Posts by Vidqun

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

David_Jay, in the end we are all searching for truth, not so? We all have the freedom of putting forth theories, whether our own or of others, for these to be tested by our peers.

E.g., modern scholars say: “No Old Testament contemporary of the sixth-century Daniel makes any reference to him. The Daniel referred to in Ezekiel (14:14, 20 and 28:3) must have been the ancient hero named Dan’el, whose life story is narrated in the Ugaritic legend of Aqḥat (dating from about the fifteenth century B.C.).”

I have a problem with above theory. Here are some of my reasons: Dan’el was an idol-worshiper, a drunken party goer, contemplating murderous revenge. Ezekiel, a zealous prophet and the son of a priest, would never have used a Baal-worshiper as a paragon of righteousness and purity.

E.g., you say: “The idea that Daniel was a prophet is incompatible with our history for, as noted in my previous post, the historical Daniel is supposed have died many years before the Babylonians invaded.” Then you refer us to the following scriptures. (Ezekiel 14.14, 20; 28.3) I have a problem with your statement and the scriptures you use to back up your statement.

Many modern scholars insist that the persons mentioned in above scriptures are examples from the past and has nothing to do with the writer of the book of Daniel. Note, they use the same scriptures as you do. By the way, here they are:

CJB Ezekiel 14:14 even if these three men were in it- Noach, Dani'el and Iyov- they would by their righteousness save only themselves," says Adonai ELOHIM. (Ezek. 14:14 CJB)

CJB Ezekiel 14:20 even if Noach, Dani'el and Iyov were in it, as I live," says Adonai ELOHIM, "they would save neither a son nor a daughter; they would save only themselves by their righteousness." (Ezek. 14:20 CJB)

Ezekiel was to give the Prince of Tyre the following message:

2 "Human being, tell the prince of Tzor that Adonai ELOHIM says: 'Because you are so proud and have said, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of God, surrounded by the sea"; yet you are a man, not God, even though you think that you think like God.

3 Sure, you are wiser than Dani'el! No secret can be hidden from you! (Ezek. 28:2-3 CJB)

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

David_Jay, thanks for your illuminating posts. I have a few criticisms though:

The first verse is a narrative device commonly employed in Semitic literature to tell the reader the stories are not meant to be read as historical. The opening verse states that Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, King of Judah." (1.1) However the siege of Jerusalem occurred after the death of Jehoiakim, a death which occurred likely after his own individual capture by the Babylonians prior to their invasion. It is common in the Hebrew Scriptures for authors to take poetic liberties (much like movie makers today) when merely using history as a generic setting.

Above verses are written in a condensed format. Actually there were three sieges and five deportations during their seventy year servitude. Daniel and his companions were deported during the third/fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., 605 BCE (Dan. 1:1; cf. 2 Kings 24:1, 2; Jer. 25:11; 46:2; 2 Chron. 36:23). This deportation would be followed by four major deportations (2 Kings 24:10-16; Jer. 52:28-30). This agrees with the Babylonian Chronicle.

The Book of Daniel contains no oracles to Israel or Judah. For a book to be considered a valid prophetic message inspired by God it must contain oracles or pronouncements from YHWH to his people. The phrase in most English Bibles in the Prophets is: "Thus sayeth the LORD." The phrase in Hebrew is actually, "Oracle of the LORD." The book of Daniel has no such phrase and none of its visions or "prophecies" are for Israel or Judah. They are all addressed to non-Jews and Gentile nations.

This must be a modern Jewish development, but whether this has always been the case, remains to be seen. E.g., 1) Dan. 9:24-27 is directed at God’s people and Jerusalem, and 2) the book of Nahum, although one of the prophets, contains an oracle against Nineveh.

The Septuagint is not regarded by Jews as a valid representation of Scripture.

Remember, originally the Septuagint was translated by Alexandrian Jews for Alexandrian Jews. Only later, in the first century, were the book replaced by Greek translations that closely followed the MT of today, eg., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

The idea that Daniel was a prophet is incompatible with our history for, as noted in my previous post, the historical Daniel is supposed have died many years before the Babylonians invaded. (Ezekiel 14.14, 20; 28.3)

Although Daniel is here included with Job and Noah, this does not mean that Daniel lived in their day. He was a contemporary of Ezekiel who had great respect for him.

There was no "shift" of the book of Daniel to the Writings section around the 5th - 8th century C.E. "as confirmed by Koch" as there has never been formal codification of the books that follow the Hamesh Megillot. These "last books" following Megillot are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

The current classification comes from the Masoretes (ca. 8-10th century CE). In the day of Jesus and Josephus, the scripture classification was the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets (cf. Luke 24:44).

Also, the Qumran texts represent collections of Hebrew texts preserved by a Jewish sect that existed on the outskirts of Judaism.

Some view the Qumran library to have been collected by the inhabitants of Qumran. Some MSS were added by them, but with the bulk of it would come from Jerusalem, especially the rolls containing Scripture.

21

Can you relate?

by TimeBandit in

jw
friends

i used to try really hard to fit in when i was an active, true blue jw.

somehow it hardly ever paid off.

time after time i attempted to mingle and make jw friends.

Vidqun

TimeBandit, this reminds me of "London hospitality" amongst JWs. I coined the phrase. It means "no hospitality whatsoever." I worked for a few months in London. In the different congregations I attended, I was always looked upon as something the dog dragged in. I had to mingle with those that were visiting from elsewhere.

I can remember two outstanding examples. I worked in field service with a "pioneer-ministerial servant." We had a pleasant morning and a few good calls. I thought wow! at last I have made a friend. But from that moment onwards I was ignored flat. My presence was not even acknowledged at the hall. But lo and behold! a few months later the said "brother" came biking in my part of the world. He was in my area and needed a place to stay. Unfortunately I was unable to help him.

I chatted with another brother. A mutual acquaintance introduced us. He was selling vitamins or something, but when I showed no interest in his products, I was again ignored. Even in conversation the one time, he actually turned his back on me and started chatting with someone else. I have never encountered such rudeness ever. Ah, fond memories indeed!

9

"holding the anointed elders in his right hand"

by oppostate in

(ks10 p11:1) revelation 1:20 depicts jesus as holding the anointed elders in his right hand, thus, by extension, indicating that he controls all bodies of elders for the purpose of accomplishing jehovah’s will.

(re pp.

in the shepherding book it says "holding the anointed elders in his right hand".

Vidqun

My “elder” brother also insisted that he and his fellow elders were stars in Jesus’ right hand. They better watch out. Not sure what the current interpretation of the following scriptures are, but at some stage some of the stars are going to be thrown to the ground and trampled, and the holy ones ‘dashed to pieces.’

10 And it kept getting greater all the way to the army of the heavens, so that it caused some of the army and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it went trampling them down.

11 And all the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant [feature] was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down (Dan. 8:10, 11 NWT).

7 And I began to hear the man clothed with the linen, who was up above the waters of the stream, as he proceeded to raise his right [hand] and his left [hand] to the heavens and to swear by the One who is alive for time indefinite, It will be for an appointed time, appointed times and a half. And as soon as there will have been a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces, all these things will come to their finish (Dan. 12:7 NWT).

So, one should be careful what you wish for. Similarly the GB, insisting they are the fds, must watch out. If that slave goes bad, the fate of that slave is disastrous (cf. Matt. 24:45-51).

133

Why Are You Here?

by Believer in

i'm wondering why believers remain members of this forum which is clearly hostile to believers.

as one member said, nonbelievers pounce on any semblance of belief like piranhas on prey.

as former jws we should have had our fill of judgmental know-it-alls, but here we are.

Vidqun

Believer, I also come here to find out what's new in JW land. An additional reason for me: The forum is a place to test what you believe in. If your faith or facts are flimsy, these will be shot down (and burn). Somewhere in Corinthians Paul explained one must build with fire-resistant materials. I looked it up, 1 Cor. 3:11-15. Another reason, if at all possible, you want to help others.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

Vidqun

Purrpurr, I guess it depends on how one views the book of Daniel. Perhaps looking from a different perspective might help. The following article was a great help to me:

In his article “The Writing of Daniel,” Jan-Wim Wesselius compares the structure of Daniel to that of Ezra. He refers to the book of Daniel as the Daniel Dossier, a collection of separate documents, dealing with the life, career, and visions of Daniel, which he attributes to the writing style of the author of the book of Daniel. This, he asserts, would account for the discontinuity of the book, being an ancient dossier, unmodified, while retaining some of the characteristics of its sources. At the same time, the assembled material, left relatively unpolished and deviating from chronological order, having all the hallmarks of a complicated history of composition, is structured in such a way that it forms a harmonious whole. I, with Wesselius, ascribe this phenomenon to the brilliance of the author. Wesselius concludes his article: “The book was to appear to its readers as a collection of separate documents, dealing with the life, career and visions of Daniel. At the same time, however, it retained the marks of literary unity, thus inviting the reader to achieve the unity of the book through making his own synthesis of its parts - one of the most successful literary enterprises in history.”

71

Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty in

in 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.

he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.

most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.

Vidqun

Cofty, it's like I am talking to a brick wall. I did my degree approximately 36 years ago, and I haven't work in my field for the last 24 years, so that's why I am somewhat rusty. But that's not important. We are talking in circles, so I have decided to put up a video to explain my stance. I know it's not in my own words, but what the hell, I cannot say it better. It's called "How DNA killed evolutionism," and discusses the laws of information. I am especially fond of the linguistics part. This has been my study field for nearly three decades. Bullshit you might say, but follow the laws of information and work from there. The following paragraphs sum up the main points:

The existence of DNA has proven evolution false and proven both Intelligent Design and Special Creation to be true. It is impossible for evolution to happen or be true because of what genetics has revealed. The reason evolutionists do not give up defending evolutionism despite modern scientific knowledge is because they are dedicated to the materialist idea that they have no creator God to answer to and are not guilty of sin. The evolution theory became prominent in science because certain men of the early 19th century performed a coup in the scientific community by publicly ridiculing men of science who believed in creation, who were the majority at the time, and covertly appointing believers in evolution to key seats in universities and science associations. Among these men were Charles Lyell and others who formed the X-Club for the purpose of displacing creation believers with evolution believers in science circles. This clandestine protection of evolutionism has continued to this day, and it is very difficult and often impossible, depending upon the university, for anyone who does not believe in the fallacy of evolution to become hired as a professor. The opinion of the world public has never fully accepted evolutionism, and the number of it's believers is dwindling because of what science has revealed since the days of Charles Darwin. Eventually, evolutionism will be relegated to history as the greatest and most fervently protected hoax of all time.

Evolution is an ancient religious concept, originating in Dagon and other "gods" who supposedly created man from fish, and picked up again by humanists in the 18th century seeking a logical reason to deny the existence of God in rebellion to His moral law. The basic tenants of evolution such as Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution were put forth by Greek philosophers in a day when man had little scientific knowledge and before the idea of scientific investigation by observation and testing was conceived. Thales of Miletus put forth the idea that water itself brought forth life, just as the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians did. Anaximander put forth the idea that all things consisted of fire and water, and this brought forth the universe from nothing - an idea that is known now to be impossible without a supernatural cause. He also said animals came out of the sea and diversified - a claim still held today by evolutionists with their idea that fish evolved into land animals.Democritus claimed the universe was occulting - exploded and imploded continuously - an idea known false by modern astronomy but clung to by evolutionists until Hubble disproved it in the early 20th century. The classification scheme evolutionists apply to life originated with Aristotle, who believed life evolved into various forms from some original form. Humanist god denialist philosophers of the 18th century, picked up the ideas of the ancients thinking they would provide an excuse for denying God, and other humanist attempted to claim that science supported these ancient, false ideas. Evolutionism has never been science or scientific. It is a package of ancient ideas to which modern humanists have attempted to force science to conform. Darwinism in any form is a nonscientific idea which science has destroyed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35fulERIUnU

71

Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty in

in 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.

he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.

most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.

Vidqun

Cofty, this is sort of a free-for-all debate with various individuals taking part. I believe it to be good manners to answer those that question me and my motives. And as far as I am concerned, the principles involved here are exactly the same as with endosymbiogenesis and the like. It boils down to the same thing. You believe it happened randomly and spontaneously many aeons ago, and I believe in ID, two philosophies very far removed from each other.

Island Man, very interesting video. This is exactly what I was referring to. There is a certain lack of logic in comparing the syringe of Yersinia pestis to the rotary motor of Escherichia coli, even though they have a molecular similarities. That's like comparing apples to pears.

I like the illustration of the mouse trap, a very simple and basic instrument that can also be used as a tie clip. I wonder who designed the first mouse trap? A clever guy indeed. Who designed the rotary motor of E. coli? Nobody, it designed and manufactured itself: A ridiculous notion indeed! Like I said, if those pathways are discovered one day, I will reconsider my position. Until then I will follow the path of logic which do not lead me to evolution, that's for sure. However, each of you should feel free to follow your own path wherever it leads.

You all seem to have latched on to a common theme, referring to me as a professional microbiologist (I take it you use it as a form of ridicule). I repeat, I haven't practiced Medical Microbiology since the early nineties. My registration with the HRC has lapsed. That's approximately 23 years ago. And no, I did not keep up with the latest developments, as you might have noticed. I have said this before and I say it again. So, let's not harp on this unnecessarily. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

71

Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty in

in 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.

he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.

most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.

Vidqun

WhatshallIcallmyself, I thank you for your educated opinion of right and wrong. I am following the current evidence, which points me to ID. Be assured, when your pathways are discovered, then I will reconsider my position. Until then, I will be led by logic, which I have been trying to explain all this time. I am sorry for those that missed it. That means my teaching ability stinks, so I apologize for that and only that.

71

Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty in

in 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.

he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.

most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.

Vidqun

Shepherdless, debunking indeed! This is how it usually goes: "Bacterial flagella have functions and mechanisms that have differentiated during evolution." In the same breath one then says: "However, the evolutionary history and relationships of these functions and mechanisms remain unclear." See no. 6 above.

Cofty, as you might have noticed, Shepherdless had a problem with my argument of complexity. This drives the point home. And it’s not completely out of context, seeing that it is part and parcel of various bacteria, which are included in our discussion.

While on the subject, I see a third flagellar motor has been discovered. Absolutely brilliant, i.e., the design of the motor and the way it was discovered. Howard Berg's latest paper in Current Biology announces an exciting find: another rotary motor has been discovered in a bacterial cell. The Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum (see him speaking about the "Marvels of Bacterial Behavior" above), along with two colleagues, describes a new kind of rotating motor in a bacterium, separate and distinct from ATP synthase and the kind of flagella found in E. coli. The short title of the paper is dramatic: "A Rotary Motor Drives Flavobacterium Gliding."

Cells of Flavobacterium johnsoniae, a rod-shaped bacterium devoid of pili or flagella, glide over glass at speeds of 2-4 ?m/s. Gliding is powered by a protonmotive force, but the machinery required for this motion is not known. Usually, cells move along straight paths, but sometimes they exhibit a reciprocal motion, attach near one pole and flip end over end, or rotate. This behavior is similar to that of a Cytophaga species described earlier.... To learn more about the gliding motor, we sheared cells to reduce the number and size of SprB filaments and tethered cells to glass by adding anti-SprB antibody. Cells spun about fixed points, mostly counterclockwise, rotating at speeds of 1 Hz or more. The torques required to sustain such speeds were large, comparable to those generated by the flagellar rotary motor. However, we found that a gliding motor runs at constant speed rather than at constant torque. Now, there are three rotary motors powered by protonmotive force: the bacterial flagellar motor, the Fo ATP synthase, and the gliding motor.

What this implies is even more irreducible complexity for the bacterial flagellum. Without the flagellum+T3SS working cooperatively, the flagellum will not work, because T3SS is "required for secretion of axial components" of the flagellum. This suggests that both the T3SS and the flagellum had to exist simultaneously for the flagellum to assemble properly and function.

The article concludes: "That's a suggestion that will surely be debated between evolutionists and design advocates. What's clear at this point is that another irreducibly complex, functional system for motility has been revealed, based on a rotary engine driven by proton-motive force. Harvard's announcement will certainly stimulate further research into this gliding motor and how it works. Not surprisingly, they feigned no hypothesis about how this system might have evolved." This is certainly music to my ears.