Search This Blog

Friday, 10 September 2021

The Watchtower society's commentary on king David.

 DAVID

(DaŹ¹vid) [probably, Beloved].

In the New World Translation the name occurs 1,079 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, including 75 times in superscriptions of 73 psalms, and 59 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Of all Hebrew Scripture personages, only Moses and Abraham are mentioned more frequently by Christian Bible writers. In the 1,138 places where the name David occurs, reference is to but one individual, the second king of Israel, or the one of whom David, at times, served as a pictorial type: “Jesus Christ, son of David.”​—Mt 1:1.

This shepherd, musician, poet, soldier, statesman, prophet, and king stands out in the Hebrew Scriptures in great prominence. Here was a fierce fighter on the battlefield who showed endurance under hardships, a leader and commander strong and unwavering in courage, yet humble enough to acknowledge his mistakes and repent of his gross sins, a man capable of tender compassion and mercy, a lover of truth and righteousness, and above all, one with implicit trust and confidence in his God Jehovah.

David, a descendant of Boaz and Ruth, had an ancestry running back through Perez to Judah. (Ru 4:18-22; Mt 1:3-6) This youngest of Jesse’s eight sons also had two sisters or half sisters. (1Sa 16:10, 11; 17:12; 1Ch 2:16) One of David’s brothers evidently died without having children and was thus dropped from later genealogical records. (1Ch 2:13-16) The name of David’s mother is not given. Some have suggested that Nahash was his 
mother, but it is more probable that Nahash was the father of David’s half sisters.​—2Sa 17:25; see NAHASH No. 2.

Bethlehem, located about 9 km (5.5 mi) SSW of Jerusalem, was David’s hometown, the town where his forefathers Jesse, Obed, and Boaz had lived, and which was sometimes called “David’s city” (Lu 2:4, 11; Joh 7:42), not to be confused with “the City of David,” that is, Zion in Jerusalem.​—2Sa 5:7.

As a Youth. We first meet up with David as he is tending his father’s sheep in a field near Bethlehem, reminding us that it was also in a field near Bethlehem where shepherds more than a millennium later were overawed at being chosen to hear Jehovah’s angel announcing the birth of Jesus. (Lu 2:8-14) Samuel, sent by God to the house of Jesse to anoint one of his sons to be the future king, turns down David’s seven older brothers, saying, “Jehovah has not chosen these.” Finally David is fetched from the field. There is an atmosphere of suspense when he enters​—“ruddy, a young man with beautiful eyes and handsome in appearance”—​for until now no one knows why Samuel has come. “Get up,” Samuel is commanded by Jehovah, “anoint him, for this is he!” This is the one of whom Jehovah says, “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man agreeable to my heart, who will do all the things I desire.”​—1Sa 16:1-13; 13:14; Ac 13:22.

David’s years spent as a shepherd lad had a profound influence on the rest of his life. Outdoor life prepared him to live as a fugitive when, in later life, he fled the wrath of Saul. He also acquired skill in throwing slingstones, and he developed endurance, courage, and a willingness to pursue and rescue sheep separated from the flock, not hesitating to kill a bear or a lion when necessary.​—1Sa 17:34-36.

But for all of his valor as a warrior, David will also be remembered as one skilled on the harp and as a composer of song, abilities he perhaps acquired during the long hours spent tending the sheep. David also had a reputation for developing new musical instruments. (2Ch 7:6; 29:26, 27; Am 6:5) David’s love for Jehovah raised his lyrics far above the common level of simple entertainment and made them classical masterpieces dedicated to the worship and praise of Jehovah. The superscriptions of no less than 73 psalms indicate that David was their composer, but still other psalms are elsewhere attributed to David. (Compare Ps 2:1 with Ac 4:25; Ps 95:7, 8 with Heb 4:7.) Some, for example Psalms 8, 19, 23, 29, quite likely reflect David’s experiences as a shepherd.

All this training while caring for sheep prepared David for the greater role of shepherding Jehovah’s people, as it is written: “[Jehovah] chose David his servant and took him from the pens of the flock. From following the females giving suck he brought him in to be a shepherd over Jacob his people and over Israel his inheritance.” (Ps 78:70, 71; 2Sa 7:8) However, when David first left his father’s sheep it was not to take over the kingship. Instead, he served as the court musician upon the recommendation of an adviser of Saul, who described David not only as “skilled at playing” but also as “a valiant, mighty man and a man of war and an intelligent speaker and a well-formed man, and Jehovah is with him.” (1Sa 16:18) So David became the harpist to troubled Saul, as well as his armor-bearer.​—1Sa 16:19-23.

Later, for reasons not disclosed, David returns to his father’s house for an indeterminate period. Upon bringing provisions to his brothers in Saul’s army, which at the time is in a standoff position with the Philistines, he is incensed at seeing and hearing Goliath reproach Jehovah. “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he has to taunt the battle lines of the living God?” David asks. (1Sa 17:26) “Jehovah,” he adds, “who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, he it is who will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.” (1Sa 17:37) Granted permission, the killer of the lion and the bear approaches Goliath with the words: “I am coming to you with the name of Jehovah of armies, the God of the battle lines of Israel, whom you have taunted.” Suddenly David hurls the stone in his sling and brings the enemy champion down. Then with Goliath’s own sword David decapitates him, and he returns to camp with the trophies of war, the giant’s head and sword.​—1Sa 17:45-54; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 745.

It is noteworthy that the Septuagint, as it appears in the fourth-century Greek manuscript Vatican 1209, omits 1 Samuel 17:55 through the word “down” in 18:6a. Hence Moffatt marks all except the last of these verses in double brackets, calling them “either editorial additions or later interpolations.” However, there is evidence favoring the reading of the Masoretic text.​—See SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (Sections Missing in the Greek Septuagint).

As a Fugitive. (MAP, Vol. 1, p. 746) These fast-moving events catapulted David from the obscurity of the wilderness to public notice before 
the eyes of all Israel. Placed over the men of war, David was greeted with dancing and rejoicing when he returned from a victorious expedition against the Philistines, the popular song of the day being, “Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.” (1Sa 18:5-7) “All Israel and Judah were lovers of David,” and Saul’s own son Jonathan concluded with him a lifelong covenant of mutual love and friendship, the benefits of which extended to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth and grandson Mica.​—1Sa 18:1-4, 16; 20:1-42; 23:18; 2Sa 9:1-13.

This popularity stirred up envy in Saul, who kept “looking suspiciously at David from that day forward.” Twice when David was playing as in former times, Saul hurled a spear with the intent of pinning David to the wall, and both times Jehovah delivered him. Saul had promised to give his daughter to whoever killed Goliath, but now he was reluctant to give her to David. Finally Saul agreed to the marriage of a second daughter, provided David brought him “a hundred foreskins of the Philistines,” an unreasonable demand that Saul calculated would mean David’s death. Courageous David, however, doubled the dowry, presented Saul with 200 foreskins, and was married to Michal. So now two of Saul’s children had lovingly entered covenants with David, circumstances that made Saul hate him all the more. (1Sa 18:9-29) When David was again playing before Saul, the king for the third time sought to pin him to the wall. Under the cover of night David fled, to see Saul again only under different and indeed strange circumstances.​—1Sa 19:10.

For the next several years David lived as a fugitive, constantly in flight from place to place, relentlessly pursued by an obstinate and wicked king bent on killing him. David first took refuge with the prophet Samuel in Ramah (1Sa 19:18-24), but when this ceased to be a hiding place he headed for the Philistine city of Gath, stopping on the way to see High Priest Ahimelech in Nob, where he obtained Goliath’s sword. (1Sa 21:1-9; 22:9-23; Mt 12:3, 4) However, it was only by disguising his sanity, making childish cross marks on the gate and letting saliva run down his beard, that he was able to escape from Gath. (1Sa 21:10-15) Based on this experience, David composed Psalms 34 and 56. He then fled to the cave of Adullam, where his family and about 400 unfortunate and distressed men joined him. Psalm 57 or 142, or both, may commemorate his stay in this cave. David kept on the move​—from there to Mizpeh in Moab and then back to the forest of Hereth in Judah. (1Sa 22:1-5) When living in Keilah, he learned that Saul was preparing to attack, whereupon he and his men, now numbering about 600, departed for the Wilderness of Ziph. Saul continued the chase from one place to another, from the Wilderness of Ziph at Horesh to the Wilderness of Maon. When Saul was about to seize his prey, word came of a Philistine raid, so for a period of time Saul abandoned the chase, allowing the fugitive to escape to En-gedi. (1Sa 23:1-29) Beautiful Psalms praising Jehovah for providing miraculous deliverance (Ps 18, 59, 63, 70) were born out of similar experiences.

At En-gedi, Saul entered a cave to ease nature. David, who had been hiding there in the back of the cave, crept up and cut off the skirt of Saul’s garment but spared his life, saying that it was unthinkable on his part to harm the king, “for he is the anointed of Jehovah.”​—1Sa 24:1-22.

Following Samuel’s death. After Samuel’s death, David, still in a state of exile, took up dwelling in the Wilderness of Paran. (See PARAN.) He and his men extended kindness to Nabal, a wealthy stock raiser whose work was in Carmel, to the S of Hebron, only to be rebuffed by this ingrate. Quick thinking on the part of Nabal’s wife Abigail stayed David’s hand from exterminating the males of the household, but Nabal was stricken by Jehovah and died. Thereupon David married the widow, so that now, in addition to Ahinoam from Jezreel, David had yet another wife, Abigail of Carmel; during David’s long absence, Saul had given Michal to another man.​—1Sa 25:1-44; 27:3.

For the second time David took refuge in the Wilderness of Ziph, and again the hunt was on. David likened Saul and his 3,000 men to those searching “for a single flea, just as one chases a partridge upon the mountains.” One night David and Abishai crept into the sleeping camp of Saul and made off with his spear and water jug. Abishai wanted to kill Saul, but David spared Saul’s life the second time, saying that, from Jehovah’s viewpoint, it was unthinkable for him to thrust out his hand against God’s anointed one. (1Sa 26:1-25) This occasion was the last time David saw his adversary.

David settled at Ziklag in Philistine territory, out of Saul’s reach for a period of 16 months. A number of mighty men deserted Saul’s forces and joined the exiles at Ziklag, enabling David to raid towns of Israel’s enemies on the S, thus securing Judah’s boundaries and strengthening his future position as king. (1Sa 27:1-12; 1Ch 12:1-7, 19-22) When the Philistines were preparing to assault 
Saul’s forces, King Achish, thinking David was “a stench among his people Israel,” invited him to go along. However, the other axis lords rejected David as a security risk. (1Sa 29:1-11) In the battle that culminated on Mount Gilboa, Saul and three of his sons, including Jonathan, died.​—1Sa 31:1-7.

Meanwhile, the Amalekites robbed and burned out Ziklag, carrying off all the women and children. Immediately David’s forces pursued, overtook the marauders, and recovered their wives and children and all the goods. (1Sa 30:1-31) Three days later an Amalekite brought the diadem and bracelet of Saul, deceitfully boasting that he had put the wounded king to death and hoping to receive a reward. Even though he lied in the matter, David ordered him killed for claiming to have “put the anointed of Jehovah to death.”​—2Sa 1:1-16; 1Sa 31:4, 5.

As King. (MAP, Vol. 1, p. 746) The tragic news of Saul’s death grieved David very much. He was not so concerned that his archenemy was dead as he was that the anointed one of Jehovah had fallen. In lamentation, David composed a dirge entitled “The Bow.” In it he bewails how his worst enemy and his best friend had fallen together in battle​—“Saul and Jonathan, the lovable ones and the pleasant ones during their life, and in their death they were not separated.”​—2Sa 1:17-27.

David now moved to Hebron, where the older men of Judah anointed him as king over their tribe in 1077 B.C.E., when he was 30 years old. Saul’s son Ish-bosheth was made king of the other tribes. About two years later, however, Ish-bosheth was assassinated, his assailants bringing his head to David hoping to receive a reward, but they too were put to death like the pretended killer of Saul. (2Sa 2:1-4, 8-10; 4:5-12) This paved the way for the tribes who had till then supported Saul’s son to join Judah, and in time, a force numbering 340,822 rallied and made David king of all Israel.​—2Sa 5:1-3; 1Ch 11:1-3; 12:23-40.

Rule at Jerusalem. David ruled at Hebron seven and a half years before moving his capital, at Jehovah’s direction, to the captured Jebusite stronghold, Jerusalem. There he built the City of David on Zion and continued to rule another 33 years. (2Sa 5:4-10; 1Ch 11:4-9; 2Ch 6:6) While living at Hebron, King David took more wives, had Michal returned, and fathered a number of sons and daughters. (2Sa 3:2-5, 13-16; 1Ch 3:1-4) After moving to Jerusalem, David acquired still more wives and concubines who, in turn, bore him more children.​—2Sa 5:13-16; 1Ch 3:5-9; 14:3-7.

When the Philistines heard that David was king of all Israel, they came up to overthrow him. As in the past (1Sa 23:2, 4, 10-12; 30:8), David inquired of Jehovah whether he should go against them. “Go up,” was the answer, and Jehovah burst upon the enemy with such overpowering destruction that David called the place Baal-perazim, meaning “Owner of Breakings Through.” In a return encounter Jehovah’s strategy shifted, and he ordered David to circle around and strike the Philistines from the rear.​—2Sa 5:17-25; 1Ch 14:8-17.

David attempted to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, but this failed when Uzzah touched it and was struck down. (2Sa 6:2-10; 1Ch 13:1-14) Some three months later, with careful preparations, including sanctifying the priests and Levites and making sure the Ark was carried on their shoulders instead of being placed on a wagon as at first, it was brought to Jerusalem. David, simply clad, showed his joy and enthusiasm on this great occasion by “leaping and dancing around before Jehovah.” But his wife Michal chided David, saying he acted “just as one of the empty-headed men.” For this unjustified complaint Michal “came to have no child down to the day of her death.”​—2Sa 6:11-23; 1Ch 15:1-29.

David also arranged for expanded worship of Jehovah at the Ark’s new location by assigning gatekeepers and musicians and seeing that there were “burnt offerings . . . constantly morning and evening.” (1Ch 16:1-6, 37-43) In addition, David thought of building a temple-palace of cedar to house the Ark, to replace its tent. But David was not permitted to build the house, for God said: “Blood in great quantity you have spilled, and great wars you have waged. You will not build a house to my name, for a great deal of blood you have spilled on the earth before me.” (1Ch 22:8; 28:3) However, Jehovah made a covenant with him promising that the kingship would everlastingly remain in his family, and in connection with this covenant God assured him that his son Solomon, whose name is from a root meaning “peace,” would build the temple.​—2Sa 7:1-16, 25-29; 1Ch 17:1-27; 2Ch 6:7-9; Ps 89:3, 4, 35, 36.

It was therefore in line with this kingdom covenant that Jehovah permitted David to expand his territorial rule from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, securing his borders, maintaining peace with the king of Tyre, battling and conquering opponents on all sides​—Philistines, Syrians, Moabites, 
Edomites, Amalekites, and Ammonites. (2Sa 8:1-14; 10:6-19; 1Ki 5:3; 1Ch 13:5; 14:1, 2; 18:1–20:8) These God-given victories made David a most powerful ruler. (1Ch 14:17) However, David was always conscious that this position was not his by conquest or inheritance but that it was from Jehovah, who had placed him on the throne of this typical theocracy.​—1Ch 10:14; 29:10-13.

Sins bring calamity. During the continued campaign against the Ammonites, one of the saddest episodes of David’s life occurred. It all began when the king, upon observing from his rooftop beautiful Bath-sheba bathing herself, entertained wrong desires. (Jas 1:14, 15) After learning that her husband Uriah was off to war, David had the woman brought to his palace, where he had relations with her. In time the king was notified that 
she was pregnant. No doubt fearing that Bath-sheba would be publicly exposed and put to death for immoral conduct, David quickly sent word to the army that Uriah should report to him in Jerusalem, with the hope that Uriah would spend the night with his wife. But even though David got him drunk, Uriah refused to sleep with Bath-sheba. In desperation, David sent him back to the army with secret instructions to the commander Joab to have Uriah put in the front lines, where he would surely be killed. The scheme worked. Uriah died in battle, his widow observed the customary period of mourning, and then David married the widow before the townspeople were aware of her pregnancy.​—2Sa 11:1-27.

Jehovah was watching, however, and uncovered the whole reprehensible matter. If Jehovah had permitted the case involving David and Bath-sheba to be handled by human judges under the Mosaic Law, both of the wrongdoers would have been put to death, and of course, the unborn offspring of their adultery would have died with the mother. (De 5:18; 22:22) However, Jehovah dealt with the case himself and showed mercy to David because of the Kingdom covenant (2Sa 7:11-16), no doubt because David himself had shown mercy (1Sa 24:4-7; compare Jas 2:13) and because of repentance that God observed on the part of the wrongdoers. (Ps 51:1-4) But they did not escape all punishment. By the mouth of the prophet Nathan, Jehovah pronounced: “Here I am raising up against you calamity out of your own house.”​—2Sa 12:1-12.

And so it proved to be. The adulterine child born to Bath-sheba soon died, even though David fasted and mourned over the sick child for seven days. (2Sa 12:15-23) Then David’s firstborn son Amnon raped his own half sister Tamar, and he was subsequently murdered by her brother, to the grief of his father. (2Sa 13:1-33) Later, Absalom, the third and beloved son of David, not only attempted to usurp the throne but openly despised and publicly disgraced his father by having relations with David’s concubines. (2Sa 15:1–16:22) Finally, the humiliation reached its peak when civil war plunged the country into a struggle of son against father, ending in Absalom’s death, contrary to the wishes of David and much to his grief. (2Sa 17:1–18:33) During his flight from Absalom, David composed Psalm 3, in which he says, “Salvation belongs to Jehovah.”​—Ps 3:8.

But for all his faults and gross sins, David always showed the right heart condition by repenting and begging Jehovah’s forgiveness. This was demonstrated in the affair involving Bath-sheba, after which David wrote Psalm 51, stating, “With error I was brought forth . . . in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps 51:5) Another instance when David humbly confessed his sins was when Satan incited him to take a census of the men qualified for the military forces.​—2Sa 24:1-17; 1Ch 21:1-17; 27:24; see REGISTRATION.

Purchase of temple site. When the pestilence that resulted from the king’s error in this last instance was stopped, David purchased the threshing floor of Ornan and, as a sacrifice to Jehovah, offered up the cattle with the sledge used for the threshing. It was on this site that Solomon later built the magnificent temple. (2Sa 24:18-25; 1Ch 21:18-30; 2Ch 3:1) David always had it in his heart to build that temple, and though not permitted to do so, he was allowed to set a great task force to hewing stones and gathering materials that included 100,000 talents of gold ($38,535,000,000) and 1,000,000 talents of silver ($6,606,000,000), and copper and iron without measure. (1Ch 22:2-16) Out of his personal fortune David contributed gold of Ophir and refined silver valued at more than $1,202,000,000. David also provided the architectural plans, received by inspiration, and organized the tens of thousands of Levites into their many divisions of service, including a great chorus of singers and musicians.​—1Ch 23:1–29:19; 2Ch 8:14; 23:18; 29:25; Ezr 3:10.

End of reign. In the closing days of David’s life, the 70-year-old king, now confined to his bed, continued to reap calamity within his family. His fourth son, Adonijah, without the knowledge or consent of his father and, more seriously, without Jehovah’s approval, attempted to set himself up as king. When this news reached David, he moved quickly to have his son Solomon, Jehovah’s choice, officially installed as king and sit upon the throne. (1Ki 1:5-48; 1Ch 28:5; 29:20-25; 2Ch 1:8) David then counseled Solomon to walk in Jehovah’s ways, keep his statutes and commandments, act prudently in everything, and then he would prosper.​—1Ki 2:1-9.

After a 40-year reign David died and was buried in the City of David, having proved worthy of inclusion in Paul’s honorable list of witnesses who were outstanding in faith. (1Ki 2:10, 11; 1Ch 29:26-30; Ac 13:36; Heb 11:32) Quoting Psalm 110, Jesus said David had written it “by inspiration.” (Mt 22:43, 44; Mr 12:36) The apostles and other Bible writers frequently acknowledged 
David as an inspired prophet of God.​—Compare Ps 16:8 with Ac 2:25; Ps 32:1, 2 with Ro 4:6-8; Ps 41:9 with Joh 13:18; Ps 69:22, 23 with Ro 11:9, 10; Ps 69:25 and 109:8 with Ac 1:16, 20.

Pictorial. The prophets often referred to David and his royal house, sometimes in connection with the last kings of Israel who sat on “the throne of David” (Jer 13:13; 22:2, 30; 29:16; 36:30) and sometimes in a prophetic sense. (Jer 17:25; 22:4; Am 9:11; Zec 12:7-12) In certain Messianic prophecies attention is focused on Jehovah’s kingdom covenant with David. For example, Isaiah says that the one called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” will be firmly established on “the throne of David” to time indefinite. (Isa 9:6, 7; compare also 16:5.) Jeremiah likens Messiah to “a righteous sprout” whom Jehovah “will raise up to David.” (Jer 23:5, 6; 33:15-17) Through Ezekiel, Jehovah speaks of the Messianic Shepherd as “my servant David.”​—Eze 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25.

In telling Mary that she would have a son called Jesus, the angel declared that “Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father.” (Lu 1:32) “Jesus Christ, son of David,” was both the legal and the natural heir to the throne of David. (Mt 1:1, 17; Lu 3:23-31) Paul said that Jesus was the offspring of David according to the flesh. (Ro 1:3; 2Ti 2:8) The common people also identified Jesus as the “Son of David.” (Mt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 21:9, 15; Mr 10:47, 48; Lu 18:38, 39) It was important to establish this, for, as the Pharisees admitted, Messiah would be David’s son. (Mt 22:42) The resurrected Jesus himself also bore witness, saying: “I, Jesus, . . . am the root and the offspring of David.”​—Re 22:16; also Re 3:7; 5:5.

[Diagram on page 589]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

A GENEALOGY OF DAVID

(Names of men in all capitals)

BOAZ and Ruth (his wife)

OBED

JESSE

FAMILY OF JESSE

ELIAB (Elihu)

ABINADAB

SHAMMAH (Shimea[h], Shimei)

NETHANEL

RADDAI

OZEM

Zeruiah

-unnamed-

DAVID

Abigail

NEPHEWS OF DAVID

JEHONADAB

ABISHAI

JOAB

ASAHEL

AMASA

WIVES OF DAVID

Michal

wives, concubines-unnamed-

Ahinoam

Abigail

Maacah

Haggith

Abital

Eglah

Bath-sheba

CHILDREN OF DAVID

AMNON

DANIEL (Chileab)

ABSALOM

Tamar

ADONIJAH

SHEPHATIAH

ITHREAM

IBHAR

ELISHUA (Elishama)

NOGAH

ELIPHELET (Elpelet)

NEPHEG

JAPHIA

ELISHAMA

BEELIADA (Eliada)

ELIPHELET

JERIMOTH

-unnamed-

SHIMEA (Shammua)

SHOBAB

NATHAN

SOLOMON (Jedidiah)

MARY

JOSEPH

Zoroastrianism: a brief history.

Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is one of the world's oldest continuously practiced religions, based on the teachings of the Iranian-speaking prophet Zoroaster (also known as ZaraĪøuÅ”tra in Avestan or Zartosht in Modern Persian). Zoroastrianism has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil and an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good. Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord), as its supreme being. The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheismmessianismjudgment after deathheaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple JudaismGnosticismGreek philosophyChristianityIslam, the BahĆ”Ź¼Ć­ Faith, and Buddhism.

With possible roots dating back to the Second Millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters written history in the 5th century BCE. It served as the state religion of the ancient Iranian empires for more than a millennium, from around 600 BCE to 650 CE, but declined from the 7th century CE onwards following the Muslim conquest of Persia of 633–654 and subsequent persecution of the Zoroastrian people. Recent estimates place the current number of Zoroastrians at around 110,000–120,000 at most, with the majority living in IndiaIran, and North America; their number has been thought to be declining.

The most important texts of the religion are those contained within the Avesta, which includes as central the writings of Zoroaster known as the Gathas, poems within the Yasna that define the teachings of the Zoroaster, the main worship service of Zoroastrianism. The religious philosophy of Zoroaster divided the early Iranian gods of the Proto-Indo-Iranian tradition into ahuras and daevas, the latter of which were not considered worthy of worship. Zoroaster proclaimed that Ahura Mazda was the supreme creator, the creative and sustaining force of the universe through Asha, and that human beings are given a choice between supporting Ahura Mazda or not, making them responsible for their choices. Though Ahura Mazda has no equal contesting force, Angra Mainyu (destructive spirit/mentality), whose forces are born from Aka Manah (evil thought), is considered the main adversarial force of the religion, standing against Spenta Mainyu (creative spirit/mentality). Middle Persian literature developed Angra Mainyu further into Ahriman and advancing him to be the direct adversary to Ahura Mazda.

In Zoroastrianism, Asha (truth, cosmic order), the life force that originates from Ahura Mazda, stands in opposition to Druj (falsehood, deceit) and Ahura Mazda is considered to be all-good with no evil emanating from the deity. Ahura Mazda works in gētÄ«g (the visible material realm) and mēnōg (the invisible spiritual and mental realm) through the seven (six when excluding Spenta Mainyu) Amesha Spentas (the direct emanations of Ahura Mazda).

Zoroastrianism is not entirely uniform in theological and philosophical thought, especially with historical and modern influences having a significant impact on individual and local beliefs, practices, values and vocabulary, sometimes merging with tradition and in other cases displacing it. In Zoroastrianism, the purpose in life is to become an ashavan (a master of Asha) and to bring happiness into the world, which contributes to the cosmic battle against evil. Zoroastrianism's core teachings include:
• Follow the Threefold Path of Asha: Humata, Huxta, Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds).
• Charity is a way of keeping one's soul aligned with Asha and thus of spreading happiness.
• The spiritual equality and duty of men and women alike.

• Being good for the sake of goodness and without the hope of reward (see Ashem Vohu). 

The Chinese communist revolution: a brief history.

 The Chinese Communist Revolution, known in mainland China as the War of Liberation, was the conflict, led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chairman Mao Zedong, that resulted in the proclamation of the People's Republic of China, on 1 October 1949. The revolution began in 1946 after the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–45) and was the second part of the Chinese Civil War (1945–49).

The Chinese nationalist revolution: a brief history.

 Chinese Revolution, (1911–12), nationalist democratic revolt that overthrew the Qing (or Manchu) dynasty in 1912 and created a republic.

Ever since their conquest of China in the 17th century, most of the Manchu had lived in comparative idleness, supposedly a standing army of occupation but in reality inefficient pensionaries. All through the 19th century the dynasty had been declining, and, upon the death of the empress dowager Cixi (1908), it lost its last able leader. In 1911 the emperor Puyi was a child, and the regency was incompetent to guide the nation. The unsuccessful contests with foreign powers had shaken not only the dynasty but the entire machinery of government.The chain of events immediately leading to the revolution began when an agreement was signed (April 5, 1911) with a four-power group of foreign bankers for the construction of lines on the Hukwang (Huguang) Railway in central China. The Beijing government decided to take over from a local company a line in Sichuan, on which construction had been barely begun, and to apply part of the loan to its completion. The sum offered did not meet the demands of the stockholders, and in September 1911 the dissatisfaction boiled over into open revolt. On October 10, in consequence of the uncovering of a plot in Hankou (now [along with Wuchang] part of Wuhan) that had little or no connection with the Sichuan episode, a mutiny broke out among the troops in Wuchang, and this is regarded as the formal beginning of the revolution. The mutineers soon captured the Wuchang mint and arsenal, and city after city declared against the Qing government. The regent, panic-stricken, granted the assembly’s demand for the immediate adoption of a constitution and urged a former viceroy, Yuan Shikai, to come out of retirement and save the dynasty. In November he was made premier.

Had Yuan acted vigorously, he might have suppressed the uprising and so have delayed the inevitable. He dallied, however, and, by the end of the year, 14 provinces had declared against the Qing leadership. In several cities Manchu garrisons had been massacred, the regent had been forced out of office, a provisional republican government had been set up at Nanjing, and the archrevolutionist Sun Yat-sen (Sun Zhongshan) had returned from abroad and had been elected provisional president.In December Yuan agreed to an armistice and entered upon negotiations with the republicans. On February 12, 1912, the boy emperor was made to abdicate the throne in a proclamation that transferred the government to the people’s representatives, declared that the constitution should thenceforth be republican, and gave Yuan Shikai full powers to organize a provisional government. The Nanjing authorities agreed that the emperor was to retain his title for life and receive a large pension. To unify the country, Sun Yat-sen resigned the presidency, and Yuan was chosen in his place. Li Yuanhong, who had come into prominence in Wuchang in the initial stages of the rebellion, was elected vice president. A provisional constitution was promulgated in March 1912 by the Nanjing parliament, and in April the government was transferred to Beijing.The republic, established with such startling rapidity and comparative ease, was destined in the succeeding decades to witness the progressive collapse of national unity and orderly government.

Thursday, 9 September 2021

The Bolshevik revolution: a brief history.

 The October Revolution, officially known as the Great October Socialist Revolution under the Soviet Union, also known as the Bolshevik Coup, the Bolshevik Revolution, the October Uprising, the October Coup or Red October, was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917–1923. It was the second revolutionary change of government in Russia in 1917. It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg) on 7 November 1917 [O.S. 25 October]. The rise of the Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik factions was the precipitating event of the Russian Civil War.


The October Revolution followed and capitalized on the February Revolution earlier in the year. Contrary to popular belief, Lenin did not overthrow the Tsar. The February Revolution had overthrown the Tsarist autocracy, resulting in a provisional government. The provisional government had taken power after being proclaimed by Grand Duke MichaelTsar Nicholas II's younger brother, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down. During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (soviets) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. The provisional government remained widely unpopular, especially because it was continuing to fight in World War I, and had ruled with an iron fist throughout the summer (including killing hundreds of protesters in the July Days).

Events came to a head in the fall as the Directorate, led by the left-wing Socialist Revolutionary Party, controlled the government. The left-wing Bolsheviks were deeply unhappy with the government, and began spreading calls for a military uprising. On 10 October 1917 (O.S.; 23 October, N.S.), the Petrograd Soviet, led by Trotsky, voted to back a military uprising. On 24 October (O.S.; 6 November, N.S.) the government shut down numerous newspapers and closed the city of Petrograd in an attempt to forestall the revolution; minor armed skirmishes broke out. The next day a full scale uprising erupted, as a fleet of Bolshevik sailors entered the harbor and tens of thousands of soldiers rose up in support of the Bolsheviks. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military-Revolutionary Committee began the occupation of government buildings on 25 October (O.S.; 7 November, N.S.), 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia) was captured.

As the Revolution was not universally recognized, the country descended into civil war, which would last until 1923 and ultimately lead to the creation of the Soviet Union in late 1922. The historiography of the event has varied. The victorious Soviet Union viewed it as a validation of their ideology, and the triumph of the worker over capitalism. During Soviet times, revolution day was made a national holiday, marking its importance in the country's founding story. On the other hand, the Western Allies saw it as a violent coup, which used the democratic Soviet councils only until they were no longer useful. The event inspired many cultural works, and ignited communist movements across Europe and globally. Many Marxist–Leninist parties around the world still celebrate revolution day. Contemporary Russia now distances itself from its Soviet past by removing the October Revolution as a national holiday.

On Darwinists' pseudoscience re:pseudogenes.

 

Pseudogenes Aren’t Nonfunctional Relics that Refute Intelligent Design

Casey Luskin

We’ve been discussing a video in which Richard Dawkins claims that the evidence for common ancestry refutes intelligent design (see herehere, and here). We first saw that contrary to Dawkins, the genetic data does not yield “a perfect hierarchy” or “perfect family tree.” Then we saw that a treelike data structure does not necessarily refute intelligent design. But Dawkins isn’t done. At the end of his answer in the video, Dawkins raises the issue of “pseudogenes,” which he claims “don’t do anything but are vestigial relicts of genes that once did something.” Dawkins says elsewhere that pseudogenes “are never transcribed or translated. They might as well not exist, as far as the animal’s welfare is concerned.” These claims represent a classic but false “junk DNA” argument against intelligent design. 

Functions of Pseudogenes 

Pseudogenes can yield functional RNA transcripts, functional proteins, or perform a function without producing any transcript. A 2012 paper in Science Signaling noted that although “pseudogenes have long been dismissed as junk DNA,” recent advances have established that “the DNA of a pseudogene, the RNA transcribed from a pseudogene, or the protein translated from a pseudogene can have multiple, diverse functions and that these functions can affect not only their parental genes but also unrelated genes.” The paper concludes that “pseudogenes have emerged as a previously unappreciated class of sophisticated modulators of gene expression.” 

A 2011 paper in the journal RNA concurs:

Pseudogenes have long been labeled as ‘junk’ DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. 

Likewise, a 2012 paper in RNA Biology states that “pseudogenes were long considered as junk genomic DNA” but “pseudogene regulation is widespread in eukaryotes.” Because pseudogenes may only function in specific tissues and/or only during particular stages of development, their true functions may be difficult to detect. The RNA Biology paper concludes that “the study of functional pseudogenes is just at the beginning” and predicts “more and more functional pseudogenes will be discovered as novel biological technologies are developed in the future.” 

When we do carefully study pseudogenes, we often find function. One paper in Annual Review of Genetics observed: “pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles.” A 2020 paper in Nature Reviews Genetics cautioned that pseudogene function is “Prematurely Dismissed” due to “dogma.” The paper cautions that there are many instances where DNA that was dismissed as pseudogene junk was later found to be functional: “with a growing number of instances of pseudogene-annotated regions later found to exhibit biological function, there is an emerging risk that these regions of the genome are prematurely dismissed as pseudogenic and therefore regarded as void of function.” Indeed, the literature is full of papers reporting function in what have been wrongly labeled “pseudogenes.” 

Fingers in Ears?

At the end of the video, Dawkins says: “I find it extremely hard to imagine how any creationist who actually bothered to listen to that could possibly doubt the fact of evolution. But they don’t listen…they simply stick their fingers in their ear and say la la la.” It’s safe to say that Dawkins was wrong about many things in this video, but I’m not here to make any accusations about fingers and ears. I will say that the best resolution to these kinds of questions is to listen to the data, keep an open mind, and to think critically. When we’re wiling to do this, a lot of exciting new scientific possibilities open up — ones that don’t necessarily include traditional neo-Darwinian views of common ancestry or a “perfect hierarchy” in the tree of life, and ones that readily point toward intelligent design. 

Jarwarhlal Nehru: a brief history.

 Jawaharlal Nehru was an Indian independence activist and, subsequently, the first Prime Minister of India. Considered as one of the greatest statesmen of India and of the twentieth century , he was a central figure in Indian politics both before and after independence. He emerged as an eminent leader of the Indian independence movement, serving India as Prime Minister from its establishment in 1947 as an independent nation, until his death in 1964. He was also known as Pandit Nehru due to his roots with the Kashmiri Pandit community, while Indian children knew him better as Chacha Nehru (Hindi: Uncle Nehru).


The son of Swarup Rani and Motilal Nehru, a prominent lawyer and nationalist statesman, Nehru was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge and the Inner Temple, where he trained to be a barrister. Upon his return to India, he enrolled at the Allahabad High Court and took an interest in national politics, which eventually replaced his legal practice. A committed nationalist since his teenage years, he became a rising figure in Indian politics during the upheavals of the 1910s. He became the prominent leader of the left-wing factions of the Indian National Congress during the 1920s, and eventually of the entire Congress, with the tacit approval of his mentor, Mahatma Gandhi. As Congress President in 1929, Nehru called for complete independence from the British Raj and instigated the Congress's decisive shift towards the left.

Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics during the 1930s as the country moved towards independence. His idea of a secular nation-state was seemingly validated when the Congress swept the 1937 provincial elections and formed the government in several provinces; on the other hand, the separatist Muslim League fared much poorer. However, these achievements were severely compromised in the aftermath of the Quit India Movement in 1942, which saw the British effectively crush the Congress as a political organisation. Nehru, who had reluctantly heeded Gandhi's call for immediate independence, for he had desired to support the Allied war effort during World War II, came out of a lengthy prison term to a much altered political landscape. The Muslim League under his old Congress colleague and now opponent, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had come to dominate Muslim politics in India. Negotiations between Congress and Muslim League for power sharing failed and gave way to the independence and bloody partition of India in 1947.

Nehru was elected by the Congress to assume office as independent India's first Prime Minister, although the question of leadership had been settled as far back as 1941, when Gandhi acknowledged Nehru as his political heir and successor. As Prime Minister, he set out to realise his vision of India. The Constitution of India was enacted in 1950, after which he embarked on an ambitious program of economic, social and political reforms. Chiefly, he oversaw India's transition from a colony to a republic, while nurturing a plural, multi-party system. In foreign policy, he took a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement while projecting India as a regional hegemon in South Asia.

Under Nehru's leadership, the Congress emerged as a catch-all party, dominating national and state-level politics and winning consecutive elections in 19511957, and 1962. He remained popular with the people of India in spite of political troubles in his final years and failure of leadership during the 1962 Sino-Indian War. In India, his birthday is celebrated as Children's Day.

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

  One thing that has become clear to me is that one cannot be an atheist and an optimist with regard to the future of our race and civilisation, at least an atheist would be completely unable to justify his optimism.The atheist universe is inherently amoral,how can a moral person possibly remain an optimist in a universe that does not acknowledge/reward virtue or condemn/punish vice as a matter of principle or for that matter a universe that had no objective basis for morality.

  The atheist universe will always be a place where ego-obsessed sociopaths get away with injustice until we all go extinct that's the best any atheist can realistically expect.There of course will always be people who strive for those virtues to which the moral instinct embedded in us all beckon,but without an objective justification for those virtues the temptation to adopt the logic of nihilism,hedonism,egoism and like pathologies will only get stronger and that minority committed to the pursuit of instinctive morality(with which our civilisation maintains a parasitic relationship) will keep getting smaller.


 So one can either be an atheist or be optimist about the future of our race and civilisation but not both at least not if one wishes to be intellectually consistent.

On John5:18.

  Depending on whom one asks this verse is supposed to be a defeater for Christians who accept the God and Father of Jesus Christ as the one true God:

Braggadocio or substance?Well let's have a look:John5:18NASB"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
The first thing you'll notice about those who misuse this verse to promote trinitarian or modalist notions is that they invariably focus on the second charge and not the first thus bringing their competence if not their sincerity into question.Manifestly both charges are from the same source and the fact that they are parallelled indicates that they are  both either equally improper or proper depending on ones argument.
 Usually our trinitarian or modalist friends would insists that charge no.2 is John's opinion if we accept this line of logic we are compelled to further conclude that charge number one is also John's opinion.So did the apostle John really opine that his master failed to practice what he preached in breaking the Sabbath see Matthew5:19 or that claiming Jehovah as Father was blasphemous,An opinion that would render John himself guilty of blasphemy 1John3:1,2 later on at John8:41 the Jews also claim Jehovah God as their father were they thus making themselves equal to God.
  Obviously it was the Jewish religious leaders in their zeal for legalism who falsely concluded that Jesus kindly healing of this son of Abraham on the most appropriate day for such charity amounted to a violation of the sabbath and it was the same group who with equally faulty reasoning concluded that Jesus acknowledgment of almighty God as the source of the power manifested through him and that God would not have made such power available to him if he was not favored by him as a Father would favor a son meant that he was trying to steal God's thunder so to speak.
  While we are on the subject of opinions what was Jesus' opinion on the matter,we need not speculate he makes it quite clear in the following verse "Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." Clearly Jesus was not of the opinion that his being God's son made him equal to God.