Posts by Recovery

21

What I am most ashamed of.........

by Xanthippe in

is not giving to charity while a jw.

this whole 'lets sit back and wait for jehovah to sort the world out while we do nothing' really gets to me.

there is so much to be done in this world, so many people doing good things but the jws just say bang on doors and sell watchtowers.. i did plenty of voluntary work in the jws pioneering my youth away but it was all so useless, now i do voluntary work to help people who want to be helped, as well as my job.

Recovery

17

You Can't Live Forever in Paradise on Earth

by smmcroberts in

this will come as no shock to most of us.

but i wanted to detail the reasons in simple language for our witness friends in my latest blog: you can't live forever in paradise on earth.

sorry if it bursts anyone's bubble, but those who are loyal to the truth surely won't mind following where it leads.

Recovery

60

Meeting attendance

by DATA-DOG in

Recovery

60

Meeting attendance

by DATA-DOG in

Recovery

Just curious, DATADOG are you in the Midwestern area? I've noticed that here.

131

Let's Discuss Ray Franz's Books

by Recovery in

i have been repeatedly pleaded with to read the books of ray franz in my short stay on this board.

apparently these are all the all-powerful, wt crushing arguments, that lead so many to leave jw's and become ruthless opposers of god's people.

we can discuss any claims/statements/scriptural arguments presented in either of his books, as long as it somehow proves jehovah's witnesses are not god's people.

Recovery

The people at Topix and Paradise Cafe had better insults.

131

Let's Discuss Ray Franz's Books

by Recovery in

i have been repeatedly pleaded with to read the books of ray franz in my short stay on this board.

apparently these are all the all-powerful, wt crushing arguments, that lead so many to leave jw's and become ruthless opposers of god's people.

we can discuss any claims/statements/scriptural arguments presented in either of his books, as long as it somehow proves jehovah's witnesses are not god's people.

Recovery

I did not say my intention was not to criticize the book. I said that this was not something I had already done. I do not wish to engage in a meaningless discussion about who the burden of proof rests on and this logical fallacy's definition and this that and the third. Why do you all have to be such pedants? If I say..."the faithful and discreet slave was appointed in late 33 C.E." someone will correct me and call me a liar and say I'm wrong, "it was the spring of 33 C.E." they'll shout. If I say can you prove JW's scripturally wrong, they'll argue in circles about me needing to prove JW's scripturally right.

And instead of debating/presenting their viewpoints they would rather argue about who the burden of proof lies on. I could say the burden of proof rests with the members of this board since they don't believe JW's are God's people. They say I need to prove that they are God's people. Really, who has the time, or desire to engage in such meaningless and ridiculous gramattical technicalities?

Please continue with the insults and the name calling and the criticism. When all else fails, attack the person's character. Who I am is of no importance. If you want to insult me, show me where I am wrong scripturally. Show me to be nothing but a blind Bible thumping fool who believes in a book of legends and myths. That would be insulting and I would actually care about those insults.

However, thanks for the book! I'll start reading it tonight. I look forward to future discussions.

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

Londo said: The second 70 year period covers from the fall of Jerusalem to around the time temple rebuilding work gets underway, spurred by the prophets Zechariah and Haggai. According to the book of Zechariah, Judah and Jerusalem was still in a desolated state in the 2 nd year of Darius, in 520 BC. See Zechariah 1:7-12. Since I already quoted this passage in the first post, here is just the relevant portion: "In the eighth month in the second year of Darius . . . the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?” So around October/November of 520 BC, it is said that Judah had been denounced 70 years and shown no mercy. 520 BC - 70 = October/November 590 BC. The siege of Jerusalem began in January 589 BC and lasted about 30 months.

Notice the description of the desolation in Jeremiah 32:43: And fields will certainly be bought in this land of which YOU people will be saying: “It is a desolate waste without man and domestic animal.It has been given into the hand of the Chal·de′ans.”’ Jeremiah 9:23 also adds: "and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant." The supposed 70-year starting period (587 BCE), there were still inhabitants and animals in Jerusalem. In 517, the inhabitants did not suddently return. According to Londo, they had already returned almost 20 years earlier!

Also notice Leviticus 26:34-35 "At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, WHILE YOU ARE IN THE LAND OF YOUR ENEMIES. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it." The paying off of the sabbaths would occur when the land was desolated, and while the Israelites were in the land of their enemies. But no, not so according to Londo. The 70 year sabbath keeping took place while the Israelites were in their homeland (590 BCE) all the way until 520 BCE (while the Israelites were already in their homeland). This explanation simply causes confusion and contradiction and does not hold up when scrutizined with the clear statements of Jeremiah and Leviticus.

Your 609 to 539 theory does not hold up because the land of Jerusalem was not without inhabitant and animal for 70 years to pay the sabbaths.

Your 587 to 517 theory does not hold up because the land of Jerusalem was not without inhabitant and animal for 70 years to pay the sabbaths.

Hence your statement could be refitted to say the following: We must take into account all the evidence and harmonize it, rather than a selective reading that conforms to a preconceived view. This is exactly what you accuse me of doing, and this is in fact what the 609ers and the 517ers have to do. No matter which starting point they choose they have to contradict the clear Biblical statement that Jerusalem was "without inhabitant, without animal" and that the sabbaths would be paid while they were in the land of their enemies. Not while they were still in Jerusalem. Now on to Jeffro:

The "calamity" went "from nation to nation". The "calamity" was not something that happened to all the nations at the same time . It therefore cannot be synonymous with the "70 years". 'The Bible' only says the land paid sabbaths for 70 years in translations that do not honestly maintain the context of what was actually stated by Jeremiah . Other translations correctly indicate that Jeremiah did not mention paying off sabbaths, and instead referred to nations serving Babylon . This is false and misleading. The word used for "lying desolated" in 2 Chronicles 36 is shamem. According to the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, the word shamem means, “to be desolated, be deflowered, be deserted”. There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. The Bible connects the 70 years of paying sabbaths with the desolation, the desertion of Jerusalem. Let us consult the other translations again:

God’s Word translation: “While it lay in ruins, the land had its 70 years of rest.”

Contemporary English translation: “Judah was an empty desert, and it stayed that way for seventy years, to make up for all the years it was not allowed to rest.”

New Life Version: “For the seventy years that the land was not being used, the Day of Rest was

kept.”

New International Reader’s Version: “It rested. That deserted land wasn't farmed for a full 70 years.”

New International Version (UK): “The land enjoyed its Sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed."

See the 609 defenders have a serious problem. They have to get around the fact that the Bible states Jerusalem lay desolate for 70 years, keeping it's sabbath for 70 years. 609 to 539 doesn't work. 587 to 517 doesn't work. 607 to 537, fits perfectly however.

Again, the calamity cannot be 'the 70 years' and still come upon different nations at different times . Jeremiah 25:11 doesn't say, "Jerusalem will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and then other nations will serve for other various shorter periods of time." It says the 70 years were a specific period during which all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon. The calamity happened to different nations at different times during the 70 years. The scripture says calamity is going forth "from nation to nation", so the 70 year servitude does not require that the calamity happens to all the nations at the exact time. The scripture confirms this when it says "FROM NATION TO NATION". It is just like Paul saying he went "FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE". Did he have to knock on all the doors at all the same time? No, of course not.

There were at least five kings that ruled Babylon during the 70 years. And that's not counting the extra imaginary ones in JW fantasy land during the extra 20 years. The Bible doesn't mention all of those either. The Bible never mentions that Nabonidus was actually king when Belshazzar was really only a prince , but apparently that's okay because of the secret magical reason. The Bible doesn't have to mention every King that succeeded Neb. The hebrew word for "father" and "son" can also be rendered "descendant of", "ancestor of". The use of the word 'son' in connection with ascension to a throne also simply mean the person ascended the throne after a specific said king (see the Assyrian's reference to the son of Omri). Belshazzar acted on behalf of his father on numerous occassions and performed many king-like duties, and is referred to as a "governor" and a "king" by ancient sources, so the Biblical reference to Belshazzar as king is correct and the distinction between the two isn't necessary for the audience Daniel was writing to.

So here is my question for 609 proponents:

Was Jerusalem desolated, uninhabited, keeping its sabbaths or not for a full year 70 years? YES or NO? They cannot answer this simple question. They have to invent imaginary 70 year periods beginning with the irrelevant fall of certain nations, and have to disregard the clear scriptural statement that Jerusalem would be desolate, without inhabitant, without animal, keeping sabbaths for 70 years.

When was Jerusalem desolated without inhabitant for 70 years?

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Knowsnothing said: I don't understand how the "faithful and wise servant" can also be the "domestics", according to JW interpretation. Can you explain that to me? Notice 2 Peter 3:15: "Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, 16 speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." So to Peter, the writings of Paul were considered to be a part of the Scriptures. He had read them, for he said: "some things are hard to understand". When a letter was written, it was written to all the congregations (all the anointed ones). Even those who wrote the letters (like Paul) also read the letters of others (Peter). But most importantly just a few verses before Jesus gives the illustration of the faithful and discreet steward in Luke 12 notice who Jesus is addressing. At Luke 12:32 Jesus says, “Have no fear, little flock, because YOUR Father has approved of giving YOU the kingdom." This proves beyond a doubt that the faithful and discreet steward are those slaves who will be kings in the kingdom of God. To illustrate how all of the slaves of the master act as one collective slave look at 1 Corinthians 3. It is an example of the feeding work of the faithful and discreet slave in the first century. Notice verse 8, "Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each [person] will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers. YOU people are God's field under cultivation, God's building." The ones dispensing the food while made up of individuals like Paul and Apollos were just one in their labor of feeding sheep. I hope this answers your question.

King Solomon wrote: 1) Aside from the other slaves that are to be "fed" with "spiritual food" at "the proper time" (the great crowd), what does the GB say the "master's possessions" are that the GB is managing? Kingdom halls, branch offices, printeries, things of that nature, which support and make possible the distribution of spiritual food to Christ's sheep everywhere.

2) how could the potential "wicked servant" "beat his fellow servants"? Is that literal, or are we in figurative land? If so, how would the GB "beat" them? To start, the GB is not the FDS. I have said this numerous times. Those who deviate from the truth would verbally beat the collective faithful and discreet slave saying such things as 'My master is delaying', 'where is this promised presence of his?' 2 Timothy 4:14, 15 "Alexander the coppersmith did me many injuries—Jehovah will repay him according to his deeds— 15 and you too be on guard against him, for he resisted our words to an excessive degree."

3) Who are these "drunkards" that the "wicked servant" eats and drinks with? What does "eating and drinking" symbolize in this prophetic parable? Notice the scripture says: "confirmed drunkards". 1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." The scriptures show us that eating is associated with association, mixing in company. The confirmed drunkards could be anyone who leaves the truth and begins living a life contrary to Bible standards.

4) How would the master "cut him in pieces" (the GB) when he returns, and "assign (them) a place with the hypocrites"? Verse 50 says: "the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know." What does Christ do when he comes in full Kingdom power? 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 "but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength." Notice the harmony between this and Jesus words at Matthew 7:22-24 "“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness."

5) If there is NOT a possibility of the GB in fact being the "wicked servant", then why does Jesus spend so much time in the parable warning about the possibility? No one is immune from developing a wicked heart and turning against Christ's slaves. Ray Franz did this. Many in the first century succame to this. Notice that the Bible says "the evil slave will beat his fellow slaves". The evil slave wouldn't be beating himself. Christ's illustration shows us that there would still be a class of anointed slaves on the earth during his presence, even with the existence of the evil slave. The only question that you need to answer is: If the anointed Christians (JW's) do not make up this faithful slave and the Governing Body is supposedly the evil slave, then who really is the faithful and discreet slave? Is it the bishops and popes of Christendom? The clergy and laity classes? The Muslims? Who is it?

6) Doesn't that possibility collide with OTHER prophecies that has the GB leading everyone into the New System™? No it does not. As Christ showed in his illustration there would always be a distinction between the evil slave and the faithful slave. So even if, somehow, all the GB members became corrupted and started to spread false teachings and commit apostasy and everything you can think of, they would removed from their position and replaced. No man nor group of men is powerful enough to overthrow Christ's arrangement. See: Ray Franz and his bethel buddies.

Emery said: Why is it that nothing ever happened to the evil slave (Christendom is obviously still around today)? In what fashion did the evil slave weep and gnash their teeth during this final judgement of 1919? Was "the evil slave" even aware of this judgement? The Watchtower does not interpret the evil slave as representing Christendom. The evil slave is composed of those who once were Christ's loyal followers. The evil slave members will be dealt with when Christ comes in full heavenly power to punish those who disobey the good news and who beat his fellow slaves. This event is yet future.

In 2006, the Watchtower released through the Kingdom Ministry a list of 70 changes that need to be made to this current publication, which should indicate to everyone that their food at the proper time within the last 130 years continually had no credibility. To quote a number of those changes: "p. 24, ¶3, replace footnote with: * For a detailed explanation, see the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? pages 88-92, 215-18, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses." "p. 30, ¶11, lines 8-9, replace “2 Peter 3:1-3” with: 2 Peter 2:1-3" "p. 40, ¶8, line 6, replace “125 errors” with: 130 errors" "p. 56, ¶9, replace footnote with: * See The Watchtower, July 15, 2005, and March 15, 2005." "p. 90, ¶4, replace second footnote with: * For detailed proof that Jesus came into his Kingdom in 1914, see pages 215-18 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses." Seems like to me most of the 70 changes are simply new references to newer articles and information from newer publications, or simple mathematical errors. What a gross misrepresentation of what these "changes" were, but I cannot say I am surprised. "If you believe the WTS is the Faithful and Discreet Slave then you have to believe in the historical evidence presented in their publications, no questions asked. You have to believe the interpretations presented in this book, such as the 7 trumpets of Revelation in chapter 8 referring to the Watchtowers, "special resolutions ... featured at seven conventions from 1922 to 1928." It takes an incredible stretch of the imagination to believe that the apostle John was referring to these irrelevant events, long forgotten even in the minds of Watchtower followers." I certainly wouldn't consider an event where Jesus was present an irrelevant event. Matthew 18:20 "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” Since everything in Revelation takes place in the Lord's day, and Revelation 2:1 tells us "he who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands"..(which represents the congregations), Christ would've been present at those conventions. Certainly, not an irrelevant event! Especially considering such events were vital in restoring his anointed ones spiritually and strengthening them to carry on in the all important preaching work that had to be done before the end came. Christ Alone asks:

1. When did the Watchtower organization become the Faithful and Discreet Slave? (The faithful and discreet slave represents God's anointed ones, which have existed since 33 C.E., so the Watchtower organization is not the faithful and discreet slave)
2. What was this based on? It's teachings then? Or what it would teach almost 100 years in the future? (Question based on a false premise/assumption therefore it cannot be logically answered).
3. Who was the Faithful Slave before the Watchtower that people could clearly identify with and become a part of? (Christ's illustration of the wheat and weeds shows the wheat to represent the sons of the Kingdom. Since God's anointed ones = the faithful slaves = wheat, they would not be clearly distinguishable as a group until the time of the harvest, which began in 1914.) 4. Have you read the paralell account of the Faithful Slave in Luke 12:42-48? (Yes)
5. If you have, please identify the various slaves: a. The Faithful Steward ( God's anointed ones)
b. The Slave that says in his heart that his master is delaying ( Those who were once Christ's loyal followers who develop a bad heart condition saying 'Where is this promised presence of his'? who verbally beat Christ's slaves)
c. The Slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready and was beaten with MANY strokes (See Response to 5b)
d. The Slave that did NOT understand and was beaten with just a few strokes. (See response to 5b)

You see, the parallel in Matthew 24 shows us that all these "slaves" are all represented by one collective "evil slave". Therefore, the response to all your questions is the same, as the context shows, they all in some way or another, disobeyed the Master and were punished for it.

Also, you seem to be forgeting that the only part of the faithful slave actually doing the FEEDING is ONLY the Governing Body. Just as in the first century, there were only a certain small group of men who distributed spiritual food to all the congregations, it is the same today. 1 Corinthians 12:27, 28 "Now YOU are Christ’s body, and members individually. 28 And God has set the respective ones in the congregation.."

If a member of this alleged faithful slave teaches something that the GB doesn't approve of, how do we know NOT to listen to them? They are a member of the Faithful Slave, right? Galatians 1:8, 9 " However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed." We know they are not really one of God's anointed ones if they are declaring a different good news. It would be plainly obvious that they are frauds, just as it was in the first century.

If this is true, then PLEASE illuminate us and tell us WHO this faithful slave is! The anointed ones taking the lead in preaching the good news of God's Kingdom and feeding Christ's sheep with proper scriptural instruction when it is needed. The Governing Body acts on behalf of all these anointed ones in providing food for the entire congregation. Where are they? All over the world. Can you name some of them? Yes, I've met a few personally, but their names are of no importance. Does the GB know the name of them? I don't know, I am not a member of the Governing Body nor do I know the Governing Body personally. Does the GB communicate with them directly to see what their master Jesus Christ is teaching them? Did the apostles and older men in Jerusalem communicate with every Christian in the first century to see what their master Jesus Christ is teaching them?

How does a person know that he is of “the anointed class” with a heavenly hope? Jehovah lets them know by means of his spirit. If you are looking for details, I wouldn't know since I am not of the anointed. Anointing with God’s spirit happens the moment any Christian sincerely gets baptized. Anointing with God's spirit at baptism only occurs for those who are anointed. Doesn't this mean that all true Christians must have God’s spirit.. Yes all true Christians have God's spirit but they are all not anointed with God's spirit. There is a difference. How exactly does God put into the minds of the Governing Body the right slant on the Scriptures so that it becomes spiritual food? Misleading question based on a false premise, but here is how God's anointed ones find the "right slant" on the scriptures: Proverbs 2:2, 3 " , moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, 4 if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, 5 in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God.

Recovery, perhaps you could explain to us the significance of 1918/1919 to us, how you arrive at that date as WHEN Jesus chose the WT organization, and what he based his decision off of.

Malachi 3:1-3 " “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the [true] Lord, whom YOU people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom YOU are delighting. Look! He will certainly come,” Jehovah of armies has said.

2 “But who will be putting up with the day of his coming, and who will be the one standing when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen. 3 And he must sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver and must cleanse the sons of Le′vi; and he must clarify them like gold and like silver, and they will certainly become to Jehovah people presenting a gift offering in righteousness." As a result of this cleansing and refining verse 18 tells us: "And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.”

1. Messenger John clears the way.
2. Messenger of covenant, Jesus arrives and begins refining and cleansing his people, 3.5 years later the distinction is made (33 CE)
3. Destruction of apostate Jerusalem, who refuse cleansing, years later.

Modern day

1. Messenger, anointed remnant, clear the way.
2. Messenger of covernant, Jesus arrives and begins refining and cleansing his people (1914), 3.5 years later the distinction is made (spring of 1918)
3. Destruction of apostate Jerusalem (Christendom) who refuse cleansing, years later.

Was it based on what the WT society would EVENTUALLY teach, or was it based on what they were teaching at that time? It was based on what they were teaching at that time. Hence, the refining and cleansing that would follow afterwards. Why do you keep asking this? What are you going to do, pull a Don Cameron, and provide us with a list of teachings that were wrong, like you've already done? You are actually proving the refining and cleansing has taken place among JW's. JW's have allowed themselves to be corrected and refined, while Christendom is teaching the same thing it was 1,000 years ago. The distinction has been very clear.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Splash: I find it highly unlikely that Jesus would spend 23 verses (vs 21 to 44) talking about something the WT considers to be a future event (armageddon), then drops back to historical 1918 in vs 45 to 47, only to return (according to WT) to future armageddon once again in vs 48 to 51. Its more plausible that the whole discussion relates to a single future event at armageddon. This means the "coming" hasnt happened yet, so the FDS have not yet been appointed over all the masters belongings. The question asked is: What will be the sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system of things? Certain things applied to the first century Jewish system of things. He's referring to future events of many time periods (first century, parousia, his coming, Armaggedon). Things referring to his parousia (presence) take place over an extended period time. To "come" he has to arrive first. This is what parousia signifies. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says: “PAROUSIA, . . . lit[erally], a presence, para, with, and ousia, being (from eimi, to be), denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. JW's believe Christ arrived in 1914 and his consequent presence has been ongoing ever since. The "coming" takes place during the parousia. Notice Matthew 24:36-41 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence (PAROUSIA) of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence (PAROUSIA) of the Son of Man will be. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming [FORM OF PAROUSIA, NOT USED]. Christ's parousia consists of a period where people are unaware of their impending destruction. During the parousia, Christ comes (a certain day and hour) and destroys the wicked. The parousia starts (Christ arrives in Kingdom power), he appoints the slave of all his belongings. Subsequent presence (extended period of time since 1914). During his coming (which hasn't happened) is when the wicked are destroyed.

Leolaia: First of all, Daniel makes no explicit reference to Nabonidus, though the story in ch. 4 likely pertained to Nabonidus originally as the Prayer of Nabonidus in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests. But Daniel refers to Belshazzar, his son, explicitly though. If Belshazzar can be considered Neb's son why can't Nabonidus be considered Neb's son as well? Especially since the hebrew word for "father" can be also refer to an ancestor. Second, Hebrew did have a term for "grandson", your quotation of Jeremiah 27:7 in the preceding sentence disproves this claim. The point was that there is no Hebrew/Aramaic word that provides a definition of the words "grandfather" and "grandson" in the sense that they are understood today. There the reference is to Nebuchadnezzar's "son" ( b e no ) and "grandson" ( ben - b e no , i.e. "son of his son"). Notice the various renders for the Hebrew words you mentioned here (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/ben.html):

son, male child
grandson
children (pl. - male and female)
youth, young men (pl.)
young (of animals)
sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
people (of a nation) (pl.)
of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
a member of a guild, order, class

So it did not have to be a literal son or grandson of Neb for the prophecy to be fulfilled. They could be serving a descendant of Neb (Nabonidus and Belshazzar), and the prophecy would still be fulfilled.

It is true that "son" can loosely have reference to descendents just as "father" can mean ancestor, but that is clearly not the case with the usage of the terms in Jeremiah nor is it the preferrable reading in ch. 5 of Daniel which places repeated emphasis on the father-son relationship of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. It is clearly the case when we read that Nebuchadnezzar is the father of Belshazzar in Daniel. We know that Belshazzar is not the actual, literal, flesh and blood son of Neb. It is not uncommon for a ruler to be called the son of a predecessor, the Assyrians used the expression “son of Omri” to denote a successor of Omri. So are you insinutating that the Hebrew word literally meant father and that Belshazzar was the literal son of Neb?

The scenario however would still not be historically accurate since Belshazzar was not a successor to Nabonidus but rather ruled at the same time. The scripture doesn't require that Belshazzar be a successor to Nabonidus. It only requires that the nations "serve his son and his grandson". This could even refer to the dual rule of Belshazzar and Nabonidus, since they could both be said to be Neb's "son" and "grandson", he being their "father" to the throne. A reference work states: “In the light of the Babylonian sources and of the new texts on this statue, it may have been considered quite in order for such unofficial records as the Book of Daniel to call Belshazzar ‘king.’ He acted as king, his father’s agent, although he may not have been legally king. The precise distinction would have been irrelevant and confusing in the story as related in Daniel.”—Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, p. 77.

The claim that Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar via one of his daughters is without any evidentiary basis; it is pure speculation motivated by the desire to harmonize Daniel 's problematic references with Neo-Babylonian history (in which Nabonidus was a usurper, and Neriglissar before him was also a usurper from the actual son of Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk). It doesn't have to be proven that Belshazzar could be considered Neb's grandson because of the marriage between Neb's daughter and Nabonidus. The Hebrew word translated as "son" "and "father" have been shown to have a wide array of meanings, which the account in Daniel proves to be the case. He could be considered Neb's son simply because of his accension to the throne, with Neb being one of his predecessors. This is not uncommon or a taboo practice during similar time periods, as the reference to the son of Omri by Assyria demonstrates.

131

Let's Discuss Ray Franz's Books

by Recovery in

i have been repeatedly pleaded with to read the books of ray franz in my short stay on this board.

apparently these are all the all-powerful, wt crushing arguments, that lead so many to leave jw's and become ruthless opposers of god's people.

we can discuss any claims/statements/scriptural arguments presented in either of his books, as long as it somehow proves jehovah's witnesses are not god's people.

Recovery

I have never criticized the book or called it rhetoric. Please provide the quote where I specifically said those words in reference to Ray Franz's books. I do not have to read every page of every book to discuss it's contents. I asked the members who have read the book, to post some of the contents/arguments contained within. It would be much simpler and reasonable to do that, instead of reading the entire book. I'm sorry that's so difficult for some of you to understand.