the latest august 15th watchtower study edition features an interesting review of the society's annual meeting.. one comment struck me as evidence that the governing body isn't quite as "discreet" as it claims.. here is what the article said:.
"there are plans to develop a 248-acre (100 ha) property at warwick.
'although we are not yet certain of jehovahs will regarding warwick,' said brother pierce, 'we are proceeding to develop the site with the intention of relocating the world headquarters of jehovahs witnesses there.
Well, let's consider the precedent for a moment. Between 1914 and the establishment of the theocratic agency, about four years elapsed before an invisible review process concluded with an announcement by President Rutherford of the results. And the headquarters had been clearly located in Brooklyn. Should the HQ be removed to a new, secluded location, there is no telling what kind of disruption will result.
Perhaps the GB should read the WT first... or vice versa.
here is a quote from the 8/15/12 watchtower study simplified edition that just was posted on jw.org.. on page 13 paragraph 12 it says "those who ignore the warnings from the faithful and discreet slave will harm themselves and those they love.".
also, another doozy is earlier on paragraph it likens those who have not read social networking articles from the faithful slave before using, "is like taking a powerful medicine without first reading the warning on the bottle.".
im not even done reading this whole magazine yet, but i thought i'd share these insane comments.
Re: You & Your Family Will Be Harmed If You Dont Obey The FDS 8/15/12 WT
I know, I am an outsider to much of this - fortunately. But maybe it would be worth examining my dumb question(s):
In many of the discussions, there is lengthy examination of WT articles PRE-DATED by several months! How did this state of affairs come to be?
Of, course, I've picked up and read a WT or two myself. Without exception the experience was quite distasteful But I don't remember seeing this publication many months in advance. Are the ideas kicked around for several months in advance at certain levels - and then released to the public at large? Is life orchestrated that far in advance? How does that compare with North Korea?
i will appreciate comments on the following ocr scan.. thanks,.
doug.
however, we must ask how a single event, hardly imaginable more than a few years before, could spawn such an extensive tradition of babylon oracles.
Doug Mason,
Greetings.
Re:
Gosse and Berges propose dating the Babylon oracles in Isa 13-14 and Isa 47 in the years 522-520. Whether this dating is correct for Isa 47 is uncertain. However, substantial evidence supports dating much of the Babylon composite Jer 50-51 in this period. These years are particularly likely because from 522 to 520, after the murder of Gaumata, an epidemic of revolts against Darius convulsed the entire central and eastern region of the Persian Empire.
----
Admittedly, I am an a disadvantage of having not yet read or seen this book, but nonetheless...
Several years ago, when my fiancee insisted that I read "What the Bible Really Teaches", a pamphlet that is used perhaps only locally, and then later when I sat with an Elder and his understudies for several months of weekends of studies, the matter of Babylon's "non-destruction" according to account was one of the issues that immediately leaped out of the pages.
I could find no evidence for the claims of the Isaiah text for quite some time - And then suddenly, the text explained itself.
Isaiah was highly edited and quoted extensively from a PAST destruction, not to mention merged with at least one later author's ruminations. If all of Isaiah was written before captivity, then at the very least the name of Cyrus should have caused a general Neo-Babylonian panic.
Whether Isaiah was alive when Sennacherib flooded and leveled Babylon in 689 BC is difficult to verify. But there is a tradition that Manesseh (687-642) had done Isaiah in, independent of the issue at hand. But when the pamphlet quotes Isaiah at 14:22,23 "I will sweep her with the broom of annhilation...", It neglects to quote in full,
"I shall turn it into the haunt of hedgehogs, A SWAMP, I shall sweep it with the broom of destruction, declares Yahweh Saboath." My New Jerusalem Bible has a note to the effect that "These two verses seem to have been added to give emphasis to the [preceding verses] poem."
But check into the other campaigns of Sennacherib and the resulting discord in the empire that resulted when he "desolated" Babylon. Had Saddam Hussein rolled into Mecca with tanks in the 1990s and desecrated the centers of pilgrimages, on the Arab world it would have had the same effect. Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons and one of them, Esarhaddon, moved to reverse his actions on Babylon. Obtained an account of this from:
The Black Stone of EsarhaddonAuthor(s): D. D. Luckenbill
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Apr.,1925), pp. 165-173Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528697 .
It turns out that the "70-year desolation" convention was inherited from the Assyrians. That was Sennacherib's ruling on
Babylon in accordance with provisions of rule by the grace of the god Marduk. When Esarhaddon amended the sentence he did so by having a priest read the number of years (70) upside down, which in the cuneiform turned the interval into eleven years. So construction and re-settlement could get under way right away.
Luckenbill quotes Jeremiah 25:12 and 29:10 and II Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 without becoming involved in any further controversy about whether Jerusalem or Judea were held to the same standards as the Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians held each other. But it was clear from the translation of the stone that the 70-year sentence was a punitive convention already a century old and more mercy was displayed by the apparent originators than the interpreters of the text that I was being exposed to.
As to later destructions in accordance with the text, I could see no evidence. Herodotus was already on my book shelves. It appeared that Persia had seveal capitals that included Babylon. Xenophon's mercenary service was a march toward it. And Alexander intended to restore it as a capital. He died there, among the hedgehogs, I guess. There were subsequent revolts against Persian rule that included Babylon, but none of them resulted in suppressions anything like that experienced by the Assyrian-Babylonian war.
If you look in the back of the New World Translation, there are some tables for the historical origins of the books of the Bible. The chronology dates are a topic all their own, but in this context, it should be noted that compilers indicate the epistles of Peter to have originated at Babylon. ...Well, because Peter sends his regards from Babylon in I Peter 5:13: "Your sister in Babylon, who is with you among the chosen, sends you greetings, so does my son Mark." This is inferred to be a church or congregation - and elsewhere considered a reference to Rome rather than Babylon.
How my instructors sorted this out, I never did find out. If Babylon had been destroyed, what was Peter doing there with his family and a church. It was not part of the Roman Empire. But if he was referring to Rome as Babylon, why would he do so unless he had survived until the time of Jerusalem's destruction by a Roman "Nebuchadnezzar"? Anachronistic, to say the least.
i've just completed a lengthy article on the history of racism in the society's publications.
many people (including myself, until recently) aren't aware that the society's early publications were brimming with racist rhetoric, and this only calmed down as the public mood towards racism changed, most notably with the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s.. a few "headliners" from the article are:.
russell segregated blacks from whites for viewings of the photodramarussell believed that the skin of a black man would turn white during the millennial kingdomunder russell, the society's publications portrayed the black races as "degraded" and the white race as "superior"rutherford viewed the blacks as a "race of servants", and spoke of "sobering the southern negro" in an article against prohibitionunder rutherford, the golden age slammed uncle tom's cabin (a work that helped end slavery) as being "the work of satan"; the same article branded spaniards a "backwards race"rutherford accused "jewish business men" of "oppressing the peoples of many nations"in 1929 the golden age (acknowledged by the society as essentially the same magazine as the modern awake!
Is racism today or is this divide and conquer?
When my fiancee decided she was going back we were living at the same address. Since my now deceased parents were of mixed religious background, Catholic and Protestant, I thought it would be of some help to take instruction in her faith. We were not only of mixed religious background but different race - black and white.
One day someone from the Kingdom Hall that my fiance had now started to attend dropped off at my office (!) a copy of "What the Bible Really Teaches". Subsequently I began to take instruction - and I have remarked on some of my observations elsewhere. What I want to note here is that I was instructed by Elders from a different congregation, purportedly because we were from "different social economic groups". To confound categorization, the instructors, save for an Overseer who visited on the last day, were black like my fiancee. When this decision of separating us was made, she didn't even blink but pronounced it like an officer of a very rigid corporate organization. Subsequently I never saw her ever again stand up to the organization's authority about anything that might have involved us personally. Everything melted away like an ice cube.
I hadn't realized how compelling the arguments for an eternal corporate picnic could be.
besides the obvious fact that it is historically ridiculous - can anybody make any sense out of this story?.
god was somehow afraid that man was developing too much technology?
just because they were building a tower?.
Does anyone on this thread ever give any consideration to the J, E, D and P source notion of Old Testament interpretation? Both my Jewish and Catholic annotated texts describe chapters and verses by that means frequently. In the latter, chapter 10 is allocated to the Priestly (P) source with some verse exceptions and gives the reader a view of the inhabited world as would be available to Israel in the 7th or 8th centuries. E.g., Mizraim = Egypt; Kittim = from Cypress; Kush = Sudan or very upper Egypt; Dananites, the people of the Aegean. You could expect something close to that for the Philistines - who are the Sea Peoples in Egyptian history. Chapter 11 is attributed to the Y or Yahwistic text with its differing explanation for origin of language. E the editor combines the texts and quite often we can spot the seams. D stands for the Deuteronomical tradition. During the reign of Josiah there was the discovery in the temple of unknown texts hitherto unknown. But that would be a subject of a separate topic.
If there were not been both Yahwistic and Priestly traditions, then the NWT would not have been faced with the problem of adding the Lord's name, or else would not have been able to address the problem at all. The Gen 1 creation story does not use the name Yahweh, but Genesis 2 does and gives a very brief account that conflicts significantly with the Gen 1 account and uses different language about the creation process altogether. It starts after Gen 2:4.
Which brings up another matter. The chapters and verses were not always there. Editor E did not provide them. In fact they were introduced during the era of what 2nd Adventists consider the apostasy church, or if one is so inclined, "religionists". On Genesis 1 and 2, it looks like the early verse and chapter editors almost missed the runway. But after chapter 5, something even more curious happens: chapter 6 humanity successively gets docked with reduced lifetimes of 120 years max ( Daniel admirers take note), the Nephilim, and in short order, preparations for a huge flood.
According to the Y narrator, Gen 6:7, "Yahweh regretted having made human beings on earth and was grieved at heart."
From the Jewish guide to the OT which I have, the explanation for chapters 1-11 was to lead to an introduction of Abraham. The stories tied together are mythical, but deal with crime and punishment, failure to obtain an obedient mankind: "the Eden generation disobeys, the flood generation disobeys, and finally the tower of Babel generation disobeys. These failures justify the choosing of Abraham in chapter 12."
In other words, you could say that E, with their collection of scrolls relating traditions of Israel and Judah, plus perhaps the "discovery" of Deuteronomy and related texts, were faced with the problem, whether divinely guided or not, to tie all the loose ends together.
As to tower of Babel, at the very least Mesopotamian peoples had ziggurats, but there is nothing that remains that measures up to a Great Pyramid, the highest man-made structure in the world for millenia - and nothing is recorded of it in the Bible, despite what tie-ins C. T. Russell attempted. But the Egyptians themselves recorded the building of the structure and a statue of its architect (Hemiunu) resides in a Hildesheim, Germany museum, a relative of the 4th dynasty circa 2500 BC pharaoh for which it was intended.
The earliest Egyptian writing is dated to ~150 years before Narmer, founder of the first dynasty, perhaps around 3000 BC, but Mesopotamia was developing writing at this time as well. In fact, it is suggested by Toby Wilkinson, author of "The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt" (Random House, 201) that the IDEA of writing might have been imported from Mesopotamia, if not the structure of the writing itself. For once writing appeared in these two regions the hieroglyphic systems were quite advanced. Later,during the 2nd millenium, Egypt, states in Asia Minor and Mesopotamia used Akkadian for diplomatic correspondence.
Strange. In retrospect, it does not seem so much that different languages originated in the time suggested by the Genesis chronology, but the concept of RECORDING the thoughts of language.
A remaining observation about dispersions of peoples and chapters 11 and 12. When the Spanish explorers finally concluded that they had discovered a "new world", one of the things that disturbed them was that they had no inkling either from classical writings or the Bible that such a domain existed. But a few decades earlier and a little ways to the north of where C. T. Russell was working on the problem of mankind's final days, a gentleman named Joseph Smith was walking in the New York forests and had an experience that appears to have taken care of this historical and literary discrepancy. If you need a book, just order.
if the first chapters of daniel are historical, then daniel became and reigned as babylons governor before and during the desolation of of judah or judea.
if that is the case, then we can go back to looking at him as another of those pamphlet illustration figures, right?
bearded, cone-capped, staring out at us with blazing eyes holding a writing instruments and scrolls, prophecies written in concert about an understood over-riding plan.... .
Leolaia, soft+gentle,…
Sorry about the delay on response. I thought I had better print out the subsequent discussion so as not to confuse points that were made; after all, Jehoiakim vs. Jehoiachin, etc. Leolaia, were you waiting for this one? Sounds like you corrected this term paper before.
To pick this discussion back up, I will refer back to D. J. Wiseman’s article. When Wiseman reviewed vearious arguments against the “historicity” of various verses or events in Daniel, he repeatedly spoke in Daniel’s behalf with the introductory proviso “it is not impossible that…” including the case for a very early raid on Jerusalem (605 BC) by King Nebuchadnezzar. Another way of saying “it is not impossible” is that “the possibility or likelihood of this is not necessarily exactly zero”. But when the overall story’s message is asserted a priori to be exactly as told and fully accurate, then all of those “it is not impossible” expressions are factored together for an even lower probability.
But aside from what looks very unlikely, what of any of the rest is true? A great deal or very little? The story must have come from somewhere. So is it possible to make a couple of editorial corrections that would set things back on course?
If we correct Daniel 1:1 to Jehoiakin from Jehoiakim, to say the least, this is not a very auspicious beginning - the very first line of this contested book to be considered untrue. But that alone will not solve problems arising with Daniel 2:1, because it results in Daniel and his friends commencing their Neo-Babylonian studies in Babylon many years before they arrive. So it won’t be “the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign” after all, unless the king waited decades to punish the ignorant about dream interpretation. While we are at it, there in Daniel 3 are these references to governors AND satraps at the ceremonies. Are we sure we don’t want to move this event into the Persian period?
Three chapters and we encounter contradictory requirements to make them all make sense.
In the earlier topic connecting Daniel and Thucydides, my arguments were largely in support of a late writing of Daniel based on the reading that 2 nd century events were accurately described despite the veil of prophecy and the view that earlier Mesopotamian descriptions ( Babylonian and Persian monarch chronologies and geneaologies) were outliers when compared with other sources. But the Thucydides connection was, as far as I know, a new variation on that argument. Where others have maintained that Darius the Mede was “unknown to history”, I found his deeds and domain described many times by Thucydides. He calls the Persians the Medes 50 times, including the forces defeated at Matathon in 490 BC. Now who was in charge?
According to Thucydides, I would guess Darius – the chief “Mede”. The trouble is this about 107 years after the opening episode of Daniel. But if the author of Daniel got his history of pre-Alexander days via the Greek occupation of Judea, that is no bother at all, but what I remember from school about days as far removed from the Greek occupation as colonial America is from the States today.
On the matter of Danel vs. Daniel, I would suspect that Ezekiel is referring to Danel. But since I have no education in Hebrew, biblical or otherwise, nor have I had any detailed study of provenance for either translation, I would feel foolish to insist what my opinion was on that matter to anyone better positioned – other than to examine the context in Ezekiel: addressing the king of Tyre who had opted out of joint opposition to Babylon. After "divide and conquer", Ezekiel appeared to be rubbing it in. Daniel just doesn’t look like the guy he would be pointing out as the essence of wisdom in that context, if he had heard of the guy with the “I” at all.
So, to some extent, by examining the case for the historicity of Daniel 1, a lot of arguments for its late authorship came in with advocacy through the back door. I have nothing to complain about on that score.
On the subject of Psalm 137, however, I can understand the analysis, but at the same time it seems to go to a very low level of detail. The Psalms are essentially songs, but the verses in this case are not like verses in a national hymn, but single sentences. In that sense the overall psalm is a unity. I don’t think that the ideas at the beginning can be separated from the ones at the end - unless they were the ideas of two different stonecutters carving in a rock.
Best regards.
if the first chapters of daniel are historical, then daniel became and reigned as babylons governor before and during the desolation of of judah or judea.
if that is the case, then we can go back to looking at him as another of those pamphlet illustration figures, right?
bearded, cone-capped, staring out at us with blazing eyes holding a writing instruments and scrolls, prophecies written in concert about an understood over-riding plan.... .
If the first chapters of Daniel are historical, then Daniel became and reigned as Babylon’s governor before and during the desolation of of Judah or Judea. If that is the case, then we can go back to looking at him as another of those pamphlet illustration figures, right? Bearded, cone-capped, staring out at us with blazing eyes holding a writing instruments and scrolls, prophecies written in concert about an understood over-riding plan...
Maybe. But there are still complications and serious implications. Depending on which set of circumstances you think is counter factual, it will make a difference how you take what follows.
The famous “Song of the Exiles”, Psalm 137:1-9, no doubt of very late origin reads in part :
[1] By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept…
[7] Remember, Yahweh, to the Edomites cost, the day of Jerusalem, how they said, “Down with it! Raise it to the ground!”
[8] Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us…
I’ll leave the last line to recollection or look up. Safe to say, this Psalm represents deep bitterness; if toward Edomites, toward any Babylonian allies or agents. The day of Jerusalem was either the fall when the Neo-Babylonians breached the walls ( 9 th day of the 4 th month June-July, 587) or the day of the month when the temple was burned down (10 th day of the 5 th month – same year). I don’t mean to debate here of 587 vs. 606; because for several other dates I wish to draw from secular sources and apply some dating consistency since this discussion relies on assertions at the beginning of chapters 1 and 2 in Daniel. It is stated:
Dan 1:1: In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon marched on Jerusalem and besieged it. The Lord let Jehoiakim king of Judah fall into his power, as well as some of the vessels belonging to the Temple of God….
[3] From the Israelites, the king ordered Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring a certain number of boys of royal or noble descent. .. suitable for service at the royal court. …They were to receive an education lasting three years, after which they would enter into royal service…
Daniel 2:1 In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had a series of dreams, he was perturbed by this and sleep deserted him. … [13] On publication of the decree to have the sages killed, search was made for Daniel and his companions to have them put to death.
Jehoiakim reign: 609 to 598 Nebuchadnezzar: 605-562
Among Assyrianologists, D. J. Wiseman is probably most sympathetic to the historicity of this opening among the problems which he addresses [D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” D. J. Wiseman, ed., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965. pp. 9-18.]. Other issues discussed in these 9 pages, were touched on as well in another recent topic [“Has anyone read Thucydides beside the author of Daniel?’] started a month ago. In fact, speaking as an advocate for the late [2 nd century BC] composition for Daniel (and I should emphasize that!), I can say that a lot of pro and con arguments were presented. Some of either nature I was not previously aware of and I believe are worth further thought. But for now, stand by for, despite assumption of historicity, stand by for some more critique.
In the case of Daniel 1:1, other than the book itself there is no explicit reference to siege of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC based on the chronology relative to reigning kings. The Babylonian Chronicle gives Nebuchadnezzar’s first siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC in his 7 th year and Jehoiakim’s 11th. Nonetheless, according to Wisemen (implicit):
----
the Babylonian Chronicle which, although not giving the date of the departure of the Babylonian army in 605 BC for Carchemish, shows that it did not return from a prior campaign until Shebat (January-February) 605 BC.50 The battle of Carchemish, which opened up the road across the Euphrates, is dated between Nisan (April) and Ab (August) 605 BC by the same Chronicle and is most likely to have taken place in May-June of that year.51[a reference]
With the precise information available from the Babylonian Chronicle it is clear that the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish and, overtaking a part of the army which had retreated to Hamath, continued to pursue stragglers ‘so that not a single man escaped to his own country’. The Babylonians overran the country from the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt (2 Ki. 24:7), though Josephus expressly adds ‘excepting Judea’.52 The Babylonian Chronicle claims that ‘at that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole of the Hatti-land’ (i.e. Syria-Palestine).53 If, as has been suggested, Daniel is here using the Babylonian system of dating (postdating, allowing for separate ‘accession’ year) while Jeremiah (25:49; 46:2) follows the usual Palestinian-Jewish antedating (which ignores ‘accession-years’), 54 there is no discrepancy. On the other hand, it has been argued that in Jeremiah 25:1 ‘the first year’ … may be interpreted as ‘the beginning year’ (i.e. accession) of Nebuchadrezzar and therefore in agreement with Jeremiah 46:2. 55 Whichever solution is accepted there remains the question of the siege of Jerusalem in this year, an event unattested in the Chronicle. It could be argued that since [p.18] the Babylonian Chronicle recording the events of 605 BC is primarily concerned with the major defeat of the Egyptians, a successful incursion into Judah by the Babylonian army group which returned from the Egyptian border could be included in the claim that at that time Nebuchadrezzar conquered ‘all Hatti’. If so, Daniel 1:1 would imply that the Babylonian king was himself present. This is not improbable since the energy of the young king in leading his troops is attested frequently in the Chronicle.56
The argument against a specific Babylonian siege rests on silence just as must, at present, any defence of it. It is not impossible that the phrase ‘and besieged it’ (wayya„s£or `a„leha„) could here have the meaning ‘and cut it off’ or even ‘showed hostility towards it’.57 The extant historical data does not allow any dogmatic assertion against the historical accuracy of this verse.
----
Very well. Then if we accept all this to be true and that a certain Daniel was among those entered into Babylonian service circa 605 BC with graduation set for 602, we find that almost immediately he and his three colleagues set off for fast track advancement in the Neo-Babylonian power structure.
According to the account, after the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, Daniel has elicited a statement of faith from Nebuchadnezzar and the king made him “governor of the whole province of Babylon and head of all sages of Babylon”. At Daniel’s request, the king entrusted the affairs of the province of Babylon to Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego. "Daniel himself remained in attendance on the king.” That’s handing over a lot of power to a group of kids who were supposed to have been hostages – and then rather inconsistent with what he will be doing over the next 2 decades. Then Dan 3 is an episode in which Daniel’s three friends face burning for not falling down before a golden idol. They are saved by miraculous intervention.
Aside from the issue of origin or historicity of Dan 2, it is noted that the earliest versions of this book include chapters written in Aramaic and subsequently translated into Hebrew. In Dan 2 and 4, the Old Persian word “raz” for “secret” appears in the Hebrew text (and in no other Biblical book); and in Dan 3, the announcement about adoration of the golden idol is addressed to both governors and “satraps”, another term from the Persian era. It is also curious that Nebuchadnezzar should consider Babylon as a province rather than the capital region, but let us digress no further on that.
Why Daniel should write of his youth in Aramaic in the third person using Persian terms and then switch to Hebrew in later chapters in the first person, as some would suggest, I cannot imagine, but there still remains an ounce or more of basis for the stories of Daniel whenever they were recorded or how. So let us continue.
If Daniel arrived in Babylon in circa 605 BC, for many, myself included, his arrival in Babylon is confused with the FALL of Jerusalem in 587. It is not explicitly stated in Dan 1 as 605 -But if the chronology of kings is taken into consideration with the conventional historical interpretation, Daniel as described, arrives and comes to power in Babylon many years BEFORE Jerusalem is destroyed. While Daniel’s unwillingness to breech dietary laws is consistent with Jewish opposition to enforced Hellenization during Antiochus Epiphanes reign in the 160s BC, as is opposition to idolatry as well, concessions considered apostasy, the book of Daniel completely sidesteps Daniel’s role as a high servant of Nebuchadnezzar in the midst of his two campaigns against Judah, the second ending with its complete “desolation”. Instead, we have a picture of a high officer of Babylon who later serves its next conquerors. That Ezekiel might speak derisively of the besieged King of Tyre [Ez 28:5 "So you are wiser than Daniel ["or Danel" in some translations] ] seems strange when this siege commences with the fall of Jerusalem and Daniel is serving the agent of both military campaigns. Ezekiel's wrath is for Tyre's betrayal of Jerusalem under siege.
For some he reason elects not to return home.
In the OT there are some characters who had somewhat similar roles to play. Esther pleads for her people’s safety before her husband the Persian King. But in the case of Esther, mass slaughter of her people is prevented, if not their enemies. In contrast to Esther Daniel did not do very well. The entire kingdom is disposed of by Nebuchadnezzar whom Daniel supposedly convinced that his God was the God of gods in two instances and two chapters. But owing to the circumstances of his arrival as in Babylon as a hypothetical hostage, with Judah in revolt in 597 and 587, it is a wonder he and any other hostages reputedly taken in 605 were not executed. Nehemiah and Ezra, who can be considered as agents of the Persian monarchy, figure in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple . But strangely, considering the number of recorded revolts to Persian rule - in Egypt, Ionian Greece, the Mediterranean islands, the Far East, the city of Babylon - not a single one is recorded in the land where Davidic rule was terminated. The Judeans must have liked being part of the Persian Empire. From all indications, a couple of centuries respite.
In recent times (WWII) it is difficult to find an exact analog to the role which Daniel had taken on, should this all be true. In Vichy, France, Marshall Petain ruled in behalf of the German Reich, but was not groomed from adolescence for such duty; quite the contrary. At the war’s end, when he returned to France from Germany via Switzerland, he was tried for treason and sentenced to death, the sentence commuted to life imprisonment where he died in 1951. When the Soviets helped Germany divide Poland in 1939, and when they executed the captured Polish officer corps at Katyn Forest the following year, they also retained certain promising hostages to train as communist leaders for a future Polish communist state – and their fate since is not quite as clear. But it was not the Soviet but the German army that was directed to lay Poland desolate. In this 20th century company, if we take the historical timeline for Daniel as quite literal, the unwritten part of the book concerns his role as a Babylonian collaborator - which brings us back to Psalms 137. Would he be regarded any better than the Edomites by contemporaries?
Among the Gentiles who would insist over present day TaNaKh construction that Daniel was a prophet, the first century AD Pharisee historian Josephus is often cited. Josephus before the Judean war of 66-70 had connections in Nero’s court, but he was engaged in defense of the fortress Jopata before capture by Vespasian. By his account he claimed that he prophesied the Roman general would one day be emperor and so Vespasian spared him. With Vespasian’s son Titus, also bound for the throne, he observed and recorded the siege of Jerusalem - on the Roman side. Josephus might have had a strong affinity for Daniel after all.
Not having faced the brutal choices of Josephus, Marshall Petain or Daniel, I would not wish to judge them. But their compromise would dampen my desire to build statues in their memory or base my religious principles on their exploits. So which is better: Daniel the figure of a book that is a cycle of parables or Daniel the valued minister of Nebuchadnezzar during the destruction of Jerusalem?
writing on a topic and writing an essay: are they the same thing?
i suspect that ranging too wide on a topic is an error to avoid in this medium.. earlier, while examining issues drawing from genesis, hebrews and court testimony of frederick franz in scotland in 1954, i came across a statement that only very slowly sank in.
as background on the jehovah's witnesses for the walsh petition case for exemption from government service, it was stated in the strachan vs. walsh testimony that the line of witnesses was unbroken from the time of abel.
Maybe that line "God does not deal with temples made with hands"had immediate recognition for some. Searching for the phrase I found several references.
With some context,the final speech in the life of Stephen, In Acts chapter 7:45-50 (and quoting Isaiah 66:1-2):
It [the Tent of Testimony] was handed down from one ancestor of ours to another until Joshua brought it into the country that had belonged to the nations which were driven out by God before us. Here it stayed until the time of David. [46] He won God's favor and asked permission to find a dwelling for the House of Jacob, [47] though it was Solomon who actually built a house for God. [48] Even so the Most High does not live in a house that human hands have built: for as the prophet says:
[49] With heaven my throne and earth my footstool, what house could you build me, says the Lord, what place for me to rest, [50] when all these things were made by me?
-------------
In Mark, in chapter 14 it is said:
[55] The chief priests and and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus in order to have him executed. But they could not find any. Several, indeed, brought false witness against him, but their evidence was conflicting. [57] Some stood up and submitted this false evidence against him, "We heard him say, 'I am goin to destroy this Temple made by human hands, and in three days build another, not made by human hands.' "
In John 2:18-19 The Jews intervened and said, "What sign can you show us that you should act like this?" Jesus answered, "Destroy this Temple and in 3 days I shall raise it up."
------------
Judging from our discussion thus far, I would say that there is plenty more to sort out about what the Bible is saying on the matter of Temples, hands and the Lord's relation to them - discounting Fred Franz's testimony in Scotland. Just comparing Isaiah, Luke (via Acts), Mark and John would be a lengthy discussion topic of itself. And then after 70 AD, the Jews would cease to have a central temple. I would say though that Isaiah is saying that the Lord as all-powerful and omni-present need not reside in a temple constructed by humans, and it would not necessarily follow that he placed no value on temples at all.
But Franz was asked in cross-examination where someone could report prior to 1870 to join up with Abel as another Jehovah's Witness. Franz dismissed the question by saying that Jehovah did not deal in human temples. So where do we go from there?
Am I wrong to understand that the chronology surrounding 1914 is based on the destruction of a temple? Or is the chronology about events that happened 2520 years before in isolation from the Temple destruction? If so, what? And why would the Lord be more disposed to treat of those matters than temples? If Fred Franz really believed what he said in his outburst, then I have to wonder if he really believed in the doctrine on which he staked all his claims.
the most embarrassing book in the bible - understanding the book of revelation.
in a short 36 minute video, andrew corbett discusses an alternative view of the bible book of revelation.
his position is interesting as it attempts to place much of the subject matter of the book in a first century context with rome as the seven-headed wild beast and jerusalem as the great harlot.
Phizzy's note:
"A good number of scholars in the field, I would venture to say most, do not think the "John" who wrote the "Revelation" was the same John who wrote the Gospel of that name, command of the Greek language, as mentioned above, being one big clue."
A great deal to that. Even as early as Eusebius.
From “History of the Church” by Eusebius of Caesarea ~ 340 AD
Book III Chapter 25. The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not
Eusebius examines arguments pro and con for several disputed books of the Bible, including entrants that are not included today. He quotes the detailed arguments of Dionysius on Revelations or the Apocalypse of St. John and they are much the same as those debated today. Howe much earlier his source spoke of this matter, I am not able to say. I don't think Eusebius weighed in either way on Revelations, acting here at least as an historian of the dispute rather than the arbiter. Luther also had "reservations about Revelations" being in his German translation of the Bible. That he could wave about translating this book suggests that the notion of canon in the 16th century was not as mature as we might be led to think. On the other hand, the 19th century Anglican annotated Greek Gospel of St. John explores the same issues as Eusebius and more or less shrugs them off.
With my own limited knowledge of Greek, I have simply compared the Gospel John's language with that of the John of Patmos in the NT Concordance of the Greek. The latter certainly talked a lot more about "mouths", "beasts" and "swords" than the former did. But even in the 4th century discussion, the writer of Revelations was taken to task for his Greek vs. that of the author of the Gospel attributed to John.
Here is an excerpt from Eusebius.
“But the Apocalypse is different from these writings and foreign to them; not touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak, without even a syllable in common with them. Nay more, the Epistle, for I pass by the Gospel, does not mention nor does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his revelations, though he has not written them out by themselves.
"Moreover, it can also be shown that the, diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written not only without error as regards to the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse, that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression, as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms [violations of grammar, incongruities]. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing dearly the difference between the writings."
-End of Eusebius excerpt.
writing on a topic and writing an essay: are they the same thing?
i suspect that ranging too wide on a topic is an error to avoid in this medium.. earlier, while examining issues drawing from genesis, hebrews and court testimony of frederick franz in scotland in 1954, i came across a statement that only very slowly sank in.
as background on the jehovah's witnesses for the walsh petition case for exemption from government service, it was stated in the strachan vs. walsh testimony that the line of witnesses was unbroken from the time of abel.
Writing on a topic and writing an essay: are they the same thing? I suspect that ranging too wide on a topic is an error to avoid in this medium.
Earlier, while examining issues drawing from Genesis, Hebrews and court testimony of Frederick Franz in Scotland in 1954, I came across a statement that only very slowly sank in.
As background on the Jehovah's Witnesses for the Walsh petition case for exemption from government service, it was stated in the Strachan vs. Walsh testimony that the line of Witnesses was unbroken from the time of Abel. In subsequent cross examination by the crown’s attorney [page 94], Mr. Franz was asked:
Q. So that is a comparatively new body, Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. No. It is an old body. It begins with the first Witness of Jehovah on Biblical record, Abel, and continues to the present time.
Q. But there was no person or building to which a person could go prior to 1870 and say,”I wish to join a company or congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses”?
A. It is Jehovah God who makes one his Witness and that depends on the individual’s dedication of himself to Jehovah God through Jesus Christ. Then he becomes God’s [97] by dedication. Then he must serve as his witness.
Q. Is my question amenable [?] to a simple yes or no? Prior to 1870 was there any person or building to which an individual could go and say, “I wish to join a company of Jehovah’s Witnesses”?
A. No; because the Temple of God is not an earthly building. It is a spiritual Temple, and God does not deal in Temples made with hands. So it is foolish to speak about a physical building here upon this Earth to which an individual must go to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Abel did not go to any.
Q. I appreciate your point of view on church buildings, but prior to 1870 was there an earthly organization in the sense that has existed since 1870?
A. No. All the Scriptures show there would not be. The Scriptures show that God’s people would be temporarily in a state of captivity to the great mystic Babylon, and they would be deprived of their privileges.
------------------
If, on the authority of the Vice President of the WTBTS, we are told that "God does not deal in Temples made with hands", then what has all this fuss been about with regard to destruction of temples in the ancient world and temporary states of captivity? Should this be simply dismissed as an angry outburst of annoyance at cross-examination? Or does this reflect more of the future president's philosophy than I ( or others ) were previously aware of? Naive as I am about all these matters, I can't help thinking that this is a remarkable statement on his part.
Definitely a question.
