Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast 501 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Correction: In my prior post where I said "If I had believed in God or some other spirit and I had asked the spirit to show it self to me and to speak to me I probably would have had a vision (or audio-only hallucination) of the seemingly the spirit speaking to me", I meant to say the following. "If I had believed in God or some other spirit and if I had asked the spirit to show it self to me and to speak to me, then I probably would have had a vision (or audio-only hallucination) seemingly of the spirit speaking to me."

    In a recent prior post when I wrote "Yes Daniel was written ... before Rome conquered the Seleucid empire" that was in error, for I wrote it before I later learned that Rome had conquered the Seleucid kingdom prior to 180 B.C.E. I thus should have wrote the following instead. "Yes Daniel was written before the time period that Rome became an empire and before Rome conquered the Hellenistic empire and/or the Greeks."

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Disillusioned JW:

    I realize that someone before Porphyry might have said that f'irst person to introduce the idea that Daniel was not a work of the 6th century but was written much later in the time of the Seleucids in the 2nd century', but Porphyry is the earliest known person to mention that claim.

    It may be the case that Porphyry is the earliest known extant source (or possibly just the most well known early source) for recognising the time Daniel was actually written, but that fact is less important than 'scholar' tries to make out. 'scholar' attempted the fallacious argument that Porphyry is invalidated because he was a 'critic of Christianity'. Outside of pandering to religious superstitions, texts that identify specific events that actually happened (such as references in Daniel that are widely acknowledged to refer to specific events in the Seleucid period) are routinely recognised as being written after the events. It is fallacious to pretend that 'maybe it really is prophecy' when there is actually no evidence to believe that such is even possible let alone likely.

    But the Roman kingdom was in existence prior to 180 B.C.E. Not only that, but Rome defeated Antiochus III the Great (the Seleucid king) in the Roman–Seleucid War of 192 B.C.E. – 188 B.C.E. Furthermore, Antiochus III was the father of Antiochus IV Epiphanes!

    I had responded to your earlier suggestion that "the Roman Empire and its dissolution seem to well fit the Daniel chapter 2". The fact that Rome existed prior to the writing of Daniel does not justify that claim.

    I even think it is possible that the biblical prophets might have used a meditative practice which enhanced the power of their subconscious mind to detect patterns world events, and then present the conclusions to heir conscious mind - even in visions. Because I think such might be possible I have even tried do such myself.

    Sometimes people imagine things, and sometimes things they imagine might even turn out to be correct to varying degrees. Some people are futurists as a profession. It isn't evidence of anything 'mystical', and whilst introspection might help people to focus their thoughts, it isn't some 'special subconscious awareness of the universe'.

    Even if only two verses in Daniel specifically say they are about a future kingdom of God, that doesn't mean the story they are about isn't also about a proclaimed future kingdom of God.

    Most of the parts of Daniel that mention God's kingdom (or sovereignty) at all express that God is sovereign without any need for it to be 'established' in the future. 'scholar' echoes the Watch Tower Society's claim that "Time and again, the Bible book of Daniel develops a central theme. It keeps pointing forward to the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son, Jesus." (The Watchtower, 1 October 2014, page 11). That claim is expressly false, not only because of the obvious fact that Daniel never mentions Jesus, but also because Daniel does not 'keep pointing' to a future establishment of God's kingdom. The two verses of Daniel (2:44 and 7:14) that refer to a future kingdom are from paired sections of the chiastic structure of chapters 2 to 7, and it would be surprising if that idea was not expressed twice in that structure. But it is not the book's 'main theme'.

    I tried to see if there were Jewish commentaries which say such, but Jewish commentaries are far less numerous in the USA than Christian commentaries are.

    Jews consider Daniel to be part of the Writings, not the Prophets, which explains why they are less concerned about providing esoteric interpretations, especially involving 'our day'. The fact that there are relatively few Jewish analyses of Daniel is actually another clue that Jews closer to the time, just as now, did not consider its content 'prophetic'.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    our worldview is dynamic and consistent with the progression of true knowledge.

    How true. And our interpretation of the Bible and of Bible prophecy is also progressive like solving a crossword puzzle. Our algorithm is to use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

  • waton
    waton
    How true. And our interpretation of the Bible and of Bible prophecy is also progressive like solving a crossword puzzle. Our algorithm is to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. bold added

    Fisher, man : good analogy! imagine a crossword puzzle where the wrong words are weekly printed, and readers are threatened with eternal death if they do not buy into that current, but guarantied false picture. and are weakly taught to teach theses falsehoods to others. and,

    wt's 100% failure rate on predictive prophecy must show you that there is something seriously wrong with your algorithm.

    Try math, science instead. and the good, and well meaning suggestions in all the correspondence you have received over the years. (from the "Joseph" class.) remember the outcome.

  • Jammer
    Jammer

    Fisherman said,

    How true. And our interpretation of the Bible and of Bible prophecy is also progressive like solving a crossword puzzle. Our algorithm is to use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

    That doesn't always work. At times it does and other times it misleads people. It's also said that one cannot understand the prophecies of the New Testament until we understand them in the Old Testament. Again, at times that does make a difference, and other times it misleads them.

    There are lots of things to consider when we do this. My opinion is that most Christians don't care about obtaining truth because they believe they already have it. They prefer to adhere to what they already believe than be enlightened and change their mind.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    t may be the case that Porphyry is the earliest known extant source (or possibly just the most well known early source) for recognising the time Daniel was actually written, but that fact is less important than 'scholar' tries to make out. 'scholar' attempted the fallacious argument that Porphyry is invalidated because he was a 'critic of Christianity'. Outside of pandering to religious superstitions, texts that identify specific events that actually happened (such as references in Daniel that are widely acknowledged to refer to specific events in the Seleucid period) are routinely recognised as being written after the events. It is fallacious to pretend that 'maybe it really is prophecy' when there is actually no evidence to believe that such is even possible let alone likely.

    ---

    There is no maybe about it. Scholars agree that the Maccabean Thesis or the idea that Daniel was a 2nd century BC historical composition is traced back to Porphyry. The fact was that he was a critic of Christianity so his motives are suspect especially when the book claims to be a literary work of prophecy.

    Further, there is nothing in Daniel that provides any historical support for a later composition for the only reference applicable to the Seleucid Period is confined to a few verses in Dan. 11:5-19.which of course confirms that the book is prophecy as it contains a reference to a future period along with other fulfillments.

    ---
    had responded to your earlier suggestion that "the Roman Empire and its dissolution seem to well fit the Daniel chapter 2". The fact that Rome existed prior to the writing of Daniel does not justify that claim

    --

    The Roman Empire came into existence long after Daniel was written with the advent of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE which was foretold and described in Dan.11:20 thus proving that Rome existed long after Daniel's time of writing in the 6th century BC.

    ---

    Sometimes people imagine things, and sometimes things they imagine might even turn out to be correct to varying degrees. Some people are futurists as a profession. It isn't evidence of anything 'mystical', and whilst introspection might help people to focus their thoughts, it isn't some 'special subconscious awareness of the universe'.

    --

    Critics of Bible prophecy abound even to the present originating with Porphyry and present with Jeffro thus are highly susceptible to imaginative theories or dreams!!!!

    ---

    Most of the parts of Daniel that mention God's kingdom (or sovereignty) at all express that God is sovereign without any need for it to be 'established' in the future. 'scholar' echoes the Watch Tower Society's claim that "Time and again, the Bible book of Daniel develops a central theme. It keeps pointing forward to the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son, Jesus." (The Watchtower, 1 October 2014, page 11). That claim is expressly false, not only because of the obvious fact that Daniel never mentions Jesus, but also because Daniel does not 'keep pointing' to a future establishment of God's kingdom. The two verses of Daniel (2:44 and 7:14) that refer to a future kingdom are from paired sections of the chiastic structure of chapters 2 to 7, and it would be surprising if that idea was not expressed twice in that structure. But it is not the book's 'main theme'.

    ---

    Nonsense, it is entirely appropriate to refer to God's Kingdom or Sovereignty as being established as it it is only in this case that it can be realized historically as an identifiable event that is fully developed theologically in Daniel as something 'breaking through' climatically onto the World stage.

    Daniel does not mention Jesus by name but describes the Messiah and His future coming as a dramatic event in history and we know for a fact that God's Kingdom was established in October, 1914 CE based on Daniel's prophecy. The' kingdom' is thematic in Daniel and is generally recognized by scholarship.

    Rather than just considering the chiastic structure limited to chapters 2-7 as you have done, Why not consider the chiastic structure of the whole book which begins with the Exile as a story and concludes with an Exile in the form of a vision?

    --
    Jews consider Daniel to be part of the Writings, not the Prophets, which explains why they are less concerned about providing esoteric interpretations, especially involving 'our day'. The fact that there are relatively few Jewish analyses of Daniel is actually another clue that Jews closer to the time, just as now, did not consider its content 'prophetic'.

    --

    Nonsense, the Jews were interested in Apocalypticism as shown by the many books of the Pseudepigrapha and other writings. You need to learn more about the role of Daniel as a tremendous influence on Jewish and Christian thought.

    scholar JW

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    scholar, why do you think the book of Daniel says "seal up the book" of Daniel? If you think the book was sealed, when do you think it became unsealed? Do you think it was unsealed in the 2nd century B.C.E.? Do you think it was sealed centuries earlier than the 2nd century B.C.E.? In contrast, why do you think the book of Revelation says "do not seal up" the book of Revelation? What are your reasons?

    Do you think the references in the two books about "seal up" or "do not seal up" (as the case may be) provide clues as when the two books were written?

    When do you think chapters 3-14 of the book of 2nd Esdras (the book that is referred to at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Esdras ) were written, and do you think the biblical Ezra wrote them? [Esdras is a Greco-Latin variation of the Hebrew name 'Ezra'.] What are your reasons?

    Why do you believe that Porphyry having been a critic of Christianity invalidates
    Porphyry and his criticism of the the Book of Daniel? Why couldn't his criticism of the book of Daniel be correct, despite his criticism of Christianity? Do you believe that the WT's criticism of the Catholic church and of Christendom invalidates the WT and its criticism of the books which Protestants call Apocryphal but which the Roman Catholic Church calls parts of the Bible (such as the books of Tobit, Judith, and Ecclesiasticus [the latter is also called the Book of Sirach])? What are you reasons?

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    I couldn’t be bothered dealing with all of the latest load of drivel offered by ‘scholar’. The ‘quality’ of his ‘reasoning’ is summed up well in this paragraph though:

    Further, there is nothing in Daniel that provides any historical support for a later composition for the only reference applicable to the Seleucid Period is confined to a few verses in Dan. 11:5-19.which of course confirms that the book is prophecy as it contains a reference to a future period along with other fulfillments.
    Basically, this boils down to: ‘nothing in Daniel indicates that it was written during the Seleucid period apart from the part that very obviously does, so my best explanation is that the book is magical.’

    The rest of his responses are of similar ‘quality’. Just go away, ‘scholar’.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Basically, this boils down to: ‘nothing in Daniel indicates that it was written during the Seleucid period apart from the part that very obviously does, so my best explanation is that the book is magical.’

    ---

    Correct. There are no facts or any evidence whatsoever that proves Daniel is a 2nd-century composition. The book itself contains six chronological data that prove its 6th-century composition as part of its external evidence . Internal evidence for a much earlier composition is based on other factors such as other literary sources, linguistics etc.

    The most recent scholarship which debunks the Maccabean Thesis is former Witness Semitic scholar, Rolf Furuli in his When Was The Book Of Daniel Written? A Philological, Linguistic, And Historical Approach, 2017, Awatu Publishers, 330 pp.

    Jeffro and his ilk would be too scared to read this book!!! LOL

    scholar JW


  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Doofus:

    The book itself contains six chronological data that prove its 6th-century composition

    The movie Alien contains chronological data ‘proving’ the movie was made hundreds of years in the future 🤦‍♂️ Must be a prophecy 😂

    Can you really be so stupid to genuinely not understand that someone can very easily refer to events in the past at some later time?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit