Cadellin
JoinedPosts by Cadellin
-
47
'Dinah Gets Into Trouble' - Does Story 20 Mean Rape = Fornication?
by sd-7 ini was listening, albeit unwittingly, to a 'my book of bible stories' tape and this statement caught me by surprise.
it's found in story 20:.
"one day when dinah came to visit, shechem took dinah and forced her to lie down with him.
-
-
-
20
The EGIBI Family Records WIPESOUT Watchtower 607 B.C.E. Date for GOOD!
by TheSnarkyApologist inthis is information gained from carl olof jonsson's book entitled "the gentile times reconsidered".
it's an extremely valuable piece of proof that utterly demolishes the watchtower claim of "extra kings" and "extra time" being inserted into the discussion!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_076v7a5s.
-
-
Cadellin
AnnoMaly, you are the best! Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to post these links. Can't wait to go through them!
-
16
Tiktaalik - A Brief Introduction
by cofty inas a young pioneer i always relished opportunities to demonstrate my ignorance of evolution.
my usual mantra was that all fossils were fully formed fish or amphibians or reptiles or mammals with nothing in-between.
even back in the 80s this was factually incorrect, but following a discovery by neil shubin and his team in 2004 the matter has been put beyond reasonable doubt.. one of the biggest gulfs that life has had to cross was the transition from sea to dry land.. fish have conical shaped heads, reptiles have flat heads.
-
-
Cadellin
I read Your Inner Fish as well, and thought it was brilliant. Tiktaalik is indeed an amazing example of not just transitional features but a transitional species. The bone-grinding, teeth-gritting perseverence shown by this team of scientists is unbelievable, but what a reward for all their hard work. One of the best evidences of the validity of evolution is its use in making predictions; these scientists didn't just start digging randomly--as they most surely would have if evolution was a matter of "mere chance," but based on their knowledge of paleoclimatology, ancient geology and the other fossil findings, they knew exactly where a species as Tiktaalik should most likely be found.
Creationists deplore evolution as being founded on "chance," and yet this implies randomness. There is nothing random about how and where such a creature as Tiktaalik shows up, nor about the science involved in calculating its timing and location, based on the larger evolutionary landscape. Chance indeed!
-
20
The EGIBI Family Records WIPESOUT Watchtower 607 B.C.E. Date for GOOD!
by TheSnarkyApologist inthis is information gained from carl olof jonsson's book entitled "the gentile times reconsidered".
it's an extremely valuable piece of proof that utterly demolishes the watchtower claim of "extra kings" and "extra time" being inserted into the discussion!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_076v7a5s.
-
-
Cadellin
I wasn't able to access your video, but yes, Egibi does pretty much put the last nail in the 607 coffin. I would love to get an English translation of the Egibi letters and scholarly analysis--I can't find anything out there that's not in Dutch or German (or something I can't read). Any suggestions?
-
-
-
Cadellin
Great comments, everybody. I've been out of town or would have responded sooner (and yes there are computers out of town, but I still have to be, um, cautious when I post):
I want to respond to The Old Hippie, who said, " As for the first one, WT chronology says they were Egypt dwellers for two centuries (215 years), and not for four centuries. The four centuries run from the establishment of the Abrahamitic covenant to the end of the Egypt-dwelling, according to WT chronology."
Yes, this is correct. I mistakenly said four centuries and it was, according to WT chronology, rather 215 years, from 1728 to 1513 BCE. I don't think this particularly affects the point I was trying to make, however, about synchronous cultural features which should not otherwise be the case, had the Israelites been newcomers into Canaan after centuries in Egypt.
I also want to clarify my information about the hieroglyph used for Israel in the Mernepthah Stele--Israel is referred to by a determinative indicating a people but not a land, suggesting a nomadic, tribal entity. This is contrast to the three Canaanite cities that are described by a hieroglyph for city-state. The Oxford History of the Bible argues that this distinction fits in nicely with other evidence that Israel was known as a people but not as a nation with distinct geographic boundaries: "This leads to the conclusion that at the beginning of this period [early Iron] Israel was a group of Canaanite people, self-identified as "Israel" but not occupying any territory called "Israel," and therefore not a stable political entity" (196). This is, of course, in direct contrast with the WT's view that Israel occupied numerous cities in various held regions on either side of the Jordan according to tribal allocation.
-
-
-
Cadellin
Okay, let's try this again.
The May Awake! introduces an eight-part series entitled "The Bible, A Book of Accurate Prophecy," beginning with Part 1: "I Shall Make a Great Nation Out of You." It's purpose is to present evidence of fulfillment of prophecy, showing how they "bear the hallmark of divine inspiration." The problem is, however, that the evidence presented often are isolated historical nuggets, excised from the larger, complex and sometimes contrarian landscape. Bible history didn't unfold in a vacuum; there were other kings, nations, tribes, wars and alliances going on all around them and any recorded account has to fit chronologically into this larger environment.
What follows is my attempt at the article in order to tease out what I hope is a more complete picture. I'm not a scholar and any comments are welcome. My information is from the Oxford History of the Biblical World ("OH") and Smith's The Early History of God ("EH")
Three Outstanding Prophecies [Article subheading]
Prophecy 1 : "I shall make a great nation out of you [Abraham]."
Fulfillment : The article refers to the establishment of the nation of Israel via Abraham's son Isaac and grandson Jacob. To support this, it refers to 17 kings of Israel from the Abrahamic genealogy that are also cited in "independent, non-Biblical sources" (16). Later, on page 18, six of the 17 kings are named: Ahab, Ahaz, David, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Uzziah.
Analysis : The earliest of those kings, David, probably ascended to the throne around the beginning of the first millennium BCE, the rest considerably later, thus placing them 1000 years or more after Abraham. Moreover, finding these names in secular sources proves only that there were Israelite kings with those names, not that the intervening events in Genesis actually happened or their relationship with Abraham or anything about his existence. In other words, the discovery of 17 corresponding names is not evidence of the prophecy's fulfillment.
Admittedly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yet there are bigger problems with a literal historical interpretation of the Abrahamic narratives. OH notes that "there are many reasons to be skeptical of these narratives as historically accurate accounts" (36), detailing several--their origination within an oral tradition, duplicate and sometimes triplicate accounts, multiple literary styles, inconsistencies in content and anachronisms. It concludes: "Accurate historical documentation was thus not a defining element in … these stories. Any attempt to make use of this material in reconstructing the prehistory of Israel requires great caution" (37).
Prophecy 2 : "Your [Abraham's] seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them…But in the fourth generation they will return here." Gen. 15:13, 16.
Fulfillment : The article identifies the four generations enslaved in Egypt as Levi, Kohath, Amram and Moses, who led the Exodus in 1513 BCE. To support this, Awake! draws on OT Professor James Hoffmeier's claims that "Semites were allowed to enter Egypt with their herds during times of famine" and "Egyptian sources confirm that forced labor was imposed on foreigners…during the general period when the oppression of the Israelites occurred" (16, 17).
Analysis : Both of Hoffmeier's observations are correct. But his statements are about Egyptian practices in general, not about the Israel tribes in particular. OH notes: "No direct connection can be established between the Exodus events and any of the historically attested Asiatics in Egypt" (103). Moreover, even a conservative scholar like Hoffmeier is at odds with the Society's early, Biblical-based date of 1513 BCE for the Exodus.
Prophecy 3 : "I will give to…your seed…the entire land of Canaan." --Gen. 17:8.
Fulfillment : To support this, the article cites the following: (1) The ruins of Hazor, burned in the 1400's BCE, a date that correlates with the Society's own timing of Joshua leadership of Israel into Canaan. (2) The city of Gibeon, the inhabitants of whom sued for peace with Joshua and became drawers of water. Researchers have found that ancient Gibeon was, in fact, blessed with an abundant water supply. (3) Discovery of names of Biblical characters in various forms, including 17 kings mentioned earlier. (4) The Merneptah Stele, wherein Israel is mentioned by name, dated to 1210 BCE.
Analysis : First, the fact that Gibeon had plenty of water is not proof that the Israelites conquered the land as described in the Bible. At best, it indicates that the writer of the conquest narratives was familiar with the city of Gibeon. That's all.
As far as Hazor goes, archeologists have found a destruction layer matching what might be expected when an invading peoples overthrow another. What Awake! fails to mention is that the Bible credits Joshua with capturing 30-odd cities, of which only 20 have been discovered. Out of those, only Bethel and Hazor even begin to match up with the kind of evidence supporting a violent invasion by an outside peoples within the necessary timeframe. The remaining 18 show either no evidence of an invasion, or no evidence of any occupation at all within the right timeframe.
Further complicating matters are discoveries over the last 40 years or so that blur distinctions between Israelite and Canaanite culture between the late Bronze to early Iron Age (1500-1000 BCE). EH argues that Israelite culture and language was so close to Canaanite so as to be nearly indistinguishable, which would hardly be the case had they been Egypt-dwellers for four centuries previously, as the article contends. This suggests a history more prolonged, interconnected and complex than the Joshua conquest narratives would indicate. Nevertheless, that they were somewhat distinct from the Canaanites, at least by the late 13 th century, is seen by their identification on the Merneptah Stele.
The Merneptah Stele is an inscription made by Pharaoh Merneptah in 1210 BCE, boasting about conquering various Canaanite cities and Israel, which he supposedly "laid waste." Interestingly, the Israelites are shown dressed and groomed exactly as the Canaanites (which lends credence to EH's assertion of common culture). Awake! asserts that the occurrence of Israel on this stele "further support[s] the existence of this nation" (18), yet the hieroglyph used for Israel means "rural or tribal entity," as OH puts it (124), not the hieroglyph for nation or city-state, which is used for the Canaanite cities. The sign used for Israel "signify[ed] nomadic groups or peoples without a fixed city-state home, thus implying a seminomadic or rural status for Israel at that time," notes OH (97).
In conclusion, the article claims that the Bible's rich details allow us to "cross-check the Bible against non-Biblical sources, thus helping us to confirm the fulfillment of Bible prophecies" (18). Yet this is really not the case. The historical facts the article relies on are general, at best, indicating only the author(s) were familiar with the customs and geography, and don't offer any real proof that the actual events prophesied occurred, and especially not within the chronology offered by the timeline shown in the article.
-
-
-
-
30
Impact on the receiving end of "What the Bible Really Teaches"
by kepler inseveral years ago my fiance had a traumatic experience and decided to return to being a jw.. .
as a result she insisted that we read "what the bible really teaches".
then later i agreed to take instruction with house visits by an elder and his associates on weekends with the same purpose.. .
-
-
Cadellin
Kepler:
Your questions are all good and legitimate. You have correctly noted that scriptures are used to support pre-existing doctrine, not the other way around, as supposedly Charles Russell sought to understand them. I was raised a good JW and wondered myself about the clear and obvious discrepancy b/w how JWs view the fulfillment of prophecy re Babylon's destruction and the actual, historical events. I believe that one way around this problem is that they claim that Bablylon "fell" from a spiritual standpoint when the Israelites were freed and able to return to Jerusalem. That is, it was a spiritual/metaphoric "destruction" in that Babylon no longer had dominion over God's people. Of course, that completely misses the point that the prophecies unquestionably pertain to a sudden and very violent overthrow--old men, young, virgins and babies all being run through with the sword, etc.--and that such violence would be at the hands of the Medes.
By all means, assemble your questions and send them in to the WT. And please keep us informed as to the response. My prediction is that it will be several months b/f you hear back and then, at best, you will get a response patchworked from various WT articles of varying age, glossing over your central concerns and focusing on how wonderful JWs are and how amazing the preaching work is and how incredible the hope of the new world will be.
Still I could be wrong. But please, share it with us. And good luck!
-
51
Attended 2-Day Circuit Assembly--Highlights
by Cadellin insince my spouse is an active elder, i accompany him to sads, cas and das, at least for the time being.
anyway, i thought i'd share some of the more odd/disturbing bits from the latest "sanctify god's name" ca.
there wasn't anything particularly new but the tone toward porn, higher ed, bad assoc, "habitual" murmuring and harmful gossip is definitely hardening, as are the cautions against social networking.
-
-
Cadellin
Billy: "Hardening" attitude toward porn--ha!
DoC: Our DO is a short little twerp with a rather comical vocal intonation. That's all I can say b/c I need to keep a low profile. But, yeah, I thought the "kidnapper" analogy was a bit over the top. The ego allusion was also rather mystifying.
Why the hell would any "apostate" want to entrap, kidnap or otherwise gather "followers"? The fact of the matter, based on reading this board, is that most of us just want to get on with living our lives, making up for the time lost w/this high-control religion. I can't imagine anything worse than to have "disciples" tagging along behind me like a string of mini-me's or wanna-bes. Yikes.
Yet, because that is how the NT presents specific apostates in the first century--and clearly Paul was referring to the numerous schisms that existed within Christianity--the WT cannot conceive of modern-day "apostates" being any different. If they were supposedly like that in Paul's day (never mind that Paul was referring to specific situations), then, by gum, they must be exactly the same today!! In all their verbage about "apostates," there's never any contemplation that maybe they just want to live ordinary lives and--some of them--maybe would like to get their family to wake up too. But that's hardly "kidnapping" or collecting disciples.
Yeesh.
-
51
Attended 2-Day Circuit Assembly--Highlights
by Cadellin insince my spouse is an active elder, i accompany him to sads, cas and das, at least for the time being.
anyway, i thought i'd share some of the more odd/disturbing bits from the latest "sanctify god's name" ca.
there wasn't anything particularly new but the tone toward porn, higher ed, bad assoc, "habitual" murmuring and harmful gossip is definitely hardening, as are the cautions against social networking.
-
-
Cadellin
Since my spouse is an active elder, I accompany him to SADs, CAs and DAs, at least for the time being. Anyway, I thought I'd share some of the more odd/disturbing bits from the latest "Sanctify God's Name" CA. There wasn't anything particularly new but the tone toward porn, higher ed, bad assoc, "habitual" murmuring and harmful gossip is definitely hardening, as are the cautions against social networking.
One demo that was particularly telling was a monologue by a brother who'd just come home from work all stressed out. He sits down at a table and starts looking through the latest mags, all the while talking to himself. The upshot was that he's doing "all he can" as far as service, cong., and supporting his family and he's tired (he sighed A LOT all the way through) but--wait for it--yup, you guessed it: He wants to DO MORE! He doesn't know how, though, because, as he says, "My plate is already full with spiritual things." OH WAIT--he has a few days' vacation coming to him. He can use those days to pioneer in April. If he does that and goes out all day Sat and Sun, then he can get his time in!! How refreshing that will be! The demo concludes w/him leaping to his feet to go tell his wife what their "new" schedule is going to be for the next month.
The emphasis is definitely on doing more--regardless of how much you're already doing. Yikes.
I didn't hear higher ed being likened to offering your child to Molech, as another poster mentioned, but there was a demo where one bro. says to another that he can't understand the overlapping gen. and it seems like the FDS is "putting Armaggedon off." The new explanation is so hard to understand! The "mature" brother says, "You're making it harder than it is. When Jesus used the term "generation," he EVIDENTLY meant the lives of those anointed living in 1914 would overlap with those anointed who would see the end." The "unsure" brother responds: "Oh, is that it? Well, that's not so hard." Or something to that effect (paraphrase). Duh!! The rhetorical strategy was pretty slick--divert attention away from the underlying, though unspoken question of "Why are they changing the meaning again?" to "Is it really that hard to understand?" Then present a simplified one-sentence summary of the new light, without bothering to spend even a moment on any kind of factual or Biblical evidence that might support such a ridiculous "definition" of generation.
Apostates were railed against by the DO who characterized them as "kidnappers" who are looking to kidnap those in the cong. I kid you not. They have a problem with ego--ego means using spirituality for your own benefit. (Makes no sense). So we need to shun apostates and cling to God's org because, after all, "What would you know about the Bible if not for God's organization?" (Direct quote). Double yikes.
Finally, about higher ed: The DO said: Some say we shouldn't be cautioning against pursuing higher education. And yet, it's not surprising that in lands where people receive higher education, belief in God is at an all-time low!"
No shit, Einstein!!! Think about it. Oops--that's exactly what they DON'T want.