Living art by design.

 

Living Murals: Wall Art Made by Photosynthetic Bacteria

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

Familiar to every desert explorer, certain dark shiny walls stand out from the normally red cliffs of mesas and canyons in the southwestern United States. Native Americans for centuries etched drawings into them. The ubiquitous desert varnish that coats sunlit walls of sandstone in Utah and other desert environments around the world, though, has long been an enigma to scientists. How does it form? Why does it form? Now, they believe they have the answer: the artists are photosynthetic bacteria.

In their commentary in PNAS, “Shining light on photosynthetic microbes and manganese-enriched rock varnish,” Valeria C. Culotta and Asia S. Wildeman are glad that a comprehensive explanation has finally arrived.

The varnish is a metal coating several hundred microns deep, composed largely of black oxides of manganeseor orange-colored iron oxides. Many ancient petroglyphs of Native Americans were created by etching into the black or orange coat of varnish, exposing the lighter rock underneath. The blackened manganese-rich varnish contains Mn3+ or Mn4+ oxides at concentrations two to three orders of magnitude higher than manganese levels in neighboring soils or rock. These varnishes develop very slowly over time, requiring thousands of years in the making. In a paper by Lingappa et al. the secrets of rock varnish genesis are unveiled by the discovery of microbes that inhabit desert rock and deposit manganese footprints as their legacy. [Emphasis added.]

Desert varnish, it turns out, is a product of generations of microbes stacking their work, like stromatolites, on top of the work of previous generations. Varnish increases in thickness over time. But it doesn’t take inordinately long, either, because new varnish can be found on top of earlier etchings. The bacteria utilize doubly ionized manganese (Mn2+) while alive. After they die, other bacteria or abiotic processes convert that to Mn3+ or Mn4+ oxides. This explains the earlier observations.

About Manganese

Manganese (atomic number 25, molecular weight 55) is the 12th most abundant element on earth, and the 5th must abundant metal; even so, that amounts to only 0.1 percent of earth’s crust. It is far less abundant in the solar system at large (360 ppm on Earth, 0.2 ppm elsewhere). According to the Chemicool website that documents such things, manganese was identified as a separate element in 1740. The Romans had used black manganese dioxide to make colorless glass — a function still in practice today. It’s used primarily in alloys now and finds its way into plastic bottles and aluminum cans, giving them stiffness. In life, it is an essential trace element for photosynthesis. All living things, including humans, need to ingest manganese:

In the human body several manganese-containing enzymes are need[ed] to metabolize carbohydrates, cholesterol, and amino acids. Typically our bodies have about 10 – 20 mg manganese. This needs to be topped up frequently because our bodies cannot store it. About a quarter of the manganese in our bodies is in bone, while the rest is evenly distributed through our tissues.

Michael Denton includes a section on manganese in his short book The Miracle of the Cell, where he describes the element’s crucial role in chloroplasts for oxidizing water. The compound Mn4Ca resides at the heart of an enzyme that enables plants to release oxygen to the atmosphere and use the spare electrons for the manufacture of biomolecules. Without that compound, life as we know it would be rare to nonexistent. Last year, Evolution News discussed how manganese and other trace metals are delivered in usable form to the surface of the earth by glaciers — one of several geological processes that ensure that essential elements are available for living organisms.

Microbes Involved in Desert Varnish

Having five free electrons, manganese can take on multiple redox states in various oxides which, like iron oxides, can be colorful. The manganese oxides on desert walls take on a shiny dark purple color. Scientists had discovered microbes in the varnish but they lacked an explanation for how the microbes deposited manganese on the rock in such high concentrations. Culotta and Wildeman explain the breakthrough made by the Lingappa team:

What was missing from these initial analyses of varnish microbes was an explanation for the origin of manganese. Regardless of its redox state, how does manganese in such abundance get there in the first place? A breakthrough was obtained by Lingappa et al. through analyses of the physical, microbiological, and bioinorganic properties of diverse samples of desert varnish. A principal finding was the strong enrichment of the Xenococcaceae family of Cynanobacteria at all sites of desert varnish examined. The evidence shows these photosynthetic bacteria are not a mere passenger but rather a driver of desert varnish, responsible for depositing manganese in high concentrations at varnish locales.

In short, desert varnish is a product of photosynthetic cyanobacteria! On those dry desert cliffs, living cells are growing and releasing oxygen to breathe. This explains why the material is favored on sunlit walls. Not only that, the bacteria also convert the much-discussed greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into forms of carbon that neighboring cells can use for their Calvin cycle, “thereby promoting microbial growth in the otherwise nutrient-sparse environment of the desert.” The astonishing result is an “invisible intricate ecosystem that over thousands of years created [these] beautiful glittering rocks.” Climatologists will undoubtedly be glad for the natural carbon-capture process, too.

Concentrated Defense

How do microbes concentrate manganese at levels hundreds or thousands of times higher than the surrounding environment? Apparently, the answer is blowing in the wind. Dust carried by wind delivers this trace element to the cyanobacteria, which are able to import it and put it to use. Surprisingly, the Mn is “not bound to proteins or other macromolecules but rather to small organic or inorganic compounds.” 

But questions remained; why do these microbes need so much manganese? Cyanobacteria need about 100,000 atoms of Mn per cell to run photosynthesis, but these species were found to contain 100 million atoms per cell. Why? Chroococcidiopsis, the most abundant species on rock walls, uses the manganese clusters for sunscreen!

Although the nature of the Mn2+ complex(es) is still unknown, its redox activity is likely to bestow Chroococcidiopsis with extreme resistance to the damaging ROS [reactive oxygen species] effects of excessive desiccation, heat, and ionizing radiation.

A Bio-Geosphere Modulated by Microbes

What a remarkable thing to learn: what were once considered “primitive” cells are creating vast murals of living art on cliff walls around the world — not just for show, but for oxygen effusion and carbon capture, processes that benefit the entire biosphere. And they do this in some of the driest, hottest, and exposed habitats on earth!

The role of microbes involved in massive geophysical processes is becoming more evident. Bacteria are found in biocrusts, helping higher organisms establish a foothold in sandy deserts. They are implicated the formation of cave speleothems. And now we see them setting up shop on desert cliffs, creating ecological murals showing off biochemical wizardry. Bacteria travel the world in winds and clouds, bringing their expertise to some of the most inhospitable parts of the planet. Unlike the abiotic dust that carries them, microbes all operate on encoded information that directs molecular machines to perform work that is both functional and beautiful. In the original paper in PNAS, Lingappa et al. say,

The understanding that varnish is the residue of life using manganese to thrive in the desert illustrates that, even in extremely stark environments, the imprint of life is omnipresent on the landscape.

Rock Art Palimpsests

There’s an enthusiastic subculture of desert hikers and off-roaders — scientists, too — who understandably delight in finding rock art on canyon walls. It’s like a treasure hunt. They go to great lengths sometimes to find these silent messages left by former human societies who chipped figures of themselves and their animals and deities into the desert varnish down to the sandstone underneath. The artwork reveals something beyond nature: something about the minds of intelligent agents who took the time to leave their marks for posterity. If the hobbyists knew that the artwork in the chipped-away material was even more fascinating, what would be the reaction? Would it be like peeling away scratch paper containing stick figures to discover a masterwork underneath?

The tools of science are permitting us to peel away the surfaces of commonly encountered environments to reveal palimpsests of design that were always there but never seen before. Some of them are real wall-hangers. 

5 ways less is more.

 

The Benefits of a Minimalist Life

If you told a person they had to give up everything and only get by with the bare necessities of life they would probably ask why. They would wonder why not take advantage of the inventions and the luxuries that are available.

They will say they have earned the right to live their life the way they want to. They are right about this. What they do not know is minimalist living can be extremely humbling, and it will benefit them in many ways they may not be aware of.

1. Decluttering helps people breathe.

When you start to get rid of stuff from the drawers, closets, and attics, you are going to be opening up more space in your home. There will be more room to move around. More importantly, you will be letting go of things you were holding onto. This will give freedom and will make it easier for you to breathe without the burdens of the past weighing you down.

2. Minimalism allows for refocusing.

When you have a lot of material things, your focus can be all over the place. You worry about working enough to pay for all of the stuff and you spend your time trying to look for or put away all of the stuff in your home. When the stuff is gone and the bills of the home are lessened, it becomes possible to focus time and energy on the important things such as the people around you and the things you are doing.

3. Less stuff equals more money.

As you get rid of stuff and luxuries in the home, other things are opened up. The money spent buying stuff, maintaining stuff and making sure you have the best stuff will end up in the pocket instead of in the store. When you have fewer things you can use your money to pay off debt and that will eventually free up even more money. The dependency on money in a minimalist lifestyle is much lower.

4. You have more time.

When you need less money, you do not have to work as much. That frees up time. You are also not going to spend as much time dealing with all of the extra things in your life. You can focus your time on the things you need and use the extra time that is created on the things you enjoy.

5. You have more energy.

Without all of the clutter, all of the energy that is spent dealing with it will be available for other activities. People without the burden of a materialistic lifestyle are healthier and stronger as a result.

The great thing about minimalism is that it is a choice. People can choose whether they want to live this lifestyle or not. They can choose how far they want to go. There are no right or wrong ways to downsize a life.

Everyone is different. What most people will find is once they begin a journey towards minimalism, the experience will grow and the benefits will get larger and they will want more — and that is one thing a minimalist can want more of.

Detecting design in the origins of the cosmos/life.

Answering an Objection: “You Can’t Measure Intelligent Design”

Casey Luskin

An objection to intelligent design (ID) that I’ve heard for many years claims that ID can’t be considered science because “you can’t measure intelligent design.” Former director of the anti-ID National Center for Science Education Eugenie Scott used to say that without a hypothetical device she called a “theo-meter,” she did not know how to detect if God was at work. Even some scientists who are sympathetic to design arguments have wondered how we can detect design if we can’t “measure design like we measure the amount of some substance in a test tube.” 

The answer to these objections is that we test intelligent design in the same way that we test all historical scientific theories: by looking in nature for known effects of the cause in question (in this case, intelligent agency), and showing that this cause (again, intelligent agency) is the best explanation for the observed data. If that answer seemed a little bit technical or unclear, let me explain so that it makes more sense. We’ll see how precise quantitative measurements can in fact help us to detect design.

How Historical Sciences Work

Historical scientists who study fields like geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology, or intelligent design can’t put history into a test tube. They can’t measure what happened in the past like we might directly chemically measure the amount of some substance in a solution in the present. That doesn’t mean we can’t use scientific methods to study the past. It just means we have to use different methods in the historical sciences (which study what happened in the past) than we use in the empirical sciences (which study how things operate in the present). To claim that intelligent design isn’t science because we can’t directly “measure it in a test tube” is to misunderstand how historical science work, and to apply an unfair standard to intelligent design.

Stephen Jay Gould observed that historical sciences “infer history from its results.” Historical sciences (like Darwinian evolution and intelligent design) rely on the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that “the present is the key to the past.” Under this methodology, scientists study causes at work in the present-day world in order, as the famous early geologist Charles Lyell put it, to explain “the former changes of the Earth’s surface” by reference “to causes now in operation.” 

Historical scientific theories thus begin by studying causes at work in the present-day natural world and understanding their known effects. They then examine the historical record as preserved in nature to find those known effects. When those known effects are found in the historical record, and those effects can only be explained by a given cause we’ve studied in the present day, then we infer that the cause was at work in the past. 

An Everyday Example

Imagine that you took your 4×4 truck off-roading and it comes back covered in mud. You drop the truck off at a carwash, and an hour later return to pick it up. How could you apply the scientific method of historical sciences to determine if the car was washed? Well, you could make predictions about what you’d expect to find if the car was washed, and then you could test those predictions. 

For example, if the car was washed then you might predict that there will be no major chunks of mud left on the exterior. This prediction could be tested by a simple visual analysis. If you see many chunks of mud remaining, that would refute your hypothesis that the car was washed. You could also undertake a more technical analysis, predicting that if the car was washed then there should be small amounts of soap residue left on the paint surface. You could scrape material off the surface of the car and perform a chemical analysis to confirm or refute this hypothesis. If you find that there are no chunks of mud on the car, and soap residue is present on the car’s paint, you would have positive evidence that the car was washed. 

As a historical scientific theory, intelligent design works in much the same way.

Detecting Design

The theory of intelligent design employs scientific methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent agency is a cause “now in operation” which can be studied in the world around us. Thus, as a historical science, ID employs the principle of uniformitarianism. It begins with present-day observations of how intelligent agents operate, and then converts those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should expect to find if a natural object arose by intelligent design. 

For example, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that “[t]he principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.” According to Dembski, when an intelligent agent acts, “it chooses from a range of competing possibilities” to create some complex and specified event. Thus, the type of information that reliably indicates intelligent design is called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information,” “CSI” for short. 

In brief, something is complex if it’s unlikely, and specified if it matches an independently derived pattern. In using CSI to detect design, Dembski calls ID “a theory of information” where “information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation.” ID theorists positively infer design by studying natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises from an intelligent cause.

Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying what is produced when intelligent agents design things. For example, language, codes, and machines are all structures containing high CSI. In our experience these things always derive from an intelligent mind. By studying the actions of humans we can understand what to expect to find when an intelligent agent has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence.

Ruling Out Material Causes

Finding the known effects of intelligent agency (i.e., high CSI) fulfills a testable prediction of intelligent design and shows that ID can be positively supported by scientific evidence. But to shore up our conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for some feature we should also rule out other material causes and show that design alone can account for the data. ID theorists have developed methods for doing this. 

William Dembski proposed one way to rule out material causes; it is to show that the likelihood of an event happening mechanistically is below what he calls the “universal probability bound.” Essentially, the universal probability bound is an estimate of the maximum number of events that are possible in the history of the universe given all known probabilistic resources. It grants the overly generous assumption to material mechanisms that every elementary particle has been interacting at every unit of Planck time over the entire history of the universe. Dembski explains this concept with Jonathan Witt in their book Intelligent Design Uncensored:

Scientists have learned that within the known physical universe there are about 1080 elementary particles … Scientists also have learned that a change from one state of matter to another can’t happen faster than what physicists call the Planck time.  … The Planck time is 1 second divided by 1045 (1 followed by forty-five zeroes).  … Finally, scientists estimate that the universe is about fourteen billion years old, meaning the universe is itself is millions of times younger than 1025 seconds. If we now assume that any physical event in the universe requires the transition of at least one elementary particle (most events require far more, of course), then these limits on the universe suggest that the total number of events throughout cosmic history could not have exceed 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150.   

This means that any specified event whose probability is less than 1 chance in 10150 will remain improbable even if we let every corner and every moment of the universe roll the proverbial dice.  The universe isn’t big enough, fast enough or old enough to roll the dice enough times to have a realistic chance of randomly generating specified events that are this improbable. 

WILLIAM DEMBSKI AND JONATHAN WITT, INTELLIGENT DESIGN UNCENSORED: AN EASY-TO-UNDERSTAND GUIDE TO THE CONTROVERSY, PP. 68-69 (INTERVARSITY PRESS, 2010)

Of course 10150 represents the “probability bound” for the entire universe, but when we consider the number of elementary particles and time available for different zones of the universe, we obtain the following probability bounds, as well as the information content they represent, measured in bits:

• Universal probability bound: 10-150 (or 498 bits)
• Galactic probability bound: 10-96 (or 319 bits)
• Solar System probability bound: 10-85 (or 282 bits)
• Earth probability bound: 10-70 (or 232 bits)

Using Measurements to Detect Design

Why are these probability bounds important? Well, we can measure the probability of various natural features arising through mechanistic causes alone, and then we can convert that probability into an amount of complex and specified information measured in bits. We can then compare that result with various probability bounds (as above). By applying the proper probability bound, we can determine if there are sufficient probabilistic resources for the structure to arise naturally. Or to put it another way, we can determine if the structure is likely to have originated by naturalistic means 

If the likelihood of the structure arising is below its relevant probability bound (or to put it another way, its CSI content is above the calculated limits of the information-generative power of natural processes), then a materialistic origin of that structure is effectively falsified. If the number of bits exceeds the relevant probability bound, we have a very good case for intelligent design.

A quick illustration: Douglas Axe’s research on proteins found that the likelihood of a random sequence of amino acids yielding a functional beta-lactamase enzyme is less than 1 in 1074. That is equivalent to 245 bits of CSI. Since this feature had to have arisen on Earth, the Earth probability bound is the relevant threshold for understanding what natural causes can do. And the Earth probability bound is 10-70 (or 232 bits). Thus, the amount of CSI in the beta-lactamase enzyme exceeds the Earth probability bound. The best explanation is design. 

So it’s true we don’t directly “measure” intelligent design in a test tube. But we can use measurements and calculations to detect design. If we calculate and measure that a structure contains more CSI than can arise by the relevant probabilistic resources available for a naturalistic origin of the structure, then we can detect design. 

The stones cry out again.

 

King Hazael Statue Could Hazael seen here be the same man who was anointed by Elijah? This Ivory Statuette standing nearly 7 inches tall represents Hazael, ancient King of Aram Damascus (Syria) who fought against Israel. In the Bible the Lord sent the prophet Elijah to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria in the future. Many years later the Syrian king Hadadezer became very sick and Hazael suffocated him and seized the throne. Hazael reigned for about 37 years (842-805 B.C.). He went to war with Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Assyrian records indicate wars with Syria, and an inscription by Shalmaneser III mention Hazael and his son Ben-hadad by name: "I fought with Ben-hadad. I accomplished his defeat. Hazael, son of a nobody, seized his throne." "In the 18th year of my reign for the 16th time I crossed the Euphrates. Hazael of Damascus trusted to the strength of his armies and mustered his troops in full force. Senir (Mount Hermon), a mountain summit which is in front of Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him; his defeat I accomplished; 600 of his soldiers with weapons I laid low; 1,121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp I took from him. To save his life, he retreated; I pursued him; in Damascus, his royal city, I shut him up. His plantations I cut down. As far as the mountains of the Hauran I marched. Cities without number I wrecked, razed, and burnt with fire. Their spoil beyond count I carried away. As far as the mountains of Baal-Rosh, which is a headland of the sea (at the mouth of the Nahr el-Kelb, Dog River), I marched; my royal likeness I there set up. At that time I received the tribute of the Syrians and Sidonians and of Yahua (Jehu) the son of Khumri (Omri)" - Shalmaneser III 842 B.C. "Ben-Hadad II (Heb.), was the king of Aram Damascus at the time of the battle of Qarqar at 853 BC. He, along with Irhuleni of Hamath, led a coalition of eleven kings (listed as twelve) against the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, at Qarqar, and fought Shalmaneser six times with the aid of Irhuleni twice more and possibly the rest of the coalition that fought at Qarqar. He appears again in the Tel Dan Stele as most likely the unknown author's father. " - Wikipedia This ivory statuette came from the palace of Hazael the ancient king of Damascus. It was discovered in the ruins of Arslan Tash in north Syria (ancient Hadatu) and is important in the study of Biblical archaeology. Several artifacts from the palace of Hazael are now in the Aleppo Museum in Syria. 2 Kings 13:1-3 "And the anger of The Lord was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, all their days." Note: The Stele of Zakkur also mentions "Bar Hadad, son of Hazael".

https://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/israel/2-hazael-king-of-syria-bb.

The Watchtower society's commentary on Cyrus the great.

 Cyʹrus).

The founder of the Persian Empire and the conqueror of Babylon; called “Cyrus the Great,” thereby distinguishing him from Cyrus I, his grandfather.

Following his conquest of the Babylonian Empire, Cyrus is represented in the cuneiform document known as the Cyrus Cylinder as saying: “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims (of the earth), son of Cambyses (Ka-am-bu-zi-ia), great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus [I], . . . descendant of Teispes . . . of a family (which) always (exercised) kingship.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 316) Cyrus is thus shown to be of the royal line of the kings of Anshan, a city and district of rather uncertain location, but now generally thought to have been in the E of Elam. This line of kings is called the Achaemenian line after Achaemenes the father of Teispes.

The early history of Cyrus II is somewhat obscure, depending largely upon rather fanciful accounts by Herodotus (Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E.) and Xenophon (another Greek writer of about a half century later). However, both present Cyrus as the son of the Persian ruler Cambyses by his wife Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. (Herodotus, I, 107, 108; Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, I, ii, 1) This blood relationship of Cyrus with the Medes is denied by Ctesias, another Greek historian of the same period, who claims instead that Cyrus became Astyages’ son-in-law by marrying his daughter Amytis.

Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan, which was then under the suzerainty of the Median king Astyages. Diodorus (first century B.C.E.) places the start of Cyrus’ reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. Herodotus relates that Cyrus revolted against the Median rulership and, because of the defection of Astyages’ troops, was able to gain an easy victory and capture the capital of the Medes, Ecbatana. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, King Ishtumegu (Astyages) “called up his troops and marched against Cyrus, king of Anshan, in order to me[et him in battle]. The army of Ishtumegu revolted against him and in fetters they de[livered him] to Cyrus.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305) Cyrus was able to gain the loyalty of the Medes, and thus Medes and Persians thereafter fought unitedly under his leadership. In the following years Cyrus moved to establish his control over the western sector of the Median Empire, advancing all the way to the eastern border of the Lydian Empire at the Halys River in Asia Minor.

Next, Cyrus defeated wealthy King Croesus of Lydia and captured Sardis. He then subdued the Ionian cities and placed all Asia Minor within the realm of the Persian Empire. Thus, in a matter of a few years, Cyrus had become the major rival of Babylon and its king, Nabonidus.

Conquest of Babylon. Cyrus now girded for a confrontation with mighty Babylon, and from this point forward, in particular, he figured in the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. In Isaiah’s inspired restoration prophecy concerning Jerusalem and its temple, this Persian ruler had been named as the one appointed by Jehovah God to effect the overthrow of Babylon and the release of the Jews who would be exiled there. (Isa 44:26–45:7) Although this prophecy had been recorded well over one and a half centuries before Cyrus’ rise to power and though the desolation of Judah evidently took place before Cyrus was even born, still Jehovah declared that Cyrus would act as His “shepherd” on behalf of the Jewish people. (Isa 44:28; compare Ro 4:17.) By virtue of this advance appointment, Cyrus was called Jehovah’s “anointed one” (a form of the Hebrew ma·shiʹach, messiah, and the Greek khri·stosʹ, christ). (Isa 45:1) God’s ‘calling him by his name’ (Isa 45:4) at that early date does not imply that He gave Cyrus his name at birth, but means that Jehovah foreknew that such a man by that name would arise and that Jehovah’s call to him would be, not anonymous, but direct, specific, by name.

Thus, unknown to King Cyrus, who was likely a pagan devotee of Zoroastrianism, Jehovah God had been figuratively ‘taking Cyrus’ right hand’ to lead or strengthen him, girding him and preparing and smoothing the way for his accomplishing the divine purpose: the conquest of Babylon. (Isa 45:1, 2, 5) As the One “telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done,” Almighty God had shaped the circumstances in human affairs for fully carrying out his counsel. He had called Cyrus “from the sunrising,” from Persia (to the E of Babylon), where Cyrus’ favorite capital of Pasargadae was built, and Cyrus was to be like “a bird of prey” in swiftly pouncing upon Babylon. (Isa 46:10, 11) It is of note that, according to The Encyclopædia Britannica (1910, Vol. X, p. 454), “the Persians bore an eagle fixed to the end of a lance, and the sun, as their divinity, was also represented upon their standards, which . . . were guarded with the greatest jealousy by the bravest men of the army.”

How did Cyrus divert the water of the Euphrates?

The Bible prophecies relating to Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon foretold that its rivers would be dried up and its gates left unshut, that there would be a sudden invasion of the city and a lack of resistance on the part of Babylon’s soldiers. (Isa 44:27; 45:1, 2; Jer 50:35-38; 51:30-32) Herodotus describes a deep, wide moat encompassing Babylon, relating that numerous bronze (or copper) gates provided entrance through the interior walls along the Euphrates River, which bisected the city. Laying siege to the city, according to Herodotus (I, 191, 192), Cyrus went “drawing off the river by a canal into the lake [the artificial lake said to have been made earlier by Queen Nitocris], which was till now a marsh, he made the stream to sink till its former channel could be forded. When this happened, the Persians who were posted with this intent made their way into Babylon by the channel of the Euphrates, which had now sunk about to the height of the middle of a man’s thigh. Now if the Babylonians had known beforehand or learnt what Cyrus was planning, they would have suffered the Persians to enter the city and brought them to a miserable end; for then they would have shut all the gates that opened on the river and themselves mounted up on to the walls that ran along the river banks, and so caught their enemies as in a trap. But as it was, the Persians were upon them unawares, and by reason of the great size of the city​—so say those who dwell there—​those in the outer parts of it were overcome, yet the dwellers in the middle part knew nothing of it; all this time they were dancing and making merry at a festival . . . till they learnt the truth but too well. [Compare Da 5:1-4, 30; Jer 50:24; 51:31, 32.] Thus was Babylon then for the first time taken.”

Xenophon’s account differs somewhat as to details but contains the same basic elements as that of Herodotus. Xenophon describes Cyrus as deeming it nearly impossible to storm Babylon’s mighty walls and then goes on to relate his laying siege to the city, diverting the waters of the Euphrates into trenches and, while the city was in festival celebration, sending his forces up the riverbed past the city walls. The troops under the command of Gobryas and Gadatas caught the guards unawares and gained entrance through the very gates of the palace. In one night “the city was taken and the king slain,” and the Babylonian soldiers occupying the various citadels surrendered the following morning.​—Cyropaedia, VII, v, 33; compare Jer 51:30.

Jewish historian Josephus records an account of Cyrus’ conquest written by the Babylonian priest Berossus (of the third century B.C.E.) as follows: “In the seventeenth year of his [Nabonidus’] reign Cyrus advanced from Persia with a large army, and, after subjugating the rest of the kingdom, marched upon Babylonia. Apprised of his coming, Nabonnedus [Nabonidus] led his army to meet him, fought and was defeated, whereupon he fled with a few followers and shut himself up in the town of Borsippa [the twin city of Babylon]. Cyrus took Babylon, and after giving orders to raze the outer walls of the city, because it presented a very redoubtable and formidable appearance, proceeded to Borsippa to besiege Nabonnedus. The latter surrendering, without waiting for investment, was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Carmania for his residence. There Nabonnedus spent the remainder of his life, and there he died.” (Against Apion, I, 150-153 [20]) This account is distinct from the others primarily because of the statements made concerning Nabonidus’ actions and Cyrus’ dealings with him. However, it harmonizes with the Biblical account that Belshazzar, rather than Nabonidus, was the king who was slain on the night of Babylon’s fall.​—See BELSHAZZAR.

The cuneiform tablets found by archaeologists, though not giving details concerning the exact manner of the conquest, do confirm the sudden fall of Babylon to Cyrus. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, in what proved to be the final year of Nabonidus’ reign (539 B.C.E.) in the month of Tishri (September-October), Cyrus attacked the Babylonian forces at Opis and defeated them. The inscription continues: “The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned . . . In the month of Arahshamnu [Marchesvan (October-November)], the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306) By means of this inscription, the date of Babylon’s fall can be fixed as Tishri 16, 539 B.C.E., with Cyrus’ entry 17 days later, occurring on Marchesvan 3.

Aryan world domination begins. By this victory Cyrus brought to an end the domination of Mesopotamia and the Middle East by Semitic rulers and produced the first dominant world power of Aryan origin. The Cyrus Cylinder, a cuneiform document historians consider to have been written for publication in Babylon, is strongly religious, and in it Cyrus is represented as ascribing the credit for his victory to Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, saying: “He [Marduk] scanned and looked (through) all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead him . . . (in the annual procession). (Then) he pronounced the name of Cyrus (Ku-ra-as), king of Anshan, declared him (lit.: pronounced [his] name) to be(come) the ruler of all the world. . . . Marduk, the great lord, a protector of his people/​worshipers, beheld with pleasure his (i.e. Cyrus’) good deeds and his upright mind (lit.: heart) (and therefore) ordered him to march against his city Babylon (Ká.dingir.ra). He made him set out on the road to Babylon (DIN.TIRki) going at his side like a real friend. His widespread troops​—their number, like that of the water of a river, could not be established—​strolled along, their weapons packed away. Without any battle, he made him enter his town Babylon (Su.an.na), sparing Babylon (Kádingir.raki) any calamity.”​—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 315.

Why does the Cyrus Cylinder explain Babylon’s fall in a manner different from the Bible?

Despite this pagan interpretation of events, the Bible shows that, on making his proclamation authorizing the exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple there, Cyrus acknowledged: “All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” (Ezr 1:1, 2) This, of course, does not mean that Cyrus became a Jewish convert but simply that he knew the Biblical facts regarding his victory. In view of the high administrative position in which Daniel was placed, both before and after the fall of Babylon (Da 5:29; 6:1-3, 28), it would be most unusual if Cyrus were not informed of the prophecies that Jehovah’s prophets had recorded and spoken, including Isaiah’s prophecy containing Cyrus’ very name. As regards the Cyrus Cylinder, already quoted, it is acknowledged that others aside from the king may have had a hand in the preparation of this cuneiform document. The book Biblical Archaeology by G. Ernest Wright (1962, p. 203) speaks of “the king, or the bureau which framed the document” (compare the similar case with Darius at Da 6:6-9), while Dr. Emil G. Kraeling (Rand McNally Bible Atlas, 1966, p. 328) calls the Cyrus Cylinder “a propaganda document composed by the Babylonian priests.” It may, indeed, have been drawn up under the influence of the Babylonian clergy (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 315, ftn. 1), thereby serving their purpose of explaining away the utter failure of Marduk (also known as Bel) and the other Babylonian gods to save the city, going even to the extent of attributing to Marduk the very things that Jehovah had done.​—Compare Isa 46:1, 2; 47:11-15.

Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.

In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.​—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 21.

Cyrus’ cooperation with the Jews was in notable contrast with their treatment by earlier pagan rulers. He restored the precious temple utensils that Nebuchadnezzar II had carried off to Babylon, gave royal permission for them to import cedar timbers from Lebanon, and authorized the outlay of funds from the king’s house to cover construction expenses. (Ezr 1:7-11; 3:7; 6:3-5) According to the Cyrus Cylinder (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 332), the Persian ruler followed a generally humane and tolerant policy toward the conquered peoples of his domain. The inscription quotes him as saying: “I returned to [certain previously named] sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”​—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 316.

Aside from the royal proclamation quoted in Ezra 1:1-4, the Biblical record speaks of another document by Cyrus, a “memorandum,” which was filed away in the house of the records at Ecbatana in Media and was discovered there during the reign of Darius the Persian. (Ezr 5:13-17; 6:1-5) Concerning this second document, Professor G. Ernest Wright says, “[it] is explicitly entitled a dikrona, an official Aramaic term for a memorandum which recorded an oral decision of the king or other official and which initiated administrative action. It was never intended for publication but solely for the eye of the proper official, following which it was filed away in government archives.”​—Biblical Archaeology, p. 203.

Death and Prophetic Significance. Cyrus is believed to have fallen in battle in 530 B.C.E., though the details are somewhat obscure. Prior to his death, his son Cambyses II evidently became coregent with him, succeeding to the Persian throne as sole ruler when his father died.

The prophecies concerning the sudden fall of symbolic Babylon the Great as set forth in the book of Revelation parallel in major respects the description of Cyrus’ conquest of the literal city of Babylon. (Compare Re 16:12; 18:7, 8 with Isa 44:27, 28; 47:8, 9.) The king at the head of the mighty military forces described immediately after the account of symbolic Babylon’s fall, however, is no earthly king but the heavenly “Word of God,” Jehovah’s true anointed Shepherd, Christ Jesus.​—Re 19:1-3, 11-16.

Early coptic translation and John1:1

 

John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions

ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ -- John 1:1, Sahidic Coptic text. --- "In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a god was the word." -- Literal English translation

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Coptic John 1:1c: What Conclusions Can Be Drawn?

Relative to Coptic John 1:1c, what conclusions can be drawn from a multi-year study of the Sahidic Coptic language, including a detailed study of the entire Sahidic Coptic New Testament?

1- That the translation of Coptic neunoute pe pSaje into standard English as "the Word was a god" is literal, accurate, and unassailable. It is simple, but not simplistic. It is what the Coptic text actually says and literally conveys. Any other translation of it amounts to interpretation or paraphrase.

2- That rendering a Sahidic Coptic common ("count") noun, like noute, god, when bound to the Coptic indefinite article, ou, into English as "a" + noun is so prevalent, as for example in Coptic scholar George Horner's 1911 English translation of the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, that this is beyond dispute.

As just the nearest example of this, after John 1:1c itself, is John 1:6. Here we have the Coptic indefinite article, ou, bound to the Coptic common noun rwme, man: aFSwpe nCi ourwme eautnnoouF ebol Hitm pnoute . In Horner's English translation we read: "There was a man having been sent from God." That is the simple, literal, and accurate translation. Likewise, "a god" is the simple, literal, and accurate translation of ou.noute at John 1:1c, the same Coptic indefinite article + common noun construction as found in John 1:6 and elsewhere. Only with respect to Coptic "mass" or abstract nouns is there no need to translate the indefinite article into English, but this is not the situation at Coptic John 1:1c, because noute, god, is a Coptic common or "count" noun.

3 - That, whereas some Coptic grammarians hold that ou.noute may also be translated into English adjectivally as "divine," they give no examples favoring this usage in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament itself. Coptic ou.noute is not used adjectivally or "qualitatively" in the Sahidic Coptic New Testament. The published works of these scholars have been heavily invested in the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Coptic "gospels" like Thomas, Philip, and Judas. Perhaps translating ou.noute as "divine" fits the esoteric or philosophical context of the Gnostic "gospels." But there are no examples in the canonical Coptic New Testament that justify an adjectival translation of ou.noute as "divine," whereas a literal translation of ou.noute as "a god" works just fine. Although "divine" is not altogether objectionable, since a god is divine by definition, a paraphrase is unnecessary when an adequate, understandable literal translation is available.

4- That all the primarily Trinitarian-based objections to translating ou.noute as "a god" at Coptic John 1:1c amount to little more than presupposition or special pleading. Though such faulty, superficial objections have been cut and pasted frequently on the Internet, they are poorly researched and often misleading.

In one such apologetic, promising full disclosure of what some Coptic scholars "really said," the conclusion about ou.noute at John 1:1 remains the same, i.e., "it might mean was a god, was divine, was an instance of 'god', was one god (not two, three, etc.)"; "In Coptic, "ounoute" can mean "a god" or "one with divine nature"; "So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. ... A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."

Not ONE of the scholars appealed to by Trinitarian apologists said that Coptic John 1:1 should be translated to say "The Word was God." Not one. Not one said that "a god" was incorrect. In fact, the interlinear reading for Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c in scholar Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons specifically reads "a-god is the-Word."

The Coptic text of John 1:1c was made prior to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Egyptian and other churches, and it is poor scholarship to attempt to "read back" a translation such as "the Word was God" into any exegesis of the Coptic text. Such a rendering is foreign to Coptic John 1:1c, which clearly and literally says, "the Word was a god."

5- That, stated succinctly, translating Sahidic Coptic's neunoute pe pSaje literally into standard English as "the Word was a god" stands on solid grammatical and contextual ground.