Posts by SwedishChef

26

what to believe now?

by christopherceo in

this is my first time posting here or on any ex-jw forum but i want to know if anybody else is not sure what to believe anymore.

paradise on earth sounds great and it was drilled into me for 11 years, it's just kinda hard to shake.

what about armageddon?

First Corinthians 3:11 states "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Jesus is the foundation that will not fall, the mighty Rock of ages, in Whom you can put your trust. Stay in God's word, it will not misdirect you.

The truth doesn't come from the WT or it's literature. No prophecy is left to private interpretation, as 2 Peter 1:20 states. And nobody has to depend on what others say is the truth. The Word of God stands firm by itself.

If you have any questions about God and the Bible, please feel free to e-mail me, and I will do my best to answer what you may ask. May your search end at the straight gate, the way of life.

Matthew 7:13,14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

Seedy, I too disagree with most TV evangelists, it seems that they are more concerned with the state of your pocketbook than the state of your soul. From what I have seen, about 90 % of everyone on TV is fundamentally and doctrinally unsound.

Anyway, the following has nothing to do with the Book of Dan, but I find it interesting.

Matthew 27:46,51 "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour...And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"

The darkness, which was like looking through extra-strong sun glasses, seems to have pervaded the world at this hour. Phlegon wrote that in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, there was a great darkness over Europe, surpassing anything that had ever been seen. At midday, he said, the stars could be seen. At the same time an earthquake caused much damage in Nicaea. Tertullian said later that he found in records of Rome a notation of worldwide darkness which the statesmen of the Empire could not explain.

Edited by - SwedishChef on 10 January 2003 21:11:23

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

Seedy,

Again, the article I posted addresses a couple of these issues. I will look into the other arguments, but I think since your source got these two wrong, its credibility is weakened, and I would not put my trust into what they say.

Point #2- Belshazar was never King of Babylon

"Disappointed at the discovery of the truth, the critics now find fault with the title "king" which Daniel gives to Belshazar and assert that no tablets have been found dated in his reign. It is not probable that any such tablets will be found, for his father outlived him and even though Belshazar were co-king, his father's name would be in the dates. The tablets, however, show that Belshazar was the commander of the troops, that he was the name of action--his father being a studious recluse--that he was the darling of the people and that the actual administration was in his hands. He was the heir to the throne and even if not formally invested, was the virtual king in the eyes of the people."

Point # 5: There is a problem with the dating of the fall of Jerusalem

"But, it is urged, Daniel gives the beginning of the captivity (1:1) in the third year of Jehoiakin, 606 B. C., whereas Jerusalem was not destroyed till 587 B. C., therefore, etc.
Daniel dates the captivity from the time that he and the other youths were carried away. A glance at the history will suggest when that was. Pharoah Necho came out of Egypt against Babylon in 609 B. C. He met and defeated Josiah at Megiddo. He then marched on northward. In three months he marched back to Egypt, having accomplished nothing against Babylon. The interval, 609 to 605 B. C., was the opportunity for Nebuchadnezzar. He secured as allies or as subjects the various tribes in Palestine, as appears form Berosus. Among the rest "Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1) became his servant three years". During that time he took as guests or as hostages the noble youths. At the end of the three years, in 605, Necho re-appeared on his way to fatal Carchemish. Jehoiakim renounced Nebuchadnezzar, and sided with Necho. A merciful Providence counted the seventy years captivity from the very first deportation and Daniel tells us when that was. The captivity ended in 536 B. C."

Edited by - SwedishChef on 8 January 2003 20:43:5

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

I've got one passage for you, Farkel.

Psalms 37:12,13 "The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming."

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

Pete,

Is it so far beyond your imagination that the Bible might, in fact, be true? This passage does accurately predict the time of the incarnation of Christ and the destruction (not desecration) of Jerusalem.

The only reason you take the side of the critics is because you don't want to believe in the supernatural. You don't want to believe that there is a God.

"Your favored interpretation while clever dismisses all the evidence recognized by mainstream secular and religious scholarship."

Scholars of the same skeptical mindset once made the assumption that the book of Daniel was false because the Aramaic was supposedly dated at a different time period. This was proven false when tablets were found in excavations using the same Aramaic as Daniel. However, until it was proven false, they proclaimed it as fact. I can give you many more examples of wrong assumptions that critics have made. And even though refuted, these arguments float around today. The mindset has never changed.

My view is completely relevant -- it is more relevant than yours. The math adds up with my view of Daniel's prophecy, the same is not the case with yours.

The seventy weeks are divided into seven = 49 years; sixty-two = 434 years; one = 7 years. In the seven weeks = 49 years, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt in troublous times. This was fulfilled, as Ezra and Nehemiah record. Sixty-two weeks = 434 years, thereafter Messiah was to come. This was fulfilled in the birth and manifestation of Christ. After the three score and two weeks would Messiah be cut off. The second event is the destruction of the city, fulfilled in A. D. 70.

God is good at communicating through His word. People like you purposefully twist and confuse the meaning of the verses.

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

All this is plain enough, and if the words of Daniel had been written after the death of our Savior and the fall of Jerusalem, no one could fail to see that Jesus Christ is indicated. But if written in the exile this would be supernatural prediction, and hence the struggles of the critics to evade somehow the implications of the passage. To find some prominent person who was "cut off" prior to 163 B. C. was the first desideratum. The high priest Onias, who was murdered through the intrigues of rival candidates for his office, was the most suitable person. He was in no respect the Messiah, but having been anointed he might be made to serve. He died 171 B. C. The next step was to find an edict to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, 483 years before 171 B. C. That date was 654 B. C., during the reign of Manasseh, son of Hezekiah. No edict could be looked for there. But by deducting 49 years, the date was brought to 605 B. C., and as in that year Jeremiah had foretold (Jer. 25:9) the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps this would do.
There were two objections to this hypothesis; one, that a prophecy of desolation and ruin to a city and sanctuary then in existence was not a commandment to restore and rebuild, and the other objection was that this also was a supernatural prediction, and as such, offensive to the critical mind. Accordingly, recourse was had to the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4) made in 536 B. C. But the decree of Cyrus authorized, not the building of Jerusalem, but the building of the temple. It is argued that forts and other defenses, including a city wall must have been intended by Cyrus, and this would be rebuilding Jerusalem; but the terms of the edict are given and no such defenses are mentioned. Nor is it likely that a wise man like Cyrus would have intended or permitted a fortified city to be built in a remote corner of his empire close to his enemy, Egypt, with which the enemy the Jews had frequently coquetted in previous years. At all events, the city was not restored until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, as appears from Neh. 2:3, 8, 13, etc., where Nehemiah laments the defenseless condition of Jerusalem. Permission to build could safely be given then, for Egypt had been conquered and the loyalty of the Jews to Persia had been tested. Moreover, the date of Cyrus' decree does not meet the conditions. From 536 B. C. to 171 B. C. is 365 years and not 483. A "learned and pious Jews" would not have made such blunder in arithmetic in foisting a forgery upon his countrymen.
There were four decrees concerning Jerusalem issued by the Persian court. The first under Cyrus, alluded to above, the second under Darius Hystaspis. (Ezra 6.) The third in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. (Ezra 7:12-26.) All of these concern the temple. The fourth in the twentieth year of Artaxeres was the only one to restore and rebuild a walled town.
The Book of Daniel was translated into Greek about 123 B. C., forty years after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks troubled the Jewish translators. It foretold disaster to Jerusalem. City and sanctuary would be destroyed. They had been destroyed 464 years before by Nebuchadnezzar. Would they be destroyed again? The translators were unwilling to believe that such a calamity would occur again. Could they not make out that the words referred to the troubles under Antiochus? It was true that he had destroyed neither city nor temple, but he had polluted the temple. Perhaps this was equivalent to destruction. At all events they did not dare to say that another destruction of Jerusalem lay in the future.
But there stood the words. From the going forth of commandment to restore Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince would be seven weeks and three score and two weeks, 483 years. They could do nothing with those words. They left them out, and mangled the rest of the passage to give obscurely the impression that the disasters there foretold were a thing of the past.
This mistranslation of a Divine oracle to make it say what they wished it to say was a high-handed proceeding, but it did not prevent its fulfillment. At the time appointed Messiah cam and was crucified and Jerusalem fell. The critics' efforts to force some meaning, other than the prediction of Christ, into this prophecy is thus seen to be not without precedent.

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

Pete,

You still avoided the problem of a high priest being called "Messiah" and the "most holy". A mere man cannot be called this. And I'm sure it is just coincidence that the Messiah truly did come as predicted (the weeks of years just happened to be exact, which on the other hand, the numbers don't work out on your side), He died, and Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed.

If this passage were written after the events, there would be no question that this prophecy was pertaining to Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem.

I don't buy it.

Yuoo steell efueeded zee prublem ooff a heegh preeest beeeng celled "Messeeeh" und zee "must huly". A mere-a mun cunnut be-a celled thees. Und I'm soore-a it is joost cueencidence-a thet zee Messeeeh trooly deed cume-a es predeected (zee veeks ooff yeers joost heppened tu be-a ixect, vheech oon zee oozeer hund, zee noombers dun't vurk oooot oon yuoor seede-a), He-a deeed, und Jerooselem und zee temple-a ves destruyed.

Iff thees pessege-a vere-a vreettee effter zee ifents, zeere-a vuoold be-a nu qooesshun thet thees pruphecy ves perteeening tu Chreest und zee destroocshun ooff Jerooselem.

I dun't booy it.
Bork Bork Bork!

Edited by - SwedishChef on 8 January 2003 16:34:17

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

seedy,

The article I posted actually addressed this issure and refuted the claims of critics. I was just bringing it up again. Maybe you should have read it all.

"(3) It is objected next that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar as the queen mother says in Dan. 5:11. If he were the grandson through his mother the same language would be used, and the undisturbed reign of Nabonidus in turbulent Babylon is accounted for in this way."

Edited by - SwedishChef on 7 January 2003 21:12:16

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

"The mesiah in the verse was the high priest (anointed) who was killed by Antiochus three years after the rededication."

It's getting pretty deep in here. Better get the shovels out. And I thougt the whole "Daniel = poet" thing that seedy brought up was weak.

The Jews knew who Messiah was going to be.

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." --This is the Messiah

Also, I hardly think that a "high priest" would be called the most holy in Dan 9:24.

I can't believe people actaully buy what you just said, pete. It's a true sign of desperation on the part of the critics.

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

SwedishChef

You think critics would learn from their mistakes and give the Bible the credit it deserves.

If it were not for studies and excavations, seedy, you would be ignorantly spouting off the same arguments that critics in the past have used - until they were stuck putting their foot in their mouth when they were proven wrong.

Many false claims by "scholars" have later been proven to be just that. And yet when they are defeated they turn around and blindly accuse the genuineness of this book again. This is called delusion. Are these the kind of people you trust, seedy?

Some my ask what sort of prophecies have been fulfilled in the book of Daniel. The four world-kingdoms - Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and the "personalities" of each - also giving the way each one fell. (Including Rome which could not have been known even to a forger.) The prophecies concerning the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the time of the beginning of the church age would also be impossible for even a forger to know.

Example of the credibility of the book of Daniel:

For centuries critics accused the writer of Daniel for making up the historical figure Belshazzar, until records of him were found in excavations. This is always the kind of "proof" that critics offer. Mind telling how a forger would know about this figure in history before the records of him were found? This adds only to the authenticity of the book.

The entire depth and understanding of the Babylonian culture portrays and indicates an eye-witness account - especially when the information could not have been accessible to the "forger", and there are absolutely no inconsistencies. It is a flawless record.

The bumbling circles of critics have yet to give one piece of sufficient evidence to say that the book of Daniel is not a genuine work. So far all their major arguments have only been thrown back in their face and reinforced the credibility of the book.

Every time an accusation is refuted, it makes the critics look worse and reaffirms the authenticity of Daniel.

Judging by the "refutations" you have given, seedy, it seems that the "hard evidence" has fled away at the sight of the truth. None what you have presented carries any weight in light of evidence supporting the book.

In conclusion, the only reason why Daniel is under constant attack is because it is so accurate. No other book has undergone so much scrutiny for this sole reason. The motivations of these critics is obviously dishonest. To admit Daniel is authentic would be to admit the Bible is true. And we all know this cannot be done.

I don't believe you are aware of the implications and absurdities of your claims, seedy.