i was an elder until march 2012 until i resigned.
i then stopped going to meetings in october 2012 and have enjoyed 9 months of freedom that i have found to be jouful!
i loved learning ttatt and sites like this and jwfacts.com have been excellent.. i told the elders that i needed a break and that they should not contact me unless it was a social visit and true to their word they have done that.
I second what everyone else said. Unless you want to leave with a BANG!, don't do it. Your logic will be completely irrelevant; actually i doubt that they will even allow you to finish your reasoning. Even digging into old literature is looked down with suspicion from Elders, who, like ADCMS said, will ask you "What are you up to? Nothing good, for sure..." and you'll be put under close watch.
Once you question "mother", you're tagged as 'apostate' whether it's verbalized or not.
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Flamegrilled,
I'm sorry i should have been clearer, but I replied in a hurry.
I've picked up one of your assertions from the previous post:
Surely no human government is GOLD from God's POV
If we make that our assumption, then Nabuchadnezzar being identified as the "gold head" of the statue cannot be equated with a divine evaluation of its intrinsic value versus the value of other world powers. It makes much more sense to interpret his "golden" status as a divine indication that Nabuchadnezar's reign represented the "gold standard" or the height of glory of the Babylonian Empire (since one can hardly claim that the Babylonian empire was the "golden standard" or the "height of glory" of all the world powers that ever existed since antiquity until our days), and that from his passing onwards, decadence of his empire would follow.
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Hence, since from God's point of view no government is "gold", the fact that the statue of the dream has Nebuchadnezzar as the "gold head" can only be understood as his reign being the apogee of glory of the Neo-Babylonian empire, represented by the statue in its entirety. The succession of increasingly poorer materials represents its decadence.
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Framegrilled
let me ask you this: How could Nebuchadnezzar be "gold" (understood, as you said, as the "best human government" possible) when the babylonians opressed God's people so much that even many prophets uttered condemnations against the babylonians because of the tyranic, oppressive treatment inflicted to the israelites in captivity? Has Alexandre the Great ever treated the Israelites bad? He even granted them tax exemptions in things related with the worship of Jehovah. The persians have treated the people of Jehovah with relative kindness, allowing them to return to Palestine and even contributing to the reconstruction of the Temple. How could the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar be more valuable (from any godly point of view) than the Persians or the Greeks? I don't see much sense in that reasoning. That means that Jehovah values tyrants and despises peace-seeker monarchs? Does that make much sense to you? What kind of King, then, would be jesus? What kind of Kings would be those who will co-rule in the Kingdom with Christ? Tyrants? Or peace-makers?
Also, remember that "the whole earth" is a relative term ... it does not refer to the entire planet. It refers to a specific territory, often referring to the land of israel. In the case of the medo-Persian empire, it "filled the whole earth" ... taking hold of the whole Palestine within its empire.
Eden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ukz5m-yo4&feature=youtu.be.
.
cedars.
Millions of chicken now living may will never die!
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Framegrilled,
Basically the aramaic "elam" is equal to hebrew "olam"; therefore, when they are used in the Scriptures, their meanings do not differ.
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Some other point to consider:
What are the fundaments that you base your claim that Nabuchadnezzar's rule was more autocratic than some of the Persian monarchs? Or some of the Roman emperors?
On his work "From Eden to Eden", author Josi Luis Keyes has the same view that you hold: That the persian empire was less autocratic that the babylonian empire, and the greek empire less autocratic than the persian empire. however, he fails to offer any empirical evidence of such claim. However, for example, if you study the life of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, you clearly see a monarch that was far more autocratic than Nabuchadnezzar II.
In ancient times, autocracy is intimately tied with warfare. When a Kingdom is involved in warfare, its rulership tends to become more autocratic. Nabuchadneezar was an autocrat inasmuch as he was a conqueror warrior. Nabonidus, on the other hand, being much less busy with warfare, had no problems in sharing his kingdom in co-regency with his son Belshazzar. However, when war came upon him, he attempted to retake absolute control again.
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Vidqun
At least you should concede that the metaphor of iron+ clay on the statue's feet is also a fit description of the strenght of iron (Nabonidus) and the fragility of the clay (Belshazzar).
Eden
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Vidqun
It is my confidence that the prophecy of Daniel deals with other nations, even other 'world powers', namely on the vision concerning the four beasts that arise from the sea. (Chapter 7) But these two visions deal specifically with the Babylonean empire and its demise (chapter 2) and Nebuchadnezzar's punishment period (Chapter 4).
Regarding the use of "olam":
Vine's Expository Dicctionary of Old Testament Words says: " This word has cognates in Ugaritic, Moabite, Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian. It appears about 440 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods."
Therefore, you shouldn't limit the scope of "olam" to the aramaic variation of "elam". They all mean the same across all the linguistic variations, especially the 440 times it appears in Biblical hebrew.
Take, for example, Jeremiah 28:8: " From early times [olam] the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms." Clearly, if olam meant "eternity", then the prophets had been prophesying since forever, which is not the case. This an example where olam means "old time" or "long time". Same with Jeremiah 5:15: " Behold, I am bringing against you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, declares the LORD. It is an enduring nation; it is an ancient [olam] nation..." In this case, olam doesn't imply a nation that has existed forever into the past, but simply an "ancient" nation. Also consider the use of olam in Psalm 61:8 " So will I sing praise unto thy name for ever [olam], That I may daily perform my vows." Clearly the intention of olam here is of a "continuous time", but not infinite duration, for the writer of the psalm could only continue to sing praise until he dies.
Jeff A. Berner comments on the Hebrew use of olam: " The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time."
Therefore, you shouldn't be stumbled by the association of the word olam with "kingdom". Both the messianic kingdom and the persian kingdom would last 'into olam', that is, into a presumably long time beyond the horizon. Keep in mind that the Persian empire lasted well over two centuries, more than the normal time horizon of any human being.
Regarding the quality of the materials.
Evidently the gold, silver etc is from a human standpoint - not God's.
i don't agree with you. If materials were irrelevant to God, then he wouldn't require that Gold was used in his temple, nor would he give specifics about what type of materials should be used in his temple.
Eden
Edit: Sorry, I mixed replies to Vidqun with Framegrilled.
ive just published on my website a commentary on daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning nebuchadnezzars dreams of the statue and the great tree.
its titled: the most high rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.
(click the title for link).
Flamegrilled,
There's another issue that you didn't touch. Since when prophecies concerning the messianic kingdom were given first hand to heathens rather than the prophets? Can you give me another example outside these controversial ones in Daniel? This would amount to consider that, for example, God would reveal the birth of Jesus to the chaldean astrologists. Are you prepared to accept that?
To give messianic prophecies first hand to a heathen king is contradicting the Scripture: " For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7, Douay-Rheims) What could Nabuchadnezzar possibly benefit from learning about the messianic kingdom, should that be the intent of the vision of the statue?
Also, why would the first portion of the statue be personalized by Nabuchadnezzar, and the remaining portions of the statue be generically speaking, world powers?
Eden
