Posts by Disillusioned JW

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

cofty, he asked all three of those questions, since none of our answers said "God did it". I think he is also saying that the alleged naturalistic processes which created the first cell must be thought of as having begun as far back as the beginning of the universe (if we say the universe had a beginning), and even further back to what caused the big bang, and thus to what existed prior to the universe. His line of questioning is ultimately endless.

He might perceive our science based answers as like saying "it's turtles all the way down", and thus he wants us to trace it all the way down to the ultimate origin. He knows that no one knows the scientific answer to all the way to the very beginning (even if someone says it fluctuations of quantum foam, and/or of virtual particles, in the vacuum). He thus feels he is at an advantage of simply saying God has always existed and that God began the existence of everything which is not God.

Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss in his book called A Universe From Nothing (or in a comment about it) raised the issue of if the origin of the universe amounts to the metaphor of "it's turtles all the way down", and he said he does not think so, but he does not say what the ultimate origin was, for he doesn't know. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss says the following about Krauss' view.

'In his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing (2012), Krauss discusses the premise that something cannot come from nothing, which has often been used as an argument for the existence of a prime mover. He has since argued in a debate with John Ellis and Don Cupitt that the laws of physics allow for the Universe to be created from nothing. "What would be the characteristics of a universe that was created from nothing, just with the laws of physics and without any supernatural shenanigans? The characteristics of the universe would be precisely those of the ones we live in."[43] In an interview with The Atlantic, however, he states that he has never claimed that "questions about origins are over". According to Krauss, "I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down".[44] '

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Disillusioned JW

KalebOutWest I own a copy of Isaac Leeser's Holy Scriptures Jewish Bible (but not a study edition) and the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation of 1917, and I used to own the newer JPS translation (which did have many alternate readings and alternate renderings). I also used to own the Alexander Harkavy Jewish Bible (and maybe I have a copy of it on CD-ROM), but I never saw any study notes in those Bibles. Granted there are footnotes and appendixes in some of them, and an introduction, but I don't recall that any of them say that Genesis through Deuteronomy, though being Torah/Law are not also history. [If some of them say such, please tell me where they say it.] Granted those books are listed in the table of contents under Law, whereas others (including owns of a purported historical nature) are listed under Prophets, and others under Writings.

Judaism counts time from the date of the alleged creation of Adam (and the world) and such is even mentioned in "General Remarks" to my copy of Leeser's Bible. For example it says the following. "According to Dr. Zunz, the creation of the world dates 3988 before the common era. The flood, in 1656 after the creation. Abram born at Ur 1948. Jacob goes to Egypt, 2238. Moses born, 2418. .... Juddua' high priest, 3656, and under him, two years later, Palestine is conquered by Alexander of Macedon.These few dates, it is hoped, will elucidate, with the Bible text, the history of the Scriptures."

So, where I can I specifically go to see Jewish Bibles or some other Jewish books saying that Genesis through Deuteronomy are not books of history and not to be understood as books of history? When I shop at thrift stores (specifically Goodwill Outlet stores) and see numerous books there on many days, including numerous Christian books, I rarely see any Jewish books (except books about rituals and about history of the Jewish people, including their secular history).

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Disillusioned JW

cofty, you and I are dealing with people who are completely satisfied with the brief statement of "God did it" in answer to questions of how did all the varieties of life come into existence, and of how did the entire universe come existence (if it had a beginning) and come to be in its current form.

Though they believe God/Creator/Designer made such, they never ask themselves "how did God/Creator/Designer make such?". They have absolutely no desire (no interest and no curiosity) at all to know how such were made - by any means (including by purely naturalistic non-God/Creator/Designer means). That is because they want only very simple explanations (like that of what Fisherman said of "The wisdom of the world is: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH", on page 4 of this topic thread). It is thus a waste of our time and effort in dealing with them on this topic.

They love fundamentalism and probably will never ever give up fundamentalism.

In contrast, when I was a baptized JW, and even before I became baptized, I wanted to know how those entities came to be. Since I believed in Jehovah God at the time, I asked myself "how did Jehovah God make them?". Since the Bible (including in Genesis chapters 1-2) says virtually nothing about the means/processes of such, I thus looked to modern science for answers. I have been loving science ever since my preteen years. I accepted the Big Bang theory (as I understood it) and concluded that God made the universe by means of the Big Bang (in accordance with the laws of science/nature) and by other natural processes. When it came to how the first living cell come into existence and how various later species come into existence, I thought that the scientists answers of abiogenesis and biological evolution might be right. (The main reason why I did not conclude, while I was a JW, they were definitely right was because of the very strong influence of the WT's young biosphere creationist fundamentalist type literature and because of the Bible's teachings). Even before I got baptized I was impressed by the Miller's experiment which produced multiple types of amino acids by abiotic natural processes.

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Disillusioned JW

Fisherman, on page 4 of this topic thread I notice that you made a post encouraging brevity. It seems you thought my prior post was too long. I made my post as repetitive (using variations of the wording of the same idea) and long as it was because the person who I was addressing it to didn't get the sense of a much simpler post I had made prior to it. But if you are concerned about posts being too long, why is it you don't make such remarks about the longer posts made by others on this site? Furthermore, why is you don't make the comment about the volumes of the Studies in the Scriptures books made by Russell or by the 384 page books published by the WT in the 1950s through the 1970s, or of the study articles in the WT magazines?

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Disillusioned JW

scholar, I notice you said "In just two years' time, 2025 we will celebrate the fact of the biblical significance of 1975 with the passing of its Jubilee of 50 years ...". Since in early BCE times in each Jubilee of 50 years something significant was to take place in accordance with Mosaic law (such as the returning of land to the tribes which previously owned them, releasing of people from their debts, and the freeing of slaves), are you saying something of similar magnitude and significance will definitely happen in the year 2025 CE?

https://www.tearfund.org.au/stories/jubilee-in-the-bible says the following. "The Jubilee year – occurring after every seventh Sabbath year, thus, every 50 years – is an economic, cultural, environmental and communal reset, when the land and people rest, and all those who are in slavery are set free to return to their communities. The Jubilee laws are essentially concerned with social relationship, economic security, stability and the wellbeing of the community."

https://www.jw.borg/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-december-2019/jehovah-provides-for-your-liberty/ [in the URL edit "borg" to "org"] says the following.

"We will examine a better jubilee, even better than the year-long festival that was proclaimed every 50 years in ancient Israel. That ancient Jubilee brought liberty to the people who observed it. Why is that of interest to us today? Because Israel’s Jubilee year reminds us of a wonderful provision for lasting liberty that Jehovah is making even now, liberty that Jesus spoke about.

... In the preceding article, we considered how the Israelites benefited from the weekly Sabbath. How, though, did the Israelites benefit from the Jubilee? Well, suppose an Israelite had fallen into debt and, as a result, had been forced to sell his land to pay off the debt. During the Jubilee year, that land was to be returned to him. Therefore, the man could “return to his property,” and the future inheritance of his children would not be lost. In another case, a man who fell on hard times might have had to sell one of his children—or even himself—into slavery in order to pay a debt. During the Jubilee year, the slave was to “return to his family.” So no one would become a slave permanently with no hope! How thoughtful of Jehovah!

... The symbolic Jubilee that began with the anointing of Christ’s followers in 33 C.E. will end at the conclusion of Jesus’ Thousand Year Reign. What will have been accomplished by that time?"

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In my prior post where I said "... which would thus consist of 7 creative years of 7,000 years each" I should have said "... which would thus consist of 7 creative days of 7,000 years each".

53

1975 on the back burner

by Fisherman in

“1975” still marks 6000 years from the creation of adam in wt calendar.

according to “all scriptures inspired” book, there is a gap between the creation of adam and the creation of eve and her marriage to adam.

it was at that point in time when eve was created that marked the end of the 6th creative day and the beginning of god’s rest, the 7th day as recorded in genesis.

Disillusioned JW

blondie, one of the very first WT books my JW father studied with my sister and I (my sister and I were very young children at the time) was the 1958 WT book called From Paradise Lost To Paradise Regained. I have a hard cover print edition of that very old book published from well before 1987. [That copy which I currently have says "3,250,000 Edition" and is in excellent condition; I bought it to replace my first copy (which my sister and I previously shared) because its cover had become very worn and because my sister had colored in some of the pictures. I am confident that the text is the same in both editions.]

In paragraph 7 of chapter one (on page 10) the book says the following. 'The time had now come to start getting the earth ready for the animals and humans that would later live on it. So a period began that the Bible calls the "first day." That was not a day of twenty-four hours, but was instead 7,000 years long.' The next sentence on the page is the start of paragraph 8 and it says the following. "During this first creative day the cloud of darkness was taken away from between the earth and the sun. Paragraph 11 (on page 11) says: "But during the second creative day of 7,000 years Jehovah God caused a division between the ocean and the clouds." Paragraph 20 (on page 13) says 'When the fourth creative ended, 28,000 years had passed since God said; "Let light come to be," and since God had begun preparing the earth for living creatures.'

The second paragraph of chapter two (on page 18) says the following. "It was near the end of the sixth creative day. This means that nearly 42,000 years had passed from when God said: "Let light come to be." Five creative days of 7,000 each had gone by and now the sixth day was almost finished.'

Another WT book I studied with my sister, with our father conducting the study, was the 1969 WT book called Is the Bible really the Word of God? That was one of the key WT books which convinced me to become baptized in the early 1980s. I still own the copy of that book (which is "First Edition, 3,000,000 COPIES") which I obtained as a preteen child. Chapter 2 of that book is called "Genesis Account of Creation --Fact or Fiction?" The first full paragraph of page 19 (part of that chapter) says the following. 'So it is plain that the word "day" can be used to refer to a twenty-four-hour day, a person's lifetime, 1,000 years or even longer. In fact, on the basis of the length of the seventh "day," there is reason to believe that each creative period or 'day" was 7,000 years in length.' In my copy of the book I have a note that my sister, I, and my father studied that paragraph on "6-6-78".

The "Revised 1970 C.E." edition of the 1961 copyright NWT on page 1461 in the "TABLE OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE" in the column called "Time Covered (B.C.E.) says the following regarding the events of the book of Genesis: "After 1:2: 46,026-1657". [By the way, my oldest copy of that NWT edition is the one I used to give my very first kingdom hall talk, a Bible reading with introduction (though my mother wrote the introduction for me), when I was only 8 years old - years before I became baptized]. Notice that this 1970 Bible edition says the first creative day began 46,026 years before the common era, thus indicating that according to the WT 48,000 years would be completed in the year 1975 C.E. (46,026 years plus 1975 years minus one year [since there was no year between 1 BCE and 1 CE] equals 48,000 years). Adding a future 1,000 year portion for the reign of Christ would make a time period equal to 49,000 years, which would thus consist of 7 creative years of 7,000 years each.

The above are just a few examples showing that before the year 1980 CE that the WT for more than a decade taught that each creative day was 7,000 years long - not 6,000 years long. Furthermore, I remember reading in a volume of Studies in the Scriptures that Charles Taze Russell taught that each creative day was 7,000 years long.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Where the article at https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ says "... sufficient to confirm his existence with reference to any gospel or Christian source" I think the author meant to say "... sufficient to confirm his existence without reference to any gospel or Christian source", especially since in his conclusion he says "... even without looking at the gospel material."

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hi peacefulpete, I have done some more research regarding the two references to Jesus Christ in the extant writings of Josephus. I have read multiple conflicting arguments (when I include comments by Richard Carrier on this matter) about the longer passage and thus I am not sure if the entire passage (not just portions of it) were interpolated into it by Christians, but I am still inclined to believe that most of it is authentic. If most of it is authentic, then it would provide the context for the identify of the particular Jesus who is "called Christ" who is mentioned in the shorter passage, which is the later passage. However, I am very confident that the shorter passage is not an interpolation, and that it refers to Jesus Christ of Christianity. To me the article at https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence makes a strong case for the shorter passage being about the Christian Jesus Christ. To me the article at https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ (which is written by an atheist) makes even a stronger, and very convincing, argument that is about the Christian Jesus Christ. For Carrier's views, primarily about the longer passage, (which to me some are stated in a very contorted and convoluted way), I have read https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071 , https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437 , and https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4391 .

The https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ article is written by an atheist who says the following about himself. "Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics." His article says in part the following.

'Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed. This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests. But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period, and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.

Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand. This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways. They either claim:

(i) "The words "who was called Messiah" are a later Christian interpolation"

Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated. Unfortunately this argument does not work. This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-third century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words "Jesus who was called the Messiah" all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah"). This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus. If this phrase was in the passage in Origen's time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.

(ii) "The Jesus being referred to here was not the Jesus of Christianity, but the 'Jesus, son of Dameus' mentioned later in the same passage."

After detailing the deposition of the High Priest Ananus, Josephus mentions that he was succeeded as High Priest by a certain "Jesus, son of Damneus". So Mythicists try to argue that this was the Jesus that Josephus was talking about earlier, since Jesus was a very common name. It certainly was, but we know how Josephus was careful to differentiate between different people with the same common first name. So it makes more sense that he calls one "Jesus who was called Messiah" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus" to do precisely this. Nowhere else does he call the same person two different things in the same passage, as the Mythicist argument requires. And he certainly would not do so without making it clear that the Jesus who was made High Priest was the same he had mentioned earlier, which he does not do.

The idea that the Jesus referred to as the brother of James was the later mentioned "Jesus son of Damneus" is further undercut by the narrative in the rest of Book XX. In it the former high priest Ananus continues to play politics and curries favour with the Roman procurator Albinus and the new high priest by giving them rich presents. This makes no sense if Jesus the brother of the executed James was also "Jesus the son of Damneus", since the new high priest in question is the same Jesus ben Damneus - the idea that he would become friends with his brother's killer just because he was given some nice gifts is ridiculous.

Mythicists are also still stuck with the phrase "who was called Messiah", which Origen's mentions show can't be dismissed as an interpolation. They usually attempt to argue that, as a High Priest, Jesus the son of Damenus would have been "called Messiah" because "Messiah" means 'anointed" and priests were anointed with oil at their elevation. Since there are no actual examples of any priests being referred to this way, this is another ad hoc argument designed merely to get the Mythicist argument off the hook.

So the consensus of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, is that the Antiquities XVIII.3.4 passage is authentic despite some obvious later additions and the Antiquities XX.9.1 passage is wholly authentic. These references alone give us about as much evidence for the existence of a historical "Jesus, who was called Messiah" as we have for comparable Jewish preachers and prophets and is actually sufficient to confirm his existence with reference to any gospel or Christian source.'

Also please read what that same article says about what Tacitus wrote about Jesus and how that is also strong evidence that Jesus (the one who was and is called Christ) was a historical person. The conclusion in the article mentions in part the following.

"The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars."

92

Chance or intelligent design?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.

i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.

Disillusioned JW

ExBethelitenowPIMA, you are confusing (or deliberately misconstruing) the simplest cell which currently exists on Earth with the simplest cell which had existed on Earth billions of years ago. Just as many species of animals and plants have gone exist, so have many species of prokaryote organisms (including the most simplest type of living cell which had existed on Earth) gone extinct.

It is true that the all of the currently existing species of prokaryote organisms on Earth are very complex compared to all nonliving entities on Earth, but the first single celled organism to ever have existed on Earth would have been much simpler than any of today's prokaryote organisms. The simplest cell which ever existed on Earth was far simpler than the currently existing simplest cell on Earth.

Note that my post on the first page of this topic thread very carefully used the following wording. "Furthermore, the first biological cell to come into existence must have been much less complex the the simplest cell which currently exists on Earth. The cells which exist today (even the simplest) have evolved (partly by natural selection) over hundreds of millions of years from an ancestor cell.

[Note: In my first post of this topic thread where I wrote "... less complex the the simplest cell ..." I meant to write "... less complex than the simplest cell ...".]

TD, though the origin of life is not biological evolution, it is what a number of scientists call a part of chemical evolution. There is also what is called cosmological evolution.