Posts by Disillusioned JW

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Page 131 of the WT's commentary book (in the above mentioned edition) on the book of Daniel quotes The Wycliffe Bible Commentary in support of the claim the 4th kingdom in the vision of Daniel chapter two is about the Roman Empire. I own The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Page 789 of that commentary in regards to Daniel 7:7,8 says the following. "As in chapter 2, the fourth stage of empire is Roman."

I agree that It is entirely unsurprising that Christian “faith-based commentaries” hold to traditional Christian interpretations, and it was for full disclosure that I mentioned that the commentaries were faith based.

Since I am an atheist, I don't believe that the book of Daniel is a prophecy in the since of being inspired by God. But if it was written in the 6th century B.C.E. it does meet the dictionary definition of being a prophecy. If such is the case then its writer (whether Daniel or someone else) was a prophet, in the same sense that Edgar Casey and Nostradamus were prophets - whether they were true prophets or false prophets. The writer of the book might have been a brilliant futurist, maybe even one with some 'psychic'/ESP powers to foresee the future.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, the "New American Standard Bible - Study Edition" (as published by A. J. Holman Company in 1976) in its Survey of the book of Daniel, written by G. Douglas Young, Ph.D., says the following. "But there is no evidence in history that the Jews issued under a pseudonym a book claiming to be a revelation from God and set centuries earlier than the time when it is alleged to be presented to the public. In the absence of such historic evidence, there is no scientific basis for departing from the accepted Judeo-Christian tradition of a sixth century B.C. date and authorship by Daniel." Jeffro, disprove (with documented evidence) that claim of Ph.D. scholar Young if you can.

Jeffro regarding the hypothesis that the purported visions in the book named Daniel pertain nearly exclusively to the the Seleucid period, I didn't say it is "some ‘wild theory’ " nor did I suggest it is such. I also recognize that the majority of biblical scholars of the book of (called) Daniel accept that hypothesis, but I still want to see ample evidence before I fully accept it. I don't want to rush to conclusions. Some of the faith-based Bible commentaries, which I own and hold in high regard, don't accept that hypothesis.

As an example of me needing ample evidence on this toipic, consider the following. Despite me knowing since around age 10 that the majority of scientists (especially biologists and anthropologists) are convinced that evolution is true, it took me many years of research before I rejected day age special creationism and accepted biological evolution as true.

One of the most recently published books of the WT which I obtained and decided to keep (at least for now) is the First Printing of the First Edition of the Pay Attention to DANIEL'S PROPHECY! book (copyright 1999). I obtained it at a JW convention. I have kept the book, despite now being an atheist, because it references history books (and journal articles on history) in support of its claims.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, I don't recall you providing documentation showing how the verses of Daniel accurately matter he Seleucid period, though you urge us to accept that Daniel is about the Seleucid period. Perhaps you have studied the history of the Seleucids, but I know virtually nothing about the Seleucids (though I took a college course in ancient world history, which included content about the Greeks) and I suspect that other readers (at least those who think the book was written in the 6th century or possibly written then) on this topic thread also know nearly nothing about them. Except for a few cases I thus don't see what you call "obvious references to the Seleucid period", so please document to me and others (including scholar) evidence of the alleged obviousness to the Seleucid period.

Making assertions, even repeatedly, without documentation/proof does not sway me to abandon my long held views and become convinced in the assertions. I need evidence instead. I have some evidence in some of the commentary books I own, but I it is not very detailed on a verse by verse basis. Furthermore, those same commentaries also say some of the verses do not fit well the Seleucids and they say some of the verses might refer to Rome.

I am much more familiar with the Roman empire than with the Seleucid kingdom. If you wish to convince me and others 100% that Daniel refers to the Seleucid period and that none of it refers to the Rome (or the Roman empire) or has no similarity to the Roman empire, please refer us to a commentary which interprets Daniel verse by verse as having reference to the Seleucids and no reference to Rome.

From what I learned about the Roman Empire (from movies, scholarly documentaries, and history books) the Roman Empire fits extremely well the description in Daniel 2:40 about the 4th kingdom.

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, the name/expression "Jehovah God" never seemed awkward to me, just as the expression "Jesus Christ" never seemed awkward to me. While I was a JW I frequently used the expression "Jehovah God", possibly more often than I said "Jehovah" independent of the word "God".

Now I try to use the name 'Yahweh", but that name seems odd to me since for majority of my life I never used it. It probably also seems odd to me since all English Bibles (such as KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV), except for some Sacred Name Bibles (such as ones which say 'Yeshua" instead of "Jesus") or hyper literal Bibles, have multiple names (such as "Jeremiah") in the scripture text which begin with a "J" but no names (to my knowledge) which begin with a "Y".

20

NWT Revisions

by Jeffro in

there is mention on a wikipedia article that there was a 2006 revision of the nwt.

is this true?

what differences are there?

Disillusioned JW

Yes it is true Jeffro. I know it because I have one (a paperback edition). In it there is no more use of single brackets, though there is still use of double brackets. The single brackets were used to indicate where the NWT included words in the translation that did not have an underlying Hebrew (or Aramaic) or Greek word in the text. Formerly the NWT said "Brackets enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text". Years ago I wrote a letter to WT headquarters in which one of my questions was why the WT made the NWT less literal by making such a change. I drew attention to the effect it had on the handling of the word "other" in Colossians 1:16-20. My letter was sent before the 2013 NWT was released (or if sent after the release, it was years before I realized the 2013 NWT had been released). I thus consider the 2006 printing edition to be a predecessor to the revision of 2013. The 2016 printing edition also had a revision to the Appendix and it has different maps on the inside cover of the Bible than the 1984 edition.

The WT never sent a written reply to my letter. After waiting months I called them about and the person one the phone told me he as the answers to my questions but that if want answers I should ask the elders instead of asking the WT society.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Disillusioned JW

When I wrote "Daniel wrote the prophecy" I don't necessarily mean it is an actual prophecy, But part of it is a prophecy in the sense it makes predictions (claiming to come from God) about the future, such as about God's kingdom becoming established and the resurrection of the dead, whether those predictions whether come true or not.] I was just referring to it as it is described. It is like saying "Spock said" or "Captain Kirk said" in reference to an episode of Star Trek. It is also like saying the "Gospel of Matthew" instead of the cumbersome wording of the "Gospel which is attributed as being according to Matthew". It also like saying "Jesus said" instead of saying "the biblical Jesus said" or "according to the Bible Jesus said".

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Disillusioned JW

Hi Jeffro. I thought of saying "Persia" instead of "Media-Persia" but I said the latter for the following reasons. (1) I think that a number of Christian books I've seen say "Media-Persia" (or Medo-Persia). (2) The book of Daniel says "the Medes and the Persians" and that wording made me wonder if a confederation (or alliance) of two countries were spoken of, namely of Media and Persia. However I think my wording might also be a holdover from the influence of WT literature I read since before age 10 which say "Medo-Persia". You are right though in saying that I should have said "Persia" instead. Daniel was probably speaking of ethic groups rather than kingdoms when he said "the Medes and the Persians".

Regarding your claim that "there is no reason the author of Daniel would refer to the fall of the ‘Roman empire’ that didn’t even exist yet", it depends upon the purpose of of why Daniel wrote the prophecy (or hypothetically why God gave him the vision and an angel interpreted it for him). If it were partly to convince people over the centuries (including those who would live in the time of the end) that that Jehovah God exists, that God influences world events, and that God foresees the future, then it would make sense to include a prediction about the Roman Empire. However if the prophecy was given to give hope to Jewish people living in 2nd century B.C.E., that harsh gentile domination over the Jews would very soon end, and that God would soon (in the 2nd century B.C.E.) establish a kingdom of his own over the world, then it wouldn't make sense to refer to the Roman Empire and to times centuries beyond 164 B.C.E..

Regarding your question of "Did you read the article I linked a few days ago?" in response to what I wrote (in the words which you quoted), the answer is as follows. When I made my comment I had stopped being confident that some Jews were using Daniel to calculate the arrival of the messiah in 26 C.E., 29 C.E., 30 C.E. or any similar year. Note that I included the phrase of "(assuming the WT's claim was correct)". As a result of what you had told me I had lost my confidence (in the idea of Jews making the calculation), but I said what I said so you would know why in an earlier post I said "about the year 30 C.E." instead of precisely "in the year 30 C.E.". I thought my post might give the wrong impression, so I tried to prevent that wrong impression from happening by also saying "(assuming the WT's claim was correct)".

I have not yet downloaded the PDF of the article you linked to about the 70 weeks prophecy. That is because when I went to the download site I noticed that it required me to provide my email address (or access with a Facebook sign in or a Google sign in), but I am hesitant to provide such information to that site. However, at some point I probably will do so, after I evaluate the site and/or read some agreement form (if any) pertaining to accessing the file from the site, in order to determine how the site will use my personal information. Update: Today I discovered it can be read it online if I click on the link which expands the document to show all of the pages online. But, I noticed it is many pages long and I am not yet interested in reading all of the pages. However, I intend to at least browse the pages when I have more free time.

41

Fascinating Quotations of The Faithful Slave

by Vanderhoven7 in

do you have any amazing quotations that have been produced by the faithful slave over the years?.

remember it's important that we should learn to love and value truth for it’s own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomever presented.

a truth presented by the faithful slave himself is just as true as a truth stated by god.. share some of those amazing quotations that have fascinated you.

Disillusioned JW

You are exactly right ozziepost. I remember thinking when I was young that if the WT reasoning about certain things (such as being persecuted, or rapid growth in numbers, being proof of God's blessing) were applied to the Mormons, then it would mean the Mormon religion was chosen by God. I think that even before I got baptized I often noticed the illogical thinking of the WT. I wish I had used that realization of the WT to decide not to become baptized as a JW.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, I like your explanation, especially that you brought in verse 39 and that you say it shows that "the parousia is likened to the flood itself". But how can we get Fisherman and others to interpret/understand that way? Is what we said enough, or is more needed?

Br. Charles Taze Russell and thus his WT organization got it wrong. How sad. Their influence also caused me to have it wrong for so long.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Disillusioned JW

Jeffro, how do you explain the wording of "so the parousia of the Son of man will be ... as they were in those days before the flood" in the quote Fisherman made of Matthew 24:37-38? Perhaps we should focus on the "as they were" part to say it is about how the timing will be unexpected. Perhaps we should also emphasize that in the 1st century the word parousia also had the technical meaning of the coming/arrival or visit of a king or emperor (a meaning which the WT has acknowledged did exist). Most words have more than one meaning, and the context needs to be considered to determine what the meaning is in a specific incidence.

The technical meaning also includes what takes place visually when the king arrives, and the biblical Jesus said people will see "the sign of the Son of man appear in heaven" and that people "will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of Heaven" [Matthew 24:30 (1984 NWT)]. Furthermore, the disciples asked what would would be the "sign of your [Jesus'] parousia" [see Matthew 24:3] and thus they might have meant parousia in the technical sense (including what people will see when they look at what is around Jesus), instead of in the sense that the WT uses it.

For documentation, see the posts made by Leolaia 14 years ago at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/156634/watchtower-comments-generation-change-featuring-leolaia?page=19 . See also page 1577 in the first sentence of the last paragraph of section 5B of the Appendix of the 1984 Reference edition of the NWT.