Some have noted, though, that this may differ from the date when Jews hold their Passover. Why?
21 The Hebrew day ran from sunset (about six o’clock) to the next sunset. God commanded that the Passover lamb be killed on Nisan 14 “between the two evenings.” (Exodus 12:6) When would that be? Modern Jews cling to the rabbinical view that the lamb was to be slaughtered near the end of Nisan 14, between the time when the sun began to descend (about three o’clock) and the actual sunset. As a result, they hold their Seder after sundown, when Nisan 15 has begun.—Mark 1:32.
22 We have good reason, however, to understand the expression differently. Deuteronomy 16:6 clearly told the Israelites to “slaughter the passover sacrifice, in the evening, at sundown.” (Jewish Tanakh version) This indicates that “between the two evenings” referred to the twilight period, from sunset (which begins Nisan 14) to actual darkness. The ancient Karaite Jewsb understood it this way, as do Samaritansc down to today. Our accepting that the Passover lamb was sacrificed and eaten “at its appointed time” on Nisan 14, not on Nisan 15, is one reason why our Memorial date sometimes differs from the Jewish date.—Numbers 9:2-5.
23 Another reason why our date may differ from that of the Jews is that they employ a predetermined calendar, which system was not fixed until the fourth century C.E. Using this, they can set dates for Nisan 1 or for festivals decades or centuries beforehand. Moreover, the ancient lunar calendar needed to have a 13th month added occasionally so that the calendar would synchronize with the seasons. The current Jewish calendar adds this month at fixed points; in a 19-year cycle, it is added to years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19.
24 However, Emil Schürer says that “at the time of Jesus [the Jews] still had no fixed calendar, but on the basis of purely empirical observation, began each new month with the appearance of the new moon, and similarly on the basis of observation” added a month as needed. “If . . . it was noticed towards the end of the year that Passover would fall before the vernal equinox [about March 21], the intercalation of a month before Nisan was decreed.” (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Volume 1) The extra month thus comes in naturally, not being added arbitrarily.
Thursday, 7 March 2024
Why the difference between our Nisan 14 and Judaism's Nisan 14?
Time to end the quest for engineerless engineering?
Time to end the quedt Engineering Innovation from Cuttlefish
Editor’s note: We are delighted to welcome Daniel Witt as a new contributor. In case you are curious about the background in his author photo, it was taken in a pyramid in Sudan, at Meroë.
Last month, Cambridge University’s science magazine, Bluesci, announced that researchers have developed a new camera based on cuttlefish eyes. Cuttlefish have unusual W-shaped pupils that allow them to see well in both dim and bright conditions as they navigate in deeper or shallower waters. The researchers successfully reverse-engineered the cuttlefish’s eye structure to create a camera that works better in conditions of highly variable luminosity.
Cuttlefish are extraordinary creatures, and this is not the first time engineers have learned from them. In 2013, the Washington Post reported that the Office of Naval Research was funding a project to mimic the cuttlefish’s color-changing skin, with potential application in submarine camouflage technology. In 2009, NBC reported that MIT scientists had studied cuttlefish skin to design a TV screen that used less than 1 percent of the power that other screens at the time used. The reverse-engineering opportunities just keep coming.
Usually, “reverse-engineering” implies that … well, engineering took place beforehand; design, in other words. And, as it happens, the news from Cambridge explicitly refers to cuttlefish eyes as “finely-designed.”
It was probably a slip-up. No doubt the writer would defend this as a mere convention of speech — I doubt that he was trying to imply that actual design took place in the creation of cuttlefish eyes. But isn’t it interesting that it’s so difficult to talk about these things without invoking the language of design?
Caught in the Weeds
Maybe it doesn’t seem so interesting. But that’s only because we’re so used to this reality. It can be easy to get caught in the weeds in the debate over whether Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain life, and forget the reason the debate is going on in the first place. The debate only exists because these implausibly intricate engineering marvels exist. It did not have to be so. The universe could have been otherwise. It was never a given that when scientists looked deeper into life, they would find such exquisite designs; but they did.
As we gain the ability to look deeper and deeper into the inner workings of life, we seem to be entering a new renaissance of collaboration between biologists and engineers. Physicist Brian Miller recently noted this trend in the developing field of systems biology:
[W]hen you look at the design conversation, who controls it? It’s people who don’t have the expertise to really address it. They’re not engineers. They’ve been trained to see the world through this materialist grid, so they assume on faith that there’s no evidence of design, and then they find various reasons to justify that belief. In contrast, what you’re seeing in biology is really a revolution that’s at its early stages, because engineers are working more and more with biologists, and what you’re seeing is, when they do that they use design language, they use design assumptions.
An Engineering Marvel
As we all know, the prevailing theory insists that this appearance of design is mere illusion. But when engineers team up with biologists to learn how to copy the mechanisms of life, they aren’t thinking about that. Whether a cuttlefish eye is designed, or merely in every way appears to be designed, is irrelevant. The point is that it is an engineering marvel, and engineers can learn from it.
This fact is important, not because it is in-and-of-itself proof of design, but because it tells us something practical about the competing theories and their respective productivity.
Proponents of the neo-Darwinian model are fond of asserting that the naysaying arguments of ID-supporters (regarding irreducible complexity, non-traversable fitness landscapes, the probabilistic inability of Darwinian mechanisms to make meaningful changes to life within the lifespan of earth, lack of any confirmed observation of constructive mutations, etc.) make little difference to the actual research underway in biology. That is to say: Life only makes sense “in the light of evolution,” and the critics of that framework are just flies buzzing in the background.
A Verbal Gloss
The truth is something close to the opposite. Assumptions of macroevolution almost never have any practical bearing on research in biology. Darwinian evolution is invoked as a verbal gloss, not as a vital presupposition. Chemist and National Academy of Sciences member Philip S. Skell famously asked 70 distinguished researchers whether they would have done their work differently if they had believed Darwin’s theory was false. They all answered no.
Dr. Skell isn’t the only one to point this out; it’s the reality of the field. An assumption of design, by contrast, is quite often an essential foundation to successful research projects in biology — whether the design language is expurgated from the final presentation or not.
Biologists will continue to debate whether this design is real or only apparent. But in the meanwhile, intelligent design-based research will keep moving forward, untroubled by those debates — as it always has.
Zechariah Chapter 7 American Standard Version.
7.1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of JEHOVAH came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chislev.
2 Now they of Beth-el had sent Sharezer and Regem-melech, and their men, to entreat the favor of JEHOVAH, 3 and to speak unto the priests of the house of JEHOVAH of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?
4 Then came the word of JEHOVAH of hosts unto me, saying, 5 Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?
6 And when ye eat, and when ye drink, do not ye eat for yourselves, and drink for yourselves?
7 Should ye not hear the words which JEHOVAH cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, and the South and the lowland were inhabited?
8 And the word of JEHOVAH came unto Zechariah, saying, 9 Thus hath Jehovah of hosts spoken, saying, Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother; 10 and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the sojourner, nor the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart.
11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they might not hear.
12 Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which JEHOVAH of hosts had sent by his Spirit by the former prophets: therefore there came great wrath from JEHOVAH of hosts.
13 And it is come to pass that, as he cried, and they would not hear, so they shall cry, and I will not hear, said JEHOVAH of hosts; 14 but I will scatter them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they have not known. Thus the land was desolate after them, so that no man passed through nor returned: for they laid the pleasant land desolate.
Acts 20:28 demystified.
Acts 20:28
Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer this translation of Acts 20:28 - "... to shepherd ["feed" in some translations] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - NASB. This certainly seems to be excellent evidence for a "Jesus is God" doctrine.
But there are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!
First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV; Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.
Yes, even the popular trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also: "to feed the church of the Lord"!
And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord.'"
Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed.; NRSV; NJB; (also see TEV and GNB).
The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.
Famous trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:
"something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11, 13:1; Ac 4:23, 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations .... In Expos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 `the blood of one who was his own.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.
And for the above reason noted trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:
"... the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One."
Highly respected trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:
"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.
And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, tells us:
"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."
Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.
Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that "some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481. Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.
Note the the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:
"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.
"If however, one follows many English versions in construing [IDIOS] adjectivally ('through his own blood'), [HO THEOS] could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to 'the blood of God,' although on this construction of [IDIOS] it is more probable that [THEOS] is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of [PERIEPOIHSATO] is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that Acts 20:28 [HO THEOS] denotes Jesus." - p. 141, Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Baker Book House, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1992.
Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept.
Posted by Elijah Daniels
Isaiah6:3 demystified.
Isa. 6:3 "Holy, Holy, Holy"
Some trinitarians have claimed that this invocation of three "Holy"s for the one Jehovah must indicate the "three-in-oneness" of Him.
But trinitarian Dr. Young tells us: "The repetition of a word denotes the superlative degree, e.g. ... Isa 6:3." - Young's Analytical Concordance, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation," #18, Eerdmans, 1978 printing. (Examine Jer. 22:29 and Ezek. 21:27. How would the trinitarian 'proof' method work in these scriptures?)
Even if we chose to ignore such explanations of triple-stated words (as the footnote for Is. 6:3 in the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed.) that this is done for emphasis, we certainly wouldn't, I hope, insist that anyone (like Daffy Duck finding a treasure cavern) who said "Mine! Mine! Mine!" is really proclaiming his own 3-in-one triunity!
If we're really going to play such a silly game, let's look at Matt. 7:22 and Matt. 25:11: Jesus is addressed as "Lord, Lord"! We see, then, that either the "Godhead" is composed of only two persons (a "binity") or, more "likely," the Messiah is composed of two persons (David and Jesus, judging from many other scriptures – see `Quadrinity' study paper.
In the same vein we see at Matt. 23:7 (King James Version; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young's; Darby; Webster; Revised Webster; and other Bible translations based on the Received Text) that the Pharisees wanted to be called "Rabbi, Rabbi"! It is beyond the bounds of credibility that these individuals were teaching that they were part of a 2-in-one "Rabbinity"!
To continue this obviously ridiculous type of reasoning let's look at the use of "Hallelujah" in Revelation 19. This phrase, which means "praise Jehovah," is used only in this single chapter out of the entire NT. And in this one event the single God on the throne is praised with four hallelujahs. Surely this is "proof" (trinitarian-style) of a four-in-one Jehovah, a "quadrinity." (See Quadrinity paper mentioned above.)
Further such "proof" of the "Quadrinity" can be found at Ps. 107 where this prayer is called out four times: "Let them thank Jehovah for His mercy; and His wonders to the sons of men" - Ps. 107:8, 15, 21, 31, The Interlinear Bible.
Or, what could be "clearer" than the testimony of Rev. 4:5 and 5:6 that God is actually composed of seven spirit persons! Sure "proof" (trinitarian-style) that God is a septinity.
Or, maybe we could actually go with the many hundreds of instances where God is merely called Holy. Wouldn't these hundreds of instances of single usage outweigh the once or twice he's praised as "Holy, Holy, Holy"? Doesn't the overwhelming "testimony" of single "Holy" usages show by a margin of hundreds to one that Jehovah is composed of only a single (Holy) person?
Posted by Elijah Daniels
A match made in heaven?
Can the Laws of Nature Design Life? Emily Reeves Considers the Compatibility of Evolution and ID
Can intelligent design and evolution work together? It’s an intriguing idea that is welcomed by some, but does the scientific evidence support it? On a new episode of ID the Future, host Casey Luskin speaks with Dr. Emily Reeves to discuss her contribution to a recent paper critiquing theologian Rope Kojonen’s proposal that mainstream evolutionary biology and intelligent design have worked in harmony to produce the diversity of life we see on earth.
Dr. Reeves starts by summarizing the Compatibility of Evolution and Design (CED) argument before also summarizing her team’s response to it. “CED is a great work of scholarship,” says Reeves, “but I think its relevance really hinges on whether empirical evidence supports Kojonen’s version of how the design is implemented within evolutionary theory, and then, of course, whether design arguments…are really compatible with evolutionary theory.”
Reeves and Luskin go on to critique Dr. Kojonen’s conception of design. His model posits that the laws of nature have been front-loaded with design by an intelligent designer. But laws are not creative forces on their own – they only describe forces already in action. There’s no empirical evidence that the laws of nature could do the type of heavy lifting required to steer evolutionary processes toward success. As an example, Dr. Reeves describes how the law of gravity interacts with a growing plant. Gravity is used as a cue in the plant’s biology, but it doesn’t power the plant’s ability to grow. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)