by kepler 51 Replies latest watchtower bible
kepler, if you click on the Ω sign next to the smiley face in the tool bar you will find all the symbols of the greek alphabet you need.
Regarding your line of reasoning on when the events of Daniel's account happened - I think you need to supply a little more proof. My question would be to do with whether or not the main aspects of the events described in Maccabbees and in the book of Daniel could have happened in both periods.
are you aware of anyone in this maternal line beside Nabonidus's mother?
Belshazzar's mother.
Had either of the two sources you mentioned given any particulars?
Dougherty refers to Herodotus I.188 regarding Nabonidus' (Labytenus') wife and he connects that with data from cuneiform records about Nabonidus' status and ancestry - although not 'royal,' he was a 'noble' with high official standing - and why it can be surmised that one of Nebuchadnezzar's daughters was likely a consort. See Dougherty, p. 51 ff., noting p. 61-63.
Sure, many assumptions are made here to fill in the gaps (and yet cf. Jer. 27:6,7). However, as was quoted above, there is evidence that Babylonian kings referred to a predecessor as their 'father' - whether they were natural descendants or otherwise. Thus Dougherty concludes:
"Of course it is impossible to know with exactness what was in the mind of the ancient author [of Daniel], but his reference to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar cannot be regarded as scientifically-established error." - p. 194.
In the current context citing Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnazzar could be considered treasonous because he was NOT king. Nabonidus was.
He was co-regent. His father had dumped all administrative duties upon him in his 3rd year so he could spend time doing his archaeological digs, temple renovations and living in Tema or whatever he liked doing. Belshazzar was acting king of Babylon with the authority and many of the privileges of his father, although documents were still dated in his father's name. The Verse Account of Nabonidus says Nabonidus "let everything go" and "entrusted the kingship" to his son.
According to the Nabonidus cylinder compiled by the priests of Marduk, the main battle was outside of Babylon at Opis 50 kilometers away. George Roux interprets events as Nabonidus directing Belshazzar to meet the Persian flank - and he is lost in battle there.
Perhaps you meant the Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7)? The Nabonidus Cylinder (from Sippar) is to do with restoring temples.
The problem with George Roux's interpretation is that I cannot see where he gets the idea Belshazzar fought and died at Opis. According to preserved fragments of Berossus' writings, it was Nabonidus who went out to battle the Persians, was defeated and subsequently fled to Borsippa (S.M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (1978), p. 28; Josephus, Against Apion, I.20.150-153). He surrendered when Cyrus was going to (or actually did) besiege Borsippa. On the other hand, the Chronicle just says that once Sippar fell, Nabonidus fled; then Babylon fell; then Nabonidus was captured on his return to Babylon. There is nothing from these sources, at least as far as I can see, to hint at the notion that Belshazzar was not where the author of Daniel says he was.
Regarding the times and events of the Maccabean period, how does this negate the historicity of the times and events in question recorded in the book of Daniel (regardless of when it was written)?
Soft+Gentle, AnnOMaly,
First, thanks for the lead to the Omega. Slow and painstaking, but this is the essential phrase that I wanted to illustrate:
τησ Ελλαδοσ ου πολλοισ ετεσιν υστερον και η εν Μαραθωνιμαχη Μηδων προσ Αθηνιουσ...
Chapter 18 -Book 1 Thucydides -The Landmark Thucydides – R. B. Strassler
[1] But at last a time came when the tyrants of Athens and the far older tyrannies of the rest of Hellas were, with the exception of those in Sicily, once and for all put down by Lacedaemon; for this city, though after the settlement of the Dorians, its present inhabitants, it suffered from factions for an unparalleled length of time, still at a very early period obtained good laws, and enjoyed a freedom from tyrants which was unbroken; it has possessed the same form of government for more than four hundred years, reckoning to the end of the late war, and has thus been in a position to arrange the affairs of the other states. Not many years after the deposition of the tyrants, the battle of Marathon was fought between the Medes and the Athenians.
Both of you had some questions about the connections between Daniel and Maccabees. As one of you put it, can I show that events described in Daniel and Maccabees are the same; or as the other put it, "How do times and events in Maccabees negate the historicity of events recorded in Daniel?"
We'll have to get to some specifics. After all, I am not saying that everything recorded in Daniel, including "a" and "the" is false. And I believe it was D. Wisemen who noted that at least one of the entries of the Annals of Chaldean Kings gave evidence of a raid on Jerusalem prior to 597 in which captives were taken. But saying that, that particular entry by no means said "Hey, we've got the young prince Daniel; let's turn him into a courtier."
Where we left off, I said that there is clear proof of who Belshazzar was ( son of Nabonidus; neither king nor son of Nebuchadnazzar). AnnOMaly said, well there is the POSSIBILITY that he is related to Nebuchadnezzar through a maternal line. OK. Then, Daniel said that Darius the Mede arrives in Babylon before Cyrus and he was his adviser, sometimes in 3rd person, sometimes in 1st; sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic. Nobody supports this chronology except Daniel. The first Darius carves in rock who he was and that he succeeded Cyrus. The second Darius who establishes the Satrapies reigned when Daniel was over a century old. Both of these guys put down Babylonian revolts where principal figures had names like Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus...And the third Darius got whacked in battle by Alexander's forces in the 4th century. And Daniel never mentions Nabonidus. Never.
Regarding Belshazzar and Opis: In writing my post I did say that Roux claimed Belshazzar was lost in battle at Opis. And that is the why I phrased it that way.
I cannot verify his argument. I might have the data from previous research - and then maybe not. But I see no evidence in Herodotus for Belshazzar attending a dinner, gazing at handwriting on the wall and calling on Daniel for clarification, nor in any other source. The idea that he was on the front at Opis, I would not dismiss out of hand. There was nothing secret about the mass of Persian troops; only that the Assyrian allies of Babylon (Gubaru /Gobryas ) went over to the Persian side.
Now what about the Maccabees? When the dreams are discussed in chapters seven, eight and eleven, many of the details can be matched up with events during the Seleucid era: the ten kings and ten horns, the short horn still growing and the reigning king Antiochus IV epiphanies. Even the Roman intercession in his plans to take on Egypt. Now when people talk about these dreams, I am not sure that everyone is talking about the same thing. I never had bothered to read the novels, but back in the 1970s Hal Lindsay must have made a fortune describing Armageddon in a series of novels about the armies of the North and South coming together in pitched battles right about now. I don't know how he handled 4th to 1st century BC history, but I suppose that was an interpretation of Daniel. Yet the most straight-forward interpretation of his "prophecies" would be accounts of events that were going on in his own day and preceding it. If it were done today, a magician's hat would be waved over a newly opened time capsule extracted from a building cornerstone.
Getting to assertions of desecrations of the Temple and its vessels, the accounts of the Maccabees and the historical revolt are definite events that can be corroborated with documents and archeological remains. Now as to whether there was a corresponding desecration of the Temple in the presumed time of Daniel, I would be fairly sure that the sacking in 586/587 BC would constitute such, but the account in Daniel indicates it was part of a feast more akin to what was going on during the reign of Antiochus. The king who should have been responsible had not been in town for years, but in Arabia. Too observant of moon god Sin vs.
Marduk. Belshazzar should have been too busy...
Yet as I indicated in posts on another topic, I was led to believe by the elders who instructed on What the Bible Really Teaches, that Babylon was literally destroyed for what had gone on at Belshazzar's feast - by Cyrus. This was certainly far from the truth and the details and Isaiah verses cited fit the actions of
Assyrian Sennacherib 100 years before Jerusalem's sacking by Nebuchadnezzar. So you can see why I am sceptical of this line of argument.
To get more specific about Daniel,
In 7:7 -7:8, ten horns on the fourth beast are mentioned and one is still growing: the Seleucid Dynasty had ten kings and Antiochus IV Epiphanes was tenth still reigning – thus, the horn was still growing.
“Thrones set in place and the one most venerable took his seat” can be regarded as a reference to the Book of Enoch also referenced in NT by Jude. The fourth beast vision is repeated toward the end of the chapter with variations and some of it could refer again to Antiochus IV, who “will plan to alter the seasons and the Law and the Saints will be handed over to him, for a time, two times and half a time” about the same period as his 3.5 year persecution.
Chapter 7 was written in Aramaic. Chapter 8 is in Hebrew. Dan 8:8 describes the breakup of the Alexandrian Empire at his death into four kingdoms and again concentrates on Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
When we consider the accounts of the Maccabees regarding the Temple and the Law during the reign and repression of Antiochus IV, then it can be said that his conduct was consistent with the description provided in Dan 8:9-12.
---
As noted in notes in the New Jerusalem Bible, the neo-Babylonian background of Daniel is described in words of Persian origin; the instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra are given names transliterated from the Greek. The dates in the book agree neither with themselves nor with history as we know it, and they seem to have been placed in the chapter heads without much care for chronology. The author has made use of oral and written traditions still current in his own times. The Dead Sea manuscripts contain fragments of a Daniel cycle related to the canonical book, notably a prayer of Nabonidus reminiscent of Dn 3:31-4:34, in which the name of Nebuchadnezzar replaces that of Nabonidus…
The late composition of the book explains its position in the Hebrew Bible. It was admitted after the canon of the Prophets had already been fixed, and placed between Esther and Ezra among the varied group of ‘other writings’ forming the last sectin of the Hebrew canon.
In the same NJT Bible among the other deuteron-canonical books is the “wisdom book” of Ben Sirach, titled Ecclesiasticus among other names and not to be confused with Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes like Daniel is another canonical book posted in the TaNaKh under "writings". Written in Hebrew and translated by Jerome, two thirds of its original was discovered in Cairo in an old synagogue in 1896. Later, segments at Qumran and at Massada in 1964. The book is included in the Sinaiticus codex which is probably in Greek. In a foreword to the book the grandson of ben Sirach tells how he translated the book (into Greek ) when he went into exile in Egypt in 2nd century BC. The original manuscript is placed at roughly 200 BC.
In its 51 chapters, toward the last four or five Ecclesiasticus provides a “eulogy for our ancestors”.
Among these are eulogies for kings, prophets and other leaders. Chapter 48 calls out Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah; 49, Josiah, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, “Simon son of Onias who repaired the Temple during his lifetime” – but no Daniel. Despite his association with many miracles, being councilor to a succession of Babylonian and Persian kings starting with Nebuchadnezzar and surviving to centenarian age, if not more, depending on which Darius he served, there is no notice of him in this paean to Judean history, circa 200 BC. While there is mention of Daniel in the Maccabees, there is no mention of him in the OT any earlier save for the same-named book. As late as 200 BC he is an unknown or not worthy of remark.
After all, I am not saying that everything recorded in Daniel, including "a" and "the" is false. And I believe it was D. Wisemen who noted that at least one of the entries of the Annals of Chaldean Kings gave evidence of a raid on Jerusalem prior to 597 in which captives were taken. But saying that, that particular entry by no means said "Hey, we've got the young prince Daniel; let's turn him into a courtier."
Sure. However, we have extra information from other sources. Berossus (Josephus, Against Apion I.19) alludes to a prior raid on Judah in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year where Jewish captives were taken. The book of Daniel provides the year when he and other young nobles were taken - the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (1:1), i.e. 605 BCE.
Then, Daniel said that Darius the Mede arrives in Babylon before Cyrus and he was his adviser, sometimes in 3rd person, sometimes in 1st; sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic. Nobody supports this chronology except Daniel. The first Darius carves in rock who he was and that he succeeded Cyrus.
Darius I succeeded Cambyses, Cyrus' son, late 522 BCE after first seeing off a couple of wannabes. As was said before, this Darius was not referred to in Daniel. He is mentioned in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Zechariah. The last regnal year Daniel gives is the 3rd of Cyrus (10:1). By then, Daniel would have at least been in his late 70's (assuming he was taken captive at age 10).
The second Darius who establishes the Satrapies reigned when Daniel was over a century old.
Darius II's accession year was 424 BCE. He's likewise irrelevant to the book of Daniel's narrative. Indeed, he's not mentioned in the Bible at all.
Both of these guys put down Babylonian revolts where principal figures had names like Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus...
Darius I put down two 'Nebuchadnezzars.' The elusive Darius the Mede was said to take over the Babylonian kingdom after Cyrus conquered it.
And the third Darius got whacked in battle by Alexander's forces in the 4th century.
True enough.
The idea that he was on the front at Opis, I would not dismiss out of hand.
Well, we have a loose interpretation, which information cannot be verified, versus Berossus and Daniel.
Now as to whether there was a corresponding desecration of the Temple in the presumed time of Daniel, I would be fairly sure that the sacking in 586/587 BC would constitute such ...
They didn't sacrifice pigs and scatter their blood everywhere. But if you count looting the temple of its treasures and burning it to the ground, then yes, you could class that as desecration - big style.
... but the account in Daniel indicates it was part of a feast more akin to what was going on during the reign of Antiochus. The king who should have been responsible had not been in town for years, but in Arabia. Too observant of moon god Sin vs. Marduk. Belshazzar should have been too busy...
And the temple should have been too non-existent to desecrate all over again.
Yet as I indicated in posts on another topic, I was led to believe by the elders who instructed on What the Bible Really Teaches, that Babylon was literally destroyed for what had gone on at Belshazzar's feast - by Cyrus. This was certainly far from the truth and the details and Isaiah verses cited fit the actions of Assyrian Sennacherib 100 years before Jerusalem's sacking by Nebuchadnezzar. So you can see why I am sceptical of this line of argument.
Oh sure.
The dates in the book agree neither with themselves nor with history as we know it
I hope I've adequately demonstrated otherwise (apart from resolving the Darius the Mede problem).
While there is mention of Daniel in the Maccabees, there is no mention of him in the OT any earlier save for the same-named book.
Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3.
AnnOMaly,
Of those three Ezekiel verses, I checked the New Jerusalem Bible - which I had referred to earlier - the JPS TaNaKh, the NWT and the KJ. Of those named, only the New Jerusalem Bible translated the name in Ezekiel as Danel.
Rationale for Danel are described in this excerpt from the Wikipedia:
The Book of Ezekiel in three verses (14:14. 14:20, and 28:3) writes "Danel", which according to the Masoretic Text should be read as "Daniel". This notwithstanding, parallels and contrasts with the righteous and wise Danel (without i) [8] of the Book of Ezekiel, placed between Noah and Job [9] and invoked as the very example of righteous judgement, [10] first pointed out by René Dussaud in 1931, [11] have led readers commonly to accept [12] or occasionally to reject [13] a degree of identification with Ugaritic Danel of the "Aqhat text", amounting virtually to the same figure. [14] The three figures referred to in Ezekiel 14:14 — "Even if Noah, Danel and Job were in it..." — links the name with two non-Israelites of great antiquity. In Ezekiel 28:3 , Danel is one noted for his wisdom in the prophecy addressed to the king of Tyre: "you are indeed wiser than Danel, no secret is hidden from you". The name, "Danel", had a long tradition in Hebrew culture: he is supplied as the father-in-law of Enoch in Jubilees. [15]
To this I would add that Ezekiel in addressing the King of Tyre, the Ezekiel assumes that the king and Tyre is going to go down. This would be early in the the siege. Ezekiel identifies the date ( if we assume Jerusalem's fall in 586) as the same year as Jerusalem's fall. If this is indeed a reference to the king of Tyre in Ez 28:3 - "So you are as wise as Daniel/Danel; no sage as wise as you." - this would be very early in Daniel's career. And considering it was Nebuchadnezzar that was laying siege to Tyre, it sounds a little implausible at that. But according to the text of Daniel, this was a period in which Nebuchadnezzar was off track for 7 years, having gone mad.
Dear Ann,
I have no problem with an early date for the Book of Daniel, but I wonder what you make of Dan 11:40-45. I also wonder how you understand Dan 9:24-27. (A brief answer will do.)
Thanks!
A.
Amidst this very good and thorough discussion, mP wrote:
"........tye bookmof daniel has been shown by scholars not to be prophetciic but a rant in code against a ruler taht the jews really hated, antiochus iv. the same style of writing was used in revelation which is about nero who is the beast 666. xians dont want to accept this so they start inventing all sorts of wonderful stories, all of which are wrong. all armageddon predictions are wrong because rev and dan are not filled w/ prophecies.
the unfortunate thing is daniel contains anacharisms and historical errors. i will list but a few. (.......................)
-he gives the wrong location for antiochus death, dan says he will die east of the jordan while he doed west, or vice versa. i can t recall the exact details but he got a fifty fifty guess wrong."
Now THAT is what I call really SERIOUS scholarship! He will list "but a few", resulting in his listing two, and as for this last one it is "...or vice versa". He cannot "recall the exact details."
I am happy that kepler and anno'maly keep this discussion going at a somewhat different level.
kepler,
Point taken about Danel/Daniel.
Ezekiel identifies the date ( if we assume Jerusalem's fall in 586) as the same year as Jerusalem's fall. If this is indeed a reference to the king of Tyre in Ez 28:3 - "So you are as wise as Daniel/Danel; no sage as wise as you." - this would be very early in Daniel's career.
If Daniel, not 'very' early in his career. He would have clocked up about 20 years' experience by then, and in a prestigious, official capacity too (2:48).
And considering it was Nebuchadnezzar that was laying siege to Tyre, it sounds a little implausible at that. But according to the text of Daniel, this was a period in which Nebuchadnezzar was off track for 7 years, having gone mad.
How do you know,
a) this was the time period,
b) it was for 7 full years?
Augustin,
I wonder what you make of Dan 11:40-45. I also wonder how you understand Dan 9:24-27. (A brief answer will do.)
Ah, now we're delving in the (oftentimes) murky waters of prophecy. I'm so rusty on this too, I wouldn't like to hop decisively onto any interpretive square. For the moment, I tend toward the more conservative interpretation of the 70 weeks, although there is much debate about the start and end points, that last 'week' can be pretty knotty; the kings of the north/south - phtt, no idea. Others are better suited than I am in deconstructing and analyzing apocalyptic prophecy. Apologies if that disappoints.
AnnOMaly,
I will try to address as much of what issues you raised as I can. And I want to be on record to say that you are bringing up good debate points.
-----
Going back to:
Ezekiel identifies the date ( if we assume Jerusalem's fall in 586) as the same year as Jerusalem's fall. If this is indeed a reference to the king of Tyre in Ez 28:3 - "So you are as wise as Daniel/Danel; no sage as wise as you." - this would be very early in Daniel's career.
And considering it was Nebuchadnezzar that was laying siege to Tyre, it sounds a little implausible at that. But according to the text of Daniel, this was a period in which Nebuchadnezzar was off track for 7 years, having gone mad.
And you note:
If Daniel, not 'very' early in his career. He would have clocked up about 20 years' experience by then, and in a prestigious, official capacity too (2:48).
-----
Regarding dates we have a double system of book-keeping. The translator of Annals of the Chaldean Kings concedes evidence for a raid on Jerusalem that carried off hostages circa 603 BC, but his chronology has its ultimate destruction in 586. If you are saying that Daniel should be presumed to have a 20-year career with Nebuchnezzar as a sage, let us remember that the Tyre siege and Jerusalem's destruction occurred about the same time. IF Daniel were hauled into Babylon earlier than that (603), he arrived as hardly even an adolescent. According to chapter one, his first sage accomplishment was a 10-day diet plan that made him look healthy to the chief eunuch. Maybe in 586 he was about 33. If he came in later (597 or 586), he was much younger.
Tyre, held by the way. It was Alexander that actually delivered on Ezekiel's prophetic threats.
Now is there any mention of Daniel or Beltazzar in Babylonian or Persian cuneiform records? They certainly mention a lot of other individuals.
Prophecies are indeed murky waters. Over the decades I had not been tracking those of the JW, but I was aware of other people's notions of the layout of history. Even had a weird deju vu dream or two myself. But I would still have to say that the guys that get the best score on these tests seem to be surrounded with suspicions of falsified postmarks on their letters. Occam's Razor.
And, of course, there are other religious traditions that have prophecies of their own. Perhaps we could swap tales with discussions about Catholicism's own apocalyptic tradition - "Our Lady of Fatima". JWs can describe what their expectations from God were for the late 20th century and I can relate the tradition and the outcome of the other. Of the two I like the Fatima version better. There was a dilemma on Earth, presented at about time Russell and Rutherford presented theirs; but there was also eventual divine mercy and the faithful participated in the solution through prayer. It does not bring us to the end, but it wasn't a morbid apocalypse either. Even had a hero or two. But that's not the only tradition on the block.
The issue of translating Danel vs. Daniel illustrates another aspect of dealing with the uncertainties of translation. In the case I have presented, it becomes clear ( at least to me) that the NJB translators were not simply confronted with three consonants and no vowels from an ancient text, but deciding on what the vowels ought to be based on other documents they had access to. Admittedly not all of us reading these words will agree on their choices, but I suspect that it can be understood how evidence in Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus and world view would influence their choice. Their perspective is also based on hierarchies of evidence. These include classifying Biblical sources into Gospel, Epistle, Acts, Revelations, and Old Testament categories as well.
Let's take a different perspective. A 19th century Anglo American perspective is that Scripture is inerrant and does not contradict itself. Yet at the same time to explain the state of the world, consideration of organizational church abuses over centuries engendered a doctrine of a widespread millenium long apostasy that assured reformers they had God's guidance and that they would be his logical intermediaries when his Son returned. In this line of reasoning dreams recorded in apocalyptic books, whether initially intended or not, tended to have a trump effect over Gospels. If you would like an example, consider the NWT of Jesus speaking with the Good Thief in Luke 23:42-43 "And he went on to say:"Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdoms". And he said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."
It is in behalf of doctrines derived from dreams in Daniel about 2520 year intervals that just have to limit the ability of the Son of God to deliver on this promise. Apocalyptic literature has trumped over the Gospel in a translation decision. The result is that (as far as I understand this) to Watchtower readers the Good Thief is still waiting for what Christians elsewhere interpreted as an immediate entry. Otherwise, I don't think there would have been significant numbers of Christians around in 1914, if the original followers and adherents had understood the words in 30 AD the way the NWT has them interpreted today.
Well, doing some more background research. AnnOMaly had inquired about the lineage of Belshazzar on his mother's side.
One piece of data is the mother of Nabonidus, described variously as 94-104 years old when she died. One brief account provided by a genealogical organization, something of a skit:
Daughter of King Assurbanipal ll and Queen Ashursharrat [ASSYRIAN]. I was born in 649, in Harran. I married Nabu-balatsu, a Prince of Babylon.
He was a good man and the marriage was successful. We had two sons. Nabonidus, King of Babylon NN of Babylon. I lived 98 years. I witnessed the fall of the great Assyrian Empire and the establishment of the Babylon Empire by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar ll. I lived long enought to see my son Nabonidus sit on the throne of Babylon, well, that took awhile. All of Nebuchadnezzar's immediate successors had to be murdered first, but that is another story.
In an on-line encyclopedia article he refers to his otherwise unknown father, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, as "wise prince." I don't have a fix on whom he married. But so far, if we were to take the line of reasoning of the"son of" argument, Daniel might have been able to say "son of Assurbanipal". This does not help Daniel.
In commentary connected with the Nabonidus Chronicle, it is pointed out that Nabonidus had returned from Tayma (Arabia) in time for the new year (April 2nd - TODAY!) festival, but the battles with Cyrus were several months later. It is argued in this source that Nabonidus had dismissed Belshazzar and taken field command. Then, it was also suggested elsewhere that Belshazzar might have passed away earlier anyway. 50 -50. Belshazzar excused from duty and available to party - or Belshazzar had a legitimate alibi for absence.
OFF in another direction.
The discussion of Danel and the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 draws me back to explorations leading to my first post on this topic. I was fascinated by the way Bible quotes and Watchtower paragraphs were used in the 1934 Yearbook. But it was in the introductory article of that publication where Joseph Rutherford provides a summary or framework around the movement. Beside his distinctive style, a number of things leaped out at me or stuck in memory for later investigation. But I suspect that someone with life-long involvement might have noticed even more.
Yearbook 1934 Excerpt beginning on Page 21:
..The beginning of creation was his beloved Son, whose first title is the Logos. (John 1: 1; Col. 1: 15;Prov. 8: 22-29). Thereafter all things created were created by Christ Jesus as the active agent of Jehovah.(Eph. 3: 9). Among the creatures created was Lucifer, who was made the overlord of man and all other creation of earth.
God created the earth as a place for man’s home, and the earth shall abide forever and be inhabited by those who love and serve Jehovah God.--Isa. 45-12,18; Eccl. 1: 4.
The Bible is God’s Word of truth and is given as a guide and for the instruction of man in the way of righteousness, and it contains the expressed purpose of Jehovah; and those who study it may ascertain his purpose.--Isa. 46: 9-12; 55.11; John 17: 17.
God created man of the dust of the earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives, and man thereby became a living, moving creature called a "soul". (Gen.2: 7) The first man Adam was perfect, and it was his duty and obligation to obey God. (Deut. 32 ¯ 4) He was plainly informed by Jehovah that a willful violation of His law would mean death. Lucifer, the overlord of man, rebelled against God, and Adam, the first man, [p. 22 Year Book] followed the lead of Lucifer in sin and was sentenced to death. (Ezek. 28: 13-15; Gen. 3: 3-19). The power to produce children was exercised by Adam between the time of his sentence to death, which deprived him of the right to live, and the time of his actual dissolution; hence all of his children inherited the result of that death sentence and all the human race have been born as sinners. (Rom. 5: 12) Jehovah God changed Lucifer’s name to that of Serpent [ Sidebar: Was Rutherford reading the Bible backwards?], meaning deceiver; Satan, meaning opposer; Dragon, meaning destroyer; and Devil, meaning the slanderer of God. Ever since Satan has been the opponent of Jehovah God and the persecutor of all who serve God.
---------------------
Sidebar on Ezekiel 28 – Against the King of Tyre (using New Jerusalem Bible text)
1. The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows, ‘Son of Man, say to the ruler of Tyre, “The Lord Yahweh says this:
2. Because your heart has grown proud, you thought, I am a god; I am divinely enthroned far out to sea. Though you are human, not divine, you allowed yourself to think like [a] god.
3. So you are wiser than Danel; no sage as wise as you!
4. By your wisdom and your intelligence you made yourself a fortune, you have put gold and silver into your treasuries.
5. Such is your skill in trading, your fortune has continued to increase,…
11. The word of Yahweh was addressed to me as follows,
12. Son of man, raise a lament for the king of Tyre. Say to him, “The Lord Yahweh says this: You used to be a model of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty;
13. You were in Eden, in the garden of God. All kinds of gem formed your mantle: sard, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphier, garnet, emerald, and your ear pendants and spangles were made of gold; all was ready on the day you were created.
14. I made you a living creature with outstretched wings, as guardian, you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked amid red-hot coals.
15. Your behavior was exemplary from the day you were created until guilt first appeared in you,
16. because your busy trading has filled you with violence and sin. I have thrown you down from the mountains of God and destroyed you, guardian winged creature, amid the coals.
17. Your heart has has grown proud because of your beauty, your wisdom has been corrupted by your splendor. I have thrown you to the ground.
Sidebar comments: Do I know what Joseph Rutherford was talking about in the excerpt or do I know what he was doing? Ostensibly the Lord is addressing the King of Tyre, under siege by King Nebuchadnezzar, speaking via prophet Ezekiel. Yet Rutherford in selecting and quoting the verses would never let the reader guess from context. But let us suppose even that Rutherford were right about whom the Lord was addressing. Would this not throw a wrench [28:16-17] into the events of 1914?
---------------------
[1934 YB continued] The Scriptures further teach that Satan the Devil challenged Jehovah God to put on earth any man that would be faithful and true to God at all times, Satan claiming that all men, under certain conditions, would curse God to his face. (Job 2: 1-9) From that time until the present the human race has suffered woe, sickness, sorrow and death. In order that all creation might be able to intelligently determine who is supreme, and from whom the blessings of life and happiness proceed, and who is the just, wise and loving one, Jehovah or Satan, the great Jehovah God permitted or suffered Satan to put forth his endeavors to prove his wicked challenge, declaring His purpose in due time to bring the knowledge of the truth to all creation and to fully vindicate his own name. (Ex. 9: 16, Leeser) From the very beginning of man’s experience Satan has carried forward an organized opposition to God and to righteousness, and continues so to do, and will continue so to do until he and his organization are destroyed.
Early in the history of man Jehovah God made promise and stated this promise to Abraham that he [1934 Year Book p 23] would raise up a seed which would redeem the human race from death and through which seed all the families and nations of the earth should have opportunity for blessings. That promised seed is Christ, the Anointed of Jehovah God.--Gen. 12: 1-3; 22: 18;Gal. 3 : 16-29. [Sidebar: To be honest, I do not see a promise of release from death in the verses cited in Genesis. What Abraham knew of the contents of Galatians, I cannot say, but reading that specifically, I did not see a release from death there either. If someone would like to pick up on that (e.g., it's elaborated by Paul elsewhere), and considering the season, I will certainly listen]
In due time Jehovah God sent his beloved Son, the Logos, to earth, who was made a man or human, instead of a spirit, that he might be the redeemer of mankind and the vindicator of Jehovah God’s name.--Heb. 2:9; 5:7-9; John 3:16; Phil. 2:7.
When on earth Jesus was a perfect man, holy, sinless, and therefore competent to be man’s redeemer. (Matt. 1: 18-25; Gal. 4: 4; Luke 1: 35) He began his ministry at the age of thirty years, and testified boldly to the truth, and for this reason was the object of constant and wicked persecution by the religionists of his time, and which religionists caused him to be crucified upon the tree. His lifeblood, poured out in death, provided the redemptive price for the human race.--Matt. 4 :1-9; John 8: 40-44; 1 Tim. 2 : 5, 6, Heb.9: 22-26; 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19.
Jehovah God raised up Jesus out of death and exalted him to heaven and gave him a name above every name and committed into his hands all power in heaven and in earth and made him the Executive Officer of Jehovah to carry out his purposes---Eph. 1:20-22; Heb. 1:3,4; Matt. 28:18, Heb. 2.7,8; 1 Pet. 3: 21,22; Ps 2:6, John 5:21-27, Isa. 9:6,7; Ps. 45:6.
When on earth Jesus emphasized the fact that he came to be a witness to Jehovah’s Word of truth and that he spoke only what God had commanded him to speak. (John 18: 37) Just before his crucifixion especially impressed upon the minds of his disciples that he must die and go away to heaven to receive the
------------------------------------------------------------
The summary continues for a few more pages and the annual report by nations begins on page 27. Clearly, I can't see how he can rationalize his use of Ezekiel other than to manipulate, but I also wonder what others think of this.
Just wondering: Would Rutherford in the rank and file remain a JW in good standing or would he be subject to disciplinary hearing? Or would he just need to clean up his vocabulary?
