Posts by Vidqun

148

Who designed cancer?

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

one thing i regret, is not listening to the questions in my head whilst a jw.

one i didn't ask until years after leaving was....who designed disease?

of course the first thing to realise is the complexity of disease, the histology, pathology and aetiology.

Snare&racket, view it as revision. I have been idealistic in my time. I also thought Medical Science was going to come up with all the answers. I was horribly disappointed. Don't worry, you'll get there. In the end, you and your patients will have to face a final reality, all grow old, fall ill and die.

Firstly, let's not go into detail. Been there, done that. My medical textbooks are also old and not 100% up to date. My interest is the religious and theological side of things, and there my library's reasonably more up to scratch. In connection with cancer and viruses, I must admit, there I have lost track of the latest research, and I'll take your word for it. But it still boils down to the fact we are deteriorating, not improving.

Secondly, I refer you to my first post on this thread (second post overall). There I dealt with genetic mutation. I might add, this is caused by many outside factors, e.g., radiation, ultraviolet, chemical and viral agents, some of them also being hereditry, e.g. trisonomy 21 or Down syndrome. This fits well with the hypothesis I am suggesting.

Rising life expectancy: Thank God for proper hygiene, diet, antibiotics, etc. It did wonders for life expectancy. It's definitely not because we are getting better or improving as a species.

People die because their organs give out. There, you've said it. Why do they give out? I refer you to my previous posts.

Teeth. Perhaps if we were related to sharks, it would have gone better with our teeth. A new set every so many years. However, one's teeth can last longer if one looks after them. That goes for animal teeth as well. But few want to brush their pet's teeth. Whatever the case, the fact that our organs are not regenerating, replacing old and worn out cells, is a riddle in itself.

Most posters on this board have Watchtower on the brain. Watch out, that borders on fanaticism, which makes one lose sight of the more important things. E.g., the Nazis were so intent on destroying the Jews, they forgot they were fighting a war. Forget the Watchtower for one moment. The border of Hayflick I learnt in Virology. Granted that was a few years ago. Perhaps you want to research that. Quiz your Virology professor and come back to me on that.

No, I am not interested in the views of biologists. Let me tell you a little story: The Greeks believed in spontaneous generation. The came Antonie von Leuwenhook (spelling?) with his microscope, and Pasteur, and they proved spontaneous generation doesn't exist. These were the fathers of a new science called Microbiology. Then I turn to my biology text books to read that life did indeed originate spontaneously. You need a great amount of faith to believe that.

I glad you use the term "make". Because man can play with the genetics, but making a cell from scratch. I don't think so. If he can do that he will have solved all our problems. No, we are not there yet. I think you are not only dazzled by science, you're blinded by it.

Depending on which cancer I contract one day, I will indeed decide whether I will accept treatment or not. I have seen many a patient being stripped of their belongings by greedy oncologists. Then he or she dies in any way. If my doctor tells me I have 5% or 10% chance of surviving, I will ask for a big presciption of morphine, and call it quits.

The question is: Who will have the last laugh? Time will tell. If you put you faith in Medical Science, you will be sorely disappointed. It's a promise. Bottom line, if God had kept his hand on things, on the earth and on nature, as well as those one earth, things would not have deteriorated the way they did. If things go on the way they do, what type of future are you and your children looking forward to? Can you hear this penny dropping?

34

could Jonah have survived in the belly of a whale?

by highdose in

its not like he had access to oxygen, light, fresh water or food.

what about the digestive jucies in the belly?.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but surely this just can't be possible?.

Vidqun

Room215, I believe this part of the narration is based on fact. That's human nature for you. You preach to your enemies, they have the audacity to repent. No fireworks, what a disappointment!

148

Who designed cancer?

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

one thing i regret, is not listening to the questions in my head whilst a jw.

one i didn't ask until years after leaving was....who designed disease?

of course the first thing to realise is the complexity of disease, the histology, pathology and aetiology.

Vidqun

Again from a Biblical persective, animals do not entertain the prospect of eternal life, therefore something had to be designed to take them out (Please don't ask me about the dinosaurs. I really don't know what happened there). Unfortunately man is now in the same boat. Unfair, I know, but I didn't make the rules.

148

Who designed cancer?

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

one thing i regret, is not listening to the questions in my head whilst a jw.

one i didn't ask until years after leaving was....who designed disease?

of course the first thing to realise is the complexity of disease, the histology, pathology and aetiology.

Vidqun

From a Biblical persective it's not too hard to explain: With a perfect immune system, you would be able to ward off any disease. Because of imperfection you grow old and die.

We were taught live cells (of the human body) are graveyards of viruses. When viruses replicate themselves they use our DNA/RNA. In the process, things can go wrong. One's DNA is changed or damaged. Cancer results. But an optimum immune system will keep out all bacteria and viruses. Problem solved.

Mutations result because of faults in the DNA or RNA of our parents. When two of these faults overlap, its a disaster for the offspring. Since man chose independence from God, we have been going down hill fast. Medical Science has made great strides, but eventually we grow old and die.

Babies are susceptible to many diseases because of underdeveloped immune systems. Old people are susceptible to many diseases because of faulty or aging immune systems. When cells are young, they flourish. When they become old they start dying off because of the "Border of Hayflick," something that could not be explained in my day. The understanding of these things might have changed. It is a long time since I studied. Only cells that I know of that do not die off, are cancer cells, i.e., when you cultivate them on growth media.

I was always impressed by the design and working of living cells. Man has not succeeded to create even one of them, even with the most advanced laboratories. That means man can replicate but he cannot create. I know the evolutionsists will have a different take on the matter. However, the above is compatible with my Bible-based faith, so I would explain it this way.

21

I have a question about the blood video

by blindersoff in

jw
friends

during the week of jan 30 at the service meeting, the society's video "a video that highlights an important medical trend" will be discussed using the 12 questions listed below.

does any one know if any of the information in this particular video is mis-quoted or mis-represented?

notice that none of these questions involve scriptures - only medical viewpoints.

Vidqun

Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like what he says. And be careful not to criticise just because you don't like the source of the information. One of my lecturers always urged: Think, it may be a new experience for you. Feel free to check the facts. And yes, of course there's pros and cons in all medical emergencies. Depends on where you had your training. Some believe blood cures all ills of society. Others are more careful, realizing that blood can be dangerous. I fall in this category. Each case is different, and must be evaluated according to merit. However, each must make up his or her own mind. I have worked in a Clinical Pathology environment for over ten years, and that's my experience. Even in automated environments there is something called human error, which can kill you. Specimens are marked by hand. E.g. pilots are highly trained individuals and they make mistakes. Would lab personell be different? Also remember, the Bloodbanks are pushing their own agendas. The facts coming from them are not always hundred percent sound. Coming back to the illnesses contracted by blood, the Hepatitis family have grown to quite a number. Do they test for all these variations? And did you know, in the eighties and nineties the hemophiliac population of the United States was virtually wiped out by AIDS? That demonstates my argument. You decide for yourself. I repeat, this is from a medical perspective.

21

I have a question about the blood video

by blindersoff in

jw
friends

during the week of jan 30 at the service meeting, the society's video "a video that highlights an important medical trend" will be discussed using the 12 questions listed below.

does any one know if any of the information in this particular video is mis-quoted or mis-represented?

notice that none of these questions involve scriptures - only medical viewpoints.

Vidqun

I'm sorry, but I have some bad news for you. It makes 100% sense to refuse a blood transfusion. Let me put it to you this way: If you or a family member is involved in an accident, say in Africa. Would you take blood or allow a family member to be tranfused? I know I will not, over my dead body. I'll take my chances without it. Then, while in Africa, ask any person involved in the Medical profession, whether they will take blood, or allow a family member to take blood. They will answer: Never. Why?

If you have been to these bakward places, like Africa, you will know the standards are not very high. There the doctors bury their mistakes. First of all, there are compatibility issues. Not two people's blood are the same. Your blood is as unique as your finger prints. ABO and Rh+ or - are major antigens. The rest they do not take into consideration because they seldom cause problems. How sure are you that the technician did a proper job when he tested for them? The manual method is especially dicey, because you must continue shaking the tube to see if the blood coagulates. If you shake too hard, the blood cells break up, and could cause a false positive.

Secondly, there's a pandora's box of diseases you can acquire, especially in Africa and the tropics. How do you know the blood they are going to put in your veins is not contaminated? Stored blood also have an expiry date. How do you know that expiry date is not long gone?

As far as I know, studies did prove that those people that were not transfused (e.g. JWs) recover quicker from major operations and that they have less infections. Remeber, when any foreign antigen is introduced into the bloodstream, the immune system will react against it. So the immune system of people that were not transfused can concentrate on the job at hand and does not have to fight foreign invaders.

Please take note. The above is from a medical and not a religious persective.

I asked my Physiology Professor about it, and he remarked that blood was like dynamite. If you don't treat it correctly, it will kill you.

34

could Jonah have survived in the belly of a whale?

by highdose in

its not like he had access to oxygen, light, fresh water or food.

what about the digestive jucies in the belly?.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but surely this just can't be possible?.

Vidqun

In an old Ripley's Believe It or Not (book), I read the story of a seaman on a wahler falling overboard, and being swallowed by a whale. Eventually the whale was harpooned and they discovered the mariner inside it, alive. However, he was bleached white by the gastric juices in the whale's stomach. It certainly is a case of, Believe it or Not.

18

Analysis of the Book of Daniel

by Londo111 in

i had hoped one or two others were about to start a thread on the book of daniel, springing off from the nwt conversation, but alas, nobody has yet.

therefore, i thought i'd start one--i hope that was not too presumptuous of me.

personally, i have nothing meaty to contribute to this thread, only questions and gut feelings.

Vidqun

As far as I can work out, the point he's making, is that you either believe in the authenticity and historicity of the book, or you believe that it's a fallacy (Quirky mentioned something about eating those mushrooms in the cow pasture). In my mind, the book of Daniel is unique. Granted, a lot of editorial activity has gone into the work, but usually one can work out the true (or logical) text by comparing the MT to the versions.

Modern scholars compare it to the Animal Apocalypse and Apocalypse of Weeks of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, and Apocalypse of Baruch, which is unfair. These books never made the grade, not being allowed in the Jewish or Christian canon. Another question is: Did they copy the book of Daniel or did the writer of Daniel copy them? Most scholars admit that Daniel is the oldest.

But I guess it comes down to the inspiration of the Scriptures. Were they "god breathed" or a product of a Jew's fertile imagination? That each one must decide for himself. Nevertheless, I do believe that scholarly criticism does not encourage faith or belief in prophecy. It does not allow for "the benefit of the doubt" either, which is a pity. According to the law a person is only proved guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is how a modern scholar puts it: "Conservatives [that's me amongst others] have argued that the critical position rests on dogmatic, rationalistic denial of the possibility of predictive prophecy. For the critical scholar, however, the issue is is one of probability." Another place he asserts: "The prophecies of Daniel [There is a problem with their nomenclature. He should say "the pseudo-prophecies of Pseudo-Daniel] can no longer serve as christological proofs; nor can the chronological schemata serve to structure universal history...." He insists: "Daniel is not a reliable source of factual information about either the past or the future," etc.

Here I have to disagree. E.g. the Hebrew term for "latter days" is 'acharith hayyamim (cf. Dan. 2:28). According to TDOT this prophetic term, today referred to as an "eschatological marker," means "the end of history as we know it." And that's something that I, and a lot of others, are hoping for. This fits in with the rest of the Bible, the theme being God's kingdom.

18

Analysis of the Book of Daniel

by Londo111 in

i had hoped one or two others were about to start a thread on the book of daniel, springing off from the nwt conversation, but alas, nobody has yet.

therefore, i thought i'd start one--i hope that was not too presumptuous of me.

personally, i have nothing meaty to contribute to this thread, only questions and gut feelings.

Vidqun

In his Commentary on Daniel in the Hermeneia-series, Collins uses the word ex-eventu regularly, meaning that the writing under discussion is the writer’s reaction to a certain happening. However, Daniel’s writings concentrate on the future, not the past. This one sees in the arrangement of the contents. One quarter describes happenings in the life of Daniel and his friends. Three quarters contain prophecy.

This can also be determined from the book itself. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar: “However, there exists a God in the heavens who is a Revealer of secrets, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what is to occur in the final part [’acharith] of the days” [“the latter days”, KJV] (Dan. 2:28).

Later the angel Gabriel would inform Daniel: “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of [the] end” [“the end time”, NAB] (Dan. 8:17b). He continued: “Here I am causing you to know what will occur in the final part [’acharith] of the denunciation, because it is for the appointed time of the end” (cf. Dan. 8:19; 11:36). The small horn or fierce king will rise “in the final part [’acharith] of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to completion” (cf. Dan. 8:23). Gabriel concluded: “And you, for your part, keep secret the vision, because it is for many days” [“it concerns the distant future”, NIV] (cf. Dan. 8:26b).

Concerning the final vision, the angel revealed: “And I have come to cause you to discern what will befall your people in the final part [’acharith] of the days, because it is a vision yet for the days [to come]” [“for the vision pertains to future days”, NET] (cf. Dan. 10:14). [Cursive script added.]

A definition of prophecy is “history written in advance”. As a secretary Daniel would dutifully record the contents of the book named after him. The one that dictated it could only be Jehovah God, via the angels. How so? Because only God can accurately predict the future.

To ascertain its truthfulness, one should examine the evidence carefully and systematically. Again the angel Gabriel would elaborate: “O Daniel, now I have come forth to make you have insight with understanding” (cf. Dan. 9:22). To fully comprehend the prophecy, one needs to pray for such “insight with understanding”.

As a template of history, Daniel’s prophecy should fit events exactly. Does it? As seen, his past prophecies have come true. What about those still ahead? Here one should keep in mind that the Sovereign of the Universe has put His seal of truth on the prophecy, thus confirming its faithfulness.

Concerning the first dream, Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar: “The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy” (cf. Dan. 2:45b). Later the angel would assure Daniel that the prophecy originates with God’s “book of truth” (cf. Dan. 10:1, 21 ESV).

As Lars mentioned, during the time of the end accurate knowledge will become abundant. But one will have to work hard to find it. Even then, not all will see it (cf. Dan. 12:4, 9, 10). Notwithstanding this, all of the above would be gibberish to a person who believes Daniel to be a fraudster and liar.

1

Isaiah 11

by TimothyT in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-ca0e-42d2-bf39-b33af135cc4d" id=ieooui> </object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman";} </style> <!

Vidqun

Here’s a bit of personal study I did a while back on Dan. 11:40-45. Who are Ammon, Edom and Moab (Dan. 11:41), because they will escape the clutches of the King of the North. Is. 11, 45 & 49, mentioning the escapees of the nations, did come up in the mix, so here it is, for what it’s worth:

Neighbors of the anointed remnant, those in the territories neighboring “the beautiful land”, are extended an invitation: “Collect yourselves together and come. Bring yourselves up close together, YOU escapees from [or, more accurately “of”, Ber, JB, NEB] the nations. Those carrying the wood of their carved image have not come to any knowledge, neither have those praying to a god that cannot save. Make YOUR report and YOUR presentation. Yes, let them consult together in unity. Who has caused this to be heard from a long time ago? [Who] has reported it from that very time? Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me? Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth [“you peoples from all corners of the earth”, NEB], for I am God and there is no other.” (Is. 45:20-22; Ezek. 20:32; cf. 52:10b: “all the nations” = “all the ends of the earth”)

So who are these “escapees of the nations”? First clue as to their identification, we discover in Jeremiah chapter 46 to 49. Here we read of Jehovah’s adverse judgments against a variety of nations, e.g., Egypt, the Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, as well as Elam.

Will these be wiped from the face of the earth? No, individuals from these nations will be saved. When will this take place? In Jer. 49:39 we read: “‘And it will certainly occur in the final part of the days that I shall gather the captive ones of Elam,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.” Later, in Acts 2:9-11, Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, heard the preaching of the good news in their own language. No doubt some of them would become Christians.

In “the final part of the days”, individuals from these nations will be shown mercy. Why? The possibility exists that these nations will show hospitality to the dispersed Israelites, because Isaiah (11:11) predicts that Jehovah will “acquire the remnant of his people who will remain over from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from Cush and from Elam and from Shinar and from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.” Individuals from these nations will not only treat God’s people with respect, but will respond favorably to their preaching (cf. basis of judgment, Matt. 25:31-46).

As seen, above period includes “the time of [the] end” found only in the book of Daniel (cf. Dan. 11:40). In the very next verse we read “Edom, Moab and the beginnings of the sons of Ammon” will succeed in evading the clutches of the King of the North. Who are these? What common thread connects the three nations?

As will be demonstrated, all are somehow related to Israel. The nations of Ammon, Edom and Moab were allocated a specific territory by Jehovah God. The Israelites were not allowed to molest them. They had to bypass their territories on the way to the Promised Land (cf. Deut. 3:4, 5, 9, 18, 19). During the Davidic monarchy these were subjugated, alongside the Philistines and the Syrians (cf. 1 Chron. 18:1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13; 19: 18, 19).

Keil & Delitzsch, in their commentary, add that these nations were off the beaten track, whereas Israel was caught in the line of fire, between the King of the North and South: “ The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others).”

Before the issuing of Daniel’s prophecy these were immediate neighbors (and enemies) of the Israelites, the inhabitants of “the beautiful land”. In Ps. 81:15 we read: “As for those intensely hating Jehovah, they will come cringing to him,” and “their time will prove to be to time indefinite.” These could not become part of Israel unless they take up true worship. They had to accept Jehovah’s terms, bring their lives in harmony with his principles, and dedicate their lives to him.

If the information is of benefit, let me know and I will post the rest.