Wednesday 2 August 2023
Foresight +Hindsight= design?
In Life, Checkpoints and Error Correction Defy Darwinian Explanations
John Coley at Northeastern University wants to help his biology students “avoid misconceptions about science.” It’s wrong to state, “Zebras developed stripes to avoid predators,” he explains at Phys.org.
[E]volution doesn’t involve “forward thinking,” or intention — ancestral zebras didn’t sprout stripes to blend in with their surroundings. Rather, given a population of zebra-like animals varying in stripedness, those with abundant verticals had a selective advantage over their plainer relatives: Hence, they were more successful at reproducing, and over time, the stripes prevailed
Whether this after-the-fact story does any better in explaining zebras is an interesting question. Why should we accept that stripes emerged as a “given”? If stripes provide a selective advantage, why aren’t all prey animals striped, for example horses and cows? Besides, not all zebra stripes are vertical. It’s doubtful that Coley’s story is any less a “misconception” than the alternative he warns against.
But what if biologists were to find a multi-step process that exhibits “forward thinking”? Can evolution account for that? And what if a process shows backward thinking — the ability to recognize that a problem has occurred, and fix it? Let’s examine some cases in the living cell and consider the implications.
Forward Thinking: Checkpoints
Cell division is a carefully choreographed process. Huge amounts of genetic information have to be duplicated with high fidelity. Organelles have to divide and move. Chromosomes have to form and align on a structure called the mitotic spindle. The nuclear membrane has to break down on cue. Molecular “lassos” have to pull the chromosomes apart. After they separate, a molecular cinch has to form on the right axis and tighten, dividing the single cell into two identical copies. It’s a marvel to watch under a microscope.
To ensure fidelity, the cell has a number of “checkpoints” during mitosis. These are go or no-go decision points, where signals give the green light to proceed, or yell “Stop!” if a problem has occurred, or if required elements are not in place. If severe enough, a no-go decision can trigger programmed cell death (apoptosis).
One example of checkpoints is described in news from Johns Hopkins. The title of the article is instructive: “Cellular Sentinel Prevents Cell Division When the Right Machinery Is Not in Place: Machinery Helps Guide Chromosomes During Division.” A research team examined one particular checkpoint mechanism: a protein that counts centrioles.
For cell division to be successful, pairs of chromosomes have to line up just rightbefore being swept into their new cells, like the opening of a theater curtain. They accomplish this feat in part thanks to structures called centrioles that provide an anchor for the curtain’s ropes. Researchers at Johns Hopkins recently learned that most cells will not divide without centrioles, and they found out why: A protein called p53, already known to prevent cell division for other reasons, also monitors centriole numbers to prevent potentially disastrous cell divisions.
Mutations to p53, in fact, are implicated in cancer — a situation where the checkpoint mechanism is broken, leading to uncontrolled cell division. This protein almost seems sentient in its ability to monitor multiple situations:
P53 was already known to monitor many things, like DNA damage and having the wrong number of chromosomes, that make division dangerous for cells,” says Andrew Holland, Ph.D., an assistant professor of molecular biology and genetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “We’ve discovered one more item on its checklist: centriole number.”
Here’s another example from the University of Basel: “Two are better than one — another checkpoint enzyme for flawless cell division.”
Each day, the cells of the human divide billions of times; this also requires duplication of their genetic information. Errors in cell division can cause tumor formation, and an exact segregation of the DNA (chromosomes) is therefore essential to ensure the health of the whole organism. Prof. Erich Nigg’s research group at the Biozentrum, University of Basel, has demonstrated that the enzyme Plk1 plays a significant role in monitoring the segregation of chromosomes.
Plk1 has checkpoint function
The segregation of the 23 chromosome pairs of human cells only occurs when all parameters are correct. This is ensured by a surveillance process, a so-called checkpoint. Central to this checkpoint is an inhibitor formed on the chromosomes, called mitotic checkpoint complex (MCC), which prevents cell division until all settings on the mitotic spindle, the chromosome segregation apparatus, are correct. “Just like the enzyme Mps1, Plk1 also ensures the assembly of the MCC and finally the inhibition of cell division,” says the first author Conrad von Schubert. “Plk1 thus also has a checkpoint function and consequently safeguards chromosome segregation.”
These are just two illustrations of many safeguards in the cell. If you think about human monitors, like traffic cops or inspectors, they are aware of the downstream consequences of failure to meet requirements. Robots and machines can also be programmed to detect contraband or errors. The robot may be “dumb,” but whoever programmed it had to know; he or she had to have “forward thinking” and plan for the errors or failures to meet requirements.
Backward Thinking: Error Correction
Error-correction strategies exhibit backward monitoring: the ability to detect that a failure has occurred and take appropriate action. This assumes the ability to see what should have happened, and to understand the consequences of letting the failure go uncorrected.
There are numerous repair mechanisms in the cell. One was described in news from Lomonosov Moscow State University, “Novel DNA repair mechanism brings new horizons.” Notice the design words in the first sentence. “The DNA molecule is chemically unstable, giving rise to DNA lesions of different nature,” the article begins. “That is why DNA damage detection, signaling and repair, collectively known as the DNA damage response, are needed.” The article shows that this is another irreducibly complex program:
During the transcription of information (its rewriting into RNA) the RNA polymerase enzyme “rides” on the DNA chain, and stops when it finds the break. Like a proofreader of a text, RNA polymerase after it is stalled, triggers a cascade of reactions, resulting in the repair enzymes fixing the damaged area. At the same time, the RNA polymerase cannot detect discontinuities present in the other DNA strand.
The scientists found that the machinery can, in fact, proofread the opposite strand from where the break occurred. In their broken English, the Russian scientists could hardly avoid anthropomorphic language:
It turned out that only in nucleosomes, rather than in the histone-free DNA, the enzyme stopped, when the break was present in the other DNA strand. Wherein it did not stop before the break, but immediately after it. It was difficult enough to understand the mechanism that allows it to notice the damage at the “back” of RNA polymerase, as if it had “eyes on the back of the head”, although, obviously, it does not have neither one nor the other.
They went on to find a mechanistic explanation for the processes. But did they find an evolutionary mechanistic explanation? Only in terms of the lack of evolution (e.g., purifying selection):
This is just one of many processes in the DNA damage response repertoire. Damage response is a backward strategy for robustness, as we know by analogy from fire departments, medicine, and error-correcting algorithms in software. Entities don’t have to be sentient to exhibit this kind of strategic behavior; it can be programmed.
“Just in Case” Thinking: Spare Parts
Here’s an item from the American Chemical Society that simultaneously demonstrates design and debunks the myth of “junk DNA”
Carrying around a spare tire is a good thing — you never know when you’ll get a flat. Turns out we’re all carrying around “spare tires” in our genomes, too. Today, in ACS Central Science, researchers report that an extra set of guanines (or “G”s) in our DNA may function just like a “spare” to help prevent many cancers from developing.
It was thought that “G quadruplexes” were “genetic insults” needing repair. The cell is smarter than they thought:
The researchers scanned the sequences of known human oncogenes associated with cancer, and found that many contain the four G-stretches necessary for quadruplex formation and a fifth G-stretch one or more bases downstream. The team showed that these extra Gs could act like a “spare tire,” getting swapped in as needed to allow damage removal by the typical repair machinery. When they exposed these quadruplex-forming sequences to oxidative stress in vitro, a series of different tests indicated that the extra Gs allowed the damages to fold out from the quadruplex structure, and become accessible to the repair enzymes. They further point out that G-quadruplexes are highly conserved in many genomes, indicating that this could be a factory-installed safety feature across many forms of life.
We can ask, if a manufacturer decides to include a spare tire with a car, what are they thinking? The driver may go for years without a flat. The driver may never need the spare. The manufacturer is looking beyond immediate survival needs. This is “what-if” strategizing. It requires looking both forward and backward: planning ahead for a contingency, and providing equipment and a mechanism for repair if it occurs.
Natural selection cannot do that. It can only respond to the here and now. Once again, too, we see that the mechanism is “highly conserved” across many forms of life. “Factory-installed safety feature” — what a great phrase!
Unthinking: Darwinian Explanations
As we see, living cells employ forward-thinking and backward-thinking strategies. Both strategies require planning outside the immediate situation; they have to “know” the consequences of not meeting requirements or allowing defects to go uncorrected.
Can an evolutionist explain this? Someone like Coley might say, “Given that proteins emerge, the ones that had this ability prevailed.” This ignores the question of how a complex checkpoint mechanism or repair team arose in the first place. It also fails to show how one checkpoint could emerge in a series of checkpoints, any one of which has go or no-go decision-making ability for the cell. Yet without the safeguards, the cell’s lineage would quickly go extinct in a morass of errors. It’s unsatisfying to hear the evolutionist look at complex processes in a cell involving purposeful sequences and responses and say dismissively, “Well, if it didn’t evolve that way, it wouldn’t survive.”
Be it a Rube Goldberg device or a robotic assembly line, any process involving a sequence of events that must occur without error to succeed we know from experience involved planning by a mind. In no case do the parts emerge by unguided processes, because the system cannot work without every part being already in place. For these reasons, we can say that checkpoints and error correction provide not only negative evidence against unguided processes, but positive evidence for intelligent design.
Tuesday 1 August 2023
Restoring the divine name in the N.T the Watchtower Society's Commentary.
The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”
Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.) The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.
Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.a
nwtsty
C1
The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”
Nash Papyrus, dated from the second or first century B.C.E.
Nash Papyrus, dated from the second or first century B.C.E., showing portions of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The divine name appears a number of times in the Hebrew text.
When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.) The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.
Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.a
That practice creates a special challenge for anyone who translates the “New Testament.” For example, when a translator examines an “Old Testament” quotation in the Greek text of the “New Testament,” he will not see the Tetragrammaton anywhere in the Greek text from which he is translating. However, he should be aware of two basic facts: (1) The original quotation from the “Old Testament” may contain the Tetragrammaton, and (2) the Greek text that he is using is based on manuscripts from a period of time when copyists regularly substituted titles for the divine name. Realizing this, he must make an important decision. Will he follow the Greek text that uses Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ instead of the Tetragrammaton, or will he endeavor to ascertain where the Tetragrammaton would have appeared in the original Greek manuscripts?
The basic question that needs to be answered is this: Since the
Tetragrammaton appeared in the original Hebrew text that was being quoted by the first-century Bible writers, did those writers deliberately substitute the word Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton each time they quoted from the “Old Testament”? Throughout the centuries, numerous Bible translators have concluded that such a substitution would not have taken place. Therefore, such translators have felt compelled to restore the divine name in their translations of the “New Testament.” The translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation agree with that viewpoint.b
WHERE SHOULD THE DIVINE NAME BE RESTORED?
The following two sections of Appendix C list the verses where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation.c Appendix C2 lists verses that contain either direct quotations from or indirect references to scriptures that use the Tetragrammaton in the original Hebrew text of the “Old Testament.” Appendix C3 lists verses that do not contain a direct quotation from the “Old Testament” and provides reasons for restoring the divine name in those verses.
Appendix C4 provides a list of some of the translations of the “New Testament” that have restored the divine name in various verses.d (These are referred to in Appendixes C2 and C3.) Not only have some of these translations restored the divine name in direct quotations from the “Old Testament” but they have also restored that name in other verses where the context or other factors give a valid reason for doing so. None of these translations have been produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.e Included in these are a number of translations that were made into Hebrew, as well as those made into many other languages. For ease of reference, these have been designated by the letter J followed by a number. For a list of over 120 languages and dialects in which the divine name can be found in the main text of the “New Testament,” or the Christian Greek Scriptures, see Appendix A5.
An even more explosive Cambrian explosion?
Taphonomy Study Shortens Fuse for the Cambrian Explosion
The Cambrian Explosion problem to Darwinian evolution is well known to our readers, having been explicated by Stephen Meyer in his NY Times bestseller, Darwin’s Doubt. Objections to the case for intelligent design of the Cambrian phyla were answered in Debating Darwin’s Doubt in 2015, and we regularly post updates about the Cambrian Explosion. Since Darwin himself, evolutionists have wrestled with the question: how could 16 or more complex animal body plans arise in the geological blink of an eye? If Darwin’s theory were true, where is the evidence for ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record?
Faith in (Missing) Fossils
Evolutionary paleontologists have been trusting that the missing Cambrian ancestors did indeed exist, because genetic estimates put their origins hundreds of millions of years before the explosion. They admit fossils are lacking, but the molecular clock seemed to provide evidence for a long fuse leading up to the Cambrian radiation. Perhaps fossils of the ancestors would turn up some day to validate the molecular clock. The ancestral forms might have been too small to show up, or the material they were buried in was not suitable for preservation.
To investigate that last possibility, researchers at Oxford University led by Dr. Ross P. Anderson examined the taphonomic potential of Neoproterozoic (Precambrian) sediments from around the world. Their work is published (open access) in Trends in Ecology & Evolution. News from Oxford calls it “the most thorough assessment to date of the preservation conditions that would be expected to capture the earliest animal fossils.”
The ‘molecular clock’ method, for instance, suggests that animals first evolved 800 million years ago, during the early part of the Neoproterozoic era (1,000 million years ago to 539 million years ago). This approach uses the rates at which genes accumulate mutations to determine the point in time when two or more living species last shared a common ancestor. But although rocks from the early Neoproterozoic contain fossil microorganisms, such as bacteria and protists, no animal fossils have been found.
This posed a dilemma for palaeontologists: does the molecular clock method overestimate the point at which animals first evolved? Or were animals present during the early Neoproterozoic, but too soft and fragile to be preserved?
Anderson’s team first examined the mineralogy of the twenty best Cambrian fossil sites, such as the Burgess Shale. Using three analytical techniques, they determined that Burgess-Shale-Type (BST) rocks, notably Cambrian mudstones, are enriched in certain clays that appear responsible for the exceptional preservation. Then they asked if any Neoproterozoic rocks have similar BST mineralogy. Most do not, they concluded. But three of them do: one in Nunavut (Canada), one in Siberia, and one in Norway. These sites are assigned dates of 800 to 789 mya in the Tonian period.
Given that BST conditions preserve small, soft, and fragile animals in the Cambrian, a lack of widely accepted animal fossils in Neoproterozoic successions, even if BST preservation occurred, would suggest a real absence of animals at that time.
Guess the Result
No Cambrian animal ancestors were found in the three sites.
Microanalytical study of direct clay-microfossil associations from three of the most biodiverse Neoproterozoic mudstones, the ∼1000-million-year-old Lakhanda Group (Siberia, Russia), and the ∼800-million-year-old Svanbergfjellet (Svalbard, Norway) and Wynniatt (Nunavut, Canada) formations, suggests that the role of BST preservation promoted by clays was as important in some Neoproterozoic as in Cambrian settings. These three deposits preserve multicellular and filamentous microorganisms, as well as forms with complex spines/processes that appear to be more fragile than typical spheroidal organic-walled forms common in Neoproterozoic assemblages. Elemental (EDS) and mineralogical mapping (synchrotron-based infrared microspectroscopy) revealed enrichments of kaolinite immediately adjacent to cell walls and forming protective haloes around the fossils.
Similarities in the distribution of clays in fossils from these three Neoproterozoic deposits and those from the Burgess Shale suggest that, in both cases, clays attached to or precipitated on decaying tissues, and that conditions conducive to BST preservation were available in both time periods. The diversity of fossil organisms and biopolymers preserved in this way shows no phylogenetic bias. Burgess Shale fossils representing stem taxa from a variety of groups (Canadia – annelid, Marrella and Opabinia – euarthropods, Ottoia – priapulid, Pikaia – chordate) are associated with kaolinite. Tonian microfossils associated with kaolinite include a chlorophyte, other undetermined eukaryotes, and probable cyanobacteria, organisms composed of a variety of biopolymers. However, no metazoan fossils have been reported from these Neoproterozoic deposits.
Their conclusion: animal ancestors “had not evolved by this time.”
Animal Affinities
Another constraint can be set at the Ediacaran period (600 to 574 mya). Most Ediacaran sites are of sandstone but show good taphonomic potential, as exemplified by detailed fossils of Dickinsonia, Kimberella and frondose organisms. The animal affinities of these are doubted, but the fossils prove that the mineralogy could have preserved Cambrian ancestors, had they existed.
Comparing the role of clays in the preservation of Cambrian and Neoproterozoic soft-bodied fossil assemblages highlights the value of taphonomic data in substantiating the absence of animals. We have presented a new maximum constraint on animals of ∼789 Ma (Tonian), while unambiguous fossils from the Ediacara Biota place a minimum constraint at ∼574 Ma
Based on Assumptions
Delicately stated, but here’s the rub: to reconcile the conflict, the molecular clock will have to give. Fossils can be held in the hand and photographed. The molecular clock is based on assumptions of mutation rates. Fossils should calibrate the molecular clock, not the other way around.
This provides the first “evidence for absence” and supports the view that animals had not evolved by the early Neoproterozoic era, contrary to some molecular clock estimates.’
If the animal ancestors were not there 800 mya, and still not there 574 mya in the best possible taphonomic conditions, what are the chances they will be found in between? Slim to none is a common-sense guess. Otherwise, evolutionists are left with ghost stories: the animals appeared but left no trace. A similar argument can be made about the time between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian, since fossil animal ancestors are missing in that range, too. Science is supposed to be about what can be observed, not what is necessary to keep a popular theory from being falsified.
A reasonable conclusion from this paper is that the molecular clock is wrong, and there were no animal ancestors in Precambrian strata. This removes the “long fuse” argument and puts more bang in the Cambrian Explosion.
Coptic John ch.1:1
The Sahidic Coptic Indefinite Article at John 1:1
“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5 (my emphasis)
What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *me*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)
These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”.
Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*
Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *ne* is elided with the "o" in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)
Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.
True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt.
The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.
Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.
It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.
On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.
In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.
Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any.
Memra at 9:02 AM
Against Nincsnevem XXI
Nincsnevem:The apostle Paul not only taught in his letters about Jesus that he "had a prehuman existence", but also that he existed in the form of God (no one ever claimed this about angels)
Actually the angels are called Gods see Psalms ch.8:5 . Sons of God Job ch.38:4-7
Nincsnevem:and used the term THEOS for the Son completely freely, all this to the congregations made of gentiles freshly converted from paganism in letters written
Moses is called God by JEHOVAH Himself also the divinely appointed princes of the ancient Hebrew nation are called God
Exodus ch.7:1 KJV"And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet."
Psalms ch.82:6KJV"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
Nincsnevem:without making it clear that this particular THEOS really only means archangel.
He made it clear that this particular has a God above him and thus is not the most high God 2Corinthians ch.1:3, Ephesians ch.1:3,Ephesians ch.1:17 etc. Thus contrary to the Nicene Creed the the Father of Christ is both a distinct and infinitely higher God than the Logos.
Moreover, if we also attribute the letter to the Hebrews to the apostle Paul, then it becomes clear already in the first chapter that the Son cannot be an angel.
No what becomes clear to a pair of unbiased eyes is that the Son was MADE better than angels in a particular respect
Hebrews ch.1:4KJV"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
Hebrews ch.1:5NIV"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
At acts ch.13:33 Paul uses this verse in referring to Jesus' resurrection so it was via this resurrection that his God and Father made him better the angels. Before his resurrection though he was made lower than the angels a thing not possible for the immutable God.
Hebrews ch.2:9KJV"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
Being distinguished from the angels in a certain aspect does necessarily imply that he cannot be called an angel in some respect
At Hebrews ch.1:1,2 Jesus is distinguished from the prophet's yet we know that he himself is a prophet.
Acts ch.3:22KKJV"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the LORD your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you."
I never said that the Church "went beyond" the Bible, but probably your denomination also preaches as doctrines that are not explicitly in the Bible, but were formed by reading several passages of the Bible together, through INTERPRETATION.
What the brothers endeavor to do is to allow the bible to speak for itself there is no infant baptism unlike the Catholic church and only those who demonstrate total commitment to JEHOVAH'S cause are allowed to get baptised. We were never taught to view our leaders as prophets or saints. Our conviction comes from our own PERSONAL study of scriptures and the way such confirms the brothers total determination to let the Bible speak for itself and JEHOVAH'S Blessing on that determination.
It is still not clear where in the New Testament it is prophesied that as soon as the apostles die, the ekklesia can close the curtain, see you in 1800 years...
And it is equally unclear to me what relevance that query has to this discussion. The brothers have never taught that those Judged to be through Christians "wheat" will disappear during the apostasy but that will be intermingle with and vastly out numbered by False Christians including false teachers ,"weeds"
The bible states that nearing/ during the endtimes their would be a separating of the true from the false and a gathering of them both and then a Judgment.
See Matthew ch.13:25-30
The intermingling with the weeds is why the end time cleansing mentioned at Daniel ch.12:8-10 proves necessary.
Daniel ch.12:10KJV"Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. "
File under "Well said" XCVI
" I am thankful to everyone who said no to me, it's because of them that I did it myself."
Albert Einstein
Monday 31 July 2023
Further evidence that ID is already mainstream science.
Explanations Reported by Mainstream Science, Design Inference Continues to Factor
Intelligent design continues to make news, even if not by that name. Mainstream academic journals continue to disparage ID while, at the same time, finding it useful. This is not to say they are entertaining the God Hypothesis, at least so far. But the Design Filter does not require theology, revealed or natural. It simply tries to distinguish among purposeful activity, natural law, and chance. ID is a rigorous application of the intuition we all engage in daily whenever we try to figure out if a phenomenon was intentional or if it just happened. Here I will update several categories I’ve reported on before.
SETI
The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) does not require atheism, but in practice, many of its adherents are fervent in their philosophical naturalism and their embrace of Darwinian evolution. If life evolved here, they reason, it must have happened in many other locations throughout the universe where conditions are suitable for advanced life.
We should distinguish SETI from astrobiology and UFOlogy, because SETI is concerned with intelligent life. And despite all the news about UAPs (“unidentified anomalous phenomena” — the new term for UFOs), most SETI advocates discount the notion that space aliens have traveled from the stars to Earth in physical craft. Sociologist Barry Markovsky from the University of South Carolina discounts the “UFO buzz” as due to psychological traits among believers. At The Conversation July 17, he urged readers to trust the real scientists.
For a scientist familiar with the issues, skepticism that UFOs carry alien beings is wholly separate from the prospect of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence have a number of ongoing research projects designed to detect signs of extraterrestrial life. If intelligent life is out there, they’ll likely be the first to know.
Any being that could build vehicles that do what they are alleged to do, violating laws of physics as we understand them, would certainly pass the design filter if verified. But since UFOlogy remains outside the mainstream, we will focus only on serious SETI that looks for signals or artifacts indicating purposeful activity by intelligent minds. At its basis, SETI relies on the design inference, even though its leading advocates would denounce intelligent design for philosophical reasons.
At Universe Today, Brian Koberlein declared, “Now SETI Researchers can be Sure” that signals came from space, not from Earth. The design inference can be seen in his intuitive discrimination of natural and artificial signals.
In radio astronomy, there are lots of natural radio signals to observe. The glow of hydrogen gas, the swirl of electrons along a magnetic field, or the pop-pop-pop of pulsars. These signals usually have a very naturalcharacter to them, so astronomers can distinguish them from the artificial chirps and chatters of terrestrial sources. But when you’re looking for the signals of alien civilizations, things can get more tricky. They should have an artificial character similar to the radio signals of humans. So how can astronomers distinguish between the distant artificial signal and the local ones?
It’s not an easy challenge. Even natural signals can be confused with artificial ones.
He reported on a new method determined by the Breakthrough Listen project to rule out interference from our home planet. The ability depends on discerning signals with which we are familiar: those intentionally sent by the activity of minds.
Robert Sanders at UC Berkeley engaged in the same “discriminatory” thoughts, “distinguishing a signal from ET” so that we are not “spoofed” by a one-off event. As principal investigator for Breakthrough Listen, Andrew Siemion came up with a technique called scintillation to identify signals emanating from the interstellar medium (ISM) far from Earth. Some local sources of radio interference have fooled SETI researchers before.
Siemion and his colleagues realized, however, that real signals from extraterrestrial civilizations should exhibit features caused by passage through the ISM that could help discriminate between Earth- and space-based radio signals. Thanks to past research describing how the cold plasma in the interstellar medium, primarily free electrons, affect signals from radio sources such as pulsars, astronomers now have a good idea how the ISM affects narrowband radio signals. Such signals tend to rise and fall in amplitude over time — that is, they scintillate. This is because the signals are slightly refracted, or bent, by the intervening cold plasma, so that when the radio waves eventually reach Earth by different paths, the waves interfere, both positively and negatively.
At Live Science, David Delgado Shorter worried that contact could result in genocide against earthlings. That inference came from the history of human conquest. It depends on ascribing similar “ethics” to other minds.
Hexagons Update
Last Year I evaluated whether hexagons in nature imply intelligent design. The answer was, “sometimes.” When bees make hexagonal lattices out of beeswax, I said, that had to be driven by coded information. This becomes even more apparent when scientists observe the ability of honeybees and wasps to adjust the diameter of the hexagons, and join them together, to accommodate size differences from one side to the other. Based on findings from Auburn University, Science Daily says,
Theresearchers found that wasps and bees used similar building techniques at the transition between small and large cells: if the size difference was minor, the insects built intermediate-sized hexagonal cells in between, but when the size difference was more pronounced, they built pairs of five- and seven-sided cells at the join. A mathematical model of the hexagonal comb structure generated a similar pattern of intermediate-sized and pentagonal/heptagonal cells at the transition between different cell sizes, indicating that the observed structure is based on fundamental geometric rules.
Whether one wishes to accept the “convergent evolution” tale to explain this is another matter. The authors of the scientific paper in PLOS Biology, though evolutionists, agree that the insects’ “architectural tricks” look like amazing “architectural solutions to nest-building problems.”
Fairy Circles Update
Causation is important in science. Instead of chalking up phenomena to chance, scientists seek to understand the causes behind them. For over four decades, scientists have been trying to figure out what created equally spaced circles in the Namib desert. Intelligent design was unlikely; one would have to invoke the aforementioned space aliens to explain that and the debunked crop circle craze. Two leading theories have competed: natural self-organization (here), or the work of termites (here).
Score another win for the termite theory. This month, researchers at the University of Hamburg claim to have “confirmed” that termites are the cause of the fairy circles in the Namib Desert. After observing sand termites in 1,700 fairy circles in Africa, Norbert Jürgens and Alexander Gröngröft “now refute the central arguments” of the self-organization theory, showing that the termites organize the sand grains to hold water for long-term storage.
“The horizontal water transports over metres in a few days assumed by the representatives of self-regulation are physically impossible according to current knowledge. The debate about opposing interpretations of a biological phenomenon is thus surprisingly decided by physics, in this case soil physics,” says Jürgens. “The soil moisture measurements on the fairy circles and the soil hydraulic properties of the sand found in the laboratory thus rule out the self-regulation hypothesis as an explanation for the fairy circles. The cause for the formation of the fairy circles is thus clear – it is the sand termites that secure a considerable survival advantage through soil moisture storage.”
No response from the opposition has been seen yet, so it’s not known if they will call their bluff or acquiesce to the new causal explanation. If the termite theory wins, then ID still has a role — not to allege that termites are capable of conscious thought — but as Eric Cassell argues in Animal Algorithms, instincts that show purposeful activity for function imply programming just as much as robotic activity does. These termites may not be thinking about organizing sand grains for water storage. Their collective behavior, though, shows them acting with foresight and intention as if programmed to do so.
Speaking of regularly spaced circles, I observed something similar in southern Utah from a helicopter in 2019 (see the photo at the top). If any aspiring ID researcher wishes to practice the design inference and determine if they are natural or artificial, the coordinates are 37° 0’55.92″N, 112°20’2.67″W.
Saying we don't know in more than so many words.
In Some Science Contexts, “Emergence” Really Means “We Don’t Know How”
For some purposes, “emergence” is just another word in the dictionary. For example, ”caterpillar emergence” (emphasis added) means just that: Caterpillars exiting their eggs.
But there is a sneakier way the word is sometimes used in science contexts: It’s a way of pretending we know something we don’t or that something can happen in a certain way — but we have no evidence for that.
Consider Three Illustrations
First:
Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life.
TOTANI, T. EMERGENCE OF LIFE IN AN INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE. SCI REP 10, 1671 (2020).
When used with respect to the origin of life, emergence is intended to convey the idea that life simply started to form without any intelligence in the universe directing it. The author is willing to admit that this is “an important unresolved problem” but the word “emergence” encourages us to think of it as like the caterpillar bursting out of the egg — forgetting that, in this case, the origin of the egg and other life forms is precisely what we wish to account for.
The study of human evolution has become particularly focussed on the emergence of language and human consciousness with respect to the social behaviour and mental capacities of our closest relatives: the apes.
JONKER, A. THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN MIND A SPECULATION ON THE EMERGENCE OF LANGUAGE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. ACTA BIOTHEOR 36, 129–177 (1987).
this example, “emergence” encourages us to consider the gradual origin of human language and consciousness from the social and mental capacities of apes as both plausible and scientific. It fuzzes over the fact that we have no idea how these things emerged and enables speculation to sound like a sort of fact.
And the third illustration?
Meanwhile, the categorization of types of religion (e.g., as polytheism, henotheism, or other) continued to stimulate attempts at a deeper understanding of the emergence of monotheism.
NINIAN SMART, THE EDITORS OF ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANICA, “HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF RELIGION” – BRITANNICA
Emergence here subtly encourages us to adopt biological evolutionary theory as a model for understanding monotheism. That is, we are not supposed to see monotheism as an initiative from the outside, suddenly appearing, as in: “When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless.’” (Genesis17:1) The choice of emergence is not a question of evidence but of what is permitted to count as an explanation.
In that sense, emergence permits the improbable to be considered probable for the purposes of sounding like science without providing any actual science.
These types of uses of the word and the underlying concepts that enable them have attracted criticism from varying perspectives. Here are two:
Emergence” Is a Prayer Trying to Be an Explanation
Yervant Kulbashian, who leads an applied AI team at a robotics company, doesn’t like the term, especially as applied to artificial intelligence:
Emergence can only be ascribed to a phenomenon in retrospect, once you already know what has “emerged”. The higher-level properties that emerge are qualitatively different from those at the lower-level — otherwise it wouldn’t be “emergence”. So by necessity they could not have been predicted from the lower-level ones. The properties of “intelligence” could not have been logically foreseen from the properties of neurons unless you had already observed that property emerge in a similar substrate. And even then it’s just a guess that is likely to be wrong given the complexity of the interactions involved; small differences can easily invalidate the hypothesis. In both cases emergence gives no new information: when explaining existing examples it gives you no new insights about the processes except that they happen; and when predicting unknown behaviours it gives very poor guarantees that anything you expect to happen will do so.
Emergence is only really valid as a general metaphysical classification of certain phenomena. It’s a metaphysical category, like “cause”, “effect” or “change”. Using the word when explaining cognition is not wrong per se, it just has no real meaning or explanatory force. It’s like having a theory of “thing-happened-ness” — it’s correct, but void of content.
Y. KULBASHIAN, “EMERGENCE” ISN’T AN EXPLANATION, IT’S A PRAYER,” MEDIUM, JULY 15, 2023
He adds that the term is used in AI development “whenever someone encounters a phenomenon in the human mind and has no idea how to even start explaining it (e.g. art, socialization, empathy, transcendental aesthetics, DnD, etc).”
Emergence has nothing to do with the whole being more than its parts. Instead, it calls our attention to behavioural outcomes that reveal themselves at the level of the whole rather than at the level of the parts, but this is not the same as the creation of an inequality of wholes and parts. Don’t fall prey to the lure of mystical interpretations, fanciful explanations, or hand-waving. Instead, see emergence for what it truly is — the system’s behaviour emerging from the interactions of its constituent elements.
DEREK CABRERA, “THE ABSURDITY OF EMERGENCE,” IAI.TV, JULY 26, 2023.
No. That ship sailed a long time ago. For example, the people who talk about the emergence of human consciousness and language would be only too happy to show how they arose from ape behavior. Trouble is, they can’t. “Emergence” is a way around admitting a reality that mocks their devoutly held promissory materialism.
Promissory materialism is the future facts that must turn out to be the case if materialism is true. We should, on that view, find materialist explanations for the origin of life, mind, and religion any day now. No day that we recognize that we can’t do so can even be contemplated.
And that is where emergence stands bravely in the gap.
Against Anonymous re Christ resurrection.
Anonymous: Watchtower Objections To A Bodily Resurrection
1. He would be taking His body off the altar, thus removing the ransom sacrifice.
Answer: It was the blood of Jesus which was shed for our redemption.
In the Old Testament sacrifices which typified Christ it was the blood which was carried into the Holy of Holies, not the body. Likewise it is Jesus' blood which paid the debt for our sins, (Hebrews 9:22)."
AservantofJEHOVAH Was it though only the blood
Hebrews ch.13:11ESV,"For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.
All sin offerings are to be completely destroyed on the altar
John ch.6:51NIV"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give(not lend) for the life of the world.”"
Anonymous:Would not the taking back of his life be equally disastrous according to this Watchtower logic? But Jesus said he had power to lay down His life and take it again, (John 10:17-18).
Reclaiming His human life would violate the prophetic pattern set by the Law Jesus said I came not to remove but to fulfill Matthew 5:17
Matthew ch.20:28 NIV"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give(Not lend) his life(psyche) as a ransom for many.”
If Jesus had his human life restored to him he could not be said to have fulfilled the Law only by exchanging his human life for a superhuman one ,one not sustained by blood could the pattern set by the law be fulfilled
The wages of sin is a permanent end to our human life if Christ is a substitute for us then he must under go the same punishment
Isaiah ch.53:8NIV"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."
The only way for a substitutionary atonement to fulfill the law was for Christ to permanently lose his human life.
Anonymous:(2. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God," (1 Corinthians 15:50
Answer: The expression "flesh and blood" occurs only five times in the New Testament. We must derive our definition of its meaning from these occurrences. Webster's Dictionary is of no use here.
Examine the following references and see if the writers are not just as often speaking of "flesh and blood" as "fallen man" as they are of the physical body.
Matt. 16:13-17: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven." Is this speaking of the physical flesh, or corrupt, sinful man not revealing Christ's identity to Peter?"
The presupposition is that the two are mutually exclusive man is made of flesh whether he is sinful or not certainly Jesus flesh and blood was not sinful. Nor was the flesh and blood of the first Adam
All of Paul's declarations re:the resurrection are to be understood as applying first to Jesus and only afterward to those born again through him. Also they are justified prior to being born again so their flesh and blood is considered sinless just like their Lord's
Romans ch.8:30NIV"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
So they are justified while in the flesh legally they are on the same level as the two Adams.
So flesh and blood here has nothing to do with sin.
Anonymous:-Eph. 6:12: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood..." A case can be made either way in the interpretation of this text.
For instance, because Christians do not physically wrestle with their opposition, Paul may not be referring to the physical body, but rather that Christians wrestle against sinful corruption of man and the spiritual forces of evil influencing him.
Heb. 2:14: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...."
Here the text does refer to the physical flesh because Jesus did not take on Himself a sinful nature.
And Jesus flesh and blood is the primary issue he is the forerunner and the pattern for all others
Hebrews ch.6:19,20"We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
I Cor. 15:50: "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...."
Paul is answering the question of what kind of body believers will have in the resurrection (vs. 35). It will be a "spiritual body" (vs. 44).
A "spiritual body" must be defined by the ONLY example we have of one, the body of Jesus.
So given that this first resurrection is only for those Justified in the flesh including Jesus ,it must be concluded that "flesh and blood" has nothing to do with sin
Hebrews ch.2:14-16NIV"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.
So the distinction is not between the sinful and the sinless but between the human and the superhuman just as to legally be considered a substitute for humans he had to exchange is his superhuman perfection for human perfection so too for his substitutionary offering to conform to law he had to exchange his human perfection for superhuman perfection.
Who outranks whom?
Daniel ch.10:5,6NIV"I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude."
Some are claiming that this man that Daniel saw in vision is JEHOVAH himself. Does the context support such an opinion.
Daniel ch.10:12-14NIV"12Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. "
So how could anyone imagine that almighty God would be detained by a demon prince and then need to be rescued by one of his creations
Daniel ch.10:21NIV"but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince."
Some claim that the fact that this Holy angel list Michael as his only helper proves that he outranks Michael THE(Not a) prince of Daniel's people at Daniel ch.12:1 he is called THE( Not a) great prince.
Again we have to wonder as to how consistently are they prepared to adhere to this line of reasoning.
Psalms ch.54:4ASV"Behold, God is my helper: The Lord is of them that uphold my soul."
Where as the angel said that Michael was his only help the psalmist list God among those helping him. Was the psalmist trying to promulgate the Idea that he outranked God by his statement or the reverse.
Michael is one of the Chief princes thus he can't be the logos.
Why not, the title sar(prince) is also given to JEHOVAH in the book of Daniel.
Daniel ch.8:11KJV"Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. "
Compared to the demon princes that Govern the nations JEHOVAH and his archangel are the foremost princes.
In calling Michael the prince of JEHOVAH'S People see Daniel ch.10:21 the Angel links Michael to the angel at
exodus ch.23:20,21ASV"“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him."
Later when Israel got into the land the prophet Joshua encountered an angel claiming to be the prince of JEHOVAH'S Army doubtless that same angel that bears JEHOVAH'S Name at exodus ch.23:20,21
Joshua ch.5:13-15NIV,"And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15And the prince of Jehovah's host said unto Joshua, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so."
Many commentators claim that is a manifestation of the pre-human Christ we agree .
Sunday 30 July 2023
Sit at my right hand?
Nincsnevem:The fact that 'Christ ascended to his heavenly throne' happened already in the 1st century, there was no need to wait until 1914 for this! According to Mark 'Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them,"
Revelation ch.12:5NIV"She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, "
According to the Revelation of the end times given to John the setting up of the kingdom and the casting down of Satan was to wait till the last days note the dragon has seven heads representing the seven political powers that have dominated the world Known to JEHOVAH'S people Rome was the sixth head so only in the time of the prophesied seventh head would the kingdom be set up
Revelation ch.17:10,11ESV"This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. "
As already mentioned revelation borrows heavily from Daniel and the post exilic books
So unsurprisingly Daniel also speaks of the kingdom as being set up in the time of the last set of kings.
Daniel ch.243,44ESV"As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,c but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,"
The iron would correspond to Rome the sixth "king" which was in John's day and the mix of iron and clay would correspond to the seventh "king" which would follow John's day "in the days of those kings" would the Davidic kingdom be restored to the Son of David.
Hebrews ch.2:8KJV"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him."
It was not yet time for the Davidic kingdom to be restored.
Acts ch.1:6,7KJV"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
The great apostasy.
However, the universal Christian Church could not have ceased for millennia in spite of all problems, because according to Christ, the forces of hell cannot prevail over it (Mt 16:18, Jude 24-25 cf. Eph 5:25-32). What is this Hades that will not prevail against the true church some underground realm of demons
Acts ch.2:31NIV"31Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead(Hades), nor did his body see decay."
So Hades is not a reference to superhuman wickedness but death, everyone bound for heaven must make a stop over in Hades/ Hell the true church refers to those heaven bound believers who remain faithful until death it's got nothing to to with these labels people like to wear
Revelation ch.2:26NIV"26To all who are victorious, who obey me to the very end,
To them I will give authority over all the nations."
Matthew ch.16:18NASB"And I also say to you that you are [m]Peter, and upon this [n]rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades(the grave) will not overpower it. "
So the great apostasy did not stop the gathering of sanctified ones for the kingdom or represent a failure of Jesus promise at Matthew 16:18.
Matthew ch.13:27-30NIV“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”" all the apostasy means is that the few who were attempting to claw their way back to bible truth were scattered among the many who were Christians in name alone. But Jesus says that in the end times there would be a separating and a gathering of the fruit bearing wheat in one place and the fruitless weeds in another.
So who lied: Jesus or the Watchtower? The New Testament also writes about the need for constant defense of faith (Jude 3), not about a complete
JEHOVAH Does not need to have a majority on his side to defend his faith he is a majority unto himself
Judges 7:4ASV"And Jehovah said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me. "
So this is non point the basics were still present among a tiny persecuted minority and of course JEHOVAH Would consider the mitigation of their circumstance and overlook their shortcomings
Acts ch.17:30ASV"The times of IGNORANCE therefore God overlooked; but NOW he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:"
JEHOVAH Has the power to raise the dead thus because some through no fault of their own die in ignorance it does not follow that such are eternally lost.
Anonymous" disintegration and theological breakdown after the 1st century until the 1870s. The original text of 2Thess 2:3 is not "great apostasy", but "falling away" or "defection" (without any further detail), and this is when the Antichrist also appears, who sits in the temple of God, deifying himself etc. None of this has happened yet."
1John ch.2:18NIV"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."
The apostolic era was ending and John was putting the brothers on their guard as to what was to follow he said that they already heard that the antichrist was coming ,where would they have heard that.
2Thessalonians ch.2:5,7NIV"Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8A"
Paul is saying that the man of lawlessness/antichrist(it's a collective)was already present but there was someone( also a collective) holding him back but he is hinting that the one holding him back would soon be taken away. So at 1John ch.2:18 John is echoing Paul's words at 2Thessalonians ch.2:5-7 but the situation was more urgent at 2John because John was the last apostle and was at the end of his life.
We know that Satan operates in a very subtle manner we should not expect that the antichrist is going to declare himself the antichrist of course he is going to pretend to be a representative of Christ
Matthew ch.7:15NIV"“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
2Corinthians ch.11:14NIV"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
The anti Christ has come and as predicted has decieved the whole world.
Revelation ch.12:9KJV"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the WHOLE world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. "
It's the mainstream that is in darkness truth is somewhere outside the mainstream Jesus gave the following advice in separating those who are in the light from those who are in the dark.
John ch.13:34,35KJV"34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
This love is not to be abrogated by any of the powers of the present age so you are not to murder your Christian brother regardless of which politician demands it.
The churches of Christendom have failed spectacularly to display this kind of love.
But by JEHOVAH'S Grace the brothers have proven ready to go to their deaths rather than violate Christ command. Thus fulfilling the sign.
Those violent among Daniel's people?
Daniel ch.11:14NIV" “In those times many will rise against the king of the South. Those who are violent among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success."
The 1st century natural Jews wanted a political Messiah to make their nation great again. That's why they were blinded to the presence of the true Messiah and his representatives ,their uprising against the hated Roman coloniser ended in total disaster.
Christendom i.e both the "Christian" left and the "Christian" right have also fashion a hyper-political/ ultranationalist Christ in keeping with their preferences and ambitions. And have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness deploy kinetic means in hastening the arrival of their political version of Christ's kingdom.
But the angels warning goes for them as well.
Revelation ch.13:10KJVHe that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."
In defense of biblicism II
Anonymous:And this is where we arrive at biblicism, which strives to form the single, solid point of reference for belief from solely reading and interpreting the Scripture. They consider only the Scripture to be the Word of God, and they want to reveal the truth of the Scripture with only one method, denying the necessity of broader exegesis."
1peter ch.2:21NIV"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps."
Where do we read of Christ quoting or referring to any rabbinic oral tradition or Greek philosopher in any of his many defenses. Our Lord always referred to the inspired writings as a defense so much so that he could make the following statement: John ch.5:45NIV"“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set."
He put the inspired writings above even his own oral declarations
John ch.17:17NIV"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."
1Corinthians ch.4:6NIV"Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other."
Deuteronomy ch.17:18,19NIV"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees"
The longest Psalm in the bible is an ode to the virtues of the inspired writings
Psalms ch.119:105NIV"Your word is a lamp for my feet,
a light on my path."
So biblicism is not a human invention it is a divine mandate.
How does knowledge increase.
Nincsnevem:The WT Society interprets Daniel's prophecy as having been fulfilled in the past 140 years of the Bible Researchers and Jehovah's Witnesses movement, and in the Society's publications. If Daniel only prophesied that his own book would be understood more deeply in the distant future, then the Society can only refer to this verse in relation to its calculations about the date 1914. But if Daniel was talking about the increase in knowledge, isn't it more likely that the prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century, when the collection of Hebrew Writings was supplemented by twenty-seven New Testament Greek Writings?
Here we see a contrast between the context driven approach of the brothers and the context averse approach of Mr nevem and his ilk
Daniel ch.12:4NIV"I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?”
Obviously Daniel is not interested in getting more writings that he did not understand he wants to understand the prophecies that he has received these things
9He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.
The increase knowledge of has to with understanding the wise will UNDERSTAND What Daniel did not in the first century there was an end of the world of sorts
Daniel ch.9:24ESV"“Seventy weeksc are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.d"
A reference to Jesus ministry death and resurrection that brought a real atonement replacing what was formally merely a pattern so there was a minor fulfillment of the angel's words but the tribulation that befell first century Israel was certainly not the greatest in human history.
The book of Revelation which borrows much of its prophetic imagery from the book of Daniel speaks of an even greater tribulation
Revelation ch.7:14NIV"I answered, “Sir, you know.” And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
So the end times spoken of in Daniel would mainly be fulfilled in the in the distant future which is hinted by the angel
Daniel ch.12:1,2NIV"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt"
So not just the end of the temple and the mosaic law but the end of human rule the end prophesied at
Daniel ch.2:44NIV"“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."
Truly the greatest tribulation mankind would ever witness
Daniel ch.12;4NIV"But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”"
So this translation makes a clear link between the diligent effort of these many and increase of knowledge obviously the increase of inspired information can't be credited to effort of any man and would not automatically result in increased understanding of any prophecy as Daniel ch.12:4 shows
Thus the mere increase in inspired writings in the first century are not a satisfactory explanation of Daniel 12:8-10.
Which would only be satisfied by an increase in the understanding of end time prophecy not an addition of even more mysterious prophecies. This of course will call for adjustments to previously incomplete understandings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)