The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  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.
• 

  Farkel

  : Is it so far beyond your imagination that the Bible might, in fact, be true?

  As long as I can stay sane it is. In that state, one cannot carefully read the Bible and come to any other rational conclusion except if all of it IS the word of God, God is a loser and unworthy of any respect whatsoever.

  Farkel
• 

  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."
• 

  seedy3

  Hey pete,

  The explanation I offered does not fly in the face of reason, yours does by presuming supernatural soothsaying.

  Actually Pete, it was not his response, it was a quote from the same book that that started this entire thread. it entire collection of "The Fundamentals" can be found at http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.html and the book he is quoting from is at http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter13/wilson.html

  I guess, I wish he would paraphrase the quotes, if they are going to be so dang long and credit the book with the comment, instead of copy and pasting the entire thing, soon he'll have the entire book on this thread.

  Anyhow, I said yesterday that I would do some research on the idea that Belshazar and Nebonidus were somehow related to ol' king Neb, well after a lot of reading, searching and such (that's actually how I found the above mentioned links) I came upon a debate on infadels.org in the magazine the Skeptics Review based on the book of Daniel. This is what I learned after reading both sides, which included a few people not just 2.

  1- One of the Christian apologist said "Nebunidus was "Neb's" son in law. Well he provided no reference for this and no evidence to support the fact, the reason being there is none. As it appears today with current archeolgy (The Babylonian Chronicals) of the area, there is nothing to suggest that the 2 were even remotly related.

  2- Belshazar was never King of Babylon, although he did spend 10 years as Regent and Crown Prince for his father, The nabonidus chronicle does make the statement that Nabonidus "Gave the kingship to his son Belshazar", BUT, it also mentions that the aniku (New Years celibration) was suspended for those 10 years becasue the King was not there and he was the ONLY one that could start the celibration. Now in his fathers absence, I suppose Belshazar was acting as King so it is possible that he could have been refered to as King. But doubtful. Also Nabonidus returned a little before the fall of Babylon by Cyrus and retook his throne. But was then deposed by the persians

  3- Daniel seems to have made a lot of commentary about Neb's Wako period and even made it look like he fortold it, but there is no where in the Chronicals that supports this. However there is record of Nabonidus going nuts for about 10 years, ran away from Babylon to bask in the Sun of the Arbian desert, then returned to resit on his throne.

  4- Between Neb's rule and Nabonidus there is nothing mentioned about any other ruler, in the book of Daniel, giving the appearence that Neb's "son" Belshazar was the next ruler, which is totally not true, there were a few other rulers in between and infact none of Neb's family had sat on the throne since 560 bce. The fall of Babylon was in 539 bce. The line of Kings is a follows, we will start with Neb's death in 562 bce the throne is handed to his son, Amel-Marduk, who is assassinated by brother-in-law Nergal-Sharezer in 560 bce, Nergal-Sharezer passes his throne to his son, Labsi-Marduk in 556 bce, he doesn't even have time to use the Royal Privy before Nabonidus deposes him (he ruled less then a year) and then Nabonidus ruled Babylon for 16 years, 10 of it from Arabia, with Belshazar as Regent. Funny though other books of the bible mention a couple of these Kings that Daniel seemed to have passed over.

  edited to add the section in red above

  5- There is a problem with the dating of the fall of Jerusalem (Not the destruction) to Neb's army. 2 Kings 24 indicates that Jerusalem fell in the last year of the rule of Jehoiakim, as does secular history. Yet Daniel puts the Fall in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's rule. That would have put the fall of Jerusalem in the year 606, one year before Neb was King. But 2 kings 24 and secular history puts it in the year of 598. Now if Daniel was haled off to Babylon when it fell, wouldn't you think he knew when it really happened?

  How did he screw up the dates?
  How is it that a prominant "Governer" of the babylonian area (Daniel) didn't know of all the changes in rulership and actually confuse them?
  How is it that there is nothing recorded, outside of Daniel of the Wako period of Neb, yet Nabonidus' wako period is there for all to see.
  Why is there no record in Daniel of the 4 other rulers that sat on the throne of Babylon between Neb's rule and when Babylon fell?

  Oh yeah and Who the Heck is Darius the Mead? Where does he fit into this History lesson?

  Seedy

  Edited by - seedy3 on 8 January 2003 20:30:15
• 

  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
• 

  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."

  That's the difference between you and I, SwedishChef. I don't call you wicked merely because I don't agree with your beliefs, and don't use a book which has more bloodshed and murder by your God that could ever be dreamed by any sane person as evidence to call someone else "wicked."

  In short, I'm not a twit.

  Farkel
• 

  seedy3

  P>Actually SwedishChef point 2 and 5 both give room for specualtion I will highlight what I mean

  Point 2 - I suppose Belshazar was acting as King so it is possible that he could have been refered to as King. But doubtful. Also Nabonidus returned a little before the fall of Babylon by Cyrus and retook his throne. But was then deposed by the persians

  Point 5 - But 2 kings 24 and secular history puts it in the year of 598. Now if Daniel was haled off to Babylon when it fell, wouldn't you think he knew when it really happened?

  In point 5 I did not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem that happened in 587, But that the captivity mentioned in 2 kings Chapter 24 started in 598bce according to 2 kings, but is given the date of 606 in Daniel.

  In point 2 Belshazar "played" King for 10 years, so it is possible that someone could refer to him as "King" in a sence, but the arguement that his title was erased by his father really makes little sense, as it would have been 10 years of record he would have had to destroy. None the less, I guess if I had had a wako period during my reign, I would have erased that more so then the record that my son ruled along side me for a period. Becasue, there are records of Belshazars regency ( I know that is actually a modern term, but it best describes the situation), which he would have had charge of the Army in his fathers absence. He also would have made all decisions in his father's name as though it came from Nabonidus himself.

  Interesting line of thought though

  Seedy
• 

  peacefulpete

  Actually I spent 32 years as a devout Christian and member of 2 churches, as a witness I resolutely defended the Bible against people who argued as I now do. Yet I take pride that my position was due to incomplete knowledge not arrogance. Do not say I have arrived at this painful conclusion due to a desire to not believe in God. It is inexcusable to say such things about people you do not know.

  There is nothing in the word "anointed" or "messiah" to suggest divinity. You are aware of the common usage of the term in Jewish writings in reference to High Priests Kings and even others. Why do you now lie and say the word cannot be used in referrence to men? The math does work when you use the correct dates as my post showed. Much of your posting has no bearing on the explanation I have presented. The fact that sectarian Judaism and the world outlived the predicted end fortold by the author fully explains why the text was altered in the Greek version and why fresh interpretations were being invented. Such is always the case of failed predictions. As a person familiar with the JWs should be aware of. The very fact that there have been dozens of interpretations using various calculations and dates arriving at different dates and applications is proof enough that the desire to believe is directing the conclusions. For example televangelists and other fundi groups insist this passage MUST refer to a yet future coming of Christ as they recognize problems with your explanation and can't accept mine. When you combine the almost magical allure of numbers and cryptic wording with the imperfect science of history and the result is hundreds of years of impassioned arguments and division. I'm through. Let the facts stand on their own. You can get your last word in again.

  Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 1:20:27

  Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 9:53:16

  Edited by - peacefulpete on 9 January 2003 9:57:9
• 

  seedy3

  Pete,

  I JUST LOVE them Televangelists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwel are 2 of my favorites. I'll watch them everytime I need a GREAT laugh.

  Here's some of my all time favorites from Patty boy

  "It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."
  --Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

  Hmmmm, little did he know that 5 of the first 6 presidents was not christian. not much into history is he. (OH and neither was Araham Lincoln)

  "The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."
  --Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981

  Little does he know that the author and many signitory to that document were diests.

  "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
  --Pat Robertson, newsletter as quoted by Federal News Service, Sept. 11, 1992

  I try to tell my wife that one all the time, but she never listens, typical Christian (he he he)

  [When asked "Does the Bible specifically tell us what is going to happen in the future"]
  "It sure does, Ben, it definitely does...this is definite...it specifically clearly, unequivocally says that Russia and other countries will enter into war and God will destroy Russia through earthquakes, volcanoes..."
  --Pat Robertson when asked the question "700 Club" December 2, 1981

  Guess he didn't forsee the fall of the comunist block in Euorpe

  "The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry; they sacrificed their children; they had all kinds of abominable sex practices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals; they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God.
  "God told the Israelites to kill them all -- men, women and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it? Or isn't it?"
  "Well, let us assume there were 2,000 of them, or 10,000 of them living in the land, or whatever number there was of them. I don't have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, 'Kill them all.'
  "Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? That would be 10,000 people who would probably go to Hell. But, if they stayed and reproduced, in 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 100 more years, they could conceivably be -- 10,000 would go to a 100,000 -- 100,000 could conceivably go to a million. And then, there would be a million people who would have to spend eternity in Hell! And it's far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a 100 years down the road, and say, 'Well, I have to take away a million people that would forever be apart from God, ' because the abomination was there like a contagium. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change; their hearts weren't going to change; and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth."
  "So, God, in love, took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number."
  --Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club" May 6, 1985

  OHHHHHH!!!!! Now I understand why God had all those people slaughtered, it is so clear now.

  What an ASS

  Seedy
• 

  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