Tuesday 26 March 2024
Deuteronomy6:4 demystified.
ECHAD (א ח ד)
I have seen Deut. 6:4 - “YHWH [Jehovah] our God, YHWH [Jehovah] one [Echad,
א ח ד in Hebrew]” - rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They usually say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad [1] in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.”
The examples that they cite which are supposed to verify this understanding for echad are usually either Gen. 2:24 - “They [two persons] shall be one [echad] flesh,” or Gen. 1:5 - “the evening and the morning were the first (or one) [echad] day,” or Numbers 13:23 - “one [echad] cluster of grapes.”
In addition to insisting that echad means “plural oneness” some of them also insist that, if God had intended the meaning of “absolute oneness” (singleness, only one individual) at Deut. 6:4, he would have used the word yachid (or yacheed).
So let’s examine the intended meanings of echad and yachid and the scriptures cited above.
First, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising to find that some recognized trinitarian authority on Biblical Hebrew had written somewhere that echad means “united or plural oneness.” but I haven’t found one yet!
Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew:
The only definition given for echad in the very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: “a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one”. We find no “plural oneness” there!
The highly respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is “a numeral having the power of an adjective, one.” He then lists the various meanings of echad as:
“(1) The same,”
“(2) first,”
“(3) some one,”
“(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,”[2]
“(5) one only of its kind,”
“(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] ‘one ... another’,”
“(7) [K echad] AS one man.” [The initial consonant of this word, “K,” actually means “as” or “like,” so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]
Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word (achadim) which means “joined in one, united.” This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House. Surely, if God (Jehovah) were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means “united one” would have been used to describe “Him” repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)!
By using a good Bible Concordance (such as Strong’s or Young’s) we can find all the uses of echad in the Bible. Unfortunately (due to space limitations), Young’s and Strong’s both list the rare plural form (achadim in Hebrew letters) and the “AS one” (Kechad) form along with the common singular form (echad) without distinguishing among them.
Nevertheless, since both the plural form achadim and the kechad form are used quite rarely (see Ezek. 37:17 and 2 Chronicles 5:13 for examples), we can see that the overwhelming majority of the uses of echad listed in these concordances (over 500) obviously have the meaning of singleness just as we normally use the word “one” today.
If you should find a scripture listed as using echad in your concordance that definitely has the meaning “plural oneness” or “together,” or “as one,” you should check it out in an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible. If the word in question is really the echad form of the word (as at Deut. 6:4), then it will end with the Hebrew letter “d” (similar to '7') in the Hebrew portion of your interlinear. If, however, it is really the plural form of the word (achadim), then it will end in the Hebrew letter “m” (similar to 'D'). And if the word is really Kechad (“AS one”), it will begin with the Hebrew letter “k” (similar to a backward 'C'). Remember, though, that Hebrew reads from right to left (so the LAST letter of a Hebrew word is really the letter at the extreme LEFT.)
Using your concordance along with an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible in this manner, I don’t believe you will ever find echad (as used at Deut. 6:4) literally meaning “plural oneness”!
Further emphasizing the impropriety of this “plural oneness” interpretation of echad are the many trinitarian renderings of Deut. 6:4. In the dozens of different trinitarian Bible translations that I have examined none of them have rendered Deut. 6:4 (or Mark 12:29 in the Greek NT) in such a way as to show anything even faintly resembling a “plural oneness”!!
Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders Deut. 6:4 as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.” Notice that there’s not even a hint of a “plural oneness” Jehovah!
The equally trinitarian (and nearly as “freely” translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: “The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God.” - Compare the equally “free-handed” (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible.
And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - New Revised Standard Version.
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!” - New American Bible.
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).
“Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” - New Jerusalem Bible.
“Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone.” - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).
“The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God.” - A New Transation, Moffatt .
The trinitarian ASV (also the RSV) gives 4 different possible renderings of Deut. 6:4. One of them is identical with The Living Bible, and none of them includes an understanding of a “plural oneness” God!
The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a “trinity” God --- or even just a “plural oneness” God) as: “The Lord our God is the one and only God.” Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. “’... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...’ Realizing this man’s understanding, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’”
Why doesn’t this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a “plural oneness” meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad?
Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = “plural oneness” interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: “Jehovah is a composite unity;” or “Jehovah is the United One;” or “Jehovah is a plural oneness;” etc.
Instead they have clearly shown that God (who inspired it), Moses (who wrote it under inspiration), and even Jesus himself (who taught that it was part of the most important commandment of all - Mark 12:28-29, LB; GNB; etc.) intended this scripture to show God as a single person only!
Similarly, the three annotated trinitarian study Bibles I own would certainly explain any intended “multiple-oneness” meaning for echad at Deut. 6:4 (if there were any possibility of such an interpretation). But the extremely trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., gives no hint of such an understanding of echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., likewise gives no hint of such an understanding in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And that trinitarian favorite: The NIV Study Bible, 1985, also gives no hint of such a meaning for echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). The only possible reason for all these trinitarian study Bibles ignoring this “proof” is that it simply is not true!
The examples given by some trinitarians to show a “plural oneness” meaning for echad don’t stand up either. The Gen. 2:24 example of a man and wife becoming “one (echad) flesh” certainly does not mean one literal body of flesh is composed of two people.
A man and wife becoming “one flesh” also doesn’t mean that two different persons suddenly become equal or identical. They are still two distinct individuals (one is lord and head over the other according to the Bible) and do not share nervous, circulatory, skeletal, etc. systems. They both did not have to (and, in fact, did not) come into existence at the same time, nor do they both have the same minds, personalities, nor even equal authority!
So, then, how did the Bible writers understand that the two became “one”? It should be enough to show that being “one” with someone else merely shows how two (or more) people are “united in purpose” as though they were one person in that respect only (purpose). - See the ONE study.
Notice how the following scripture uses the very same “one flesh” reference:
Ephesians 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. - NKJV.
This could be understood as in the “one in purpose” interpretation above, and/or it could be understood in the “close relationship” understanding below. But it clearly is speaking of Jesus and his followers being “one flesh.”
Another way a man and wife can be considered “one flesh” has to do with what the word “flesh” (basar) meant in ancient Biblical Hebrew. Any good concordance will show you that “flesh” (basar) in Bible usage often means a close relative. Gen. 37:27 is an example of this: “for he is our brother and our flesh.”
And the equivalent NT Greek word for “flesh” (sarx) could be used in the same manner. At Ro 11:14, “my flesh (sarx)” - KJV is also rendered: “my fellow Jews” - RSV; “my own race” - MLB, TEV, GNB, NEB; “my own people” - NIV; “my fellow countrymen” - NASB.
The King James Version even translates this OT Hebrew word (basar) as “KIN” at Lev. 18:6 and 25:49. The New English Bible translates it “blood-relation.” With this common understanding for “flesh” it is clear that the expression “one flesh” at Gen. 2:24 can simply mean that the two married people are now to be considered as closely related as “blood-relatives.” In other words, their closest “flesh” (relatives) used to be their parents. Now they are to consider their new relationship to one another as being even stronger than that with their parents: “therefore shall a man leave his mother and father” - Gen. 2:24.
To argue that a man and woman somehow, in some mysterious supernatural way, literally become one flesh, is simply not what was intended in the original language.
It is no more mysterious than my saying that my wife Karen and I (and our children, Randy and Robin) have become a single (or “one”) family (“relationship,” “kin”). I certainly don’t mean to imply some “mysterious” plurality by the word “single” even though there happen to be two (or four) members in that one family (relationship, “flesh”). Or, a person could have dozens of members in his one, single family (“flesh”). Or, a person might be the sole surviving member (“absolute mathematical oneness”) of his one family - it’s still only one family and the singularity or plurality of its composition has nothing whatsoever to do with its being one single family!
It’s no different from talking about two families, three families, etc. We are talking about a definite mathematical number of families, not the numerical composition within those families. The “one flesh” example works exactly that same way.
A few “echad = multiple oneness” trinitarians even claim that a man and woman becoming “one flesh” means “they are one in nature ... one in human nature as the Father and Son are one in the God-nature.”
This kind of reasoning would mean that the man (or the woman) before marriage (before they “became one flesh”) was not by himself already equally “one” in human nature with the rest of mankind! Then what kind of nature did this person possess before he married?
Each person (whether they ever marry and become “one flesh” or not) obviously already possesses human nature equally with any other human being. But when they marry, they are supposed to become one in purpose, goals, etc., the closest of relatives, not suddenly become human beings and thereby gain human nature!
Strangely, one recent anti-Watchtower letter sent by a relative to a local Witness used the above example for “one” in marriage being “one” in nature and then said:
“‘the marriage relationship portrays the mystical oneness and union of Jesus, the Bridegroom with His Bride, His Church’ just as it portrays that the man and his wife ‘are ... one in nature ... as the Father and Son are one in the God-nature.’”
Yes, this writer was actually saying, then, that just as the Father and Son are one, so the man and wife are one, and so Jesus and his Church (all his true followers) are one! In other words, in trinitarian terms, Jesus and his Father are equally God; and Jesus (God in every sense, they would say) and his Church (also equal in nature with Jesus) must then be equally God also!!
Clearly it means, instead, that Jesus, the bridegroom, and his bride, his church (of “brothers”) are one in purpose only (as are God and his Son). -
“That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may also be in us ... that they may be one even as we are one.” - John 17:21, 22, ASV.
Even if the Hebrew echad were used here at John 17:22 for “one” (as the famous Lutheran trinitarian scholar, Franz Delitzsch translated it in his Hebrew New Testament), it is obvious that it does not mean some mysterious plural oneness wherein the individuals are all equally the Father, or equally the Son, and certainly not all equally God! (In any case, John would have used the masculine form of “one” in the NT Greek, heis, at John 17:22 if he had intended any of the above “trinitarian” meanings. Instead, he used the neuter form, hen, in NT Greek which signifies a union of purpose - see the ONE study).
Delitzsch also translates the NT Greek heis at 1 Cor. 9:24 (“only one” - NIV, NEB, TEV, GNB, RSV; “only one person” - The Living Bible) as echad ! There is certainly no “plural oneness” intended here! - Hebrew New Testament, Delitzsch, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981.
If a person will not acknowledge the obvious figurative meaning of “one” as “united in purpose,” then he is saying that as man and wife become absolutely equal in nature by marriage (and as Jesus and the Father are “absolutely equal in nature” and are, therefore, equally God) so do Jesus and his Church become “one” or “equal in nature” and, therefore, the Church (Jesus’ “brothers”) is equally God!
Such reasoning is obviously ludicrous and illustrates what was really figuratively intended by “one” in marriage and other relationships: they are as though they were literally “one” in only one respect: unity of purpose!
As the bride is to become “one” in purpose with her husband (although he is designated to be head over his wife - 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), so, too, those chosen ones are to become “one” in purpose with Jesus (although he is to be their head - Eph. 5:23; 1 Cor. 11:3 - so he does not conform to their will and purpose, nor are they equal to him, but they willingly conform to his purpose so that they may be “one”), and so, in like manner, Jesus has become “one” in purpose with his Father (the only true God - John 17:3) who is his head. The Father does not conform to the will and purpose of Jesus, nor is Jesus in any way equal to the Father, but Jesus willingly and perfectly conforms to his Father’s purpose and will! - “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (wife) is the man; and the head of Christ is God [not ‘Christ is equal to God’].” - 1 Cor. 11:3, ASV.
So, why couldn’t the absolute mathematical oneness of echad at Deut. 6:4 be describing a figurative unity of purpose just as the Greek “one” (hen) does at John 17:21, 22?
That is, if Jesus can describe certain chosen men, and his Father (God alone), and himself figuratively as all being “one” (in purpose only), why couldn’t God be telling us at Deuteronomy 6:4 that he is more than one person, all of whom are united in purpose? One reason is that the word used for “one” in this sense is neuter (hen). But the word used for “one” at Deut. 6:4 in the ancient Greek Septuagint (and at Mk 12:29 in the New Testament) is the masculine heis! - cf. Mk 2:7.
We also know that such an interpretation is ridiculous because of the clear context of Deut. 6 (and the clear statements of the rest of the Bible). Nowhere in Old or New Testament is God said to be more than one person. No one would have possibly understood Deut. 6:4 as meaning “Jehovah is a ‘many persons united in one purpose’ God” at that time or for thousands of years thereafter (certainly not until hundreds of years after Jesus’ death - see the HIST study, parts 2-5).
The context of Deut. 6:4 and 6:13-15 shows that God is not speaking of all persons who could be considered to be “united in purpose” with the Father (this would have included the Father and the Word, of course, but it would also have included the millions of faithful angels, and today it would include a large number of faithful Christians!). Remember that when “one” is used figuratively for “united in purpose” it is always describing a relationship between certain individuals or groups who are identified in context. There is no such identification (nor even the slightest suggestion of such an identification) found in Deut. 6.
We cannot believe that Deut. 6:4 is saying that all those who are “united in purpose” with Jehovah are Jehovah! But that is the only figurative use we could possibly have for echad at Deut. 6:4. Otherwise we are left with the literal meaning (mathematical oneness, a single individual) of echad (which is obviously intended in the vast majority of uses of echad and which is obviously intended at Deut. 6:4, 13-15 and further explained at Mark 12:29, 32.)
Just as no Bible translation (including all the many trinitarian translations I have examined) renders Deut. 6:4 with any kind of suggestion that “Jehovah is a multiple unity,” no translation suggests it should be rendered with the understanding that “Jehovah is united in purpose.”
It is also clear from other Bible statements that God is a single person: the Father in heaven. (Jehovah is never described as “the Son,” “the Messiah,” “the Holy Spirit,” or any other individual but the Father - Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 3:19 - and conversely, no heavenly person except Jehovah is ever called the Father! - Matt. 23:9.)
Notice how Jesus used the word monos (“only,” “alone”) to describe God (Jehovah, the Father) at John 17:1, 3. “Father ... they should know thee the only [monos] True God.” Or, “Father ... who alone art truly God” - NEB.
But let’s look at another example where echad is supposed to literally mean “plural oneness.”
Almost anything we can name is composed of different elements or parts. If I should say, “Randy was the first (another way echad may be rendered into English) runner to cross the finish line,” I am not referring to the fact that he has two legs (or flesh, blood, and bones) which together help compose the whole of that one (or “first”) individual. I am saying (as everyone well knows) that, at the time he crossed the finish line, Randy was the only one who had done so (whether he had one or two legs, etc.). In the same sense of absolute mathematical order I would say that the very next runner (whether it should happen to be a woman, horse, octopus, snail, etc.) is the second individual runner to cross the finish line regardless of how many legs, arms, etc. that racer has. So, Robin, the second runner to cross the finish line is no more a “plural twoness” than Randy, the first one, is a “plural oneness”!
Therefore, “the evening and the morning were the first [echad] day [‘one day’ - RSV]” - Gen. 1:5, KJV - means exactly what it says, just as “the evening and the morning were the second [sheni] day” - Gen. 1:8 - means exactly what it says and so on through six days!
“The first [echad] day” does not in any sense refer to the individual parts which compose that day (or a “plural oneness”) any more than “the sixth day” refers to a “plural sixness” making up that single day! They are absolute mathematical numbers and do not refer to internal composition but, instead, to single, individual things.
And so it is with the example of “one [echad] cluster of grapes” at Numbers 13:23. Here again “one” [echad] obviously means only one (singleness, absolute mathematical oneness) for whatever word it is applied to.
It is the word “cluster” in this scripture which means “one thing composed of many individual items,” but there is only one single (absolute mathematical oneness) “cluster”!
This is no different from one (echad) single tribe (whether composed of one single, last person or millions of persons) at Judges 21:3, 6 and two tribes (whether each is composed of one person or millions) at Joshua 21:16. Echad literally means “single,” “only” as can plainly be seen at Exodus 12:46, “one house;” Ex. 33:5, “one moment;” Numbers 7:21, “one bullock, one ram, [etc.].”
Yachid
A few trinitarians insist that not only does echad mean “plural oneness,” but that, if singleness were intended by the Bible writer, the Hebrew word yachid would have been used at Deut. 6:4.
Here is how it was presented to me by one trinitarian:
“The word for ‘one’ in this great declaration [Deut. 6:4] is not Yachid which is an absolute oneness but rather echad which means ‘united one.’ Had the Holy Spirit desired to state absolute mathematical oneness in this all-important declaration, He could have easily used the word yachid, couldn’t He?”
We have already seen the absolute falsity of the “echad-means-’plural-oneness’” idea. But what about yachid? Did the Bible writers really use it whenever they meant “absolute mathematical oneness”? We have already seen that they really used echad for “absolute mathematical oneness,” and a good concordance will show they did this consistently—many hundreds of times!
Yachid, on the other hand, is only used about 12 times in the entire Bible and then only in a narrow, specific sense.
The Old Testament language authority, Gesenius, tells us that yachid is used in three very specialized ways: (1) “only” but primarily in the sense of “only begotten”! - Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Jer. 6:26; and Zech. 12:10. (2) “solitary” but with the connotation of “forsaken” or “wretched” ! - Ps. 25:16; 68:6. (3) As yachidah (feminine form) meaning “only one” as something most dear and used “poet[ically] for ‘life’ - Ps. 22:20; 35:17.” - p. 345 b.
We find yachid is never used to describe God anywhere in the entire Bible! But it is used to describe Isaac in his prefigured representation of the Messiah: Gen. 22:2, 12, 16. It is also used at Judges 11:34 for an only-begotten child. The ancient Greek Septuagint translates yachid at Judges 11:34 as monogenes (“only-begotten”): the same NT Greek word repeatedly used to describe Christ (even in his pre-human heavenly existence - 1 John 4:9). Monogenes, however, like the Hebrew yachid, is never used to describe the only true God, Jehovah (who is the Father alone).
So, if Jehovah were to describe himself as “forsaken” or “wretched,” or were speaking poetically about his “dear life,” or were describing himself as the “only-begotten son” (which he never does anywhere in the Bible!), then he might have used yachid.[3]
But since he was describing his “mathematical oneness” at Deut. 6:4, he properly used echad!
As we pointed out at the beginning, there are Hebrew words that mean “plural oneness,” but echad is not one of them. As another example, notice the clear meaning of echad as “absolute mathematical oneness” at Gen. 42:11 where the sons of Jacob say, “we are all one [echad] man’s sons.” They certainly weren’t saying “we are all sons of different men who together make up a ‘plural oneness’ man.”! Instead, the inspired Bible writer wrote that they were all sons of one [echad not yachid] single, solitary man.
We see the same thing at Malachi 2:10 even though we find two different interpretations by trinitarian translators.
Some translate it:
“have we not all one [echad] father? Has not one [echad] God created us?” - RSV.
The meaning of this rendering seems to be that everyone has a single person as his earthly father and, by comparison, we also all have a single [echad] person as our God and Creator in heaven.
Other trinitarian scholars translate Malachi 2:10 as:
“Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us?” - NAB (1970 and 1991).
“Is there not one Father of us all? Did not one God create us?” - NJB.
“Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?” - JB.
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” - NKJV.
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” - The Amplified Bible.
“Is there not one Father to us all? Has not one God created us?” - MKJV, Green.
“Don’t all of us have one Father? Hasn’t one God created us?” - In the Language of Today, Beck.
“Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God made us?” - NLV.
We clearly see in these trinitarian translations that the common Hebrew use of parallelisms was intended by the inspired Bible writers. That is, the first half of the verse is differently worded but parallel in meaning with the second half. Therefore, the first half refers to God just as the second half does, so the translator has capitalized “Father” to make such an interpretation unmistakeable. The meaning in this interpretation, then, is:
“We all have one [echad] Father (the only person who is God),” and, in parallel meaning,
“We all have one [echad] Creator (a single person as God).” - Compare 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6.
No matter which interpretation you prefer, it is clear that the comparison with (or parallel with) a single individual father (whether we interpret it as the single male human parent or the single person, God the Father), who is called “one [echad] father/Father,” is a single individual who is called “one [echad] God”! The comparison (or parallel) would be senseless if echad meant one single person for “father/Father” (as it must) in its first half and “plural oneness” persons for “God” (as it clearly doesn’t) in its second half!
The inspired Bible writers at Gen. 42:11, Malachi 2:10, and Deut. 6:4 could easily have used a word that really means “united one”[4] - but they didn’t! The inspired Bible writer at Deut. 6:4 could also have easily said (and definitely should have said if it were true) that “God is three persons who together make up the one God” or even just “the one God is three persons,” but he didn’t, and neither did any other Bible writer! He should also have used yachid repeatedly in the Bible for God if Jehovah is ever to be understood as being Jesus (“the only-begotten”), but no Bible writer describes Jehovah that way, ever!
A footnote for Deut. 6:4 in the very trinitarian The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says:
“this passage contains the basic principle of the whole Mosaic law, the keynote of the Book of Deuteronomy: since the Lord [Jehovah] alone is God, we must love him with an undivided heart. Christ cited these words as ‘the greatest and the first commandment,’ embracing in itself the whole law of God (Mt 22:37f and parallels [especially see Mark 12:28-34]).”
As the ASV renders it in a footnote for Deut. 6:4 - “Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one”. Yes, the great distinction between Israel and all the nations around them was that they worshiped only one [”absolute mathematical oneness”] person as God (as they always have, and as they still do today - see the ISRAEL study).
The only honest interpretations of “this great declaration” of Deut. 6:4 are “Jehovah our God is only one [echad] person” or “Jehovah our God is only one God”!
Judging by the literal meanings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek (NT and Septuagint OT) Scriptures Deut. 6:4 actually says: “Hear Israel, Jehovah the God of us, Jehovah is one” (Sept. Greek) and “Jehovah our God, Jehovah [is] one” (Hebrew - Interlinear Bible). But in any case echad clearly refers to a single, solitary [absolute mathematical oneness] being, not a “multiple oneness”!
So even the very trinitarian literal translation, the New King James Version[5], (like the very trinitarian ETRV [6] paraphrase Bible) translates echad at Deut. 6:4 correctly as: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Jehovah] our God, the LORD [Jehovah] is one!”
The meaning is clear. It is expressed perhaps even more clearly in the popular trinitarian paraphrase Bible, The Living Bible: “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.”
NOTES
1. Or echod according to Dr. Walter Martin’s use of this preposterous “evidence” - p. 69, The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed.
2. In English the words “a” and “an” are indefinite articles. For example, then, ‘one [echad] cow’ in Hebrew could mean ‘A cow’ in English - it certainly would not mean ‘a plural oneness cow’! In fact this whole “proof” is exactly like saying “a” is a multiple oneness indefinite article. And, of course, they would find a few (out of thousands of others) uses like “a committee,” “a month,” “a musical trio,” etc. and brilliantly conclude that “a” here has to be a multiple oneness, because “committee, or “trio,” etc. is composed of more than one person!
3. As for any use of yachid by a 12th or 13th century A.D. Rabbi (as a few trinitarians resort to in defense of “yachid” for God), what has this to do with what Scripture actually says? Maimonides (or Moses Ben Maimon) lived from 1135-1204 A.D. and was a well-known Jewish philosopher and commentator.
For what it’s worth, Maimonides also wrote: “Can there be a greater stumbling block than [Christianity}? …. [Trinitarian Chrisianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.”- Mishnah Torah, “The Laws of Kings and Their Wars,” chapter 11.
And Steve Gross writes:
“Let me quote Evelyn Garfiel, author of Service of the Heart: A Guide to the Jewish Prayerbook (Jason Aronson, Inc., 1958, 1989). Here she is discussing the Yigdal prayer (pp 52-54):
“ ‘ …. It must be stated categorically that this ‘Confession of Faith’ [the ‘Thirteen Creeds’ of Maimonides] as it has sometimes been called, has no legal, doctrinal standing in Judaism; that it is not, in any case, the Jewish creed. It was written (in his Commentary to the Mishnah) by Maimonides when he was twenty-three years old, and he never referred to it again in all the rest of his writings.
“ ‘The need to formulate the Jewish religion in a clearly stated creed had apparently not been felt in the previous two millennia of its existence. It was only in the late Middle Ages, when Aristotelian philosophy dominated the whole intellectual world, that Maimonides was impelled to try to set down the basic axioms of Judaism as he understood them, and in the light of the philosophy current in his day.
….
“ ‘During his lifetime and for many years afterward, Maimonides was bitterly opposed by many Rabbis. They felt that something extraneous to the genuine Jewish tradition was being injected into it by this precipitation of Aristotelian philosophy and by these strange formulations of belief... Crescas, in some ways the most subtle and brilliant of the Jewish philosophers, Nachmanides (the Ramban), Abarbanel, and others all registered strong opposition to Maimonides Creeds. ….
“ ‘The Shulhan Arukh ... does not even mention the Thirteen Creeds. Someone - perhaps a printer, but no one knows exactly who - included the Creeds in an edition of the Prayer Book sometime after 1400....’ ” [emphasis added - RDB]
4. Among the Hebrew words that can mean “united oneness,” such as achadim and Kechad, are the various forms of yachad. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, 1981, p. 1529, tells us that #3161 yachad means “to be united” and #3162 yachad means “unitedness”.
Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 430, 431, also describes the various forms of yachad: “yachad appears about 46 times and in all periods of Biblical Hebrew. Used as an adverb, the word emphasizes a plurality in unity.” Used as a verb “yachad means ‘to be united, meet.’” And, although the noun yachad occurs only once, it is still used “to mean ‘unitedness.’”
You will not find yachad in any of its many forms that mean “united” or “plurality in unity” ever used to describe God!!
However, we do find other Hebrew words that, like echad, clearly mean “single,” “only,” “alone,” etc. and these words are used to describe the one person who alone is the Most High God.
For example, The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, p. 1496, tells us that #905 bad (“bod”) means “separation, apart, alone.”
Also Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, pp. 280, 281, states, “in most of its appearances (152 times) this word [bad] is preceded by the preposition le. This use means ‘alone’ (89 times): ‘And the Lord God said. It is not good that the man [Adam] should be alone [bad] ....’” - Gen. 2:18.
Yes, Adam was the only person of humankind in existence, and, therefore, he was described by God as being alone in that special sense (bad in Hebrew). (There were myriads of spirit persons, the angels. There was God Himself. There were innumerable other creatures. And yet, Adam, as the only one of mankind, was alone [bad]!) Then, as soon as God created another person of his own kind for Adam, he was no longer alone (bad)!
This use of bad (“alone”) is frequently used to describe the person who is God. For example, 1 Sam. 7:3, “direct your hearts unto Jehovah [a personal name] and serve him [masculine singular] only [bad].” - ASV.
And 2 Kings 19:15, “O Jehovah, the God of Israel, that sittest above the cherubim, thou [second person singular] art the God, even thou alone [bad].” - ASV.
And Psalm 83:16, 18, “Fill their faces with confusion, that they may seek thy name, O Jehovah. .... That they may know that thou [singular] alone [bad], whose name is Jehovah [singular personal name], art the Most High over all the earth.” - ASV. - (Also see Neh. 9:5, 6; Ps. 86:10; Is. 37:16.)
5. With a “symbol for the Trinity” on the title page which symbolizes “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ... indivisibly One God.” Published and copyrighted by Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.
6. “Listen, people of Israel! The Lord [Jehovah] is our God. The Lord [Jehovah] is one!” - Holy Bible - Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, Fort Worth Texas, 1992.
Posted by Elijah Daniels at 9:28 PM
Monday 25 March 2024
Isaiah 9:6 demystified.
Find article here
Isa. 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."
But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.
First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by Jehovah himself. This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986).
Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers. Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].)
The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance. In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel."
The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.
So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person." Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"! [See the sidebar: "God and gods"]
In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others. (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.) This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.
At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"!
Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.
Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero." Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:
"In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6]." (Bracketed information included in original footnote. Emphasis is mine)
In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm."
The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.
But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?
The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples.
........................
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.
Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.
For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840
And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm .
I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”
Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.
This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].
(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.)
But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.
Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”
And John Gill wrote:
“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”
Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:
"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [a]"quick to the plunder; [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born; [b] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."
But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.
First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by Jehovah himself. This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986).
Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers. Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God. (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].)
The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance. In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel."
The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.
So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person." Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"! [See the sidebar: "God and gods"]
In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others. (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.) This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.
At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"!
Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.
Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero." Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.
Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:
"In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6]." (Bracketed information included in original footnote. Emphasis is mine)
In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm."
The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.
But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?
The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples.
........................
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.
Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.
For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840
And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm .
I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”
Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.
This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].
(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.)
But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.
Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”
And John Gill wrote:
“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”
Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:
"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.
Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [a]"quick to the plunder; [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born; [b] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.
So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
On the naturalist bona fides (or lack thereof) of the proposed extended extended synthesis.
Is Evolution’s “Third Way” Natural? (And Are We Allowed to Reference It?)
As the body of evidence against the Darwinian model has grown ever larger, many scientists have started peeling off to look for other options. A whole community of scientific scholars are seeking a “third way” to explain life, besides the unacceptable options of (a) benighted creationism or (b) the now-defunct neo-Darwinian synthesis. University of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro, engineer Raju Pookottil, and Oxford physiologist Denis Noble have even launched The Third Way website to aggregate the works of sympathetic scientists.
The homepage of website contains this interesting proclamation:
It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.
Clear enough. “Supernatural intervention” is out of the question for Third Way evolutionary biologist.
Or is it? I wonder how closely the Third Way team has paid attention to the views of their contributors.
"Our Reality Emanates from Them”
Take Andreas Wagner, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Zürich. As a true third-way-er, Wagner is no friend of creationism or ID, but he admits that the mechanism of neo-Darwinism doesn’t explain how new innovations could emerge. So he has written his own book to explain how evolution really works, The Arrival of the Fittest. Wagner believes that beneficial mutations are chosen from a sort of “library” of theoretical possibilities, with many possible mutations leading to each type of adaptation, scattered all throughout the library. This supposedly allows lifeforms to evolve far more quickly than they would otherwise.
So far, so good. No “supernatural intervention” here. But look what Wagner has to say about this library idea, from an interview:
Think about this library that I mentioned… This library’s essentially a mathematical concept. And we could say it’s a Platonic concept in the sense that it exists in an abstract space of our minds — or somewhere out there, we are not quite sure where. And so the question arises… abstract mathematical concepts, are they real in some sense, in some general sense, or are they just figments of our imagination? And I think that’s a very interesting question. You know, I don’t have a final answer to that question, but I’m leaning towards the answer that Plato has given — namely, that they are actuallyrealer than our reality, that our reality emanates, if you will, from them.
Platonic forms, “somewhere out there,” “realer than our reality” … that sounds pretty supernatural to me. “Our reality emanates from them” is practically the definition of “supernatural.” If not, what is the distinction between “supernatural” and “natural”? If we were to find something truly “supernatural,” what would it be like?
Of course, you could come up with a definition of “natural” that includes these Platonic forms. The truth is, naturalism is infinitely adaptable: since it is defined as the belief that only the “natural” exists, it can always be preserved by simply broadening the membership of “natural,” forever. If something, once dismissed as “supernatural,” turns out to be real, it can be redefined as “natural.” So even if science were to discover, say, an immaterial human soul, naturalists could just call it a “quantum entity” or something, and go on with business as usual. The same goes for leprechauns, love, Narnia, or God himself. Anything supernatural that might be discovered — up to and above an entirely different universe or plane of being — can simply be redubbed “part of nature.”
The reasoning is circular and tautological: Naturalism asserts that the natural is all that exists, and all that exists is defined as “natural.”
This by itself wouldn’t be such a terrible thing. If calling things “natural” makes people feel better, why not let them? The trouble is that some scientists — such as those at The Third Way — try to treat this as an actual distinction, not a mere matter of definition. And then everything undesirable is excluded on the basis of being “supernatural.”
Exploiting Hemple’s Dilemma
They get away with this by using a clever (though no doubt unconscious) equivocation. You see, “naturalism” in this context has two possible interpretations. One is obviously false, and the other is trivial.
It could mean that natural sciences must only study things that have already been discovered by the natural sciences. In that case, science is going to be sadly limited. Or, it could mean that anything the natural sciences do in fact discover will be defined as “natural,” since natural sciences were able to discover it. That is perfectly fine, though rather uninteresting. (This problem, first proposed by the philosopher Carl Hemple, is called Hemple’s Dilemma.)
Here’s where naturalists like those at The Third Way get tricky: when they say that science must be methodologically naturalist, it isn’t clear which version of the thesis they are referring to. And rather than defining terms, they exploit the ambiguity to equivocate.
First, they maintain that science can only study natural entities — not supernatural entities. They are here using the weaker definition of naturalism: whatever science discovers is natural by definition.
But then they go on to say that God cannot be investigated by science, because God is supernatural, not natural. Here they are using the stronger definition: that only entities that are already know to be part of naturecan be hypothesized.
No one could defend this stronger definition, but no one has to. It’s slipped in, unnoticed, by scholars who are unwilling to consider evidence for entities they find unappealing.
Well, they can do that if they want. We can’t stop them. But as they uncover evidence that truly implies design in life — “supernatural” or otherwise — we will continue (with sincerest respect) to reference it.
Sunday 24 March 2024
More on why ancient humans were Just as human.
Fossil Friday: Stone Huts, Homo habilis, and Gutsick Gibbon
This Fossil Friday will be a bit different and will show you how an aspiring young anthropologist came to agree that a young earth creationist video made a valid point against human evolution. Here is the truly remarkable story.
A PhD student of biological anthropology named Erika runs one of the more popular anti-creationist YouTube channels under her pseudonym Gutsick Gibbon. Apparently, she feels she has to hide her real identity behind a pseudonym, because it is so “dangerous” to publicly defend the mainstream consensus in academia and mock dissenters, who risked or even sacrifized their careers by speaking out. Nevertheless, I had a quite civil and long debate with her, which you can watch online if you have the enthusiasm for almost 3.5 hours of talking about “The Fossil Record, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.” I thought that after this conversation it might be worthwhile to stay in touch and so I emailed her (June 2 and 3, 2021) with some detailed information she had asked for in our talk concerning anti-freeze proteins and mutation rates in whales. Unfortunately she never responded to my mails.
Anyway, I recently stumbled upon a new video from her on atheist Aron Ra’s YouTube channel, which is part of a series of rebuttal videos against the documentary movie Genesis Impact that you can watch for free on YouTube as well. The latter was produced by an American Young Earth creationist organization named Genesis Apologetics. Since I am not a proponent of this view at all, and am on record as subscribing to an Old Earth and common descent, I might be an unlikely candidate to defend this movie against attacks. However, when I watched, I found it quite well done and well researched, certainly not without errors but raising many valid point against the mainstream view on human evolution. On the other hand, the reaction video “Rebutting Genesis Impact 5 — Homo habilis,” by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon, was not just beyond awful and factually bonkers, but also exhibited a very off-putting arrogance that backfires badly. Let’s have a look at the background information first.
The Background Information
The Genesis Impact movie made the following argument against Homo habilis as a transitional form between ape-like australopithecines and modern humans (time code 36:55-39:42):
In the lowest archaeological beds of the Olduvai Gorge site in Kenya, where the type fossils of the ancient hominin Homo habilis were discovered, the scientists also found a 12-foot circular stone hut foundation made of lava rocks, and this structure had 6 heaps of stone spaced 2-2.5 feet apart for inserting support poles. They described the stone circle as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present day nomads in the area today. The movie also emphasizes the point that outside the hut area 348 bones of 8 species of slaughtered animals were found but only 11 small fragments and teeth inside the hut area. Thus, 97% of the animal bones were found outside the hut foundations. Likewise, 96% (48 of 50 pieces) of the by-product flakes and chips from stone tool production (called debitage) were found outside the hut foundations.
The movie then concludes that this evidence suggests modern humans lived here and not apes or ape-men. The movie reports that this aligns with the opinion of Mary Leakey, the leading paleoexpert for this locality, who argued that the huts were man-made artificial structures because of the distribution of stones in the stone circle and the disproportionate distribution of animal bones and stone tool flakes inside and outside the stone circle, including a two foot buffer zone around the circle. Leakey said that the structure looked very much like the stone hut foundations people in the same area built today. The movie even shows a slide with a photo of such a hut labeled “Leakey 1979 Plate 3” as its source. Keep this in mind, as it will be important later on.
The argument is also elaborated with more background information on the movie’s accompanying webpage on Homo habilis by Genesis Apologetics, which provides further sources to Leakey (1971 [sic should be 1972], 1979). It also makes clear that “The Stone Circle was found at DK IA, Level 3, Lower Bed I, and several Homo habilis bones were found above this structure.”
Embarrassingly Dumb
In their embarrassingly dumb rebuttal video, Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon spend large parts of their 1.5 hour time on stuff that has nothing at all to do with the Genesis Impact movie, such as the straw man argument “If we came from monkeys, why are their still monkeys?”, which is nowhere found in the movie, or stuff about the origin of bird feathers, which is totally unrelated to the movie, as well as boring stereotypical rants about how stupid religious believers are and how wonderful enlightened scientists are. When they address the movie they either avoid the main points or even implicitly confirm them, but consider them irrelevant. The only substantial critique in the video that allegedly debunks a central argument concerns the issue of the stone circle (time code 45:52-54:17). Gutsick Gibbon, who was invited by Aron Ra as an expert on human origins, argues that this is all creationist nonsense and false information, based on misunderstanding real science and either deliberate lies or at least careless confusion of two different archaeological sites in Kenya: one the Early Pleistocene site of Olduvai Gorge where Homo habilis was found in the 1960s, and the other the Iron Age site of Hyrax Hill, where stone huts were found in the 1930s.
Why I Am Bothering
The reason I decided to waste my time in responding to the total garbage video by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon is that it implicitly also attacks me. This is because I had basically made the same point about the stone huts in a Fossil Friday article last summer (Bechly 2023a), which also argues that we now know, that more modern Homo erectus was a contemporary of Homo habilis and the latter rather an australopithecine, which was not a “handy man” but more likely the bushmeat game of real human hunters, who built the stone huts and stone tools.
So, is this true? Did Genesis Impact and I get the facts right, or is Gutsick Gibbon right with her assumed debunking of the stone hut argument? Well, you don’t even need to dive deep into the technical literature, which would of course drive this point home beyond any doubt, such as the excavation reports by Leakey (1972) or the standard textbook on paleoanthropology (Biagi 2015), or various articles (e.g., Potts 1984, Straus 1989).
It would have been fully sufficient to google to find some brief blog posts (e.g., Rensberger 2007) about the discovery or even simply check Wikipedia, which explicitly affirms the claim with sources:
In 1962, a 366 cm × 427 cm × 30 cm (12 ft × 14 ft × 1 ft) circle made with volcanic rocks was discovered in Olduvai Gorge. At 61–76 cm (2–2.5 ft) intervals, rocks were piled up to 15–23 cm (6–9 in) high. Mary Leakey suggested the rock piles were used to support poles stuck into the ground, possibly to support a windbreak or a rough hut. Some modern-day nomadic tribes build similar low-lying rock walls to build temporary shelters upon, bending upright branches as poles and using grasses or animal hide as a screen.[58] Dating to 1.75 mya, it is attributed to some early Homo, and is the oldest-claimed evidence of architecture.[59]
The Wikipedia article on the Olduvai Gorge locality even specifies that it was the older Bed I dated to 1.75-1.9 million years, where the stone circle was found by Leakey, and gives Leakey (1979: 11-17, 40) as source. Don’t trust Wikipedia? You shouldn’t indeed. But maybe you’d rather trust the prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica, which mentions in its article on the Oldowan industry that “stones arranged in a circle found in Bed I at Olduvai Gorge may have served as weights to hold down the edges of a windbreak used by early hominids.”
This archaeological fact has also made it into many books, such as the book by Tim Ingold, professor on social anthropology at the University of Aberdeen, who wrote (Ingold 2000: 184):
It is in this light that we can understand the extraordinary significance that has been attached to the so-called ‘stone circle’ discovered at the famous site of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, and dated to some 1.75 million years ago (Figure 10.7). In her interpretation of the circle, Mary Leakey writes that in its general appearance, it ‘resembles temporary structures often made by present-day nomadic peoples who build a low stone wall round their dwellings to serve either as a windbreak or as a base to support upright branches which are bent over and covered with either skins or grass’ (1971: 24). A photograph of such a dwelling, from the Okombambi people of Southwest Africa, is provided to substantiate the comparison.
In the accompanying figure 10.7 it is even more precisely specified as “The ‘stone circle’ from Bed I of Olduvai Gorge.” It is the same figure from Mary Leakey’s (1971/1972) excavation report that was shown in the movie, and that clearly features the stone circle as well as the various found animal bones with their determinations. This association of the bones and the circle is an important fact that Gutsick Gibbon did not grasp and boldly shrugs off in her video response as made-up nonsense.
I suggest it would not have been too much to ask from a PhD student to at least google or check an encyclopedia, before slandering others for incompetence or even accusing them of lying by alleged spreading of false information. Obviously, our anonymous Erika still has to learn a lot about paleoanthropology before she is ready for a PhD in this field, starting with basics like properly researching sources. However, if you are so careless in your research, and obviously guided by prejudice and bias, then maybe science is not really your thing.
But what about this other iron age site? Indeed, Leakey et al. (1943) had also described iron age huts from a different site in Kenya called Hyrax Hill thirty years before the discoveries of the stone circle at the Homo habilis site of Olduvai Gorge. The two have nothing to do with each other, and it is Gutsick Gibbon who is confusing the two and is ignorant about the discovery at Olduvai Gorge, even though this was clearly explained in elaborate detail in the reviewed movie with all sources provided.
Cheeky Incompetence
To document the stunning amount of cheeky incompetence and also a very surprising admission, I here provide the transcripts (with time code) from the relevant parts of the video by Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon together with my comments, but you really should watch the video passages afterwards to have a good laugh:
41:51-41:49: “They don’t look at the skulls. They obfuscate and talk about these Stone huts. That again we’re going to get to. So it’s remarkably frustrating.”
Yes, it is remarkably frustrating. How you are going to get the point of the stone huts wrong?
After showing a snippet of the movie, which poses the question of whether the stone tools were used by or on Homo habilis, Gutsick Gibbon commented:
46:19-46:59: “Okay, so first and foremost how do we know if the stone tools are being used on something or by something. When the other remains at the site have stone tool cut marks on them and you don’t find any on the the individuals proposed to have used them. So, when you find Homo habilis with stone tools what do you do? You look at Homo habilis, does it have any cut marks on it? No! Do the other animals at the site have cut marks on them? Yes! That means that the only guy capable of using tools found at the site was probably using the stone tools on the organisms that do have cut marks on them, processing them, butchering them, etc. That is like the easiest kind of association you can make.”
Fair enough, but this ignores three important points:
Many more animal bones have been found at this locality than Homo habilis bones. So, when only a fraction of all bones has preserved cut marks, then it is statistically much more likely to find animal bones with cut marks.
Cut marks are mostly found on long bones, but only few long bones of Homo habilis have been found.
Meanwhile, hominin long bones with cut marks from this time and region have indeed be identified at the Homo habilis locality of Koobi Fora in Kenya (Pobiner et al. 2023). I reported about this in another Fossil Friday article (Bechly 2023b). This omission would arguably be excusable, as the publication of the new study overlaps with the time of the making of Aron Ra’s video.
After another snippet from the movie that talks about the 12-foot circular hut foundation nearby in the same archaeological bed, which was described as having a striking similarity to the shelters made by present-day nomadic people in the same area today, Gutsick Gibbon responds:
47:15-47:40: “You’ll notice that what they say is a circular hut nearby. So, we’re talking about the distance between Olduvai Gorge and Hyrax Hill. Hyrax Hill is where they find these Stone Huts. That’s everything that I could find on them, is that all of these these stone huts found by Mary Leakey, who they later say is the one who did the work on these circular structures, that she did her work at Hyrax Hill. That’s where they’re from.”
Nope, that’s not remotely where they are from. As already mentioned, the stone circle was clearly described from Bed 1 at Olduvai Gorge, and Gutsick Gibbon is confusing this with something totally different, because she did not bother to look at the sources provided in the movie and its accompanying website, nor did she bother to just watch the movie and listen to the argument more carefully.
Aron Ra then interrupts to proclaim triumphantly:
00:47:44-00:48:11: “If it’s a different location, and it’s a different elevation, stratigraphically, then it’s not the same thing. And if the creationists are perfectly fine with saying that it is the same thing because it suits their purpose, but if a scientist were to say that they were the same thing that would be fraudulent, why is it only a lie if the scientists do it? Why is it never a lie when the creationists do it.”
Well, because this is total rubbish and a red herring. The movie is not talking about two different localities. It’s just two clueless YouTubers making up stuff because they only hear what they want to hear and are unable to research the facts.
Gutsick Gibbon responded with a real howler:
00:48:11-00:49:22: “Well. I want to hit you with the punch line here Aron, because if you’ll remember in the last video what they said was that — [silly giggling] — what they said was that Australopithecus can’t be associated with Laetoli footprints because Lucy is too far away from the Laetoli footprints and they’re too far from each other. Never mind the fact that Australopithecus is not found just at the site with Lucy, it’s found as a species all over the place and very near the Laetoli footprints, so like that’s an aside. But their argument is that they’re too far from each other, that’s why they can’t be associated. You want to know how far away Hyrax Hill is where this stone structure is from the OH7 type specimen? It’s an eight-hour drive — [both are laughing] — it’s an eight hour drive time. It’s an eight hour drive I just pulled it up, it’s eight hours and five minutes, it is 448.6 kilometres away. Nearby? Nearby? You’ve got to be kidding me. They just throw it in there like as a little aside thing no one will notice. I always notice because I always check, because they’re always conning you, every single time.”
Oh boy. Yes, Hyrax Hill is an eight hour drive away, because you looked at the wrong locality! And Gutsick Gibbon, a PhD student in anthropology, says she is always noticing because she always checks. This is hilarious! The evidence that this is from Olduvai Gorge was plain to see in the slides in the movie. They even quoted Leakey 1979 as a reference, not Leakey 1943. They are not talking about an iron age site that was discovered 30 years earlier by Leakey at Hyrax Hill. This is shockingly embarrassing. The university system definitely has failed these guys.
Next, they show another snippet from the movie, which makes the important point that the stone circles were found in a layer beneath the bones of the Homo habilis type specimen, which suggests that more modern humans were on the scene, building huts and working with tools even before Homo habilis showed up. I totally agree and made the same point in my earlier articles (Bechly 2023a, 2023b). Gutsick Gibbon responds with more rubbish:
00:49:44-00:50:42: “Now here’s the important bit. You know, those stone circles, they were initially, um, excavated by Mary Leakey in the 1930s, as I alluded to earlier. Now, wouldn’t you know it work was done later on these stone circles, um, by I think it’s Sutton at al. in 1987. Sutton at al. in 1987, um yeah, he radiocarbon-dated some of the charcoal found at this site. They’re 200 years old. They’re from the Iron Age Stone. The circles are from the Iron Age, which is why I thought to myself, it’s quite strange you know, that they’re saying, oh you know, these stone circles they’re found in a layer below Homo habilis nearby, eight and a half hours away. Nearby, huh? Same layer, huh? [You really have to watch the video to experience the combination of ignorance and arrogance]. I couldn’t find anything on these things being in the same layer or even being close to each other, stratigraphically speaking, which makes sense given they’re from the Iron Age, right? By radiometric dating they’re found to be in the Iron Age!”
Of course, you could not find anything, because checking Wikipedia, not to speak of the primary sources, was too much work for a PhD student. The stone circle in the movie was discovered by Mary Leakey in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge, not in the 1930s at Hyrax Hill. Nobody denies that the latter locality is from the Iron Age, and the movie does not talk about it.
Gutsick Gibbon then goes on (00:50:42-00:50:18) and makes another irrelevant point, that even young earth creationists accept radiometric dating as a relative dating in terms of older and younger, so that even internally the argument that the stone circle is older than Homo habilis would not work. Again, irrelevant because it is a different site, which is not Iron Age and not younger but older than the Homo habilis bones. So, the argument is perfectly valid and supported by the evidence, which she later will admit.
A Gem of Wisdom
Aron Ra interrupts for a gem of his wisdom:
51:33-51:57: “… what generally happens, which usually happens these kind of things is you’re looking for stuff on the surface so whatever has eroded on the surface so there’s different layers of erosion and so some group go to an area where there’s a low uh a low area so so it’s going to be more eroded and then they put circle stones in a circle and build a fire 200 years ago, and that’s what they’re talking about by a lower level.”
No, they don’t. They talk about a lower level because the stone circle at Olduvai Gorge was found in the lowest archaeological Bed 1, dated to 1.75-1.9 million years by Mary Leakey (1979) in her book that is even shown as a reference in the movie, for heaven’s sake.
Gutsick Gibbon unbelievably agrees with Aron Ra’s nonsensical gibberish:
51:58-52:50: “That is my understanding because I can’t find anything in Mary Leakey’s initial publication in the 1930s that’s saying, like she doesn’t even talk about habilis, right? Like I don’t understand where the connection was drawn. I think you’re right. My understanding is that they were like they’re both on the surface therefore same layer, um. But again, I mean this is what they do, they’re taking publications from the 1930s that are very difficult for the average person to track down. If I didn’t have my university association, I couldn’t get a hold of it, right? Like, their whole point is that you can’t double check them, um, but Sutton goes in depth in 1987 of the dating of these circles. They’re not associated with Homo habilis, not even close, not even close, not even close temporally, and not even close geographically. So, like this is just it’s just nonsense again.”
Not Nonsense but a Fact
Nope, it’s not nonsense but a fact that the stone circle was found close temporally and geographically to Homo habilis. Actually, at the very same place and in the same archaeological bed as the holotype OH7, even a bit below its layers. And you don’t need a university association to track down obscure publications from the 1930s. Everybody can google the facts in a few seconds. What a joke! And it is made worse by their mean-spirited insinuations. Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon definitely owe a sincere apology to the makers of the Genesis Impact movie and an apology to their own audience that has been misinformed and mislead by their video. I won’t hold my breath, though.
Next, they play another snippet from the movie, where the portrayed scientist admits that the stone hut foundations beneath the Homo habilis bones represent a very good point.
Gutsick Gibbon actually agrees and this is the most important passage in the whole video:
53:21-54:17: “This is, this is incredibly sneaky, right, what they’ve done here. Because, if that was true, if you could actually show, uh, categorically, constructed stone monuments as being earlier than any finding of Homo habilis, that would be a very interesting point to make. That would be a good point in the sense that it would merit further investigation, but that’s not what they found. It’s simply not. It’s like brutally untrue, you see what I mean? So, like yeah, it categorically is a good point just like it would be a good point if we found a rabbit side by side with a trilobite, right? Like that would be a good point, except that’s never happened. It’s not even close, right? Like it it’s just a lie, right? Like I mean, there’s not much else to say except like, you yeah, it’d be a good point in fantasy world, right?”
Wow, we caught you now and will not let you get away with this unnoticed and will disclose and preserve it for posterity. Anthropologist Gutsick Gibbon just explicitly and unequivocally admitted that such stone circles would be a good point, an interesting and valid argument, if it were true! Since it is demonstrably true and not fantasy or a lie, it will be interesting to watch how Aron Ra and Gutsick Gibbon will try to whitewash this, or move the goalpost, or more likely cover up their incompetence and especially their dangerous admission.
Now, add to their complete blunder on the science, the sneering mockery about the “stupid creationists,” the scornful laughter about their assumed ignorance, and the arrogant, condescending, and patronizing style. This simply cried out to be exposed by me. Sorry Gutsick Gibbon, but these creationists got it right and you proved to be clueless about your own field and a sloppy researcher as well. Next time, better be a bit more humble and charitable, and do your homework. Actually, Aron Ra has studied paleontology at the University of Texas himself and has a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from Arizona State University, so he is as culpable for this massive blunder as is Gutsick Gibbon. But given his own obvious incompetence in spite of his academic training, Aron Ra should maybe look for some real experts for his next rebuttal video instead of giving a platform to overconfident students.
Not Known for Accuracy
Aron Ra is of course not exactly known for sharing accurate information, including about Christianity. Here is what academic historiographer Tim O’Neill (2019) had to say about him:
Unfortunately the New Atheist activist who calls himself “Aron Ra” is all too typical of this kind of polemicist — he does not let his profound ignorance of history stop him from pontificating about it. In a recent debate he put this on full display, with a remarkable burst of pseudo-historical gibberish proclaimed with supreme confidence and smug self-assurance. Yet virtually everything he said was wrong.
But surely, O’Neill is just a biased fundamentalist Christian, no? No, he is an “atheist, sceptic and rationalist who is a subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of the Australian Skeptics” (see here).
Here is a litmus test for Aron Ra’: In the seventh and final episode of his YouTube video series against the Genesis Impact movie, he presented a public challenge (time code 1:05:43-1:06:25, see here):
So, um, if you, if you are a fan, if you’re a creationist and you watched this long ass series that I’ve made. Show me something, anything they said in this whole series that is an actual fact, that we can both show is actually true, that hasn’t already been disproved and refuted, but is an actual fact, that is supportive of their position, that hasn’t already been shown to be a lie. And I don’t think that any, even creationists, watching this, I don’t think they’re going to, they’re going to respond to that, because they already know and they already don’t care. They want to believe what they want to believe. They don’t care what the truth is.
Really? Now, let’s see if Aron Ra, a self-declared Satanist (no kidding, see here), cares what the truth is, or if he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. Will he have the guts to admit defeat? Again, I won’t hold my breath.
Unfortunately, poorly researched and highly biased content, mixing factoids with outright falsehoods, more motivated by a dogmatic world view than by any interest in scientific truth, is symptomatic for the new generation of atheist and materialist hardcore Darwinist YouTubers such as Aron Ra, Gutsick Gibbon, Jackson Wheat, Dapper Dinosaur, or Professor Dave and their deplorable ilk. Yeah, I admit it, this case of ignorant chutzpah really steamed me, so enough ranting for today. Fortunately, you have Evolution News and other media that bring you real science and debunk the debunkers.
References
- Bechly G 2023a. Fossil Friday: To Be or Not to Be Homo. Evolution News June 23, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/fossil-friday-to-be-or-not-to-be-homo/
- Bechly G 2023b. Fossil Friday: Another Prediction Vindicated. Evolution News July 28, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/07/fossil-friday-another-prediction-vindicated/
- Biagi P 2015. Modeling the Past: The Paleoethnological Approach. pp. 817–843 in: Henke W & Tattersall I (eds). Handbook of Paleoanthropology. Springer, Berlin (DE), xliii+2624 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39979-4_24
- Ingold T 2000. Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves at home in the world. pp. 172–188 in: The Perception of the Environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London (UK) and New York (NY), xiv+465 pp. [Google Books]
- Leakey MD 1971/1972. Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3, Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1963. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), xix+306 pp.
- Leakey MD 1979. Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man. Collins, London (UK), 187 pp.
- Leakey MD, Leakey LSB, Game PM & Goodwin AJH 1943. Report on the Excavations at Hyrax Hill, Nakuru, Kenya Colony, 1937–1938. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 30(4), 271–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00359194309519847
- O’Neill T 2019. “Aron Ra” gets everything wrong. History for Atheists August 18, 2019. https://historyforatheists.com/2019/08/aron-ra-gets-everything-wrong/
- Pobiner B, Pante M & Keevil T 2023. Early Pleistocene cut marked hominin fossil from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Scientific Reports 13:9896, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35702-7
- Potts R 1984. Home Bases and Early Hominids. American Scientist 72(4), 338–347. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27852757
- Rensberger B 2007. Oldest Stone Circle. Waking Up On Turtle Island April 7, 2007. http://wakinguponturtleisland.blogspot.com/2007/04/oldest-stone-circle.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)