the reign and repression of Antiochus IV, then it can be said that his conduct was consistent with the description provided in Dan 8:9-12.

---

As noted in notes in the New Jerusalem Bible, the neo-Babylonian background of Daniel is described in words of Persian origin; the instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra are given names transliterated from the Greek. The dates in the book agree neither with themselves nor with history as we know it, and they seem to have been placed in the chapter heads without much care for chronology. The author has made use of oral and written traditions still current in his own times. The Dead Sea manuscripts contain fragments of a Daniel cycle related to the canonical book, notably a prayer of Nabonidus reminiscent of Dn 3:31-4:34, in which the name of Nebuchadnezzar replaces that of Nabonidus…

The late composition of the book explains its position in the Hebrew Bible. It was admitted after the canon of the Prophets had already been fixed, and placed between Esther and Ezra among the varied group of ‘other writings’ forming the last sectin of the Hebrew canon.

In the same NJT Bible among the other deuteron-canonical books is the “wisdom book” of Ben Sirach, titled Ecclesiasticus among other names and not to be confused with Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes like Daniel is another canonical book posted in the TaNaKh under "writings". Written in Hebrew and translated by Jerome, two thirds of its original was discovered in Cairo in an old synagogue in 1896. Later, segments at Qumran and at Massada in 1964. The book is included in the Sinaiticus codex which is probably in Greek. In a foreword to the book the grandson of ben Sirach tells how he translated the book (into Greek ) when he went into exile in Egypt in 2nd century BC. The original manuscript is placed at roughly 200 BC.

In its 51 chapters, toward the last four or five Ecclesiasticus provides a “eulogy for our ancestors”.

Among these are eulogies for kings, prophets and other leaders. Chapter 48 calls out Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah; 49, Josiah, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, “Simon son of Onias who repaired the Temple during his lifetime” – but no Daniel. Despite his association with many miracles, being councilor to a succession of Babylonian and Persian kings starting with Nebuchadnezzar and surviving to centenarian age, if not more, depending on which Darius he served, there is no notice of him in this paean to Judean history, circa 200 BC. While there is mention of Daniel in the Maccabees, there is no mention of him in the OT any earlier save for the same-named book. As late as 200 BC he is an unknown or not worthy of remark.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

AnnOMaly,

RE: You've focused on the paternal line. Have you considered the possibility that Belshazzar was descended from Nebuchadnezzar through the maternal line? A possibility... [citations above].

I have heard it suggested that the rationale for calling Belshazzar Nebuchadnazzar's son a maternal line. And let us consider it.

Since you brought it up, are you aware of anyone in this maternal line beside Nabonidus's mother? I suppose she was old enough to have known Nebuchadnezzar very well, but I have failed to note any reference to that. Had either of the two sources you mentioned given any particulars? If they had I presume you would have mentioned it.

Secondly, when I have read son of so-and-so in a case that could be similar to Belshazzar son of Nabonidus - it was in a litany of forebearers. In the current context citing Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnazzar could be considered treasonous because he was NOT king. Nabonidus was. If Daniel was the supposed Talleyrand or Metternich of Mesopotamia, this would have been a very impolitic thing to do. Senseless if Belshazzar was going to be murdered the same night.

There are several accounts of what happened when Babylon was taken: that of Daniel, Xenophon, Herodotus, the Nabonidus and Cyrus cylinders. According to the Nabonidus cylinder compiled by the priests of Marduk, the main battle was outside of Babylon at Opis 50 kilometers away. George Roux interprets events as Nabonidus directing Belshazzar to meet the Persian flank - and he is lost in battle there. Curiously, it is Xenophon, Herodotus and Daniel that mention a feast in the city whether Belshazzar was there or not- though the complaint of the Marduk priests was that Nabonidus was neglecting ceremonies with his absence for proto anthropology or archeology in Arabia. So Daniel could be derivative of Greeks again.

---------------------------------------------------

While this line of argument about Daniel being literal focuses on a night of festivity in Babylon prior to its fall, it ignores what is chronicled elsewhere in the so-called deutero-canon of the Bible, I & II Maccabees. I Maccabees 1 & 2 are very specific about what happened during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, abrogating a charter of Antiochus III. Ironically it was recorded in Greek.

Example: I Macc 1:54-

"On the 15th day of Chislev in the year 145 ( of the Seleucid era) the king built the appalling abomination on top of the altar of burnt offering; altars were built in surrounding towns of Judah and incense offered at the doors of houses and streets. Any books of the Law that came to light were torn up and burned. Whenever anyone was discovered possessing a copy of the covenant or practising the law, the king's decree sentenced him to death. ... On the 25th day of each month sacrifice was offered on the altar erected on top of the altar of burnt offering..." Ceremonies for either Zeus or Baal.

The next line about women, children and others involved in circumcision rites is more grisly than I am willing to transcribe.

Later, in 1 Macc 2:12

See how the Holy Place, our beauty, our glory is now laid waste

see how the gentiles have profaned it.

In this same chapter Hannaniah, Azariah, Mishael and Daniel are all mentioned. But I maintain that the events described in Maccabees is less like folklore. And that the authors of Maccabees and Daniel are closer in space and time than some might think.

This desecration and suppression was real. As was the successful Maccabee revolt. But in the smoke and wind of 2520 year arguments, this is hardly ever regarded. Yet it is in the II Maccabees 7th chapter (pointed out one night in a public lecture I attended one night by an astronomer from the Vatican observatory) relating the martyrdom of the 7 brothers, their mother addresses the last of her sons before Antiochus himself just before his executioner dispatches this last boy under torture. "...I implore you, my child, look at the earth and sky and everything in them, and consider how God made them out what did not exist, and that human beings come into being in the same way. Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that I may receive you back with them in the day of mercy." Has something new happened since the time of the patriarchs?

30

Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"

by kepler in

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.. .

kepler

I know, I'm getting tired of polemics too, but I feel obliged. I'm jumping around in the numerical sequence. Some of the questions are more ready for presentation than others. This is not entirely a question of presentation to the perhaps hypothetical questions from readers page. If these questions are of interest to me, I presume they might be of interest to someone else, or there might be some pretty good insight out there already.

To cite a similar situation, I was once trying to decide which of two vendors to purchase some software from. One specialized in software for writing code; the other produced such software as a sideline and was one of the primary makers of computer chips. When it came to questions about the code, the software company had a help desk available by phone or e-mail. The chip maker had a users' group. In that respect the Watchtower resembles Intel. Or am I wrong?

Question 33: 2 Peter

In 2 Peter 3: 15-17 there is a commentary on the delay of the day of reckoning where the old Earth will pass away.

“Think of the Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved: our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that he was given. He makes this point too in his letters as a whole wherever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and tese are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of Scripture – to their own destruction.”

Paul’s letters seemingly already exist as a collection, and are put up on the same level as the Old Testament. And we are to presume that Peter is writing from distant Babylon sometime after Paul’s passing away?

Question 34: Jude and the Book of Enoch

If the brief epistle of Jude in the New Testament is part of the Canon and it refers to the Book of Enoch and the book of Enoch is extant, should we read this book as well? What are we to make of it? Does this book not have more resemblance to Zoroastrian writngs than anything else in the Hebrew Scriptures?

Question 35: Destruction of the Temple, First and Second

In the Gospels there is frequent reference to coming events. In some cases the grief and destruction faced by the generation that would witness the second destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem; not in the spare account of Mark, but in Luke 23:27-32. However, in Dispensationalist theory, little is made of this second destruction; only the second counts for prophetic judgments about our error? Why is this?

Question 36: The Remnant

In the 1954 Strachan vs. Walsh testimony of Vice President Frederick Franz, on page 30 of the text there is a discussion of the Remnant in terms of the living remaining anointed.

A:The remnant, we have reason to belive, are sufficient in umber on earth today to complete the membership of the Body of Christ, 144,000. However, the fact that a man or woman may be a member of the anointed today does not guarantee that one will pass through the further trials of faith and devotion in the future and come off victorious. There may be those who will succumb under the test and fall out, in which case they will have to be replaced by others who dedicate themselves to Jehovah God through Jesus Christ. … Those then will replace the unfaithful ones.

Q. Within the Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses is there a distinction between those who are of the remnant of the anointed and those who are not?

A. Yes, there is a distinction….

Q. Now one last matter on this little chapter. Can the theocratic direction which you have described as transmitting from God through his chosen instruments upon earth operate through the other sheep; or must it operate through the anointed?

A. The direction of the work must operate through the anointed.

Q. Does it therefore follow that , that it is only those who are of the anointed who can achieve and hold a position such as president or ordinary member of the Board of Directors of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

A. Yes, that is true, and we have a by-law which restricts the membership of the Board of Directors to the anointed class.

Q. Can you just tell his Lordship one other matter. How is the qualification of being one of the anointed evidenced? Is it self-determinative selection or is it determined by some external body or external agency?

A. No. Membership in the anointed body, of course, can only be determined by Jehovah God himself because it is a spiritual body and he is the only one who can beget those whom he accepts by His Holy Spirit and makes them as such with his Holy Spirit to be members of the Body of Christ and co-heirs with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom.

-----

Are there enough anointed alive and physically capable to fulfill the stated by-laws of the Society today? Have the bylaws been changed?

31

Scholastic Dishonesty - June 2012 Awake - Jewish Exile Timeline

by Ultimate Reality in

the june 2012 awake has another article on the exile of the jews by the babylonians.

once again the wt quotes dishonestly.. .

from page 14:.

kepler

In reviewing the discussion of the initial post, I have not seen much in defense of the application of Ephraim Stern's work in support of a period of 70 year desolation between 607 and 538 BC. In the context where I encountered it (spring 2011), students in the ministry school, if that is an apt description, were instructed to argue that Stern's Biblical Archeological Review article was evidence in behalf of Jerusalem's destruction in that year vs. 587/86. And subsequent to that, Watchtower articles were citing him as backup in overall chronology discussions.

The consensus was that this is dishonest. But there is still some disarray about how to characterize it and what can be done about it.

In the United States, for example, constitutional amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion make legal protest a slippery issue. I am NOT a lawyer, but I suspect that if a libel lawsuit saw the light of day, there are arguable defenses against it. Currently we are in the midst of political campaigns culminating in November and all manner of things spoken by public figures and written by writers are being taken out of context - and distorted.

I would be curious what a lawyer might say, but most likely it would be one tied already to the Watchtower...

On the other hand, it would be wise not to forget about the idea of "scholastic dishonesty". Does it matter? Consider two cases.

CASE A: The Watchtower certainly does not submit anything to journals with editors or peer review, but we can observe the effects of scholastic dishonesty in those journals when it occurs. In some cases the academic imperative to publish or perish has resulted in epic volumes of papers; in some cases re-examination of the material submitted has identified fraud. In a matter such as cancer research, where there has been some recent re-examination, the consequences can be very significant. Depending on how faked results transform treatment and prevention procedures of cancer, falsification willresult in the loss of lives when patients are veered off course in to pursue quack medicine. In such cases, where institutional researches are investigated and found to have produced fake results, they are dismissed by their institutions. They will also have an uphill battle of re-establishing their credentials. The institution's liability is not likely to cease either.

...But yet it is possible for an organization to petition you with faked evidence about spiritual matters right at your door. In instituting a government for the people and by the people in the country where I reside (which Lincoln addresses in his Gettysburg funeral oration) it was thought that the consequences of not allowing such activity would be worse. But when it should "perish from this Earth", near 98 years behind schedule, you can imagine who the beneficiaries might be.

CASE B: Whereas the above case involves conventional research which might find evidence for a medical cure, there are also investigations which are out on a limb in the first place. This is the case where institutions are devoted to researching a hypothesis which they have bought into a priori. It could be a modest proposition such as effects of vitamin C or it could be an institution devoted to creation science or UFOs. The point is NOT whether these things are true or not initially - because that is what investigation is for. But when an institution with the results spelled out in its middle name is caught with its thumb on the scales or falsifying the evidence, then there is no other conclusion than that the organization is simply the manifestation of a cult which sees itself with higher entitlement than merely attempting to seek any objective truths.

I would guess that more energy is being expended in research departments of CASE B organizations to get data to conform to a pre-conceived notion than to do any genuine research at all. If it were possible to compile ratios of such activity across the board, I am sure it would be fascinating reading with some interesting charts....

In an instance where the spokespersons deny responsibility for what they are saying and reading from a script; when questions cannot be directed to any identifiable authority; when all their publications are anonymous; when all their attributions are questionable; when any dissent is shut down with accusations of vanity and impudence, it make one wonder how any research can be engendered at all. I know of a number of organizations like this. If Jehovah has a theocracy here on Earth, how could he be pleased if it has placed itself in such company?

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

AnnOMaly, Quoting from your post above: With regard to Nebuchadnezzar being called his father, there are other instances where 'father' can have the sense of 'forefather.' Had a few moments to reflect on that observation while running some errands. Beside Thucydides, I think I can recommend another book. The 1992 Penguin Edition of Ancient Iraq by Georges Roux, a French mining engineer and, perhaps by default, an archeologist. In chapter 23 of his book he deals with Nabonidus and the fall of Babylon. Here are som excerpts from pages 380 on: "The last years of Nebuchadrezzar's reign are obscure All we know is that this great king died of an illnes in the first days of October 562 BC. His on Amel-Mardu ( Evil Merodach of the Old Testament) ruled for only two years. According to Berossus, 'Becuase he managed affairs in a lawless and outrageous fashion, he was plotted against and killed by his sister's husband Neriglisaros ( 'Neriglissar", Nergal-shar-usur) a businessman whom Nebuchadrezzar had entrusted with official functions..." Of his four years of reign (559-556 BC) [we know little save...] After his death Neriglissar was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk who was still a child but, we are told, exhibited such signs of wickedness that his friends plotted and nine months later, tortured him to death. The conspirators then met and decided to raise to the throne one of them, Nabu-naid (Nabonidus) (June 556 BC). But in the previous four years events had taken place that were to change, once again, the fate of the Ancient World. The Fall of Babylon Nabuna'id or, as we call him after the Greeks, Nabonidus (556-539 BC)... He was the son a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who belonged to the Babylonian nobility but was not of royal blood, and of a votaress of the god Sin in the city of Harran. A man in his sixties when he ascended the throne, he had held important administrative functions under Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar. Extremely fond of his mother - she died in 547 BC at the age of 104, and was buried with royal honors - he had inherited from her a keen interest in religious affairs and a special almsot exclusive devotion to the go she had served all her life. ... ---- Well, that's enough for a start. But note that the family ties to Nebuchadnezzar have been cut at least twice. He also comes to the throne at some sixty years of age. Coincidence. And, as it turns out, there is a Dead Sea manuscript that mentions him receiving cure for a long standing ailment from a Jewish practitioner of medicine, if that is appropriate prior to Hippocrates. Neriglissar is not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus is not the son of either. More details unfold, recounted on stellae. It turns out Nabonidus had a dream or two himself - and it was about Cyrus. On page 384 "...Betrayed by his own general, Astyages was captured by Cyrus, who in one day found himself the master of both the Persian and Median kingdoms (550 BC). This important event, long know to us from the work of classical authors, is also mentioned in the contemporary cuneiform texts. In one of his inscriptions, Nabonidus tells us that Marduk appeared to him in a dream and ordered him to rebuild E.hul.hul in Harran. As the king objected that Harran was in the hands of the 'Umman-manda' (Medes), Marduk replied: 'The Umman-manda of whom you speak , they and their land and the kings who side with them no longer exist. In the coming third year I shall make Cyrus, King of Anzan, their young slave, expel them. With his few troops, he will disperse the widespread Umman-manda. 'He (Cyrus) captured Astyages (Tshtumegu), King of Umman-mand and took him prisoner to his country.' Another more precise account of the conflict is given in the so-called 'Nabonidus Chronicle": King Ishtumegus clled up his troops and marched against Cyrus, King of Anshan, in order to meet him in battle. The army of Istumegu revolted against him and in fetters they delivered him to Cyrus.' The book provides a number of footnotes for journals, volumes and dates of publication for the translation of the cited sources.

51

Has anyone read Thucydides - beside the author of Daniel?

by kepler in

belshazzar 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

RE: (above)

Medes in Thucydides refers to the Persians. A literal translation of Thucydides would use Medes to translate Μηδοι.

---

Thank you! Last night I tried to type the Greek in word math symbols, but my connection did not allow that to dispaly either. Now I'm on line without my memory stick...

Obviously I do not agree with AnnOmaly's answer about relevance. In order to make any sense out of what I am saying - and perhaps what others involved in this discussion might maintain - is that you have to examine two possibilities.

1. That Daniel was written by Daniel over a period from 607 BC to some date prior to the departure of Jews in Babylonian captivity, switching from Aramaic, Hebrew, 3rd person and first, recounting dreams about a Greek occupation future a couple of centuries hence and laying the ground work for a coded message about 2520 years, etc. And in the course of this, Daniel says a lot of strange things about 6th and 7th century Babylon and Persia, especially with regard to who was in charge - and not at all consistent with Isaiah.

2. That Daniel was written at the time of the Seluccid Greek occupation and during the Maccobee revolt ( described in the Deutero-Canonical books Maccobees I and II) with the details of history fading out after 165 BC. From Daniel we never learn the fate of Antiochus IV.

If you cannot consider the evidence for both of these propositions, then, of course, there is no relevance to what Thucydides says about Medes and the Persian King who was reigning during the time of the Battle of Marathon. But since the Seleuccid suppression of Judea under Antiochus IV was as ruthless as the Roman - and is documented by other accounts than Josephus, it can hardly be said that there was no reason for a 2nd century BC author of Daniel to write as he did in veiled terms that compared the tyrants of his day to those who ruled centuries before.

That Daniel, amid two languages and two narrative forms and numerous monarchy mistakes has extrapolated future history is one theory. Another theory is that Daniel had limited data about Persian and Babylonian monarchs 3 or more centuries previous, but derived some of it from Greek sources as it was taught to him in the equivalent of middle school whatever language he used. I am of the opinion of the latter and, of course, that the chronology from 607 BC has more fundamental problems than Olofson or others suggest.