Posts by JCanon

26

For JCanon: Is the Global Flood Feasible (Nice Thread From Another Site)

by SYN in

.

i'm having a lot of fun reading the creationists vs. evolutionists argument about the flood here...the evolutionists are thoroughly trouncing the creationists!

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/forum7/html/000007.html.

JCanon

And so we get absurdities piled upon absurdities. Ice is heavy, mate! There's no getting away from it! The sheer volume of water needed to flood ALL the mountains (i.e. Everest) simply doesn't exist on Earth! And the idea of it getting blown into space by Godly "funnels" and "winds" is ridiculous. Where is the evidence for these terratonnes of water leaving Earth?

You know, this is interesting. I don't know if you understand how I'm imagining this. Per the Bible the water below and above were together and then gradually the water vaper was separated from the sea. I'm thinking it was pushed high above the earth first as cloud mass and then it was thencompressed into water consistency and then frozen so that the sun's light could shine through like a glass house.

Now seems to me that depending upon HOW HIGH that canopy was and how THICK would measure what one would expect if it were converted back to water and then caused to rain over 40 days onto the planet gradually flooding it.

So I'd love it for a physicist to calculate that. You know, basically calculate how much water would cover the entire surface of the planet say a half a mile above the highest mountain and then move the water above sea level higher and higher until it thinned down to a certain width encircling the planet which would eb the ideal place to freeze it. It's a matter of how high it was in order to be enough water to flood the earth. so your argment is circular. I didn't give you the thickness or the height, you presumed that.

Anyway, we'll see. Thanks for considering it!!

JC

18

The Bible and the Canaanite "Book of Balaam bar-Beor" (8th century B.C.)

by Leolaia in

in earlier posts, i have described how heroes, kings, and other legendary characters from canaanite lore were incorporated in the ot either through direct allusion or exaptation as literary characters in new distinctively israelite stories.

the legend of danel, the father of aqhat, is directly mentioned in ezekiel 14:12-20, 28:1-3 and was likely reused as source material in the cycles of legends about the righteous judge job, the young warrior david, and the prophet elisha (cf.

the legends surrounding the rephaim kings revered in bashan and who the canaanite leaders regarded as their ancestors contributed to the biblical stories about the mighty nephilim and rephaim warriors and the giant og, king of bashan (cf.

JCanon

Hi Leolaia: Thanks for your replies:

Satan because this is a much later post-exilic concept that stands outside the pre-exilic Balaam traditions.

I suppose, but not if Satan is generically considered as the evil in the good-vs-evil concept of things: dualism. How early is dualism? Further, I don't regard simply because something is recorded later that it does not reflect something earlier. If I wrote about the Civil War I'm sure later on some aggressive anti-Civil War critics my attempt to say, the "Civil War" tradition is a late advent of the JC in 2004. How can you defend that if all other sources are muddled or destroyed? Case in point, my "exception" that the Edenic scenario IF it was fact would have been the earliest reference to Satan and thus from the very beginning. After all LILITH is associated with the Garden of Eden. But that is in the realm of opinion so no need to comment further.

Lilith is a fascinating survival of ancient Canaanite myth in Jewish tradition and I might write a thread on this subject sometime later.

I'd love to hear everything you have on Lilith. I find it fascinating that an esoteric reference to Satan is as the "woman" in the Garden of Eden and the presumed wife of Jesus/Michael, not at all referenced in Christian tradition though quite Biblical, yet the Jews understood this, probably from a more accurate folklore about the nature of Satan. I wonder if they understood one of the "covering cherubs" was actually this original Satan? It would seem so, at some point, among some scholars, even if that concept was later lost or distorted or whatever. But it IS there!

As I noted ealiar, the Sumerian reference to the concept of the "woman and her seed" the Virgin holding the branch which is part of the zodiac is closer to accurate Biblical reference to Satan as the "woman" and her "seed" as her rebellion.

Also of note is Baalam. Very interesting since YHWH is talking to him. But also interesting is MELCHIZEDEK who during the time of Abraham was a "PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH". So obviously there was worship of some concept of YHWH beyond the Jews, here and there, I suppose. But not much is understood about this. Maybe he was more manifest before he focussed on the Jews as his instrument in a special way. Or maybe God selected individuals to reveal himself to for other purposes?

Thanks, again, for the references.

JC

26

For JCanon: Is the Global Flood Feasible (Nice Thread From Another Site)

by SYN in

.

i'm having a lot of fun reading the creationists vs. evolutionists argument about the flood here...the evolutionists are thoroughly trouncing the creationists!

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/forum7/html/000007.html.

JCanon

Hi JCanon,
You have so much to say about Biblical chronology, so why no meaty reply on the above topic? Surely there was something that you found objectionable in that thread? Hmmm?

Hi, actually there is not much to say here. My "wordy" position is limited to first of all Flood critics not completely understanding the specifics of the water "canopy" that was above the earth that caused the flood and being unwilling to accept that God was equally "creative" in removing the excess waters even though "winds" can include waterspouts that might have funnelled the water into outer space where there is water vapor by the way, proven by scientists. So I would excuse myself from the arguments that don't specifically challenge my own specific understanding of the flood within Biblical reference. Another reference is that the Bible suggests the water canopy was SOLID or at least one aspect of it, thus a solid ICE CANOPY is my best guess. Noah went into the ark 7 days before it began to rain. I'm presuming that at this time the ice canopy was melted down and vaporized and thus after a short while it became totally dark over this 7 days with a huge cloud cover. Now, already note that there has to be "miraculous" intervention at several points for this flood to occur, the super heating of the canopy, the controlled raining for 40 days. After the flood and the removal of the waters which took up to a year, the question is what evidence would be left immediately after the flood that would suggest a global flood? Further, what evidence after millenniums of time would still be available to us to PROVE there was a flood? In othe words, if the earth was inudated with water even today and that water went as high as mountains and then drained off, what kind of permanent changes would be see? I can't think of anything obvious right off the bat. On the other hand, the pro-Flood pro-Biblical references talk about tropical conditions that once existed in areas now in or near the artic circle. So what does that tell us? Or is that a bogus report. To me it would tend to confirm tropical conditions worldwide at one time which lends itself to the flood legend. Furthermore, these behemoths have been found fast-frozen with foodstuffs in their stomachs that are undigested. This is consistent with rapid freezing during a flood. Now you could claim "Local flood" but because they are located in areas with a different climate now it makes one wonder if that region was also artic. At this point, the scientists seem to say, "there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE' of the flood. But of coruse, maybe there isn't, but should there have been beyond these things we've seen? Circumstantial things. A final point is that "science" that examines things based upon natural laws would not find all their answers to the global flood anyway, since it was a natural disaster triggered and supernatural forces. So of course, they are not going to be able to explain some aspects of that, but that's nothing new, they can't explain why LIFE began in the first place either. So since I see this argument going into circles with the best defense simply saying things in the Bible haven't been proven "scientifically" as fact doesn't go far with me. You don't need proof of every single thing scientifically to claim it DIDN'T HAPPEN. Some things will remain without direct scientific reference. But generally, the water in outer space, the climatic changes evident, and the Bible's record of reliabiilty in general based upon other areas of my research, I have faith that the flood was a natural event that occurred as the Bible described. Now one thing that sort of is bafflign to me is that all of creation that was taken into the ark would have or could have been used to reestablish the entire earth's ecosystem. Now God has the power to turn stone into bread of course, but just because the Bible doesn't mention it, it doesn't mean there was no some supplemental adjustment in that regard to get the earth back to it's current level. I allow myself this Biblcial "leeway" because some adjustment had to be made in the behavior of creatures to adapt to the new ecological climatic changes anyway. So if god is going to make some adaptations in that aera, then maybe some new creatures sensitive to the new ecosystem came about after the flood as well. With that regard, the animals on the ark taken by Noah may have been primarily for the immediate post-flood period in Noah's area, particularly species that Noah would look after himself. Who is to say. Anyway, I can see why people don't believe based upon not having more specifics, but I also don't dismiss the flood for the same reasons. You know, you can't underestimate God. He likes to "trick the wise in their cunning", so maybe God made it so that very little direct evidence of the flood was left just to test people on whether they would believe the Bible or not? Anyway, I believe the flood and what I've read doesnt' persuade me sufficiently not to believe, though questions remani. JC

48

Jesus versus Judas. (May cause offence)

by Englishman in

jesus was a ransom sacrifice for many.

according to scripture, he died to save the world and carried the sins of the world with him as he died.

he actually suffered an horrendous death, dying 3 hours after being crucified.

JCanon

Not a critical philosophical point for your article, but Jesus died on Nisan 20th, a Thursday, after being in prison the previous 5 days, enduring whatever that was involved with including a lengthy hearing by Herod. Jesus was arrested on a Saturday, Nisan 15th and spent 5 days in jail until Wednesday the 19th when he went on trial at Noon. He then was taken out to Calgary and impaled by the "third hour", 9 o'clock at NIGHT. Thus for the record, he was actually on the torture state not tree hours as you note but 18 hours, from 9 am Nisan 19 to 3pm Nisan 20th. He then fulfilled the "three days and three ngihts" in the tomb and rose on the 23rd.

Btu as I say, that's just some technical detail. Why is Christ so glorified for what he did and suffered?

If we minimize his personal suffering, which in and of itself did not save mankind, then the focus must go on the mere fact that he was sent by God to become this sacrifice and the REAL sacrifice thus was his willingness to leave his position as an angel in heaven to become in human form and do this in obedience to his father. But even beyond that, the ultimate glory goes to God, the Father himself, for being willing to adjust his own laws regarding sin and death so that the innocent children of Adam who were born into sin but willing to serve God could have a SECOND CHANCE at life. The grandness of that gesture thus is what is transferred to Jesus whether that is understood totally or not. Thus Christ reflects the glory of his Father.

Thanks for your post.

JC

18

The Bible and the Canaanite "Book of Balaam bar-Beor" (8th century B.C.)

by Leolaia in

in earlier posts, i have described how heroes, kings, and other legendary characters from canaanite lore were incorporated in the ot either through direct allusion or exaptation as literary characters in new distinctively israelite stories.

the legend of danel, the father of aqhat, is directly mentioned in ezekiel 14:12-20, 28:1-3 and was likely reused as source material in the cycles of legends about the righteous judge job, the young warrior david, and the prophet elisha (cf.

the legends surrounding the rephaim kings revered in bashan and who the canaanite leaders regarded as their ancestors contributed to the biblical stories about the mighty nephilim and rephaim warriors and the giant og, king of bashan (cf.

JCanon

Hi Leolaia, this is interesting.

You might remember my reference to the Jewish pagan tradition of Lilith, depicted as a woman with the lower body of a snake, specifically the entity who temps Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. I relate this to Jewish general tradition of Satan being the feminine counterpart to Michael, the archangel; and these two angels, the angels depicted in Jewish iconography in the temple docorations, the "covering cherubs" whose wings cover the ark and who are depicted on the curtains alternatively as a man-faced cherup and a PALM TREE.

I believe the concept of the tree goddess, the palm-tree nature reference in Song of Songs to Artemis of Ephesus who resembles a palm tree are all related. That is, that Satan is linked to these mother goddesses, the tree of knowledge and this second "covering cherub" that was depicted on top of the Ark of the Covenant. Now just for some structure to see how traditions and myths evolve, it would seem Michael and Satan were once unique angels, covering cherubs, and considered husband and wife, the Church (144,000) of Christian tradition to replace the position Satan once held. Kabbalist tradition also seems to associate the shekinah light with this feminine goddess as I recall, and a loose Christian trinity doctrine of God and Son and the Holy Spirit connected to a dove which becomes the feminine counterpart of the goddess, noting that the dove is associated with one of the major Greek goddesses (I'm not sure if it's Athena or some other).

All this to ask whether or not in your research you have come across research that associates Satan with this feminine goddess principle beyond the obvious Jewish pagan reference connection to Lilith.

Also in your references I seldom see you mention the "Mysteries" and those cryptic beliefs and traditions other than a strong dismissal of interepretations of Alexander Hyslop as he reported on in his "The Two Babylons" a book that could be obtained at one time through Jehovah's witnesses themselves, thus relating to some of the foundation of JW doctrine for "Babylon the Great" and the original of false religion linked to common doctrines at Babylon before the languages were split and they took these traditions in varying forms throughout the world.

From a Biblical perspective in the background of a literal translation, it would seem that Satan was given free reign for the most part to promote false, anti-Yawist worship in the world but used himself/herself in the form of many goddesses representing this angel's personal atributes, particularly hatred of children (for some reason, hatred of mankind?) but possessing great refinement (wisdom and knowledge) and beauty (sophistication-Sophia).

Other than that, I find your references interesting though I tend to continue, as you know, discount that every single similarity between traditions means one came from the other rather than an earlier common source.

Thanks again for this research!

JC

26

For JCanon: Is the Global Flood Feasible (Nice Thread From Another Site)

by SYN in

.

i'm having a lot of fun reading the creationists vs. evolutionists argument about the flood here...the evolutionists are thoroughly trouncing the creationists!

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/forum7/html/000007.html.

JCanon

Thanks!!!

JC

12

Kingdom Interlinear question?

by imherczeg in

i'm in a bible study with a very nice jehovah's witness.. she was kind enough to give me a copy of "the kingdom interlinear translation of the greek scriptures" 1985 edition.. it states in the beginning of the book that the three bible texts.... greek text above comes from b.f. westcott and f.j.a.

hort (1881).

english text underneath comes from "an interlinear word-for-word translation into english" 1969. english text alongside comes from the 1984 nwt.

JCanon

Thanks, Narkissos for posting this wonderful reference. Indeed, it is quite clear it was a travesty for the WTS to presume to change the Bible.

Another interesting scripture that I focussed on was when Stephen was stoned. The NWT has to to translate one Lord as "Lord Jesus" because Jesus' name follows it, in which Stephen tells Jesus to "receive his spirit". But the second reference to Lord replaces that reference with "Jehovah". It would seem to me if "Lord" appeared a second time since he is addressing Jesus that it would have been understood as a reference to Jesus as "Lord" and not Jehovah: Here's the verse:

Acts 7:59 "And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: "LORD Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: "Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them." And after saying this he fell asleep in death."

Obviously, it's quite distressing for those who understand the insertion of "Jehovah" for every Lord where they could, not understanding for sure if the reference was to Jesus or YHWH is a huge travesty. This is why the GB is called the "Man of Lawlessness" and this would be considered part of the prophesied apostasy of the temple organization leadership.

God said don't change his word, it's holy, and they did it anyway and made a mess of it.

Oh well, at least the KIT shows us where we can reinstitute the optional reference to Jesus when the context shows us that is the case.

JC

67

Did Noah really build an ark?

by frogit in

this might be worth a watch for us uk ers.

noah's ark will be broadcast in the uk on bbc one on sunday 21 march at 1900 gmt.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3524676.stm.

it's also an interesting read.

JCanon

Sure, as long as you don't consider any actual geological or climatological evidence,

Oh yes, and about the GEOLOGICAL and CLIMATOLOGICAL evidence. Science thinks that anything it hasn't discovered yet means it didn't exist. But science is a limited tool for examining certain things. If there is a mountain and I blow it up and remove all the dirt and make a flat surface from what remains, will there be evidence of that mountain geologically? No. Geology can only examine what is LEFT.

With that limited amount of looking, I've heard there were sea shells found on top of mountain tops and that in Siberia there is evidence of a tropical climate and sudden freezing. So there is likely just as much pro-Flood theory as anti-flood theory out there, so so much for evidence and interpretation of the evidence.

One thing for sure, GOD cannot be perceived by science entirely. You see science does not look at the ARTISTIC aspect of God nor the ABSTRACT. It can't comprehend emotions, beauty, morality or any of these things we know and understand on the other side of our brains. To perceive God we must use BOTH sides of our brains, not just one. When you try to use science as the end-all last word for definiing what is real then you will come up with a short answer, though simply looking at the skies above us, the stars and the planets, even the moon in all it's beauty and it's orbit should tell you it didn't just happen by accident. But some people think it could have, given enough zillion of years, right? What an incredible ACCIDENT we're all part of: Life on the Earth in all it's beauty and complexity, all here without any intellectual intervention of a higher being than ourselves? Now that is UN-SCIENTIFIC if ever.

So thanks, but no thanks. I can tell there is "something else" beyond science going on here. I may not have all the answers, but I sure know science doesn't have all the capabilities of asking enough of the right questions.

If there is truly a god who created the incredible universe, then a global flood on this tiny little planet and the after clean-up isn't going to be that big of a deal for him.

Hey, I think it's a GAMBLE!!! What if there is no god? Then fine, what have you lost? Live your life as long as you can, hopefully don't get hit by a truck or a train and if you get cancer hopefully it's after you're 99. Then die and that's it. But if there IS a God, why not do what he says as found in the bible JUST IN CASE, that way, if the Bible is right, you have a chance at LIFE ETERNAL.

How about:

"I'd rather be SAVED than sorry?"

Finally, just in case I'm right though...you can't claim you weren't warned and nobody told you. So your own life is is your own hands. Don't blame God or Jesus if he turns out to be real and throws the non-believers into the lake of fire. hmmmmm

JC

67

Did Noah really build an ark?

by frogit in

this might be worth a watch for us uk ers.

noah's ark will be broadcast in the uk on bbc one on sunday 21 march at 1900 gmt.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3524676.stm.

it's also an interesting read.

JCanon

Sure, as long as you don't consider any actual geological or climatological evidence, and make outlandish stuff up like God blowing the excess flood water into outer space.

Look this is not "outlandish". The flood itself was a MIRACLE. After all, if we presume the water canopy was up there under some natural laws, then God had to intervene with something to change it. The canopy appears to have been "solid" and thus I'm presuming it was solid ice in orbit around the planet. This had to be melted. The 7 days after Noah entered the ark suggests it took seven days to melt the ice canopy and convert it into rain cloud. But you can imagine if the skies are black with local storms it must have been totally black approaching the end of those seven days until the canopy was converted to clouds. But that would presume that either something protective was removed, or God caused an explosion on the sun that heated the canopy.

Considering that going on, it's not outlandish at all, needing to get rid of the excess water that god would not have found a way to spew it into outer space. The Bible says he used "winds" to dissipate the water. Maybe it was desert-hot air that evaporated the water into steam clouds and then that was sucked out into outer space. I don't know. All I know is that THERE IS MOISTURE IN OUTER SPACE in the vicinity of the solar system!!! Earth as a source of that water is one explanation, a SCIENTIFIC explanation that works.

Sorry but the flood "myth" does involve some miraculous intervention, meaning things that are supernatural; manipulation of natural laws that we observe. We're not trying to explain it as a "natural occurring" event. So in contrast to "outlandish" let me just say that if God wanted to, he could have had each of the angels come down with a bucket and dip that in the water and carry that out into outer space to get rid of the water, if you PREFER. But the Bible says God used "winds" and since water spouts come under that category, I didn't EXCLUDE it. Maybe it was hust heated air that vaporized the water and then dissipated into outer space. ??? If that's more believable for you then go with that. I personally like the waterspout idea myself, but that's me.

JC

38

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 3-21-04 WT Study

by blondie in

comments you will not hear at the 3-21-04 wt study

review comments will be in black and parentheses ().

1 corinthians 7:29 (nwt) moreover, this i say, brothers, the time left is reduced.

JCanon

Hi Blondie, thanks for your review!!

Of note, though, the "earthquakes" issue is sidetracked since the Greek word used for that, "tremors" is used to describe both a storm as well as a disturbance of social unrest. To describe an earthquake specifically, it uses the the word for earth combined with tremor.

Thus, in the context of all other social issues, pestilences and food shortages, saying there would be "tremors" in one place after the other lends itself to "social unrest" or "agitations" socially in one place after the other, OPTIONALLY. This is likely the reference here rather than literal earthquakes in one place after the other. Certainly the post 1914 times can be characterized as one which had social unrest and "agitations" on one place after the other, after all, those things led right from World War I to World War II.

This interpretation is permissible, of course, if you directly translate the term "tremors" here and let the reader make up his own mind whether it refers to social unrest in one place after the other or literal earthquakes. But certainly, there can be no Biblical criticism for this not being fulfilled during the last days. Thus the criticism at osarif regarding the earthquakes, since its a direct reference in scripture, tends to suggest the Bible was not fulfilled in this regard as far as the earthquakes, not having anything to do with the WTS' other wrong applications.

In other words, the WTS notes that since 1914 there has been everything that happened, including persecution, pestilence (Black plague) and food shortages (the Great Depression). The criticism of the WTS is that there has been no particular increase in "earthquakes" in one place after the other compared to other times; and I think that's valid. But the Bible says that so how is it that it is not fulfilled. When you understand that "tremors" could be a reference to social unrest and instability and "shaking" in one place after the other then it characterizes this time of social unstability, particuilarly between World War I and World War II, which then fulfills the prophecy, more observably so than keeping up with the literal "earthquakes". Thus the criticism here misses it's point since it is based upon the wrong interpretation of the text.

Just for your information.

JC