A "Conversation" about 1914 as it appeared in the Watchtower's "1914-2014 Anniversary Celebration" issues.

[Anna]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

GB need to face the fact that they are actually claiming that God went mad at one point and was left without power over the Earth

You are reading too much into it. Reasonably, it is understood that Neb did not represent Jehovah, but rulership.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The second fulfillment involved an interruption of God’s rulership

 

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If by any chance JHVH lost his power over Earth in 607 BCE

God never lost his actual power over the earth of course. Again, it was only an  illustration of rulership that was represented through the kings that "sat on Jehovah's throne". Some of those kings became bad, so obviously they did not literally represent Jehovah, but it was known by all that they "sat on Jehovah's throne". When David wanted to kill bad king Saul, he did not do so because he recognized Saul was "the anointed of Jehovah" and Jehovah hadn't yet passed a judgement on Saul. 

[Ann O'Maly]

32 minutes ago, Anna said:

Reasonably, it is understood that Neb did not represent Jehovah, but rulership.

The snag with that is Daniel said the tree represents Nebuchadnezzar himself - not just Babylonian rulership ('The tree ... is you, O King'). While Nebuchadnezzar was ill, the kingdom, its everyday affairs, commerce, government, agriculture, etc. continued.

Another problem (apart from giving the dream an antitypical fulfillment that isn't scripturally warranted), is Babylonian rulership was uniformly seen in the Bible as oppressive to God's people, and yet this oppressive regime that destroyed his people's cities and cruelly held them captive is a type for God's righteous kingdom? How does that work?

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

You are reading too much into it.

It can be. The same can be said for WTJWorg "bible scholars" :)) who dealing with the possible interpretations (hidden messages aka second fulfillment) of biblical verses. 

There is no independent support for the tradition in Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar’s seven years’ madness, and the story probably arose from a fanciful later interpretation of texts concerned with events under Nabonidus, who showed apparent eccentricity in deserting Babylon for a decade to live in Arabia. -https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nebuchadnezzar-II

Perhaps, some of you will have time to deal with this quote.

34 minutes ago, Anna said:

Reasonably, it is understood that Neb did not represent Jehovah, but rulership.

How is possible that Babylonian empire, throne and king who are full of religious doctrines and secular ideas that are in opposition to JHVH can REPRESENT His RULERSHIP?  

41 minutes ago, Anna said:

it was only an  illustration of rulership that was represented through the kings that "sat on Jehovah's throne". Some of those kings became bad, so obviously they did not literally represent Jehovah, but it was known by all that they "sat on Jehovah's throne".

You mean like, GB sitting on JHVH throne, in sense to represent JHVH's will today? If they are or become bad JHVH will removed them by some secular power? In local or global way? In local way, Russia acted under JHVH will to remove some bad elements in Russian WT Branch? And what is next? On global scale Gog of Magog will also done JHVH will? Who can "put own hand in fire" to claim how GB in WTJWorg is not under same judgement as those old kings in Jerusalem ??

[JW Insider]

On 12/27/2020 at 8:49 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Lower your dramatic expectations just a little, and the Jonah and Hezekiah videos went tolerably well, with some fine moments. 

These are so much better than the early dramas. Maxwell Friend would do a great Shakespearean, sentorian voice of God, which was always amazing. Daniel Sydlik would do a voice of God, too, but people detected the Brooklyn accent sometimes, and our CO would make fun of it with "Hey youze guys down there!." When the actors prepared, we were given instructions to exaggerate the gestures so that people up in the baseball stadium's highest bleachers could see them.

One of the brothers I worked with did a routine where he would exaggerate a groveling servant leaning nearly to the ground, while repeating this huge rolling gesture that looked like he was using both hands to wrap invisible ropes around an imaginary barrel in front of him, and he would say things like:  MAY YOUR BEARD GROW EVER LONGER, GEHAZI!!

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Daniel Sydlik would do a voice of God, too, but people detected the Brooklyn accent sometimes 

 I wonder how the Fonz would do playing God?

[Anna]

9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Another problem (apart from giving the dream an antitypical fulfillment that isn't scripturally warranted), is Babylonian rulership was uniformly seen in the Bible as oppressive to God's people, and yet this oppressive regime that destroyed his people's cities and cruelly held them captive is a type for God's righteous kingdom? How does that work?

It seems that is not the concern (of WT) whether someone's bad rule is used for the sake of illustration (by Jehovah) for a secondary fulfillment of something that is good.  Cameron states:

"The prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 was given so that people would know that “the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind.” This in itself indicates that the prophecy has a bigger fulfillment than just the one involving Nebuchadnezzar. And throughout the book of Daniel, we find prophecies about the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son. Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude, then, that this prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 also has something to do with God’s Kingdom?"

Whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not I don't know. What might make it more convincing is if the Bible anywhere else uses something bad, to illustrate something good.  Anyone?

Also, what would make an antitypical fulfillment warranted? Or is the account of Neb's demise and rise just purely a lesson to show who is ultimately in charge? Since the book of Daniel is a prophetic book, it would seem that this prophesy could have a secondary application, and that this lesson is too random for it not to have an extended meaning...just my thoughts.

Just as an aside, does anyone know who first came up with an antitypical fulfillment of Neb's dream? 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not I don't know. What might make it more convincing is if the Bible anywhere else uses something bad, to illustrate something good.  Anyone?

Leaven can be bad or good? Enduring suffering? Cyrus as Jehovah's "servant" for releasing the Jews from Babylon? Nebuchadnezzar as Jehovah's "servant" for punishing wicked Jerusalem? The angel of death? Blood on a doorpost? Birth pangs? The sword of the superior authorities? Jehovah's discipline? The goat of Azazel? The vicious she-bears that apparently did Elisha's bidding in mauling some children to death for making fun of his bald head?

I don't think that you would have that much trouble finding various and sundry things in the Bible that could be rationalized as "bad" but ultimately represent something "good." More to the point, Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar were both "tools" in Jehovah's hand as he allowed them to advance their beastly rule for their own motives, but their beastly motives served Jehovah's purpose at the time.

But this particular dream about a tree had created a special problem for Witnesses because of the difficulties in making Nebuchadnezzar picture Jesus. For a few years Nebuchadnezzar was allowed to be a type of the antitype Jesus, and then that was changed so that Nebuchadnezzar was explicitly no longer considered a type or picture of Jesus.

Now, as of 2015, we even have a more general "rule" that we should never apply types and antitypes to Biblical narratives, and parables, unless the Bible tells us explicitly to do so.

The tree dream is most definitely a "parable" but we make an exception to the rule for it, and of course, we must make an exception for the rule about the parable of the "faithful and discreet slave and the wicked slave."
 

But there are some special glitches in this parable that have caused trouble for the WTS publications. Most of the glitches have been discussed on this forum. But there is one serious one that has barely been touched upon. And it pretty much ruins the whole use of this parable as a prophecy about the Messianic Kingdom.

And it's the . . . . . (next post)

[JW Insider]

The glitch I am speaking of is the following:

(But first some doctrinal history because I know how much certain people here just love doctrinal history.)

Russell left the "1914" doctrine in disarray by predicting so many things for it that failed. And even changing the "End of the Gentile Times" to 1915, and at least once also implying that the "Jewish Year 1915" could run from October 1915 to October 1916. But even Rutherford had continued to create a mess around the 1914 problem by waffling on 1914 for a while, pushing for 1918, then 1925, and only very slowly giving up on the the idea that the "End of the Gentile Times" was still going to be a Jewish mitzvah in Palestine.

It took Rutherford a while to give up on the great pyramid, and the seven or so other evidences for reaching 1914 by using 'divine proofs for 1874' plus the 40-year harvest. Including "parallel dispensations" in Old Testament Israel as the proof of divine origin of our chronology. Although even this last 1914 proof, he had "messed with," by adjusting "1874+40=1914" to 1878 plus a 40-year harvest to reach 1918. (1878+40=1918)The old emphasis on Elijah passing the mantle to Elisha would give Rutherford a more personal sense of scriptural authority, when he moved the date out of Russell's time slot and into the start of his own presidency in 1918. The same idea carried over into the "ns" book when that entire Russell/Rutherford transition was moved from 1918 to 1942 to represent the Rutherford/Knorr-Franz transition where "Elijah" was now the time under Rutherford's presidency and "Elisha" became the transition to the time of the Knorr/[Franz] presidency).

[edited to add: No one should get the idea that 1914 had been downplayed as a doctrine. The war broke out in 1914, and by mid-1915 the doctrine was being explained pretty much as it is now, but still with Zionist overtones, and with the background chronological reasons in question or in flux. By 1916 the "parousia" signs were being added to it. But that old consistent stable basis for 1914 was being shaken a bit. And Daniel 4 had not been utilized very much, even for the 2,520 years. Articles mentioning the 2,520 years did NOT include Daniel 4. I might add an explanation of what I mean here under another topic.]

So when Rutherford died (1942), it was up to F.W.Franz to push hard for the tree dream prophecy again because all those other methods now needed to be dropped completely. Officially Christ's presence was still 1874 right up until about 1943:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.

The book just mentioned, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," was the first big push on the chronology of 1914 in quite a while. But this was back before the NWT was available, and we often used the American Standard Version, and Rotherham's translation. This is where and when the first glitch was much more visible, and had to be overcome. Note page 240 of the book:

To whom does Jehovah give the heavenly overlordship over all men of good-will in A.D. 1914? Daniel4: 17 answers: "To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." "One low among men he setteth up over it." (Roth.)

Humiliating Nebuchadnezzar with insanity and making him eat with the beasts was a way of showing just how low and beastly these kingdoms of men really were, but that Jehovah was still so far above them, that almost "on a whim" Jehovah could prove just how "base" these rulers were that he allowed to rule in the kingdom of men.

So this entire parable was not about the Kingdom of God, but about how "base" and "beastly" were these relatively weak and transient humans who thought they were so great in the kingdom of men.

So the first thing to do is get rid of that phrase the "basest of men." Rotherham helped here. If it can apply to Jesus, we could get away with "lowest" instead of "basest" because then we could use Jesus' humility, or his perceived stature by those who were not of honest hearts. Even this is a problem, because Jesus wasn't really "low." It's just that people were mistaken when they considered him "low." (Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Isn't he the carpenter's son? How can he say he existed before Abraham? etc.)

So page 241 of the same 1943 book goes on:

God has not given the 'kingdom of men" to totalitarian and religious dictators, who are wicked demonized men. Jehovah God has given the heavenly kingdom of the new world to the one whom politicians, commercial traffickers and religious clergy despjse as the "basest of men", namely, Christ Jesus, who was nailed to a tree between two thieves.

Note the deceptive twisting of the Bible's words here. With a kind of sleight of hand, and taking advantage of the negative opening in the sentence, Franz makes the "kingdom of men" represent "the heavenly kingdom." And while Daniel 4 was about a truly vicious beast who needed to be humiliated for his haughtiness, "the basest of men," Jesus is only falsely accused of being the basest of men. There is no need to humiliate Jesus for his haughtiness. Jesus is not a vicious beast. Jesus does not need to be taught a lesson by making him go insane.

So over the years, there has been a near disappearance of this explanation about how Jesus is like the "basest of men." And tricks of language are still being used to try to make the parallel between the return of wicked, pagan, gentile Nebuchadnezzar after 7 years to refer to the return of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom through the enthronement of Jesus Christ, who was not wicked, pagan, or gentile -- after 7 "times."

[JW Insider]

Just wanted to add a consideration of a very odd (to me) use of Daniel 4:17 as a way, not to prove that Jesus was humble, but as if Daniel 4:17 was a reference to the way Jesus' enemies viewed Jesus. The exact logic of this Watchtower article still escapes me:

*** w05 10/15 p. 27 par. 6 Cultivate Genuine Humility ***
That was the greatest example of humility and love ever set by one of God’s creatures. Not all appreciated Jesus’ humility, his enemies even considering him to be “the lowliest one of mankind.” (Daniel 4:17)

And yet here, it was humility:

*** w90 10/15 p. 18 par. 15 Be Thankful—Jehovah’s Messianic Kingdom Rules ***
Only one person came to be qualified in all respects to be called “the lowliest one of mankind.” The only-begotten Son of God proved himself to be such by willingly leaving his heavenly glory to be born as a human, as Jesus, who suffered the most humiliating and cruel death at Satan’s hand. (Philippians 2:3, 5-11)

 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

use of Daniel 4:17 as a way, not to prove that Jesus was humble,

The word lowly in English seems to have a dual meaning as an adverb or adjective. A person can be put in a lowly position without being lowly in mind, just as a person can be humbled without being humble. Or they can actually be lowly in heart or humble in spirit as well as having a lowly position, and then be elevated in position without losing the dis-postion. or vice versa. So I can't see anything too deep here. Jesus was lowly in mind in the sense of being humble in disposition. As far as his enemies were concerned, he was the lowest of the low, deserving treatment reserved for the lowest criminals. That image they portrayed may well have been believed by some, even if Pilate was not convinced. The description in Daniel allows room for both views.

So the purpose of Nebuchadnezzar's dream as a way of highlighting that no government, good or bad, can rule without Gods sanction is not contradicted by either view. Secular authorities only rule by Jehovah's toleration and as such even currently serve as his "minister" (Rom.13:4), just as much as the government described elsewhere in Daniel (2:44).

Pr.21:1 reminds us of this fact: "A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases"

This the real purpose of the Daniel 4 account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. So applying the dream to immediate events in historical context, and then widening the picture to include an overarching view of events in connection with resolving the issue of Jehovah's Sovereignty seems quite in order (to me at least).

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Russell left the "1914" doctrine in disarray by predicting so many things for it that failed.

 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But even Rutherford had continued to create a mess around 1914 problem by waffling on 1914 for a while, pushing for 1918, then 1925, and only very slowly giving up on the the idea that the "End of the Gentile Times" was still going to be a Jewish mitzvah in Palestine.

 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it was up to F.W.Franz to push hard for the tree dream prophecy again because all those other methods now needed to be dropped completely. Officially Christ's presence was still 1874 right up until about 1943:

 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. a

 

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Note the deceptive twisting of the Bible's words here. With a kind of sleight of hand, and taking advantage of the negative opening in the sentence, Franz makes the "kingdom of men" represent "the heavenly kingdom."

 

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So over the years, there has been a near disappearance of this explanation about how Jesus is like the "basest of men." And tricks of language are still being used t

And you expect people to seriously believe that those men were being guided by Almighty God through Jesus Christ ? 

And you seriously expect people to believe that today's GB are guided by God through Christ ? You expect people to follow an Organisation that is built on lies and deceit, or even on mistake after mistake after mistake .... ? 

And some on here mock me when I suggest that a True Anointed are needed to guide people to truth.  Reading the comments on these topics is becoming very sad. The blind leading the blind.  Yes it makes for passing the time, but gives no proof of hope, no proof of the guidance of God's Holy spirit. 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The exact logic of this Watchtower article still escapes me:

But still you and others follow them. 

[Ann O'Maly]

Another consideration is, if the Dan. 4 tree dream was a prophecy, and that prophecy had a secondary fulfillment involving 'Jehovah's throne,' why was it given long after the fulfillment had already started ('Jehovah's throne' had already been chopped down but the dream indicated a future event)?

Sure, the dream is undated, but from what we know in the Babylonian records and the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar was active for years after Jerusalem's destruction (e.g. campaigns against Tyre first and later Egypt). Are there any other biblical examples not tied to WT's interpretation of the 'seven times' that involve prophecies given after the beginning of their fulfillments? 

Just as an aside, but I think it pertinent, God had already applied another 'tree' illustration specifically to the debasement and restoration of the Judean kingdom: Ezekiel 17. Note the explanation from v.11 onward where there are common themes to Dan. 4; how it's prophesied that a rebellious king will end up dying in Babylon and that God will pick a fresh, topmost sprig of the tree to plant on Israel's high mountain to grow into a new, massive, fruitful tree feeding every kind of bird. The parable is likewise undated, but this time it is clear from the contents that the intended audience was the still-ruling Zedekiah and his court. 

So we have two tree portents: one meant for 'Jehovah's throne' (Eze. 17) and the other meant for Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4). The two shouldn't be conflated.