Friday, August 14, 2015

NewScientist Magazine Shoots Themselves in the Head on Evolution Evidence

Just in case they actually take this page down or alter it,
I'm capturing it for all internet eternity here,
as a prime example of how Evolutionists falsify data
and make up completely outrageous claims
to mislead those who don't bother to read the fine print,
like our friend MCThomas
who actually dared to post a link to this fabrication:

Note the critically important admission in the 8th paragraph:

"Crucially, tC19Z can [only] copy pieces of RNA that are
almost half as long (48 per cent) as itself.
If an RNA enzyme is to copy itself, it has to be able to copy
sequences as long as itself,


Doing an artificial experiment that fails to create replicating RNA:.. $50,000
Posting the results in a misleading way on a credible Science Site: $5,000

Having a proponent of Evolution attempt to use it as evidence: ... Priceless.

(1) True: A clown fabricated some RNA that can't replicate itself.

(2) False: A scientist created Self-Replicating RNA.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Daniel 11:37 and "the desire of women"...

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV)

Jubilee Bible 2000
Neither shall he care for the God of his fathers, nor the love of women, nor care for any god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

King James 2000 Bible
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American King James Version
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American Standard Version
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

English Revised Version
Neither shall he regard the gods his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Webster's Bible Translation
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

World English Bible
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

Young's Literal Translation
And unto the God of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself.

New American Standard Bible
"He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.

Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.

To counter this meaning,
Roman Catholic translators alter this verse.

For instance:

Roman Catholic Versions:

Douay-Rheims Bible:
And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things.

Living Bible (TLB)

He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

The 'Modern' Translations:

New International Version
He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

New Living Translation
He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

English Standard Version
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

International Standard Version
He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women— he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything.

NET Bible
He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.

What exactly is the original Hebrew?

לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל.
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all.

When we turn to the various commentaries available,
we nonetheless find some confusion and some variance of opinion
on the exact meaning of this phrase.

Part of the problem is in the apparent confusion as to whom the prophecy
is about. Is it about Antiochus? or the Future Anti-Christ? or both?

Those who try to force Daniel to only deal with Antiochus (circa 165 B.C.)
and who date Daniel as a 'late pious forgery' usually attempt a historical interpretation.

The problem with applying it to Antiochus is that it literally contradicts
all that is known about Antiochus. He was a lustful womanizer,
and apparently huge indulger in lustful passions. The text on its face
says the opposite about its subject.

The remainder of this prophecy is very difficult, and commentators differ much respecting it. From Antiochus the account seems to pass to antichrist. Reference seems to be made to the Roman empire, the fourth monarchy, in its pagan, early Christian, and papal states. The end of the Lord's anger against his people approaches, as well as the end of his patience towards his enemies.
- Matthew Henry's Commentary

Nor the desire of women - The phrase "the desire of women" is in itself ambiguous, and may either mean what they desire, that is, what is agreeable to them, or what they commonly seek, and for which they would plead; or it may mean his own desire - that is, that he would not be restrained by the desire of women, by any regard for women, for honorable matrimony, or by irregular passion. The phrase here is probably to be taken in the former sense, as this best suits the connection. There has been great variety in the interpretation of this expression. Some have maintained that it cannot be applicable to Antiochus at all, since he was a man eminently licentious and under the influence of abandoned women.

Jerome, in loc., John D. Michaelis, Dereser, Gesenius, and Lengerke suppose that this means that he would not regard the beautiful statue of the goddess Venus whose temple was in Elymais, which he plundered.

Staudlin and Dathe, that he would not regard the weeping or tears of women - that is, that he would be cruel.

Bertholdt, that he would not spare little children, the object of a mother's love - that is, that he would be a cruel tyrant.

Jerome renders it, Et erit in concupiscentiis faminarum, and explains it of unbridled lust, and applies it principally to Antiochus.

Elliott, strangely it seems to me (Apocalypse, iv. 152), interprets it as referring to what was so much the object of desire among the Hebrew women - the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; and he says that he had found this opinion hinted at by Faber on the Prophecies (Ed. 5), i.-380-385.

Others expound it as signifying that he would not regard honorable matrimony, but would be given to unlawful pleasures.

It may not be practicable to determine with certainty the meaning of the expression, but it seems to me that the design of the whole is to set forth the impiety and hard-heartedness of Antiochus. He would not regard the gods of his fathers; that is, he would not be controlled by any of the principles of the religion in which he had been educated, but would set them all at defiance, and would do as he pleased; and, in like manner, he would be unaffected by the influences derived from the female character - would disregard the objects that were nearest to their hearts, their sentiments of kindness and compassion; their pleadings and their tears; he would be a cruel tyrant, alike regardless of all the restraints derived from heaven and earth - the best influences from above and from below.
It is not necessary to say that this agrees exactly with the character of Antiochus. He was sensual and corrupt, and given to licentious indulgence, and was incapable of honorable and pure love, and was a stranger to all those bland and pure affections produced by intercourse with refined and enlightened females. If one wishes to describe a high state of tyranny and depravity in a man, it cannot be done better than by saying that he disregards whatever is attractive and interesting to a virtuous female mind.
- Barnes' Notes

Desire of women.—The language used by Isaiah (Isaiah 44:9), “delectable things,” has led some commentators to think that an idol is here intended. It has been stated that the allusion is to the Asiatic goddess of nature, Mylitta, who, again, has been identified with the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18, where see Notes). The context, however, leads us rather to think of human affection, or some other thing highly prized by women, for the words “neither shall he regard any god” would be unmeaning if a god were designated by “the desire of women.”
- Ellicott's Commentary

Nor the desire of women — This, as some think, means, nor the god that is loved and adored by women; and, taking the clause in connection with the context, this seems the most natural sense of it; for the whole verse speaks of the impiety, or irreligion, of Antiothus, that he had no regard to any god whatever. What god this was that was the desire of women, cannot be certainly said; it is probable it was the moon, (the queen of heaven, as they used to call her,) or some other of the heavenly luminaries; for the Syrian women are described in Scripture as particularly attached to these. Or the expression may refer to his barbarous cruelty, and be intended to signify that he should spare no age nor sex, and should have no regard to women, however lovely or amiable. In fact, the author of the Maccabees informs us, that by his command mothers were killed with their children; and that there was killing of young and old, men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants, 2Ma 5:13.
- Benson's Commentary

In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh.

We now know that Daniel could not possibly have been a late forgery,
as was the fad - explanation assigned to the book in the 19th century
by unbelievers and German 'higher critics'.

At Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple copies of the book
have been found, and these indicate both the later form of text
(Aramaic/Hebrew sections) and a longstanding textual history of variants,
which could not have arisen in a mere few years under the strict copying
of later scribes.

Daniel is far older than Antiochus (164 B.C.E.) who's activity
was contemporary with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In his time, Daniel had already had a long copying history.


Lets see how discussion of the verse has progressed:

(1) We established that there was a second, more longwinded interpretation
of the phrase, introduced into alternate translations by Roman Catholic scholars.

(2) "Username" showed that this idea was influenced by and originated
from the Jewish commentator Rashi in the Middle Ages, possibly the Talmud.

(3) The 'new' interpretation/paraphrase has not helped to clarify the verse.

(4) The attempt to apply everything in Daniel to Antiochus (164 BCE)
was a 'fail' for several good reasons:
(a) Daniel was in circulation long before Antiochus (164 BCE),
and so would remain a detailed prophecy.
Even a plausible (but skeptical) late date (say circa 250-200 BCE)
later than traditional (circa 530 BCE) doesn't solve the prophecy claim or issue. Since the 'late pious forgery' theory was invented to refute
prophecy and re-interpret the book as historical on rational/skeptical lines,
the approach is a waste of time, since it doesn't achieve a solution
to the 'scandal' of detailed prophecy.

(b) The prophecy details don't make good sense when applied to Antiochus.
At the least, the prophecy suggests the opposite of his character.
On its face it suggests a warlord (worshipping the 'god of war') who
simply does not regard or highly value women (a misogynist).
While a philanderer and man-whore can be said to have a low opinion of
women by default, its not really an obvious characterization of womanizers.

(c) The very prophecy is viewed as having descriptive power over 'future' events
mentioned by Jesus the Messiah (circa 30 A.D.), which means that
if they were really meant to apply to Antiochus (circa 164 B.C.),
then Jesus was mistaken, misleading, or adding a new interpretation
meant to supercede the one intended by Daniel.

(d) The requirement to incorporate Rome as the Fourth Empire and also
a player in destruction of the Macedonian/Greek Empire elsewhere in Daniel
precludes any attempt to make Daniel 'end' with Antiochus (164 BCE).
(5) The Mysterious World-Leader has three important characteristics:
(a) He is descended from those who originally worshipped God,
quite possibly but not certainly Israelites or Jews:
The phrase "god of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37 a) is usually suggestive of those who
actually knew the true God, i.e., descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Jews.

(b) He ends up as an atheist, not honouring any 'god' but himself.

(c) He has no regard for the desire of women,
apparently not heterosexual, probably homosexual (as was common in
military cults) or possibly asexual (having no interest in sex).

Thus collectively he appears to be a homosexual atheist Jewish warlord.

No such world leader has yet appeared as such, clearly fulfilling
ALL of the necessary traits without ambiguity...

Several candidates offer themselves: Hitler (half-Jewish?), Stalin (Closet Jew?)... but nothing that clinches the position.

And in any case the 'novelty' Jewish/Roman-Catholic interpretation
appears to be artificial, unnecessarily complex and obscurantist,
and since it is based on the vision of people like Rashi who rejected Jesus as Messiah,
it must also be rejected by Christians as wrong-headed, and confused.
It represents intellectuals without inspiration groping in the dark
for historical explanations that will satisfy 'higher critical' sentiments
about the impossibility of prophecy, and the classification of Daniel
as an apocalyptic 'pseudo-authored' 'late pious forgery'.