tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14224363617588282442024-03-14T01:01:49.225-04:00The Nazaroo ZoneNazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comBlogger500125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-38083407902989656892015-05-18T19:25:00.003-04:002015-05-18T19:25:43.882-04:00Fun Facts 7: Moses vs. Mohammed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W4N1-UB1B7M/VVp0225ohUI/AAAAAAAAH50/7LKb0INwv6A/s1600/Moses-vs-Mohammed-07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W4N1-UB1B7M/VVp0225ohUI/AAAAAAAAH50/7LKb0INwv6A/s640/Moses-vs-Mohammed-07.jpg" width="426" /></a></div>
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-73822635365563300382015-05-17T09:20:00.002-04:002015-05-17T09:20:35.944-04:00Fun Facts 6: Moses vs. Mohammed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fBxDqkxSKy4/VViVj2D0grI/AAAAAAAAH5g/M71R_-KvrEs/s1600/Moses-vs-Mohammed-06.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fBxDqkxSKy4/VViVj2D0grI/AAAAAAAAH5g/M71R_-KvrEs/s640/Moses-vs-Mohammed-06.jpg" width="426" /></a></div>
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-47159619220183301122015-05-16T19:10:00.000-04:002015-05-16T21:08:36.171-04:00Fun Facts 4: Moses vs. Mohammed <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KQKAaz8b7OU/VVfONbnEv1I/AAAAAAAAH4k/toAVYdod4fk/s1600/Moses-vs-Mohammed-04.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KQKAaz8b7OU/VVfONbnEv1I/AAAAAAAAH4k/toAVYdod4fk/s640/Moses-vs-Mohammed-04.jpg" width="426" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7aADn-q9nvs/VVfRC8SHnmI/AAAAAAAAH4w/Hq6nv_A6zFM/s1600/vulva-vagina-shaped-black-stone-kaaba.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7aADn-q9nvs/VVfRC8SHnmI/AAAAAAAAH4w/Hq6nv_A6zFM/s640/vulva-vagina-shaped-black-stone-kaaba.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TlglDk9IFE/VVfRRXE1NYI/AAAAAAAAH44/x4IWNH190H0/s1600/pretmetmohammed-kaaba-kisses.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="385" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TlglDk9IFE/VVfRRXE1NYI/AAAAAAAAH44/x4IWNH190H0/s400/pretmetmohammed-kaaba-kisses.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G_g3hkLDR8o/VVfqBhlr1OI/AAAAAAAAH5I/JUylwfvo9ns/s1600/Moses-vs-Mohammed-05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G_g3hkLDR8o/VVfqBhlr1OI/AAAAAAAAH5I/JUylwfvo9ns/s640/Moses-vs-Mohammed-05.jpg" width="426" /></a></div>
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-87525472983439874352015-05-16T11:37:00.001-04:002015-05-16T12:16:46.101-04:00The Literal Interpretation of Genesis One (Pt 2): Hebrew Poetry and Prose<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YJcUgJOWO5M/VVdj6gzSflI/AAAAAAAAH2U/GCIpS4GYY0A/s1600/Bible-verses-about-creation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="626" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YJcUgJOWO5M/VVdj6gzSflI/AAAAAAAAH2U/GCIpS4GYY0A/s640/Bible-verses-about-creation.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Roman Catholic Apologists</span></b>, ever pushing Evolution and allegorical interpretations of the Bible in many places (especially prophecy * ),<br />
also wish to downplay or avoid a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter One.<br />
One apologist recently tried to sell Genesis One as a kind of 'hymn' or poetic allegory.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: darkred;">The creation account in Genesis 1 resembles a <b>hymn</b>, and is thus sometimes called the Hymn of Creation, or the Poem of the Dawn.</span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">No reference is given.<br />
Just disembodied unknown 'people' of unknown authority. <br />
The bogus practice of using the Passive Voice to avoid identifying the Subject of the Action, <br />
has long been recognized as a charlatan's debating technique.<br />
<br />
<b>Whenham</b> indeed calls Genesis 1 a <span style="color: #990000;">"hymn"</span>, but even he does not call Genesis 1 itself poetry. Instead he compares it to poetry such as that found not in Genesis, but in <br />
the Book of <i>Psalms:.</i></span><br />
<br />
In his commentary,</span></span> <b>Wenham</b> understands Genesis 1 to
be unique in the Old Testament. He notes that it is neither typical
poetry (Wenham 1987, p. 10) nor normal Hebrew prose as “. . . its
syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose.” <span style="color: black;"><b>He </b></span>instead<b><span style="color: black;"> calls it a “hymn”</span></b> believing it to be <span style="color: black;"><b> elevated <span style="color: darkred;"><i>prose</i></span></b></span>(Wenham
1987, p. 10). Wenham sees the use of phrases in day one that become a
formula in the subsequent days as making the narrative highly stylized
(Wenham 1987, p. 37). Because of this, Wenham believes Genesis 1<br />
<blockquote>
. . . <span style="color: black;"><b>invites <span style="color: darkred;"><i>comparison</i></span> with </b></span>the psalms that praise God’s work in creation (e.g., 8, 136, 148) or with passages such as <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Prov%208.22%E2%80%9331" target="_blank">Prov 8:22–31</a> or <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Job%2038" target="_blank">Job 38</a> that reflect on the mystery of God’s creativity <span style="color: blue;">(Wenham 1987, p. 10). </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><b>Does Genesis</b>, as Wenham and others claim, <b>invite <i>comparison</i> with Hebrew poetry</b>?</span> <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Psalm%208" target="_blank">Psalm 8</a> is often used as a comparison with Genesis. However, <b>Robert Alter </b>states:<br />
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: darkred;">The poem [</span><span style="color: darkred;"><span style="color: darkred;">Psalm 8] </span>might be described as a kind of summarizing paraphrase of the account of creation in Genesis 1 . . . The difference in form, however, between the two texts is crucial, and instructive. <b>Genesis 1, being <i><span style="color: black;"><u>narrative</u></span></i></b>, reports creation as a sequence of events . . . Psalm 8 assumes as a background this narrative process, but takes it up after its completion . . . <span style="color: blue;">(Alter 1990, p. 117). </span></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Actually Genesis 1 contains <i><span style="color: darkred;">NO instances</span></i> of Hebrew parallelism,</b><br />
which is a stylistic feature fully identified and described <br />
in scholarly analysis. One feature of Hebrew parallelism <br />
is that the parallel lines be consecutive and joined by VAV.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">From the <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11902-parallelism-in-hebrew-poetry" target="_blank"><i><b>Jewish Encyclopedia:</b></i></a></span><br />
</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
<b>PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY:</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, <i><b><span style="color: darkred;">not only</span> </b></i>of the <b>poetical</b>, <span style="color: darkred;">but even of the </span><b><i>rhetorical</i></b> and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. <span style="color: darkred;">By parallelism in this connection is understood the regularly recurring</span><span style="color: black;"><b> juxtaposition of symmetrically constructed sentences</b></span>.
The symmetry is carried out in the substance as well as in the form,
and lies chiefly in the relation of the expression to the thought. The
same idea is expressed in its full import—that is, in its various
aspects and turns—not in a continuous, uninterrupted sentence, <span style="color: black;">but<b> in several corresponding clauses or members with different words. </b></span>Hencethe
name "parallelismus membrorum" or "sententiarum." It has also been
aptly called "sinnrhythmus" (Ewald). For the parallel members are
related to each other as rhythmical protasis and apodosis, as προῳδός
and ἐπῳδός.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
...</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
(1) <span style="color: black;"><b>The synonymous</b></span>, in which the same
sentiment is repeated in different but equivalent words (Ps. xxv. 5;
comp. ib. exiv.; Num. xxiii. 7-10; Isa. lx. 1-3; etc.).</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: darkred;">"Shew me thy ways, O Lord;</span></span></span></span> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: darkred;">Teach me thy paths"</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: darkred;">
</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
(2) <span style="color: black;"><b>The antithetical</b></span>,
in which the parallel members express the opposite sides of the same
thought (Prov. xi. 3; comp. ib. x. 1 et seq.; Isa. liv. 7 et seq.; Ps.
xx. 8, xxx. 6).</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: darkred;">"The integrity of the upright shall guide them, But</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: darkred;">the perversity of the treacherous shall destroy them"</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">
<span style="color: black;">(1) There is nothing like this in Genesis 1.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">(2) Its also a common feature of <i><b><span style="color: darkred;">non</span>-poetry</b></i>,</span> as stated above.
<br /> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
My opinion of the historical accuracy of <i><b>Genesis 1</b></i> has no <br />
bearing at all on whether or not its author intended it to be read <br />
as narrative rather than poetry. <br />
<b><br />
However, <i><span style="color: darkred;">in hindsight, </span></i>I think I would now modify my opinion:</b><br />
As the first post in this thread correctly indicates, <br />
after having taken a serious and thoughtful look at Genesis 1, <br />
I have come to the conclusion first of all that it is indeed intended <br />
to be a historical narrative, not poetry or parable. <br />
<br />
Its accuracy is another matter, which I haven't evaluated, <br />
except as to the question of its compatibility with what is known today <br />
from science (see last half of first post). <br />
<br />
<b>I would now modify my original opinion, <br />
and state that I would limit the allegorical or parable-like interpretation <br />
of the Genesis text generally to the story of Adam and Eve. </b><br />
However, even interpreting that text (Genesis 2 etc.) <br />
as purely allegorical has its problems, because again,<br />
from a scientific point of view there had to have been a physical <br />
Adam and Eve, i.e., historical characters that were ancestors <br />
at least of early (EME) Semitic tribes.<br />
</span><br />
What I have shown however in this thread is that Genesis 1 <br />
most plausibly is read as a historical text. <br />
<br />
<br />
_______________________________<br />
<span style="color: black;"><br />
<b><br />
I strongly suggest anyone try the following experiment:</b><br />
<br />
(1) Find a few Jewish friends (more than one is a good idea). <br />
<br />
(2) Make sure they can actually read Hebrew reasonably well. <br />
<br />
(3) Ask them to take a fresh look at <span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>Genesis 1</b></i></span> in the Hebrew text.<br />
<br />
(4) Limit your question to this very specific one:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: darkred;">"Regarding the form of the text here, <br />
does this read to you more like poetry, or a simple narrative?"</span></b><br />
<br />
Make sure you are clear that you are not asking about whether <br />
your friend thinks the narrative is true or not. <br />
Make sure you are clear that you are not asking him if he believes <br />
it to be literal or figurative, or allegorical. <br />
<br />
(5) Just get him to commit on one simple question:<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: darkred;">"Does the text look like narrative or poetry to you?"</span></b><br />
<br />
Get all the other opinions you want from them, but nail them down <br />
on this one question. <br />
Do this with more than one Jewish person who can actually read Hebrew.<br />
<b><br />
Then count up the votes.</b><br />
</span>
<br />_______________________________</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;">* In regard to false versions of Prophetic Interpretation, see our articles on that elsewhere.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></span></span>Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-61040282472644183842015-05-16T11:14:00.001-04:002015-05-16T11:14:39.918-04:00The Literal Interpretation of Genesis One (Pt 1): Narrative, Poetry, Science<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmndCWZxU_c/VVdexRP8ORI/AAAAAAAAH2E/kefED33R9Fg/s1600/Gods-creation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="392" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmndCWZxU_c/VVdexRP8ORI/AAAAAAAAH2E/kefED33R9Fg/s640/Gods-creation.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="vb_postbit" id="post_message_3411710">
<span style="color: black;"><br />
(1) <b>Genesis 1 is not Hebrew Poetry.</b><br />
<br />
Hebrew poetry is distinguished by three main features:<br />
(a) Parallelism of Clauses<br />
(b) Metaphoric and figurative language<br />
(c) Lack of Narrative structure<br />
<br />
(2) <b>Genesis 1 is most closely related to Narrative.</b><br />
<br />
Hebrew narrative is distinguished by: <br />
(a) the conjunctive WAW to coordinate clauses<br />
(b) Lack of figurative and metaphoric language<br />
(c) lack of repetative parallelism. <br />
<br />
(3) <b>Genesis 1 has minor literary and poetic features.</b><br />
<br />
(a) Delayed Parallelism of phrase regarding 'night and day'. <br />
(b) Title and summary statements at the beginning and end of divisions. <br />
(c) Genesis 1 reads as a structured narrative to a Hebrew reader.<br />
<br />
(4) <b>The Uniqueness of Genesis 1 is based on structure and content.</b> <br />
<br />
Unique features include:<br />
(a) The content and topical focus is unique: i.e., Creation<br />
(b) The narrative unfolds in 7 'days'. <br />
(c) It contains literary forms common for AME documents and tablets.<br />
<br />
(5) <b>Genesis 1 presents primarily as a historical and descriptive document.</b> <br />
<br />
(6) <b>Genesis 1 has no overt allegorical or parable-like features. </b><br />
<br />
(7) <b>Genesis 1 was in its earliest history interpreted literally</b> (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Exod 20.11" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod%2020.11" target="_blank">Exod 20:11</a>, <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Exod 31.17" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Exod%2031.17" target="_blank">31:17</a>)<br />
<br />
(8) <b>Some Key Logical/scientific questions concerning the sequence <br />
and order of events in Genesis 1 are non-existent. <br />
</b><br />
(a) <span style="color: darkred;">No Contradiction with Science having Light on 1st Day, the Sun on 4th Day.</span><br />
<br />
If we check any scientific account of the Origin of the universe, <br />
its obvious we have the creation of energy and light before <br />
any stars including the Sun were formed. <br />
Genesis has the order correct.<br />
<br />
(b) <span style="color: darkred;">No Contradiction with Science in having Light and Dark cycles prior to the Sun. </span><br />
<br />
If the Light/Dark cycles were describing those we experience on earth, then <br />
both the earth and the sun would have to exist. Since the narrator knows <br />
in advance that neither have been created, the Light/Dark cycles described <br />
cannot be intended as descriptions of what an observer on earth would experience. <br />
Its a false contradiction, since what is described is not what takes place on earth.<br />
<br />
(c) <span style="color: darkred;">No Contradiction with Science in regard to the length of time for first 3 days. </span><br />
<br />
Popular scientific theories like the Big Bang pose that drastic changes occurred <br />
in the very short time-span of seconds and minutes in regard to the formation of <br />
the universe. While the events do not correspond closely between Genesis 1 and <br />
modern hypotheses, the modern hypotheses are speculative and allow for free energy <br />
and light to appear within 24 hours of creation.<br />
<br />
(d) <span style="color: darkred;">No Contradiction with Science on relative age of Earth and Moon on Day 4. </span><br />
<br />
Astrophysicists agree that the rough age of both the earth and moon are the same. <br />
The only remaining issue is the interpretation of the overall length of time <br />
between the creation of both and the present.<br />
<br />
(e) <span style="color: darkred;">No Contradiction with Palaeobiology on the Order of species creation.<br />
</span><br />
The geographical record suggests that plants existed before animals, <br />
and that sea creatures formed before land animals, and that birds (dinosaurs)<br />
formed before mammals, with man coming late. <br />
<br />
Biological science agrees that plants had to come before animals. <br />
Palaeontology agrees that land animals came after sea creatures, <br />
birds predate mammals, and man came last.<br />
<br />
<b>Given that the the Genesis account is so brief, <br />
the only issue remaining is the actual <br />
assigned time-periods between events. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
</span></div>
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-15275209968899815192015-04-28T23:33:00.001-04:002015-04-28T23:33:04.594-04:00Daniel (Pt 19): The Four Empires - more DetailsWe can be very satisfied that there were indeed Four Empires,<br />
and that Daniel was indeed talking about them.<br />
<br />
Secular records and non-Biblical historians of all ages will confirm the most basic and important details about each Empire and Era.<br />
<br />
Thus it is appropriate to condense our chart and also add the main events<br />
to the timeline on the right-hand side for reference and confirmation:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0pAnHvZbiT8/VUBQCOnhfqI/AAAAAAAAH0o/bHLDFk0pkDE/s1600/RomanEmpire05-Dan2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0pAnHvZbiT8/VUBQCOnhfqI/AAAAAAAAH0o/bHLDFk0pkDE/s1600/RomanEmpire05-Dan2.jpg" height="640" width="586" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Again, we will provide a large and a small version for re-posting.<br />
<br />
Smaller version:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EVLBgXnbsjU/VUBQ4_Q1c5I/AAAAAAAAH0w/ZDP7WGGbqXE/s1600/RomanEmpire05-Dan2-small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EVLBgXnbsjU/VUBQ4_Q1c5I/AAAAAAAAH0w/ZDP7WGGbqXE/s1600/RomanEmpire05-Dan2-small.jpg" height="400" width="366" /></a></div>
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-25710820619741358122015-04-28T15:48:00.000-04:002015-05-18T20:31:13.367-04:00Gospel of Barnabas: Medieval Muslim Forgery<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6EyroHIFFOo/VT_je2eIHgI/AAAAAAAAH0Y/qbHGJmouCKA/s1600/barnabas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="408" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6EyroHIFFOo/VT_je2eIHgI/AAAAAAAAH0Y/qbHGJmouCKA/s1600/barnabas.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Here are some exerpts from <a href="https://endtimefacts.wordpress.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"><i><b>a booklet examining</b></i></span></a> the question of <br />
the authenticity of the so-called Gospel of Barnabas. <br />
<br />
It exists in Italian and Spanish, and has been translated into English, and Arabic. <br />
<br />
It has been circulated widely in the Muslim world, particularly in places <br />
like Pakistan and India, where copies are printed. <br />
<br />
It is claimed to be "the original gospel", but like so many others, <br />
is a lame forgery, by a Medieval muslim, probably a Spanish Moor. <br />
<br />
What Muslims don't know, but should be aware of, is that it not only <br />
contradicts the New Testament and Old Testament, but also the Quran!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
...</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Barnabas Preaches against Paul:</b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
The author of this book uses strong language to denounce the teaching of
Paul in particular, especially regarding circumcision; the
crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus; and the Christian belief
that Jesus is the Son of God. The whole book abounds in discourses
levelled against those things which the author particularly takes Paul
to task for, and there can be no doubt that the author of this book is
poles apart from Paul and his doctrine and is diametrically opposed to
his preaching and teaching.<br />
...<br />
There is such a contrast between the real Barnabas who through all these
events chooses Paul as his companion, and the pseudo-author of the
Gospel of Barnabas, who has a positive antagonism to Paul and his
teaching, that we cannot help but conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas
is a forgery. It was not written by Barnabas but by someone else who
made a major tactical blunder in choosing a close companion of Paul as
the author of this book.<i><b><br />
...<br />
<br />
<br />
Barnabas is made into an Apostle:</b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes his first serious
blunder for he suggests throughout his book, not only that Barnabas was
actually one of the twelve disciples of Jesus during his ministry on
earth, but also that he was known by this name “Barnabas” throughout
that period of ministry. On more than one occasion in the book we find
that Jesus allegedly addressed him by name and the first occasion, which
comes particularly early in the book, is this one:<br />
Jesus answered: ‘Be not sore grieved, Barnabas; for those whom God
hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish’ (The
Gospel of Barnabas, p.21).<br />
Now we have here a patent anachronism which destroys the possibility
that this book was really written by the Apostle Barnabas. The apostles
only gave him the name “Barnabas” (Son of encouragement) after the
ascension of Jesus because of the generous act he had done which had
heartened the spirits of the early Christians. But the Gospel of
Barnabas makes Jesus call him by this name some three years before he
ascended to heaven.<br />
...</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><br />
Barnabas makes Circumcision Necessary for Salvation:</b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
in the Gospel of Barnabas, we read that one of the “impious doctrines”
that Paul was holding to was repudiation of circumcision. That he
repudiated it as an essential element of salvation we will readily
concede (Galatians 5. 2-6) – but his chief partner in this repudiation
is none other than Barnabas! Once again the author has blundered in
making Barnabas the author of his deplorable forgery. Indeed, according
to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus is alleged to have said to his
disciples:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="color: darkred;">‘Leave fear to him that hath not circumcised his foreskin, for he is deprived of paradise’ </span></i>(The Gospel of Barnabas, p.26).</span>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Thus circumcision is an essential element and a
prerequisite of salvation in the Gospel of Barnabas and the author
obviously assents to this doctrine. But of the real Barnabas we read
that he joined with Paul in furiously debating against the doctrine of
the Judaisers that circumcision was necessary for salvation.<br />
...</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Barnabas doesn't know what "Christ" means:</b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
Two points from within the Gospel of Barnabas also show that the author could not be the real Apostle Barnabas. </span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
Firstly, this book makes Jesus constantly deny that he is the <b>Messiah</b> ...and yet the same book calls Jesus himself the “<b>Christ</b>” (p.2). Now any man with a basic knowledge of Greek knows that<b> “Christos” is the Greek translation of Messiah</b>
(a Hebrew word) and that “Jesus Christ” is an anglicised form of the
Greek “Iesous Christos”, meaning “Jesus the Messiah”. The very real
contradiction that exists here in the Gospel of Barnabas is further
evidence that the author was not Barnabas himself. He came from Cyprus,
an island where Greek was the common tongue, and Greek would have been
his home language. <span style="color: darkred;"><i>The real Barnabas would never have made such a mistake as to call Jesus the Christ and deny that he was the Messiah!</i></span><br />
..</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><br />
Barnabas doesn't know the Quran endorses John</b><b> the Baptist:</b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
Secondly, the author ...has deviously taken the testimony of John to
Jesus in the Bible and changed it into a supposed testimony of Jesus to
<i><b>Muhammad.</b></i> Whether Jesus ever predicted the coming of
Muhammad or not is not at issue here. What is obvious, however, to
anyone who has read the life of Jesus in the Bible, is that the author
of the Gospel of Barnabas has tried to make Jesus a herald of the
coming of Muhammad in the very mould of John the Baptist who was a
herald of the coming of Jesus, and to achieve this he has put Jesus in
the shoes of John and has made him say of Muhammad what John really
said of him!<br />
Accordingly the author has had to omit the person and ministry of John
from his book altogether. But there is clear and plain endorsement in
the <i><b>Qur’an </b><span style="color: darkred;">of the ministry of John the Baptist as a herald of <b>Jesus</b> </span></i> (<i><b>Surah 3.39</b></i>)<br />
...</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>Medieval Origin of Gospel of Barnabas:</b></i></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
(a) Barnabas mistakes Jubilee of <b>Pope Boniface</b> (c. 1300 AD) for Jewish Jubilee:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: red; font-size: small;">A jubilee shall that <i><b>fiftieth</b></i> year be to you. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Lev. 25.11" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Lev.%2025.11" target="_blank">Lev. 25.11</a></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
About 1300 AD </span><b>Pope Boniface</b><span style="font-size: small;"> the Eighth gave a decree that the jubilee should be observed once every </span><b>hundred</b><span style="font-size: small;">
years. This is the only occasion in all history that the jubilee year
was made to be only once every hundred years. After the death of
Boniface, however, Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed in 1343 AD that the
jubilee year should revert to once every fifty years as it was observed
by the Jews after the time of Moses. Now we find in the Gospel of
Barnabas that Jesus is alleged to have said:</span><blockquote>
<i><span style="color: darkred;">‘And
then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received,
insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh <b>every hundred years</b>, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place.’ </span></i>(The Gospel of Barnabas, p.104).</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
The author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have
quoted Jesus as speaking of the year of jubilee as coming “every
hundred years” if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. This is a
clear anachronism.</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><b>(b) Quotations from Dante.</b><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
Dante was an Italian who, significantly, also lived about the time of Pope Boniface and wrote his famous “</span><b><i>Divina Comedia</i></b><span style="font-size: small;">”
in the fourteenth century. This was basically a fantasy about hell,
purgatory and paradise according to the Roman Catholic beliefs of his
times.</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
Now in the Gospel of Barnabas we read that Jesus allegedly said of the prophets of old:</span><blockquote>
<i><span style="color: darkred;">‘Readily
and with gladness they went to their death, so as not to offend
against the law of God given by Moses his servant, and go and serve<b> false and lying gods</b>’.</span></i> (Gospel of Barnabas, p.27).</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
The expression</span><span style="color: darkred;"> “false and lying gods” </span><span style="font-size: small;">(</span><i><span style="color: darkred;">dei falsi e lugiardi</span></i><span style="font-size: small;">)
is found elsewhere in the Gospel of Barnabas as well. On one occasion
it is Jesus again who supposedly uses these words (p.99) and on another
it is the author himself who describes Herod as serving “false and
lying gods” (p.267). Nevertheless</span><b> this expression is found in neither the Bible nor the Qur’an.</b><span style="color: darkred;"><i>What is interesting, however, is that it is a direct quote from <b>Dante</b></i>!</span><span style="font-size: small;"> (Inferno 1.72).</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
Likewise the expression </span><span style="color: darkred;">“raging hunger” </span><span style="font-size: small;">(</span><span style="color: darkred;"><i>rabbiosa fame</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">)
is also reminiscent of the first canto of Dante’s Inferno. Both speak
of the “circles of hell” and the author of the Gospel of Barnabas also
makes Jesus say to Peter:</span><blockquote>
<span style="color: darkred;"><i>‘Know ye
therefore that hell is one, yet hath seven centres one below another.
Hence, even as sin is of seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell hath
Satan generated it: so there are seven punishments therein’.</i></span> (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.171).</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
This is precisely </span><i><b>Dante</b></i><span style="font-size: small;">’s description found in the</span><i><b> fifth and sixth cantos</b></i><span style="font-size: small;"> of his Inferno. We could go on and quote many more examples </span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
One striking quote must be mentioned, however, because in this case</span><i><span style="color: darkred;"><b> the Gospel of Barnabas agrees with <span style="color: black;">Dante</span> while contradicting the <span style="color: black;">Qur’an</span>. </b></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"> We read in the Qur’an that there are seven heavens:</span><blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">He it is who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens.</span> <i>(Surah 2.29)</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
On the contrary we read in the Gospel of Barnabas that there are </span><b>nine heavens</b><span style="font-size: small;">
and that Paradise like Dante’s Empyrean – is the tenth heaven above
all the other nine. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus
say:</span><blockquote>
<span style="color: darkred;"><i>‘Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Verily I say unto thee that <b>the heavens are nine </b>… I say to thee that paradise is greater than all the earth and all the heavens together’.</i></span> (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.223).</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><i><b> ...</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>(c) The Mediaeval Environment of the Barnabas Gospel:</b></i><br />
<br /><span style="font-size: small;">
Again we read in the Gospel of Barnabas that Martha, her sister Mary, and her brother Lazarus were the </span><b><i>overlords</i></b><span style="font-size: small;"> of two towns, Magdala and Bethany (</span><i><b>GB</b></i><span style="font-size: small;">,
p.242). This proprietorship of villages and towns belongs to the
Middle Ages when the system of feudalism was rooted in European
society. Certainly no such practice was known at the time of Jesus when
the occupying Roman forces controlled most of the land of Palestine.</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
...</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
A similar example of the mediaeval environment of this Gospel is the reference in it to</span><span style="color: darkred;"><i><b> wine casks</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> (p.196), for wine was stored in skins in Palestine (</span><a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Matthew 9.17" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%209.17" target="_blank">Matthew 9.17</a><span style="font-size: small;">) while </span><b>wooden casks were used in Europe</b><span style="font-size: small;"> in the Middle Ages.</span><br />
<br /><span style="font-size: small;">
It does well appear to be a forgery of the Middle Ages written by a
Muslim who, probably frustrated at being unable to prove that the true
Gospels in the Bible are corrupted, wrote a false Gospel.</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">
...</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>Ignorance of Palestinian Geography:</b></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i><span style="color: darkred;">Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the sea-men spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought.</span></i> (<i>The Gospel of Barnabas,</i> p.23).<br />
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">In this passage Nazareth is represented as a coastal city, a
harbour on the lake of Galilee. After this we read that Jesus “went up
to Capernaum” (p.23) from Nazareth, as though Capernaum was in the
hillside near the sea of Galilee. But ... </span><i>Capernaum</i><span style="font-size: small;"> was the coastal city and </span><i>Nazareth</i><span style="font-size: small;"> is believed to be up in the hills, if it indeed existed in the time of Jesus.</span><br />
<br />
<i><b><br />
Barnabas contradicts Quran about the Jesus as Messiah:</b></i><br />
<blockquote>
<i><span style="color: darkred;">Jesus confessed and said the truth: ‘<b>I am not the Messiah</b> … I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah’.</span></i> (The Gospel of Barnabas, pp.54, 104).</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Other passages in the Gospel of Barnabas contain similar
denials by Jesus that he was the Messiah. It is clearly one of the
express purposes of this book to establish Muhammad as the Messiah and
to subject Jesus to him in dignity and authority. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="color: darkred;">Here, however, the author of this book has overreached himself in his zeal for the cause of Islam. </span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
For</span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b> the Qur’an plainly admits that Jesus is the Messiah on numerous occasions</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> and in doing so it confirms the teaching of Jesus himself that he was indeed the Messiah (</span><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="John 4.26" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/John%204.26" target="_blank">John 4.26</a></span><span style="font-size: small;">, </span><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Matthew 16.20" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2016.20" target="_blank">Matthew 16.20</a></span><span style="font-size: small;">). One quote from the Qur’an will suffice to prove this:</span><blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;"><i>‘O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is <b>the Messiah, Jesus</b> son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter’.</i> </span><i>- (Surah 3.45)</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>...<br />
<br />
Barnabas Contradicts the Quran on the Virgin Birth:</b></i></span><blockquote>
<i><span style="color: darkred;">The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright and brought forth her son <b>without pain</b>.</span></i> (<i>The Gospel of Barnabas, </i>p.5).</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
This is a clear repetition of Roman Catholic beliefs of the
Middle Ages. The bright light and the painless birth find parallels in
the beliefs about the Virgin Mary in the churches of Europe in
Mediaeval times. No such details are found in the Biblical account of
the birth of Jesus but the Qur’an directly contradicts the Gospel of
Barnabas when it says:</span><blockquote>
<i><span style="color: blue;">And the <b>pangs of childbirth</b> drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. -</span> (Surah </i>19.23)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">
The Gospel of Barnabas was obviously written as an ideal
“Islamic” Gospel, setting forth a life of Christ in which he is made to
be the Isa of the Qur’an rather than the Lord Jesus Christ of the
Christian Gospels. But </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>since it so hopelessly contradicts both the Qur’an and the Bible</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and does this so often and so consistently, </span><span style="color: darkred; font-size: small;"><b>it must be rejected as a forgery by Christian and Muslim alike.</b></span><span style="font-size: small;"> There is no room here for apologetics or efforts to reconcile this book with the Qur’an or the Bible.</span><span style="font-size: small;"><b> <br />
<br />
It is a (Medieval) counterfeit.</b></span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
...</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>What Should Muslims Do? </b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
...this book is truly a “bare-faced forgery” as George Sale so
succinctly put it but the evidence given [here] should be sufficient to
convince any reasonable Muslim that, while he might feel it would be
very useful for a Gospel to be discovered wherein Jesus foretells the
coming of Muhammad, the Gospel of Barnabas just does not provide him
with the honest evidence he needs. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Muslim interest in this book is understandable but</b></span><span style="font-size: small;">, in the name
of truth and honesty, the Muslims of the world should admit that it is
not a book contemporary with the life of Jesus, which proves that he
really was the Isa of the Qur’an, but rather a lamentable forgery
which, far from promoting the cause of Islam, must ultimately damage it
if foolish men continue to propagate it as a true account of the life
and teachings of Jesus Christ. </span><br />
</span>Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-86768901196624868262015-04-28T01:11:00.003-04:002015-04-28T01:11:56.757-04:00Daniel (Pt 18): The Ten Horns of the Fourth Empire<br />
<b>The Ten Horns</b> of the Fourth and Final Empire are a natural difficulty for any<br />
and every interpretation of Daniel's prophecy in <b>chapter 7 </b>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;">... The fourth beast will be a <b>fourth kingdom</b> on the earth, which
will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole
earth and tread it down and crush it. <span class="reftext"></span><span class="highl">As
for the <span style="color: red;"><b>ten horns</b></span>, out of this kingdom <b>ten kings will arise</b>; and
<b><span style="color: red;">another </span>will arise after them</b>, and he will be different from the
previous ones and will subdue three kings.</span></span></span></i> ...(<i><b>Dan. 7:23-24</b></i>)</blockquote>
However those who claim that the author of <i><b>Daniel</b></i> is really <i>an imposter</i> faking prophecy by writing history in disguise around 169 BC are forced to construct<br />
the most non-credible and disunited explanations for this section.<br />
<br />
Because they want to compress Daniel into the tiny zone c. <b>168-164 BCE</b>,<br />
they must try to identify the <b>Ten Horns/Kings</b> in this last era of the Greek Empire, which is a hopeless task:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="bodytext">
<span style="color: #990000;">'In addition, ...<b>Rowley</b><span style="color: blue;">
[arguing for a late date]</span> completely fails to support the Grecian empire interpretation by any
consensus among its followers, and <i><b>his discussion is a hopeless maze of
alternating views</b></i> which he either rejects or accepts often as mere
matters of opinion.</span></div>
<span style="color: #990000;">
While the diversity of interpretation is indeed
confusing to any expositor of this portion of Scripture, if the book of
Daniel is a sixth-century writing, and therefore genuine Scripture, it
follows, even as Rowley indirectly admits, that <b>the Roman view is more
consistent</b> than the Greek empire interpretation. This is especially true
among those following pre-millennial interpretation.' </span><span style="color: #990000;"></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">- </span><b>John F. Walvoord,</b> <i><b>Daniel</b></i></blockquote>
<br />
The reasonably literalist interpretation of the chapter allows one to make straightforward connections to well-established history.<br />
<br />
For instance, Emperor Constantine, although temporarily re-uniting the Roman Empire, completely transformed it, relocating his headquarters to Byzantium,<br />
and effectively starting a brand-new Empire in the East, while simultaneously abandoning the Western half of the Empire (the Roman half) to barbarian hordes.<br />
<br />
These barbarian tribes quickly moved in and took over many areas of<br />
the old Roman West, permanently installing themselves as independent kingdoms.<br />
<br />
The resulting lists of Ten Kingdoms (assumed by ten kings) in circa 475 A.D.,<br />
is quite a sensible interpretation of the 'Ten horns' of Daniel 7, coming at the<br />
end of the 'iron mixed with clay' phase of the Empire:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LNz0UJbXtBE/VT8FNpsG7QI/AAAAAAAAH0E/oS16kReGUbQ/s1600/Ten-Horns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LNz0UJbXtBE/VT8FNpsG7QI/AAAAAAAAH0E/oS16kReGUbQ/s1600/Ten-Horns.jpg" height="512" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Other slight variants in the list of Ten Kingdoms are possible, and <u><i><b>Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible</b></i></u> gives some reasonable alternative lists,<br />
based on one's view of the relative importance of various kingdoms in Europe.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall
arise,..... Or ten kingdoms which sprung out of the Roman empire, or
into which it was broken and divided upon the dissolution of it, about
A.D. 476; which,</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">according to <b>Mr. Mede </b>(k), were thus divided, A.D. 456,
</span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;">1. Britons; 2. Saxons; 3. Franks; 4. Burgundians; 5 Visigoths; 6.
Suevians and Alanes; 7. Vandals; 8. Almanes; 9. Ostrogoths; 10. Greeks. </span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;">The list <b>Bishop Lloyd</b> (l) has given of them is, </span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;">1.
Hunns, who erected their kingdom in that part of Pannonia and Dacia,
which was from them called Hungary, about A.D. 356. 2. Ostrogoths, who
settled themselves in the countries that reach from Rhetia to Maesia,
even to Thrace, about 377; and afterwards came into Italy under
Alaricus, in 410. 3. Visigoths, who settled in the south parts of
France, and in Catalonia, about 378. 4. Franks, who seized upon part of
Germany and Gaul, A.D. 410. 5. Vandals, who settled in Spain; afterwards
set up their kingdom in Africa, A.D. 407; their king Gensericus sacked
Rome, 455. 6. Suevians and Alans, who seized the western parts of Spain,
A.D. 407; and invaded Italy, 457. 7. Burgundians, who came out of
Germany, into that part of Gaul called from them Burgundy, 407. 8.
Herules, Rugians, and Thoringians, who settled in Italy under Odoacer,
about A.D. 476. 9. Saxons, who made themselves masters of Great Britain
about the same time, 476. 10. Longobards, called likewise Gopidae, who
settled in Germany, about Magdeburg, A.D. 383; and afterwards succeeded
the Heruli and Thuringi in Hungary, about the year 826. </span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;"><b>Sir Isaac Newton</b> (m) reckons the ten kingdoms in the following order: </span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;">1.
the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa; 2. of the
Suevians in Spain; 3. of the Visigoths; 4. of the Alans in Gallia; 5. of
the Burgundians; 6. of the Franks; 7. of the Britons; 8. of the Hunns;
9. of the Lombards; 10. of Ravenna; </span></blockquote>
Even without 100% agreement on the list, the kingdoms are certainly real enough, and mark the end of the Roman Empire and even the original residents from that time.<br />
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-36473023408586508572015-04-27T13:16:00.000-04:002015-04-27T23:19:52.321-04:00Daniel (Pt 17): The Four Empires are not Local Kingdoms<br />
In part, our perceptual difficulty with Daniel arises from the over-literal translations of the text, which don't take the context into consideration sufficiently.<br />
<br />
For all the so-called 'scholarship' expended (usually to disprove or critique the book) very little common sense or simple logic is applied, either by translators or interpreters. This leaves readers wading through ambiguities that shouldn't even exist.<br />
<br />
One is the issue of 'kingdoms' vs. 'Empires'.<br />
<br />
There is a clear difference between a local 'kingdom' or nation of city-states (such as early Italy or classical Greece) and a world-dominating Empire.<br />
<br />
The problem is, until Empires came into existence, and for a long time afterward, there was no specialized language or name for "Empire".<br />
<br />
In fact, the word "Empire" as we have come to know it, is a late invention, coming out of the experience of the Roman Empire (c. 29 BC - 310 AD).<br />
An Empire is a multi-nation state spread across the globe, usually run or controlled by an "Emperor" - a word which is understood as an 'Uber-Dictator' as opposed to a local 'king' (which is nearly colorless by comparison).<br />
<br />
When Daniel interpreted the dream of the very first 'Emperor', he had to use the language available. King Nebuchadnezzar was naturally called 'king', because in every language, including Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean, there was no word for 'Emperor' yet coined.<br />
<br />
The best one could do was say 'great king', or 'king of kings', or 'king of the world', or some such descriptive title that might try to convey the size and scope of the rulership and territory.<br />
<br />
So Daniel uses 'king' and 'kingdom' by convention of the time, naturally in the language of his contemporaries.<br />
<br />
We however, are not so limited, and are quite able to distinguish between local 'kingdoms' and vast Empires, and in modern English we now have modern words suited for translation and exposition that convey the meaning intended by Daniel.<br />
<br />
The strongest argument of course is context, and here we must seriously take this context into account, and give it its due.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-unHT3ugO8n0/VT5l-ZZ4JdI/AAAAAAAAHy8/aXxEMt4T6kY/s1600/RomanEmpire02-Dan2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-unHT3ugO8n0/VT5l-ZZ4JdI/AAAAAAAAHy8/aXxEMt4T6kY/s1600/RomanEmpire02-Dan2.jpg" height="640" width="524" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The main and obvious context is the fact that Daniel himself is a minister in the very court of <span style="color: #990000;"><i><b>the first multi-national Empire in existence</b>,</i></span> at the center of civilization. From here, we understand instinctively that when Daniel talks about the<span style="color: #990000;"><i> 'great kingdoms' </i></span>he plainly means <span style="color: red;"><i><b>'Empires' </b></i></span>in modern parlance.<br />
<br />
When Daniel envisions and talks of great beasts with multiple horns, he is speaking of <b>successive </b><i><b>Empires</b></i> and their <b>Emperor-dictators</b>, not local kingdoms or short-term events.<br />
<br />
The ploy by critics to 'localize' or minimize the vast size and scope of Daniel's prophecy is a desperate attempt to account for the sharp accuracy of Daniel's prediction in naturalistic terms, by claiming it to be a late forgery. The position of critics is that <i><b>a priori</b></i>, accurate detailed prophecy is impossible. <br />
<br />
This fails however, because the very LATEST the book of Daniel can be dated is about <span style="color: #990000;"><b>167 BC</b></span>, because it was known to have been widely circulated by this time.<br />
<br />
<b>The very first prophecy however, extends to <i><span style="color: #990000;">300 AD</span></i></b>.<br />
<br />
Most importantly:<br />
<br />
Each 'kingdom' (World Empire) is very clearly and plainly identified:<br />
<br />
(1) Each Empire involves the same basic vast area of land.<br />
<br />
(2) Each Empire is successive, replacing its predecessor.<br />
<br />
(3) Each Empire is headed and administrated by a different ethnic nation.<br />
<br />
(4) Each Empire is founded by a Warlord through warfare.<br />
<br />
(5) Each Empire conquers the preceding Empire.<br />
<br />
(6) Each Empire's beginning is clearly defined on a timeline.<br />
<br />
(7) Each Empire's end is clearly defined on a timeline.<br />
<br />
(8) Each Empire has a unique character or trademark.<br />
<br />
(9) Each Empire imposes tribute on other nations through force.<br />
<br />
(10) Each Empire rules over the land and nation of Israel. <br />
<br />
(12) Each Empire at some point oppresses the People of God. <br />
<br />
(13) One Empire (Babylon) is known and two (Persia/Greece) are named.<br />
<br />
<br />
These distinctive features, most of which are contained in the prophecies of Daniel, leave no room at all for mistaking the size and scope of the prophecy or mistaking the identity of the Empires described.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Lets look closer at these characteristics:</b></i><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;"><b>(3) Each Empire is headed and administrated by a different ethnic nation.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b> (4) Each Empire is founded by a Warlord through warfare.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b> (5) Each Empire conquers the preceding Empire.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b> (6) Each Empire's beginning is clearly defined on a timeline.</b></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">To be clear, each Empire begins as a small and local ethnic kingdom. <br />
<br />
They are not mere internal 'coups', political regime changes, <br />
or even dramatic changes in administration or infrastructure. <br />
<br />
Thus, the passing of kingship from father to son, or to co-ruler/general, <br />
do not count as 'new Empires' (as occurred in Babylon and Persia). <br />
<br />
Nor do internal administrative reorganizations count, such as <br />
the (re)division of provinces or sattraps (as occurred in Persia). <br />
<br />
Not even the failure of an heir, and division into relatively independent regions <br />
count as a 'new Empire'. The Greek Empire remained in the control of <br />
the Greek generals and they continued the plan of Hellenization, even <br />
when Alexander died childless. <br />
Thus Four Horns sprouted but remained on the same beast, </span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><b>- the Goat</b> (Greek Empire). <br />
<br />
Each small kingdom begins as a local one, made up of a distinct and <br />
independent nation (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman). <br />
And each of these kingdoms becomes an 'Empire' through <br />
the conquering of foreign powers and essentially occupies <br />
the same 'Empire Territories'. <br />
<br />
The transition from local kingdom to world-class Empire is plainly <br />
demarcated by <b>the rise of powerful individual Warlord</b>, who <br />
relatively quickly conquers the previous dynasty and ruling nation/culture.<br />
<br />
Even the 4th Roman Empire conquers through a handful of great military generals. <br /> </span></span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0K3gNonJxLw/VT62VTFc5JI/AAAAAAAAHzw/R9wbbKOncUg/s1600/WithoutHands-small.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0K3gNonJxLw/VT62VTFc5JI/AAAAAAAAHzw/R9wbbKOncUg/s1600/WithoutHands-small.jpg" height="420" width="640" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_E36TkLwJ50/VT6gPHWVrsI/AAAAAAAAHzM/r1gG7Dmp1TI/s1600/RomanLegs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></span></span></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Finally, this 4th Roman Empire is NOT reconquered by a foreign power, <br />
but remarkably, seems to implode from internal fighting and disharmony, <br />
just as the prophecy of Daniel predicts (the feet of iron and clay). <br />
<br />
The New Kingdom of God is according to the prophecy a physical earthly one, <br />
but<b> 'made without hands'</b>. (Dan. 2:34,45)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"I will destroy this temple (Herod's) made with hands, <br />
and in three days build a temple<b><i> 'made without hands' </i></b>!" </span><br />
(Mk 14:58)<br />
<br />
It is clear in the original quotation of <b>Jesus</b> (in Mark) <br />
that He interprets <i><b>Daniel </b></i>to be referring to <br />
Jesus' own spiritual kingdom<i><b><span style="color: red;"> 'not of this world'</span></b></i> (Jn. 18:36, Jn. 17:16)<br />
<br />
Jesus self-describes His kingdom in a parable as <br />
'a mustard seed' expanding to fill the world. <br />
<br />
We get the sense of this in the subsequent history of Jesus' underground church <br />
and 'body/temple' expanding to ultimately 'destroy' the Roman Empire <br />
by 'disloyalty' to Rome and loyalty to Jesus. <br />
<br />
In the end, Constantine found it expedient and necessary to:</span></span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">(1) End persecution of Christians</span></span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
(2) Legalize Christianity</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">(3) Assist Christianity with the commandeering of pagan temples and wealth, </span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">(4) Become a Christian, </span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">(5) Hold Councils intended to unite Christians under a central authority.</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qBp7sq0ectk/VT6k79LE25I/AAAAAAAAHzg/mt4B9laqRGQ/s1600/WithoutHands-small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">He did this not least because Christianity had spread so deeply and become <br />
so popular that one could not command a Roman Army without <br />
acknowledging and protecting Christians. <br />
<br />
This final "Empire" was indeed such a revolutionary difference in kind, <br />
that it ceased to mean 'Empire' in the normal oppressive sense. <br />
It retained its army and policing power, its ability to defend itself, <br />
and its use of military force, but nonetheless transformed, if briefly <br />
into an unprecedented and entirely new 'thing'. <br />
<br />
Initially all religions were granted 'rights' of practice and worship. <br />
<br />
Christians were for the first time given powers as councillors in the court <br />
of the Emperor.<br />
<br />
The change was so radical that Constantine chose to abandon Italy <br />
entirely and choose Greece as his new Capital and central base for <br />
his new 'Empire'. <br />
<br />
In doing this, he let the Western half fall into the Dark Ages, <br />
fullfilling a great and terrible fate upon the old 'Roman Empire'. <br />
<br />
This new partially Christianized 'Empire' must be recognized as the <br />
obvious and clear fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy concerning <br />
the 'made without hands', and having a Spiritual element unknown <br />
to previous earthly empires. <br />
<br />
We do not here equate Constantine's Empire with Christ's, <br />
but do acknowledge the obvious and deeply rooted connection, <br />
due to the rapid and successful evangelization of the old Roman world.<br />
<br />
</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SHFGgmeXoBI/VT6kBCY0BPI/AAAAAAAAHzY/sspQSFnJxkg/s1600/WithoutHands.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SHFGgmeXoBI/VT6kBCY0BPI/AAAAAAAAHzY/sspQSFnJxkg/s1600/WithoutHands.jpg" height="380" width="640" /></a></span></span></div>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qBp7sq0ectk/VT6k79LE25I/AAAAAAAAHzg/mt4B9laqRGQ/s1600/WithoutHands-small.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a>Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-45995006426318266422015-04-21T14:29:00.000-04:002015-04-21T14:29:19.206-04:00The Beatles and Epstein Began the Homo Culture Hijack <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QeE7zRmnDVc/VTaWqFodHXI/AAAAAAAAHyo/gy9dOSJ3hcY/s1600/the-beatles.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QeE7zRmnDVc/VTaWqFodHXI/AAAAAAAAHyo/gy9dOSJ3hcY/s1600/the-beatles.jpg" height="404" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="vb_postbit" id="post_message_4296246">
Many people don't know about it, <br />
because back in the 60s, Europe was a different world <br />
than the real West (i.e., Canada, USA). <br />
<br />
In those days, the main exposure to vulnerable youth <br />
was not through Television, which was live, and also an expensive luxury. <br />
<br />
It was through the record industry and radio. <br />
<br />
Many bands 'made it' through air-play on radio stations, <br />
and the competition was done by record companies <br />
pumping out and distributing "45s" (small single song records played at 45 rpm). <br />
<br />
(I'm explaining this because most young people today don't really know <br />
these details. Older folks can be impatient just a bit longer.)<br />
<br />
The early bands in their early years (like Elvis, the Beatles, and Rolling Stones), <br />
got exposure mostly through radio and records. <br />
<br />
Why is this important? <br />
Because even back in the early career of the Beatles, <br />
songs were sometimes loaded with double-meanings.<br />
<br />
This was no 'conspiracy' but more of a 'covert operation', <br />
something like what Shakespeare himself used to do:<br />
<br />
<b>Shakespeare</b> would write a play and perform it, <br />
so that one part of the audience, the common masses, <br />
serfs, merchants, blacksmiths (blue-collar workers) <br />
would hear jokes and maxims that they would recognize and appreciate, <br />
while the rich lords, and members of the king's court (upper class) <br />
who sat high up in the balcony seats would hear and appreciate <br />
the more sophisticated jokes and ironies (i.e., the secret mocking of the <br />
uneducated farmers etc.). <br />
<br />
So what you had was actually two simultaneous plays for two audiences.<br />
<b><br />
The Beatles did something similar,</b> <br />
by using the <i><b><span style="color: darkred;"><u>audio</u></span> </b></i>alone as a medium to reach their massive common fan base, <br />
while putting out <span style="color: darkred;"><u><i><b>VIDEOS</b></i></u></span> which contained a different message, <br />
and would completely alter the meaning of a song.<br />
<br />
In those days, (with typically only one or two government-run TV channels), <br />
<i><b><span style="color: darkred;">the video portion of their message formed a separate media</span></b></i> which <br />
reached a completely different and more sophisticated older audience, <br />
(namely middle-class and upper-class who could afford TV). <br />
<br />
<br />
A perfect example of this <b>Dual-Message</b> targeted to different audiences <br />
is the following song:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>"You've Got to Hide Your Love Away"</b></i></span></span><br />
<br />
The audio song has all the appearance of a simple but poignant and <br />
well-written love-song, with no hint however of a homosexual sub-text. <br />
<br />
One might well be accused of being a conspiracy-nut for suggesting<b> <br />
it is really all about homosexuality, and transvestitism,</b><br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b> if not for the video which was released alongside it. </b></i></span><br />
<br />
The video is as old as the song, and features the Beatles' <i><b>homosexual manager, </b></i><br />
<b>Brian Epstein</b>, actually dressed up as a woman. <br />
He is so well dolled-up, you might actually mistake him for a woman, <br />
if you did not know him in person (something only virtual insiders would). <br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" class="tborder" style="margin: 10px 0; width: 400px;">
<thead>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="text-align: center;"><b>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7IjXu0DfQ" target="_blank" title="Click to view this video on youtube">Original Video for Hide Your Love Away</a></b>
</td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jz7IjXu0DfQ/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jz7IjXu0DfQ?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7IjXu0DfQ" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7IjXu0DfQ</a><br />
<br />
<br />
The extended exchanges of glances and meaningful stares between <br />
all the band members and Brian Epstein speak volumes about the question.<br />
<br />
<b>Of course, homosexual behaviour was still a scandal in the 60s</b>, <br />
even though apparently rampant in private schools and in English society. <br />
<br />
The recent revelations about massive pedophile rings operated by <br />
the upper class to sexually abuse and traffic children, especially boys, <br />
are quite enlightening in this context. <br />
<br />
The Beatles were at the start simply a bar-band, with little conception of <br />
a future beyond seedy bars in Germany (where they played for 10 years, <br />
with little fame or financial success). <br />
<b><br />
What propelled them to the 'top' was BACKING. </b><br />
<br />
And that backing came from both the homosexual elite of Britain, <br />
and even the Royal Family.<br />
Brian Epstein was not a 'lone gunman' but represented by proxy <br />
a whole cult and secret mafia of pedophiles and perverts. <br />
<br />
<b>Once the agenda was agreed upon, the backing (and fame) was secured.</b><br />
<br />
Every edge was given them, including international gigs, <br />
and access to the British philharmonic orchestra and professional <br />
engineers and composers who helped to arrange and even ghost-write <br />
and train these four fop-heads for their new role as <br />
LGBT programmers for the brainwashing of the whole post-war baby-boom generation.<br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b><br />
The whole point of the Beatles was to push an agenda, </b></i></span><br />
one which has turned out to be surprisingly old and stale.<br />
<br />
The truth of Lennon's homosexual experiments with Epstein and the other Beatles, <br />
is actually moot and almost irrelevant, except to explain how they could <br />
go along with the plan. <br />
<br />
<b>The Four Mop Tops</b>, it must be remembered were the very first band <br />
(among many quick copycats) to sport <i><b>the new girlish long-hair style, </b></i><br />
which in hindsight hardly looks like more than maybe a delay of haircut!<br />
<br />
But its still a significant ice-breaker, as these BEFORE AND AFTER photos show:<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.merseycats.com/images/beatlesleathercavern61_1.jpg" /><br />
<b>"The MercyCats"</b> pre-fame and pre-stardom haircuts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.lipscomb.umn.edu/rock/photos/BeatlesMBE.jpg" /><br />
<b><br />
The Gay MopTops: -</b> sponsored by royalty, managed by the<b> LBGT</b> community.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The 'public persona' of the band, <br />
that of being 'eligible bachelors' available to the mob of young girls at large,<br />
was largely a complete piece of fakery. <br />
Most of them got married young, which was kept secret. <br />
<br />
The thing to remember is not that these were hardcore homos themselves, <br />
but wild and careless experimenters who had no moral or ethical grounding, <br />
and were themselves easily manipulated by jaded wealthy homo elite. <br />
<br />
They took the money and the fame, a contract signed by <b>satan </b>himself, <br />
the father of all homos.</div>
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-45193294978463165102015-04-16T15:28:00.001-04:002015-04-16T15:28:20.239-04:00Armageddon: - what and where?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-McNum9TRfv8/VTAK3q3QxSI/AAAAAAAAHx0/j1Ceh3aqEFk/s1600/golanmap1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iLP0KS_NMOs/VTANEXiXmZI/AAAAAAAAHyQ/w79m2AtRGVU/s1600/Prophecy-5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iLP0KS_NMOs/VTANEXiXmZI/AAAAAAAAHyQ/w79m2AtRGVU/s1600/Prophecy-5.jpg" height="364" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EgPs80jWL1I/VTAK3yOgbJI/AAAAAAAAHx8/eNvsJA7eDic/s1600/map-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/John%20Ramsden%27s%20discussion%20of%20Armageddon"><i><b>John Ramsden's discussion of Armageddon</b></i></a> (BibleMagazine) <br />is
a good start for Christians and Jews to look at, when trying to nail
down the meaning of this unique word (found in Rev. 16:14,16):<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: red;">'For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the
kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day
of God Almighty. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue,
<span style="color: black;"><b> Armageddon</b></span>.' </span>(Revelation 16:14, 16).</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Some say that it was originally spelt
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>"Har-Megiddo"</b></i></span> and therefore means a <b>Hill </b>at the end of the <b><i>Megiddo valley</i></b>. <br /><br />The
problem with that is that we never read in the Bible of a battle on any such hill. On the
contrary<i><b> the Biblical battles fought at Megiddo were on a plain</b></i> -- such as when Josiah was
killed by Pharoah Necho (see 2 Chron 35:22). <br />Meanwhile, another expert assures us that
even though in the 1881 Revised Version of the Bible the word Har-Mageddon appears (and it
is the only major version of the Bible to carry this description), the earliest known
interpretation extant is in <i><b>Arabic</b></i> and means <i><span style="color: darkred;">"a level trodden place".
</span></i><br /><br />Nevertheless, the general consensus among popular writers and preachers is that Armageddon
refers to <b>a</b> <b>place in Northern Israel where a future battle is to be fought out. </b>" (ibid.)</blockquote>
Interestingly, a violent battle recently WAS fought on the plateau east of <br />this supposed valley, on the Golan Heights, which modern Israel nearly lost,<br />if not for perhaps some tactical and strategic bungling by Egypt and Syria, and hesitating support from the USA.<br /><br />.<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EgPs80jWL1I/VTAK3yOgbJI/AAAAAAAAHx8/eNvsJA7eDic/s1600/map-2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EgPs80jWL1I/VTAK3yOgbJI/AAAAAAAAHx8/eNvsJA7eDic/s1600/map-2.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a><br />
<br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uOlJ_w1xyeo/VTAK3oJCE2I/AAAAAAAAHx4/aJI230aXDVc/s1600/syria73.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uOlJ_w1xyeo/VTAK3oJCE2I/AAAAAAAAHx4/aJI230aXDVc/s1600/syria73.gif" height="640" width="488" /> </a><br />
<br />
<br />
The result of that conflict was a new border,<br />
which now acts as a buffer to protect Israel from invasion: <br />
<br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-McNum9TRfv8/VTAK3q3QxSI/AAAAAAAAHx0/j1Ceh3aqEFk/s1600/golanmap1.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-McNum9TRfv8/VTAK3q3QxSI/AAAAAAAAHx0/j1Ceh3aqEFk/s1600/golanmap1.gif" height="640" width="428" /></a>Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-80462691506113399182015-04-14T21:50:00.002-04:002015-04-15T01:35:52.075-04:00Dome of the Rock & Underground Chambers (Pt 1): OverviewMany Westerners are dimly aware that currently the site of the Jerusalem Temple is occupied on top by a Muslim mosque, called the Dome of the Rock,<br />
for its gold dome.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlpXrdwQc/VS3Ai3sj3AI/AAAAAAAAHvw/e7anPTpcFhw/s1600/aerial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlpXrdwQc/VS3Ai3sj3AI/AAAAAAAAHvw/e7anPTpcFhw/s1600/aerial.jpg" height="468" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A closer look gives more sense of the size of this eye-sore bearing the symbol of the Satanic Moon-god on top.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2WVvUYCXNKo/VS3BQGNwf-I/AAAAAAAAHv4/hPriBTmyAcE/s1600/img_0194.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2WVvUYCXNKo/VS3BQGNwf-I/AAAAAAAAHv4/hPriBTmyAcE/s1600/img_0194.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A closer look gives more sense of the size of this eye-sore bearing <br />
the symbol of <b>the Satanic Moon-god</b> on top.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zdB-C9vO61g/VS3KEcFgF3I/AAAAAAAAHw8/YBopCLAusnY/s1600/199236882-crescent-symbol-dome-of-the-rock-temple-mount-archway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zdB-C9vO61g/VS3KEcFgF3I/AAAAAAAAHw8/YBopCLAusnY/s1600/199236882-crescent-symbol-dome-of-the-rock-temple-mount-archway.jpg" height="360" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The mouseque has <b>an inscription</b> that runs around it, <br />
which <span style="color: darkred;"><b>for Christians is an open proclamation of <span style="color: blue;"><i>Blasphemy:</i></span><br />
</b></span><br />
<br />
<table bgcolor="#ffffff" border="1" cellpadding="10" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 60%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
<b><span style="color: darkred;">The Inscription</span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;">The Dome of the Rock also contains an inscription,
240 meters long, that includes some of the earliest surviving examples
of verses from the Qur‘an – in an architectural context or otherwise.
The bismillah (in the name of God, the merciful and compassionate), the
phrase that starts each verse of the Qu’ran, and the shahada, the
Islamic confession of faith, which states that <b>there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet</b>, are also included in the inscription. <b>The inscription also refers to Mary and Christ and proclaim that Christ was not divine but a prophet.</b> Thus the inscription also proclaims some of the core values of the newly formed religion of Islam.</span><br />
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The construction of this puss-ball is shown in the diagram below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wndn9ejw3FI/VS3Bnw9xkFI/AAAAAAAAHwA/ZDhUeuVw-F4/s1600/isometricdome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wndn9ejw3FI/VS3Bnw9xkFI/AAAAAAAAHwA/ZDhUeuVw-F4/s1600/isometricdome.jpg" height="640" width="532" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The cut-away side view below shows the location and size of the first chamber which is directly below the apparent location of the original altar-stone.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l7iKrnvUuJ4/VS3Bp1kEzAI/AAAAAAAAHwI/5Wvvb-EMJbg/s1600/Dome-side-cutaway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l7iKrnvUuJ4/VS3Bp1kEzAI/AAAAAAAAHwI/5Wvvb-EMJbg/s1600/Dome-side-cutaway.jpg" height="640" width="594" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A couple of photos of the interior of the giant outhouse that the Arabs built overtop show the rough state of affairs and give a sense of what the original altar stone looks like from inside:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hleYJSbphe0/VS3Ck39RLDI/AAAAAAAAHwU/H2IF9sxJ4Mc/s1600/rock_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hleYJSbphe0/VS3Ck39RLDI/AAAAAAAAHwU/H2IF9sxJ4Mc/s1600/rock_1.jpg" height="640" width="624" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HKYhV8XvHhk/VS3DTwvvtRI/AAAAAAAAHwg/KQEl457JBZU/s1600/even%2Bsh%2Bnormal.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HKYhV8XvHhk/VS3DTwvvtRI/AAAAAAAAHwg/KQEl457JBZU/s1600/even%2Bsh%2Bnormal.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Arabs have been privately and without authorization carrying on construction and digging inside the temple site, and have damaged archaeological artifacts and weakened the foundations of both the Mount and their own mosque:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HKYhV8XvHhk/VS3DTwvvtRI/AAAAAAAAHwg/KQEl457JBZU/s1600/even%2Bsh%2Bnormal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tFGTdceZPwY/VS3DT941oMI/AAAAAAAAHwc/DSa3G9ASfCA/s1600/even%2Bshesiyah1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tFGTdceZPwY/VS3DT941oMI/AAAAAAAAHwc/DSa3G9ASfCA/s1600/even%2Bshesiyah1.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TeSMqJF2thk/VS3DuIqL9nI/AAAAAAAAHws/9Lt8nmp2MVw/s1600/even%2Bshesiyah2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TeSMqJF2thk/VS3DuIqL9nI/AAAAAAAAHws/9Lt8nmp2MVw/s1600/even%2Bshesiyah2.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JQq5DJiAFQM/VS34rQYsueI/AAAAAAAAHxY/QV8wNghsW2E/s1600/getty-jerusalem-inside-of-the-dome-of-the-rock-rock.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JQq5DJiAFQM/VS34rQYsueI/AAAAAAAAHxY/QV8wNghsW2E/s1600/getty-jerusalem-inside-of-the-dome-of-the-rock-rock.jpg" height="438" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-80681458578388571232015-04-14T14:01:00.000-04:002015-04-14T14:06:45.516-04:00The Decade that Scholars became LIARS<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wT_0gCrovvo/VS1T_JJyavI/AAAAAAAAHus/iZ-3OgGsfFw/s1600/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wT_0gCrovvo/VS1T_JJyavI/AAAAAAAAHus/iZ-3OgGsfFw/s1600/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics.jpg" height="640" width="372" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
One of the most common phrases in apologetic works is the magical and spell-binding "Simon says" gimmick,<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="color: blue;"><i><b>"Most scholars agree..." </b></i></span><br />
<br />
Its invoked whenever the author wants to intimidate the naive and uncertain reader into accepting some claim or disproof as "fact", when its actually a simple exaggeration or inaccuracy meant to bolster some ideological position.<br />
<br />
Common variants on this theme are,<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i><b>"Most/all scholars/experts/scientists agree/hold/maintain ..." </b></i></span><br />
<br />
Its become common fare in all product advertising in certain variants:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>"Most doctors agree..." </i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>"4 out of 5 dentists recommend..." </i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>"Nutritionists have proven that..." </i></span><br />
<br />
As the 'science' of selling, advertising and programming people advanced,<br />
such techniques became rampant.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>What is saddening however is that the same selling techniques spilled over into the scientific and academic world,</b> as competition for funding heated up and ideological agendas became more sophisticated.<br />
<br />
The more extreme and overt (and less convincing) versions of this phrase did not expand, however, the 'softer' (more plausible) versions of this phrase continued to rise in frequency among so-called 'scientific' and 'scholarly' papers throughout the last 60 years.<br />
<br />
This trend can be traced to the remarkable popular book from the 50s,<br />
How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff (1954, Norton & C),<br />
which has not only gone through some 50 printings, but quickly became<br />
a University Textbook and runaway bestseller. According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics"><b>Wikipedia, </b></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="color: #660000;">' It has become one of the best-selling statistics books in history, with
over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language
edition. It has also been widely translated.'</span></i></blockquote>
The following chart, from the<b> <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=most+scholars+agree%2Cmost+scientists+agree%2Cmost+experts+agree%2Call+scholars+agree%2Call+scientists+agree%2Call+experts+agree&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1930&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmost%20scholars%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BMost%20scholars%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmost%20scholars%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmost%20scientists%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BMost%20scientists%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmost%20scientists%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cmost%20experts%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BMost%20experts%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bmost%20experts%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Call%20scholars%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Ball%20scholars%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAll%20scholars%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Call%20scientists%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Ball%20scientists%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAll%20scientists%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Call%20experts%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Ball%20experts%20agree%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAll%20experts%20agree%3B%2Cc0"><i>Google Ngram Viewer</i></a>,</b> shows the alarming and ridiculous rate at which our phrase has increased its appearance in both popular and scholarly literature:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ETqtGXRLQcg/VS1VMfMKbJI/AAAAAAAAHu4/U3qrFhg9WoI/s1600/scholars1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ETqtGXRLQcg/VS1VMfMKbJI/AAAAAAAAHu4/U3qrFhg9WoI/s1600/scholars1.jpg" height="322" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The slower rise in usage of less popular sayings acts as a double-check <br />
for what the expected increase in usage of the popular sayings should have been. <br />
<br />
<br />
Sadly, what Darrell Huff intended as a warning and a vaccination against fraud and misrepresentation of data, became a handbook for millions of liars and con men throughout the 20th century and beyond. <br />
<br />
Apologists, Ideologues and salesmen found it was far easier to con people than help instruct them on how to protect themselves from fraudulent claims.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-81074030327936553802015-04-10T12:57:00.001-04:002015-04-10T13:00:21.734-04:00The Ten Commandments (Pt 2): Their Context<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qbPnKESYjlU/VSgAhWb1jRI/AAAAAAAAHuY/ZFfQXIjwwqg/s1600/moses.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qbPnKESYjlU/VSgAhWb1jRI/AAAAAAAAHuY/ZFfQXIjwwqg/s1600/moses.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The next thing to consider about the Ten Commandments is the context in which they materialized. <br />
<br />
<b>God did not just hand out flyers,</b> or repeat earlier prophetic messages, <br />
or paint them in the sky in every language. <br />
<br />
<b>Nor were they doled out separately, as if each could and would stand alone. </b><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i><b>The Ten Commandments</b></i></span> <b>were given as a package</b>, and enveloped in a Covenant. <br />
They were given in the form received by Moses as the basis of a national charter, <br />
a city-state, a set of core-values meant to serve first as a way to implement <br />
an orderly and moral society, and secondly as an example, a role-model, <br />
a means of instruction and transmission to the rest of humankind.<br />
<br />
When taken in their proper historical context, they can be seen as a basis, and set of core-values. <br />
<br />
But as such, they were from the beginning (for Israel and Moses) given with <br />
the recognized understanding that they would require explanation, exposition, <br />
interpretation, expansion, enforcement, and dispersion of benefits and liabilities.<br />
<br />
<b>From the beginning then, they formed the basis of an agreement</b> between God and Israel,
that is, a Covenant between God and specific tribal confederation, people, and nation. <br />
<br />
From the beginning also, they required a system of government (a theocracy), <br />
in which the implications and implementation of the Ten Commandments <br />
would require an infrastructure of support for their practice. <br />
<br />
The point here is that the Ten Commandments, although valuable as a Statement of Terms,
or a Catechism, or Prospectus, would be incomplete without a supporting infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The Ten Commandments needed an infrastructure and were intended to be used <br />
in the context of an ongoing and consistent application throughout a whole society
and community. <br />
<br />
The danger of taking the Ten Commandments alone, or merely applying them individually,
without the support of a community, is well described by various prophets in
later times, when conditions had deteriorated to a point where acknowledgement
and obediance to the Ten Commandments was no longer the norm.<br />
The skeptical Preacher in <i><b>Ecclesiastes</b></i> observes the problem, <br />
and ironically suggests one should not be TOO righteous, <br />
in an environment where righteousness has become too lax:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="color: blue;">'I have seen both of these:</span></i><i><span style="color: blue;">the righteous perishing in their righteousness,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
and the wicked living long in their wickedness.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
16 Do not be overrighteous,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
neither be overwise—</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
why destroy yourself?</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
17 Do not be overwicked,</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
and do not be a fool—</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
why die before your time?</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
18 It is good to grasp the one</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
and not let go of the other.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes. </span></i></blockquote>
<i><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Ecclesiastes 7:15-17</span></span></i> <br />
<br />
<i><b>When an authentic Theocratic government was no longer being sustained at all, </b></i><br />
when the content of the Ten Commandments were no longer being practised <br />
throughout the society and community of Israel, horrible injustices were multiplied,
even against innocent third parties who depended upon both the infrastructure and
the implementation of these core values:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">'Thus justice is repelled,</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">
righteousness stands apart, at a distance;</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">
for <i><b>truth stumbles in the public court,</b></i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">
and uprightness cannot enter.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">
Honesty is lacking,</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">
<i><b>he who leaves evil becomes a target.</b></i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i>Adonai</i> [The Lord] saw it, and it displeased him</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">
that there was no justice.'</span><br />
<br />
<i>Isaiah 59:14-15 - (Complete Jewish Bible - CJB)</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">'And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: </span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;"> Yea, truth faileth; </span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
and<b> he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey:</b></span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: blue;">
and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.'</span></i><br />
<br />
<i>Isaiah 59:14-15 (KJV)</i> </blockquote>
<br />
So we can see that for real and practical justice to prevail, <br />
a whole society and community must commit to (the same) core set of values, <br />
for people to actually benefit.<br />
<br />
<b>The Ten Commandments were never meant to stand independent of <br />
or outside of a society and community which is committed to keeping them</b>, <br />
and implementing them fairly through a supporting infrastructure.<br />
<br />
Standing alone <b><i>they DO instruct us about moral values</i></b>, <br />
but without consent, commitment, and integration into the community, <br />
they cannot deliver the blessings God intended.Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-6029081887808825062015-04-08T23:44:00.000-04:002015-04-09T00:10:01.690-04:00The Ten Commandments (Pt 1): Borrowed from Egypt? No.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1AGdzbLI1NU/VSX11xIs5XI/AAAAAAAAHuE/f50SbvNAE2Y/s1600/hellh4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1AGdzbLI1NU/VSX11xIs5XI/AAAAAAAAHuE/f50SbvNAE2Y/s1600/hellh4.jpg" height="418" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The <b><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cl.htm">"Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" Website</a></b> attempts to make a case that the <i><b>Ten Commandments</b></i> were plagiarized from the Egyptian <i><b>Book of the Dead</b></i>:<br />
_____________________________________________________<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">'According to <b>Wikipedia: </b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">
<span style="color: #073763;">"Some historians....have argued that <b>the Ten Commandments </b>originated from
ancient Egyptian religion, and postulate that the Biblical Jews borrowed the
concept after their <i><b>Exodus</b></i> </span></span><span style="color: #990000;"><span style="color: #073763;"><b><span style="color: #cc0000;">[c. 1491 BC]</span></b> from Egypt . <b>Chapter 125</b> of <b>the<i> Book
of the Dead</i></b> <span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>[c. 1800 BC]</b></span> ... includes a list of things
to which a man must swear in order to enter the afterlife. These sworn
statements bear a remarkable resemblance to the Ten Commandments..."</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;"> Many religious liberals, historians, and secularists have concluded that the Hebrew Scripture's<i> Ten
Commandments</i> were based on this earlier document...'</span></blockquote>
____________________________________________________<br />
<br />
The "many historians" however, are not named; (as is usual with exaggerated claims), nor are their credentials offered.<br />
<br />
The fraudulent presentation however has much deeper flaws and dishonest aspects.<br />
<br />
For instance, they only quote <u><i>a portion</i></u> of the <i><b>Book of the Dead</b></i> (<b>BoD</b>) namely <b>13 crimes</b>, rather than the whole passage, to give the impression of a nearly equal number of crimes/sins (<a href="http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html">their <b>secondary source</b></a> lists only <b>11 crimes</b>, so they must be fully aware of the fudging).<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="color: red;"><a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/literature/religious/bd125a.html">The actual passage</a></span></i> however, lists over TWENTY-NINE specific crimes</b>, after five general statements of innocence, so there is no numerical similarity with the Hebrew Decalogue of TEN unique commands intended to summarize a whole moral code.<br />
<br />
<b>The 29 'crimes' </b>are a long and random (but not exhaustive) list of common offences, with no hierarchy or indication of relative importance. They are merely an expression of a wordy prayer and claim of general innocence.<br />
<br />
<b>In no way can they be interpreted as a "Law Code"</b>, nor is there any evidence that the list is based on any earlier formal Egyptian Legal Code now lost. Rather, this is just an ordinary funeral text, a prayerful plea meant to impress God(s) with its attempt at thoroughness of claim.<br />
<br />
This discrepancy in the count makes it more obvious how dissimilar the two lists are.<br />
<br />
Even the supposed "matches" are often at best only approximately similar in meaning:<br />
<br />
(TC 6) <span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>Do not kill - </b></span><br />
(BoD 7) <i><span style="color: blue;"><b>- I have not killed </b></span></i><br />
<br />
(TC 7) <b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Do not commit Adultery - </span></b><br />
(BoD 13,14) <b>-<span style="color: blue;"><i> I have not Sodomized with a Sodomite. </i></span></b><br />
(the interpretation here of <i><span style="color: red;"><b>"adultery"</b></span></i> is dubious, since the text says literally:<br />
<b><i><span style="color: blue;">"I have not penetrated the penetrator of a penetrator"</span></i></b>,<br />
suggesting buggery.)<br />
(BoD 14) - <b><i><span style="color: blue;">"I have not masturbated" </span></i></b><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Adultery? another implausible stretch.</span></span><br />
<br />
(TC 8) <span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>Do not steal - </b></span><br />
<i>(BoD 1) <span style="color: blue;">-<b> I have not cheated the Orphan of his goods. </b></span></i><br />
<i>(BoD 20) <span style="color: blue;"><b>- I have not taken milk from babies' mouths. </b></span></i><br />
<i>(BoD 11,12) <b><span style="color: blue;">- I have not taken the offerings of the Gods/dead.</span></b></i><br />
<i>(BoD 15-19) <span style="color: blue;"><b>- I have not cheated with various weights and measures. </b></span></i><br />
<br />
Certainly these are examples of modern "stealing", but there appears to be<br />
no specialized word for "steal" in early Egyptian, and these were handled as separate crimes, as the text plainly illustrates.<br />
<br />
Even <a href="http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html"><b>the truncated source</b></a> that the <b><i>Ont. Consultants on Religious Tolerance</i></b> (<b>OCORT</b>) use doesn't render any part of the <i><b>BoD</b></i> text as <b><i><span style="color: #990000;">"stealing"</span></i></b>.<b><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cl.htm"></a></b> <br />
<br />
Other 'renderings' offered appear to contain 'glosses' or interpretations that reflect the modern liberal ideologies of the website rather than ancient Egyptian priests:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;"><span style="color: blue;"> I have not murdered <i><b>or given such
an order....</b></i>"</span> (unsourced quote)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;">"</span></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;"><span style="color: blue;">I have not killed; <i><b>I have not turned anyone over to a killer."</b></i></span> (unsourced) </span> <br />
<br />
Both of these quotes appear to be 'interpretations' or elaborations offered by various unnamed translators. The Egyptian text seems not to support it, if <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/Welcome.html"><i><b>the UCL and JISC supported sites</b></i></a> are reliable. They give this for the portion of the text under consideration:<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">
"I have not killed; <b><i>I have not harmed the offering-cattle;"</i></b> </span>(<b><a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/literature/religious/bd125a.html">Chapter 125a</a></b>)</span><br />
<br />
Which seems to have quite a different meaning than that offered by <b>OCORT.</b><br />
<br />
Out of 29 possible crimes in BoD, only ONE appears to correspond directly to a commandment in the Decalogue: "murder".<br />
<br />
But the context in both cases gives no indication that the two cultures had similar views on how to define "murder" or what the punishment should be in various nuanced cases. We know that "Do not Kill" was a crime moderated by manslaughter and 'crime of passion' considerations, from the fact that Israelites allowed fugitives to flee to another city of refuge. Nothing in Egyptian culture seems to correspond to these legal nuances.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>OCORT</b> do admit the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;">"<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;">One major difference between the two documents is
that statues of the Gods and Goddesses formed a major part of the ancient Egyptian
religion. The religion of the <b>ancient Hebrews forbade any image or statue</b> of
Yahweh. Another difference was the Decalogue's emphasis on <b>the Sabbath</b> -- one
day of rest each week. It <b>is not found</b> in the <i>Book of the Dead</i> or<b> in ancient
Egyptian culture.</b></span>"</span></blockquote>
<br />
This is not a small difference. <b>Hebrew Law forbade idolatry, while Egyptian culture celebrated it.</b> The Sabbath was completely foreign to Egyptians.<br />
Thats at least two, possibly three Commandments which are are directly opposed to Egyptian legal ideas. Statistically twice the clear disagreement (20%) as seemingly direct agreement (10%).<br />
<br />
<b>And this is being generous</b> in the use of statistics. <br />
<i>From the BoD viewpoint</i>, only 1 match out of 29 crimes is a much lower agreement: (3.4%). That is, while TC agrees with the BoD list for <b>10%</b> of its own commandments,
the BoD only agrees with TC for <span style="color: red;"><b>3.4%</b></span> of its crime list.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The other differences are just as serious. </b> The Egyptians appeared to have no 'core set' of values like the Hebrew Decalogue. Instead, they had a complex and often arbitrary set of laws, enacted by Pharoahs and seemingly based on Egyptian religious values and social sensibilities, but unorganized or reasoned out by any unified worldview or legal philosophy.<br />
<br />
But from early times, it appears that Hebrew culture embraced at least a legal awareness or core-value system, based on their careful preservation of early history in Genesis.<br />
<br />
While Egyptians held core religious beliefs based on early history or myth (i.e., the afterlife and Osiris), they appear not to have based a legal code on their stories.<br />
<br />
There seems no evidence that Hebrews borrowed their legal code from Egypt, although they may have been culturally influenced to a significant degree by their interaction, and service to the Egyptian state.<br />
<br />
The similarities (e.g., prohibition of murder) can best be understood as universals that arose from situations common to all early peoples and hardly traceable to a specific culture or nation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-72356922774451866872015-04-05T20:44:00.006-04:002015-04-05T20:46:59.899-04:00Top Geneticist Rejects the "Junk DNA" viewpoint<div class="vb_postbit" id="post_message_3430581">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ilkIat0Slag/UQ8inX8B8fI/AAAAAAAAFxU/PmX04XMLx-g/s1600/Animal_mitochondrion_diagram_en.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ilkIat0Slag/UQ8inX8B8fI/AAAAAAAAFxU/PmX04XMLx-g/s1600/Animal_mitochondrion_diagram_en.svg.png" height="219" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><i><b>Oh look!</b></i> I have in my hand the most up-to-date book available, <br />
on Mobile DNA. Its by the world's leading expert on that topic.<br />
<br />
Oh oh, he's <b><i>not</i></b> an ID guy. He's <i><b>not</b></i> a creationist. <br />
OMG he's <b><i>not</i></b> even a Christian or Jew, or muslim.<br />
<br />
The title is hilariously "<u><i><b>Mobile DNA</b></i></u>", by H.H. Kazazian, (<b>2012</b>, FT Press).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;">We'd better check his credentials:<br />
We wouldn't want any 'unscientific' amateurs sneaking in, <br />
misrepresenting themselves and taking credit for BAs in philosophy,<br />
or PhDs in religion here:</span><br />
<br />
Hmmm. lets see:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">finished his <b>M.D. degree at Johns Hopkins University</b> School of Medicine.<br />
<br />
Interned in Pediatrics at University of Minnesota Hospital.<br />
<br />
Returned to Johns Hopkins for a <b>Fellowship in Genetics</b>, <br />
<br />
Then Trained in molecular biology at the NIH. <br />
<br />
Rejoined the Faculty at Johns Hopkins.<br />
<br />
Rose to <b>full professorship</b> there in 1977. <br />
<br />
Became <b>Director of the Center for Medical Genetics</b> (Johns Hopkins) 1988.<br />
<br />
Spent <b>25 years</b> on the John Hopkins <b>Faculty</b>.<br />
<br />
Recruited to University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, as<br />
<b>Chair of the Dept. of Genetics</b> in 1994.<br />
<br />
Remained as Seymour Grey Professor of Molecular Medicine in Genetics till 2010.<br />
<br />
Returned to Johns Hopkins in July 2010.<br />
<br />
Heavily <b>involved in molecular genetic research for the past 20 years</b><br />
specializing in mammalian and human transposable elements, "jumping genes". <br />
<br />
Personally characterized much of the variation in the cluster of genes <br />
involved in production of the beta chain of human hemoglobin. <br />
<br />
His work led to the nearly complete characterization of the mutations<br />
causing the Beta-thalassemias, common anemias in malaria regions.<br />
<br />
<b>Received many honours for his research</b>, most notably the <br />
2008 William Allan Award, the top honour of the <br />
American Society of Human Genetics. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Well, what does he say about Junk DNA?</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<table bgcolor="#ffffff" border="1" cellpadding="10" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 60%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td><span style="color: darkred;">"...most genes are broken up by sections of DNA called introns<br />
that need to be removed at the RNA stage in order for the genes <br />
to function. ...the protein-coding regions of the genes make up <br />
a very small fraction of mammalian genomes. <br />
...In the late 1970s, introns were found... <br />
Soon we knew that introns were much larger than protein-coding regions,<br />
then called exons. <br />
The DNA between the genes was thought to be functionless, <br />
and was called <span style="color: blue;">"<b>junk DNA</b>"</span> (Orgel and Crick, 1980). <br />
However, now we know that introns make up about 30% of human <br />
and mammalian genomes, and exons only encode between 1 and 2% <br />
of the human genome (Lander et al., 2001). <br />
What a comedown for the protein-encoding regions! <br />
<b>Thus over 98% of human DNA had been dismissed as <span style="color: blue;">"junk"</span></b>. <br />
<br />
Transposable elements were then found, and this active mobile DNA<br />
along with the remnants is now known to account for at least 50% <br />
of human genomic DNA. <b>Both the relatively few presently mobile <br />
sequences, and the many remnants of old events are now <br />
demonstrating <span style="color: black;">function. </span></b><br />
...evident in the many ways mobile DNA can modify the genome over <b><i><span style="color: black;">evolutionary</span></i><i> time</i></b>.<br />
It can also be co-opted for useful purposes...<br />
Moreover, DNA encoding small RNAs of different types and functions <br />
has been discovered amidst the "junk". Enhancer sequences at great <br />
distances from the genes upon which they act are being found continually. <br />
...<br />
<b>The bottom line is that <span style="color: blue;">"junk" DNA</span> is gradually being eroded away as <br />
function is found for a greater and greater fraction of the genomic DNA</b>."</span><br />
<br />
- <u><b><i>Mobile DN</i><i>A</i></b></u>, pp. 1-3</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="color: black;"><br />
His comfortable use of <span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: darkred;">"evolutionary"</span> </span>makes clear he is an evolutionist,<br />
as well as one of the top experts in human DNA.</span></div>
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-36713919277920423382015-04-05T19:16:00.000-04:002015-04-05T19:16:18.145-04:00The Synoptic Problem (Pt 3): Various Issues - Mark's Audience, Sermon on Mount<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RBt3sPEHgeE/VSHCD8EU2HI/AAAAAAAAHr8/BiH1FqVbZjc/s1600/mark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RBt3sPEHgeE/VSHCD8EU2HI/AAAAAAAAHr8/BiH1FqVbZjc/s1600/mark.jpg" height="368" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;"><b>(1) A careful examination Shows Mark</b></span><b>'s Audience. </b></div>
<br /><br />
Mark is packed with explanatory glosses, <br />
and unless we embrace the idea of a lost "proto-Mark" written to Hebrews, <br />
Mark as presented in <b><i>the current Greek version was written to a mixed audience </i></b><br />
which required special instruction in regard to Aramaic words and Jewish traditions.<br />
<br />
To give some examples:<br />
<br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 3.17" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%203.17" target="_blank">Mark 3:17</a> "Boanerges, which is 'The sons of Thunder'. Presumably a Jew or Galilean would not need this explained.<br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 5.41" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%205.41" target="_blank">Mark 5:41</a> "Talitha cumi", which is, being interpreted, "Maiden, I say to you arise." For Greek-speaking Jews of diaspora and Gentiles.<br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 7.34" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%207.34" target="_blank">Mark 7:34</a> "Ephphatha", that is, "Be opened!" Again, Jesus' own contemporaries, Galileans, would not need translation.<br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 7.26" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%207.26" target="_blank">Mark 7:26</a> "The woman was a Greek[speaker], Syrophoenician by birth.' of greatest interest to Gentiles, not Jews. <br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 13.14" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2013.14" target="_blank">Mark 13:14</a> '(let the reader understand)', a gloss speaking to Greek readers in the Diaspora, to look up Daniel.<br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 14.32" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2014.32" target="_blank">Mark 14:32</a> 'which was named Gethsemane', an anecdote of no importance, but typical of eyewitness accounts.<br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 15.22" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2015.22" target="_blank">Mark 15:22</a> "Golgotha, which is, being interpreted the place of a skull' - a note again, not for the benefit of Hebrews. <br />
<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Mark 15.34" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Mark%2015.34" target="_blank">Mark 15:34</a>
'which is interpreted, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" -
not something Jews regularly reading the psalms would need explaining. <br />
<br />
The large number of such notes show that at least the Greek Mark as we
have it was meant for an audience much wider than the Jews or Hebrews of
the diaspora.<br />
__________________________________________________________<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> (2) Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.</b></div>
<br />
<br />
The idea that Jesus spoke on two separate occasions,
to account for the differences between the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew)
and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke), has been proposed many times.<br />
<br />
The problem with this 'technique', is that to be consistent, we would have to do the same also, in every instance where two gospels parallel one another, and yet contain serious differences in the accounts. <br />
If carried through consistently, we would end up with 3 or 4 duplicated cases for each miracle or incident in Jesus' life, all varying slightly. But more problematic is that there would be no reliable way to put these "shadow" events
or 'mirror-pericopes' into any kind of sensible chronological order. <br />
It goes without saying that we can't use this technique in the Passion narratives. <br />
<i><b>Jesus wasn't tried and crucified twice, </b>in spite of differences between the accounts.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>The correct solution is not to pose "two speeches", but suppose two gospel-writers</b></span>,
one or both having edited or colored his account.<br />
<br />
D. A. Carson has recently commented on this problem, specifically discussing the<br />
alleged difference of location ('plain' versus 'mount'). In translation, this appears to be a contradiction, but when the
underlying words are properly understood, there is no problem:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">"The
second example is from my popular-level exposition on the Sermon on the
Mount. I there explained the well-known discrepancy between Matthew's
reference to a mountain (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Matt. 5.1" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%205.1" target="_blank">Matt. 5:1</a>) and Luke's mention of a plain (<a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 6.17" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%206.17" target="_blank">Luke 6:17</a>)
with more or less standard conservative apologetic: even a mountain has
level places, and so forth. (35) Since publishing that book, however, I
have written a full-length technical commentary on Matthew; and I have
learned that (<b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;">εις το ορος</span></span></span></b>) in <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Matthew 5.1" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%205.1" target="_blank">Matthew 5:1</a>
probably does not mean Jesus went "up a mountain" or "to a mountain" or
"onto a mountainside", but simply "into the hill country"; and
interestingly (<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;"><span style="font-size: medium;">πεδινος</span></span></b></span>) in <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 6.17" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%206.17" target="_blank">Luke 6:17</a>,
usually rendered "plain", commonly refers to a plateau in mountainouse
regions (36). There is no discrepancy; I had simply not done enough
work for the earlier book. If it is any encouragement, increasing years
make one increasingly careful. They are also teaching me, slowly, to
change my mind and acknowledge when I am shown to be in error. There is
no virtue in a Maginot Line of emotional defense around a position that
is palpably weak."</span> - <b>D. A. Carson</b>, <u><i>Exegetical Fallacies</i></u>, (Baker, 1984) p. 42-43<br />
__________________________________<br />
35. D.A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount (Baker 1978), p.145<br />
36. D.A. Carson, Matthew Exposit. Bible Comm. (Zond., 1984)<br />
</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-35250992047292858872015-04-05T18:52:00.000-04:002015-04-05T19:08:08.845-04:00The Synoptic Problem (Pt 2): Mark as Primary Makes the Best Sense<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uF3E75SXJCY/VSG8Zm7JQnI/AAAAAAAAHrY/RA6KQP1ifUQ/s1600/synoptic-chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uF3E75SXJCY/VSG8Zm7JQnI/AAAAAAAAHrY/RA6KQP1ifUQ/s1600/synoptic-chart.jpg" height="397" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4IkfFvtggU/VSHAKtFgekI/AAAAAAAAHrw/LBV7pew45MI/s1600/lmm-full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
Here's how I see the logical development:<br />
<br />
(1) <span style="color: black;"> <b>The Four gospels are not 'independent'</b></span>
in the sense of four strangers eyewitnessing a car accident. This was
an old apologetic paradigm, based on the idea of a 'court trial' to
establish the facts. But the facts actually show that the four
witnesses have previously consulted one another, and colluded with one
another. Two things prevent us from calling them 'independent' in the
court-case sense.<br />
<blockquote>
(a) <b>They are all on the same side, i.e., <i>Christian</i> witnesses</b>,
and are obviously promoting their general position. They are not
acting as neutral observers in a detached scientific sense, but are
actively and enthusiastically promoting Christianity. Their
'eyewitness' testimony is indeed filtered through a special lens not in
possession of a mere scientist. This does not negate their honesty or
accuracy, but it does change their purposes and interests. <br />
<br />
(b) <b>They have plainly plagiarised each other. </b> The Gospels are <i>literary</i>
works, and in places have copied one another (or previous documents)
word for word. This was previously 'explained' away by the 'dictation'
of the Holy Spirit, but the paradigm cannot contain the phenomena.<br />
<blockquote>
i.) <b>If
the Holy Spirit was the direct cause of identical wording in some
places, why would there be such drastic differences in others?</b> It
makes no sense as an explanation for the parallel passages, because it
doesn't explain the whole picture. This is not a denial of
'inspiration', just a recognition that it is not an explanation for the
partial, piece-meal agreements. <br />
<br />
ii) At least one author, <b>Luke admits using the work of previous gospel writers.</b>
This is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the parallel passages
for all cases between gospels. Even if Matthew or Mark don't make the
same confession, it can be reasonably assumed, since all the gospels are
the same kind of literature. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><b>(2) It makes a huge difference who wrote first. </b></span>
This becomes obvious from the actual differences between the four
gospels. In terms of intent and purpose, and even historical value, it
is very important to get it right.<br />
<blockquote>
(a) <b>If we suppose Matthew wrote first</b>, as the Roman Catholics claim, we completely undermine the authority of both Mark and Luke.<br />
<blockquote>
(i) <b>If Luke is a 'correction' of Matthew</b>,
then the whole 'social gospel' was actually missed or ignored by
Matthew, making him a complete jerk and wholly unreliable as an
eyewitness, or else Luke has invented this whole aspect, including major
parables of Jesus, making either Matthew's or Luke's version
historically worthless.<br />
<br />
(ii) <b>If Mark were a later 'abbreviation'/synopsis of Matthew</b>: Why
would he delete virtually all of Jesus' teaching? He would have to be
actively hostile to it, or else wanting to keep it secret. What
function could his synopsis serve? Virtually everything in Mark is
found also in Matthew (and most in Luke). Mark adds nothing of real
significance, and has nothing unique to report. He would be totally
'uninspired' in this very practical sense. His work would be redundant
and inferior, especially given its plagiaristic content. Mark, if
written last, must be demoted to redundant and unoriginal, a mere
editor, unworthy of the honorary title 'gospel writer'. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
(b) <b>Suppose Luke wrote first:</b> This cannot save the indictment against Mark. It remains an inferior, pointless production. <br />
<br />
(c) <b>Suppose Mark wrote first:</b> This redeems Mark as the first pioneer in a series of expanding and more detailed treatments of the Gospel story.<br />
<blockquote>
(i) <b>Now Mark's purpose and intent are honorable</b>.
He is writing the newspaper account. He is counting on others who
have kept records of the many sermons and other details to eventually
provide the full story. He however, has to get the story out. The
brevity of Mark's version is reasonably accounted for by his urgency and
priority as the earliest gospel. <br />
<br />
(ii) <b>Many phenomena are now explained.</b> The fact that Matthew
uses virtually all of Mark is understandable. He wishes to preserve
everything of importance, and likewise Luke. Matthew and Luke show the
real value of Mark by copying him so extensively, and honoring his work,
using it as a base for their more ambitious projects. It also explains
why Mark was continued to be revered by the early church, in spite of
its redundancy. Many of the arbitrary and unimportant details in Mark
are edited out of Luke and Matthew however, giving more concise versions
of events. This is precisely what we would expect of Luke and Matthew
as they incorporate Mark into their 'super-gospels'. <br />
<br /></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><b>It can now be seen that Christians have a large vested interest in getting the order of composition of the Gospels right.</b></span> The authority and credibility of all the gospels depend on it.<br />
<br />
From the Christian point of view, the only question remaining is the relative priority of Luke and Matthew: was Matthew 2nd or 3rd?<br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree that Matthew had other purposes in mind besides dumping the
Social Gospel, and going easy on the Jews in Herod's kingdom. <br />
<br />
But putting Mark's gospel first chronologically does a lot more than save the reputation of Mark. <br />
<span style="color: black;"><i><b><u><br />
<br />
Mark as Later Gos</u>p<u>el</u>:</b></i></span><br />
<br />
Again we point out that if Mark had been written <u><i>after</i></u>
either Luke or Matthew, he would have been possibly a clever publisher,
or even a nice guy, providing a 'Readers Digest' version of the Gospel.
But he would have added absolutely nothing to the story Luke/Matthew,
except unimportant incidental details of some pericopes. This would be
doubly condemning.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">(1) Could the Holy Spirit really have "inspired" Mark to delete almost all of Christ's teaching? <br />
(2) Could the Holy Spirit have "inspired" Mark to add worthless details to those stories he chose to preserve? <br />
</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><b>The answer is no.</b></span>
If we follow Roman Catholic tradition on this, Mark is dead in the
water, and the whole concept of a New Testament Canon of four inspired
gospels is sunk.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><u><i><br />
Mark as Earlier Gos</i></u><i>p</i><u><i>el: </i></u></span><br />
<br />
Thankfully, the evidence itself clearly suggests <span style="color: darkred;"><i>Mark</i></span> was written <span style="color: darkred;"><i><u>first.</u></i></span></b></span><br />
<br />
(1) <b><span style="color: black;">Almost everything in Mark is reproduced in Luke and Matthew, and there is almost nothing unique to Mark.</span></b>
This only makes sense if Mark was used by both Matthew and Luke, and
not the other way round. If Mark's purpose had been merely to delete
Jesus' teaching, he would be an anti-Christ.<br />
<br />
(2) <span style="color: black;"><b>Even though Matthew and Luke have drastically
different chronologies between each other, they both reproduce Mark's
material in Mark's order! </b></span> This would be nearly impossible to
achieve, unless Mark had either written first, or last. But if Mark
had written last, what purpose at all would be accomplished by only
copying items out of Matthew and Luke that happened to be in the same
order? It would give the appearance of 'agreement', but nothing else
of value. This would make Mark a very clever forger, another damning
charge against Mark. And he could not have achieved this unless he
wrote last, or had the cooperation of either Matthew or Luke (another
impossible situation). But the obvious explanation is simply that both
Luke and Matthew used Mark as a base, and added their own material in
different ways, resulting in a chronological disagreement between them.
<br />
<br />
(3) <span style="color: black;"><b> Mark includes many explanatory asides, to explain Hebrew/Aramaic terms</b></span>
to a wider audience of Gentiles as well as diaspora Greek-speaking
Jews. Most of these have been dropped by Luke and Matthew, as
unnecessary. This suggests that Luke and Matthew were written at a
later time when there were more people around to explain those terms,
and more knowledge among Gentile Christians about Jewish jargon.
Adding these to give an artificial appearance of greater age would also
be dishonest and suggest Mark was a forgery rather than a real gospel. <br />
<br />
(4) <span style="color: black;"><b>Mark is wordier, often adding incidental details</b></span>
typical of an eyewitness account, but of little use or value in the
long run. Had Mark written just to add these worthless anecdotes to the
gospel, he would be idle, frivolous, and again a forger. But had he
written first, it is fully expected that editors like Luke and Matthew
would trim the fat from these authentic eyewitness accounts. Again Mark
must either have been written first or dismissed as a forgery.<br />
<br />
(5) <span style="color: black;"><b>Luke openly says he used previous gospels, and Mark is clearly one of them</b></span>.
Luke uses Mark as an outline, and very simply injects three blocks of
new material into Mark. This is clinching. Mark was written before
Luke. Luke adds<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Block #1:</b> the Nativity Stories<br />
<b>Block #2:</b> the Sermon on the Plain<br />
<b>Block #3:</b> the large collection of additional teachings.<br />
</span></blockquote>
Luke also heavily edits the final section of Mark's
Gospel, the Passion Narrative. All in all, these are the features we
would expect from a later writer incorporating an earlier account into
an expanded and more complete version of the story. Further
substantiating evidence is found in the way <b>Matthew has also inserted his unique material in blocks</b>, the only efficient method of doing so.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><i><b>Luke's Block Outline </b></i></u><span style="color: seagreen;"><b><br />
<br />
Luke block 1</b></span>: Luke 1 - 2 (Nativity etc.) <br />
<span style="color: red;"><b>Mark block 1</b></span>: <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 3.1 - 6.19" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%203.1%20-%206.19" target="_blank">Luke 3:1 - 6:19</a> = Mark ch 1 - 3 (with suppliments) <span style="color: seagreen;"><b><br />
Luke block 2</b></span>: <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 6.20 - 8.3" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%206.20%20-%208.3" target="_blank">Luke 6:20 - 8:3</a> (Sermon on Plain etc.) <br />
<span style="color: red;"><b>Mark block 2</b></span>: <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 8.4 - 9.62" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%208.4%20-%209.62" target="_blank">Luke 8:4 - 9:62</a> = Mark ch 4 - 9 (but Luke skips 6:45 - 8:25) <br />
<span style="color: seagreen;"><b>Luke block 3</b></span>: <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 10.1 - 18.14" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.1%20-%2018.14" target="_blank">Luke 10:1 - 18:14</a> (including Johannine material: e.g., <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 10.21-22" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.21-22" target="_blank">Luke 10:21-22</a> etc.) <br />
<span style="color: red;"><b>Mark block 3</b></span>: <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 18.15" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2018.15" target="_blank">Luke 18:15</a> - End = Mark ch 10 - 16 (with minor edits, suppliments) <br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4IkfFvtggU/VSHAKtFgekI/AAAAAAAAHrw/LBV7pew45MI/s1600/lmm-full.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4IkfFvtggU/VSHAKtFgekI/AAAAAAAAHrw/LBV7pew45MI/s1600/lmm-full.jpg" height="640" width="280" /> </a><br />
<br />
<br />
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-54633799641324753732015-04-05T09:56:00.001-04:002015-04-05T18:47:03.010-04:00The Synoptic Problem (Pt 1): Priority of Luke over MatthewI will begin by taking some of my previous forum posts from 2011 to bring the discussion up to speed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Mark is a shorter gospel with very little of Jesus' teachings and sayings.<br />
Luke is a very much expanded version with a full compliment of Jesus teachings.<br />
Matthew is another similarly full version with teachings arranged in groups.<br />
John is a mature gospel, focussed on deeply theological teachings. <br />
<br />
Mark Luke and Matthew have a large amount of overlapping material,<br />
much of it almost word-for-word, whereas John is unique and quite independent.<br />
<br />
The overlap between the first three gospels is called "the Synoptic Problem".<br />
<br />
The question arises, who wrote first, and who copied who? Because it is probable that at least two of them (Luke and Matthew) copied from the others.<br />
<br />
In pre-scientific times, not much analysis was done, and one could hold almost any viewpoint on the Synoptic Problem, and it was almost a personal preference. Church authorities argued for the priority of Matthew because it was the fullest and most suited for establishing church authority. 19th century skeptics gave Mark the priority because it was the shortest, and their view allowed for an 'evolution' or development of religion over time, and an accumulation of stories and doctrines. They viewed Christianity as a syncretic accumulation of superstition and fiction.<br />
<br />
Nowadays much more of the data has been analyzed and the road has become clearer. Particular attention has been paid to the differences between the gospels, and why and how those differences may have arisen.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rFcSjC_xgd0/VSE-5XdPfYI/AAAAAAAAHq0/ZjqlBdVt-aA/s1600/synoptics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rFcSjC_xgd0/VSE-5XdPfYI/AAAAAAAAHq0/ZjqlBdVt-aA/s1600/synoptics.jpg" height="544" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A striking example is Matthew's Sermon on the Mount: A large speech covering several early chapters, which contains some material covered in other gospels, but also much unique material arranged in a special format.<br />
<br />
<br />
The "Sermon on the Mount" is an artificial literary production.<br />
Had it actually taken place, and been recorded by the Apostles,<br />
it is inconceivable and preposterous that Mark and Luke would have omitted it.<br />
<br />
It can be shown to parallel the Letter of James, where the additional material is largely from.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Matthew takes <i>Luke</i>, and systematically removes ALL the material regarding the poor and the rich. </b></span><br />
This would be inexplicable if Luke's gospel accurately reports Jesus' teaching, and Matthew were also authentic.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>(1) Matthew takes Luke's Sermon on the Plain, and removes all reference to rich and poor:</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Luke:</b></span><i><span style="color: red;"> "Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God."</span></i><br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Matt:</b> </span>"Blessed are <b>the</b> poor <b><i><u>in spirit</u>:</i></b> for<b> theirs</b> is the kingdom of <b>heaven</b>."<br />
<br />
Here "Matthew" removes the direct speech to the poor, <br />
preventing them from asking for bread from wealthy priests,<br />
on the basis of this sermon by Jesus.<br />
Jesus' words are no longer about poverty, and no longer addressed to hearers.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Luke:</b></span><i><span style="color: red;"> "Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled."</span></i> (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%206.20" target="_blank">Luke 6:20</a>)<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Matt:</b> </span>"Blessed are <b>they</b> that hunger <u><b><i>after righteousness:</i></b></u> for <b>they</b> shall be filled." (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%205.3" target="_blank">Matt. 5:3</a>)<br />
<br />
Again the poor are cheated out of both Jesus' message, <br />
an acknowledgement of who its for, and a practical answer. <br />
"Matthew" has interpolated and distorted the message back to a form of
Judaism that perpetuates the accumulation of wealth (mammon).<br />
<br />
The message is no longer addressed to the hearers, but to abstractions.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>Luke:</b></span><i><span style="color: red;"> "But WOE unto you rich! for ye have received your consolation!<br />
"WOE unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger!" <span style="color: blue;"> (<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%206.24-25" target="_blank">Luke 6:24-25</a>)</span><br />
</span></i><span style="color: black;"><b>Matt:</b> <span style="color: blue;"><i><b> deleted! </b></i></span></span><br />
<br />
<b>Jesus' condemnation of the wealthy of His generation</b> has been entirely erased from the speech, through a combination of interpolation and deletion. <br />
'Matthew''s solution is as drastic as his purpose.<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b><br />
(2) Matthew omits all the Parables and Teachings on the Poor:</b></span><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.13-21" target="_blank">Luke 12:13-21</a> - </b> <span style="color: red;"><i><b>Parable of the <u>Rich</u> Fool</b></i></span> (<b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span></b>)<br />
<b><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2014.12-14" target="_blank">Luke 14:12-14</a> -</b> <span style="color: red;"><i><b>Invite the <u>Poor</u>, Injured Blind</b></i></span> (<b>Matt.</b> <b><i><span style="color: blue;">deleted</span></i></b>) <br />
<b><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2016.19-31" target="_blank">Luke 16:19-31</a> - <i><span style="color: red;">Parable of <u>Rich</u> Man & Lazarus</span></i></b> (<b>Matt.</b> <i><span style="color: blue;"><b>deleted</b></span></i>)<br />
<b><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2021.1-4" target="_blank">Luke 21:1-4</a> -</b> <span style="color: red;"><i><b>Parable of <u>Poor</u> Widow's Penny</b></i></span> (<b>Matt.</b> <span style="color: blue;"><i><b>deleted</b></i></span>)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><b>The accumulated effect is obvious.</b></span> <br />
<span style="color: red;"><b>The Poor have been entirely deleted from the Gospel, <br />
along with the issue of poverty. </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><i><b><br />
(3) Matthew omits most of the negative references to Judaism:</b></i></span><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.13-16" target="_blank">Luke 10:13-16</a> - <span style="color: red;"><i>Woe to those who reject the 70 </i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2010.29-36" target="_blank">Luke 10:29-36</a> - <i><span style="color: red;">Parable of the Good Samaritan </span></i>(</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.5-8" target="_blank">Luke 11:5-8</a> - <i><span style="color: red;">Parable of the Persistent Neighbour</span></i> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.24-26" target="_blank">Luke 11:24-26</a> -<span style="color: red;"><i> Parable of the Unclean spirit returning</i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2011.37-54" target="_blank">Luke 11:37-54</a> <i><span style="color: red;">- WOE to the Pharisees and Lawyers</span></i> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>edited, moved to <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matt.%2023.1-36" target="_blank">Matt. 23:1-36</a></i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.10" target="_blank">Luke 12:10</a> <span style="color: red;"><i>- The Unpardonable Sin</i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2012.49-53" target="_blank">Luke 12:49-53</a> -<span style="color: red;"> "I bring Division"</span></b><b> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2015.11-32" target="_blank">Luke 15:11-32</a> <span style="color: red;"><i>- Parable of the Prodigal Son </i></span>(</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.1-4" target="_blank">Luke 17:1-4</a> <span style="color: red;"><i>- Forgiving 77 times 7</i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2017.11-19" target="_blank">Luke 17:11-19</a> <span style="color: red;"><i>- 10 Lepers healed, only Foreigner returns</i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2018.9-14" target="_blank">Luke 18:9-14</a> - <span style="color: red;"><i> Parable of Tax Collector forgiven</i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Luke%2023.6-12" target="_blank">Luke 23:6-12</a> <span style="color: red;"><i>- Jesus faces Herod</i></span> (</b><b>Matt. <span style="color: blue;"><i>deleted</i></span>)<br />
</b><br />
<span style="color: black;"><b><br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L-rnHhEPCzE/TlAgQFPn2UI/AAAAAAAAw08/pasoHf5u0Es/s1600/teapartyjesus2.jpg" /><br />
</b></span><br />
<i><span style="color: #444444;"><b>Image from</b> <a href="http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/" target="_blank">Tea Party Jesus</a>, </span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: #444444;">a Web project "putting the words of Christians in the mouth of Jesus."</span></i><br />
<span style="color: black;"><b><br />
<br />
Matthew is the 'gospel', rewritten for rich Jewish people.</b></span><br />
<i><b>If you missed that, you can't read.<br />
<br />
We have made a full discussion of the Synoptic Problem with charts here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pericopedeadultera.org/SYNOP/index.html" target="_blank">Synoptic Problem</a> </b></i>Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-57716321510475110732015-03-23T22:42:00.000-04:002015-03-23T22:47:43.291-04:00Daniel (pt 16): Greek Musical Instruments in Babylon<span style="font-size: large;"><i><b> Cultural Spread of Musical Instruments. </b></i></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0pTZCcLeogc/VRDPVcU3MDI/AAAAAAAAHno/I_qAPpQjcTo/s1600/hermes_lyre_egypt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0pTZCcLeogc/VRDPVcU3MDI/AAAAAAAAHno/I_qAPpQjcTo/s1600/hermes_lyre_egypt.jpg" height="640" width="536" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
One of the most common musical instruments is<br />
the STRINGED instrument, <br />
and it has been made in various styles and forms, <br />
and played in a variety of ways, from striking with sticks, <br />
to plucking, to stroking with animal-hair bows. <br />
<br />
You will find stringed instruments in every culture in the world, <br />
stretching back to early antiquity. <br />
<br />
The most popular stringed instruments in the Middle East <br />
seem to have originated in ancient Greece and to have spread <br />
from Cyprus to Egypt and Palestine. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> The Lyre </b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0pTZCcLeogc/VRDPVcU3MDI/AAAAAAAAHno/I_qAPpQjcTo/s1600/hermes_lyre_egypt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0pTZCcLeogc/VRDPVcU3MDI/AAAAAAAAHno/I_qAPpQjcTo/s1600/hermes_lyre_egypt.jpg" height="320" width="268" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
- a stringed musical instrument known for its use in Greek classical antiquity and later. <b>The word comes from the Greek <span style="font-size: medium;"><i><span style="color: darkred;">lyra</span></i></span> </b>and the earliest reference to the word is the Mycenaean Greek <b><i>ru-ra-ta-e</i></b>, meaning "lyrists", written in <b><i>Linear B syllabic script. </i></b>The earliest picture of a lyre with seven strings appears in the famous sarcophagus of <b><i>Hagia Triada</i></b> (a Minoan settlement in Crete). The sarcophagus was used during the Mycenaean occupation of Crete <b><i>(1400 BC).</i></b> The recitations of the Ancient Greeks were accompanied by lyre playing. <br />
<br />
The lyre of classical antiquity was ordinarily played by being strummed
with a plectrum, like a guitar or a zither, rather than being plucked,
like a harp. The fingers of the free hand silenced the unwanted
strings in the chord. The lyre is similar in appearance to a small harp
but with distinct differences.<br />
<br />
The word<b><i> lyre</i></b> can either refer specifically to a common
folk-instrument, which is a smaller version of the professional kithara
and eastern-Aegean barbiton, or lyrecan refer generally to all three
instruments as a family. In organology, lyres are defined as "yoke
lutes", being lutes in which the strings are attached to a yoke which
lies in the same plane as the sound-table and consists of two arms and a
cross-bar. </blockquote>
We learn from writings, inscriptions and pictographs, <br />
that musical instruments were imported very early from Greece <br />
into the Mediterranean Islands such as Cyprus, North Africa, especially Egypt, and indeed into King's Courts all over the Middle East.<br />
<br />
Its no surprise that Greek names for various musical instruments <br />
also penetrated into many languages as 'loan words' to name <br />
and identify Greek musical instruments, or instruments which <br />
were based on earlier Greek designs.<br />
<br />
Musicians and their instruments were both hired and captured from <br />
many foreign locations and imported into Middle Eastern courts of kings.<br />
<br />
The three musical instruments mentioned by Daniel several times <br />
in chapter 3 are not 'anachronistic' or surprising at all, given that <br />
Greek musical instruments had already been imported into Egypt <br />
and other kingly courts centuries before Daniel lived. <br />
Both the skilled players and teachers, and the instruments' names <br />
would have been naturally imported alongside <br />
the renowned Greek music that was coveted by wealthy patrons <br />
in kingly courts all over the world. <br />
<br />
Thus the presence of these possibly Greek loan-words to indicate <br />
ancient musical instruments is not any evidence at all for a date <br />
of composition any different than that claimed by the book <br />
or expected to be assigned if its contents were authentic and <br />
contemporary with the Babylonian Captivity.<br />
<br />Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-39821448844161972772015-03-17T00:59:00.003-04:002015-03-17T19:49:26.007-04:00Daniel (Pt 15): Linguistic Nonsense<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Tu1dmwSK80/UR9Y--UbJnI/AAAAAAAAF4s/JnZidhQNQmE/s1600/Screenshot.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Tu1dmwSK80/UR9Y--UbJnI/AAAAAAAAF4s/JnZidhQNQmE/s1600/Screenshot.png" height="247" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In the 19th and early 20th century, Daniel's <b>critics </b><br />
expanded their arguments by attempting to use <i><b>linguistic evidence </b></i><br />
to assign the book of Daniel a late date, for the purpose of <br />
discrediting its prophecies.<br />
<br />
As usual, the poisonous skepticism and unbelief came from<b> Germany,</b><br />
and was transmitted to<b> France</b> (the seat of apostacy), <br />
and then translated and transferred to <b>Britain</b>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;"><i><b>The Greek Words in the Book of Daniel</b></i><br />
Hartwig Derenbourg and Morris Jastrow, Jr.<br />
</span><br />
<u><i><b>Hebraica</b></i></u><br />
Vol. 4, No. 1 (<b>Oct., 1887</b>), pp. 7-13<br />
<br />
<i><b>THE GREEK WORDS IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL. </b></i><br />
BY PROF. HARTWIG DERENBOURG. <span style="color: blue;">[France]</span><br />
<br />
[Translated from the <b><i>French</i></b> by Prof. <b>Morris Jastrow</b>, Jr., Ph. D.] <br />
<br />
"The conquests of Alexander, in the year <b>332 B.C.</b>, gave the
Greek language a preponderating influence in Palestine. Hebrew grammar,
indeed, firmly resisted the Macedonian sway, as it formerly presented an
inflexible front against Persian rule; but the vocabulary was enriched
by the addition of a number of foreign words, imported with new
conceptions for which there existed no equivalents in the national
tongue. <b><i>It is of the Greek elements in the Book of Daniel that I propose to treat. </i></b><br />
<br />
<b>The date and composition of the Book of Daniel have been fixed with <span style="color: darkred;">an absolute certainty</span>. </b><b>It is a Palestinian work (1) <span style="color: darkred;">of the year 169 or 168</span></b><span style="color: blue;"><b>[B.C.] </b></span>before the Christian era. <br />
<br />
Hebrew and an Aramaic dialect, known as biblical Aramaic, are used
alternately, as in the Book of Ezra. But our author goes even further,
and does not hesitate to give his work a still stronger polyglottic
character by the introduction of <b><i>Persian</i></b> and <span style="color: blue;"><i><b>Greek</b></i></span> words. <b>M. Haug</b>, in a learned monograph, has traced the etymologies of the former <span style="color: blue;">[the Persian words]</span>,(2) and I shall endeavor to do the same for the latter <span style="color: blue;">[the Greek words].</span>" <br />
<br />
_____________________ <br />
<br />
(1) Apart from the linguistic point of view, which in itself is
decisive, the contents of ch. IX., referring to Jerusalem, removes all
further doubts.<br />
<br />
(2) <b>M. Haug</b>, in <b>Ewald</b>'s (ed.) <u><b><i>Jahrbuecher d. Bibl. Wissenschaft</i></b></u> (1853), V., pp. 151-164.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/527148?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" target="_blank">http://www.jstor.org/stable/527148?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents</a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Note that this <span style="color: darkred;">'brilliant scholarship'</span> is based on secondary work <br />
done in the <b>1850s </b>in the case of the alleged 'Persian' loan words in Daniel, <br />
<b>and work prior to <i>1887</i></b> for the supposed 'Greek loan words'. <br />
<br />
Most importantly, <b>note that the <span style="color: darkred;">'certainty'</span> is inversely proportional to <br />
the ignorance of the critics. </b><br />
<br />
These idiots actually claim to be able to date the composition of the <br />
entire book of Daniel down to within ONE YEAR of accuracy,<br />
with a handful (3) of apparent Greek loan words. - <b><i>in 1887. </i></b><br />
<br />
This imported fad from Germany and France is exactly what <br />
<b>S.R. Driver</b> based his own supposed dating for the book of Daniel upon, <br />
in his "<b><u><i>The Book of Daniel</i></u></b>" (Cambridge, 1922). <br />
<br />
In fact, the linguistic knowledge at that time (1880-1940) <br />
was near-worthless for narrowing down the composition <br />
and cultural influences, and hence establishing the date.<br />
<br />
Yet somehow, <b>Driver</b>'s work has been quoted ever since, <br />
as if it were a scientific fact based on actual scientific, historical, <br />
and linguistic data.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Driver argued:</i><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: darkred;">‘…the Greek words <b>demand</b>, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, <b>a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (332 B.C.)</b>.’</span><br />
<br />
<i>S.R. Driver, <b>‘An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament’</b>, page 508, (1891, reprinted 1956)</i></blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">Generalising statements such as Driver’s
often lead people to believe that Daniel is littered with Greek words
and phrases, betraying the Maccabbean culture in which it was written.
This is not the case. <i><b>There are only three Greek terms in Daniel, and they are found in only one chapter</b></i> of the entire book, and all three of them are musical instruments </span> (Daniel 3:5, 3:7, 3:10, 3:15).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-book-of-daniel-420/" target="_blank">https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/the-book-of-daniel-420/</a><br />
</blockquote>
Recently, scholars (with less bias, and less urgent agendas)<br />
have openly acknowledged the need to update the assessment <br />
of the evidence pertinent to dating Daniel linguistically. <br />
Regarding the <i><b>Aramaic</b></i> language itself, <b>K.A. Kitchen</b> summarises as follows:<span style="color: darkred;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: darkred;">"There
is today ample scope for reassessment. The inscriptional material for
Old and Imperial Aramaic and later phases of the language is constantly
growing. Oone need only mention the <b><i>Brooklyn and Borchardt-Driver documents</i></b> published in 1953 and 1954 or the Aramaic documents from <b>Qumran</b>
and other cave-sites of Graeco-Roman palestine. Furthermore, some
earlier views require revision in the light of facts hitherto unknown or
neglected. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;">In dealing with the book of Daniel, theological presuppositions are apt to colour even the treatment and dating of its <b><i>Aramaic.</i></b>
The only fair way to proceed is to leave open the whole period c.
540-160 BC until the end of any inquest on the Aramaic, as far as its
date is concerned.</span><br />
<span style="color: darkred;">...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;">" </span><br />
<br />
- <u><i><b>The Aramaic of Daniel</b></i></u>, D.J. Wiseman, Ed., <br />
<b><i>Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel</i></b>, K. A. Kitchen, p.31-32, (<b>1965</b>, Tyndale Press)</blockquote>
<br />
Yet in the Critical Edition of the Hebrew O.T. of which <b>Driver </b>himself was involved (he wrote volume on Leviticus), the textual critical situation already<br />
admitted the precariousness of relying on at least one of these supposed 'Greek loan words', which under the rules of textual criticism of the day would have ben flagged as 'Harmonizations' and expunged from the text as 'glosses' or insertions:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8rle9OKeX0o/VQe05qdam9I/AAAAAAAAHmw/rVziF9l-D8w/s1600/Danieltextcrit1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8rle9OKeX0o/VQe05qdam9I/AAAAAAAAHmw/rVziF9l-D8w/s1600/Danieltextcrit1.jpg" height="386" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
-<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="x-archive-meta-title">The Sacred Books of the Old Testament; a critical edition of the Hebrew text Footnotes, p.21 (vol. 18 - Daniel, 1896, Leipzig)</span></span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="x-archive-meta-title">Just in passing, its worthwhile to examine another absurdity in <br />
the footnote (1) offered by <b>Derenbourg/Jastrow</b> (1887):<br />
<br />
In the text they claim the work was composed in <i><b>Palestine</b></i> (i.e., Israel), <br />
NOT <b>Babylon</b>, as the text itself essentially claims. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;">"It is a<b> <i><u>Palestinian</u></i> </b>work (1) of the year 169 or 168 <span style="color: blue;">[B.C.]</span>...<b>"</b></span><br />
<br />
The idea they want to sell is that this was not composed anywhere near <br />
Babylon, but is really all about Judaea and Jerusalem being persecuted <br />
under the <i><b>Seleucid Greeks</b></i> from Turkey and Syria. <br />
<br />
For "proof" they offer this in the footnote: <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: darkred;">"1. Apart from the <b>linguistic</b> point of view, which in itself is decisive, <br />
the contents of chapter 9, referring to <b>Jerusalem</b>, removes all further doubts."</span></i><br />
<br />
But these same authors argue that the book is tainted with <b><i><span style="color: darkred;">"Persian loan words"</span></i></b>. <br />
These Persian loan words, rather than being simply acknowledged <br />
as evidence of composition in Babylon by Daniel in 538 B.C., <br />
are now ignored, or rather assumed to have been part of late Aramaic in <br />
Palestine. <br />
The Persian flavour of Daniel is now interpreted as the style of Aramaic <br />
in Seleucid Palestine! Its a no-win situation for<i><b> Daniel, Ezra</b></i>, and <i><b>Chronicles. </b></i><br />
These books which naturally reflect a <i>Persian flavour</i> are now made into <br />
the assumed new standard for Palestinian Aramaic of the 2nd century. <br />
<br />
Thus, evidence that should naturally be seen as Persian influence, <br />
has been turned into 'evidence' of a 'late Palestinian dialect', <br />
for which the only examples are works previously classed as <br />
"Middle Persian Aramaic" of the 6th century B.C.<br />
<i><b><br />
The second <span style="color: darkred;">"proof"</span> in the footnote is also equally absurd: </b></i><br />
<br />
The fact that Daniel mourns and prays over <i><b>Jerusalem</b></i> and his own people, <br />
while captive in Babylon, is somehow construed as evidence of a <br />
Palestinian Jew whining about the persecutions of General <b>Antiochius IV <br />
</b>(Epiphanes) against Jews in Palestine in <b>167-164 B.C</b>., when <br />
in fact, the <i><b>Maccabeans</b></i> were violently fighting and eventually routed <br />
the Greeks, securing their autonomy for the future Hasmonean Dynasty.<br />
<br />
Nothing however, in the entire chapter 9, other than the mention of <br />
Jerusalem, shows any connection whatever to events in Palestine <br />
under the Greek persecutions of the Seleucids, in particular Antiochius IV.<br />
<br />
Far from <b><i><span style="color: darkred;">"removing all doubts"</span></i></b>, <i><b>Daniel ch 9</b></i> cries out for an explanation:<br />
<br />
<i><b>Why the lack of any reference at all to any acts of Antiocius IV</b></i><b> ?</b><br />
<br />
Why no mention of such acts as putting to death of Jews who obeyed <br />
the laws of Moses, or refusal to participate in Greek sports,<br />
or resistance to Greek culture and influence, or the defiling of the Temple?<br />
<br />
Why are there no connections at all to Greek cultural invasion? <br />
<b><i>Not even a single Greek loanword</i></b> or phrase even unconsciously used <br />
by the author, who according to the critics is now living in <i><b>a Palestine <br />
dominated by Greeks and Greek culture for over 160 years? </b></i> (!?!?)<br />
<br />
If the Greeks had no impact at all, even on the content of Daniel, <br />
what was the war about?<br />
How could a 2nd century Maccabean author keep utterly silent about <br />
the main points of terrorizing contention between Greeks and Jews?<br />
<br />
The theory of the critics was that Daniel was to inspire Jews to resist <br />
Greek invasion, both physically and culturally. <br />
<br />
Where is any sign that the author was even aware of 2nd Century Greek <br />
culture, apart from the mention in chapter 3 of three apparently ancient <br />
Greek or at least Mediterranean musical instruments? <br />
Instruments that had been imported into Egypt and Babylon centuries before Daniel? </span></span></i>Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-74426322817213705592015-03-14T07:24:00.005-04:002015-03-14T07:32:05.720-04:00Daniel (Pt 14): Dead Sea Scroll Evidence for Masoretic Text of Daniel<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E1Iak7Dru_U/VQQbd4CDgUI/AAAAAAAAHmc/ithdTETgeC4/s1600/isaiah-scroll.l.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E1Iak7Dru_U/VQQbd4CDgUI/AAAAAAAAHmc/ithdTETgeC4/s1600/isaiah-scroll.l.jpg" height="211" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A few have complained about the general nature of our charts.<br />
<br />
But these are provided for educational and illustrative purposes only.<br />
<br />
When we delve into the real detailed evidence, <br />
we find an abundance of evidence for the authenticity of <br />
<b>Isaiah, Jeremiah, and <i><span style="color: darkred;">Daniel.</span></i><br />
</b><br />
Take for instance the impact of the discovery of<i><b> the Dead Sea Scrolls </b></i><br />
has had on the dating and timelines for the Hebrew Canon:<br />
<br />
I will here quote <b>Dr. James Price</b>'s excellent summary of the <br />
detailed evidence and its meaning and impact on evaluating <br />
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel. <br />
<br />
Price is responding to an overly skeptical extremist rant by <b>Till:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<b> </b><span style="font-size: medium;"><i><b><a href="http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/985price.html" target="_blank">The Skeptical Review Online (1998)</a></b></i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>The Book of Isaiah</b></i><br />
<br />
"...<br />
A complete manuscript of the book of <b>Isaiah </b>(<i>1QIsaA</i>) exists from the second century B. C., and it has about 95% agreement with the Masoretic text. Another manuscript of Isaiah (<i>1QIsaB</i>)
contains much of the text of 46 chapters of the book. This manuscript
is almost identical with the current form of the Masoretic text. <i><b>Tov </b></i>(pp. 31-32) listed a catalogue of the types of differences between <i>1QIsaB</i> and BHS (<i>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia</i>),
the accepted form of the Masoretic text today: (1) Orthography
(spelling differences), 107; (2) Added waw conjunctive, 16; (3) Lack of
waw conjunctive, 13; (4) Article (added/ omitted), 4; (5) Difference in
consonants 10; (6) Missing letter, 5; (7) Different grammatical number,
14; (8) Differences in pronouns, 6; (9) Different grammatical form, 24;
(10) Different proposition, 9; (11) Different words, 11; (12) Omission
of words, 5; (13) Addition of words, 6; (14) Different sequence, 4.<br />
That amounts to 234 differences of any kind <span style="color: blue;">"all of which concern minutiae"</span>
(Tov, p. 31). However, items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 have little or no effect
on meaning, so they may be disregarded as insignificant. This leaves
only 90 differences that may be regarded as of any possible
significance.<br />
There are 66 chapters in the book of Isaiah, 1291 verses, 16,930 words,
and 66,884 letters in the current Masoretic text of Isaiah. If the
number of words in <i>1QIsaB</i> is estimated as 16,930 x 46/66 x .66 = 7,788 words, then <i>1QIsaB</i> agrees with BHS (7,788 - 234) / 7,788 = <b>97.0%</b>;
or if the insignificant variations are excluded, the texts agree (7,788
- 90)/ 7,788 = 98.8%. That is about the kind of agreement that any
manuscript of the Masoretic text has. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew O.T.</b></i><br />
<br />
Regarding the Masoretic text in the era of the Dead Sea Scrolls, <b>Tov</b>, who is liberal in his approach the Biblical text, wrote: <br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: blue;">"Similar analysis is suggested by <i><b>Andersen-Freedman..</b></i>. in their analysis of <i>4QSamB,</i> one of the earliest Qumran texts: </span><span style="color: darkred;">`(I)nsofar as there is nothing un-Masoretic about the spelling in <i>4QSamB,</i>
we can infer that the Masoretic system and set of spelling rules were
firmly in place in all principles and particulars by the third century
BCE.'"</span><span style="color: blue;">Because of the meticulous care of those
who were involved in the copying of [the Masoretic text], the range of
differences between the members of the [Masoretic] group was from the
outset very small. One should remember that the temple employed
professional <i>magihim,</i> "correctors" or "revisers," whose task it was to safeguard precision in the writing and transmission of the text</span> (Tov, p. 32).</li>
</ul>
Such correctors or revisers were not responsible for altering the text,
but for correcting or revising manuscript copies that varied from the
official exemplar in their care. It was this meticulous care of the text
that led scholars like these in the next generation to confirm that the
Masoretic text was the authentic tradition. This places the textual
tradition behind the Masoretic text at least in the fourth and likely in
the fifth century. <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>The Aramaic Targum of Jeremiah</b></i></span><br />
<br />
But the witness of the Aramaic translation known as the Targum gives
good reason to place the Masoretic text of Jeremiah in at least the
sixth century. Concerning the Aramaic Targum, <b>Ernst Wurthwein</b>, a recognized authority on Old Testament textual criticism, stated: <span style="color: blue;">"The Jewish tradition associating it (the Targum) with Ezra (cf. Neh. 8:8) may well be correct" </span>(<i>The Text of the Old Testament,</i>
Trans. by Erroll F. Rhodes Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979, p. 75).
Now the importance of the Aramaic Targum of the book of Jeremiah is
that it was translated from a Hebrew text of the Masoretic tradition
(Tov, p. 149). If Wurthwein is correct, and there is no reason to doubt
him, then the Masoretic tradition of Jeremiah was already well
established as authoritative in the fifth century B. C. This gives
reason to accept the <b>sixth-century origin</b> of the book with little reason to doubt it. Not a shred of textual evidence exists that suggests that<b> the date of Jeremiah's prophecy was ever altered. </b><br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
If such evidence exists I'm sure Mr. Till would have called it to our attention.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><i><b>Multiple Corroboration of Historical Witnesses and Texts</b></i></span><br />
<br />
This is supported by several fifth- or sixth-century witnesses to the
existence of the book, and the prophecy under debate in particular: <br />
<br />
(1) the author of the <i><b>Chronicles</b></i> (2 Chron. 36:22-23), <br />
(2) the author of <i><b>Ezra-Nehemiah</b></i> (Ezra 1:1-5), <br />
(3) the prophet <i><b>Zechariah</b></i> (Zech. 1:12; 7:5), and <br />
(4) the sixth-century prophet <i><b>Daniel</b></i> (Dan. 9:2). <br />
<br />
These very early witnesses knew Jeremiah's book, and the prophecy under
debate in particular. All of these witnesses accepted Jeremiah as a
historical person and the author of the prophecy. All regarded the
prophecy as genuine, not fraudulent.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><i><b>The Witness and Date for Daniel</b></i></span><br />
<br />
In fact,<b> Daniel </b>read Jeremiah's prophecy before it was fulfilled (Dan. 9:1-2). This is evident from the fact that <i><b>Daniel did not record the fulfillment of the prophecy</b></i>--something
that would have been significant to the content of his ninth chapter. I
know Mr. Till rejects the date and authorship of Daniel, and I am not
interested in debating that question. But there is no reason to
late-date Daniel except Mr. Till's anti-supernatural presupposition. In
my own opinion, Daniel is a valid witness because his contemporary, the
prophet Ezekiel, validated his date and existence (Ezek. 14:14, 20;
28:3). This does not include the mention of the prophet Jeremiah by the
historian Josephus, the authors of some of the Apocryphal books (Sirach
49:6; 2 Macc 2:1, 5, 7; 15:14, 15; 1 Esdras 1:28, 32, 47, 57; 2:1; 4
Esdras 2:18), the Mishnah and the Talmud. All these ancient sources
regarded the prophet and his writings to be authentic. <br />
...</blockquote>
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-64055569969746467502015-03-14T03:46:00.000-04:002015-03-14T04:00:44.592-04:00Daniel (Pt 13): Destroying the Prophecies of Christ<div class="vb_postbit" id="post_message_4256537">
Its worth underlining the whole point of all this effort by critics.<br />
<br />
Its actually a bit of shuffling and handwaving when they say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="color: darkred;">deciding on one [interpretation] doesn't actually matter too much...<br />
Whichever scenario one deems best, the final message is the same: God's
eternal kingdom will break down and outlast any and every human
kingdom.</span>" </blockquote>
<br />
This is just some reassuring nonsense to put your defences off.<br />
<br />
When they say<b><i><span style="color: purple;"> "it doesn't matter"</span></i></b>, they really mean it doesn't matter <br />
whether you choose <b><span style="color: darkred;">"Emperor No-Pants" </span></b>or <span style="color: purple;"><b>"Emperor Dwarf-Boy". </b></span><br />
<br />
The main thing is<i><b> NOT</b></i> <b>to select </b>the obvious traditional Christian and Jewish <br />
interpretation, because:</div>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #990000;"><span ...="" age="" b="" of="" the="">...the Roman Empire is outside the historical scope of Daniel. </span>... equating the legs, feet, and toes with Rome and the ecclesiastical divisions that follow <i><b>is an attempt to make Daniel fit with Revelation.</b></i> This reads Revelation back into Daniel."</span></blockquote>
<br />
We'll get to whether Daniel and Revelation connect later. <br />
<br />
The point is, <b>Rome must not be identified in any part of Daniel (according to critics). </b><br />
<br />
<b>Why? </b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>Look again at the chart:</b></i></span><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LtbSVHUtxE0/VQEvbQJspiI/AAAAAAAAHlE/bsxk7WM9VbA/s640/dannynew1-small.jpg" height="348" width="640" /><br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b><br />
Two Separate Prophecies in <span style="color: black;">Daniel</span> involve<span style="color: black;"> ROME:</span></b></i></span><br />
<br />
(1) <b>The Advent of the Messiah</b> in<span style="color: blue;"><i><b> the 490 years</b></i></span> (70 'weeks') of <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Daniel 9.24" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Daniel%209.24" target="_blank">Daniel 9:24</a>. <br />
<br />
(2) <b>The Destruction of the Four Empires</b> by<i><b><span style="color: blue;"> the Kingdom made without Hands </span></b></i>in <a class="lbsBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Daniel 2.44" data-version="nkjv" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Daniel%202.44" target="_blank">Daniel 2:44</a>. <br />
<br />
Thus, eliminating<i><b> Rome</b></i> and stunting <span style="color: darkred;"><b><i>"the scope of Daniel" </i></b></span><br />
completely removes the prophecy of <span style="color: blue;"><i><b>Jesus the Christ's coming</b></i></span> (30 A.D.), <br />
and the equally remarkable <span style="color: blue;"><i><u><b>Victory of Christ's Kingdom</b></u></i></span> in <br />
the Edict of Emperor Constantine (313 A.D.) legalizing Christianity,<br />
and the founding of the Holy Byzantine Empire.<br />
<br />
As long as you elminate the support of Daniel for these <br />
two FUNDAMENTAL Events in the history of Christianity, <br />
you can have any interpretation of Daniel you want. <br />
<br />
Just remember that according to critics,
<br />
<div class="vb_postbit" id="post_message_4256537">
its <span style="color: darkred;"><b>a 'pious forgery' by a lying Jew from 167 B.C., </b></span><br />
a stupendous monument of wishful thinking and fraud for God.<br />
<br />
This is what the commentators, critics, scholars, professors, philosophers, <br />
atheists, and secular historians <i><b>want to sell you</b></i>, </div>
<div class="vb_postbit" id="post_message_4256537">
the Jewish and Christian public,
on the topic of Daniel.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><b>- Or you can accept the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of <span style="color: blue;"><i>the Book of Daniel</i></span></b></span> as a historical and prophetic book by <b>Daniel <span style="color: red;"><i>the Prophet, </i></span></b>
preserved in the courts of Babylon, cherished by Jews awaiting <br />
the fulfillment of its prophecies, <b>written around 538 B.C.,</b> <br />
and accepted as Holy Scripture by the two major religions of the world.<br />
<b><br />
These two incredible and accurately timed prophecies <br />
make the real authentic Daniel the Prophet, <br />
<span style="color: red;"><i>the last and greatest Prophet of the Hebrew Bible.</i></span></b><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-50491669298935818292015-03-13T16:54:00.000-04:002015-03-14T04:13:43.002-04:00Daniel (Pt 12): Dwarf - Boy<br />
In our previous examination, we noted <b>Four obvious 'kingdoms' </b>(Empires),<br />
Each distinguishable from the last, because each introduces a new nation<br />
and a new 'king' (Emperor) with new cultural values.<br />
<br />
The Kingdoms are easily demarcated because each is brought in by<br />
a world-size (Empire-size) Conqueror who vanquishes the previous one.<br />
<br />
Thus,<br />
<b>Nechabudnazzar</b> ushers in the Babylonian Empire:<br />
<b>Cyrus</b> ushers in the Mede/Persian Empire,<br />
<b>Alexander</b> ushers in the Greek Empire, and<br />
<b>Pompey</b> ushers in the Roman Empire and rule over Palestine (Israel).<br />
<br />
Each respectively heralds the beginning of a cultural invasion into the area . <br />
<br />
In place of this we have <b>Porphyry's lame attempt</b> to get rid of the <b><i>Roman Empire </i></b><br />
by making the <b>Greek </b>become (in his mind) TWO Empires.<br />
This is hardly credible however, since <b>Alexander's reign</b> is not<br />
at all conquered, but simply divided into provinces,<br />
while extending the very same influence and cultural invasion.<br />
Furthermore, Daniel does not allow Alexander to be a whole "Kingdom",<br />
and his successors a separate "Kingdom". <span style="color: #cc0000;"><i><b>Daniel 8</b></i></span> is clear on the point that both Alexander <u><i>and</i></u> his successors are ONE Greek Empire with several kings (horns).<br />
<br />
<b>The modern critics,</b> in adopting Porphyry's general plan to dump Rome,<br />
attempt to extend the <b>Medio-Persian Empire</b> into <i><b>TWO</b></i> Empires,<br />
i.e., the <i><b>Median</b></i> Empire and the <i><b>Persian</b></i> Empire.<br />
The problem with this new solution is that its hardly any more plausible<br />
than Porphyry's original schema, and only gives a surface-appearance<br />
of a solution. <span style="color: #cc0000;"><i><b>Daniel 2 </b></i></span>(the main image) plainly describes SUCCESSIVE Empires,<br />
and the Medes and Persians <i><b>CO-ruled at the same time</b></i>, pretty much as<br />
ONE Empire as far as anyone can tell.<br />
<br />
The modern adjustment, while restoring the statue's pants,<br />
leaves him a midget.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GoAe9KxTeMI/VQNOEdJ2MII/AAAAAAAAHlw/ngBmj6QgAAg/s1600/DwarfBoy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GoAe9KxTeMI/VQNOEdJ2MII/AAAAAAAAHlw/ngBmj6QgAAg/s1600/DwarfBoy.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Now "modern" Critical Commentaries on Daniel <br />
invoke yet another level of sophistication and obfuscation into the process,<br />
all in order to confuse Christian readers and erode their confidence in Daniel.<br />
<br />
They don't openly push the 'critical viewpoint' anymore, <br />
as it is too obvously anti-prophecy and ant-Christian in its impact.<br />
Never mind the impact on commentary sales.<br />
<br />
<b>So they instead they present "three views"</b>, obscurantizing the flaws, <br />
and also smokescreening the real differences. <br />
Then they 'recommend' the critical view as the 'most reasonable', <br />
without proper evaluation or comparison.<br />
<br />
Here is a perfect example of this smoke-screening obfuscation:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<a href="http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/benjamin/2007/070603pm.htm" target="_blank"><i><b>Westark Church of Christ on Daniel</b></i></a><br />
<a href="http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/benjamin/2007/070603pm.htm" target="_blank">http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...7/070603pm.htm</a><br />
<br />
First, the lecturer tells the reader that it doesn't matter which interpretation <br />
of Daniel's vision we adopt (even though only ONE points to Christ).<br />
<br />
Then the lecturer presents each as having a 'small problem' or flaw,<br />
making them 'equally plausible'. <br />
<br />
Next the lecturer 'helps' the reader by recommending the one <br />
endorsed by "experts" (who are really heretical and skeptical infiltrators). <br />
<br />
Finally, the lecturer presents three charts which are made to look <br />
virtually identical, giving more support to the idea that it "doesn't matter", <br />
its all the same.<br />
<br />
The Perversions and Deformities of the alternate "interpretations" are completely hidden.<br />
<br />
The Perverse doctrines that inspired the alternate "interpretations" are also omitted. </blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Three Stooges </span></b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NJRsGQnpF1A/VQNZAdoLZRI/AAAAAAAAHmA/FkehauJ4Bec/s1600/ThreeStooges-01-small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NJRsGQnpF1A/VQNZAdoLZRI/AAAAAAAAHmA/FkehauJ4Bec/s1600/ThreeStooges-01-small.jpg" height="315" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-McZPY3L99Yk/VQNZAsYAgwI/AAAAAAAAHmE/XpbHprv7mjo/s1600/ThreeStooges-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-McZPY3L99Yk/VQNZAsYAgwI/AAAAAAAAHmE/XpbHprv7mjo/s1600/ThreeStooges-01.jpg" height="316" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
One final point must be made regarding the new fadish 'interpretations' of Daniel's Vision.<br />
<br />
(1) <b>No Jew has ever or ever will accept these modern interpretations of Daniel.</b><br />
<br />
(2) <b> No historical Christian has ever knowingly embraced these radical schemes of "interpretation"</b> until after the late 18th century, and those who do believe them today have never been told who inspired them and what must be sacrificed to embrace them.<br />
<br />
<br />
But there is more:<br />
<br />
(3) <b>The real (pseudo)Author of Daniel is a complete FAILURE</b> according to critics, because, <span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>all Jews and Christians who believed him to be the real Daniel believed the wrong interpretation</b></i></span> of his visions.<br />
Thus <b>Daniel succeeded by being</b><i><b> unanimously</b></i> <i><b>misunderstood </b></i>for 2,000 years. The story of the real author becomes a tragedy-comedy of errors.<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Insomniak217/EmoBush.jpg" /><br />
<br />
But the story is even more incredible that one can imagine:<br />
<br />
(4) <b>The pseudo-author of Daniel was such a deep, and incredibly sophisticated forger that he anticipated and survived the harshest and most meticulous examination and analysis</b>, and still left the world's experts in history and linguistics divided, unable to reconcile their views about this fraud into a single coherent picture.<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://quotesoflifes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/albert-einstein-understand-me-yet-everybody-likes-me.jpg" /><br />
<br />
And the critics expect us to consider that on the one hand <br />
<br />
(5) <b>The author of Daniel was a criminal GENIUS of forgery, <br />
yet wrote for the lame and short-sighted purpose of <span style="color: darkred;">"inspiring Jews during the Maccabean Revolt" </span>to not lose hope. </b><br />
How can the author be so subtle and sophisticated a linguistic genius, and such a hillbilly provincial simultaneously?<br />
How could such a forger, such a jaded secular humanist even half-heartedly encourage fellow believing Jews to sacrifice themselves and die for <b><span style="color: darkred;"><i>what he himself as a crook and a forger must have regarded as the stupidest ideology in history</i></span>,</b> just as his neo-platonic critics also must also think?<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/011/113/killyourselves.png" /><br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="color: darkred;">"If only He had used his power for niceness, instead of evil."</span></i></b> <b><i>- Maxwell Smart </i></b>(Agent 86, C.O.N.T.R.O.L.)<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.classicmoviehub.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/donadams2.jpg" /><br />
<br />
This means that every Christian who ever lived from the time of Christ until the Reformation believed in Daniel and Christ on a mistaken premise, by adopting the spurious writing of a pseudo-prophet who impersonated an ancient hero, and Christ Himself must have been mistaken to quote him as an authority, if we accept the modern view of the book of Daniel. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>This is the<span style="color: black;"> Trojan Horse </span>these perverts are offering to unsuspecting Christians.</b></i></span><br />
<br />
<b>These are easily proven <span style="color: red;">"doctrines of satan"</span> infilterated into the Church by unbelieving moderns.</b>
Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422436361758828244.post-39989143382979812902015-03-13T14:42:00.000-04:002015-03-14T04:08:35.074-04:00Daniel (Pt 11): The Joke of German Scholarship<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c13lLpkgo3Q/VQMvE7QLdBI/AAAAAAAAHlg/xq9z6v23R1U/s1600/Porphyry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c13lLpkgo3Q/VQMvE7QLdBI/AAAAAAAAHlg/xq9z6v23R1U/s1600/Porphyry.jpg" height="400" width="232" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
As previously noted,<b> Porphyry (c. 300 A.D.) </b>was a non-Jew, a neo-Platonist philosopher, <br />
who decided to write fifteen volumes against Christianity,<br />
called lamely, <span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>"Against the Christians". <br />
</b></i></span><br />
Up until this point, no one had seriously doubted the historicity of<i><b> Daniel. </b></i><br />
<br />
Christian apologists defended Daniel and shredded Porphyry's arguments and claims, <br />
for the next two centuries, and by about 500 A.D. things were back to normal. <br />
<br />
A comprehensive response to Porphyry was made by <b>Jerome (c. 400 A.D.) </b><br />
in his <span style="color: blue;"><i><b>Commentary on Daniel</b></i></span>, who quoted him several times.<br />
<br />
There was no serious subsequent challenge over the book of Daniel until<b> 1771</b>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><b> Beginning in 1771</b>, influenced by<i><b> the Enlightenment</b></i>, <b>academics began to revive the old Maccabean date theory</b> about the Book of Daniel. They all agreed that every accurate prediction in Daniel was written after the events took place.</span><br />
<b><i><a href="http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/guz/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=001" target="_blank"> - David Guzik Commentary on the Bible </a></i></b></blockquote>
<br />
Thus for <b>nearly 1,400 years</b>, neither Christians, nor Jews, nor critics <br />
had challenged the basic authenticity and dating of the <i><b>Book of Daniel.<br />
</b></i><br />
It should be noted that even during the most heated <br />
and violent disputes between Christians and Jews (i.e., over the question of Jesus as Messiah), <br />
Jewish opponents did not discredit the <i><b>book of Daniel </b></i>itself<br />
in order to dispute with Christians, but rather rejected the interpretation <br />
of Daniel on a couple of points.<br />
<br />
<i><b>If </b></i>identifying the <i><b>book of Daniel</b></i> as a <span style="color: darkred;"><i>'pseudonomous late forgery' </i></span><br />
had been an option for Jews, they as experts on their own national literature <br />
would have been in the best position to make this claim. <br />
<br />
However, right up until at least <b>300 A.D.</b>, both Christians and Jews <br />
openly accepted the <i><b>book of Daniel</b></i> as authentic and Canonical, <br />
and the book of Daniel remains in the Jewish (Hebrew) Canon to this day. <br />
<br />
<i><b>The Hebrew Canon</b></i> has not been changed or reopened to debate since 90 A.D., <br />
and this is true for pretty much all denominations and sects of Judaism. <br />
<br />
The Canon is believed to have been permanently closed before the Greek period (c. 331 B.C.) <br />
<br />
The Jews unilaterally had rejected all manor and types of books which were written <br />
in the Maccabean period, including those accepted by early Jewish Christians <br />
who used the ancient Greek translations of the O.T.<br />
<br />
This alone makes the theory that a Jew forged the book of Daniel <br />
as late as 167 B.C. and somehow got it accepted into the Hebrew Canon <br />
<span style="color: darkred;"><i><b>one of the most implausible ideas in the history of (German) Biblical criticism.</b></i></span> *<br />
<br />
These observations did not however, stop 18th and 19th century critics from <br />
re-opening the case and reviving <b>Porphyry</b>'s claims about the book of Daniel. <br />
<br />
<i><b>They chose to continue building on this edifice of sand</b></i>, <br />
because the rejection of tradition, and the rise of skepticism and materialism was simply too attractive to abandon.<br />
<br />
Porphyry's original arguments had obvious weaknesses, <br />
so 'modern' critics from<i> <span style="color: darkred;">'the Enlightenment'</span></i> attempted to repair, modify, <br />
and bolster the theory with many more supplemental arguments.<br />
<br />
These viewpoints became popular in the 19th century, <br />
and took over the universities of Europe and the USA.<br />
<br />
As a result, m<b>any commentaries on the book of Daniel <br />
began to be published which covertly or openly took the position <br />
that the book of Daniel was a late forgery</b>, and useless as an <br />
example of Biblical prophecy for the Christian Messiah. <br />
<br />
Naturally, conservative Christian scholars who held the traditional view <br />
of the authenticity of Daniel got little useful help from Jewish scholarship <br />
on either the integrity or the interpretation of <b><i>Daniel. </i></b><br />
The Jewish intellectual world was an entity which remained largely to itself. <br />
<br />
__________________________________________ <br />
<br />
* the question arises, what are some even more implausible theories <br />
spawned by 19th century critics? <br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7nN1dW2-4ME/TsCp8rp-BtI/AAAAAAAAAd8/mqVjVsghPI8/s1600/scribe.jpg" /><br />
<br />
A great example is the<b> paranoid Conspiracy Theory that <br />
<i><span style="color: darkred;">'the Massoretic Jewish copyists had tampered extensively with the Hebrew Text.'</span></i></b><br />
<br />
<b>Up until 1960</b> the oldest copy of the Hebrew Bible was from the Middle Ages, <br />
and it was easy to claim that a lot could have happened between <br />
the time of Jesus and the 19th century. <br />
<br />
<b>However, in the late 1950s the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered:</b><br />
10 or 11 caves full of scrolls dating from about 200 B.C. to 100 A.D.<br />
Manuscripts and fragments were found of just about every book in the Bible, <br />
and two whole copies of Isaiah showed that the text hadn't changed significantly <br />
during copying for at least 1,500 years, from the time of Jesus <br />
until the invention of the printing press. <br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/IsaiahScroll.jpg" /><br />
<b><br />
<span style="color: darkred;">All the exaggerated speculations about Hebrew Bible tampering <br />
had to be quietly abandoned by sensible scholars.</span></b><br />
<br />
Nobody in <b>academia</b> however apologized, <br />
for having slandered Jewish copyists for centuries.Nazaroohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com0