SwedishChef, why don't you write your own essay instead of quoting (ad verbatim, I might add) someone else's?
The Book of Daniel
by SwedishChef 50 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
bikerchic
forgive me ok I'm getting old and senile LMAO
Hey, I'm getting old and senile faster than you, my friend. I totally fogged on the NIV cross-reference from the "Introduction To Daniel" over to "The Time Between the Testaments." Thanks.
Craig (who just stole a post from bikerchic )
-
peacefulpete
onacruse...I will provide details later as the book is not handy this morning, but the 70 weeks prophecy is part of the reason scholars attribute the work to an author around the time of the rededication of the temple. Other extent texts from this period reveal similar expectation of imminent liberation of the jews. The translating these passages by Christians has slightly tainted the reading in our Bibles. The reading in a jewish translation gives an entirely different meaning.The mesiah in the verse was the high priest (anointed) who was killed by Antiochus three years after the rededication. The whole passage has been warped from it's meaning. This is by the way in part why dates of Isreal's return are set as they are. And why Jesus is believed by many to have died in 33ce without solid corroborating evidence. In fact there are many different suggestions as to this date using various methods. Later I will explain in detail.
-
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. -
-
seedy3
SwedishChef
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.It's interesting you bring this up, this here is a point that Daniel, had he actuall lived during the time of the exile he would have gotten correct, yet he got it wrong. In Daniel chapter 5, Belshazzar is said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar yet this is not true, and if this was written in the days of the actual Belshazzar as it is inticated then Daniel would have known this. According to the inscriptions found in Ur in the middle of the 19th century the father of Belshazzar was Nabonidus. Nabonidus was not related to Nebuchadnezzar he actually was a usurper.
Now it is interesting that there is only one other place that Belshazzar is refered to as the son of Nebuchadnezzar and it is found in the apochrophal book of Baruch 1:11-12
11] and pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and for the life of Belshazzar his son, that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven.
[12] And the Lord will give us strength, and he will give light to our eyes, and we shall live under the protection of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and under the protection of Belshazzar his son, and we shall serve them many days and find favor in their sight.These appear to be the only 2 places that Belshazzar is refered to as Nebuchadnezzar's son (Daniel and Baruch) So who got it wrong first?? Did Baruch copy from Daniel or did Daniel copy from Baruch? Either way they both got it wrong, so your statement of it being a flawless record is quite incorrect as here is just one flaw in the record. I have many more if you would like, but you brought this one up.
Seedy
-
DannyBear
Farkel,
Somehow I had missed this lesson on Daniel 8.
I had to read this comment twice;
***Then, along comes the THEOCRATIC Watchtower Printing Company(tm) and everything falls into place! The major prophet Ezekiel pictured THEM. Isaiah pictured THEM. Jeremiah pictured THEM. Elijah pictured THEM. Elisha pictured THEM. Ruth pictured THEM. Naomi pictured THEM. John the Revelator pictured THEM. The ark that allegedly preserved the human race pictured THEM. Jesus' parables pointed to THEM. Major portions of the Revelation pointed to THEM. The seven mighty trumpet blasts in Revelation pointed to THEM and their puny little gatherings in the 1920's (which no one except themselves cared the least bit about). And on it goes. Here we have a book thousands of years old which everywhere within its pages supposedly "prophesied" about the leaders of a totally insignificant religion that can't get ANY prophecy of its own right, gets into tax trouble, abuses its membership on a daily basis, and hates everyone but themselves, including the governments that have protected and ensured that freedom to hate.***
Although your entire lesson was delightful ( and required a no-dozeto complete), the above statement should be PLASTERED up on the refrigerator of every active jw world wide. They must read this tome at least twice a day, then recite verbatum via phone to you personaly, so that you can verify that thier brain cells got the message.
Dannu
-
seedy3
I was just looking back through the archives of this site and the threads that SwedishChef has started in the past and I must say he has started some good threads, a lot of great discussion from many people. Although I heartly disagree with his beleifs, I have enjoyed may of the discussions he has started. Keep them coming SC, it's actually fun
Seedy
-
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
-
seedy3
Actually SC, I didn't read all of it, it was so long and boring as I said earlier, my eyes started to cross while reading it.
So now having said that........
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."
Although I could agree with this reasoning, it does not fit the picture. Where does this guy get the information that Nabonidus, Belshazzar and Neb were related in this way? It actually gives mere speculation. Why would the book of Daniel Praise a cousin of Neb's rather then his actual son, it really amkes no sence, I mean really if they knew that Nabonidus was going to be next in line for the throne I would have praised him during the reign of Neb. I am sorry that is no arguement.Outside of the bible and one apochraphal book, there is no line of relationship. I will investigate this more, but I fear I will not find much on it.
Seedy