Posts by kepler

46

Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry in

the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.

‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

kepler

Perry,

Reading over your first post, I am not sure what your bottom line is. Is it that some things that are posited by science are so strange or contrary to common sense that they can't be taken seriously? But yet again, you mention several Bible quotes suggestingt the Lord's creation stretched the fabric of space. And then later you say that your faith in Jesus causes you to triumph over scientific hypotheses that seem absurd.

And then there was mention of "Starlight in an early universe." What about it?

It sound a little like how much sugar and cream for one's coffee: just this much. And anyone else's version is absolutely wrong.

Do you use GPS? It's accuracy is based on general relativity corrections. Are there not also devices that are based on quantum mechanics? Does uranium have a natural decay rate and half life that will assure that half of it will be lead in 4.5 billion years? There are other things that can be named to support the case for a science and nature that seems to have properties that defy common sense, but what's the use? What is the straw man that they are being measured against? A creation culminating with Adam and Eve in a garden 6000 years ago? Ten thousand? Which sect's interpretation of scripture?

Since most scientific hypotheses are submitted to explain existing natural phenomena and to predict more, the ones that are unsuccessful are discarded or the theories that they support are modified. Hence the Scientific Method. Now assuming one of these hypotheses fails, there might be an opportunity for submitting another hypothesis. But in the case of lot of the supposedly "religious" critique is to reconcile observation with what was already written in the Bible, it gets hard sometimes: The sun stops in its passage above the Earth to assist Joshua in battle. Or that the Earth is set immovable on its foundations. Those are the straight-forward ones. Implicit controversies such dinosaurs and men in a pre-deluge world - you have to really like to stack up houses of cards. One could put together a hypothesis to explain such glaring discrepancies between observations and scriptural text, but how would they serve to predict any other NATURAL phenomena? Unless it's not the point...

14

Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

by CookieMonster in

quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

kepler

Listening to the discussion, it came off to me something like a cross-examination by a lawyer ( advocate) of a friendly witness. But when John Huddleston pauses in response to a question about why he needs verification from Assyrian Annals about Biblical Kings and Chronicles relating to the military process of the House of Omri:

"It's a good question." It does not sound fake. I looked for some background on Professor Huddleston and found some explanation of his viewpoint at the school website. See below.

In essence, both Dawkins and Huddleston are coming from the same perspective, but for different reasons. Dawkins the biologist draws conclusions about religious beliefs from his unrelated academic work, but based as well on the necessity to find cause in mechanism. Huddleston studies religious texts as well, but is bound either by profession or considerations of academic integrity to do the same. In the first ten minutes or so, it is difficult to say whether Huddleston actually has a religious persuasion. But maybe he does. He just does not allow it to influence his professional work. So if you are looking for a debate here, it's just not there. Dawkins is simply smart enough to know where archeology and near eastern studies stands to ask his guest the right questions to support his own viewpoint.

Personally, from my own reading of this sort of thing, I am astounded by the lack of evidence for David outside of the Bible too. Yet the fact remains that there was a Kingdom of Judah as well as Israel. Is there an explanation for Judah's existence that completely sidesteps Solomon and David? How about that Temple attributed supposedly to the clan?

-----------------------------------

As a scholar who deals primarily with history, society and culture of the ancient (and sometimes not so ancient) Middle East, I adopt a comparative approach both in my classes and research. Thus, discussion of any text or artifact--biblical, Mesopotamian, Egyptian or otherwise--draws upon its wider ancient environment (for example, understanding biblical wisdom literature, historiography, or prophecy as larger ancient Near Eastern phenomena). In this regard, teaching the Bible in a secular, liberal arts institution can be a subversive enterprise. Any talk of authors, redactors, compilers, and their motivating ideologies situates the biblical text within its human context, and ultimately explains it as a human product, an approach in accord with the humanities. As a historian of religion, I do not presume to get into the mind of the deity in the Bible or speculate about divine motivations aside from what is present in the text. Students frequently ask me, "Why did God, who is omniscient, do X with Abraham and not Y?" I can offer plenty of reasons—literary, social, historical, political, etc.—for why the author or editor might wish to portray the biblical deity in such a fashion, but as an academic in a secular institution I deal with socio-political, literary and other motivating factors, rather than timeless theological truths. For me, it is the human dimension of ancient texts, including the Bible, that make them most appealing as an object of study, and that allows me to ask questions that would otherwise be less relevant from a purely theological perspective. It is my goal to instill in students an appreciation for the underlying strategies and ideologies that inform these ancient writings and the cultures that produced them.

Prior to his career in academia, Professor Huddlestun worked as a professional musician, living in southern Europe and Israel. He also pursued studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew language, Egyptology) before returning to the U.S. to begin graduate work at the University of Michigan.

36

Ridiculous statements in this weeks study article

by the truth is mine in

maybe it is just me but when i read this paragraph all i could do is shake my head and wonder how i used to buy into this crap and how people don't wonder what the hell the writers are thinking'.

"imagine what life would be like if god did not have love for mankind.

we merely have to look at the awful history of this world with its human rulerships under its unloving and wrathful god, satan the devil.

kepler

BluesBrother: Right on.

Though I would like to mull over a passage mentiond.

Years ago, when the above verse in Luke ( 4:6) was pointed out to me, it was during the time when I was taking instruction at home on account of my then fiancée's intent to return to the JW fold. Confronted with this verse and my instructors' insertion of its truth, my first reaction was to look for the other accounts in the Gospels. Matthew had neglected to mention that Satan owned everything. Mark never mentions the incident in the interval between John the Baptist's proclamation and selection of the four first disciples, though enough demons appear in the narrative to seem to substantiate the claim in Matthew. John doesn't mention it either.

I guess that to the other three Gospel writers this matter of ownership wasn't that important. Or they didn't believe the claim in Luke. Or they weren't there to verify the story. For a total package document that's entirely inerrant, it makes you wonder.

My instructors seemed to like the idea that that it entailed though. Everything in the world was worth nothing ( except what they already had or could obtain) and if they played their cards right, they would also inherit everything after the world's rightful owner came back to make His claim. Another leap or two over several decades of JW "thought" and you can get to the F&DS.

Looking at the two incidents of the Temptation, Matthew and Luke differ in other respects.

In Luke, first the world is offered by its keeper, and then Satan asked Jesus to throw himself down from the parapet of the Temple.

In Luke at this point, Satan unceremoniously leaves after exhausting his wiles and Jesus returns to Galilee, subsequently to read the scrolls of Isaiah in the synagogue.

In Matthew, Jesus is first asked to throw himself down at the parapet of the temple and THEN he is taken to a high mountain and given an offer. Matthew does not say how he left the mountain, but angels appeared and looked after Him. Curiously, in both accounts, it is Satan which recites Psalms about the roles of the angels to guard Him.

Ironically, it is Matthew which invokes the Magi at Christ's birth, wise men from the East who we come to realize are originators of much that is dualistic in western thought. Luke has shepherds arriving at the site instead.

So, it all goes back to whether God loves the Creation or not. Theodicy as it were. Why is there suffering? I don't know. And looking at Biblical verses such as the above which seem to contradict each other on key points about key issues, ... Why should I assume that a Satan owns anything, when he makes no appearance in OT and the accounts differ so much in the 4 Gospels if they exist at.

But if we were simply to rely on the remaining values of antiquity, we all might act like Cicero or like Caligula. The lesson is incomplete. As a result of what is recorded in the Bible and what our ancestors did in response, I am confident that our role on Earth is to make it a better place than it was when we arrived here. This would be the case whether the End is ten minutes from now or ten billion years.

7

What's up with the HEBREWS translation?

by TTWSYF in

this book states in verse 8 chapter 1 that the father calls jesus god.

the nwt is very different.

i wonder which one is the most accurate?.

kepler

Interlinear of the Word Study Greek English New Testament compiled by Paul McReynolds et al.

"to but the son the throne of you the God into the age of the age, and the rod of the straightness rod of the kingdom of you"

But then the next sentence/verse speaks of

"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, there God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

Something for everyone, right? It would appear that NWT editors edited based on the following sentence and their own pre-disposition. But the disposition had to come from somewhere.

When I was instructed in my house by JWs, the Elder wanted to make a point with Hebrews, but we never seemed to reach that point. But it would appear to me that these two lines are confusing in light of the centuries of debate about the Trinity, its existence or no.

Reading elsewhere in Paul's epistles, I am not aware of anything so explicit in behalf of a Trinitarian view. And certainly nothing like the juxtaposition of a sentence so opposed. It seems most Trinitarian argument would rest on the Gospel of John. But like many, since Hebrews is not introduced as Paul's actual work, I would suspect it was written by someone else, including his views - along with someone else's.

Which was which?

13

The book of Ruth... destroys the bible

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

lets pretend two things:.

1. god (yhwh) exists.

2. the bible is his word.. now we follow genesis to judges ok... judges resets at chaper 17-21 but for the purposes od this posts lets ignore that.... ruth we are told lives in the time of the judges... ok no problem/ until the end.

kepler

David_Jay,

I'd say that was a great first post. I'm saving it and will look forward to more.

Thank you for your contribution.

13

The book of Ruth... destroys the bible

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

lets pretend two things:.

1. god (yhwh) exists.

2. the bible is his word.. now we follow genesis to judges ok... judges resets at chaper 17-21 but for the purposes od this posts lets ignore that.... ruth we are told lives in the time of the judges... ok no problem/ until the end.

kepler

Personally, I don't know which incidents in the Bible should be set in concrete. But there does seem to be one avenue of reasoning, taken by others, that might shed some light on how records could be so much in conflict - and that's this That the reign of Judges was not consecutive, but in parallel and overlapping - considerably.

What archeological evidence exists for early Israel, seems to indicate that the Kingdoms which arose rose a couple of centuries after the Egyptian New Kingdom state retreated from Canaan - circa 1200. If Egyptian chronologies are compared with the WT's, Moses and Joshua would be arriving in Canaan ( after 40 years of wandering) in the midst of Egyptian hegemony.

There have been several battles of Megiddo. In more recent times (WWI) there was the battle between the British and the Ottomon Turks. In 609 BC there was Pharaoh Necho and King Josiah. But earlier there was Pharoah Thutmose III (~1458 BC - April - about 20 years earlier by other sources) with the Prince of Kadesh. Subsequently for several hundred years there was an Egyptian Levantine empire.

Accounts of the 15th century BC battle:

- hieroglyphic writings on the Hall of Annals in the Temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, Thebes (now Luxor)by the military scribe Tjaneni serving under Thutmose III.

Unfortunately, the original scribes of Ruth and Joshua did not go to such means to preserve their original accounts.

7

Daniel 12:4, A Watchtower's tactic for the naive and unlearned readers who need to believe in some thing

by opusdei1972 in

"but you, daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end.

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

(daniel 12:4).

kepler

Regarding my post above, I said, "I suspect Matthew was written before 70 AD..." That was shooting from the hip as I was writing, assuming that some Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. I would not necessarily say mine was a conservative guess - unless you are convinced that Matthew was writing an account shortly after the events occurred. Because there are very good arguments for saying that Matthew was written after the Temple's fall.

Whatever the original gospel was that seems to be a template for the existing four, Mark seems to have less elaboration than those that follow. Even Mark suggests that a conflict with Rome was looming in the background - and if it had been written in the time that Paul had written his epistles, then he certainly would have cited it.

The point is that the explanation of the referral to desolation and abominations in the Temple could very well have been written after such events had occurred under Roman banners.

7

Daniel 12:4, A Watchtower's tactic for the naive and unlearned readers who need to believe in some thing

by opusdei1972 in

"but you, daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end.

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

(daniel 12:4).

kepler

Opusdei,

Thanks for bringing this up.

Whether Daniel was written in the 160s BC or earlier, it certainly has an odd structure. Some of the later chapters seem like re-writes of the same vision - and for what reason remains unclear.

But the notion that Daniel should keep silent about what he saw, heard or learned - I think you hit it on the head.

I won't repeat all the scholastic arguments for the later date for Daniel's authorship, but I would like to cite some, including one or two of my own.

The year of reign statements give many clues and especially the difficulties Daniel has with identifying who Herodotus. Both Greek authors identify the invading Persians frequently as Medes. Thucydides claims that the battle of Marathon where the citizen soldiers of Athens routed the Persians was a defeat of the Medes. This was 490 BC. The king of Persia was Darius.

If the author of Daniel was a witness to the defeat of Babylon, he would be aware of both Babylonian and Persian records ( e.g., Cyrus Cylinder). If the author was living during the time of Persian control of Judea, he would be aware of Persian monarchs because they controlled his life. But if the author or authors lived in a period when Greeks had long held control over Judea and in which Persian and Babylonian history was a distant memory save for Greek telling of it, ...Well, you've got yourself an apocalyptic book for the Bible - to eventually be placed among the Writings of the TaNaKh and not among the books of Law or the Prophets.

There are links in the Bible ( books, chapters and verses) which tie together an apocalyptic vision to which many groups of Christians (understatedly) have seized. These include Daniel, Revelations and Matthew Chapter 24.

Matthew 24:15 is the only NT citation of Daniel by name speaking of an abomination in the Temple and whether it was time to run for the hills. But Daniel, if written circa 165 BC, could be speaking of the introduction of Zeus and desecrating rites by the Antiochus IV government. Whether this is what the reference means in Matthew is to this, perhaps, or it could be in anticipation of something that would happen in later decades ( the War with Rome) or perhaps the continuing threat at Rome's deification of its rulers would imply. Incidents in Jerusalem stemming from this Roman behavior are included in the account of Josephus Flavius as events leading to the war he describes. I suspect that Matthew was written before 70 AD, so I am inclined to think that the Roman behavior similar to that of Antiochus IV is more likely than a prophecy or a latter inclusion.

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

kepler

This is ridiculous.

And I say this because to me this is not a question of whether Jesus was clearly as portrayed in John in all 4 Gospels, but that the words were put down by John in contrast to what the others said - and it was understood for subsequent centuries by the Greek speaking Roman world because they said so themselves. Clearly they struggled over that issue for centuries - and not because someone mistranslated from the Greek texts. To ignore them just discredits any supposed "translation" effort.

John Chrystostom was not the only Greek speaking writer of the early church to comment explicitly on John 8:58 ( circa 375 AD).

Origen (circa 225 AD) did so as well.

In his lengthy writings titled Against Celsus, Book 8, chapter 12 first paragraph is as follows:

'In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. “If,” says he, “these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offense against God if they worship also His servant.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, “I and My Father are one,” and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, “As You and I are one,” he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. “For,” says He, “My Father is in Me, and I in Him.” And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.'

26

The mistranslation of John 8.58

by Wonderment in

john 8.58 is one of those scriptures which translators often mis-translate.. i am aware this text is defended with passion either way by its advocates.

many insist the "i am" rendering found in many versions is correct.

others defend the "i have been" or "i was" readings of other versions.

kepler

There is no supposed mis-translation of John 8:58.

Not unless Greeks of the 1st century were incomprehensible to Greek writers of the 4th. See below as John Chrysostom's statement appears in context.

Discussion of John 8:58-59 is provided in GREEK by John Chrysostom ( Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος), c. 349 – 407,[5] Archbishop of Constantinople) in his 56th homily on the Gospel of John.

Chysostom was one of the first Christian writers that did commentaries line by line of the Scripture. Significantly he remained silent about the OT, and had nothing to say about Revelations. Nonetheless, he analyzed the Gospels and Epistles line by line, initiating a tradition that occupied many scholars since the Reformation, e.g., John Calvin and Albert Barnes (1798-1870) author of the Barnes Bible commentaries written in the US..

In John Chrysostom commentary on the Gospel of John, homily 56:

“Jesus says unto them, Before Abraham was, I Am. Then took they up stones to cast at Him.”

Do you see how He proved Himself to be greater than Abraham? For the man who rejoiced to see His day, and made this an object of earnest desire, plainly did so because it was a day that should be for a benefit, and belonging to one greater than himself. Because they had said, “The carpenter's son” Matthew 13:55, and imagined nothing more concerning Him, He leads them by degrees to an exalted notion of Him. Therefore when they heard the words, “You know not God,” they were not grieved; but when they heard, “before Abraham was, I Am,” as though the nobility of their descent were debased, they became furious, and would have stoned Him.

“He saw My day, and was glad.” He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His Passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the Cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at Him; so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without enquiry.

But wherefore said He not, “Before Abraham was, I was,” instead of “I Am”? As the Father uses this expression, “I Am,” so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?