"At Heb. 1:6 the KJV (and many other trinitarian translations) says: "And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the first begotten [Jesus] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship [proskuneo] him."
However, when we look up this scripture in the Old Testament (the trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible; New American Standard Bible [Ref. ed.]; and Dr. W. F. Beck [Lutheran] in his New Testament in the Language of Today [1964] all refer Heb. 1:6 to Deut. 32:43). And we find that Deut. 32:43 does not refer to the Father bringing his firstborn Son into the world and, in fact, in the Septuagint, instructs the angels to worship God (Jehovah, the Father) with no reference to Christ or the Son whatsoever.
So there is the distinct possibility that Heb. 1:6 is saying that all the angels worship the Father at that time. But even if the writer of Hebrews is saying the angels "worship" [proskuneo] the Son, it certainly doesn't have to mean "worship" in the highest sense. Even these trinitarian translations admit as much in their renderings of Heb. 1:6 - The New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; An American Translation, Smith-Goodspeed; Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; The Letter to the Hebrews - The Daily Study Bible Series, Dr. William Barclay."
(For much more, click here.)
For more, see:
Trinity Indexes
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
1 Tim. 3:16 God "manifest in the flesh" KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh")
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose oV as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God. Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted os (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called "a god" - see the BOWGOD and DEF study papers.
For more, see:
Trinity Indexes
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God "manifest in the flesh."
Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with "God" as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: "he" (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [`70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck's translation), "he who" (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), "who," or "which." Even the equally old Douay version has "which was manifested in the flesh." All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word oV ("who") here instead of qeoV ("God"). Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?
Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
"A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where `OS' (`who') was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (`God'). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts – though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading." – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose oV as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
"it is supported by the earliest and best uncials." And, "Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports qeoV ["God"]; all ancient versions presuppose oV ["who" - masc.] or o ["which" - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading qeoV. The reading qeoV arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as QC, or (b) deliberately...." - p. 641.
In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word oV was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC ("C" being a common form for the ancient Greek letter "S" at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (qeoV) was written in abbreviated form as QC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above QC. So no copyist should have mistaken OC for QC, in spite of their similarities, because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.
What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for qeoV, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit QC [with bar above it]into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!
Of course, since Wetstein's day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with QC ("God") at this verse!
Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:
"The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [`who'], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a `B' rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [`Jesus is God'] use of qeoV." - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.
And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:
"He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [`mystery'] the reading of Western documents." - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun oV (`who') in this scripture and tells us:
"The textual variant qeoV in the place of oV has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the `majority text' school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that `mystery' (musthrion) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (oV) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading qeoV may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text." [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.
Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God. Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted os (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called "a god" - see the BOWGOD and DEF study papers.
For more, see:
Trinity Indexes
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Homosexuality - Links to Information
Click on any link to view:
HOMOSEXUALITY (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
Homosexuality (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)
I’m Attracted to the Same Sex—Does That Mean I’m Gay? (JW.ORG)
Does the Bible Comment on Same-Sex Marriages? (JW.ORG)
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? (Search For Bible Truths)
What is the attitude of true Christians toward those who have a history of homosexuality? (Jehovah's Witnesses Question and Answers)
HOMOSEXUALITY (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
Homosexuality (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)
I’m Attracted to the Same Sex—Does That Mean I’m Gay? (JW.ORG)
Does the Bible Comment on Same-Sex Marriages? (JW.ORG)
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? (Search For Bible Truths)
What is the attitude of true Christians toward those who have a history of homosexuality? (Jehovah's Witnesses Question and Answers)
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Heb. 1:3 / Isa. 42:8 Does Jesus really share Jehovah's Glory?
Is. 42:8 - "I am the LORD [Jehovah - ASV]: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" - KJV.
Heb. 1:3 - "[Jesus] being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" - KJV.
After quoting the above two verses, some trinitarians will claim that they prove that Jesus is Jehovah. They claim that if Jehovah will not share his glory with anyone else, then Jesus must be Jehovah because he shares Jehovah's glory.
Well, first we should note that others have "shared" or reflected Jehovah's glory. For example, the angel at Luke 2:9 appeared with "the glory of the Lord." God was not physically present, but the angel He personally sent to represent him was there with God's reflected glory to identify him as being from God and representing God. This particular angel was not even Jesus since Jesus had already been born on earth (verse 11). We see a similar thing at Rev. 21:10, 11 where the city of holy Jerusalem has descended from God and has the glory of God! That is how it can be identified as being from God: It has the glory of God!
Why, even some Christians will reflect God's glory: 2 Cor. 3:7-18. And Jesus himself said that the glory which the Father had given him he had also given to his followers! - John 17:22.
So it certainly appears that God allows his glory to be with others who represent him as a sign of the authority He has given them and who do not represent that glory as being their very own.
But there is something else that makes the trinitarian argument incredibly poor (if not downright dishonest). That is the actual meaning of "glory." You see, "glory" meant, even as it does today, two different things. Often it meant "honor" or "praise" which a person has earned. On occasion, however, the same word meant the visible, brilliant light radiating from something or someone.
So we can see that Isaiah also uses this meaning at Is. 60:1-3 where "shine," "light," "brightness" are used in conjunction with God's "glory" and that glory (`kaw-bode' in the Hebrew) will be seen. We find this same meaning at Acts 7:55 (where the glory was seen), Luke 2:9 (where the glory 'shone' all around them). Obviously, a visible light-radiating type of glory is intended at these places.
But at Is. 42:12 and 43:7 we can see that the same Hebrew word "kaw-bode" clearly means "honor" or "praise." In fact, that same Hebrew word ("kaw-bode") is even translated as "honour" at Ps. 66:2 (and 30 other places in the KJV).
Even today in modern English we have those same two meanings for "glory."
(1) "Praise, honor, or distinction accorded by common consent; renown," and (2) "Brilliancy; splendor." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, ("Glory").
For example, we might say that the Nobel Prize winner did not want to share the glory with another scientist who had merely copied some of his scientific work. "Glory" in this sense is not a visible brightness or radiance he gives off but the recognition, honor, and praise he will receive. The glory of a beautiful sunset, however, is a visual brightness or beauty which others receive or observe.
So which meaning was intended at Is. 42:8? (1) A shining visible "glory" given off by someone or (2) "praise" and "honor" owed to someone?
Well we can see from how it's used at Is. 42:8 that it clearly means "praise" or "honor" - "I am [Jehovah]: that is my name [see Ps. 83:18] and my glory [`kaw-bode'] will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." This style of writing is very common in the Holy Scriptures. It is called parallelism because similar (or parallel) meanings are written (in different words) beside each other.
For example: the familiar verse at Is. 9:6 begins "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." You can easily see that the second clause ("unto us a son is given") is parallel (similar in meaning) to the first clause ("unto us a child is born").
We can see, then, that the entire verse at Is. 42:8 is about the honor that is due God alone. Jehovah starts the verse by declaring his name (to which he has said honor is due forever - Ps. 83:18; Ps. 86:9; Ps. 113:1-3; Ps. 145:21; Ezek. 39:6, 7). He then follows that with the parallelism: (1) "my glory [`kaw-bode'] I will not give to another" and (2) "neither my praise to graven images." Clearly the word "glory" (paralleled by "praise" in the next statement of this verse) here means "praise" or "honor." - see Is. 42:12, 17.
And just as clearly, we can see that the word "glory" at Heb. 1:3 means the visible radiance given off by him (as with the angel of Luke 2:9 who reflected God's glory). - see Heb. 1:3 in TEV, NIV. In fact, some modern trinitarian Bibles even translate Heb. 1:3 as "He reflects the glory of God" - RSV (compare NAB; MLB; GNB; and Moffatt's translation).
Therefore, if God said "I shall not share the praise or honor due me" at Is. 42:8, what kind of "evidence" is it to point out that Jesus reflects God's visible radiance at Heb. 1:3?
For more, see:
Trinity Indexes
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
Heb. 1:3 - "[Jesus] being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" - KJV.
After quoting the above two verses, some trinitarians will claim that they prove that Jesus is Jehovah. They claim that if Jehovah will not share his glory with anyone else, then Jesus must be Jehovah because he shares Jehovah's glory.
Well, first we should note that others have "shared" or reflected Jehovah's glory. For example, the angel at Luke 2:9 appeared with "the glory of the Lord." God was not physically present, but the angel He personally sent to represent him was there with God's reflected glory to identify him as being from God and representing God. This particular angel was not even Jesus since Jesus had already been born on earth (verse 11). We see a similar thing at Rev. 21:10, 11 where the city of holy Jerusalem has descended from God and has the glory of God! That is how it can be identified as being from God: It has the glory of God!
Why, even some Christians will reflect God's glory: 2 Cor. 3:7-18. And Jesus himself said that the glory which the Father had given him he had also given to his followers! - John 17:22.
So it certainly appears that God allows his glory to be with others who represent him as a sign of the authority He has given them and who do not represent that glory as being their very own.
But there is something else that makes the trinitarian argument incredibly poor (if not downright dishonest). That is the actual meaning of "glory." You see, "glory" meant, even as it does today, two different things. Often it meant "honor" or "praise" which a person has earned. On occasion, however, the same word meant the visible, brilliant light radiating from something or someone.
So we can see that Isaiah also uses this meaning at Is. 60:1-3 where "shine," "light," "brightness" are used in conjunction with God's "glory" and that glory (`kaw-bode' in the Hebrew) will be seen. We find this same meaning at Acts 7:55 (where the glory was seen), Luke 2:9 (where the glory 'shone' all around them). Obviously, a visible light-radiating type of glory is intended at these places.
But at Is. 42:12 and 43:7 we can see that the same Hebrew word "kaw-bode" clearly means "honor" or "praise." In fact, that same Hebrew word ("kaw-bode") is even translated as "honour" at Ps. 66:2 (and 30 other places in the KJV).
Even today in modern English we have those same two meanings for "glory."
(1) "Praise, honor, or distinction accorded by common consent; renown," and (2) "Brilliancy; splendor." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, ("Glory").
For example, we might say that the Nobel Prize winner did not want to share the glory with another scientist who had merely copied some of his scientific work. "Glory" in this sense is not a visible brightness or radiance he gives off but the recognition, honor, and praise he will receive. The glory of a beautiful sunset, however, is a visual brightness or beauty which others receive or observe.
So which meaning was intended at Is. 42:8? (1) A shining visible "glory" given off by someone or (2) "praise" and "honor" owed to someone?
Well we can see from how it's used at Is. 42:8 that it clearly means "praise" or "honor" - "I am [Jehovah]: that is my name [see Ps. 83:18] and my glory [`kaw-bode'] will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." This style of writing is very common in the Holy Scriptures. It is called parallelism because similar (or parallel) meanings are written (in different words) beside each other.
For example: the familiar verse at Is. 9:6 begins "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." You can easily see that the second clause ("unto us a son is given") is parallel (similar in meaning) to the first clause ("unto us a child is born").
We can see, then, that the entire verse at Is. 42:8 is about the honor that is due God alone. Jehovah starts the verse by declaring his name (to which he has said honor is due forever - Ps. 83:18; Ps. 86:9; Ps. 113:1-3; Ps. 145:21; Ezek. 39:6, 7). He then follows that with the parallelism: (1) "my glory [`kaw-bode'] I will not give to another" and (2) "neither my praise to graven images." Clearly the word "glory" (paralleled by "praise" in the next statement of this verse) here means "praise" or "honor." - see Is. 42:12, 17.
And just as clearly, we can see that the word "glory" at Heb. 1:3 means the visible radiance given off by him (as with the angel of Luke 2:9 who reflected God's glory). - see Heb. 1:3 in TEV, NIV. In fact, some modern trinitarian Bibles even translate Heb. 1:3 as "He reflects the glory of God" - RSV (compare NAB; MLB; GNB; and Moffatt's translation).
Therefore, if God said "I shall not share the praise or honor due me" at Is. 42:8, what kind of "evidence" is it to point out that Jesus reflects God's visible radiance at Heb. 1:3?
For more, see:
Trinity Indexes
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
Friday, April 30, 2010
Science - Links to Information
Click on any link to view:
SCIENCE - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
How Did Life Begin? (Watchtower Online Library)
Is there scientific evidence that supports the Bible? (Search For Bible Truths)
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account? (Search For Bible Truths)
Does the Bible indicate whether or not life exists beyond the earth? (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Impossible" Universe (Search For Bible Truths)
Could life have occurred spontaneously? ("Impossible" Creatures) (Search For Bible Truths)
Does the 'artificial life' breakthrough recently announced by scientists prove 'abiogenesis'? (Search For Bible Truths)
The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc. (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force (Search For Bible Truths)
Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God? (Search For Bible Truths)
What is the Big Bang Theory? (Search For Bible Truths)
How did Moses know that the universe had a beginning when Einstein did not? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
Is the Earth really only 10,000 years old? (Search For Bible Truths)
Were the creative "days" in Genesis literal 24 hour periods? (Search For Bible Truths)
Did God Use Evolution to Create Life? (Search For Bible Truths)
From what source was the Flood of Noah’s day? (Search For Bible Truths)
SCIENCE - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
How Did Life Begin? (Watchtower Online Library)
Is there scientific evidence that supports the Bible? (Search For Bible Truths)
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account? (Search For Bible Truths)
Does the Bible indicate whether or not life exists beyond the earth? (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Impossible" Universe (Search For Bible Truths)
Could life have occurred spontaneously? ("Impossible" Creatures) (Search For Bible Truths)
Does the 'artificial life' breakthrough recently announced by scientists prove 'abiogenesis'? (Search For Bible Truths)
The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc. (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force (Search For Bible Truths)
Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God? (Search For Bible Truths)
What is the Big Bang Theory? (Search For Bible Truths)
How did Moses know that the universe had a beginning when Einstein did not? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
Is the Earth really only 10,000 years old? (Search For Bible Truths)
Were the creative "days" in Genesis literal 24 hour periods? (Search For Bible Truths)
Did God Use Evolution to Create Life? (Search For Bible Truths)
From what source was the Flood of Noah’s day? (Search For Bible Truths)
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Does the Bible indicate whether or not life exists beyond the earth?
The Bible is definite in showing that there are vast numbers of spirit creatures in existence. - Rev. 5:11; Matt. 26:53. But as for the possibility of other physical beings existing in our universe, the Bible simply does not outright say.
Even though we have not discovered life of any kind in our solar system or in the cosmos beyond, some may point to the broad variety of animals that have lived on Earth and after considering the sheer vastness of the universe, conclude that the odds are great that we are not alone (See video). However, if one truly considers the odds of life spontaneously arising, it may give one pause to this line of thinking.
But could God have created other physical life forms in the universe?
As to whether God created any non-intelligent extraterrestrial life - life that was not made in God's image - the Bible gives no indication one way or the other.
On the other hand, the Bible does give some indication as to whether other intelligent physical beings exist beyond the Earth.
Consider: If God did create such intelligent beings, he did so before he created Adam and Eve. Such beings either remained faithful to their Creator, or like Adam and Eve, they sinned and fell into imperfection.
But if they became imperfect, they needed a redeemer. As one essayist put it: “One has this dreadful thought that on Friday [the day Jesus Christ was executed], every Friday, somewhere in the universe Jesus is being hanged high for someone’s sins.” But that is not Scriptural. The Bible tells us that Jesus “died with reference to sin once for all time.” (Romans 6:10)
But what if these beings had remained perfect? Well, when Adam and Eve sinned, they were, in effect, questioning God’s right to rule over a world of intelligent physical beings. If another planet existed at that time, a world full of intelligent physical beings who were living harmoniously and loyally under God’s rule, would they not have been called in as witnesses to testify that God’s rule does indeed work? This conclusion seems inescapable, since he has already used even imperfect humans as witnesses in his behalf on that very issue. (Isaiah 43:10)
So in this context, it is interesting, considering the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that Earth is the only planet to which the Creator sent his only-begotten Son to become a man and die sacrificially to recover the planet’s inhabitants from sin and its penalty death. It is also interesting that Earth will be the only planet on which Jehovah, by means of his Son Jesus Christ, will have fought the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty’ to show his power over all his enemies in heaven and on earth and to vindicate himself as the Universal Sovereign. - Jeremiah 50:25; Psalm 140:7; Acts 4:24
The point being emphasized is this: Never again will it be necessary for God’s Son to die sacrificially to recover living creatures from sin and death. Never again will it be necessary for Jehovah God to vindicate himself as Universal Sovereign. These things will have been accomplished once and for all time at the earth. Even if the Creator should at some future time populate other planets—which is something that we do not know—there still would be no need for repetition of Jesus’ sacrifice and the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty. The issues involved will already have been settled forever. - Heb. 9:28; 10:12.
For more, see:
Creation
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Even though we have not discovered life of any kind in our solar system or in the cosmos beyond, some may point to the broad variety of animals that have lived on Earth and after considering the sheer vastness of the universe, conclude that the odds are great that we are not alone (See video). However, if one truly considers the odds of life spontaneously arising, it may give one pause to this line of thinking.
But could God have created other physical life forms in the universe?
As to whether God created any non-intelligent extraterrestrial life - life that was not made in God's image - the Bible gives no indication one way or the other.
On the other hand, the Bible does give some indication as to whether other intelligent physical beings exist beyond the Earth.
Consider: If God did create such intelligent beings, he did so before he created Adam and Eve. Such beings either remained faithful to their Creator, or like Adam and Eve, they sinned and fell into imperfection.
But if they became imperfect, they needed a redeemer. As one essayist put it: “One has this dreadful thought that on Friday [the day Jesus Christ was executed], every Friday, somewhere in the universe Jesus is being hanged high for someone’s sins.” But that is not Scriptural. The Bible tells us that Jesus “died with reference to sin once for all time.” (Romans 6:10)
But what if these beings had remained perfect? Well, when Adam and Eve sinned, they were, in effect, questioning God’s right to rule over a world of intelligent physical beings. If another planet existed at that time, a world full of intelligent physical beings who were living harmoniously and loyally under God’s rule, would they not have been called in as witnesses to testify that God’s rule does indeed work? This conclusion seems inescapable, since he has already used even imperfect humans as witnesses in his behalf on that very issue. (Isaiah 43:10)
So in this context, it is interesting, considering the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that Earth is the only planet to which the Creator sent his only-begotten Son to become a man and die sacrificially to recover the planet’s inhabitants from sin and its penalty death. It is also interesting that Earth will be the only planet on which Jehovah, by means of his Son Jesus Christ, will have fought the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty’ to show his power over all his enemies in heaven and on earth and to vindicate himself as the Universal Sovereign. - Jeremiah 50:25; Psalm 140:7; Acts 4:24
The point being emphasized is this: Never again will it be necessary for God’s Son to die sacrificially to recover living creatures from sin and death. Never again will it be necessary for Jehovah God to vindicate himself as Universal Sovereign. These things will have been accomplished once and for all time at the earth. Even if the Creator should at some future time populate other planets—which is something that we do not know—there still would be no need for repetition of Jesus’ sacrifice and the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty. The issues involved will already have been settled forever. - Heb. 9:28; 10:12.
For more, see:
Creation
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Could life have occurred spontaneously? ("Impossible" Creatures)
There are at least 5 pitfalls to the evolutionary theory for the beginning of life.
1. There is simply no real evidence to support the speculation that the earth's atmosphere once had the necessary gases in the right proportion to start the chain reactions that most evolutionists believe led to spontaneous life production.
2. If such an atmosphere did exist at one time, and if the proper amino acids were produced, they would have been destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and water vapor in the first place. Dr. D. E. Hull wrote in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature:
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."
And John Horgan wrote in a 1991 Scientific American magazine:
"Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere ... suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere ..... Such an atmosphere [carbon and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."
3. The odds against hundreds of thousands of "left-handed" amino acids (as are found in living things) coming together out of an original equal mix of "left-handed" and "right-handed" has been compared to a man making two kinds of bricks, red and yellow. After he has made a pile of millions of red and yellow bricks all mixed together he takes a gigantic steam shovel and scoops several hundred thousand bricks out of the pile, and, by chance, every one of them is a red brick! In the same way, by chance, every one of the hundreds of thousands of amino acids forming the simplest one-celled organism we need as the first life form must be "left-handed."
4. The different kinds of amino acids of our first living, reproducing organism must not only come together in the right kind and amount, they must also link together in the correct order. So the huge steam shovel must not only scoop up all red bricks (left-handed amino acids), but also accidentally drop them somehow each into its proper spot!
5. A cell membrane is extremely complex, made up of sugar, protein, and fatty molecules. It is essential for a living cell. But there is no plausible explanation how even the fats in the complex membrane could have originated by themselves (p.145, The Origin of Life, Bernal).
To find the final overall odds for a chain of events leading up to a single result you must multiply the odds of each event. For instance, if someone reaches into a hat that has one white marble and two black ones, there is one chance in three that he will draw the white one. However, if she is presented with two hats each containing one white marble and two black ones the odds multiply not add. Even though there are only 6 marbles altogether, the two events total up to odds of 1 out of 9 (not 1 out of 6). 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9.
If there had been 3 marbles (1 white and 2 black) in each of three hats the odds would be 1 out of 27 (1/27) that she would draw the three white marbles (1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27), and so on.
So by multiplying the odds of the different events (considering only the chances of getting the right number and order of left-handed amino acids together as would be found in the simplest theoretically possible self-reproducing organism) we find the odds to be one out of 10 to the 79,360th power (1 followed by 79,360 zeros).
Remember, these are only the odds for the somehow already-formed amino acids accidentally coming together in the right kinds and right order. It ignores the odds of the universe accidentally forming in the first place, a planet of just the right type with just the right composition being found in exactly the right position relative to the right type of star, and all the other myriad "accidents" leading up to this point and all the myriad "accidents" after it (such as the right mixture of elements actually coming to life and functioning and reproducing, etc.)
Yes, these are just the odds for the already-made ingredients getting together properly (like someone putting all the already man-made parts of his wrist watch into a sack and shaking them together into a whole watch). And there's only one chance out of a number so huge (1 followed by 79,360 zeros) that it would take 20 pages just to write its zeros!
Current observations put the universe's age at 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence for life on earth is dated to 3.8 billion years ago. That leaves 700 million years - best case scenario - for life to appear on its own, not eternity. But even IF life had an eternity to appear on it's own the odds still are so great (see above) that the spontaneous production of life will never happen. Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is allowed.
For more, see:
Creation
The "Impossible" Universe
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
1. There is simply no real evidence to support the speculation that the earth's atmosphere once had the necessary gases in the right proportion to start the chain reactions that most evolutionists believe led to spontaneous life production.
2. If such an atmosphere did exist at one time, and if the proper amino acids were produced, they would have been destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and water vapor in the first place. Dr. D. E. Hull wrote in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature:
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."
And John Horgan wrote in a 1991 Scientific American magazine:
"Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere ... suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere ..... Such an atmosphere [carbon and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."
3. The odds against hundreds of thousands of "left-handed" amino acids (as are found in living things) coming together out of an original equal mix of "left-handed" and "right-handed" has been compared to a man making two kinds of bricks, red and yellow. After he has made a pile of millions of red and yellow bricks all mixed together he takes a gigantic steam shovel and scoops several hundred thousand bricks out of the pile, and, by chance, every one of them is a red brick! In the same way, by chance, every one of the hundreds of thousands of amino acids forming the simplest one-celled organism we need as the first life form must be "left-handed."
4. The different kinds of amino acids of our first living, reproducing organism must not only come together in the right kind and amount, they must also link together in the correct order. So the huge steam shovel must not only scoop up all red bricks (left-handed amino acids), but also accidentally drop them somehow each into its proper spot!
5. A cell membrane is extremely complex, made up of sugar, protein, and fatty molecules. It is essential for a living cell. But there is no plausible explanation how even the fats in the complex membrane could have originated by themselves (p.145, The Origin of Life, Bernal).
To find the final overall odds for a chain of events leading up to a single result you must multiply the odds of each event. For instance, if someone reaches into a hat that has one white marble and two black ones, there is one chance in three that he will draw the white one. However, if she is presented with two hats each containing one white marble and two black ones the odds multiply not add. Even though there are only 6 marbles altogether, the two events total up to odds of 1 out of 9 (not 1 out of 6). 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9.
If there had been 3 marbles (1 white and 2 black) in each of three hats the odds would be 1 out of 27 (1/27) that she would draw the three white marbles (1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27), and so on.
So by multiplying the odds of the different events (considering only the chances of getting the right number and order of left-handed amino acids together as would be found in the simplest theoretically possible self-reproducing organism) we find the odds to be one out of 10 to the 79,360th power (1 followed by 79,360 zeros).
Remember, these are only the odds for the somehow already-formed amino acids accidentally coming together in the right kinds and right order. It ignores the odds of the universe accidentally forming in the first place, a planet of just the right type with just the right composition being found in exactly the right position relative to the right type of star, and all the other myriad "accidents" leading up to this point and all the myriad "accidents" after it (such as the right mixture of elements actually coming to life and functioning and reproducing, etc.)
Yes, these are just the odds for the already-made ingredients getting together properly (like someone putting all the already man-made parts of his wrist watch into a sack and shaking them together into a whole watch). And there's only one chance out of a number so huge (1 followed by 79,360 zeros) that it would take 20 pages just to write its zeros!
Current observations put the universe's age at 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence for life on earth is dated to 3.8 billion years ago. That leaves 700 million years - best case scenario - for life to appear on its own, not eternity. But even IF life had an eternity to appear on it's own the odds still are so great (see above) that the spontaneous production of life will never happen. Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is allowed.
For more, see:
Creation
The "Impossible" Universe
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)