The Watchtower society's commentary on the"Altar"

ALTAR

Basically, a raised structure or place on which sacrifices are offered or incense is burned in worship of the true God or of another deity. The Hebrew word miz·beʹach (altar) comes from the root verb za·vachʹ (slaughter; sacrifice) and thus basically refers to a place of slaughtering or sacrificing. (Ge 8:20; De 12:21; 16:2) Similarly, the Greek thy·si·a·steʹri·on (altar) comes from the root verb thyʹo, also meaning “slaughter; sacrifice.” (Mt 22:4; Mr 14:12) The Greek word bo·mosʹ refers to the altar of a false god.—Ac 17:23.

The first mention of an altar occurs after the Flood when “Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah” and offered burnt offerings thereon. (Ge 8:20) The only offerings mentioned prior to the Flood were those of Cain and Abel, and though it is likely that they did so, it is not stated whether they used altars or not.—Ge 4:3, 4.

Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Ge 12:7), at a point between Bethel and Ai (Ge 12:8; 13:3), at Hebron (Ge 13:18), and also evidently on Mount Moriah, where he sacrificed a ram given him by God in substitution for Isaac. (Ge 22:9-13) Only in this last case is a sacrifice specifically mentioned as being offered on these altars by Abraham. However, the basic meaning of the Hebrew word indicates that offerings were likely made in each case. Isaac later built an altar at Beer-sheba (Ge 26:23, 25), and Jacob built altars at Shechem and at Bethel. (Ge 33:18, 20; 35:1, 3, 7) These altars made by the patriarchs were doubtless of the type later mentioned by God in the Law covenant, either mounds of earth or platforms consisting of natural (unhewn) stones.—Ex 20:24, 25.

Moses constructed an altar following the victory over Amalek, naming it Jehovah-nissi (Jehovah Is My Signal Pole). (Ex 17:15, 16) At the making of the Law covenant with Israel, an altar was built by Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai, and sacrifices were offered up on it. Blood from the sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar, on the book, and on the people, thereby validating and putting in force the covenant.—Ex 24:4-8; Heb 9:17-20.

Tabernacle Altars. With the setting up of the tabernacle, two altars were constructed according to divine pattern. The altar of burnt offering (also called “the altar of copper” [Ex 39:39]) was made of acacia wood in the form of a hollow chest, apparently without top or bottom. It was 2.2 m (7.3 ft) square and 1.3 m (4.4 ft) high with “horns” projecting from the upper four corners. All its surfaces were overlaid with copper. A grating, or network, of copper was placed below the altar’s rim “down within,” “toward the center.” Four rings were placed at the four extremities near the grating, and these appear to be the same rings through which the two copper-sheathed acacia-wood poles were passed for carrying the altar. This might mean that a slot was cut through two sides of the altar allowing for a flat grating to be inserted, with the rings extending out on both sides. There is considerable difference of opinion among scholars on the subject, and many consider it likely that two sets of rings were involved, the second set, for insertion of the carrying poles, being attached directly to the outside of the altar. Copper equipment was made in the form of cans and shovels for the ashes, bowls for catching the blood of the animals, forks for handling the flesh, and fire holders.—Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7, 30; Nu 4:14.

This copper altar for burnt offerings was placed before the entrance of the tabernacle. (Ex 40:6, 29) While it was of relatively low height, thus not necessarily requiring a means of approach, for ease of handling the sacrifices placed within it the earth may have been raised around it or there may have been a ramp leading up to it. (Compare Le 9:22, which states that Aaron “came down” from making offerings.) Since the animal was sacrificed “at the side of the altar to the north” (Le 1:11), “the place for the fatty ashes” removed from the altar was to the E (Le 1:16), and the basin of copper for washing was located to the W (Ex 30:18), this would logically leave the S as the open side on which such a means of approach might be placed.

Altar of incense. The altar of incense (also called “the altar of gold” [Ex 39:38]) was likewise made of acacia wood, the top and sides being overlaid with gold. A border of gold ran around the top. The altar measured 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) square and 89 cm (2.9 ft) high, and also had “horns” extending out from the four top corners. Two gold rings were made for the insertion of the carrying poles made of acacia overlaid with gold, and these rings were placed underneath the gold border on opposite sides of the altar. (Ex 30:1-5; 37:25-28) A special incense was burned on this altar twice daily, in the morning and in the evening. (Ex 30:7-9, 34-38) The use of a censer, or a fire holder, is elsewhere mentioned for burning incense, and evidently such was employed also in connection with the altar of incense. (Le 16:12, 13; Heb 9:4; Re 8:5; compare 2Ch 26:16, 19.) The position of the altar of incense was within the tabernacle just before the curtain of the Most Holy so that it is spoken of as being “before the ark of the testimony.”—Ex 30:1, 6; 40:5, 26, 27.

Sanctification and use of tabernacle altars. At the time of the installation ceremonies, both altars were anointed and sanctified. (Ex 40:9, 10) At that time, as also in subsequent sacrifices of certain sin offerings, blood of the sacrificed animal was put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and the rest was poured out at its base. (Ex 29:12; Le 8:15; 9:8, 9) Some of the anointing oil and blood on the altar was spattered upon Aaron and his sons and their garments to sanctify them toward the conclusion of the installation ceremony. (Le 8:30) In all, seven days were required for the sanctification of the altar of burnt offering. (Ex 29:37) In other burnt offerings, communion sacrifices, and guilt offerings, the blood was sprinkled about upon the altar, while the blood of fowls sacrificed was spattered or drained at the side of the altar. (Le 1:5-17; 3:2-5; 5:7-9; 7:2) Grain offerings were made to smoke upon the altar as “a restful odor” to Jehovah. (Le 2:2-12) Remaining portions of the grain offering were eaten by the high priest and his sons alongside the altar. (Le 10:12) Annually on Atonement Day the altar was cleansed and sanctified by the high priest’s placing some of the sacrificial animals’ blood on the horns of the altar and by spattering it seven times upon the altar.—Le 16:18, 19.

In all the animal sacrifices presented, portions of the animal were made to smoke upon the altar, and for this purpose a fire was maintained on the altar and was never allowed to go out. (Le 6:9-13) From here the fire was obtained for the burning of incense. (Nu 16:46) Only Aaron and those of his descendants who were free from defects were permitted to serve at the altar. (Le 21:21-23) The other Levites were only assistants. Any man not of the seed of Aaron drawing near was to be put to death. (Nu 16:40; 18:1-7) Korah and his assembly were destroyed for failing to recognize this divine assignment, and the copper fire holders that they had taken were made into thin metal plates and overlaid on the altar as a sign that no one not of the offspring of Aaron should draw near.—Nu 16:1-11, 16-18, 36-40.

Once a year the golden altar of incense was also atoned for by the placing of sacrificial blood upon its horns. Other occasions on which it was so treated were when the sin offerings were made for members of the priesthood.—Ex 30:10; Le 4:7.

When being transported by the sons of Kohath both the altar of incense and the altar of burnt offerings were covered, the first with a blue cloth and sealskins, the second with a reddish-purple wool cloth and sealskins.—Nu 4:11-14; see TABERNACLE.

Temple Altars. Prior to the dedication of Solomon’s temple, the copper altar made in the wilderness served for Israel’s sacrificial offerings at the high place in Gibeon. (1Ki 3:4; 1Ch 16:39, 40; 21:29, 30; 2Ch 1:3-6) The copper altar thereafter made for the temple covered an area 16 times as large as the one made for the tabernacle, measuring about 8.9 m (29.2 ft) square and about 4.5 m (14.6 ft) high. (2Ch 4:1) In view of its height, some means of approach was essential. God’s law prohibited the use of steps to the altar to prevent exposure of nakedness. (Ex 20:26) Some believe that the linen drawers worn by Aaron and his sons served to obviate this command and thus made steps allowable. (Ex 28:42, 43) However, it seems likely that an inclined ramp was used to approach the top of the altar of burnt offering. Josephus (The Jewish War, V, 225 [v, 6]) indicates that such an approach was used for the temple altar later built by Herod. If the arrangement of the altar of the temple followed that of the tabernacle, the ramp was probably on the S side of the altar. “The molten sea,” where the priests washed, would thus be convenient, as it also lay toward the south. (2Ch 4:2-5, 9, 10) In other respects the altar constructed for the temple apparently was modeled after that of the tabernacle, and no detailed description of it is given.

It was located where David had earlier built his temporary altar on Mount Moriah. (2Sa 24:21, 25; 1Ch 21:26; 2Ch 8:12; 15:8) This is also traditionally held to have been the location where Abraham had attempted to offer up Isaac. (Ge 22:2) The blood of sacrificial animals was poured out at the altar’s base, and it is likely that some kind of conduit existed for carrying the blood away from the temple area. Herod’s temple is reported to have had such a conduit connected with the SW horn of the altar, and in the rock of the temple area, an opening has been found that leads to an underground channel going out to the Kidron Valley.

The altar of incense for the temple was made of cedarwood, but this seems to have been the only difference between it and that of the tabernacle. It was likewise overlaid with gold.—1Ki 6:20, 22; 7:48; 1Ch 28:18; 2Ch 4:19.

At the inauguration of the temple Solomon’s prayer was offered before the altar of burnt offering, and at its conclusion fire came down from the heavens and consumed the sacrifices on the altar. (2Ch 6:12, 13; 7:1-3) Despite the fact that it covered an area of over 79 sq m (850 sq ft), this copper altar proved too small for the immense quantity of sacrifices made then, and so a portion of the courtyard was sanctified for that purpose.—1Ki 8:62-64.

In the latter part of Solomon’s reign, and in the reigns of Rehoboam and Abijam, the altar of burnt offerings came into neglect so that King Asa found it necessary to renew it. (2Ch 15:8) King Uzziah was stricken with leprosy for attempting to burn incense on the golden altar of incense. (2Ch 26:16-19) King Ahaz moved the copper altar of burnt offering to one side and put a pagan altar in its place. (2Ki 16:14) His son Hezekiah, however, had the copper altar and its utensils cleansed, sanctified, and restored to service.—2Ch 29:18-24, 27; see TEMPLE.

Postexilic Altars. The first thing built in Jerusalem by the returning exiles under Zerubbabel and High Priest Jeshua was the altar for burnt offerings. (Ezr 3:2-6) In due time a new altar of incense was also made.

The Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar of incense, and two years later (168 B.C.E.) he built an altar over the great altar of Jehovah and offered up a sacrifice to Zeus thereon. (1 Maccabees 1:20-64) Judas Maccabaeus thereafter built a new altar of unhewn stones and also restored the altar of incense.—1 Maccabees 4:44-49.

The altar of burnt offerings of Herod’s temple was made of unhewn stones and, according to Josephus (The Jewish War, V, 225 [v, 6]), was 50 cubits square and 15 cubits high, though the Jewish Mishnah (Middot 3:1) gives smaller dimensions for it. It was to this altar, therefore, that Jesus made reference in his day. (Mt 5:23, 24; 23:18-20) The altar of incense of that temple is not described, but Luke 1:11 shows that an angel was standing to the right of it when he appeared to John’s father Zechariah.

Altar of Ezekiel’s Temple. In the visionary temple seen by Ezekiel, the altar for burnt offerings was similarly positioned before the temple (Eze 40:47), but it had a different design from that of the previous altars. The altar consisted of several sections successively indented or recessed. Its dimensions are given in measurements of the long cubit (51.8 cm; 20.4 in.). The base of the altar was one cubit thick and had a “lip” of one span (perhaps 26 cm; 10 in.) as a border around the top, thus forming a sort of gutter or channel, perhaps for receiving blood poured out. (Eze 43:13, 14) Resting on the base itself, but set in one cubit from its outer edge, was another section, and it measured two cubits (c. 104 cm; 41 in.) in height. A third section was stepped in one cubit and was four cubits (c. 207 cm; 82 in.) in height. It also had a border surrounding it of a half cubit (c. 26 cm; 10 in.), perhaps forming a second channel or a protective ledge. Finally, the altar hearth extended up yet another four cubits and was also stepped in one cubit from the preceding section; out from it extended four “horns.” Stairs from the E provided approach to the altar hearth. (Eze 43:14-17) As with the altar built in the wilderness, a seven-day period of atonement and installation was to be observed. (Eze 43:19-26) Annual atonement was to be made for the altar along with the rest of the sanctuary on the first day of Nisan. (Eze 45:18, 19) The river of healing waters seen by Ezekiel flowed eastward from the temple and passed S of the altar.—Eze 47:1.

The altar of incense is not mentioned by name in the vision. However, the description of “the wooden altar” at Ezekiel 41:22, particularly the reference to it as “the table that is before Jehovah,” indicates that this corresponded to the altar of incense rather than to the table of showbread. (Compare Ex 30:6, 8; 40:5; Re 8:3.) This altar was three cubits (c. 155 cm; 61 in.) high and evidently two cubits (c. 104 cm; 41 in.) square.

Other Altars. Since the post-Flood population did not continue with Noah in pure worship, it follows that many altars for false worship were produced, and excavations in Canaan, Mesopotamia, and other sites indicate that these existed from the earliest periods. Balaam had seven altars erected successively at three different sites in his vain attempts at calling down a curse on Israel.—Nu 22:40, 41; 23:4, 14, 29, 30.

The Israelites were instructed to tear down all pagan altars and destroy the sacred pillars and poles customarily built alongside them. (Ex 34:13; De 7:5, 6; 12:1-3) They were never to imitate these nor offer up their children by fire as did the Canaanites. (De 12:30, 31; 16:21) Instead of a multiplicity of altars, Israel was to have just one altar for the worship of the one true God, and this would be located at the place Jehovah would choose. (De 12:2-6, 13, 14, 27; contrast this with Babylon, where there were 180 altars to the goddess Ishtar alone.) They were at first instructed to make an altar of unhewn stones following the crossing of the Jordan River (De 27:4-8), and this was built by Joshua on Mount Ebal. (Jos 8:30-32) Following the division of the conquered land, the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built a conspicuous altar by the Jordan, which provoked a temporary crisis among the other tribes until it was determined that the altar was no sign of apostasy but only a memorial of faithfulness to Jehovah as the true God.—Jos 22:10-34.

Other altars were constructed, but these appear to have been built for specific occasions, not for continual use, and they were usually built in connection with angelic appearances or at angelic instruction. The one at Bochim and those of Gideon and Manoah were such. (Jg 2:1-5; 6:24-32; 13:15-23) The record concerning the altar set up at Bethel by the people when considering how to prevent the disappearance of the tribe of Benjamin does not indicate whether such had divine approval or was simply a case of their ‘doing what was right in their own eyes.’ (Jg 21:4, 25) As God’s representative, Samuel offered sacrifice at Mizpah and also built an altar at Ramah. (1Sa 7:5, 9, 10, 17) This may have been due to the fact that Jehovah’s presence was no longer in evidence at the tabernacle in Shiloh, following the removal of the Ark.—1Sa 4:4, 11; 6:19-21; 7:1, 2; compare Ps 78:59-64.

Use of temporary altars. On a number of occasions temporary altars were constructed. For example, Saul offered sacrifice at Gilgal and built an altar at Aijalon. (1Sa 13:7-12; 14:33-35) In the first case he was condemned for not waiting for Samuel to do the sacrificing, but the propriety of the locations as places for sacrificing was not considered.

David instructed Jonathan to explain his absence at Saul’s table on the day of the new moon by saying that David was attending an annual family sacrifice at Bethlehem; however, since this was a subterfuge, it cannot definitely be known whether such was really celebrated. (1Sa 20:6, 28, 29) Later, as king, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah (Ornan), and this was at divine command. (2Sa 24:18-25; 1Ch 21:18-26; 22:1) The statement at 1 Kings 9:25 with regard to Solomon’s ‘offering up sacrifices on the altar’ clearly refers to his causing such to be done through the authorized priesthood.—Compare 2Ch 8:12-15.

With the setting up of the temple at Jerusalem, it appears that the altar was now definitely at “the place that Jehovah your God will choose . . . and there you must come.” (De 12:5) Aside from the altar used by Elijah on Mount Carmel in the fire test with the Baal priests (1Ki 18:26-35), only apostasy now caused the setting up of other altars. Solomon himself was the first to be guilty of such apostasy, because of the influence of his foreign wives. (1Ki 11:3-8) Jeroboam of the newly formed northern kingdom endeavored to divert his subjects from going to the temple in Jerusalem by setting up altars at Bethel and Dan. (1Ki 12:28-33) A prophet then foretold that in the reign of King Josiah of Judah priests officiating at the altar in Bethel would be slaughtered and that the bones of dead men would be burned on the altar. The altar was ripped apart as a sign, and the prophecy was later completely fulfilled.—1Ki 13:1-5; 2Ki 23:15-20; compare Am 3:14.

During King Ahab’s rule in Israel, pagan altars flourished. (1Ki 16:31-33) In the time of King Ahaz of Judah, there were altars “at every corner in Jerusalem,” as well as many “high places.” (2Ch 28:24, 25) Manasseh went so far as to build altars within the house of Jehovah and altars for worshiping “the army of the heavens” in the temple courtyard.—2Ki 21:3-5.

Though faithful kings periodically destroyed these idolatrous altars (2Ki 11:18; 23:12, 20; 2Ch 14:3; 30:14; 31:1; 34:4-7), prior to Jerusalem’s fall Jeremiah could still say: “Your gods have become as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many altars as the streets of Jerusalem you people have placed for the shameful thing, altars to make sacrificial smoke to Baal.”—Jer 11:13.

During exile and in apostolic period. During the period of the exile, the Jews who fled to Elephantine in Upper Egypt set up a temple and an altar, according to the Elephantine Papyri; and some centuries later the Jews near Leontopolis did likewise. (Jewish Antiquities, XIII, 62-68 [iii, 1]; The Jewish War, VII, 420-432 [x, 2, 3]) This latter temple and altar were built by Priest Onias in an attempt to fulfill Isaiah 19:19, 20.

In the Common Era, the apostle Paul in speaking to the Athenians referred to an altar inscribed “To an Unknown God.” (Ac 17:23) Ample historical information is available to corroborate this. Apollonius of Tyana, who visited Athens sometime after Paul, is reported to have said: “It is a much greater proof of wisdom and sobriety to speak well of all the gods, especially at Athens, where altars are set up in honour even of unknown gods.” (Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, VI, III) Geographer Pausanias in the second century C.E. reported that on the road from the Phaleron Bay harbor to the city of Athens he had observed “altars of the gods named Unknown, and of heroes.” He also spoke of “an altar of Unknown Gods” at Olympia. (Description of Greece, Attica, I, 4; Elis I, XIV, 8) A similar altar was discovered in 1909 at Pergamum in the precincts of the temple of Demeter.

Significance of Altars. In Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 the apostle Paul clearly shows that all the things related to the tabernacle and temple service were typical. (Heb 8:5; 9:23) The significance of the two altars is made evident by information in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The altar of burnt offerings represented God’s “will,” that is, his willingness to accept the perfect human sacrifice of his only-begotten Son. (Heb 10:5-10) Its location in front of the entrance to the sanctuary emphasizes the requirement of faith in that ransom sacrifice as a prerequisite for acceptance by God. (Joh 3:16-18) The insistence upon a single altar of sacrifice is in harmony with Christ’s declaration: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” as well as with the many texts declaring the unity to be manifest in the Christian faith.—Joh 14:6; Mt 7:13, 14; 1Co 1:10-13; Eph 4:3-6; note also Isaiah’s prophecy, at Isa 56:7; 60:7, that people of all nations would come to God’s altar.

It is notable that, though some individuals fled to the altar, taking hold of its horns, in hope of gaining protection, God’s law prescribed that the willful murderer was to be taken “even from being at my altar to die.” (Ex 21:14; compare 1Ki 1:50-53; 2:28-34.) The psalmist sang: “I shall wash my hands in innocency itself, and I will march around your altar, O Jehovah.”—Ps 26:6.

Although Hebrews 13:10 has been used as basis for erection of literal altars by professed Christians, the context shows that the “altar” spoken of by Paul is not literal but symbolic. (Heb 13:10-16) M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia (1882, Vol. I, p. 183) says concerning the early Christians: “When the ancient apologists were reproached with having no temples, no altars, no shrines, they simply replied, ‘Shrines and altars we have not.’” Commenting on Hebrews 13:10, M. R. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (1957, Vol. IV, p. 567) says: “It is a mistake to try to find in the Christian economy some specific object answering to altar—either the cross, or the eucharistic table, or Christ himself. Rather the ideas of approach to God,—sacrifice, atonement, pardon and acceptance, salvation,—are gathered up and generally represented in the figure of an altar, even as the Jewish altar was the point at which all these ideas converged.” The multiplying of altars was strongly condemned by the Hebrew prophets. (Isa 17:7, 8) Hosea said that Ephraim “multiplied altars in order to sin” (Ho 8:11; 10:1, 2, 8; 12:11); Jeremiah stated that the sin of Judah was engraved “on the horns of their altars” (Jer 17:1, 2); and Ezekiel foretold the slaughter of false worshipers “all around their altars” (Eze 6:4-6, 13).

Expressions of divine judgment are also prophetically associated with the true altar. (Isa 6:5-12; Eze 9:2; Am 9:1) It is from “underneath the altar” that the souls of those slaughtered for witnessing for God symbolically cry out: “Until when, Sovereign Lord holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood upon those who dwell on the earth?”—Re 6:9, 10; compare 8:5; 11:1; 16:7.

At Revelation 8:3, 4 the golden altar of incense is expressly related to the prayers of the righteous. It was customary among the Jews to pray at “the hour of offering incense.” (Lu 1:9, 10; compare Ps 141:2.) The single altar for offering incense also corresponds with the one avenue of approach outlined in the Christian Greek Scriptures.—Joh 10:9; 14:6; 16:23; Eph 2:18-22; 

On Thomas emlyn and the one God:The Watchtower society's commentary.

Thomas Emlyn—Blasphemer or Advocate of Truth?


WHO was Thomas Emlyn, and what moved him to take a stand for truth? What might we learn from him that could help us today?

To answer those questions, we need to go back to the late 17th and early 18th centuries in England and Ireland. The Church of England then wielded considerable authority. Various Protestant groups and individuals were at odds with the church.

WHO WAS HE?

It was into this environment that Thomas Emlyn was born on May 27, 1663, at Stamford, Lincolnshire, England. At the age of 19, he preached his first sermon. Later, he became a chaplain for a countess who lived in London; and still later, he moved to Belfast, Ireland.


In Belfast he eventually officiated in a parish church. As time passed, Emlyn served as a minister in several places, including Dublin.

WHY WAS HE ACCUSED OF BLASPHEMY?

During those times, Emlyn was carefully studying the Bible. His studies caused him to doubt the Trinity, although he had originally believed in it. As he researched the Gospels, he became convinced that they supported his improved understanding.

Emlyn did not immediately reveal what he had found. However, some in his Dublin church noticed that he did not refer to the Trinity in his sermons. Knowing that his findings would not be received well by others, he wrote: “I cannot hope to continue here in my present post, when once I have professed.” In June 1702, two associates confronted him about the omission of the Trinity from his sermons. Emlyn confessed that he no longer believed in it and offered to resign.

Within a few days, he left Dublin, Ireland, for England. However, after ten weeks he returned to Dublin to settle some affairs, with the goal of moving to London permanently. While there, hoping to vindicate his views, he published An Humble Inquiry Into the Scripture-Account of Jesus Christ. In this publication, he gave clear Scriptural proof as to why Jesus could not be the Supreme God. This infuriated members of Emlyn’s former congregation in Dublin. A formal complaint was filed.

Emlyn was arrested and brought before the Queen’s Bench Court in Dublin on June 14, 1703. In his True Narrative of the Proceedings, Emlyn states that he was indicted “for writing and publishing a book, wherein, it says, I had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, etc. That Jesus Christ was not equal to God the Father.” The trial proved to be a farce. Seven bishops of the Church of Ireland sat on the bench with the judges. Emlyn was not allowed to speak in his  own defense. Richard Levins, a distinguished lawyer, told Emlyn that he would be run down “like a wolf, without law or game.” At the conclusion of the trial, Richard Pyne, Ireland’s Lord Chief Justice, told the jury that if they did not come to the expected verdict, his “lords the bishops were there,” perhaps implying that the jury would be duly punished.

When Emlyn was found guilty, the solicitor-general proposed that he retract. Emlyn refused. He was fined and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. Because he could not pay the fine, he stayed in prison for two years until a friend convinced authorities to reduce the amount. Emlyn was released on July 21, 1705. The ignominies he suffered moved him to declare, as earlier quoted: “I suffer for what I take to be his [God’s] truth and glory.”


Emlyn moved to London, where he eventually associated with William Whiston, another Bible scholar who had been ostracized because he published what he felt was Bible truth. Whiston respected Emlyn, calling him “‘the first and principal confessor’ of ‘old christianity.’” 

WHY DID HE REJECT THE TRINITY?

Like William Whiston and another respected scholar, Isaac Newton, Emlyn found that the Bible does not support the Trinity doctrine as reflected in the Athanasian Creed. He explained: “After much serious thought, and study of the holy Scriptures, . . . I found great reason . . . to alter my judgment, in relation to formerly received opinions of the Trinity.” He concluded that “the God and Father of Jesus Christ is alone the Supreme Being.”

What brought Emlyn to that conclusion? He found many scriptures pointing to differences between Jesus and His Father. Here are just a few examples (Emlyn’s comments on the scriptures are in italics):

John 17:3: “Christ is never said to be that one God or so God, as to be the only God.” Only the Father is called “the only true God.”
John 5:30: “The Son does not his own will, but the will of the Father.”
John 5:26: “His Life is given him of the Father.”
Ephesians 1:3: “Whereas Jesus Christ is commonly styled the Son of God, we never find the Father styled the Father of God, tho he be oft called the Father of our Lord Jesus.”

After Emlyn considered all the evidence, he emphatically stated: “There is no one passage in holy Scripture, wherein it can be so much as pretended, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are expressly said to be one and the same individual being.”

WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Many today back off from taking a stand for what the Scriptures teach. But Emlyn was willing to stand up for Bible truth. He raised the question, “If a man may not profess the most important truths, which he finds clear and evident in the holy Scriptures, to what end should he read and search them?” Emlyn would not compromise the truth.


The example set by Emlyn and others can move us to consider whether we are willing to stand up for the truth in the face of scorn. We too can ask ourselves, ‘Which is more important—the honor and blessing of the community or upholding the truth of God’s Word?’

On the laws of logic

Laws of thought  
Logic
Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica

Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ∼(p · ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means “and”; (2) either p or ∼p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them, or symbolically p ∨ ∼p, in which ∨ means “or”; and (3) if a propositional function F is true of an individual variable x, then F is indeed true of x, or symbolically F(x) ⊃ F(x), in which ⊃ means “formally implies.” Another formulation of the principle of identity asserts that a thing is identical with itself, or (∀x) (x = x), in which ∀ means “for every”; or simply that x is x.

Aristotle cited the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle as examples of axioms. He partly exempted future contingents, or statements about unsure future events, from the law of excluded middle, holding that it is not (now) either true or false that there will be a naval battle tomorrow, but that the complex proposition that either there will be a naval battle tomorrow or that there will not is (now) true. In the epochal Principia Mathematica (1910–13) of A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, this law occurs as a theorem rather than as an axiom.

That the laws of thought are a sufficient foundation for the whole of logic, or that all other principles of logic are mere elaborations of them, was a doctrine common among traditional logicians. It has been shown, however, that these laws do not even comprise a sufficient set of axioms for the most elementary branch of logic, the propositional calculus, nor for the traditional theory of the categorical syllogism or the logic of terms.

The law of excluded middle and certain related laws have been rejected by L.E.J. Brouwer, a Dutch mathematical intuitionist, and his school, who do not admit their use in mathematical proofs in which all members of an infinite class are involved. Brouwer would not accept, for example, the disjunction that either there occur ten successive 7’s somewhere in the decimal expansion of π or else not, since no proof is known of either alternative; but he would accept it if applied, for instance, to the first 10100 digits of the decimal, since these could in principle actually be computed.

In 1920 Jan Łukasiewicz, a leading member of the Polish school of logic, formulated a propositional calculus that had a third truth-value, neither truth nor falsity, for Aristotle’s future contingents, a calculus in which the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle both failed. Other systems have gone beyond three-valued to many-valued logics—e.g., certain probability logics having various degrees of truth-value between truth and falsity.

Of course only an academic could deny the axiomatic nature of the premise that a claim cannot be both true and false at the same time and/or in the same way or not realise that the fact that there are claims that are neither true nor false does not in anyway falsify that premise.

The fossil record refuses to play along with Darwinists

stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen

Denyse O'Leary October 12, 2015 3:23 AM

Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct, let alone the juggernaut that his present day supporters insist:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

However, it hasn't turned out that way. Nature seems not to like such orderly schedules much. Evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero admits:

In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.

He writes:

The first major discovery was that stasis was much more prevalent in the fossil record than had been previously supposed. Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution.

Similarly, biologist and paleontologist Niles Eldredge, best known for his theory of punctuated equilibrium ("sudden appearance" of phyla, classes, and orders, followed by long periods of stasis) has noted:

As a PhD candidate, I set out to collect trilobite fossils from all over the Midwest. And I started to realize that the fossils I was collecting -- whatever point in time I was in -- all looked the same. I found no evidence of change. At first I put that down to my inexperience..."I'm not good enough to see the obvious changes that are here."

An evolutionary biologist at the University of Oslo, Kjetil Lysne Voje,offers an explanation for stasis:

The most wide-spread explanation is stabilising selection. It suggests that the advantage for a species which is already well adapted to its environment will be to avoid changing much. It is a type of natural selection that favours the average individuals in a population because changes are disadvantageous. Changes are a drawback and stabilising selection will discard deviations from the well-functioning norm.

"Stabilising selection is a very good explanation for stasis, as it helps a species remain unchanged. But it has some problems, as it is hard to conceive of an optimal form that would not change in the course of millions of years," says Voje.

Unfortunately, Voje has, in his last sentence, blown up his own thesis.

Species often explode suddenly into life, as in the Cambrian explosion, which even Darwin found to be a problem fornatural selection. (See the new short video from Discovery Institute, The Information Enigma.) Some of them do not persist beyond the age to which they are adapted. That does not require an explanation.

But others just settle down to long eons where they don't change much, no matter what the environment. And "stabilizing selection" does not account for that. The cockroach, for example, is still around and still easily identifiable after perhaps 350 million years. The 350-million-year-old coelacanth fish and the 300-million-year-old horsetail grass survive largely unchanged.

When the coelacanth, supposed extinct for 70 million years, turned up in the Indian Ocean in 1938, it disappointed biologists who hoped for a living proof of Darwinism.¹ It is a living proof of non-Darwinism.

Similarly, a recently discovered 425-million-year-old crustacean showed no significant changes in internal body parts, compared to present-day specimens. One researcher called it "a demonstration of unbelievable stability." But the stability is only unbelievable if we start with Darwin's assumption that "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest." Apparently not.

Similarly, comb jellies, far more complex than sponges, evolved before sponges, more than 550 million years ago. As one scientist put it, "It's just wild to imagine" that comb jellies evolved before sponges. Why? What are the assumptions here? Stasis followed by eventual extinction may well prove to be even more common in the history of life than we have so far seen.

Prominent textbook author Douglas J. Futuyma wrote recently:

One of the most important shifts in evolutionary biology in the past 50 years is an increased recognition of sluggish evolution and failures to adapt, which seem paradoxical in view of abundant genetic variation and many instances of rapid local adaptation.

Vast Time, Little Change

We now have "increased recognition," but we do not yet have any theory that accounts for it. Here are some examples of life forms that show little if any change over vast periods:

37 million years ago: Asymmetrical whale skulls found. They wereformerly thought to be a much more recent adaptation for echolocation.

45 million years ago: "Living fossil" primates (tarsiers), which can communicate by ultrasound, are largely unchanged today. Similarly, a species of mites has parasitized an ant species ever since then. "Much longer than thought." Blood-feeding insects date from this period as well (the Eocene).

49 million years ago: A spider in amber, surprisingly, turned out to be clearly a member of living genus Eusparassus.

100 million years ago: Crickets have shown no significant changes since that period. The oldest mammalian hair found so far also dates back to this time. Said one researcher, "Perhaps mammalian hair does its job so well that it does not need to evolve."

120 million years ago: A fossil pregnant lizard shows that live birth among land reptiles is very old, not recent. "It implies physiological adaptations, like adequate blood supply to the embryos and very thin shells -- or no shells at all -- to allow oxygen supply, evolved very early on." Meanwhile, a lacewing insect fossil, found at the 120 million year stratum in China, prompted the comment that, "Seems that at this rate of evolution, we'd need trillions of years, maybe lots more, to see any substantial change," because of its similarity to current lacewings.

126 million years ago:Plant mimicking stick insect found. Described as "one of the grand-cousins" of today's mimics.

150 million years ago: Bird-like dinosaur Archaeopteryx's feather structure is identical to that of living birds. Also, a crab fossil from this era looks just like a modern crab. "It's amazing, but if we did not know this was a 150-million-year-old fossil, we might think that it came from today's ocean."

160 million years ago: A Jurassic placental mammal "redefines mammal history," showing mammals are much older than formerly thought.

165 million years ago: Giant female (leg span 15 cm) golden spider found in China "extends the fossil record of the family by approximately 35 Ma and of the genus Nephila by approximately 130 Ma, making it the longest ranging spider genus known."

167 million years ago: Snake fossils found. The characteristic snake skull and its parts appeared long before snakes lost their legs. "This new study makes it clear that the sudden appearance of snakes some 100 million years ago reflects a gap in the fossil record, not an explosive radiation of early snakes."

190 million years ago: A nest site for dinosaur eggs suggests thatdinosaurs kept an eye on their young. The findings "suggest that Massospondylus returned to the site repeatedly, laying their eggs in groups in the earliest-known case of 'colonial nesting.'" (Middle Jurassicreptiles may have cared for young as well.)

200 million years ago: "Living fossil" eel survives from this period.

243 million years ago: Recent pollen studies suggest that flowering plants originated in this period (Middle Triassic) rather than 140 million years ago (Early Cretaceous), as previously thought. "'With a few differences...the pollen from the Middle Triassic look exactly the same as the angiosperm pollen from the Early Cretaceous,' explained Prof Hochuli."

270 million years ago: Tracks show that amphibians have been "using the same swimming technique" all this time.

280 million years ago: Apparent almost-live birth in sea reptiles (mesosaurs). "The study of these exceptionally well-preserved fossils suggests that mesosaurs were either viviparous (pushing back this mode of reproduction by 60 million years) or that they laid eggs in advanced stages of development."

300 million years ago: Harvestmen spiders (European daddy long legs) were much the same as today. "It is absolutely remarkable how little harvestmen have changed in appearance since before the dinosaurs."

360 million years ago: The lamprey is little changed after all this time.

400 million years ago: The oldest fossil insect found so far (a springtail) dates from this period. So does wood. The findings "suggest that wood evolved at least 10 million years earlier than previously documented."

450 million years ago: Horseshoe crabs are largely unchanged from then to today. Oddly, this remarkable stability is referred to as "strange evolution." That's rather like describing Michelangelo's David as engaging in "strange motion." Neural circuitry for complex social behavior also dates from this period, at least.

473 to 471 million years ago: Liverworts, the earliest known land plants,date back this far.

505 million years ago: Marine acorn worms appear. "Discovery pushes fossil record back 200 million years"

515 million years ago: The eyes of sea-dwelling predators are highly sophisticated, "rivaling the most acute compound eyes in modern arthropods." Cambrian animals also had modern hearts, "a sophisticated system complete with heart and blood vessels."

520 million years ago: Tulip-shaped entoproct is spotted, once thought to date back only to the age of the dinosaurs (150 mya).

525 million years ago: Pterobranches, a small colonial marine invertebrate, show little change from this period. The find "demonstrates stasis in pterobranch morphology, mode of coenecium construction, and probable feeding mechanism over 525 million years."

540 million years ago: Killer shrimp, nearly a meter long, lived this long ago. The study found that they were larger than expected and survived 30 million years longer as well, into the Ordovician era, 488 million to 472 million years ago.

550 million years ago: Comb jellies thrive, challenging the assumption that sponges were the most ancient animals: "They are much more complex than sponges -- they have nerves, muscles, tissue layers and light sensors, all of which the sponges lack."

555 million years ago: Worm tracks found.

550-560 million years ago: Oldest organism with a skeleton found, shaped like a thimble, with foot-long spines.

600 million years ago: Jellyfish that uses a light display lived at this time.

635-715 million years ago: Fossil tintinnid (paramecium-like one-celled organisms with flask-shaped shells) found.

760 million years ago: Otavia, earliest known animal, preyed on algae and bacteria during Snowball Earth. Its survival of the extreme circumstances presents "a challenge to contemporary scientific thought."

800 million years ago: Organisms formed shells (biomineralization). This is very early in the known history of life.

1.1-2.3 billion years ago: Complex (eukaryote) cells existed then. The study authors note, "Accurate estimation of the divergence time of the extant eukaryotes is a fundamentally important but extremely difficult problem owing primarily to gross violations of the molecular clock at long evolutionary distances and the lack of appropriate calibration points close to the date of interest."

2.3 billion years ago: Sulfur bacteria from this period look the same as bacteria today.

2.48 billion years ago: Oxygen-breathing bacteria that survive today lived on land, "100 million years earlier than previously thought."

3.3 billion years ago Beach-living microbes have been dated from this time.

The File Grows Unwieldy

Many more instances could be provided, but the file grows unwieldy already. Some of these finds, particularly the older ones, might need revision, but the recorded examples of stasis will almost certainly grow. Many life forms (and processes) just hang around indefinitely, while others come and go. Yet, even despite catastrophe, all life never died out.

We see a pattern of increasing complexity in the history of life, but that pattern requires some qualification: There were complex creatures in the Cambrian (see Anomalocaris, above). Although there is a great variety of complex life forms today, there is a great variety of simpler ones too. They are much more numerous. Humans, by far the most complex life form, are very late arrivals -- but we are unique. So it is not clear that there is a natural law favoring the growth of complexity.

How do evolutionary biologists address the picture? In the face of so many unexpected examples of stasis, defensive habits of thought and speech linger. Some examples:

Absurd levels of evidence for stasis are demanded:"We'll doubt evolution when we find fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian!" The challenge isn't whether to doubt evolution but how to interpret the pattern in a reasonable way. We should not expect rabbits, to be sure, unless we also expect the vegetation they live on. But what about this? A Boston College research team found fossils of freshwater multicellular animals from the pre-Cambrian, and reported:

These assemblages contain multicellular structures, complex-walled cysts, asymmetric organic structures, and dorsiventral, compressed organic thalli, some approaching one millimetre in diameter. They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1Gyr ago [one billion years ago] indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought.

Which is nearly twice as long ago as the Cambrian explosion.

Grasp at minor, reversible changes."See! Evolution at work! Finch beaks changed slightly in a dry period!" The trouble is, a 2011 study was the first to combine data from short periods such as 10-100 years with the fossil record over millions of years, and determined that "rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species." A change, the researchers reckoned, must persist for a million years to become permanent. If they are correct, most popular "evolution at work" stories do not pass this test. They are often best interpreted as ecology-driven variations back and forth on a given theme, like beak shape.

Finds that -- taken together -- suggest a pattern are treated as if they are unique.The classic phrase "earlier than thought" is used repeatedly to describe unrelated early fossil discoveries that suggest stasis. No wonder readers are seldom encouraged to see a pattern: Each "earlier than thought" shortens the time available for a Darwinian account of evolution from Earth's cooling to the present.

Choice of words often obscures basic facts. Consider, for example, Darwin's term "living fossil," which is admitted by New Scientist to be "oxymoronic." They are right. Only the fossil members of the species are dead; the living members are not fossils, and most will die without ever becoming fossils. "Durable species" might be a more appropriate term.

Then there are the everyday terms that cloud thinking: "Primitive," for instance, as in the "primitive woolly rhino fossil." That rhino species adapted to an ice age and became a dominant life form of its type. How primitive is that? "Missing link" assumes that a long, slow, orderly procession of missing links, like Mayor Bloomberg's Ida fossil, must exist. Why must they, when there is so much evidence of short periods of rapid change followed by long periods of stasis? Consider also the role of "surprising." Why is it "surprising" if a beetle is unchanged for 20 million years? If evolution is rare, occurring in short bursts, and stasis is the norm, then many existing life forms will turn out to be "older than thought." The approved terminology serves mainly to impede our grasp of the larger, largely non-Darwinian, pattern.

If the history of life is not what Darwin and his followers have supposed it to be, we should next look at what the big picture, taken together, can tell us.

Notes:

(1) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986), pp. 157, 179, 180. The fish is a rhipidistian, a group from which the ancestor of amphibians such as frogs and toads was thought to have come. So surely it must feature "transitional" anatomy. It doesn't. It is all fish and no frog.

Iconoclasm.

On the cause for doubt.

On Darwinian apologists' word games. V

Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact" or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics? (Part 5)
Casey Luskin 

Many intelligent people use the "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" line--but they immediately get into trouble because, as I discussed in Part 1, the formal scientific definition of theory is typically understood to mean a "well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world." In other words, when talking to a scientifically minded crowd, calling evolution "just a theory" is not a good way to express scientific doubts about neo-Darwinism. As I noted in a previous post, an article recently in The Scientist observed that, "public discontent with classical evolution as an inclusive theory stems partly from an intuitive appreciation of its limits." Thus those who call evolution "just a theory, not a fact" are trying to communicate some legitimate underlying truth about their scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism. They are simply using poor terminology to communicate their point.

Sadly, Darwinists often then ridicule or scold Darwin-skeptics who use the "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" line by treating them as ignorant or uninformed regarding the proper definition of theory. Let's explore what people really mean when they say "evolution is just a theory, not a fact," and then I'll offer some final advice regarding how Darwin-skeptics can effectively communicate their doubts about Darwin.

All I wanted to say is that I'm a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. How can I convey such skepticism without getting stepping on a semantic land mine and getting scolded by Darwinists?
Great scientific claims must be backed by great scientific evidence. When most people claim that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact," what they really mean is that there is not convincing scientific evidence to justify the great claim that all life is related through universal common ancestry and that it evolved via an process of unguided natural selection acting upon random mutation. Doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution might stem from:

The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features (see Opening Darwin's black box for a brief discussion);
The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution; (see The abrupt appearance of biological forms or Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record for discussions);
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent; (See Barking up the Wrong Tree for a brief discussion);
The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code; (see Problems with the Natural Chemical "Origin of Life" (updated) or The origin of life remains a mystery for discussions);
The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (see Evolving views of embryology for a discussion).
But how does one simply communicate such viewpoints without getting into semantic trouble? As I explained in Part 4, I don't recommend one-liner sound-byte arguments against evolution because they don't communicate anything about the content of the scientific deficiencies of neo-Darwinism. Here's why:

When someone says "evolution is just a theory," it sounds like the speaker cannot cite actual scientific evidence against evolution, and that the only objection the speaker can muster is based upon appealing to postmodern rhetoric which asserts that we really can't know if anything is true. The truth is that science is capable of studying the validity of historical scientific theories such as neo-Darwinism, but the "evolution is just a theory" line makes it sound like the speaker is not interested in studying or discussing that evidence. In the debate over evolution, discussions of evidence are what matter most. As stated previously, calling something a theory doesn't necessarily tell you about the state of the evidence. The best way to express dissent from evolution is to actually discuss its failure to explain the scientific evidence. 

The "evolution is just a theory" line can come off as if the speaker really thinks "evolution is just a guess, so I don't have to believe it if I don't want to." In fact, neo-Darwinian evolution as a whole is not merely a guess and most Darwinian scientists will provide reasons why they think it is the best explanation for the diversification of life. If you're like me, and you think that neo-Darwinian evolution has scientific problems, then you should be able to provide reasons beyond stating "it's just a theory." As noted above, the best strategy is for you to be prepared to give a few specific scientific reasons why you question Darwinian evolution.

But if you really must use short, one-liner sound-bytes to describe doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution, here is my advice: As we learned in Part 1, the technical definitions of theory do indeed mean "a more or less verified or established explanation," whereas a hypothesis has the meaning of "a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation." In this sense, when evolution is defined to include both universal common descent and a driving force of natural selection acting upon random mutation to produce the complexity of life (i.e. neo-Darwinian evolution), for Darwin-skeptics like me, such evolution is not a theory, nor is it fact. It is "just a hypothesis."

But as I noted above, it's best to give more information than one-liner sound-bytes. So I don't recommend that Darwin-skeptics go around saying "evolution is just a hypothesis," even though such a phrase would more-accurately use the technical definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis." What follows is a slightly longer description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism without falling into soundbyte arguments:

When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But Neo-Darwinian evolution--the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life--has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not tend to build complexity. According to the technical definitions of "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis," neo-Darwinian evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's just a hypothesis."
Closing Thoughts

In the end, my final advice for everyone is this: Whether you think "evolution" is "fact," "theory," or "hypothesis," or some combination thereof, it's important to use all of these terms carefully and if possible, define them when you use them. It's also important to have patience with those who may misuse these terms, for each of these terms can have multiple meanings, allowing ample opportunities for confusion and miscommunication in this highly-charged debate.