Friday, 27 November 2015
On the Origin of Israel's sabbath law
In the course of advocating the retention of the weekly O.T Sabbath in Christian worship some of our Adventists friends/neighbours suggests that the the requirement to observe a weekly Sabbath preceded the mosaic law.While recognising the right of all such to to their opinion I hope to illustrate why many sincere bible students would have difficulty accepting such a view.
Let's begin by taking note of Jehovah's Word penned through Moses at Deuteronomy5:3,4ASV "Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Jehovah spake with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire(emphasis mine)"
These are the words of the prophet Moses,Jehovah's servant,prior to restating the decalogue( which included the weekly Sabbath law) as the basis for the nation's covenant with God almighty.Note please that this covenant and hence its legal basis was not laid upon the nation's ancestral patriarchs.In fact Moses goes on to specifically state that the Covenant and its accompanying legislature was only binding on those gathered in the flesh on that day and by implication any subsequent offspring.
The view of our lord is also of interest observe for instance his words at John7:19ASV" Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?"
To reinforce the point note verse 22,23ASV"Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?(emphasis mine)" Please note that our Lord takes utmost care to delineate between that which originated through Moses and that which originated through the Patriarchs prior to Moses,circumcision is of the "Fathers"the covenanted law including the weekly Sabbath is of Moses.Given the above mentioned facts the claim that the weekly O.T Sabbath is some kind of continuation of patriarchal law seems week to many.
Let's begin by taking note of Jehovah's Word penned through Moses at Deuteronomy5:3,4ASV "Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Jehovah spake with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire(emphasis mine)"
These are the words of the prophet Moses,Jehovah's servant,prior to restating the decalogue( which included the weekly Sabbath law) as the basis for the nation's covenant with God almighty.Note please that this covenant and hence its legal basis was not laid upon the nation's ancestral patriarchs.In fact Moses goes on to specifically state that the Covenant and its accompanying legislature was only binding on those gathered in the flesh on that day and by implication any subsequent offspring.
The view of our lord is also of interest observe for instance his words at John7:19ASV" Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?"
To reinforce the point note verse 22,23ASV"Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?(emphasis mine)" Please note that our Lord takes utmost care to delineate between that which originated through Moses and that which originated through the Patriarchs prior to Moses,circumcision is of the "Fathers"the covenanted law including the weekly Sabbath is of Moses.Given the above mentioned facts the claim that the weekly O.T Sabbath is some kind of continuation of patriarchal law seems week to many.
Jehovah God sends Darwinists back to school re:optimisation.
Backwards eye wiring? Lee Spetner comments
November 26, 2015 Posted by News under Design inference, Evolution
A friend must have been a really jumpin’ social event recently. Was buttonholed by a Darwin follower, just up from the crypt, who launched into the hoary old claim that the backwards eye wiring of vertebrates shows that the vertebrate eye is poorly designed—therefore not designed at all.
Now, of course, it is a non-sequitur to say that something that is poorly designed is not designed at all. Which is the followers’ point. Thus, it is unclear why they find eye wiring even an interesting argument, let alone a compelling one. No matter.
In any actual (rather than imaginary) situation, one can hope only for optimal, not “perfect” design. Perfection does not exist in time and space as Lee Spetner, author of The Evolution Revolution, kindly writes to say,
The retina of the eye is the screen on which the eye’s optical image is focused. Nerves (bundled in the optic nerve) convey the image information to the brain. One would think the nerves (neurons) should come off the back of the retina, the side opposite the one having the image. But in vertebrates they, surprisingly, come off the front where the image is formed. A naive observer would think this to be a poor arrangement because the neurons might interfere with the light falling on the retina. The Darwinists say, with their usual theological argument, that if it were designed by an omniscient Creator, it would surely have the nerve connections coming out of the back side of the retina. Since they come off the front side, against one’s expectation, Darwinists conclude there is no omniscient Creator and therefore evolution must be true. [11] …
With regard to the inverted retina, it has recently been discovered that, rather than being a dumb design, it is actually remarkably clever. The cleverness is not in the neurons on the image side of the retina, but in the glial cells, which always accompany neurons. The neurons are transparent and do not interfere with the passage of light, but the glial cells aid the process of vision by channeling the light. The glial cells of the retina are long and thin and propagate light as in an optical fiber (Franze et al. 2007), and have been called “ingeniously designed light collectors.” Amichai Labin and Ezra Ribak of the physics department of the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) have shown by simulation and calculation that the glial cells improve the optical resolution of the retina and compensate for chromatic aberration (Labin and Ribak 2010). Had the optic neurons come off the back side of the retina, these advantages would not have accrued.
[11] Of course, they have no precise idea of how evolution could have led to the development of the retina. Typical of their vague arguments, they don’t know what mutations would be necessary to generate the nerve network, or if it could be done at all through a sequence of adaptive mutations.
More on “backwards” eye wiring, if of interest:
2011: A New Article in Salvo Magazine Rebuts Objections that the Vertebrate Eye is Poorly Designed
Dawkins concedes that the optic nerve’s impact on vision is “probably not much,” but the negative effect is even less than he admits. Only if you cover one eye and stare directly at a fixed point does a tiny “blind spot” appear in your peripheral vision as a result of the optic nerve covering the retina. When both eyes are functional, the brain compensates for the blind spot by meshing the visual fields of both eyes. Under normal circumstances, the nerves’ wiring does nothing to hinder vision.
Nonetheless, Dawkins argues that even if the design works, it would “offend any tidy-minded engineer.” But the overall design of the eye actually optimizes visual acuity.
To achieve the high-quality vision that vertebrates need, retinal cells require a large blood supply. By facing the photoreceptor cells toward the back of the retina, and extending the optic nerve out over them, the cells are able to plug directly into the blood vessels that feed the eye, maximizing access to blood.
Yes, there’s that concept of optimization…
2014: Phys.org: Specialized Retinal Cells Are a “Design Feature,” Showing that the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye “Is Folly”
Now a new paper in Nature Communications, “Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,” has expanded upon this research, further showing the eye’s optimal design. According to the paper, Müller cells not only act as optical fibers to direct incoming light through the optic nerve, but are fine-tuned to specific wavelengths to ensure that light reaches the proper retinal cells.we know it.
November 26, 2015 Posted by News under Design inference, Evolution
A friend must have been a really jumpin’ social event recently. Was buttonholed by a Darwin follower, just up from the crypt, who launched into the hoary old claim that the backwards eye wiring of vertebrates shows that the vertebrate eye is poorly designed—therefore not designed at all.
Now, of course, it is a non-sequitur to say that something that is poorly designed is not designed at all. Which is the followers’ point. Thus, it is unclear why they find eye wiring even an interesting argument, let alone a compelling one. No matter.
In any actual (rather than imaginary) situation, one can hope only for optimal, not “perfect” design. Perfection does not exist in time and space as Lee Spetner, author of The Evolution Revolution, kindly writes to say,
The retina of the eye is the screen on which the eye’s optical image is focused. Nerves (bundled in the optic nerve) convey the image information to the brain. One would think the nerves (neurons) should come off the back of the retina, the side opposite the one having the image. But in vertebrates they, surprisingly, come off the front where the image is formed. A naive observer would think this to be a poor arrangement because the neurons might interfere with the light falling on the retina. The Darwinists say, with their usual theological argument, that if it were designed by an omniscient Creator, it would surely have the nerve connections coming out of the back side of the retina. Since they come off the front side, against one’s expectation, Darwinists conclude there is no omniscient Creator and therefore evolution must be true. [11] …
With regard to the inverted retina, it has recently been discovered that, rather than being a dumb design, it is actually remarkably clever. The cleverness is not in the neurons on the image side of the retina, but in the glial cells, which always accompany neurons. The neurons are transparent and do not interfere with the passage of light, but the glial cells aid the process of vision by channeling the light. The glial cells of the retina are long and thin and propagate light as in an optical fiber (Franze et al. 2007), and have been called “ingeniously designed light collectors.” Amichai Labin and Ezra Ribak of the physics department of the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) have shown by simulation and calculation that the glial cells improve the optical resolution of the retina and compensate for chromatic aberration (Labin and Ribak 2010). Had the optic neurons come off the back side of the retina, these advantages would not have accrued.
[11] Of course, they have no precise idea of how evolution could have led to the development of the retina. Typical of their vague arguments, they don’t know what mutations would be necessary to generate the nerve network, or if it could be done at all through a sequence of adaptive mutations.
More on “backwards” eye wiring, if of interest:
2011: A New Article in Salvo Magazine Rebuts Objections that the Vertebrate Eye is Poorly Designed
Dawkins concedes that the optic nerve’s impact on vision is “probably not much,” but the negative effect is even less than he admits. Only if you cover one eye and stare directly at a fixed point does a tiny “blind spot” appear in your peripheral vision as a result of the optic nerve covering the retina. When both eyes are functional, the brain compensates for the blind spot by meshing the visual fields of both eyes. Under normal circumstances, the nerves’ wiring does nothing to hinder vision.
Nonetheless, Dawkins argues that even if the design works, it would “offend any tidy-minded engineer.” But the overall design of the eye actually optimizes visual acuity.
To achieve the high-quality vision that vertebrates need, retinal cells require a large blood supply. By facing the photoreceptor cells toward the back of the retina, and extending the optic nerve out over them, the cells are able to plug directly into the blood vessels that feed the eye, maximizing access to blood.
Yes, there’s that concept of optimization…
2014: Phys.org: Specialized Retinal Cells Are a “Design Feature,” Showing that the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye “Is Folly”
Now a new paper in Nature Communications, “Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,” has expanded upon this research, further showing the eye’s optimal design. According to the paper, Müller cells not only act as optical fibers to direct incoming light through the optic nerve, but are fine-tuned to specific wavelengths to ensure that light reaches the proper retinal cells.we know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)