Thursday 25 April 2024
Wednesday 24 April 2024
Tuesday 23 April 2024
Monday 22 April 2024
The lowly butterfly vs. Darwinism
Battle Butterflies
You can probably think of a lot of creatures that a military might decide to copy for its submarine designs. Sharks or giant squids. Whales, perhaps. Or what about… butterflies?
MIT reports that one of their engineers, Dr. Philip Daniel, is collaborating with the U.S. Department of Defense to a create a magnetic navigation system inspired by monarch butterflies. Daniel explains:
They’re able to migrate long distances and find the exact forest that their ancestors were born into. How? One theory is that they’re able to sense the Earth’s magnetic field. They have a compass in their head, and they can use it to get where they want to go. The question is: Can humanity take advantage of the Earth’s magnetic field to accurately navigate without GPS?
Every year, around a billion monarchs travel from across North America to gather overwinter in a few specific locations in Mexico. Because adult monarchs live less than a year, none of these butterflies have made the journey before, yet they all somehow know how to travel hundreds upon hundreds of miles to arrive in the same place. (The sheer awesomeness of this journey is well-presented in the excellent Illustra Media documentary Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies (2011). If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it.)
Magnetic Fingerprints
Daniel calls the navigational mechanism a compass, but this is just a shorthand. The word “compass” doesn’t do justice to the equipment monarchs have, as Daniel himself would no doubt be the first to acknowledge — after all, the U.S. miliary already has compasses. But monarchs have much more. What they need to navigate from different locations across the U.S. and Canada to a specific destination in Mexico is more like a complete GPS system.
So how do they do it? Daniel explains that deposits of metal in the earth’s crust can create ripples in the magnetic field, giving certain sites specific “fingerprints” to a highly sensitive detector. It has been hypothesized that monarchs use such a system, and that’s what he is hoping to create for the U.S. military.
Monarch navigation is still poorly understood, although we have figured out some pieces of it. The hypothesis of a magnetic map is necessary because what they are already known to use wouldn’t be enough to do what they do. So far, it’s known that they have an internal solar compass calibrated with an internal clock, and an internal magnetic compass as a backup for night and cloudy weather, but both of those systems would only tell them latitudinal direction, not longitude.
A reason to suspect that a magnetic map might be the solution is that it has been shown to exist in other animals. Experiments have demonstrated that turtle hatchlings can use magnetic fields to determine both latitude and longitude, implying they possess a sort of internal geographic coordinate system based on the earth’s magnetic field.
Nobody knows how this magnetic mapping system actually works. Whether it’s turtles, monarchs, or one of the other animals with seemingly magical navigational capabilities, we can still only wonder at what they can do. But if Dr. Daniel and his lab can crack the problem and engineer even a large and clumsy human equivalent of a magnetic mapping system, it might yield clues towards the design of the natural systems. A manmade functioning version would show how the system theoretically can work, and those details might enable scientists to make hypotheses that can be experimentally tested on butterflies and other migratory animals.
As always, biologists and engineers working together yields both better manmade designs and better understanding of the designs of living creatures.
Next on the Agenda…Self-Assembling Helicopters?
Incidentally, this navigation system is not even the most impressive thing about butterfly design. Another engineering marvel, also discussed in Metamorphosis, is the metamorphosis itself. It turns out, during the transformation the caterpillar completely dissolves within the chrysalis into a gooey soup, before self-assembling into a butterfly. Needless to say, this requires an incomprehensible level of coordination and planning to succeed.
Who knows? Eventually, the U.S. miliary might invent a tank than can dissolve and reassemble itself as a helicopter.
But I guess we’d better just start where we are. For the time being, the sophistication of butterfly design is far, far beyond us.
Sunday 21 April 2024
Suboptimal design or suboptimal science?
The Panda’s Thumb: An Extraordinary Instance of Design?
Does the panda’s thumb refute intelligent design? Or is it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in the mammalian world, as one respected study has found? On this episode of ID the Future, host Casey Luskin speaks with philosopher Dr. Stephen Dilley about his recent paper evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the iconic panda’s thumb argument for evolution.
Harvard scientist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould is well-known for his theory that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria and best kept separate from one another. Yet one of his favorite arguments for evolutionary processes was the panda’s thumb, which is underpinned by a theology-laden premise: namely, God wouldn’t design the panda’s thumb like this, therefore a clumsy step-wise natural process is responsible. But does this argument hold up to philosophical and scientific scrutiny?
In this conversation, Dr. Dilley challenges the assumptions implicit in the panda’s thumb argument. He also explains that what might be deemed by some as sub-optimal design may actually be an engineering trade-off. Optimizing a structure can sometimes come at the cost of certain design constraints. Ultimately, Dilley holds that the panda’s thumb may be more of a problem for an evolutionary view than a design perspective: “If in fact the very best studies commend the thumb for its efficiency, its dexterity, its precision…then by Gould’s own framing the panda’s thumb would pose a problem” for evolutionists. Download the podcast or listen to it here
On the founding of "the eternal metropolis"
According to legend, Ancient Rome was founded by the two brothers, and demigods, Romulus and Remus, on 21 April 753 BCE. The legend claims that in an argument over who would rule the city (or, in another version, where the city would be located) Romulus killed Remus and named the city after himself. This story of the founding of Rome is the best known but it is not the only one.
Other legends claim the city was named after a woman, Roma, who traveled with Aeneas and the other survivors from Troy after that city fell. Upon landing on the banks of the Tiber River, Roma and the other women objected when the men wanted to move on. She led the women in the burning of the Trojan ships and so effectively stranded the Trojan survivors at the site which would eventually become Rome. Aeneas of Troy is featured in this legend and also, famously, in Virgil's Aeneid, as a founder of Rome and the ancestor of Romulus and Remus, thus linking Rome with the grandeur and might which was once Troy.Still other theories concerning the name of the famous city suggest it came from Rumon, the ancient name for the Tiber River, and was simply a place name given to the small trading center established on its banks or that the name derived from an Etruscan word which could have designated one of their settlements.
Saturday 20 April 2024
Neanderthal man:just as sapien as we are?
Fossil Friday: Suppressed Dissent About Neanderthal DNA in Modern Humans
Since the seminal study by Nobel laureate Svante Pääbo almost 15 years ago (Green et al. 2010), there have been numerous publications supporting the idea that non-African modern humans have a few percent of their DNA inherited from Neanderthals through introgression. This has basically become a widely accepted fact and the textbook orthodoxy. However, there is one dissenter. It is not some crank amateur but a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Cambridge, William Amos, who has published over 160 peer-reviewed publications including many in the highest-ranked journals such as Nature, Science, Nature Genetics, PLOS, Current Biology, and PNAS. Amos claims that the supposed evidence for introgression has been misinterpreted and is better explained by the hypothesis “that heterozygous sites attract additional mutations at and around them, creating a link between evolutionary rate and population size.“ Testing this hypothesis led him “to the prediction that mutation rate in humans would have dropped as a result of the large loss of variability that occurred during the out of Africa event, and thence to an alternative model to inter-breeding that could explain why non-Africans are closer to Neanderthals than Africans.”
Obscure Forums
So, how did the scientific establishment react to this maverick view? Actually, in spite of his credentials and in spite of his thorough argumentation and analyses, Amos tried in vain to get his dissenting hypothesis published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Since 2017 his manuscript is still only available as a preprint from bioRxiv (Amos 2017). On his personal webpage Amos writes that “challenging the idea that many humans carry Neanderthal legacies has proved near-impossible!” Therefore, he decided to make a 20-page document freely available as a download on his website. It is titled “Is the idea that many humans carry some Neanderthal DNA correct?” and it summarizes his ideas, analyses, and reasons. The only brief discussions of his alternative hypothesis are found in the obscure forums of BioLogos and Peaceful Science, which is quite telling because these are sites mostly known for bashing intelligent design advocates.
A Parallel with Intelligent Design
Indeed, the case of Professor William Amos represents an interesting parallel with dissenters in the intelligent design community, who challenge the Darwinian orthodoxy and try to get their scientific studies published in peer-reviewed mainstream academic journals. In relatively rare cases it works (see here for a list), but most often the Darwinian thought police make sure that such manuscripts get rejected by the editors without even having been sent to reviewers. You heard right: such dissenting studies are mostly not rejected by peer reviewers because they are considered bad science. They are never seen by peer reviewers but are suppressed by overzealous watchmen of the scientific orthodoxy without further consideration. This is not just hearsay, because I experienced it twice in the past three months myself. So I can very much sympathize with the frustration of William Amos with the scientific community.
The latter community is clearly not driven by an unbiased quest for truth. Indeed, the peer review system has become deeply corrupted. Biologist and Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner said in an interview: “I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists.” Historian Philip Magness agreed and noted in a blog post that “Academic peer review is a highly dysfunctional process, replete with perverse incentives and maddeningly Kafkaesque outcomes.”
References
- Amos W 2017. Testing an alternative explanation for relatively greater base-sharing between Neanderthals and non-African humans. bioRxiv, 25 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/133306
- Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW, … Pääbo, S. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science 328(5979), 710–722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188021
On the two Adams and the Socinian/biblical unitarian paradigm
1Corinthians ch.15:47NASB" The first man is from the earth, [s]earthy; the second man is from heaven."
Luke ch.3:38NASB"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
If we take the Socinian/biblical unitarian position it seems odd that either Adam should be spoken of as originating from heaven.
And if this originating from heaven is figurative language for the extraordinary origin of the second Adam. How can anyone argue that the origin of the first Adam was less distinctive?
Unlike the second Son of (the)God the first was not also son of (the)Man.
JEHOVAH's Archangel breathe the first breath into the lungs of the first Adam see Genesis 2:7. What could be more distinctive than that?
From a Socinian perspective it seems that the first Adam is much more worthy of the titles
son of God and Lord from heaven in terms of his origin.
Romans ch.5:14NIV"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."
The first Adam is the prototype . How can any man born of a fallen woman possibly have more of a claim to the title Son from heaven than him if the Socinian/biblical unitarian paradigm be true?
Friday 19 April 2024
AI as Darwinism's loyal opposition?
Science Paper: Use Artificial Intelligence to Challenge Evolution
A new bold paper in the Elsevier journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology states, “Darwinian evolution has become dogma; AI can rescue what is salvageable.” Authors Olen Brown and David Hullender note, “The publication of scientific disagreements with elements of Darwinian evolution including its modern variants is increasing” and they cite various examples from the literature:
The publication of scientific disagreements with elements of Darwinian evolution including its modern variants are increasing. The view that “Evolution is both a fact and … the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every situation” (Russo and André, 2019) is being challenged. Wray and Hoekstra in the Comment Does evolutionary theory need a rethink” published in Nature (Wray and Hoekstra, 2014) reported that Kevin Leland and seven colleagues responded “Yes, urgently”, while Gregory Wray and five colleagues responded: “No, all is well”. Typical of balanced questioning is Dennis Noble who wrote “Something has gone deeply wrong in biology” (Noble, 2021).
The paper thus argues that “that the theory of biological evolution, including its modern variants, suffers from several logical deficits, is absurdly improbable mathematically, and also biologically mechanism-deficient.” However, as the title suggests, the authors believe that “Darwinian evolution has become dogma” and some new method is needed to move past non-objective adherence to evolutionary models. They believe this method is artificial intelligence (AI).
Use AI to Challenge Evolution?
The authors propose that “the new approach of AI … is required to move forward scientifically.” They note that AI provides “powerful analytical tools” that can be used for evaluating the merits of scientific theories and ask, “[C]ould a complex computer be programmed to evaluate the theory (many say the fact) of biological evolution? Or perhaps test particular postulates essential to the theory?” They believe AI is well-suited for this task, since it has already been used to “rediscover fundamental equations” in fields such as physics and chemistry, and has been highly successful at playing games and solving puzzles. They believe this makes AI applicable to studying evolution:
Use AI to Challenge Evolution?
The authors propose that “the new approach of AI … is required to move forward scientifically.” They note that AI provides “powerful analytical tools” that can be used for evaluating the merits of scientific theories and ask, “[C]ould a complex computer be programmed to evaluate the theory (many say the fact) of biological evolution? Or perhaps test particular postulates essential to the theory?” They believe AI is well-suited for this task, since it has already been used to “rediscover fundamental equations” in fields such as physics and chemistry, and has been highly successful at playing games and solving puzzles. They believe this makes AI applicable to studying evolution:
Evolution, also, is a puzzle. It necessarily involves the absurdly improbable self-assembly of many complex biological machines using simpler parts (Brown and Hullender, 2023). Gartner et al. (2020) stated, “self-assembly of a large biological molecule from small building blocks is like finishing a puzzle of magnetic pieces by shaking the box.” AI works well for chess; we propose that it would work well for assessing ideas about biological evolution, especially the problem of self-assembly. Initially, it should be applied to testing the limits of the usefulness of ‘survival of the fittest’ for microevolution and the highly-improbable self-assembly required for macroevolution.
If AI were used to test and evaluate evolution, would people trust its results?
Some May Not Like This Approach
They believe that using AI to test evolution will lead to a problem: evolution will be challenged, and some may not want AI applied in this manner. They write that this should not matter because dogmas should never prevent scientific questions from being asked:
A perceived potential difficulty, which might, however, produce the first positive result of applying AI, is that focused discussion of the tenets, assumptions, and established facts of biological evolution would result. Consensus without criticism is not healthy for science. Biologists can learn from the field of Physics which is open to recognizing new ideas. It has shown itself receptive to change with concepts about gravity evolving from Newton to Einstein and the current interpretations, an example. The consequences of challenging the overall theory and subcomponents of biological evolution are monumentally significant for progress in this field and has ramifications for all of science including the freedom to challenge dogmas. “The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors” —J. Robert Oppenheimer.
[…]
Problems with the Darwinian theory of evolution, including its modern variants, and origin of life theories are significant and require new approaches and a willingness of scientists to look for bold solutions. The application of AI has great promise both for assessing the problems and weaknesses and for providing innovative and significant solutions of great significance for science and humankind. AI can be the pathway to correcting the problems in evolutionary theory, but the human brain must create that pathway. There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science.
Not Turtles All the Way Down?
These are nice statements of the importance of freedom of scientific inquiry. But what would AI find if it were let loose to critically investigate biological evolution? Their main argument is that we need to apply it to such a task. But they predict that if AI were applied to questions of biological origins, it would find serious flaws in evolutionary models: “We conclude that AI has this potential and encourage its application immediately for evaluating theories of biological evolution. It seems remote that AI would conclude that it is ‘turtles all the way down’.”
Surely any conclusion from AI about theories of biological evolution would be highly controversial — people would either accept and tout them or criticize the AI model that was used as flawed and inadequate. But it would be an interesting project to undertake nonetheless.
Thursday 18 April 2024
Coded communication and design.
New Study Reveals Secrets of Honey Bee Waggle Dance
The honey bee “waggle dance” is the method used to communicate to members of a hive information about the location of food sources as well as potential nest locations. The information includes direction and distance. One of the mysteries about the method is how other bees are able to detect the direction that the dancer bee is attempting to communicate. There are several factors that make detecting direction challenging for the observing bees. One is that the dances take place inside a dark hive. Therefore, other bees can’t visually observe the dancing bees. Second is that the surface in the hive where it occurs is vertical, whereas the direction that is being communicated is lateral. Third is that it takes place in a crowded hive with hundreds of tightly packed bees.
Do the Hustle
Previously it had been assumed that the following bees aligned their bodies with the dancing bees to determine direction. However, a new study published in Current Biology has provided evidence that the non-dancing bees (followers) utilize a more sophisticated method where they use their antennae to track the movement of a dancing bee and therefore its relative orientation.1 The followers do this by maintaining a constant angle between their antennae and the direction of the waggle dance line. As explained by the authors, “Knowing its own orientation relative to gravity, this allows the follower to deduce the dancer’s orientation relative to gravity.” The gravitational direction is a proxy for the direction of the sun, and the dance angle represents the communicated direction relative to the sun.
Another important aspect of the method is that “the dancer’s orientation remains consistent (relative to gravity) over continuously varying angles of the follower to the dancer, so that by continuous integration of this estimate” the follower can determine the direction. The paper points out that their hypothesis requires two other assumptions. The first is that bees can track their head direction relative to gravity. It is not known how gravity is represented in the bee brain, specifically within what is known as the “central complex.” The second assumption is that the bee antenna position influences information processing in the central complex. The paper points out that, “There is evidence from bees, locusts, cockroaches, and flies that mechanical signals from antennae reach the central complex.” This is a region that is common in all insects.
As described by noted bee expert Lars Chittka, the central complex, “contains the computational centers for integration of the polarized light-based sky compass, information about the animal’s own position and movement, and landmark information.”2 In other words, the central complex is the region of the brain where it appears that much of this information processing and algorithmic computation takes place.
Animal Algorithms
Recent research has also revealed that learning is integral to bee’s interpretation of the distance associated with the dance and translating that to travel distance.3 That study concluded that the distance calibration, as well as the directional component, requires fine-tuning through learning.4
As I describe in my book Animal Algorithms,5 there are several programmed algorithms designed to detect and apply the information that is used to guide the bees to specific locations. Detecting the waggle dance direction and computing the navigation guidance involves algorithms that apply several forms of mathematics, including geometry and coordinate transformation. The Current Biology paper is further confirmation of that, and an indication of a larger number and complexity of the algorithms. Even though much has been learned about these sophisticated behaviors, there are still several elements that are poorly understood, among them being how the brain’s neural networks are designed to implement the algorithms.
Notes
Anna Hadjitofi and Barbara Webb, “Dynamic antennal positioning allows honeybee followers to decode the dance,” Current Biology, 34, April 22, 2024, 1-8.
Lars Chittka, The Mind of a Bee (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022), 144.
“Social signal learning of the waggle dance in honey bees,” Dong et al., Science 379, March 10, 2023, 1015-1018.
Eric Cassell, “The Role of Learning in the Honey Bee Waggle Dance,” Evolution News, March 20, 2023.
Eric Cassell, Animal Algorithms (Discovery Institute Press, 2021), 60-62.
Wednesday 17 April 2024
File under "Well said" CVI
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein
The ministry of truth is on the march?
Slouching Toward Totalitarianism — How to Fight Science Censorship
Scientific censorship is on the rise. Governments are colluding with Big Tech to suppress unfavorable ideas. De-platforming and dismissal campaigns are all the rage. How do we prevent our society from slouching towards totalitarianism? On a new episode of ID the Future, host Casey Luskin welcomes science journalist Denyse O’Leary to discuss today’s forms of censorship, how they affect the intelligent design community, and most importantly, what we can do about it.
The Internet was supposed to represent a great democratization of ideas where everyone could have a voice and access the world’s information, says Dr. Luskin. Today it is becoming a battleground of open and hidden censorship. O’Leary explains why. She also analyzes the latest form of censorship — the idea of “disinformation.” In simplest terms, disinformation is any information the government doesn’t want you to have. Luskin and O’Leary give examples of how this is playing out in science. The intelligent design community is no stranger to the impact of censorship, of course. But this refresher on the latest forms of censorship should inspire all supporters of free science to continue defending and advocating for a diversity of opinions to exist on the Internet and in our society. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Tuesday 16 April 2024
JEHOVAH is King!
1.Oh sing unto JEHOVAH a new song: Sing unto JEHOVAH, all the earth.
2Sing unto JEHOVAH, bless his name; Show forth his salvation from day to day.
3Declare his glory among the nations, His marvellous works among all the peoples.
4For great is JEHOVAH, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all gods.
5For all the gods of the peoples are idols; But JEHOVAH made the heavens.
6Honor and majesty are before him: Strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.
7Ascribe unto JEHOVAH, ye kindreds of the peoples, Ascribe unto Jehovah glory and strength.
8Ascribe unto JEHOVAH the glory due unto his name: Bring an offering, and come into his courts.
9Oh worship JEHOVAH in holy array: Tremble before him, all the earth.
10Say among the nations, JEHOVAH reigneth: The world also is established that it cannot be moved: He will judge the peoples with equity.
11Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof;
12Let the field exult, and all that is therein; Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy
13Before JEHOVAH; for he cometh, For he cometh to judge the earth: He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with his truth.
Monday 15 April 2024
Elohim,Genesis1:28 demystified.
Plural “God” (Elohim) And “Let US make man”
That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim,~yhla (“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,
“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”
Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:
“The pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim(whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”
Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:
Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."
More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)
Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describeselohim:
“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:
“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.
Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:
“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us: “several phenomena in the universe were designated in Hebrew by plural expressions because they inspired the Hebrew mind with the idea of greatness, majesty, grandeur, and holiness.”
Ember also says:
“Various theories have been advanced to explain the use of the pluralelohim as a designation of the God of Israel. least plausible is the view of the Old Theologians, beginning with Peter Lombard (12th century A. D.), that we have in the plural form a reference to the Trinity .... that the language of the OT has entirely given up the idea of plurality [in number] in elohim (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular attribute.
“...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denotinggreatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [‘master’] and baalim [‘owner’, ‘lord’] employed with reference to [individual] human beings.”
The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in hisYoung’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,
“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”
Both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 show God calling Moses "a god" (elohim). This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!
And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:
“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the pluralelohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.
The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:
“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.
And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:
“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.
A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:
“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”
And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:
"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God,"Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).
To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!
So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).
For example: “I am the Lord thy God [elohim - plural of excellence in Hebrew becomes theos - singular in the Greek Septuagint]” - Ex. 20:2. And “know that the Lord he is God [as always, the plural elohim, as applied to the God of Israel, becomes the singular, theos in the Septuagint] he made us...” - Ps. 100:3.
But when elohim really does mean plural in number, we see it rendered into the Greek plural for “gods” in the Septuagint: “Thou shalt not worship their gods [elohim in Hebrew becomes theois - plural in the Greek Septuagint], nor serve them .... And thou shalt serve the Lord thy God [singular - Greek].” - Ex. 23:24-25.
The plural elohim argument is no more proper than the plural “faces” argument: When the Hebrew scriptures speak of the face of God, they invariably use the plural Hebrew word which is literally “faces” (e.g. Ex. 33:20, Num. 6:25, Ps. 10:11). Obviously, according to this type of trinitarian reasoning, to have “faces” God must be more than one person!
It is apparent to any competent OT Bible scholar that “faces” is used in a similar manner to the plural “elohim.” That is, the plural “faces” is used in a singular sense in the ancient Hebrew idiom.
We only have to look at other uses in the Bible. King David, for example, is described with the plural “faces” usage: 2 Sam. 14:24 uses the plural “faces” twice for King David! This scripture, when translated into the ancient Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before Christ, used the singular “face” in Greek. The same thing has happened in many scriptures, e.g. 2 Ki. 3:14 (Jehoshaphat) and 2 Ki. 18:24 (an official).
Clearly, the Hebrew translators of that time did not understand a “multiple-person God” (any more than a “multiple-person David [or Jehoshaphat]”) or they certainly would have translated the pluralHebrew “faces” of God with the plural Greek word for “faces.” But they never did!
Likewise, as with the plural elohim, the New Testament writers never followed the Hebrew plural usage for “face,” but always used the singular “face” for God (e.g., Heb. 9:24). How extremely strange if they really believed God was more than one person!
We see exactly the same thing happening for translations of the pluralelohim in the ancient Septuagint and in the Christian NT.
Yes, all the NT Bible writers, whether quoting from the OT or writing their own God-inspired NT scriptures, always used the singular “God” (theos) in NT Greek when speaking of the only true God of the Bible. (If the plural form had been used for the only true God, we would even discover a new “trinity” at John 10:34.)
It is absolutely incredible that John, Paul, and the other inspired NT writers would not have used the plural Greek form to translate the plural Hebrew form of “God” if they had intended in any degree to imply that God was in any way more than one person! [1]
“Let Us Make Man in Our Image”
Before we discuss the above-quoted use of plural pronouns by Jehovah at Gen. 1:26, we must fully understand the use of the word “through” (dia in NT Greek) and Jesus’ role in the creation of man.
The Watchtower Society believes and teaches that Jesus was the very first creation by Jehovah God (Jehovah became the Father at that point). Being the first (and only direct) creation by Jehovah makes Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15), and the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), and “the only-begotten Son” of God (1 John 4:9).
Furthermore, Jehovah made all the rest of creation through Jesus, his firstborn Son who is the Master Worker. The proper understanding of the NT Greek word dia (“through”) clearly tells the whole story.
To illustrate: Suppose the one all-powerful ruler of the land decided to build a nice little palace out in the wilderness. He sends for his servant, the Master Worker, and commands him to build that palace. The King provides whatever materials are necessary for the Master Worker and tells him in great detail exactly how he wants it built.
The Master Worker sends for the chief stone mason, the chief carpenter, the chief artist, etc., tells them what their assignments are, and oversees their work.
It is clear that the king built the palace through his servant the Master Worker. It was at the command (and because of the will) of theKing that the palace was created through the Master Worker (alsothrough the stone mason, through the carpenter, etc.). This obviously does not mean the King and his servant both together, somehow, make up a mysterious two-in-one King!
The fact that both the King and his servant, the Master Worker, built the palace can be clearly explained by the word “through.” The King built the palace through his servant, the Master Worker. There is no mystery here. The King can properly say, “I built that palace;” the Master Worker can properly say, “I built that palace;” and even the stone mason can properly say, “I built that palace.” The word “through” can clear up any possible confusion there might be from these apparently conflicting statements.
Certainly the carpenter, stone mason, and even the Master Worker would not, in any way, intend to hint that they were equally the King! That honor can go only to the one person whose command and willcaused the palace to be built. Certainly the faithful Master Worker would say, “not by my will but by your will, O King.” - Luke 22:42, John 4:34.
We can see that, in the ultimate sense of “source” or “originator,” there is only one person whose will, command, design, and supply of building materials allow him to be called “the only one who created the palace.” - See the BWF study. [2]
Notice how “through” solves any possible confusion in the following scriptures. Even though the Law was spoken of as “the Law of Jehovah” - 1 Chron. 16:40, and “the law of the God of heaven” - Ezra 7:12, and we are specifically told “there is only one Lawgiver ...” - James 4:12, NASB, we still see another person “giving the law”! Is that person, then, also equally God?
Yes, the inspired scriptures also tell us, “Did not Moses give you the law?” - John 7:19 NASB. And the same “Law of Jehovah” is also called “the Law of Moses” - Malachi 4:4. Must we conclude then, trinitarian-style, that Moses is Jehovah the God of heaven? Of course not!!
Even if we were unable to figure it out on our own, scriptures such as John 1:17 (“The law was given [from God] through [dia] Moses”) clearly explain it.
The Greek word dia is a “primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through”[3] - Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, #1223. There should be no confusion when Paul says:
“I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through [dia] me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done” - Ro. 15:18 NIV.
Certainly no one is so dense as to say: “This scripture shows that Christ has caused the Gentiles to obey God. And Paul, by his words and deeds, has caused those same Gentiles to obey God. Therefore, Paul IS Christ!” Even if we were gullible enough to fall for this type of dishonest argument, surely we would understand what was intended here by Paul simply by his use of the word dia (“through”)![4]
Because of the many changes in the English language in the last 400 years, the English rendering for dia in the King James Version is frequently misleading in modern English. What was translated “of” in the Elizabethan English of the KJV may mean “by” in modern English. And what was translated “by” in the KJV may mean “through” today. (Of course “by” sometimes includes the meaning of “through.”)
For example, the meaning intended by the KJV translators is shown in modern translations of Matt. 1:22 as “spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” - NASB. However, in the English of 1611, that very same meaning was expressed by these words: “spoken of the Lord by the prophet.” - KJV. This has a very different meaning in today’s English. It sounds to us today as if the KJV were saying that something was spoken about the Lord by the prophet. This is not what was intended in the language of 1611. - see any modern translation.
Keeping in mind, then, the clear distinction shown by the word dia(“through” in modern English) and the example of the king whose will and spoken command caused the palace to be created, carefully analyze the following scriptures:
Ps. 33:6, 8, 9 - “By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made” “For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” -ASV. Also see Ps. 103:20, 21.
Ps. 148:5 - “Let them praise the name of Jehovah; for hecommanded, and they were created.” - ASV.
Rev. 4:11 - “because of thy will [the will of the Lord God Almighty who is seated on the throne when Jesus, the Lamb, approaches him (5:6, 7)] they were, and were created.” - ASV.
Malachi 2:10 - “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one Godcreated us?”
Acts 4:27 - “Thy holy servant Jesus” - Jesus is the Father’s servant.
Rev. 3:14 - “[Jesus] the beginning of the creation of God.” - ASV.
Prov. 8:22-30 - “Yahweh [Jehovah] created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works.” And, “I was by his side, a Master Craftsman [‘Master Workman’ – ASV], delighting him day after day.” - Jerusalem Bible (JB). This scripture (Ps. 8:22-30) has been understood to represent “Wisdom” as the pre-existent Jesus Christ by the majority of Christians since (at least) the time of the Apostle Paul. - See the BWF study.
Col. 1:15, 16 - “He is the image of the unseen God [‘no man has ever seen God’ - John 1:18] and the first-born of all creation ... all things were created through [dia] him and for him.” - JB.
1 Cor. 8:6 - "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through[dia] whom are all things and through whom we exist." - RSV
Even the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, (which attempts to show that “Sometimes ... dia seems to express ... the sole cause” and “may be emphasizing the agency, rather than the mediator”) has to admit: “On the other hand, in 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the source of creation is distinguished from Christ’s role as mediator of creation.” - p. 1182, Vol. 3.
John 1:3, 10 - “through [dia] him [the Word] all things came to be ...” and “He was in the world that had its being through [dia] him.” - JB.
We see, then, that just as all things must go up to God (the head of Jesus - 1 Cor. 11:3) through Jesus (man’s head - 1 Cor. 11:3), so too all things have come down from God through Jesus!
So how does Gen. 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) provide any real evidence for a three-in-one God? (Does Is. 1:18 prove Jews are God?)
Isn’t it obvious at Gen. 1:26 that Jehovah was speaking to his Master Worker, the first-born of all creation (and, possibly, to the rest of the angels also [5]), who was also made in God’s image, before commanding him to make man? It is still Jehovah God alone whocreated man through his Master Workman, Jesus!
...............................................................................
NOTES
1. One trinitarian defense of the “plural elohim ‘evidence’” claims that there are a few instances in the OT manuscripts where plural verbs are found with elohim. This is supposed to be evidence that elohim is one God composed of multiple persons. This “evidence” claims there are 4 such places: Gen. 20:13 (“They caused me to wander”); Genesis 35:7 (“They appeared to him”); 2 Sam. 7:23 (“They went”); and Ps. 58:11 (“They judge”).
But there are thousands of places where “God” has a singular verb and pronouns! What is the significance of only four instances thatseem to contradict many thousands?
And are these 4 instances really exceptions? I have three Hebrew Interlinears: The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, John R. Kohlenberger (JRK), Zondervan, 1980; The Interlinear Bible, Green, Baker Book House, 1982; and The Interlineary Hebrew and English Psalter (Psalms only), Bagster, Zondervan, 1979 printing. These are all trinitarian publications!
Gen. 20:13 “He make wander” - JRK; “had made me wander” - Green.
Gen. 35:7 “They appeared to him” - JRK; “revealed himself” - Green.
2 Sam. 7:23 “They went” - JRK; “went out” - Green.
Ps. 58:11 (12) “Ones judging” - JRK; “judging” - Green; “judging” - Bagster.
It’s not surprising that trinitarian-published interlinears would support a trinitarian interpretation. But notice that at least one trinitarian interlinear (two for Gen. 20:13 and Ps. 58:11) in each of the above four examples has not given such an interpretation!
It’s entirely possible that in only four verses (out of thousands) the Hebrew manuscript is ambiguous enough or simply not clearly understood well enough so that a trinitarian interpretation can be one possibility. This is not proof nor even good evidence.
For example, at 2 Sam. 13:39 it says of King David: “she longed” to go to Absalom - see JRK. Proof positive that King David is actually the Holy Spirit (which is always feminine in the OT Hebrew), right? No, we know from thousands of other scriptures that David nearly always has masculine verbs just as we would expect. But if I wanted King David to be God, I could make my own definitions of “David” and “God” which would “prove” my case! (See the DAVID study and the REDEFstudy.) No matter what straightforward scriptural statement anyone could find proving that David is not God, my own variable definitions for “God” and “David” would counter them. Is this the kind of “proof” we should find acceptable?
However, it appears that a trinitarian interpretation in these four verses is not even an honest possibility. When I examined a number of trinitarian Bible translations, I found that not even the most avid (nor the ones which were most “free” in their translating - such as GNB andLB) translated any one of these four scriptures in any way resembling a trinitarian interpretation. This simply would not be the case if there were even the slightest chance that this was an honest interpretation. Not only did GNB, LB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NAB, KJV, NIV, NEB, REB, The Amplified Bible, the Septuagint, and Lamsa’s translation from the ancient Syriac not give any indication of a plural verb in these scriptures, but many of them actually indicated a SINGULAR verb and pronoun instead!
For example, GNB, RSV, NRSV, AB, NIV, NASB, NAB (1991 and 1970), NEB, and REB say, “revealed himself” at Gen. 35:7. NASB, NIV, NKJV, Septuagint, and Lamsa have, “went out to redeem as a people for himself” at 2 Sam. 7:23. And GNB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NEB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, the Septuagint, and Lamsa all say at Ps. 58:11 (12), “A God who judges [‘judgeth’ - KJV]”. And “judges” [“judgeth”] is strictly a SINGULAR verb!
And, of course, all the verbs in question here (like all other verbs and pronouns which are clearly applied to God) are also singular in the Septuagint! But if God were actually a trinity, there would be thousands of clear instances in scripture where plural verbs and plural pronouns would be used for Him!
We should compare what are probably the two nearest parallels to what trinitarians would like us to believe about the Bible writers’ understanding of God.
The nation of Israel began, of course, with the man named Israel who was also earlier named Jacob. The Bible, then, most often calls the nation God has chosen: Israel. It also calls that nation ‘Jacob’ at times. When it speaks of the nation of Israel, or Jacob, it will sometimes use singular verbs and pronouns. In this sense it is referring to the man from whom the nation sprang as representing the entire nation (‘Israel gives his sacrifice to God’). At other times it will use plural verbs and pronouns (‘all Israel gave their thanks to God’). In this sense it is referring directly to all those who make up the nation of Israel. The point being, that, even though we can see Israel used in a plural or a singular sense to refer to the same thing, it is frequently used both ways. And we know from the history so carefully laid out in the Bible why it can be used both ways.
We also have the example of Man. When “man” is used in the generic sense, the Bible will sometimes use singular pronouns and verbs with it and, at other times, it will use plural pronouns and verbs. For example at Gen. 1:27,28 we read:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed themand ....” - NIV.
And at Gen. 5:1, 2 we read:
“When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when theywere created, he called them ‘man.’” - NIV.
Again, the point is that, even though we can see the generic “man” being used in a plural and a singular sense to refer to the same thing, it is frequently used both ways. And we know from the history so carefully laid out in the Bible why it can be used both ways (the name of the first man, Adam, was the same word for “man”).
Therefore, if “God” or “Jehovah” could be used with either a plural or a singular sense (as trinitarians must try to do at various places in scripture) in the Bible, we would see many instances of both usages. But if one or the other (plural or singular) were the actual intended meaning at all times, then we would have only that one usage throughout the Bible.
And, sure enough, in spite of the “plural’ form of the word elohim and the singular form of the name Jehovah, they (and other singular words in the original Bible languages which mean “God”) always use (many, many thousands of times) only singular verbs and pronouns with them.
------------------------------
2. We can see this understanding of a powerful person creating or building something without ever lifting a hand in the process of creation or building in Scripture:
There are many instances of this (look in a concordance under “built,” for instance), but here are a few. 1 Kings 6:2; 6:14; 7:1; 8:27; 9:10; 15:23; 22:39; 2 Chron. 26:9; Ezra 5:11, etc.
1 Kings15 23 - Now the rest of all the acts of Asa and all his might and all that he did and the cities which he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? - NASB.
1 Kings 22:39 - Now the rest of the acts of Ahab and all that he did and the ivory house which he built and all the cities which he built, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? - NASB.
........................................
3.
Here’s what Thayer tells us about dia:
“III. …. 1. Of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause…, Ro. xi. 36; also Heb. ii. 10 …. 2. …. a. in passages where a subject expressly mentioned is said to do or to have done a thing by some person or by some thing: … Lk. i.70; Acts i.16 …. B. in passages in which the author or principal cause is not mentioned, but is easily understood from the nature of the case, or from context: …. Jn i.3; 1 Cor viii.6...Col. i.16 … cf. Heb. i.2 (Philo de cherub.” - p.133, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977.
There are scriptures stating that Jehovah (or the Father) created everything. In fact the very use of the title ‘Father’ indicates that He is the source. And, in addition, we see at 1 Cor. 8:6:
“yet for us [Christians] there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things and through[dia] whom we exist.” - NRSV.
And,
Heb. 1:2 - "but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through [dia] whom he also created the worlds." - NRSV.
.......................................
4. Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., frequently accuses Jehovah’s Witnesses of “dishonesty,” “blatant deception,” “unparalleled deceit,” etc. Often his “proof” for such statements disregards evidence from recognized “orthodox” trinitarian scholars which support teachings of the Watchtower organization and its NWT.
At other times, however, Martin will dishonestly set up a “straw man.” This technique is used when a person dishonestly claims that his opponent teaches a certain thing or backs a certain principle. He then proceeds to easily discredit (tear down the “straw man” he has built) this nonexistent condition.
For example, Martin, on p. 94, implies that the Watchtower supports an interpretation of Jesus’ glory at John 17:5 (see “Glory” in the MINOR study) whereby para (“with” in NT Greek) is to be understoodas “through” (dia in NT Greek). I have been unable to find any support for such a claim in any Watchtower publications. I have found them upholding the meaning of “with” for para in their interlinear, but not “through”! I have determined Martin’s implication to be completely false by examining Watchtower discussions of John 17:5 in the 1988 Insightbook and the 1962 Watchtower Magazine (pp. 476 and 561).
So, when Martin tells us that somewhere some unnamed “average Jehovah’s Witness interviewed recently” suggested that para in John 17:5 really meant “through,” he has manufactured his own “straw man” so he could beat the stuffing out of it. Para does not mean “through” at Jn 17:5 (although Thayer lists “from” as a possible meaning for paraunder certain conditions - p. 477) and the Watchtower Society doesn’t claim that it does!!
What is even more interesting here is Martin’s insistence on the proper use of dia when “through” is truly intended by a New Testament writer. This, he admits, shows that the individual involved is merely an intermediary and not the source of the subject under discussion. In other words, when scripture tells us that the Law came to Israel through (dia) Moses then we know Moses was not the originor source of that Law.
But when Martin refers to scriptures that are supposed to “prove” that Jesus was the Creator (or the Source of creation) he never seems to notice the word dia! For example, John 1:3 really says “all things came into existence through [dia] him.” But Martin is forced to use the nearly 400-year-old KJV here (p. 75) because, when the KJV was written, the word “by” actually meant “through.” Modern translations, however, use modern English and therefore translate it “all things were made through him.” - RSV. The use of dia here proves, as Martin himself admitted above, that Jesus cannot be the source of Creation but merely an intermediary. Martin’s use of Col. 1:16 (p. 124) to prove Jesus is the Creator also ignores the actual meaning ofdia - compare 1 Cor. 8:6 (see pp. 4-5 in the BWF study).
.......................................
5. Other comments by trinitarian translators and scholars:
“The plural ‘us,’ ‘our’...probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Kg. 22:19; Job 1:6).” - Gen. 1:26 footnote in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977).
And “Perhaps the plural of majesty .... But possibly the plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court.” - The Jerusalem Bible footnote for "us" in Gen. 1:26.
And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. William Barclay agrees: “[God’s angels] were thought of as God’s senate; God did nothing without consulting them. For instance, when God said: ‘Let us make man’ (Genesis 1:26), it was to the angel senate that he was speaking.” - p. 17, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised edition, “The Daily Study Bible Series,” The Westminster Press, 1976.
The trinitarian NIV Study Bible (1985, Zondervan) says in its note for Gen 1:26, "us ... our. God speaks as the Creator-King announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court." And, in this same work, the footnotes for Job 1:6 and 38:7 say concerning “the sons of God”: "1:6 angels came to present themselves. .... They came as members of the heavenly council who stand in the presence of God." And "38:7 .... When the earth was created, the angels were there to sing the praises of the Creator, but Job was not."
Dr. Charles Ryrie explains the plurals as plurals of majesty: "Gen. 1:26 us . . . our. Plurals of majesty" (Ryrie Study Bible,NIV, p.6).
"The explanation of the first person plural forms is probably that the Creator speaks as heaven's King accompanied by His heavenly hosts" (The New Bible Commentary, p. 82).
"It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court... Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God's being" (New Jerusalem Bible, p. 19).
“(a) From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural in Gen 1:26 is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa 6:8). Among recent commentators, Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger, Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation. ….
“(b) From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ,… Christians have traditionally seen this verse as [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.” (World Biblical Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)