Was Life just evolved from nonlife-matter or was it rather created by intelligence?

As a reference to the best answer, it is necessary to discuss the difficulties of the research field.
At first i like to give here a quote by Karl Popper on the issue of the origin of life.

 

Zitat

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out, the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code "consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA". (Monod, 1970;^[64] 1971, 143^[65])

Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle; a vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model, or theory, of the genesis of the genetic code.

Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of the universe) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.

Ayala, Francisco; Ayala, Francisco José; Ayala, Francisco Jose; Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1974). Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems. ISBN 9780520026490. Retrieved 18 October 2015.

That's one of the tricky problems with the attempt to give a natural explanation of the origin of life.

Mathemantics is the language by which God wrote the universe. Galileo Galilei

Well done. Excuse my abscence so long. Next time i will anwser in some points. Your Article is a profound basis to develope the topic for further investigations.

Am 1.11.2018 um 12:11 schrieb Baruq JW:

The Existence of God

If a Christian, and especially a Jehovah's Witness, is asked to provide proof of the existence of God, it is very likely that he will quote verse four of the third chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, "every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God".

The reasoning may be right, nothing came from nothing but everything on earth is due to the will of a designer, it is still good to note that Paul was not trying to argue about the existence of a Creator. He spoke to his Hebrew Christian companions who certainly did not question the fact that the universe was ruled by a powerful being who is behind everything. Moreover, in antiquity the problem was certainly not the non-belief in God but rather the opposite: people tended to believe in a multitude of gods. Furthermore, Paul, on one occasion, noticed that an altar dedicated to an unknown god had been made, certainly for fear of forgetting to revere a deity.

As always with the Bible, but the modus operandi is valid on all occasions, everything we read must be considered in relation to its context. In this passage, the apostle is talking about the house of God. This house is composed of the "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling".

Christ "was faithful as a son over God’s house". As in the case of a building we honour the builder and not the house itself, similarly in this case the honour does not belong to those who make up the house but to its creator, God.

Does this mean that we cannot take Paul's illustration as a basis for reasoning? Of course not, the idea itself is valuable. We must simply be careful not to attribute to the apostle anything other than what he intended to say, so that we cannot be accused of distorting God's Word.

Although the denial of divine existence has been a particularly striking phenomenon since the second half of the nineteenth century, history tells us that atheism has always existed. Cicero had already pointed out that most philosophers said that the gods existed, but that Protagoras was in doubt while Theodore of Cyrene and Diagoras of Melos maintained that there was none. Heraclitus (535-475 BC) claims that the world was not made by any of the gods or men, but was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire. All this ends up giving birth to epicureanism, the search for individual happiness on earth in a human world without God¹.

The psalmist tells us that the foolish one says in his heart: "There is no Jehovah". The rejection of God finds its roots in the immediately post-diluvian world where, to protect themselves from a new flood, men began to build a tower whose summit would reach the heavens². It is not so much the existence of God that men have rejected, but the submission that he deserves. So, the origin is in the rejection of the authority. And how to justify this desire for freedom other than by denying the existence of the one to whom we are accountable? From the rejection of Jehovah (the Pharaoh himself to say: who is Jehovah?³), it was easy to proceed with the complete negation of a creator.

It was from the first half of the sixteenth century that the idea emerged that all religion is an invention of the powerful who take advantage of the ignorance of the humble (De tribus impostoribus⁴). Religious practice suffered a sharp decline, especially in the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In this case, it is centuries of tyranny on the part of religious leaders that generates this state. God was rebuffed, but in reality it was those who claimed to be his representatives that were rejected.

While philosophy is generally seen as the antithesis of the belief in God, as we have seen above the greatest Greek philosophers were theists. Voltaire himself questioned himself: the universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think that this clock exists and has no watchmaker. Chancellor Francis Bacon said: a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.

How can we convince ourselves and defend the existence of a Creator?

First of all, atheism is not as widespread as one might think. For example, according to a study, more than seventy percent of the Americans would be believers. It is a fact that some of those who pretend to be atheists never really thought about it. A simple discussion will reveal that most have not given serious consideration to the issue. People often reject God because they reject organised religion. The reason may also be that the person grew up in an atheistic family, just as children often continue to believe in God once adults because that is what they taught them. For example, the sons of members of a religious community generally become members of this community; in this case too a simple discussion will often reveal that there is not a sincere reflection upstream⁵. This is just the perpetuation of a family tradition. We will make the same observation in various organisations, such as political movements⁶.

Charles Darwin is often presented as the father of modern atheism. But his own writings show that he believed in the existence of a creator, an initial force at the root of everything, even if he rejected the Christian faith. If he wondered why life was full of pain, he did not see this as an argument against the existence of God. Towards the end of his life, he wrote that he has never been an atheist nor he denied the existence of God. This does not preclude Richard Dawkins, the high priest of twentieth-century atheism, from writing that he could never have been an atheist before Charles Darwin. In fact, it suits unbelievers to present Darwin as the one who opened the way to atheism, exposing his theory as a fact that put God at the forefront of the fables of dark times. By claiming that life has a chance origin, one think he can escape accountability.

It should not be understood that atheists have a less developed moral sense than theists; it is the kind of affirmations we've read in the Watchtower's publications⁷. One could even say that sometimes it is the opposite: abuse in the name of religion have led to the rejection of God by people who have had their moral feelings shocked. However, refusing to be held accountable to God could lead a person to think that he is free from certain constraints. Now, these constraints are usually those imposed by men and not by God himself. It is undeniable that believe in God entails obligations, if only by the duty to bear witness. But if we look closely, Christianity as preached by Jesus has only two commandments: you must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind, and you must love your neighbour as yourself. This is not a heavy yoke, to paraphrase Christ. – Matthew 11:29, 30

So, is science necessarily in opposition to religious faith? This is what many publications on the subject would like to lead us to believe. Even if the rate of believers is lower among scientists than in the rest of the population, we should not think that all are atheists⁸.

One can try to prove the non-existence of God by giving a rational explanation of the origin of the universe without intervention of anyone. If they did, it would not necessarily establish that God does not exist, but in any case it could be a serious blow to his defenders. However, despite decades or more of studies on the subject, we are still at the stage of hypotheses, which sometimes contradict each other and do not find consensus within the scientific community. The Big Bang, for example, still encounters oppositions (although weak, it must be recognised). It is nevertheless interesting to know that one of the initial promoters of this theory was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. For him, there did not seem to be any conflict between the two parties, the religious party and the scientific party. Above all, the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the universe, but only the state where it would have been at a given moment. Nothing is said about what was before or what is the origin of this universe. We must admit either that it always existed, or that time did not exist, that it was initialised by this original explosion. It seems that this last explanation gains the most approval today⁹.

If God is at the origin of everything, then who created God?

In either case, whether the universe is the result of an initial explosion, whether it comes from another previous universe, or that it was created by an intelligent being, one must always admit that something had always existed. Each of the assertions only moves us one step backwards. Is it more scientific, or reasonable, to believe that for ages there existed matter, or some other substance, which a fine day gave birth to our universe, by some unknown force resulting from the most complete chance, rather to admit a designer living from eternity to eternity having intentionally done all that surrounds us? In all instances, it is a question of faith, if we want to give the word a meaning that is not its own¹⁰. – Psalm 90:2

We can read in some popular science book that with the "Big Bang" the time has come to existence. And so, that would solve the problem of what was before. Let us admit that before the beginning, time did not exist; and in this case it is wrong to say "before the beginning", since it is precisely the beginning of time, so there was no 'before'. This is exactly what the first book of the Bible tells us in his first chapter and his first verse: in the beginning God created… Yes, the Bible begins with a scientific assertion: there was a beginning, a beginning of time. God started by creating time as one of the dimensions in which we live. Does this contradict what the researchers tell us? It seems like no, since they claim that with the beginning of the universe time came to existence.

If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the universe does not allow us to invalidate or confirm the existence of a creator, will we have more chances with the other fields of science?

The theory of evolution may seem to have sounded the death knell for believers. Now, as we have seen previously, the father of the theory, Charles Darwin, believed in a god. Moreover, some religious denominations accept the idea of a world that has evolved under the guidance of an initial designer¹¹. Even if one managed to prove the origin of life according to evolutionary theories, it would not call into question his existence.

Even today, about one hundred and sixty years after Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species", we still use the word theory when we talk about evolution. Why? Because there is no fixed explanation of this doctrine. According to its supporters, this is the most consistent interpretation found, yet the definitive proof is yet to come.

What does evolution mean? This is the transformation of living species over generations. That is to say, the fact that a form of life is modified to adapt to its living environment. Everyone may still remember the pictures posted on the walls of the science classes representing a large fish coming out of the water, which undergoes various transformations until becoming a man. And to explain to us that, one day, this fish decided to leave its aquatic environment to go on earth; and magically, legs sprouted. Later, he decided to fly, to jump in the trees, to walk on two legs, etc. We do not know why he wanted to get out of the water. We are told that this is adaptation to its environment. But what about the other fish that stayed in the water? Why did not they adapt too? If really it was a means of survival, why do we still see fish in the sea?¹² If we admit that man is the most accomplished species, why in this case are there still other species that populate the earth? Why are not all individuals of one species transformed themselves? Man is certainly the species able to adapt to all terrestrial conditions. But he is still a human, whether he is an Inuit living in the extreme conditions of the north, or a Berber daily facing the heat of the desert. Everyone adapted to their environment, that is all.

Take the case of the Peppered moth (biston betularia). This moth has a colour that starts from gray to go to black. For proof of the evolution, evolutionists use this example:
in England, before 1850 gray individuals were preponderant. But things changed in the years that followed: there was a proliferation of black individuals. At the same time, it was observed that the bark of the birches was blackened by the soot deposited there due to the smoke of the surrounding factories. In the sixties, the gray moth revived, while at the time campaign was conducted to improve the quality of the air. It seemed to be the proof of the transformation and adaptation of a species to its environment. However, the explanation is simple, and moreover it is the one provided by the evolutionists themselves: when the bark is clear, the light moths merge with the colour of the tree and therefore the predators feed mainly on dark individuals. When the bark is black, the clear population is more visible and therefore more likely to fall into the hands, or rather into the beaks of the birds that feed on them. In one case or the other, one colour develops since less subject to pressure while the other collapses. But are these moths no longer moths? Did they turn into another species to escape their predators? No, they were moths, moths they remained. No doubt there has been natural selection but no evolution in another species. That individuals experience some variation from their environment is a proof of divine wisdom. Imagine that all men are cut out for arctic life, we would all be crammed into the far north while the tropics would be empty.

Years of genetic mutation experiments, especially on the fly, have only led to failures. No mutation has proved beneficial, on the contrary. Virtually all individuals are either dead, disabled or infertile. Really, there are no profitable mutations. Each one modifies an existing structure, but in a disorderly way. Each disorganisation causes the death of the individual¹³. The mutations found among the victims of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, as well as their descendants, or to be closer to us, among the victims of Chernobyl, generated only handicap, malformation and death. And in no case the creation of a new and viable species distinct from the human species.

The vapourware of paleontologists is obviously the famous missing link thought to be intermediate between the anthropoid apes and man. It has been missing for so long, despite regular announcements, that it is doubtful that it will ever appear. To this day, no evidence has been provided of a link between an apelike fossil and man. The proof is the controversy surrounding the discovery in Chad by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye of Toumaï who, having all the characteristics of a chimpanzee, is undoubtedly a ... chimpanzee. Despite this, his discoverers insist to see in him the ancestor of the man¹⁴. Note that we rely on a skull, five fragments of jaw, a few teeth and a diaphysis of left femur probably having belonged to nine different individuals! With this, they reconstruct a skeleton, they give it a face (similar in any point to that of a monkey) and they decide that it is one of our ancestors.

But the goal is not to denigrate the work of scientists. It is not reprehensible to dismiss God from the field of hypotheses when we seek the explanation of a natural event. For millennia men have attributed to God actions that today have quite grounded explanations. If we had persisted to think that way, we would still believe that lightning is the expression of divine wrath. It is normal to ask questions or to be curious. Otherwise, God would not have created us with the desire to learn and understand.

Please do not get me wrong: there is no question of asking unbelievers to prove that God does not exist. So, I can very well argue that the laughing chicken exists. When I am asked for evidence, I can affirm that it is not up to me to provide it but up to those who refute my assertion¹⁵. Would it be honest on my part? Surely not! It is therefore our duty, as believers, to demonstrate the existence of God. On the other hand, what is valid in one direction must be valid in the other: when we are told that man is the result of an evolution from fish to all other forms of life, there so they have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it is necessary to say that this is a hypothesis having the same validity as that of theism.

Evolutionists regularly accuse creationists¹⁶ of credulity. But what should we conclude when we are told that no competent person is questioning the evolution, that all reputable biologists admit that it is an established fact, or that anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices has no need for additional evidence? Is it not the same kind of reasoning as saying that we believe in God because the church says it, all the great religious names admit that his existence is an established fact or that belief is a matter of faith and does not require additional proof? Out of a thousand evolutionists, how many have seriously studied the subject? Out of a thousand creationists, how many have seriously studied the subject? In either camp, it is important to know what we are talking about when we support something.

Is there more credulity in the assertion that God is at the origin of all than there is in the allegation that the universe appeared one day from nothing? Besides, how can it come from nothing? If I take a blackboard and ask a mathematician to write a series of zeros, multiply, add or divide them, from what point will he succeed in extracting a single unit? And yet, this is what we are asked to accept by some proponents of a universe that comes from nothing and who accuse us of believing in fairy tales¹⁷. Others will call us sweet dreamers if we maintain that God has always existed while they will have no trouble accepting that the universe, or what preceded it, had no beginning.

What is the evidence about God?

The fact is that atheists cannot prove that there is no God (but that is not what we ask them), and above all, they cannot prove the theories they put forward. Moreover, these theories do not necessarily demonstrate the absence of God, as we can see by observing that some religious feel that we can very well reconcile these hypotheses with a Creator¹⁸. But can we prove the existence of God?

Paul tells us that "his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable". What does nature reveal to us? Nothing but intelligent design, perfect harmony. To deny the existence of God is to say that mere chance is at the origin of our environment and of mankind. That this remarkable chance has happened millions and millions of times. Is it reasonable?

Let us imagine that I am on a height on a rainy day and that I haphazardly throw a million bricks and bags of cement down that mountain. Let us say that two bricks fall perfectly on each other and that the cement is impregnated with rainwater and joins in between. Let us go so far as to say that this occurrence repeats a second time. Let us be generous and go up to three! Will it ever result in a habitable house? Even recommencing the operation with a second million bricks, it is doubtful whether we could build a mere doghouse. In the meantime, two million bricks will have been reduced to nothing. If there were anything below, nothing will be left now, crushed under the pile. I could throw as many millions of bricks as I want and nothing good will come out. And would that be the case, I would have prove that it took someone to throw the bricks, they will not have thrown themselves alone!

Clearly, chance never produced anything good in a sustainable way. To repeat the example above, if I ever managed to mount an embryo of wall by throwing bricks and cement, it would be immediately destroyed by the following bricks. How can one seriously argue that a causality of events spanning billions of years can engender a functioning universe and an earth capable of harbouring millions of species? For one lucky event, how many billions of disaster?

It is therefore the order in the world that surrounds us that demonstrates the existence of a Creator. It is not even credible that this author simply started the process and then let chance do the rest. What kind of industrialist, wanting to manufacture a product, would rely on luck? Our environment and the way we, humans, are made denote wisdom, harmony and love. While evolutionists, on the basis of a conclusion, search for the facts that can prove it, believers take the facts and draw the only possible conclusion: there is a benevolent God who created our space. A God who loves us and proves it every day, while the majority of humans do not want to take him into account in everyday life. One is interested in him when misfortune occurs, but forget him when everything is fine. And yet, even the hairs of our head are all numbered; no sparrow will fall to the ground without his knowledge. – Matthew 10:29, 30; Psalm 52:1; Titus 3:4-7

Someone will argue that wars, diseases, famines, pollution, etc., give the lie to the statement that love rules our world. We cannot answer this objection in two words, but the Bible gives satisfactory explanations that we will have the opportunity to examine later. It is enough to take the time to read and study it seriously, while asking God to give us his spirit. If we are sincere, everything will become clear. – Romans 5:5; Psalm 52:8

Of course, with this essay I do not pretend to have convinced a single atheist. This belief is too deeply rooted for this to be done just by reading a few pages. I also did not want to do a scientific thesis, and it may be that some errors have crept into this text (I thank those who will report them). I only hope that the logic of the words strengthens the reader's faith, giving him some keys to defend his beliefs.

–––

¹ Epicureanism does not deny the existence of God, but rather his involvement in the world. According to the proponents of this philosophy, God does not interfere with humans. (back)

² The biblical text does not expressly say that this was the goal of the builders of the tower. Perhaps the desire was to rise to the level of God, in order to challenge him. (back)

³ Pharaoh did not question the existence of Jehovah. There is also a good chance that he knew his name as well as his actions. Indeed, the time of the Flood was not so remote and it would be surprising that at a distance of a few hundred years men had forgotten what was at the origin of the disaster that has left his mark on people's mind at the point that we find traces in the legends of most civilisations. Of course, he intended to demonstrate, as Nimrod and the builders of the tower did, that he had no intention of being accountable to the ruler of the universe. (back)

⁴https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_of_the_Three_Impostors (back)

⁵ It would be interesting to count the baptismal candidates at a Jehovah's Witnesses convention and to make the proportion of people arriving from the preaching activity (usually the oldest) in relation to the young children of Witnesses. (back)

⁶ It is a fact that in the capitalist states, many ardent defenders of communism come from communist families. (back)

⁷w60 6/1 p. 324; w93 12/15 p. 16-17 (back)

⁸ Allan Sandage, astronomer having determined the first reasonably accurate values for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe, said: The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. (back)

⁹ Alongside several other theories that generally receive little favorable echo, such as a universe of grapes (the bootstrap put forward by Edgard Gunzig), in which ours is only one of the grains having the ability to give birth to other universes by means of white holes, or the rebirth of an ancient universe that would retract to form a black hole that, after reaching the critical mass, eventually explode. Note also the theory of the "primordial instanton of size zero" of Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff as well as the scenario of the "pre-Big Bang" developed by the Italian physicists Gasperini and Veneziano. (back)

¹⁰ The Apostle Paul tells us that faith is "the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen". (Hebrew 11:1) It is not about being gullible, but about trusting in someone who has proven himself worthy. The Greek word "pistis" referred to a guarantee that was given. So, if we are told that it is faith that makes us believe in God, then we can take this as an argument for his existence, since our conviction comes from the guarantee that he has given us. (back)

¹¹ In 1996, John Paul II asserted that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. For Benedict XVI, the world comes from an evolutionary process, while being derived from God. As for Pope Francis, he said that evolution is not contradictory to the notion of creation. (back)

¹² In August 2003 a living coelacanth was found off the Comoros. It has been portrayed by some newspapers as the missing link between fish and man. This statement is still subject to debate. The following question arises: why have some evolved and other not? If it were beneficial to get out of the water and let the paws grow, why are there still today coelacanths that have remained in the "primitive" state, seventy million years later? (back)

¹³ Paraphrase of the remarks of Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences. (back)

¹⁴ According to some researchers Toumaï is actually a female. (back)

¹⁵ For the chronicle, the laughing chicken, Ayam Ketawa in Malay, is a breed of chicken native to the Sidenreng Rappang area in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. (back)

¹⁶ In this article the term creationist applies to anyone who believes in the creation of the universe by a God, whatever the school of thought. (back)

¹⁷ Paradoxically, the agnostic Jean Rostand, while affirming that one can only believe in the evolution, said that this is a fairy tale for adults. (back)

¹⁸ See note 11 above concerning papal declarations. (back)

Link to article: baruq.uk/let_us_examine_our_beliefs_the_existence_of_god.html

First we have to keep in mind that the Revelation is given in Signs and Visions. In this way the conversation between John and the Elder was happened within the Vision. It would be a weak conclusion to think, we can transpose this conversation ,one to one, to events in our present days. Most closely matches this to a prophetic picture, wich helps us to detect the two groups. At least the knowledge about the big crowd must not given by a literally conversation rather than by the Holy Spirit at the right time.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Gone Away:

Don't you think "fingerprint" is a bit of an old hat illustration now?

In 1934, CD Lee stated in his Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article "Finger Prints Can Be Forged":

Is there a more effective way of illustrating that Messianic prophecy fits Jesus uniquely?

But today they're using DNA-Fingerprints. And there is no doubt with this method.

In jenen Tagen nun ging eine Verordnung von Cäsar Augụstus aus, daß die ganze bewohnte Erde eingeschrieben werde (diese erste Einschreibung fand statt, als Quirịnius Statthalter von Syrien war); und alle Leute zogen hin, um sich einschreiben zu lassen, jeder in seine eigene Stadt. Natürlich ging auch Joseph von Galilạ̈a aus der Stadt Nạzareth nach Judạ̈a zur Stadt Davids hinauf, die Bẹthlehem genannt wird, weil er aus dem Hause und der Familie Davids stammte ( Lukas 2:1-3)

Zwei Einschreibungen unter Quirinius. Bibelkritiker haben behauptet, die einzige Einschreibung die stattgefunden habe während Publius Sulpicius Quirinius Statthalter von Syrien gewesen sei, sei um das Jahr 6 u. Z. durchgeführt worden und habe einen Aufstand des Galiläers Judas und der Zeloten hervorgerufen (Apg 5:37). Das war in Wirklichkeit die zweite Einschreibung unter Quirinius, denn aus Inschriften, die in Antiochia und in dessen Nähe aufgefunden wurden, geht hervor, daß Quirinius schon einige Jahre vorher als Legat des Kaisers in Syrien diente (W. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1979, S. 285, 291). Im Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in der französischen Bibelübersetzung von Crampon (Ausgabe 1939, S. 360) wird hierüber gesagt: „Die wissenschaftlichen Forschungen von Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86—104; De Syria romana provincia, 97/98) und Mommsen (Res gestæ divi Augusti) lassen keinen Zweifel darüber, daß Quirinius zweimal Statthalter von Syrien war.“ Viele Gelehrte sind der Meinung, daß die erste Statthalterschaft des Quirinius in die Zeit zwischen 4 und 1 v. u. Z. fiel, vielleicht in das Jahr 3/2 v. u. Z. Ihre Methode, diese Daten zu errechnen, ist jedoch nicht zuverlässig, und so bleibt es unklar, in welche Zeit seine Statthalterschaft tatsächlich fiel. (Siehe QUIRINIUS.) Seine zweite Statthalterschaft jedoch schloß das Jahr 6 u. Z. ein, wie das aus den Angaben des Josephus hervorgeht (Jüdische Altertümer, 18. Buch, Kap. 2, Abs. 1).Somit hatte der Historiker und Bibelschreiber Lukas recht, wenn er über die Einschreibung zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu berichtet: „Diese erste Einschreibung fand statt, als Quirinius Statthalter von Syrien war“ und sie so von der zweiten unterschied, die später unter demselben Quirinius vorgenommen wurde und auf die Gamaliel gemäß dem Bericht des Lukas in Apostelgeschichte 5:37 Bezug nahm. (Einsichten in die heilige Schrift, Stichwort Einschreibung)

Wozu diente die Einschreibung, die dazu führte, dass Jesus in Bethlehem geboren wurde?

Gemäß dem Lukasevangelium ordnete Cäsar Augustus im ganzen Römischen Reich eine Einschreibung an. Daraufhin machten sich alle auf den Weg, „um sich einschreiben zu lassen, jeder in seine eigene Stadt“ (Lukas 2:1-3). Also reiste auch Joseph, der Adoptivvater Jesu, zusammen mit Maria in seine Heimatstadt Bethlehem, wo Jesus dann zur Welt kam. Wozu dienten derartige Einschreibungen? Zum einen erleichterten sie das Einziehen von Steuern, zum anderen ging es darum, die Zahl wehrfähiger Männer zu erfassen.

Als die Römer 30 v. u. Z. Ägypten eroberten, waren Zensusberichte bereits ein bewährter Bestandteil der ägyptischen Verwaltung. Nach Ansicht von Fachleuten übernahmen die Römer das Zensussystem von den Ägyptern und führten im ganzen Reich ähnliche Verfahren ein.

Dass es solche Einschreibungen tatsächlich gab, belegt ein Edikt des römischen Statthalters von Ägypten aus dem Jahr 104 u. Z. Auf einer Abschrift dieses Edikts, die in der British Library aufbewahrt wird, heißt es: „Gaius Vibius Maximus, Statthalter von Ägypten, sagt: Bei der bevorstehenden häuslichen Einschreibung (Haushaltungsschätzung) ist es nötig, allen aus irgendeinem Grunde von ihren Wohnplätzen fern weilenden (Personen) kundzutun, daß sie in ihre Heimstätten zurückkehren (müssen), damit sie sowohl die übliche Einrichtung der Schätzung erfüllen als auch der ihnen zukommenden Landwirtschaft obliegen (können).“ https://wol.jw.org/de/wol/d/r10/lp-x/2009886

Ein Papyrusfund aus dem Jahr 1905 belegt, dass Gaius Vibius Maximus im Jahr 104 mit einem Edikt amtliche Anweisungen erteilte, um einen Zensus zu ermöglichen. In dem Erlass wurden die Adressaten, insbesondere die auswärtigen Lohnarbeiter und Handelsreisende, wohl aber mit Ausnahmeregelungen für die Landwirtschaft, zur Heimkehr aufgefordert, um sich für die Volkszählung bei den örtlich zuständigen Behörden anzumelden. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Vibius_Maximus

Jesus wurde offenbar im Monat Ethanim (September/Oktober) des Jahres 2 v. u. Z. geboren, ließ sich 29 u. Z. etwa zur selben Jahreszeit taufen und starb am Freitag, dem 14. Tag des Frühlingsmonats Nisan (März/April) des Jahres 33 u. Z., etwa um 15 Uhr. Jesus wurde ungefähr sechs Monate nach der Geburt seines Verwandten Johannes (des Täufers) geboren, als Cäsar Augustus (31 v. u. Z. bis 14 u. Z.) römischer Kaiser und Quirinius Statthalter von Syrien war (die wahrscheinlichen Daten der Amtszeit des Quirinius sind unter EINSCHREIBUNG zu finden), gegen Ende der Herrschaft von Herodes dem Großen über Judäa (Mat 2:1, 13, 20-22; Luk 1:24-31, 36; 2:1, 2, 7). https://wol.jw.org/de/wol/d/r10/lp-x/1200002451

Das Jahr der Geburt Jesu können wir auch ermitteln, wenn wir vom Jahr seiner Taufe rückwärts rechnen. Welche Angaben finden wir dazu in der Bibel? Luk 3:1-3“Im fünfzehnten Jahr der Regierung des Tibẹrius Cäsar, als Pọntius Pilạtus Statthalter von Judạ̈a war und Herodes Bezirksherrscher von Galilạ̈a, sein Bruder Philịppus aber Bezirksherrscher des Landes Iturạ̈a und Trachonịtis und Lysạnias Bezirksherrscher von Abilẹne,in den Tagen des Oberpriesters Ạnnas und des Kaiphas, erging Gottes Ausspruch an Johạnnes, den Sohn Sachạrjas, in der Wildnis.Da kam er in die ganze Umgegend des Jordan und predigte die Taufe [als Symbol] der Reue zur Vergebung von Sünden, Luk 3:21 “Als nun alles Volk getauft wurde, wurde auch Jesus getauft” Luk 3:23 “Übrigens war Jesus selbst, als er [sein Werk] anfing, ungefähr dreißig Jahre alt” Das 15. Jahr des Tiberius war das Jahr 29 u.z. Wie wir im Lukasevangelium lesen war Jesus ungefähr 30 Jahre alt, als er von Johannes dem Täufer im Jordan getauft wurde. Daraus resultiert ebenfalls das Jahr 2 v.u.z als Geburtsjahr Jesu.

Wie wir sehen, liefern die Evangelien sehr genaue und zuverlässige historische Daten.

vor 22 Stunden schrieb Kurt:

But the truth is that we all die because we inherited death from Adam in our Genetics.- Romans 5:12
   Adam was punished for his deliberate sin,

  Genesis 2:17 '' But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” 

   Adam did not die immediately, but took around 900 years. This is within a day of 1000 years ( 2 Peter 3:8  However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.) 
   Death was thus programmed into Adam 's genetics.

So you see,  because of Adam our first father's sin, we are in a very diabolical condition. In fact the survival of the human being is threated by the increasing genetic degradation which I have tried to explain in the above post.

    Now, we can offer sin and guilt offerings for our sins that we may have a relationship with God. However everlasting life on our own merits alone will never come beause no matter how hard we try, we still sin.
(  Hebrews 10:1   'For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect.')

And the reward for sin

    Romans 6:23  For the wages sin pays is death. 

This is why we die.

  And 

Psalms 49:7 ' None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him,'

   In other words, thanks to Adam, we are each like in a deep pit from which no matter how we try to conform to God's standards, we as sinners are still condemned. 
    As the Mosaic law stated:
 
Leviticus 18:5  ' You must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions; anyone who does so will live by means of them. I am Jehovah. '

   But only a perfect man can keep the Mosaic Law.

Romans 7:14–20. 14  For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin.15  For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate.16  However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine.17  But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me.18  For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out.19  For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice.20  If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me. 

   Hence, the Mosaic Law was the standard required by God for us to gain life. The Mosaic Law was righteous and good-

    Romans 7:12  'So the Law in itself is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. '

   But only a perfect man could keep it. Such a perfect man would have to be without sin, otherwise he would be under condemnation of death like us - i.e...
   Romans 6:23  'For the wages sin pays is death. '

So we needed someone without sin to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly.This is why Jesus said

   Matthew 5:17.  “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."

    So Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by his perfect obedience to God.

This is why after he died

    Colossians 2:14   'and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.'

   Thus 

1 Corinthians 9:21  '....I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ....'

    Because only a perfect man could keep the Mosaic Law, then

Galatians 3:24, 25 ' So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.25  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian. '

  Thus the Law shows each of us who are under sin, how badly we needed God to send a Redeemer who he made Christ (Acts 2:36 ''  Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.” )

  Now
     1 Corinthians 15:45   'So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

   The last Adam (or 2nd Adam) is Christ.

   This is because as a perfect man who kept the Mosaic Law perfectly, Jesus was not under the condemnation of death (Lev 18:5 ; Rom 6:23) Jesus also was the equivalent of the perfect man Adam, before Adam sinned.
   So when Jesus died, he bought back (for us who look to him as 'a father' in place of Adam) what Adam lost,...the opportunity of everlasting life in Paradise on earth.

   This is why Jesus sacrifice is called 'a corresponding ransom.'

1 Timothy 2:6 ' who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all'.

 We also see from this, that because Jesus was the exact equivalent of Adam, Jesus could NOT be God because God is infinite.

  Some other principles that help us see that Jesus had to balance the scales of God's justice is

   Exodus 21:23, 24.  ' ... life for life,24  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,'

  God our Magnificent heavenly Father gave His Special Son who was His first creation before anyone or anything else (John 3:16 ; Prov 8:22-31 ; Colossians 1:15 This is another discussion). This Special Son it was who had the closest most intimate relationship with God his Father for billions of years before he was sent to earth for us.
   This Special Son is the one God gave at great unbearable pain to Himself.

   God Himself could not die for us because God CANNOT die ( Habakkuk 1:12) see here

  and of course the sacrifice could be only the equivalent of the man Adam before he sinned.

 

?Also, Christ's ransom only covers repentant sinners who worship Jehovah God his heavenly father 
  "in spirit and TRUTH" - John 4:23,24

Willful sin has no forgiveness -

  Hebrews 10:26–31. 26  For if we practice sin WILLFULLY after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left,27  but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition.28  Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three.29  How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?30  For we know the One who said: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again: “Jehovah will judge his people.”31  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. '

Regarding Sin and Increasing Human Imperfection as Shown By Decreasing Life Span Over Generations

The Scripture at Romans 5:12 states,

"That is why, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death through sin [because the wages sin pays is death- Romans 6:23], and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned."

Adam and Eve were created perfect (Deut 32:4) without sin. Being without sin, they had no infirmities, no genetic flaws. They were whole in mind and body. They had the prospect of living forever on this earth in perfect health under their loving Creator's rulership and guidance.

When they diliberately sinned, they lost all this. They lost perfection and began to deteriorate and die. From God's standpoint, they were as good as dead from the moment they sinned. But Adam was so strong that it took 930 years of physical deterioration to finally die. (Gen 2:17 ; Gen 5:5)

After this, Adam could only pass, onto his children, the imperfection of his own body.

Look please at the following list of life-spans of people in the Bible book of Genesis:

Adam - 930 years Genesis 5:5
Seth - 912 years Genesis 5:8 . . . . . Methuselah - 969 years Genesis 5:27 
Noah - 950 years Genesis 9:29
Shem - 600 years Genesis 11:10,11
Eber - 464 years Genesis 11:16,17
Peleg - 239 years Genesis 11:18,19
Nahor- 148 years Genesis 11:24,25
Terah - 205 years Genesis 11:32
Sarah - 127 years Genesis 23:1
Abraham - 175 years Genesis 25:7
Isaac - 180 years Genesis 35:28,29
Jacob- 147 years Genesis 47:28
Joseph- 110 years Genesis 50:26

This decline in life-span is the result of increasing imperfection (as the copying error in our genes increases) in humans from one generation to the next.

Actually, this itself is proof that the Bible truly is God's Word because the writers could not have fabricated this, as they had no knowledge of genetics.
Also, notice the sharp decline after the deluge. This is because the water vapor canopy, in the upper atmosphere, was removed resulting in the deluge. (Gen 1:6-8) The removal of this canopy since then, has resulted in increased harmful cosmic radiation reaching us, increasing our genetic degradation.

This effects every human who has ever lived. None are able to escape it.

Thankful we can be because our dear Heavenly Father Jehovah God provided the ransom sacrifice of his Special Son Jesus Christ. 

??? Interestingly, the increasing imperfection over generations can be illustrated in a simple way........

Take a document and make a photocopy of it.
Then make a photocopy of this copy.
Make a photocopy of this latter copy.
Keep going in this process, and eventually you get to a point at which you won't even be able to read it anymore.

This is exactly the diabolical situation we are in, until God uses the merit of Jesus ransom sacrifice on all obedient humans in the new world after Armageddon.
- 1 Timothy 2:6?

p.s.
Human imperfection is so great today that there are people with an aging desease who are like elderly persons even though very young in age.

Also, much grievious illness and deformities in children of even distantly related parent happens often.

I have read that if God does not intervene by bringing in his righteous new world, that the human race will become extinct in 100 years due to genetic mutations. This is yet another evidence that we are living in the last days.

This idea that humans are better off today, genetically, is false.  We gain some 3 to 20 deleterious mutations each generation now.   There is not much time left for humans because the medical industry is failing at a phenomenal rate and doctors now the 3 leading cause of death. 

 

 

It would be a interesting discussion to show, how we can cope with the claim of modern population genetics , that the origin of mankind is not a single pair but rather a population. On the claim of out of africa theory a population of 2000 individuals. For my opinion i think we have had a greater range of genetic variation from one human pair bevor the flood caused on much longer livetime. Than we have to see the flood as a bottleneck. The Family of Noah provides in this way a much higher genetic variety from one ancestor as we can see today. I think this could explain the reason why the population genetics came to the point that we must have a bigger population as origin of mankind.

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Although it was never actually published ... it appears Newton's opinion was that Armageddon would occur perhaps in 2060 CE, but not before 2032 CE.

If we take  into account that he lived during 17th/18th cent , it's a extraordinary case that he made such a interesting approximation. From this point in time to calculate this date is not self-evident. But how it is ever, we can't determine the day and the hour. And in this light for me is indifferent what's the definition of " this Generation". Even more we have to endure and to await the great day.

On 15.7.2017 at 00:54, Queen Esther said:

Scheint  eine  schöne  kleine  Stadt  zu  sein,  mit  vielen  Sehenswrdigkeiten.  Sogar  ein  Nudel-Center   und  sicher  habt  Ihr  auch  Meißener  Porzellan  im  Hause....   das  ist  ja  weltberühmt !

Wünsche  Dir  erstmal  ein  schönes  Wo. - Ende...    Di. soll  es  wieder  heiss  werden  -  jedes  Jahr  ein  Überraschungs-Sommer !   Mehr  Privates  besser  über  die  PN - messages.  Hier  haben  ja  die  Kommentare  vorrang...   Wenn  Du  mal  Fragen  hast,  kannst  Du  mir  gerne  schreiben  Ronny

Vielen Dank für deine lieben Grüße. Wir waren am WE beim Kongress und es war wieder besonders schön. 
Weiteres ev mal über PN . Bis dahin wünsche ich dir eine schöne Woche.
Gruß Ronny

Ja Osten und früher wars halt der Süden der DDR. Meine Stadt heist Riesa. Eine Kleinstadt an der Elbe. 

1 minute ago, Queen Esther said:

WOW.....  Herzliche Grüße auch von mir,  aus DEUTSCHLAND ! 

Ich komme aus dem Norden und wo bist Du zuhause...  im Süden ?

Das ist selten hier, daß jemand aus meiner Heimat kommt.

Geboren wurde ich in Hamburg.... 

Ja ich komme aus dem Süden. Genau zwischen Dresden und Leipzig. Geboren in Hoyerswerda.

Yes , thats absoulutely clear

no matter, greetings from germany

Here is another graphic who shows the correct direction to read the names, both Jesus and Jehovah, in hebrew lang.

Very interesting

On 11.7.2017 at 08:41, Arauna said:

This is picture of ancient letters in Hebrew and the bottom is the letters in Aramaic script - now used and recognized by everyone.    You will see far right letter (the short one) - this is Yod.......  they have it other way round on your diagram like "mirror image" because they think western people read from left... to right - this is why it is like it is.

As I said before - these four letters have the same meaning no matter what vowels you add.  If you add vowels it changes to a verb or noun or adjective..... but the meaning is basically the same.  So it does not really matter what vowels you put in .... it is the use of the name and acknowledging the name that is important. Jehovah chose this name because it has significant meaning in the outworking of his purpose  as the creator.  It is the causative form for "He causes to become" ...  He can fulfill his promises... he can prove to be by his actions....

Hope this de-confuses you...and thanks for sending the other stuff.....

That's absolutely correct

Ich habe seit kurzem einen Blog zu Kultur , Wissenschaft und Religion gestartet. Die Schwerpunktfrage im weltanschaulichen Kontext soll hier lauten: Ist die Beschränkung der Wissenschaft auch eine Beschränkung der Realität, oder gibt es jenseits des Empirismus eine Realität die wir Gott nennen?

„Die Wissenschaft fängt eigentlich da an, interessant zu werden, wo sie aufhört.“

Justus von Liebig (1803–1873)

https://nevosvetos.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/weiter-als-die-fuesse-tragen/