Speciation?

The accompanying is a reproduction of the discovery institute's article

Specious Speciation:

The Myth of Observed Large-Scale

Evolutionary Change


A Response to TalkOrigins’

"Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ


(Updated Sept. 9, 2013)


by Casey Luskin


Casey Luskin is Research Coordinator at the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. He holds both a B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego and has conducted geological research at the Scripps Institution for Oceanography. He is also a licensed attorney.



PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The TalkOrigins Speciation FAQ, titled "Observed Instances of Speciation"
1 (herein "FAQ"), claims it "discusses several instances where speciation has been observed." For years, this FAQ has been cited by pro-Darwin internet debaters as allegedly demonstrating that neo-Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change. However, an analysis of the technical literature regarding many of the examples discussed in the FAQ2 reveals that such claims are clearly incorrect. This assessment finds:


NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change.

 The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined according to the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population." Only one single example shows the production of a new species of plants via hybridization and polyploidy, but this example does not entail significant biological change.

 Only one of the examples purports to document the production of a reproductively isolated population of animals—
however this example is overturned by a later study not mentioned in the FAQ.

2


　

 Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals—e.g., the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population—is given in the FAQ.

I should note from the outset that my purpose is not to deny that speciation can occur in nature, especially when speciation is defined merely as a reproductively isolated population. When trying to assess the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism, that definition is trivial. Rather, my purpose is to test the FAQ’s claims. In that regard, if the FAQ is correct that "Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports [of speciation] in the literature," then an analysis of the literature cited in the FAQ suggests those researchers are wrong.


While most of the FAQ’s discussions of the papers it cites are reasonably accurate, these papers amount to citation bluffs if one is claiming to "discus[s] several instances where speciation has been observed." People who believe this FAQ demonstrates that Darwinian processes can produce large-scale biological change have been badly misled. The examples in the FAQ are ultimately used to make inaccurate claims, and the FAQ’s title, "Observed Instances of Speciation," is unwarranted.

PART II: "SPECIATION?" IT’S ALL IN THE DEFINITION.

The TalkOrigins "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ, claims to discuss "several instances where speciation has been observed." The most important question is whether these examples show significant biological change has occurred. But this analysis shows:


(1) As a primary finding, none of the examples demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is capable of causing large-scale evolutionary change.

 (2) As a secondary finding, the vast majority of the examples do not even meet the standard definition of "speciation."

To understand why both (1) and (2) are the case, we first need to understand the implications of how evolutionary biologists typically define "species."

Evolutionary biologists typically define "species" as a reproductively isolated population of individuals. For example, the FAQ quotes the great neo-Darwinian evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr defining a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." This classical definition is called the biological species concept. Under this standard definition, speciation entails the origin of such a reproductively isolated population. But does it entail anything else?

Not necessarily. Such definitions say nothing about the degree of morphological, behavioral, or genetic change that has evolved. Thus,
such a definition of "species" does not necessarily imply that significant biological change has taken place between the two populations. In many cases, two populations may be termed different "species" under the biological species concept, but yet the differences between the populations are small-scale and trivial. Indeed: 3

　

 One of the papers cited by the FAQ (Dodd, 1989) clearly states that speciation is reduced to mere reproductive isolation, "According to the biological species concept, speciation is basically a problem of reproductive isolation."3 Another paper (Schluter and Nagel, 1995) cited by the FAQ notes that under this definition species are "defined by the criterion of reproductive isolation rather than morphological criteria."4

 Yet even the notable evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1972) admits that under this view, "speciation may occur without rearrangement of the genetic materials in the chromosomes" and "Reproductive isolation evidently can arise with little or no morphological differentiation."5

 Putting these quotes, claims, and definitions together, papers cited by the FAQ admit that under the biological species concept, "speciation" does not require any morphological change.

As noted, the FAQ is often cited to explicitly or implicitly claim that Darwinian evolution is capable of producing significant biological change. But the FAQ’s definition of "speciation" seems contrived when used to demonstrate the grander claims of Darwinian evolution that fundamentally new biological structures, body plans, and higher taxa can evolve. Even if we do find reproductively isolated populations that document "speciation," that might provide virtually no evidence that Darwinian processes can produce new complex biological features or large-scale change.
Indeed, the primary finding of this analysis is that the examples in the FAQ do not report the kind of change which shows Darwinian processes can produce fundamentally new types of organisms, new complex biological structures, or higher taxa.

What is more, the vast majority of the examples in the FAQ don’t even document "speciation" under the biological species concept. One paper cited by the FAQ (Rice and Hostert, 1993) notes that "Once pre- and/or postzygotic isolation is complete, speciation has occurred."
6 But in the vast majority of the instances cited by the FAQ, pre- or postzygotic isolation was not complete, and thus speciation did not occur. Thus, a secondary finding of this report is that only one single paper analyzed in the entire FAQ actually reported complete reproductive isolation, and thus "speciation" under the biological species concept.

This raises an irony: the title of the FAQ is "Observed Instances of Speciation," yet the vast majority of the examples analyzed show that complete reproductive isolation was not achieved. Thus, the FAQ is overselling the evidence, not just for significant morphological change, but also for true speciation (e.g., complete reproductive isolation).
If these are some of the best examples for "speciation" that evolutionists can muster, then the evidence for Darwinian evolution must be meager indeed.

Before discussing this analysis of the FAQ, I must again reiterate that my purpose has never been to deny that speciation can occur in nature, especially when speciation is defined by the trivial definition of a mere reproductively isolated population. Rather, my purpose is to test the FAQ’s claims. 4


PART III: ANALYZING THE FAQ

Section 5.0 of the FAQ purports to provide "examples of observations of speciation," making this the section that needs to be studied to confirm if the evidence backs the FAQ’s claims.

Many of the references cited by the FAQ are old and were difficult to obtain. I downloaded whatever papers I could find online from my local university library and analyzed those examples.


A. Summary of Findings

The following table summarizes the findings of this review for the examples analyzed: FAQ Section:	Summary:
5.1.1.3, "Tragopogon"	Two plant species could hybridize into populations showing small-scale changes compared to the "parent species"—the greatest of which is color changes of the kind well known within plants. Since hybrids are "extremely sterile," it does not seem that speciation has occurred.
5.1.1.5 "Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)"	Two highly similar species of flowering plants within the same genus were crossed in the laboratory to produce a polyploid plant virtually identical to a known species in nature. This confirms the long-known fact that plants can hybridize to form new polyploid forms. But speciation by polyploidy does not produce new morphological characteristics, and the tetraploid daughter species showed only small-scale changes—the greatest of which is color changes of the kind well known within plants—from the parent species. Speciation by hybridization and polyploidy is not a viable mechanism for the vast majority of evolution because: (1) it occurs only within flowering plants, (2) it does not produce new morphological characteristics, and (3) polyploid hybrids cannot arise without pre-existing parent species, meaning it entails a collapse—not gain—of existing diversity.
5.1.1.8, "Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)"	An abnormal sporophyte ultimately led to tetraploid, rather than normal diploid sporophytes in a species of fern. No morphological change was reported and tetraploid sporophytes were "less vigorous" than normal. At best this evidence only "provided the opportunity to characterize the first step of one possible route to polyploid formation" as speciation was merely "incipient." Complete speciation was not observed and large-scale morphological change was not observed.
5.1.2, "Animals"	While hybrids can occasionally occur between very closely related animal species, generally speaking animal hybrids are "rare organisms" because hybridization is not a viable

On Jehovah's Firstborn.

This article is reproduced from Examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com

Some trinitarians insist that the literal "firstborn of all creation" describing Jesus at Col. 1:15 really means "the pre-eminent one over all creation."

"Firstborn" (prototokos) is an integral part of the Father = Source idiom so common in the Bible and is closely associated with "beginning" (arkhe) and "only-begotten" (monogenes).

Jehovah (who is the Father alone) is never referred to as "first-born" in any sense. Any person, animal, or thing who is ever called "first-born" in the Bible is always a part of Jehovah's creation and is literally the very first one born in a family with other children following (or figuratively the very first one in a line of others who share the quality or attribute under consideration).

If we are to understand the literal "first-born" to sometimes figuratively mean "pre-eminent" (as some trinitarians attempt to do - primarily to avoid the literal meaning of Col. 1:15: Jesus "the first-born of all creation" - see RSV), certainly it should, occasionally at least, be applied to the truly pre-eminent one of all, The Most High. But this never happens in the entire Bible!

The Most High (Pre-eminent One) is always the Father (Jehovah only) alone- see Mark 5:7; Luke 1:32; Luke 8:28; the parallel accounts of Luke 6:30-35 and Matt. 5:42-45; Ps. 83:18; and Ps. 7:17. But He is never called "firstborn" (or "only-begotten")!

The source or originator of all creation is the Father as the very title itself, "Father," tells us. Prototokos or "firstborn" is nearly always used, as the word literally tells us, to mean one who is the beginning of his Father's creative (or procreative) power. And, in fact, arkhe (obviously meaning "beginning") is often used in conjunction with prototokos. For example, the Greek Septuagint says at Gen. 49:3, "Ruben, thou art my first-born [prototokos] ... and the first [arkhe - 'beginning'] of my children." - Septuagint Version.

Even if prototokos could be used to mean "pre-eminent one," it's obvious that the terms "Father" (for the person who is the source and the superior of Jesus), "Son" (the person created by his Father, and in a subordinate, intermediary position to his Father), "only-begotten," "first-born," and "beginning of God's creation" all combine (with the most common understanding of those words by those who spoke and read them at that time) to only one possible conclusion: there was a time when only the Father ("the source") existed. Then, at some point, the Father brought another person into existence and this person was the first production of his creative powers, his "firstborn and the beginning of his creation."

Let's look at Col. 1:15,18:

"He [Christ] is the image of the unseen God and the first-born of all creation,.... As he is the beginning [arkhe], he was first to be born [first-born] from the dead, so that he should be first [proteuo] in every way" - The Jerusalem Bible.

Prototokos, used twice in this scripture, literally means "born first" - see Young's Analytical Concordance - or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. The New Testament in the King James Version and most other trinitarian translations use this meaning throughout. Here are all the instances of prototokos in the NT: Matt. 1:25 (King James only); Luke 2:7; Ro. 8:29; Col. 1:15; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:5, 6; Heb. 11:28; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 1:5 (compare Col. 1:18). None of them clearly means "pre-eminent" (although you might be able to "interpret" a few of them as either "first-born" or "pre-eminent" if you tried).

Not only do all of these scriptures that use prototokos have either the certain or the most probable meaning of "first-born," but we rarely (if ever) see any Bible translate them as anything but "first-born" or its literal equivalent except at Col. 1:15-18 where the actual meaning would disprove a trinity concept! A few trinitarian translations force an improper interpretation for prototokos at this scripture only (e.g. NIV, NEB).

It is true that being first-born in a family was strongly connected with pre-eminence. The one born first was usually supposed to be the one to receive the birthright and pre-eminence within that family.

But notice the blessings given by Jacob at Gen. 49:3, 8-12, 22-26. The blessings given to Judah and Joseph identify them as the true "pre-eminent ones" of his sons. Reuben, the literal first-born, lost pre-eminence even though he continued to be known as the "first-born" (prototokos in the Septuagint) in the family of Jacob and the "beginning" (arkhe) of Jacob's family - Gen. 49:3, 4; 1 Chronicles 5:1-3 – RSV.

Be careful not to confuse the rights usually given to the first-born with the person of the first-born. The one actually born first (or first in time in any figurative sense) was known as the "first-born." In literal families this first-born was supposed to receive pre-eminence in that family upon the death of his father because of his being born first (in time).

"The first-born son's privileges and responsibilities are known as his `birthright' (bekorah)." - New Bible Dictionary, 1982, p. 378.

At times, however, a first-born would lose his rights (and pre-eminence over the other sons), and they would be given to another son. Even though this person had lost his birthright (and pre-eminence among his brothers), he was still the first-born! - Examine 1 Chronicles 5:1-3 in most Bible translations (e.g., Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV, NAB, JB, etc.) For example, even though Esau lost his birthright to Jacob, he still remained forever Isaac's firstborn.[14]

Yes, the use of the word prototokos in the Bible always means one who has come into existence first in time - before all the rest of his "brothers" - the beginning (arkhe) of his father's creative (or procreative) works. - see pp. 77-88 in Dr. Jason BeDuhn's Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.

Some trinitarians, however, still insist that the Biblical use of the Greek prototokos can, sometimes, mean "pre-eminent" because they dare not admit the obvious, true, literal meaning of Col. 1:15. Their "evidence" for an interpretation of "pre-eminent" for this word boils down to only 7 examples. Five from the Old Testament (Ps. 89:27; Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Deut. 21:16, 17; and, rarely, Job 18:13) and, sometimes, an appeal to Ro. 8:29 and Col. 1:18 in the New Testament. - See Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 123.

These 7 examples, then, must be the very best "evidence" possible since there are well over 100 other examples of prototokos found in the Bible, the vast majority of which clearly show by context alone that "firstborn" (in time) is the intended meaning.

The first example, Ps. 89:27, has God saying about "David, my servant" that

"he shall call upon me, saying, `Thou art my Father, my God.... And I will make him firstborn [prototokos], higher than the kings of the earth.... my covenant shall be firm with him." - Septuagint. (Cf., KJV, ASV).

It is true that David was not the firstborn of his father Jesse, nor was he the first king of Israel. However, the first king of Israel, Saul, was rejected by God and removed from God's throne, no longer God's king. The second king of Israel, David, was the first king to remain faithful until his death and, hence, the "firstborn" of all the faithful kings of Israel who will be resurrected by God. He will be "firstborn" (first in time on Israel's throne) among all those kings who will return. However, he certainly will not be pre-eminent over one of those other kings who is his descendent: Jesus Christ.

We also find that David is the first king whom God made a covenant with for an "everlasting kingdom" - 2 Sam. 7:12-16. [He is also the first of the descendants of Judah who are to rule forever (Saul was descended from Benjamin) - Gen. 49:10] He may be considered "firstborn" in this sense, also.

So we can see that Saul was the first king of Israel, but he didn't remain faithful to God ["call upon me, saying `thou art my Father, my God'"]. The very first king of Israel to remain faithful to God was David. In that sense, then, David became "firstborn" [of all succeeding faithful earthly kings of Israel].

However, the later fulfillment of Ps. 89:27 is in the person of Jesus Christ (who is the firstborn of God in another sense) and not the literal David. We see the Messiah being called, figuratively, "David, my servant" at Ezekiel 34:23, 24 just as he is in this Psalm (89:20). We see the final fulfillment of Ps. 89:26-29 in Jesus Christ (Luke 1:32, 33; Heb. 1:5, 6; Jn 20:17).

The second example (Ex. 4:22) is probably the most-used by those trinitarians attempting to prove a "pre-eminent" meaning for prototokos. Here is how it is worded in the Septuagint: God says, "Israel is [the] firstborn [prototokos] son of me." Context reveals that this is the nation of Israel which Jehovah is calling his "firstborn." So in what sense was Israel first in time in relation to Jehovah? It was the first nation to be chosen by him. It has always (since the time of Moses) been the first, but it has certainly never been "pre-eminent" among the nations!

And, of course, we must not change the inspired writer's genitive noun ("of me") in this verse to "over me" as has been done at Col. 1:15 in a few trinitarian Bibles (e.g. NIV). How ridiculous to "interpret" this so that God says: "Israel is the `pre-eminent one' OVER me"! (But, of course, this is precisely what some trinitarians have done with Col. 1:15 - "the pre-eminent one over all creation"!!

God's calling the nation of Israel his "firstborn son" obviously means the first nation he has caused to come into existence to be his own (and others must someday follow).

The third example (Jer. 31:9) is actually found at Jer. 38:9 in the Septuagint). Again God is speaking of the nation of Israel (see context of entire chapter): "I have become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is [the] firstborn [prototokos] OF me."

So how can we understand Ephraim being Jehovah's "firstborn"? - Jer. 31:9.

Here Ephraim is obviously called Jehovah's firstborn in some figurative sense. (The person, Ephraim, was, of course, long dead at this time.) Certainly neither Ephraim, nor even the tribe of Ephraim, was ever Jehovah's "pre-eminent one" or (more parallel to the trinitarian interpretation of Col. 1:15) "the pre-eminent one OVER Jehovah"!

So to explain the use of "firstborn" at Jer. 31:9, the very trinitarian ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., tells us that

"as [the tribe of] Ephraim is restored, so is all Israel" - p. 954.

This interpretation shows the understanding that the tribe of Ephraim is to be restored first in time ("firstborn"), and then the rest of Israel is to be restored. Notice there is no "pre-eminence" interpretation by these highly respected trinitarian scholars!

Another possibility suggested by trinitarians for "firstborn" at Jer. 31:9 is that, since the land of the tribe of Ephraim is where "the original [first] place of worship [the tabernacle] from the time of Joshua to that of Samuel" - (NAB, St. Joseph ed., p. 902) - was located, in Shiloh, it is God's "firstborn" in that respect (again in the sense of first in time). Or, as explained in Jer. 7:12,

"Go now to my place that was in Shiloh [in `Ephraim'] where I made my name dwell at first" - RSV, NRSV, NIV, and cf. NAB (`91) "in the beginning."

But the trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, p. 306, Zondervan, 1986, gives us the most probable explanation: the nation of Israel was also called `Ephraim' "by the contemporary prophets, e.g., Isa. 7:1-9, after the central region associated with the name of the younger of the two sons of Joseph."

So we merely have a parallelism at Jer. 31:9 - (1) "I, Jehovah, am a father (I created it) to the nation of Israel, and (2) `Ephraim' (`Israel') is the first nation I have created (`first-born')." - Compare the parallelism at Hosea 11:8. Again we see a confirmation of Ex. 4:22 (the 2^nd "example" above) that Israel was the first nation formed at God's direction, and no hint of "pre-eminence" but only the meaning of first in time for "firstborn"! (This is simply one of the many scriptural uses of "Father," "Son," [or "Firstborn," "onlybegotten," etc.] and "brought forth" [or "begot"] to figuratively describe the CREATOR of something and his CREATION!)

And, again, how absurd it would be to interpret this as "Ephraim is the `pre-eminent one' over me [God]."

The 4th example seems, perhaps, the weakest of all of those cited in the OT, but no less an authority than the very trinitarian Biblical Greek scholar W. E. Vine points to Deut. 21:16, 17 as evidence for a "pre-eminent" interpretation for "first-born." The Septuagint reads:

(15) "And if a man have two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and both the loved [wife] and the hated [wife] should have born him children, and the son of the hated should be first-born [prototokos]; (16) then it shall be that whensoever he shall divide by inheritance his goods to his sons, he shall not be able to give the right of the firstborn to the son of the loved one, having overlooked the son of the hated, which is the firstborn [prototokos]. (17) But he shall acknowledge the firstborn [prototokos] of the hated one [wife] to give to him double of all things which shall be found by him, because he is the first [arkhe: beginning] of his children, and to him belongs the birthright." - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

It is obvious that prototokos here means only "one born first." The birthright itself must not be confused with the one it is usually given to: the firstborn (prototokos)! And to "interpret" verse 17 as "he shall acknowledge the `pre-eminent one' OVER the hated [wife]" is clearly ludicrous!

Another example from the OT sometimes used by trinitarians can be found at Job 18:13 -

"His skin is devoured by disease, The firstborn of death devours his limbs" - NASB.

A few trinitarians attempt to interpret this as an example of "firstborn" meaning "pre-eminent" or "foremost." But there is no honest reason to insist that "the firstborn of death" at Job 18:13 must mean something like "the principal disease" (JB footnote). In the first place, to be parallel with the trinitarian-concocted understanding of Col. 1:15 it would have to be interpreted as "the pre-eminent one over death" - which it clearly does not and can not! In the second place, a careful study will reveal that this scripture is literally calling the disease which ravages the wicked man "the firstborn son of death": the first child (or creation) produced by the "god of death."

The NIV Study Bible (1985 ed.) tells us in the footnote for Job 18:13: "death's firstborn. See 5:7." And the footnote for Job 5:7 says:

"sparks. Lit[erally] `sons of Resheph.' In Canaanite mythology, Resheph was a god of plague and destruction [death]. `(Sons of) Resheph' is used as a poetic image in the OT for fire (SS 8:6), bolts of lightning (Ps 78:48) and pestilence (Dt 32:24; Hab 3:5)."

Obviously the NIVSB has referred "death's firstborn" at Job 18:13 to "Sons of Resheph [Death]" to show that the poetic image used in the OT has more than one son attributed to Resheph. Apparently the firstborn of those sons (the first "son" Resheph created) was pestilence. And it is this pestilence (the 'first born of Death') that "eats away parts of his skin ... [and] devours his limbs" at Job 18:13. (This is why the New English Bible renders Job 18:13 as "Death's eldest child.")

A related interpretation (which I prefer):

"[even] the firstborn of death shall devour his strength; ....

"it signifies not what presides over death, but what death first produces, which are corruption and rottenness, dust and worms; these are the firstborn of death, or the firstfruits and effects of it, and which devour and destroy not the skin only, but the whole body and all its members" - The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible.

The first of the two NT examples sometimes used by trinitarians is Ro. 8:29 -

"Those Christians whom he [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn [prototokos] AMONG many brethren." - RSV.

I have found no Bible (trinitarian or otherwise) which renders this scripture with a meaning of "pre-eminent one over many brothers" in spite of the interpretation a few trinitarian "scholars" attempt to give it. Since the word "among" (en in the NT Greek), not "over," is used here, it cannot honestly be rendered as these trinitarians would like. In fact these trinitarian Bibles translate it as "eldest [prototokos] among many brethren" - NEB, REB, CBW, JB, NJB, AT, and Weymouth. This clearly shows the intended meaning of prototokos as first in time not "pre-eminence" (as a careful study of the context also confirms).

As for the other NT "example," Col. 1:18, "proving" the possibility of a "pre-eminent" interpretation for prototokos, all we have to do is examine Col. 1:15-18 carefully.

We see prototokos clearly meaning "the one born (or reborn) first" at 1:18 where Jesus is the firstborn (or first to return from death to eternal life) from the dead.

To make it even clearer, the trinitarian The Jerusalem Bible (cf. NEB; REB; and Beck) translates it: "first to be born from the dead." - Compare 1 Cor. 15:20, 23 and Rev. 1:5. Surely there is no doubt that first in time is intended here, not "pre-eminence."

"firstborn. Christ was the first to rise from the dead with a resurrection body. .... Others who were raised from the dead ... were raised only to die again." - The NIV Study Bible footnote for Col. 1:18.)

It is also very plain that Paul frequently speaks of certain Christians being resurrected as spirit persons in heaven and that Jesus was the firstborn of these dead, i.e. the first of many persons who are to be resurrected to eternal life in heaven.

1 Cor. 15:20 - "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits [`the first of millions' - LB; `the very first to rise' - Phillips] of those who have fallen asleep." - RSV and many others.

1 Cor. 15:49 - "Just as we [faithful Christians who have the hope of being resurrected to heaven] have borne the image of the man of dust [Adam], we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [Jesus]."

The Apostle John also writes of this truth and also uses the term "first-born" to describe it: "and Jesus Christ ... the firstborn [prototokos] of the dead" - Rev. 1:5, RSV. Or "first to be raised from death" - GNB; also see LB, Beck, and Beck (NT)). Even the extremely trinitarian The Amplified Bible explains "firstborn of the dead" at Rev. 1:5 as, "that is, first to be brought back to life."

Rev. 2:8 makes a similar statement, but could be phrased as the "only-begotten" from the dead (in the sense that Jesus is the only one to be raised to heavenly life by God Himself. All others are to be raised through Jesus). "The first and the last" simply means the only one in some sense. Adam, for example, was the 'first and the last' in the sense that he was the only one to be created directly from the elements of the earth.

This "firstborn" and "only-begotten" concept for the second creation (resurrection to eternal life) also explains why Jesus can be called the firstborn and the "only-begotten" in another sense: The first of God's creation ("Firstborn") and the only one ('only-begotten') created directly by God Himself.

These examples in Revelation are therefore clearly a repetition of this same well-established truth that Paul is restating at Col. 1:18.

We cannot seriously believe that Paul is telling us at Col. 1:18 that Jesus is the "pre-eminent one" over the dead. Especially since the actual wording by Paul is "the beginning [arkhe], firstborn [prototokos] OUT OF [ek] the dead." - see any interlinear New Testament (or as also confirmed by John "The firstborn OF the dead." - Rev. 1:5). There can be no honest doubt that Col. 1:18 does not mean "pre-eminent one OVER the dead"! It clearly means "the first one resurrected to eternal life in the `new creation'."

Remember, the above 7 examples are the very best "proof" available to desperate trinitarian scholars that prototokos can mean "pre-eminent" in Bible usage! But even they (like the more than one hundred other examples of prototokos in the Bible) show that only firstborn in time is meant.

Now notice how the first use of prototokos (in Col. 1:15 - "the first-born of all creation") is used as a complement for the second use of prototokos (in Col. 1:18 - "the first-born from the dead").

That is, being "firstborn of all creation" is equated with and added to being "firstborn from the dead" (or first of the final creation - the ones who will receive eternal life). When these two "firstborns" (the first and the last) are added together the sum is one who is "first [proteuo] in everything" - Col. 1:18, JB, NWT, Living Bible (also known as The Book and The Word), and the New Testament in the Language of Today (Beck).

(Also notice how the ancient Aramaic text renders Col. 1:18 - "he is the beginning, the firstfruits of the resurrection from the dead, that in all things he might be first." - Lamsa. Compare 1 Cor. 15:20 - "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep [in death]." - NASB.) In both cases -'firstborn' and 'firstfruits' - we understand the meaning as the first one produced.)

To insist on a literal "born" (rather than the figurative first "created") in Col. 1:15-18 would mean that we must also understand him as literal vegetation ("fruit") at 1 Cor. 15:20 instead of the figurative 'first one produced or created from the dead'!

So when the distinction of being the very first person to be resurrected to eternal life in the "last creation" is added to the distinction of being the very first of God's original creation, we truly have a person who was the very "first in everything." (Proteuo is often translated "pre-eminent" for this verse. It literally means, however, either `to be first' or 'hold the first place' - Thayer. It derives from protos which means first in time, place, or rank - Thayer.)

"Jesus was the first-born (prototokos) of his mother (Mt. 1:25; Lk. 2:7) .... Jesus is also the first-born of his heavenly Father. He is the first-born of all creation...(Col. 1:15-17). Similarly, he is the first-born in the new creation by being raised first from the dead" - New Bible Dictionary, (2nd ed.), 1982, p. 378, Tyndale House Publ.

This respected trinitarian publication clearly admits, then, that "firstborn" is used in the same way ("very first in time") for each of these scriptural uses of prototokos for Jesus: Jesus was the very first child Mary brought into existence (Matthew 1:25); Jesus was the very first person brought into existence in the new creation (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:20; Rev. 1:5); and Jesus was the very first thing brought into existence in God's first creation!!

Furthermore, these two "first-borns" of Col. 1:15 and Col. 1:18 must closely parallel each other in meaning to make the comparison (or "addition") sensible and complete! They are of like kind (firstborn in time, not "pre-eminence") so they can be added together and summed up: "So that he should be first in everything." - Col. 1:18. It would be inappropriate to have the first use of prototokos (Col. 1:15) mean "pre-eminent" for the first creation and the second use of prototokos (Col. 1:18) mean (as it so obviously does) "first in time" for the "last creation."

So Paul is probably making a play on words with the two definitions of proteuo when he sums up by saying Jesus is "first [proteuo] in everything." He must intend the meaning of `first in time' to agree with the rest of his metaphor.

There is no proper reason to change the intended meaning of prototokos at Col. 1:15 so that it differs from every other Bible use of the word. The only reason that some trinitarians attempt to interpret it as "pre-eminent one" is that they don't like what it actually, literally says!

Finally, notice that even if Col. 1:15 could be properly translated as "the pre-eminent one of all creation," it could only mean one thing: that he is the highest one of all created things (that is, he IS ONE OF THOSE CREATED THINGS)!

It cannot mean that he is the highest individual over all created things. This is an impossible interpretation for two reasons:

(1) The word "pre-eminent" actually rules out the possibility of a double interpretation. For example: "The leader OF the wolves" is capable of a double interpretation: (A) "The Leader" could be one of the wolves himself. And (B), although unlikely, it is possible that the leader of the wolves is not one of the wolves himself. It is possible that he is a dog, coyote, or even a man. However, the phrase "smartest (or `smartest one') OF the wolves" does not allow for such an ambiguity, and it is, therefore, certain that this "smartest one" IS one of those wolves.

"Pre-eminent" (or "pre-eminent one"), like "smartest" (or "smartest one"), also does not allow for that ambiguity. The "pre-eminent one OF creation" has to be a part of that creation himself!

(2) As we have already seen, the Bible clearly and repeatedly states that Jehovah (the Father alone) is pre-eminent over all creation. Therefore Jesus cannot be the pre-eminent one over all creation but is the first creation of God!

We have also seen that in the Bible the term "firstborn of ..." never means "pre-eminent one over ..."! "Firstborn of Abraham" for example never means the "pre-eminent one over Abraham." Even if we could properly allow "pre-eminent" as a meaning for prototokos, it would mean no more than "pre-eminent one of Abraham's creation (or procreation)"! Whenever anyone calls Jesus the firstborn son of God, it plainly means the first of the "children" God has produced. (Obviously it does not mean "the pre-eminent one over God.") Therefore, when Jesus is called the firstborn of creation, it clearly means that he is the first of that creation that God has produced.

And, again, even if "firstborn" could mean "pre-eminent one," Col. 1:15 would still be saying that Jesus is the "pre-eminent one" of creation. In other words, he is part of that creation, albeit the first and highest part!

We should also consider that those whom God calls son are those whom he has created: Luke 3:38; Rev. 21:7; Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; Ps. 89:6 [f.n. in RSV and compare LB]; Gal. 3:26. Jesus' very title, the Son of God, indicates that he was created. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia tells us that angels are called `sons of God' in the Scriptures. Then it states:

"the creation of angels is referred to in Ps 148 2, 5 (cf Col 1 16). They were present [in the beginning] at the creation of the world ... (Job 38 7)." - pp. 132, 133, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

In the very same way, those who are said to be the "image" of God are not God himself (he's obviously not his own image) but a part of God's creation! Notice who the image of God is in these scriptures: Gen. 1:26; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:18.

Therefore, when Col. 1:15 says Jesus is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (RSV), we know Paul is speaking of someone who is the very first creation made by God (and was created "in his image" long before man was also created "in his image")! - Cf. Gen. 1:26, 27. - See the IMAGE study paper.

There are only two valid, scriptural understandings for "firstborn of ...." If it is used with a single individual (e.g., `firstborn of Moses'), then it means the firstborn has been produced (or created) by that individual. If it is used with a group of individuals (e.g., `firstborn of the herd' - Deut. 12:6; 15:19; `firstborn of our sons' - Neh 10:36), then it always means one who was produced as a part of that group!

That's why, for example, "the firstborn" at 2 Chron. 21:3 may be understood only as either "the firstborn of Jehoshaphat" or "the firstborn of all Jehoshaphat's children." In the first case the firstborn is the first production (or creation) by Jehoshaphat. In the second case the firstborn is the first to be created of all Jehoshaphat's CHILDREN. But in either case it is speaking of the first one created!

Clearly, then, if Jesus is called the firstborn of God, he is being identified as the one first produced by God. And when he is called the firstborn of creation (a group of individuals), he is being identified as one who was produced or created as a part of that group. In other words: Out of all things created by God, Jesus was the very first.

* * * * *

Some anti-Watchtower writer has evidently come up with an idea that I have seen used in letters to fellow Christians here in Ketchikan. The argument usually goes like this: "If Paul had really meant `the first creation by God' at Col. 1:15, he would have used the word protoktistos which means `first creation' instead of prototokos." (Notice the argument here is not that proto doesn't actually mean "first in time" but that ktistos ["creation"] is more appropriate than tokos ["born"]!)

I do know, however, that protoktistos was never used by any inspired NT scripture writer. It should certainly be no surprise, therefore, to learn that it isn't used at Col. 1:15, 18 !

Furthermore, the Bible frequently uses the word for "born" in place of "made" or "created" as would be expected from the common Bible idiom of "Father" as creator or source - Ps. 90:2 ("brought forth" in some translations is the Hebrew word for "born"); Is. 66:8-9; Job 38:28-30; Prov. 8:24-25. So not only was protoktistos not used in the NT at all, it was completely unnecessary because "first-born" could be used with the very same meaning!

Collateral damage II,

Taken for a ride.

On bread from heaven.

A reproduction of the reform study bible's commentary on John6:32

 

6:32 the true bread from heaven. The word “true” has a special meaning. Jesus refers to what is everlasting, as opposed to something merely representative. The bread God provided through Moses (Ex. 16; Num. 11) was only material and temporary, not spiritual and eternal. See note at 4:24.

 

 A reproduction of the reform study bible's commentary on revelation2:17

 

 

2:17 hidden manna. Perhaps an allusion to the manna preserved in the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle (Ex. 16:33–35; Heb. 9:4). Christ promises to nourish the faithful with an unfailing supply of heavenly, spiritual food (John 6:32–58).

 

In other words the physical relief  brought about by the miracles That Jehovah empowered is apostles(including Christ and his apostles) to perform in bible times was only temporary and relatively incomplete,and an allusion to something permanent and complete.

 Isaiah33:24NKJV"And the inhabitant will not say,"I am sick";The people who dwell in it will be forgiven their iniquity"

"The stones will cry out"

On why the Christianity one sees today often bears little resemblance to the Christianity one reads of in the scriptures.

The following is a reproduction of the watchtower society's article

MAN OF LAWLESSNESS

An expression used by the apostle Paul at 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3 in warning of the great anti-Christian apostasy that would develop before “the day of Jehovah.” The Greek word for “apostasy” here used, a·po·sta·si′a, denotes more than a mere falling away, an indifferent sliding back. It means a defection, a revolt, a planned, deliberate rebellion. In ancient papyrus documents a·po·sta·si′a was used politically of rebels.

A Religious Revolt. This rebellion, however, is not a political one. It is a religious one, a revolt against Jehovah God and Jesus Christ and therefore against the Christian congregation.

Foretold. Other forecasts of this apostasy were made by the apostles Paul and Peter both verbally and in writing, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself warned of its coming. In his illustration of the wheat and the weeds (Mt 13), Jesus said that the Devil would sow “weeds,” imitation Christians, “sons of the wicked one,” among the “wheat,” the “sons of the kingdom.” These would exist until the conclusion of the system of things, when they would be identified and ‘burned up.’

Paul warned the Christian overseers of Ephesus that after his going away “oppressive wolves” would enter in among true Christians and would not treat the flock with tenderness but would try to draw away “the disciples” after themselves (not just making disciples for themselves but trying to draw away the disciples, Christ’s disciples). (Ac 20:29, 30) He wrote, at 1 Timothy 4:1-3: “However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron [feelingless, seared, so that they do not feel any twinges of conscience because of hypocritically speaking lies]; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving.”

Paul later wrote to Timothy that “there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth.”—2Ti 4:3, 4.

The apostle Peter drew a parallel between the apostasy from Christianity and that which occurred in the natural house of Israel. He said: “However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.” Peter goes on to point out that these would exploit the congregation but that “the destruction of them is not slumbering.”—2Pe 2:1-3.

A composite “man.” The “man” of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is, therefore, not an individual, but a composite “man,” a collective group, as the foregoing scriptures show, and this “man” was to continue after the apostles’ death and exist down until the time of the Lord’s presence.

Treason against God. The “lawlessness” that this composite apostate “man” commits is lawlessness against Jehovah God the Universal Sovereign. This “man” is guilty of treason. He is called “the son of destruction,” as was Judas Iscariot, the traitor who betrayed the Lord Jesus Christ and who was instrumental in bringing about his death. He, like Judas, is to be annihilated, sent into extinction forever. This “man” is not “Babylon the Great,” who also fights against God, for she is a woman, a harlot. However, since he carries on a religious rebellion against God, he is evidently a part of mystic Babylon.—Joh 17:12; Re 17:3, 5.

“The man of lawlessness” sets himself in opposition to God and is therefore a “satan,” which means “resister.” And, indeed, his “presence is according to the operation of Satan.” (2Th 2:9) In the days of the apostle Paul, there was “mystery,” or a religious secret, about the identity of this “man of lawlessness.” To this day mystery shrouds his identity in the minds of many persons, because his wickedness is practiced under the guise of godly devotion. (2Th 2:7) By his lying teachings contrary to or superseding, as it were, the law of God, “the man of lawlessness” sets himself up over Jehovah God and other ‘gods,’ mighty ones of the earth, and also against God’s holy ones, true spiritual brothers of Jesus Christ. (Compare 2Pe 2:10-13.) Since he is a hypocrite, a false teacher claiming to be Christian, he “sits down in the temple of The God,” that is, what such false teachers claim to be that temple.—2Th 2:4.

A restraint. Paul speaks of “the thing that acts as a restraint.” (2Th 2:6) It appears that the apostles constituted this restraint. Paul had told the Ephesian overseers that after his going away wolflike men would enter in. (Ac 20:29) He repeatedly wrote admonitions about such apostasy not only here in Second Thessalonians but in many exhortations to Timothy. And he counseled Timothy to commit the things he had heard from Paul to faithful men who would be qualified to teach others. He spoke of the congregation of the living God as being “a pillar and support of the truth.” He wanted it built up as strongly as possible before the great apostasy blossomed out.—2Ti 2:2; 1Ti 3:15.

Much later, at the command of Christ, the apostle John was told to write, warning against sects, mentioning especially the sect of Nicolaus and speaking of false prophets like Balaam and of the woman Jezebel who called herself a prophetess.—Re 2:6, 14, 15, 20.

At work in apostles’ days. The apostle Paul said that the mystery was “already at work.” (2Th 2:7) There were those trying to teach false doctrine, some of these even disturbing the Thessalonian congregation, prompting, in part, the writing of his second letter to them. There were antichrists when John wrote his letters, and doubtless before that. John spoke of “the last hour” of the apostolic period, and said: “Just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists . . . They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort.”—1Jo 2:18, 19; see ANTICHRIST.

Revealed. Following the apostles’ death, “the man of lawlessness” came out into the open with his religious hypocrisy and false teachings. (2Th 2:3, 6, 8) According to Paul’s words, this “man” would gain great power, operating under Satan’s control, performing “every powerful work and lying signs and portents.” Persons deceived by the operation of the composite “man of lawlessness” are referred to as “those who are perishing [literally, “destroying themselves”], as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved.” The apostle shows that they “get to believing the lie” and they will all “be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Th 2:9-12; see Int.) The judgment is therefore a condemnatory one.—See RESURRECTION (Sin against the holy spirit).

Destroyed. This composite, hypocritical “man of lawlessness” is to be done away with by the Lord Jesus “by the spirit of his mouth” and brought to nothing “by the manifestation of his presence.” The annihilation of this wicked opposer of God will be visible, concrete proof that the Lord Jesus Christ is sitting and acting as Judge. He will not judge according to his own standards, hence the destruction “by the spirit of his mouth” evidently means in expression of Jehovah’s judgment against this wicked class of persons.—2Th 2:8; compare Re 19:21, as to “the long sword . . . which sword proceeded out of his mouth"

it-2 p. 311-312

No end in sight IV

Spy vs Spy.

Rotten to the core III

Letting the puzzle solve itself

The following is a reproduction of the watchtower society's article 

THE WATCHTOWER (STUDY EDITION) 2006-08-15

“Let Us Compare Scripture With Scripture”

A MAN found a pamphlet on the floor of a railway car bound for New York City. ‘The human soul is mortal,’ said the pamphlet. Intrigued, the man, a minister, started to read. He was amazed because he had never before doubted the teaching of the immortality of the soul. At the time, he could not tell who had written the pamphlet. Still, he found the argument plausible and Scriptural and the material worthy of serious study.

The minister was George Storrs. The incident took place in 1837, the year that Charles Darwin first recorded in his notebook thoughts that would later develop into his theory of evolution. The world was still religious, and most people believed in God. Many read the Bible and looked up to it as having authority.

Storrs later found out that the pamphlet was written by Henry Grew of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Grew held fast to the principle that “the scripture . . . is its own best interpreter.” Grew and his associates had been studying the Bible with the aim of conforming their lives and activities to its counsel. Their studies revealed some beautiful Scriptural truths.

Stimulated by Grew’s writing, Storrs carefully looked into what the Scriptures had to say about the soul and discussed the matter with some of his fellow ministers. After five years of serious study, Storrs finally decided to publicize his newly found gem of Scriptural truth. At first, he prepared one sermon to give on a Sunday in 1842. However, he felt the need to give a few more sermons to do justice to the subject. Eventually, his sermons on the mortality of the human soul numbered six, which he published in Six Sermons. Storrs compared scripture with scripture in order to uncover the beautiful truth buried beneath the God-dishonoring doctrines of Christendom.

Does the Bible Teach the Immortality of the Soul?

The Bible speaks of Jesus’ anointed followers putting on immortality as a reward for their faithfulness. (1 Corinthians 15:50-56) If immortality is a reward for the faithful, Storrs reasoned, the soul of the wicked cannot be immortal. Instead of speculating, he went to the Scriptures. He considered Matthew 10:28, King James Version, which reads: “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” So the soul can be destroyed. He also referred to Ezekiel 18:4, which says: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (KJ) When the whole Bible was put into perspective, the beauty of the truth stood out. “If the view I take of this subject be correct,” wrote Storrs, “then many portions of Scripture, which have been obscure on the common theory, become clear, beautiful and full of meaning and force.”

But what about scriptures like Jude 7? It reads: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (KJ) Reading this text, some may conclude that the souls of those who were killed in Sodom and Gomorrah are tormented by fire forever. “Let us compare Scripture with Scripture,” wrote Storrs. He then quoted 2 Peter 2:5, 6, which reads: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah . . . , bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” (KJ) Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah were turned into ashes, destroyed forever with their inhabitants.

“Peter throws light on Jude,” Storrs explained. “Both together show most clearly what displeasures God has manifested against sinners. . . . Those judgments inflicted on the old world, Sodom and Gomorrah, are a standing, and perpetual, or ‘eternal’ admonition, warning, or ‘example’ to all men to the end of the world.” So Jude referred to the effect of the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah as eternal. That in no way alters the fact that the human soul is mortal.

Storrs was not putting together scriptures that supported his view while ignoring others. He considered the context of each text as well as the overall tenor of the Bible. If a verse seemed to contradict other scriptures, Storrs looked into the rest of the Bible for a logical explanation.

Russell’s Studies in the Scriptures

Among those who became associated with George Storrs was a young man who was organizing a Bible study group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His name was Charles Taze Russell. One of his first articles on Scriptural themes was published in 1876 in the magazine Bible Examiner, edited by Storrs. Russell acknowledged that earlier Bible students had an influence on him. Later, as the editor of Zion’s Watch Tower, he appreciated Storrs’ giving him much assistance, by both word and pen.

At the age of 18, C. T. Russell organized a Bible study class and established a pattern for studying the Bible. A. H. Macmillan, a Bible student associated with Russell, described this method: “Someone would raise a question. They would discuss it. They would look up all related scriptures on the point and then, when they were satisfied on the harmony of these texts, they would finally state their conclusion and make a record of it.”

Russell was convinced that the Bible, when taken as a whole, must reveal a message harmonious and consistent with itself and with the character of its Divine Author. Whenever any part of the Bible seemed difficult to understand, Russell felt that it should be clarified and interpreted by other parts of the Bible.

Bible students in the 19th century who let Scripture explain scripture: George Storrs, Henry Grew, Charles Taze Russell, A. H. Macmillan

Scriptural Tradition

However, neither Russell nor Storrs nor Grew was the first to let the Scriptures become their own interpreter. The tradition goes all the way back to the Founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ. He used a number of scriptures to clarify the true meaning of a text. For instance, when the Pharisees criticized his disciples for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus demonstrated from the account recorded at 1 Samuel 21:6 how the Sabbath law should be applied. The religious leaders were familiar with that account, in which David and his men ate the loaves of presentation. Jesus then referred to the part of the Law that said that only the Aaronic priests were to eat the showbread. (Exodus 29:32, 33; Leviticus 24:9) Still, David was told to go ahead and eat the loaves. Jesus concluded his persuasive argument by quoting from the book of Hosea: “If you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.” (Matthew 12:1-8) What a wonderful example of comparing a scripture with other scriptures to reach an accurate understanding!

The apostle Paul proved his point by references to scriptures

Jesus’ followers held to the pattern of using scripture references to shed light upon a scripture. When the apostle Paul taught people in Thessalonica, “he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead.” (Acts 17:2, 3) In his divinely inspired letters too, Paul let the Bible become its own interpreter. Writing to the Hebrews, for instance, he quoted one scripture after another to prove that the Law was a shadow of the good things to come.​—Hebrews 10:1-18.

Yes, sincere Bible students in the 19th and early 20th centuries were simply restoring this Christian pattern. The tradition of comparing scriptures with other scriptures continues in the Watchtower magazine. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Jehovah’s Witnesses use this principle when they analyze a scripture.

Let the Context Speak

When we are reading the Bible, how can we imitate the fine examples of Jesus and his faithful followers? First, we can consider the immediate context of the scripture in question. How can the context help us understand the meaning? To illustrate, let us take Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 16:28: “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Some may feel that these words were not fulfilled because all of Jesus’ disciples who were present when he said those words died before the establishment of God’s Kingdom in the heavens. The Interpreter’s Bible even says of this verse: “The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical.”

However, the context of this verse, as well as that of the parallel accounts by Mark and Luke, helps us understand the real meaning of the scripture. What did Matthew relate right after the words quoted above? He wrote: “Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother along and brought them up into a lofty mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them.” (Matthew 17:1, 2) Both Mark and Luke also linked Jesus’ comment about the Kingdom with the account of the transfiguration. (Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:27-36) Jesus’ coming in Kingdom power was demonstrated in his transfiguration, his appearing in glory in the presence of the three apostles. Peter verifies this understanding by speaking of “the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ” with regard to his witnessing Jesus’ transfiguration.​—2 Peter 1:16-18.

Do You Let the Bible Be Its Own Interpreter?

What if you cannot understand a scripture even after you have considered its context? You may benefit from comparing it with other scriptures, having in mind the overall tenor of the Bible. One excellent tool for doing this can be found in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, now available in whole or in part in 57 languages. This tool is a list of marginal references, or cross-references, that appears in the center column of each page in many of its editions. You can find more than 125,000 of them in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures​—With References. The “Introduction” to that Bible explains: “A careful comparison of the marginal references and an examination of the accompanying footnotes will reveal the interlocking harmony of the 66 Bible books, proving that they comprise one book, inspired by God.”

Let us see how use of the cross-references can help us to understand a scripture. Take the example of the history of Abram, or Abraham. Consider this question: Who took the lead when Abram and his family went out of Ur? Genesis 11:31 reads: “Terah took Abram his son and Lot, . . . and Sarai his daughter-in-law, . . . and they went with him out of Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan. In time they came to Haran and took up dwelling there.” Just reading this, one might conclude that Abram’s father, Terah, took the lead. However, in the New World Translation, we find 11 cross-references on this verse. The last one takes us to Acts 7:2, where we read Stephen’s admonition to the first-century Jews: “The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he took up residence in Haran, and he said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your relatives and come on into the land I shall show you.’” (Acts 7:2, 3) Was Stephen confusing this with Abram’s leaving Haran? Obviously not, for this is part of the inspired Word of God.​—Genesis 12:1-3.

Why, then, does Genesis 11:31 state that “Terah took Abram his son” and others of his family and went out of Ur? Terah was still the patriarchal head. He agreed to go with Abram and thus was credited with moving the family to Haran. By comparing and harmonizing these two scriptures, we can see in our mind’s eye exactly what took place. Abram respectfully convinced his father to go out of Ur in accord with God’s command.

When we read the Scriptures, we should take into account the context and the overall tenor of the Bible. Christians are admonished: “We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we combine spiritual matters with spiritual words.” (1 Corinthians 2:11-13) Indeed, we must implore Jehovah for help to understand his Word and try to “combine spiritual matters with spiritual words” by checking the context of the scripture in question and by looking up related scriptures. May we keep finding brilliant gems of truth through the study of God’s Word.

 

No end in sight III

No end in sight II

No end in sight.

Fear itself.



On collateral damage.