A nice (fictional) example of a folktale as a metaphorical vehicle for expressing philosophical insights:
Leolaia
JoinedPosts by Leolaia
-
15
Your Terrifying Lack of Imagination
by palmtree67 inhttp://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2012/07/31/your-terrifying-lack/.
the article: (i highlighted the part i found interesting.
i have perhaps identified the single most lethal problem facing modern culture.. it has landed upon me once again with an inglorious thump, despite how ive seen it many times previously and merely shrugged it off, ignored its extreme prevalence or merely denied that it was really all that toxic or detrimental to the current state of the world.. i was, i now chillingly confess, dead wrong.. the single most poisonous issue facing the modern world?
-
-
-
8
Inconsistency: Tower of Babel vs. space program
by tootired2care inseveral years back i remember listening to a public talk.
the title of the talk escapes me; but one of the points (albeit wierd) that was brought out, is that the part of the mytholgy behind the symbol of apollo was defiance of god.
he made this jump by linking apollo with ishtar (nimrods wife) wife somehow...he used this point in connection with the nasa space program to make the point, that the space exploration was a defiant action against god, as a modern day like nimrod account.
-
-
Leolaia
Average distance to the moon: 384,400,000 meters.
Height of the ziggurat at Babylon: 91 meters.
-
43
This site: Jehovah's Witnesses refute! Deals with apostate accusations
by Terry injehovah's witnesses refute!
nederlandse versie.
"the heart of the righteous one.
-
-
Leolaia
The article on 1925 and Beth Sarim is interesting. The author denies that Rutherford was a false prophet by saying that Rutherford did not claim to be inspired and that he did not write "in the name of Jehovah". At the same time, while the author appeals to the usual "brighter light" justification, he or she does recognize that what was taught about 1925 was a "false teaching": "The false doctrine around 1925 was indeed an ordeal for many people and not everybody was able to endure".
This sounds like a bit of cognitive dissonance. And the author has no idea the extent to which Rutherford was dogmatic and claimed in the Watchtower that 1925 and the other dates were of divine origin. Although Rutherford denied being a prophet, he specifically said that the dates were revealed by God through inspiration of his Holy Spirit.
"The year 1914 stands out today emblazoned on the escutcheon of history as a date that can no longer be questioned by anyone. And just so sure as we are here this afternoon you will see that another date will stand out just as prominently. And what date is that? I am not a prophet, but I reach this conclusion from a careful examination of the prophecies ... and that date if you please is nineteen hundred twenty-five.....To many of you it may sound presumptuous for me to announce with boldness, as we have done in this case, that millions of people now living on this earth will never die; but when you have heard the evidence and carefully considered it, I do not believe you will call me presumptuous" (15 April 1920 Watchtower, p. 127)
"When this subject was first announced, the British brethren, following their usual course of conservatism, stated it thus: 'Millions Now Living May [italics theirs] Never Die'. But now you can hear every one of them say: 'Millions Now Living Will [italics theirs] Never Die'. Suppose we should be wrong in the chronology and that the kingdom will not be fully set up in 1925. Suppose that we were ten years off, and that it would be 1935 before restitution blessings began. Without a doubt there are now millions of people on the earth who will be living fifteen years from now; and we could with equal confidence say that 'Millions Now Living Will Never Die'. Whether it be 1925 or 1935, restitution blessings must soon begin, as shown from all the evidence; and when that time comes, all who respond obediently to the new arrangement shall be blessed with life, liberty, and happiness" (15 October 1920 Watchtower, pp. 310).
"We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925....The apostle James assures us that 'if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that give to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.' We believe that promise and daily petition for heavenly wisdom and grace to be guided aright. We also believe that the prayers of the saints ascend daily to the throne of the heavenly grace for divine guidence as to what shall appear in THE WATCH TOWER, and we are very appreciative of that fact....It is on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure...There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914. The fact that all the things that some looked for in 1914 did not materialize does not alter the chronology one whit. Noting the date marked so prominently, it is very easy for the finite mind to conclude that all the work to be done must center about it, and thus many are inclined to anticipate more than has been really foretold. Thus it was in 1844, in 1874, in 1878 as well as in 1914 and 1918. Looking back we can now easily see that those dates were clearly indicated in Scripture and doubtless intended by the Lord to encourage his people, as they did, as well as to be a means of testing and sifting when all that some expected did not come to pass. That all that some expect to see in 1925may not transpire that year will not alter the date one whit more than in the other cases....The results following the dates of 1918 and 1921 indicate more and more distinctly that they were turning-points or mile-stones on the chronological highway, and clearly foreknown and foretold by the Designer of the Divine Plan of the Ages....This is the time of God's vengeance against Satan's empire, visible and invisible. He has caused to be written and published the truth concerning Satan's empire. He has placed this at the disposal of the truly consecrated and invited them to particpate in witnessing to the world against Satan's empire, both visible and invisible. Therefore the opportunity has come to all of the consecrated to do something toward making known this message, particularly that which is contained in the literture put forth by the Society. But some ask, Why continue to use the subject "Millions Now Living Will Never Die"? Why not preach about something else? The reason is this: The Lord himself set forth the evidence that would be apparent at the end of the world....The time for the deliverance of the world of mankind is at hand; hence millions now living who will obey the Lord will not die." (15 May 1922 Watchtower, p. 147-150, 154).
"There is a well known law in mathematics called the 'law of probabilities'. Applications of this law are frequent in everyday life in settling matters of doubt. In a family of children, if a certain kind of mischief is committed, the probabilities — indeed the certainty — are that it was done by a certain one, and that the others assuredly did not do it. If some peculiar damage is done by night to a single house, then by the law of probabilities it may have been a pure accident; if done to two houses in the same manner it probably was not accidental but by design of some person; but if done three or more houses in the same manner it passes out of the possibility of accident into the certainty [italics theirs] of design. The chronology of present truth might be a mere happening if it were not for the repetitions in the two great cycles of 1845 and 2520 years, which take it out of the realm of chance and into that of certainty. If there were only one or two corresponding dates in these cycles, they might possibly be mere concidences, but where the agreements of dates and events come by the dozens, they cannot possibly be by chance, but must be by the design or plan of the only personal Being capable of such a plan -- Jehovah himself; and the chronology itself must be right [italics theirs]. In the passages of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh the agreement of one or two measurements with the present truth chronology might be accidental, but the correspondence of dozens of measurements proves that the same God designed both pyramid and plan — and at the same time proves the correctness of the chronology. The agreement of the chronology with certain measurements of the Tabernacle and the Temple of Ezekiel further stamps the chronology as true. It is on the basis of such and so many correspondencies — in accordance with the soundest laws known to science -- that we affirm that, Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt [italics theirs]. Its reliability has been abundantly confirmed by the dates and events of 1874, 1914, and 1918. Present-truth chronology is a secure basis on which the consecreated child of God may endeavor to search out things to come....It is not necessary to show how if a change of 19 years were made in the chronology the time from Jacob to Jesus would be shortened from 1845 to 1826 years, and the entire system of dates based on the 'Jewish parallels' would collapse; how the jubilee system dates would fall out of place from its present symmetry; how the 2520-year parallels would disappear; how the entire system of dates would be scattered; how there could be no foundation for faith in the resulting chronological jumble; and how there could be no sound reason for believing in the presence of the Lord, the place and work of Pastor Russell, the end of the age, the harvest work, or in any of the literature published by the Society....Present-truth chronology is correct beyond the possibility of a doubt. Present-truth chronology is based upon divine prophecy and its Biblical fulfillment....The chronology stands firm as a rock, based upon the Word of God" (15 June 1922 Watchtower, p. 187)
"There exists, however, well established relationships among the dates of present-truth chronology. These internal connections of the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct....In the chronology of present truth there are so many inter-relationships among the dates that it is not a mere string of dates, not a chain, but a cable of strands firmly knit together -- a divinely unified system, with most of the dates having such remarkable relations with others as to stamp the system as not of human origin.... Man invents man-made things but discovers divine-created principles. Present-truth chronology is not an invention; it is a discovery....It will be clearly shown that present-truth chronology displays indisputable evidence of divine foreknowledge of the principle dates, and that this is proof of divine origin but a discovery of divine truth....Without these relations the chronology would not differ from secular systems but with them we believe that it bears the stamp of approval of Almighty God....These appointed times and seasons are in the power of Jehovah alone. They may not be ascertained, known or recognized, even after they have been fulfilled, without divine guidance and the unction of the holy spirit of God. Of this the Word of God says: "He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: he revealeth the deep and secret things'; and, 'It is not for you [now] to know [all] the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power [to know] after the Holy Spirit is come upon you'; .... Therefore it would be impossible for a natural man, or even a spirit being, be he an angel or a devil, to know in advance all the appointed times which the Father has kept secret from all except his begotten and anointed children....Especially would it be beyond the bounds of possibility for the evil one to discern in advance the dates, ages, and marvelous connecting links of the true chronology; for these, when disclosed by God, are to be known first only by the true church,to whom God has given his spirit (Ephesians 3:10; Revelation 1:4). The demons occasionally may make shrewd guesses as to events to come within a brief future; but it is entirely beyond their power to see such matters far in advance, except as distinctly revealed by God through the church....If in a system of chronology there can be shown to have been a foreknowledge of coming events and seasons, it must be conceded to have been of divine origin. This can be shown to be true of present-truth chronology alone, which stamps it as of heavenly origin. In the true chronology the many connecting strands are proof of the fact that God foreknew the dates and the events so interwoven with one another....It would be absurd to claim that the relationship discovered was not the result of divine arrangement. God alone has such foreknowledge, and this proves that he so overruled times and events that they should be knit together into a beautiful and harmonius whole too sublime to be the result of chance or of human invention....Those that follow Jehovah's chronology are manifestly his people" (15 July 1922 Watchtower, pp. 217-219)
"There has been some attempt here on the part of one brother to disturb the friends, especially on the question of chronology and the work of the Society....All Europe is like a boiling pot, with the intensity of the heat ever increasing. If anyone who has studied the Bible can travel through Europe and not be convinced that the world has ended, that the day of God's vengeance is here, that the Messianic kingdom is at the door, then he has read the Bible in vain. The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile times; and as the Lord foretold, the old order is being destroyed by war, famine, pestilence, and revolution. The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel. Viewing the present situation in Europe, one wonders how it will be possible to hold back the explosion much longer; and that even before 1925 the great crisis will be reached and probably passed" (1 September 1922 Watchtower, p. 260-262).Then after 1925 much of the chronology (including that used for reckoning 1925), what supposedly was of divine origin and revealed by the unction of the Holy Spirit, was eventually junked unceremoniously.
-
43
This site: Jehovah's Witnesses refute! Deals with apostate accusations
by Terry injehovah's witnesses refute!
nederlandse versie.
"the heart of the righteous one.
-
-
Leolaia
I think this person is an apostate in the making. He or she is thinking about the issues they've read on websites like this one. The immediate reaction is denial. And there is some outright denial. But it looks like the author is trying to think about some of these matters and is trying to deal with them personally. I kind of went through a similar process. Originally in high school I was a pro-JW apologist and tried to disprove things when I heard about it. I went through a process of initially thinking the claims were ridiculous on their face, to being troubled by them and recognizing genuine problems, and then finally realizing that things were not what I initially thought. I wonder if this person is going through something similar.
-
2
More SALTER & Rutherford
by clarity infor those of us who were not around in the early years of the wtower.. .
wow, the crap that went on!
a hey day for evangelico/doomsday cults!.
-
-
Leolaia
And Clayton Woodworth's response to Salter did not deny what Salter said about Rutherford's drinking but justified it. Rutherford had much chronic pain from a spinal condition so drinking helped him cope with the pain.
-
-
-
Leolaia
Hi Etude.
I once asked an archaeologist I served on jury duty with how accurate C14 dating was....Her answer was: "I'm sure they calibrate that somehow." Well needless to say, that was not a very satisfying answer.
Individual archaeologists may not necessarily be familiar with the particulars of radiocarbon dating. The discipline is very diverse and filled with specialists who are experts in their own fields. Archaeometry is itself a subspecialty and the 14C analysis is carried out in designated laboratories.
I mentioned my concern about how the carbon got into the specimen in the first place, especially in formerly living organisms (not just layers of rock). I asked how we were able to determine if the C14 being measured was the C14 absorbed while the tree was alive or if the C14 seeped into the tree years later after it fell and was inundated with water and C14-laden air or was deposited along with other minerals in some dinosaur bone before either was petrified.
My understanding is that 14C enters into organic tissue through metabolic processes, first in phototrophic organisms and then secondarily through the food chain. The exchange of 14C occurs throughout an organism's life until metabolism ceases, at which point absorption stops. In general there is no statistically significant uptake after death through simple exposure to background radiation since 14C in background radiation is several orders of magnitude lower than the levels it is found in living tissue; organic processes concentrate radioactive isotopes in tissue at levels far higher than what exists in the environment (which is why there is a higher risk of long-term radiation poisoning from eating food grown and raised in places contaminated with radiation). In samples older than 57,000 years, only a tenth of one percent of the original amount of C14 remains in organic matter, which approaches the levels found in background radiation. So for the vast majority of samples, such as wood or plant remains within the past five thousand years, exposure to background radiation has no statistically significant effect on 14C levels in organic materials. The main exception to this are samples contaminated either by more recent organic matter or those buried in "14C-producing environments" where higher levels of 14C (higher than normal background radiation) occur naturally through geological processes. Contamination is minimized through careful selection of samples (as potential for contamination can be recognized from the archaeological or geological context), cleaning of samples at the laboratory, and the identification of outliers through sample replication from multiple sample points, cross-dating, and calibration, among other things. The high level of consistency of radiocarbon dating makes the identification of outliers rather trivial in many cases. For instance, here are some real uncal BP dates from Akhenaten's reign (ca. 1353–1336 BC) via samples obtained from Tell el-Amarna....can you find the outlier??
uncal BP dates for Akhenaten: 3051±27 BP, 3064±28 BP, 3082±29 BP, 2862±26 BP, 3096±38 BP, 3092±27 BP, 3094±37 BP, 3070±37 BP
Everything here except for 2862±26 BP agrees within a narrow range, between 3051 and 3096, which is remarkable considering that Akhenaten had a 17-year reign. Note also that the outlier is much younger than the other ages. Contamination with newer organic material would usually not produce older ages (which is what anti-science denialists wish to explain away through contamination), but rather make samples seem too young. Then the other samples can be averaged together to produce a more accurate uncalibrated date. But even going by the date at the middle of this range (3082±29 BP), we can see that the date gives us almost exactly the right age when calibrated: 1361±38 calBP (using the 2007 CalPal calibration curve). The outlier date gives a calibrated age (1041±43 calBP) that is completely impossible with our knowledge of Egyptian history and which also goes against the very consistent pattern of radiocarbon dates not just for Akhenaten but for the whole sequence of the New Kingdom. That's the key point here. Contamination is haphazard and willy-nilly; it produces outliers, not beautifully patterned, consistent chronologies that correspond closely to other independently derived sequences. Appealing to contamination as an attempt to discredit the whole science of radiocarbon dating (which is what is done in creationist pseudoscience) is to lose the forest for the trees.
The only thing that is for sure about C14 is that it has a specific rate of decay or half life.
This is not true at all. Read the article I linked above. Calibration has made radiocarbon dating into a much more finely tuned tool, and one that continues to improve as datasets grow. It isn't simply a matter of half lives and hasn't been since the early 1970s.
What I've gathered from the discussion so far is that, while C14 dating is not meant to be completely accurate (given the percentage variances in the way it's calibrated) and serves only as a ballpark marker
Of course it's not "completely accurate" (what is?), but it is astonishingly accurate when properly conducted. Coupled with Bayesian statistical modelings, its even been used recently to generate approximate dates for the pharaohs of the third and second millennium BC: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5985/1554.full.pdf. But my point in ninja's other thread is despite the small expected range of error, it is impossible to move around Egyptian chronology on the order of many hundreds of years which lacks justification and which would disrupt the interlocking consistency between independent lines of evidence.
we do make assumptions about how it's calibrated (that the C14 absorbed must have been constant or at least the same as in other sites tested; that the sample tested is uniform compared to the rest of the object being tested; that the percentage variance in different objects tested or the average of different readings is preferable than a single reading that can be accurately established. (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)
I notice that article was from 1990. And the article primarily discussed samples on the order of 9,000, 20,000, 30,000 years old, where the error range is quite large, a very different situation than that concerning samples from the second millennium BC. And in the twenty years since that article was published, methods have continued to improve even for handling very old specimens: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100211111549.htm.
I'm not saying that we (especially scientists) don't have the leniency to make those assumptions. However, if we do, we need to be willing to concede that the reading is less than 100% accurate (even if it's just close enough)
No scientist has ever claimed that radiocarbon dating is 100% accurate. The real issue here is with those who claim that it is so unreliable that all dates (even those from samples within the last 5,000 years) are off by many hundreds or even thousands of years (as required by Young Earth Creationism, which holds that human civilization and the earth is no older than 6,000 years).
Leolaia, I think your citation of ninja_matty69's reference to the global flood might be a bit misplaced. The key word is "IF". I hope ninja_matty69 is not asserting to the Biblical flood as an actual occurrence
No, the source that ninja was quoting was most certainly a Young Earth Creationist interested in discrediting science that indicates that humans were on earth longer than 6,000 years and that existing monuments are older than the biblical date for the Flood. "If" is rhetorical. Think about it....why else would a mythological story be used in a discussion about problems in radiometric dating?
And no, what the person said has no relevance to small local floods. The arguments depend on global conditions governing 14C availability. Hence, a global Flood.
The point is that if there was a significant "cloud cover" in our atmosphere (something that is also scientifically suggested at different times in our geological history), the C14 rate would have been different and would have affected samples greatly and the flooding might well have contaminated a lot of specimens.
Biblically-derived notions like a cloud canopy covering the antediluvian planet and a global Flood were not scientifically credible to begin with, but now there is now such a wealth of information on palaeoclimatology thanks to dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, etc. that scientists have a very accurate knowledge of what the climate of the earth was like at various times in the past.
One recent investigation depicts Israel as an "intellectual construct". It also points to other "cigarette-sized" scrolls found (beside the Dead Sea scrolls), which indicate sufficient differences in "old testament" accounts to signal the lore and poetic origins of the Old Testament. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html)
That's the Ketef Hinnom amulets containing the Priestly Benediction. They were not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls but in a pre-exilic cemetary in the Hinnom Valley. I am not aware of substantial differences between the text of the Priestly Benediction in the amulets and what is in the OT. But even if they are, the amulets quote what was then oral liturgy and not necessarily a biblical text.
-
50
If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus?
by I_love_Jeff inif the book of enoch (elaborates and gives mention to 6 more archangels) suddenly became part of the bible due to solid evidence, how would this effect the shakey jw doctrine of michael the archangel as being jesus?
there are six other archangels mentioned in this book; could it be possible, if included in the jw bible, that one of the other archangels could be jesus?
would they excuse it somehow and simply stick with their implicit understanding of jesus=michael?.
-
-
Leolaia
The fact that parts of the Enoch book was written at different times, wouldn't that alone invalidate the authenticity of the book?
That would pretty much invalidate the authenticity of most of the Bible, if we hold it to the same standard; it is filled with redactions and additions. But of course it is not held to the same standard. 1 Enoch actually gives a very nice parallel to Isaiah as a rolling corpus accumulating accretions (such as the Isaian Apocalypse, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah). Authenticity in religious tradition does not draw on insights from critical scholarship; it is based more on the value placed on the content of the book by the community. It is the same thing with prophecy; it doesn't matter if the prophecy doesn't come true. If it has the right religious message, as judged by later readers, then its failures can be readily interpreted away.
-
5
In the "Book of Enoch", is the word archangels (the Watchers) correctly interpreted as such from the ancient aramaic language?
by I_love_Jeff inin the "book of enoch", the archangels are also known as "the watchers".
what is the ancient aramaic word for archangels in the "book of enoch"?
is it correctly interpreted to mean archangels or "the watchers"?
-
-
Leolaia
Wikipedia has an interesting article that brings up this connection and suggests that the Watchers and Archangels are not the same.
I'm not sure quite what you mean here since it states that "Aramaic iri ("watcher" singular) is also applied to the obedient archangels who chain them, such as Raphael". What makes it a little confusing is that the book also uses the term "watchers" unqualified to refer to the disobedient angels. Maybe qualification with "holy" distinguishes the good angels from the bad.
I would critique the article for dating the Book of Watchers to the "2nd-1st Century BCE". This date is much too late. The authoritative commentary by Nickelsburg states that "the book was a whole was completed by the middle of the third century B.C.E." (p. 7). 4QEn a , for instance, dates "to the first half of the second century B.C.E. but ... aspects of its orthography and the confusion of letters may indicate that it was copied from a MS. dating from the third century at least" (p. 9). So the phrase "watchers and holy ones" in the Book of Watchers is probably not a reference to the Aramaic apocalypse of Daniel as claimed by the article; most likely the Danielic text was either contemporaneous or later than the Enochic work.
-
5
In the "Book of Enoch", is the word archangels (the Watchers) correctly interpreted as such from the ancient aramaic language?
by I_love_Jeff inin the "book of enoch", the archangels are also known as "the watchers".
what is the ancient aramaic word for archangels in the "book of enoch"?
is it correctly interpreted to mean archangels or "the watchers"?
-
-
Leolaia
1 Enoch was written in originally in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek in the first century BC. Arkhaggelos is a Greek word, not an Aramaic word....I think the earliest instance of the word in fact is in the Greek translation of the book. Here are the two passages containing the word:
"And on hearing this, the four great archangels (hoi tessares megaloi arkhaggeloi) Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from the sanctuary of heaven upon the earth and saw much bloodshed upon the earth. All the earth was filled with the godlessness and violence that was done on it. And entering in, they said to one another, 'The spirits of men grown, making petition saying, "Bring in our judgment to the Most High" '. And approaching, the four archangels (hoi tessares arkhaggeloi) said to the Lord, 'You are the God of gods and Lord of lord and King of kings and God of men' " (1 Enoch 9:1-4).
"These are the names of the holy angels of the powers: Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is in charge of the world and Tartarus, Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is in charge of the spirits of men, Raguel, one of the holy angels, who pursues the world of the luminaries, Michael, one of the holy angels, who has been put in charge of the good ones of the people and over chaos, Sariel, one of the holy angels, who is in charge of the spirits who sin against the spirit, Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is in charge of Paradise and the serpents and the cherubim, and Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God has put in charge of those who will rise. These are the seven names of the archangels (arkhaggelòn onomata hepta)" (1 Enoch 20:1-8).
It is difficult to tell whether the three instances of arkhaggeloi here have Aramaic equivalents in the original because the relevant manuscripts have lacunae in all three places. The lacunae in 9:1 and 20:8 however are too short to likely have had an Aramaic equivalents of the phrase. The second instance in 9:4 is debatable, depending on whether two angels were named (Raphael and Michael) or four; there would be space if only two were named. Most likely arkhaggelos, a Greek neologism, was incorporated into the text when the book was translated into Greek.
This word however may well render an Aramaic expression. Milik, the original editor of the Qumran fragments, believed it occurred in the original text and thought it translated the Aramaic `yry' rbrby' w-qdshy' "chief watchers and holy ones". Compare the description of Raphael in 1 Enoch 22:6 as "watcher and holy one (`yr' w-qdysh')" (4QEn e 2 2:5). There is actually a very close parallel to this in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen). In one fragment we read: "In a vision I saw, was shown, and informed of the deed of the sons of heaven and how all [...] ... and I hid this mystery in my heart and did not make it known to anyone. [...] ... to me by a great watcher (`yr' rb'), to me by a messenger, by an emissary of the Holy One" (1QapGen 6:13). Milik's reconstruction also has the support of Daniel. In the Aramaic portion, `yryn "watchers" is the word for angels (Daniel 4:12) and a hendiadys expression similar to 1 Enoch 22:6 occurs in v. 10 where one of the angels is referred to as a "watcher and holy one" (`yr w-qdysh). In the Hebrew portion, shrym "princes" is the word for angels and Michael is once called "the great prince" (h-shr h-gdwl) in 12:1 and once called "one of the chief princes" ('chd h-shrym h-rshnym) in 10:13. The first expression is reminiscent of `yr' rb' from 1QapGen and the second is reminiscent of `yry' rbrby'. "Chief prince" in Daniel 10:13 is the obvious precursor to the Greek arkhaggelos.
Incidentally, it is noteworthy that the description of Michael in Daniel 12:1 as "the great prince who protects your people" corresponds closely to what is said about Michael in 1 Enoch 20:5: "Michael, one of the holy angels, who is in charge of the good ones of the people". It should be noted that the Enochic statement is older than the Danielic one (the Book of Watchers dating to the third century BC whereas the Hebrew apocalypse of Daniel dates to c. 164 BC). Also Michael is mentioned in 1 Enoch 24:6 as the "one of the holy angels" and the "leader" of the holy angels; so while he is the member of a group of archangels in ch. 20 (Greek), he is the leading member of that group. The group of fallen angels offers a close parallel. In ch. 6, Shemihazah is described as "their leader" (r'shyn) in v. 3, 7 (cf. rshnym in Daniel 10:13), and then the other angels named are subject to each other in rank, while each were also leaders (arkhai in Greek, rbny in Aramaic) themselves over other angels (v. 7).
I don't see the point in doing a Yahoo Answers question, personally.
-
8
How did the jews know if a man was damaged ?
by mP in.
deuteronomy 23:1he that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the lord.. .
how exactly did they know if one "stone" was damaged ?
-
-
Leolaia
It's not like they had bathroom stalls back then.
Well there is the idiom in 1 Samuel 25:22, 34, 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8, males who "piss against the wall" (maštîn b e qîr). Since the idiom was used to refer to males who were subjected to death and mayhem (the expression is mainly used in curse formulas), Mark Twain responded with the witticism: "A person could piss against a tree, he could piss on his mother, he could piss on his own breeches and get off, but he must not piss against the wall — that would be going quite too far". The meaning of the expression is obscure. Does it refer to males in general, and allude to a general practice of men urinating against walls — and if so, privately or in public? Or is it just a derogatory metaphor comparing men who are destined to slaughter to dogs (who may or may not urinate against walls). Or does it refer to more specific class of men? It seems to only be applied to men from a royal house, or those well-to-do. One suggestion is that the idiom "pertains to a male of the royal house who is privileged to relieve himself in the privacy of an upper room set aside for the exclusive use of members of the ruling house" (Talmon and Fields in ZATW, 1989). This is because the word usually translated "wall" here may have the meaning of "room" (as in Joshua 2:15, which refers to an upper room) and upper rooms were noted for their privacy (it is where Rahab hid the spies and where David mourned Absalom), and it is where Eglon was relieving himself in the comical account in Judges 3:24.
Anyway, thanks to the idiom, we are blessed to have sermons rants such as the following to enjoy: