Posts by Leolaia

18

Yikes! Read This Geoengineering Article!

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2012/11/geoengineering-chemtrails-haarp-world.html#more.

i make no claim that this strange article is telling the truth...... but it does seem to tie together a whole lot of current fringe ideas in one neat package.

it's the wildest ride i've read in a long time (and i read a lot of weird stuff).. and you thought the election was scary!.

Leolaia

I can hear Marla Gibbs inside my head say, "Oh Lorrrrrd...."

15

If a scripture can be shown that Jehovah God "changes" his mind then are we to believe anything he says in the bible?

by booker-t in

i have always been taught that jehovah god never changes his mind and he always carries out what he predicts.

then a friend of mine who is atheist showed me a scripture in the bible that caught me totally off guard.

it is in the book of jeremiah.

Yeah, I think much of what is called "prophecy" might better be conceptualized as "warnings"; they are conditional and contingent on later events. But of course this gives a convenient "out" in case of disconfirmation.

You might also remember that when King Hezekiah was terminally ill, Isaiah prophesied that his death was imminent (2 Kings 20:1, Isaiah 38:1), but this was reversed after Hezekiah prayed to God and Yahweh added an additional 15 years to the king's life (2 Kings 20:4-11, Isaiah 38:4-8). A second example is the promise made by the prophetess Huldah to King Josiah, prophesying that he would live out his life and die peacefully (2 Kings 22:18-20, 2 Chronicles 34:26-28), but this changed when Josiah took a suicidal course in challenging the Egyptian army and he faced an early death (2 Kings 23:29-30). The OT is filled with examples like these.

15

If a scripture can be shown that Jehovah God "changes" his mind then are we to believe anything he says in the bible?

by booker-t in

i have always been taught that jehovah god never changes his mind and he always carries out what he predicts.

then a friend of mine who is atheist showed me a scripture in the bible that caught me totally off guard.

it is in the book of jeremiah.

Leolaia

Jeremiah was actually talking about the prophet Micah, and quoted Micah 3:12, 4:1 as a prophecy that failed to come true. Jeremiah did not regard Micah as a false prophet, and so the alternative was to say that Yahweh changed his mind. This gave context to Jeremiah's own prophecies. Jeremiah told the people that if they mended their ways, his own prophecies of doom were not set in stone. They could still redeem themselves from the destruction Jeremiah foretold.

23

Shunning supported by 2 Jo 9-10

by Splash in

(2 john 9,10) 9 everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the christ does not have god.

he that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the father and the son.

10 if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.. .

Leolaia

This pertains to a very specific social situation in the first century. Wandering teachers depended on the hospitality of their hosts for their livelihood. "Receive into your homes" means giving material support to someone the author regarded an antichrist (usually such itinerants stayed for a few days and moved on). Now read 3 John. The same author is complaining that someone is doing exactly what 2 John recommends, but to his own teachers. If you read the two epistles side by side, you can see that there was some sort of controversy at the time, with different factions shunning each other.

52

How credible is the dating of Daniel?

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

for example the hairy he-goat is very precise?

i have read some works on the subject but would like your input..

Leolaia

I respectively disagree, the context and language much better fits someone like Danel from Canaanite legend than a contemporary Jewish courtier in Babylon: (1) Noah and Job were figures from hoary antiquity (√ Danel, * Daniel), (2) Noah and Job were not Israelites (√ Danel, * Daniel), (3) Noah and Job were known for saving and/or losing their sons and daughters (√ Danel, * Daniel), (4) Ezekiel's Danel was someone known to the Phoenician king (a figure from Phoenician/Canaanite legend > a contemporary courtier in a foreign land), (5) Ezekiel spells the name "Danel" (√ Danel, * Daniel), etc. I just don't see any compelling reason to suspect any identity between Ezekiel's "Danel" and the main character of the book of Daniel. The contrary position is burdened by a host of suppositions that need to be held in order to favor it (e.g. Daniel really did exist, Daniel was internationally famous, Daniel was famous for saving or losing his sons and daughters, etc.). The identification with Danel is just much more satisfying and imo more probable. If someone mentioned a wise "Danel" to a Phoenician in a mythological context (ch. 28 draws on Phoencian and Canaanite mythological themes), wouldn't the Phoenician more naturally think of the famous wise Danel (who judged the cases of orphans and widows) who was already the subject of an epic poem?

Anyway, I don't see this as an argument that has relevance to the dating of Daniel.

17

The Introduction of Sin (concept)?

by Yan Bibiyan in

can you, awsome peoples, please help me with grasping when and how did sin get introduced in the picture?.

i am not talking adam/eve and the serpent thingy.. i am going way back, following the chain of events.. seems to me that the very original sin was satan's rebellion against god.. if so, how did satan get this idea in a first place, how was he even able to have the concept of disobedience.... .

thanks in advance to all contributors..

Leolaia

Adam/Eve sinned--> the serpent/satan deceived Eve--> satan must have known good from bad-->satan is the once perfect angel who rebelled against god--> in making the perfect angel(satan), god must have known or allowed for evil--> why was evil created or allowed for in a first place?

My point is, this is constructed through interpretation and goes beyond what Genesis actually says; there is no Satan, no notion of a perfect angel turning bad, etc. in the Eden narrative. The chain of events you give represents one line of biblical interpretation, drawing on some early intracanonical traditions in the Bible and building up a sequence. Early Judaism had a whole host of ideas on how evil started, some of which had nothing to do with the Eden narrative (e.g. the Enochic view of the origin of evil blames the Watchers who taught humankind how to sin and evil continues to arise through the efforts of the dead souls of the Nephilim, a.k.a. the evil spirits). And there are other scenarios, such as the Life of Adam and Eve (first century AD) which has Satan rebel because he refused to worship Adam as commanded by God.

The question is interesting nonetheless, it is one that inspired generations of exegetes to develop new ways of reading the text.

52

How credible is the dating of Daniel?

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

for example the hairy he-goat is very precise?

i have read some works on the subject but would like your input..

Leolaia

No, the literary evidence of Ezekiel shows it fits in well with the sixth century BC (with possibly later accretions).

Anyway, Leolaia, would not Ezekiel need to have been written after the 2nd century as well since it refers to Daniel and lists him among other ancient faithfuls?

He refers to a Danel (dn'l), not our Daniel (dny'l) per se. Why should such a figure be identified with Daniel? Isn't it odd for a contemporary to be listed with "other ancient faithfuls"? And how was Daniel noted for saving or losing his sons and daughters (as Noah and Job were)?

It is instead often noted that there was a Danel in Canaanite legend who fits the bill: The wise Danel, the father of Aqhat, whose only son was tragically murdered by the gods, who sent his daughter Pughat to smite her brother's smiter. The story is incomplete and it is unknown whether Aqhat was rescued from the underworld like Baal was.

Ezekiel makes reference to Danel when addressing the Phoenician king, so this is probably a person known to the Phoenicians. A figure from Canaanite legend thus fits quite well.

ETA: Just to point out one more thing...Even if the reference was to our Daniel (against the contextual evidence which shows that he wasn't referring to a contemporary), this doesn't mean that Ezekiel would have to be dated later than Maccabean times. Ezekiel refers to a person, not a book. There are many pseudepigraphal books attributed to older figures, like Enoch, Ezra, Baruch, etc. We also know that there are a wide array of Danielic material in the second century BC, going far beyond what is found in the canonical book of Daniel.

52

How credible is the dating of Daniel?

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

for example the hairy he-goat is very precise?

i have read some works on the subject but would like your input..

Leolaia

Most specialists in Second Temple Judaism (nearly all I have seen) agree that Daniel was completed in the second century BC. This is a definite consensus view in contemporary scholarship. Those who maintain a sixth century BC date are mainly evangelical/apologetic scholars whose hold to the inerrancy of Scripture from my experience...who are the textual scholars who maintain a sixth century date? One should also point out that the book is a probable composite (much like other apocalypses of the day, such as 1 Enoch), and the Aramaic portion is probably older than the Hebrew (which is more distinctly concerned with the Maccabean crisis). I am comfortable with a date in the third century BC for most of the Aramaic apocalypse (with some material going back to the Persian period), and a date in the 160s BC for the Hebrew apocalypse. I think there is also good evidence that a separate version of ch. 4-6 circulated in the third century BC.

It should be noted that the book itself points to a date in the second century BC when it was published. It claims that the book is to be unsealed in the "time of the end". The Maccabean crisis is depicted as leading directly into the promised kingdom of God. This is not an unsealing of understanding or some other mumbo-jumbo, but a literal unsealing of a secret book (as it is in Revelation 21-22, for John of Patmos was not supposed to seal up and hide his vision but make it available to others right away). This was an internal plot device, common to Second Temple pseudepigrapha, that explains why no one has seen this purportedly ancient prophecy before.

11

Jesus- an invention of the Roman Emperors

by designs in

here's one to critique.

the flavian family- vespasian, titus, domitian had the jesus character invented, which could account for the many errors on judaism in the gospels.

it was an answer to the jewish revolt in that it developed a pacifist group who relied on superstition- this is why the gospels appear after the jewish roman war.. flavius josephus= arrius calpurnius piso.

Leolaia

This was discussed in another thread a few months ago, from p. 4 to 10.

17

The Introduction of Sin (concept)?

by Yan Bibiyan in

can you, awsome peoples, please help me with grasping when and how did sin get introduced in the picture?.

i am not talking adam/eve and the serpent thingy.. i am going way back, following the chain of events.. seems to me that the very original sin was satan's rebellion against god.. if so, how did satan get this idea in a first place, how was he even able to have the concept of disobedience.... .

thanks in advance to all contributors..

Leolaia

Which chain of events?

There is no chain of events in the Bible. It has to be constructed through biblical interpretation. So different religious traditions have different scenarios and narrative constructions of "what really happened" behind the scenes.

So which religious tradition do you mean? Re JWs, I know Rutherford has a rather elaborate idea of how "Lucifer" became "Satan", which isn't taught anymore by JWs.