A knock-down argument against the WBTS interpretation of Daniel 7:13,14 to support 1914!

by yadda yadda 2 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  yadda yadda 2

  The Watchtower Society still officially teaches that Daniel 2:44 is fulfilled in the future at Armageddon while in the same breath asserting that Daniel 7:13,14 was fulfilled in 1914. Note the following paragraphs from Chapter 10 of the "Worship God" book, recently studied by all Jehovah's Witnesses:

  "3. Learning about God's Kingdom is of the greatest urgency now, as soon that Kingdom will take action to change forever the rulership of this earth. Daniel 2:44 foretells: "In the days of those kings [governments now ruling] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people [humans will never again rule the earth]. It will crush and put an end to all these [present] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." Thus the Kingdom will bring these last days to a close by destroying this entire wicked system of things. Rulership of the earth by the heavenly Kingdom will then be undisputed. How grateful we should be that the relief this will bring is now very near!

  4 In 1914, Christ Jesus was installed as King and was authorized to "go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies." (Psalm 110:1, 2) Also in that year, "the last days" of this present wicked system of things began. (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13) At the same time, events that Daniel had seen in prophetic vision actually took place in heaven. "The Ancient of Days," Jehovah God, conferred upon the Son of man, Jesus Christ, "rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him." Reporting on the vision, Daniel wrote: "His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin." (Daniel 7:13, 14)It is by means of this heavenly Kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus that God will enable lovers of righteousness to enjoy the countless good things that he purposed when he put our first human parents in Paradise."

  - "Worship God", chp.10 pp.90-100.

  Notice the almost identical wording of Daniel 2:44 and 7:13,14 that I have underlined. The words "never be brought to ruin" appears in 2:44 while the almost identical phrase "not be brought to ruin" appears in 7:14; similarly, the phrase "stand to times indefinite" appears in 2:44 while the words "indefinitely lasting" are in 7:14.

  Daniel 2:44 "...kingdom that will never be brought to ruin."

  Daniel 7:14 "...kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin."

  Daniel 2:44 "...stand to times indefinite."

  Daniel 7:14 "...indefinitely lasting..."

  It's obvious from these almost identical words in both scriptural passages and their contexts that Daniel 2:44 and Daniel 7:13,14 are describing the same event! Yet the Watchtower continues to teach the glaring and untenable contradiction that Daniel 7:13,14 was fulfilled in 1914 while Daniel 2: 44 is fulfilled in the future.

  Can we expect "new light" soon to correct this striking contradiction, in the same way that the Watchtower Society has recently corrected the former glaring contradiction between "arriving" at Matt 24:46 and "arrives" at Matt 25:31 so that both arrivals are now understood to have future fulfilments?

  We will see.
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Paragraph 4, the first sentence, of the reference you quoted admits that Dan 2:44 applies to 1914. But, there are two parts to the verse: first, setting up the kingdom (done in 1914, according to WTS), then that kingdom crushes and puts and end to all these kingdoms (future, according to WTS). This is how I've always understood this verse.
• 

  Cold Steel

  When anyone quotes the New World Translation, I just cringe. The JW interpretation of scripture is bad enough, but it's like a group of Boy Scouts with a Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic lexicon translating the entire Bible. Even if I were a dedicated believer in the Society, the first thing I'd do is toss that abomination in the trash and use a respected and accurate translation!

  Regarding the establishment of Yahweh's Kingdom in the last days, the Green Dragon "translates" it (as it appears above):

  In the days of those kings [governments now ruling]the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people [humans will never again rule the earth]. It will crush and put an end to all these [present] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.

  First, in the "days of those kings" refers to the individual nations that sprang up followed the fall of Rome. One can stretch it to our days if one wishes, but the period of time spans from about 1830 to our present time and presumably beyond. Next, it will be established by God and not man. In fact, the New International Version puts it this way:

  In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

  One wonders why the translators of the Green Dragon uses the terms "never be brought to ruin" instead of "never be destroyed" as most other versions state. The original language actually uses the word "destroyed" and not "brought to ruin." True, "ruin" means "total destruction or disintigration," but "destroy" means to "tear down or break up, demolish." But the NWT states the kingdom would not be "brought to ruin." It's once removed in meaning from what it actually says. After that, the NWT says the kingdom will "not be passed on to any other people." But the original language doesn't say this. It says that it will not be "left to another people." In other words, the kingdom will not be run by "another people." Using the term "passed on" to any other people implies a transition of the kingdom that the original language doesn't say. Literally, the text states: "and its kingdom to another people is not left." The term "left" in this case is defined, "To cause or allow to be or remain in a specified state." This is completely different from being "passed on," which implies a "change" in remaining in a specified state. Finally, the NWT states that the kingdom will "stand to times indefinite." Literally, the text states, "standeth to an age," which is a way of saying "forever" or "without end." But "indefinite" means "unclear" or "vague"—without precise limits.

  Let the readers compare the versions, but it's clear the translators of the Green Dragon have agendas in their "translations." If one cannot add or delete from the scriptures, can one change its meaning? How can the scriptures mean that humans no longer will rule the earth by this scripture? It may be true, but that's not what the scriptures say. And while these are parenthetical interpretations of scripture, the governments of God throughout the millennia have always included humans. And when Jesus becomes the King of Earth, it's not reasonable to think he will micromanage every detail of government. Wasn't the whole idea that the saints would reign with Christ?

  It's not clear what the Society believes the Kingdom is. When Jesus returns, will he establish a kingdom or will he use the WBTS government now in existence? And when Daniel writes that "in the days of those kings," does he mean a future event or a past event? In short, is the Society that Kingdom or will Yahweh establish another kingdom?

  --------------------------

  

  What does Psalm 110:1-2 with 1914? And how does the Society know the Ancient of Days is "Jehovah God"? The Father God already has conferred "rulership and dignity and kingdom" upon Jesus after the fall of mankind, when he was made intercessor. Finally, why do the NWT translators insist on translating "everlasting" into "indefinitely lasting"? The first and most popular definition of "everlasting" is "eternal" or "neverending." Only the second definition refers to "continuing indefinitely or for a long period of time." If Daniel had meant "indefinitely" rather than "eternal," why didn't he say so?
• 

  *lost*