The Watchtower society's commentary on the books of kings.

 KINGS, BOOKS OF

Books of the Holy Scriptures relating the history of Israel from the last days of King David until the release of King Jehoiachin from prison in Babylon.

Originally the two books of Kings comprised one roll called Kings (Heb., Mela·khimʹ), and in the Hebrew Bible today they are still counted as one book, the fourth in the section known as the Former Prophets. In the Greek Septuagint the Books of the Kings were called Third and Fourth Kingdoms, the Books of Samuel having been designated First and Second Kingdoms. In the Latin Vulgate these books were together known as the four books of Kings because Jerome preferred the 

name Regum (Kings), in harmony with the Hebrew title, to the literal translation of the Septuagint title Regnorum (Kingdoms). Division into two books in the Septuagint became expedient because the Greek translation with vowels required almost twice as much space as did Hebrew, in which no vowels were used until the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era. The division between Second Samuel and First Kings has not always been at the same place in the Greek versions. Lucian, for one, in his recension of the Septuagint, made the division so that First Kings commenced with what is 1 Kings 2:12 in our present-day Bibles.

Writing of the Books. Although the name of the writer of the books of Kings is not given in the two accounts, Scriptural indications and Jewish tradition point to Jeremiah. Many Hebrew words 

and expressions found in these two books appear elsewhere in the Bible only in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The books of Kings and the book of Jeremiah complement each other; events, as a rule, are briefly covered in one if they are fully described in the other. Absence of any mention of Jeremiah in the books of Kings, although he was a very prominent prophet, could be expected if Jeremiah was the writer, because his activities were detailed in the book bearing his name. The books of Kings tell of conditions in Jerusalem after the exile had begun, indicating that the writer had not been taken to Babylon, even as Jeremiah was not.​—Jer 40:5, 6.

Some scholars see in the books of Kings what they consider to be evidence of the work of more than one writer or compiler. However, except for variation because of the sources used, it must be observed that the language, style, vocabulary, and grammar are uniform throughout.

First Kings covers a period of about 129 years, commencing with the final days of King David, about 1040 B.C.E., and running through to the death of Judean King Jehoshaphat in about 911 B.C.E. (1Ki 22:50) Second Kings begins with Ahaziah’s reign (c. 920 B.C.E.) and carries through to the end of the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile, 580 B.C.E., a period of about 340 years. (2Ki 

1:1, 2; 25:27-30) Hence the combined accounts of the books of Kings cover about four and a half centuries of Hebrew history. As the events recorded therein include those up to 580 B.C.E., these books could not have been completed before this date, and because there is no mention of the termination of the Babylonian exile, they, as one roll, were undoubtedly finished before that time.

The place of writing for both books appears to have been, for the most part, Judah, because most of the source material would be available there. However, Second Kings was logically completed in Egypt, where Jeremiah was taken after the assassination of Gedaliah at Mizpah.​—Jer 41:1-3; 43:5-8.

The books of Kings have always had a place in the Jewish canon and are accepted as canonical. There is good reason for this, because these books carry forward the development of the foremost Bible theme, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed. Moreover, three leading prophets, Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah, are given prominence, and their prophecies are shown to have had unerring fulfillments. Events recorded in the books of Kings are referred to and elucidated elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus refers to what is written in these books three times​—regarding Solomon (Mt 6:29), the queen of the south (Mt 12:42; compare 1Ki 10:1-9), and the widow of Zarephath and Naaman (Lu 4:25-27; compare 1Ki 17:8-10; 2Ki 5:8-14). Paul mentions the account concerning Elijah and the 7,000 men who did not bend the knee to Baal. (Ro 11:2-4; compare 1Ki 19:14, 18.) James speaks of Elijah’s prayers for drought and rain. (Jas 5:17, 18; compare 1Ki 17:1; 18:45.) These references to the actions of individuals described in the books of Kings vouch for the canonicity of these writings.

The books of Kings were largely compiled from written sources, and the writer shows clearly that he referred to these outside sources for some of his information. He refers to “the book of the affairs of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41), “the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Judah” (1Ki 15:7, 23), and “the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Israel” (1Ki 14:19; 16:14).

One of the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts containing the books of Kings in full is dated 1008 C.E. The Vatican No. 1209 and the Alexandrine Manuscript contain the books of Kings (in Greek), but the Sinaitic Manuscript does not. Fragments of the books of Kings evidently dating from the B.C.E. period have been found in the Qumran caves.

The framework of these books shows that the writer or compiler gave pertinent facts about each king for the purpose of chronology and to reveal God’s estimate, favorable or unfavorable, of each king. The relationship of their reigns to the worship of Jehovah stands out as the most important factor. After considering the reign of Solomon, there is, with some exceptions, a general set pattern for describing each reign, as two parallel lines of history are interwoven. For the kings of Judah there is usually given first an introductory synchronism with the contemporaneous king of Israel, then the age of the king, the length of his reign, the place of rule, and the name and home of his mother, the latter being an item of interest and importance because at least some of the kings of Judah were polygamous. In concluding the account for each king, the source of the information, the burial of the king, and the name of his successor are given. Some of the same details are provided for each king of Israel, but the king’s age at the time of his accession and the name and home of his mother are not given. Information supplied in First and Second Kings has been very useful in the study of Bible chronology.​—See CHRONOLOGY.

The books of Kings are more than just annals or a recital of events as in a chronicle. They report the facts of history with an explanation of their significance. Eliminated from the account, it seems, is anything that does not have direct bearing on the developing purpose of God and that does not illustrate the principles by which Jehovah deals with his people. The faults of Solomon and the other kings of Judah and Israel are not disguised but are related with the utmost candor.

Archaeological Evidence. The discovery of numerous artifacts has furnished certain confirmation that the books of Kings are historically and geographically accurate. Archaeology, as well as living proof today, confirms the existence of the cedar forests of Lebanon, from which Solomon obtained timbers for his building projects in Jerusalem. (1Ki 5:6; 7:2) Evidence of industrial activity has been found in the basin of the Jordan, where Succoth and Zarethan once stood.​—1Ki 7:45, 46.

Shishak’s invasion of Judah in Rehoboam’s time (1Ki 14:25, 26) is confirmed by the Pharaoh’s own record on the walls of the temple of Karnak in Egypt. A black limestone obelisk of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III found at Nimrud in 1846 depicts perhaps an emissary of Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser, an incident that, though not mentioned in the books of Kings, adds testimony to the historicity of Israel’s King Jehu. The extensive building works of Ahab, including “the house of 

ivory that he built” (1Ki 22:39), are well attested by the ruins found at Samaria.

The Moabite Stone relates some of the events involved in King Mesha’s revolt against Israel, giving the Moabite monarch’s version of what took place. (2Ki 3:4, 5) This alphabetic inscription also contains the Tetragrammaton.

The name Pekah is found in an annalistic text credited to Tiglath-pileser III. (2Ki 15:27) The campaign of Tiglath-pileser III against Israel is mentioned in his royal annals and in an Assyrian building inscription. (2Ki 15:29) The name Hoshea has also been deciphered from inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign.​—2Ki 15:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 282-284.

While some of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s engagements are mentioned in his annals, the angelic destruction of his army of 185,000 when it threatened Jerusalem is not mentioned (2Ki 19:35), and we would not expect to find in his boastful records an account of this overwhelming setback. Notable archaeological confirmation of the last statement in the books of Kings has been found in cuneiform tablets excavated at Babylon. These indicate that Jaʼukinu (Jehoiachin) was imprisoned in Babylon and mention that he was provided with rations from the royal treasury.​—2Ki 25:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 308.

Fulfillments of Prophecy. The books of Kings contain various prophecies and point to striking fulfillments. For example, 1 Kings 2:27 shows the fulfillment of Jehovah’s word against the house of Eli. (1Sa 2:31-36; 3:11-14) Prophecies regarding Ahab and his house were fulfilled. (Compare 1Ki 21:19-21 with 1Ki 22:38 and 2Ki 10:17.) What was foretold concerning Jezebel and her remains came true. (Compare 1Ki 21:23 with 2Ki 9:30-36.) And the facts of history confirm the veracity of the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem.​—2Ki 21:13.

Among the many points highlighted in the books of Kings is the importance of adherence to Jehovah’s requirements and the dire consequences of ignoring his just laws. The two books of Kings forcefully verify the predicted consequences of both obedience and disobedience to Jehovah God.

[Box on page 171]

HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST KINGS

A concise summary of the history of both the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel from the last days of David until the death of Jehoshaphat

Originally the first book of Kings was part of one scroll with Second Kings

Solomon is known for outstanding wisdom at the start of his rule, but he ends up in apostasy

Nathan, by decisive action, blocks Adonijah’s attempt to be king in Israel; Solomon is enthroned (1:5–2:12)

Asked by Jehovah what he desires, Solomon requests wisdom; he is additionally granted riches and glory (3:5-15)

Divinely given wisdom is evident in Solomon’s handling of the case of two prostitutes, each claiming to be the mother of the same baby boy (3:16-28)

King Solomon and Israel under his rule prosper; the king’s unparalleled wisdom is world famous (4:1-34; 10:14-29)

Solomon builds Jehovah’s temple and later a palace complex; then all the older men of Israel gather for the inauguration (5:1–8:66)

Jehovah sanctifies the temple, assures Solomon of permanence of the royal line, but warns against unfaithfulness (9:1-9)

The queen of Sheba comes to see Solomon’s wisdom and prosperity for herself (10:1-13)

In old age, Solomon is influenced by his many foreign wives and goes after foreign gods (11:1-8)

The nation is split in two; calf worship is instituted to prevent those in the northern kingdom from going up to Jerusalem

Because of Solomon’s apostasy, Jehovah foretells division of the nation (11:11-13)

After Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam threatens to impose a heavier yoke on the people; ten tribes revolt and make Jeroboam king (12:1-20)

Jeroboam establishes worship of golden calves in the northern kingdom to prevent his subjects from going to Jerusalem for worship and possibly wanting to reunite the kingdom (12:26-33)

The southern kingdom, Judah, has both good kings and bad ones

Rehoboam and Abijam after him allow detestable false worship (14:21-24; 15:1-3)

Abijam’s son Asa and his son Jehoshaphat actively promote true worship (15:9-15; 22:41-43)

The northern kingdom, Israel, is marred by power struggles, assassinations, and idolatry

Jeroboam’s son Nadab becomes king; Baasha assassinates him and seizes the throne (15:25-30)

Baasha’s son Elah succeeds to the throne and is assassinated by Zimri; Zimri commits suicide when facing defeat by Omri (16:6-20)

Omri’s victory leads to civil war; Omri finally triumphs, becomes king, and later builds Samaria; his sins are even worse than those of earlier kings (16:21-28)

Ahab becomes king and marries the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; he introduces Baal worship into Israel (16:29-33)

Wars between Judah and Israel end with an alliance

Wars take place between Jeroboam and both Rehoboam and Abijam; Baasha fights against Asa (15:6, 7, 16-22)

Jehoshaphat makes an alliance with Ahab (22:1-4, 44)

Jehoshaphat and Ahab battle together against Ramoth-gilead; Ahab is killed (22:29-40)

Prophetic activity in Israel and Judah

Ahijah foretells ripping of ten tribes away from David’s house; later he proclaims Jehovah’s judgment against Jeroboam (11:29-39; 14:7-16)

Shemaiah conveys Jehovah’s word that Rehoboam and his subjects should not fight against the rebellious ten tribes (12:22-24)

A man of God announces Jehovah’s judgment against the altar for calf worship at Bethel (13:1-3)

Jehu the son of Hanani pronounces Jehovah’s judgment against Baasha (16:1-4)

Elijah foretells a prolonged drought in Israel; during the drought, he miraculously extends the food supply of a widow and resurrects her son (17:1-24)

Elijah proposes a test on Mount Carmel to determine who is the true God; when Jehovah is proved true, the Baal prophets are killed; Elijah flees for his life from Ahab’s wife Jezebel, but Jehovah sends Elijah to anoint Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha (18:17–19:21)

Micaiah foretells Ahab’s defeat in battle (22:13-28)

[Box on page 172]

HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND KINGS

Continuation of the history of Judah and of Israel begun in First Kings; it reaches to the destruction of Samaria and then of Jerusalem, due to unfaithfulness

The writing of it was likely completed in Egypt about 27 years after Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon

After Elijah, Elisha serves as Jehovah’s prophet

Elijah predicts Ahaziah’s death; he also calls down fire upon two disrespectful military chiefs and their companies of 50 sent to get the prophet (1:2-17)

Elijah is taken away in a windstorm; Elisha receives his official garment (2:1-13)

Elisha divides the Jordan and heals water in Jericho; his inspired advice saves the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom from perishing for lack of water and results in defeat of Moabites; he increases a widow’s oil supply, resurrects a Shunammite woman’s son, renders poisonous stew harmless, multiplies a gift of bread and grain, heals Naaman of leprosy, announces that Naaman’s leprosy would come upon greedy Gehazi and his offspring, and causes a borrowed axhead to float (2:14–6:7)

Elisha warns the king of Israel in advance of surprise attacks by the Syrians; a Syrian force comes to seize him but is stricken with temporary mental blindness; the Syrians besiege Samaria, and Elisha is blamed for the resulting famine; he foretells the end of the famine (6:8–7:2)

The commission given to Elijah is completed when Elisha tells Hazael that he will become king of Syria and sends a messenger to anoint Jehu as king over Israel (8:7-13; 9:1-13)

Jehu acts against Ahab’s house, eradicating Baal worship from Israel (9:14–10:28)

Elisha, on his deathbed, is visited by Jehu’s grandson King Jehoash; he foretells three victories over Syria (13:14-19)

Israel’s disrespect for Jehovah leads to exile in Assyria

The calf worship started by Jeroboam continues during the reigns of Jehu and his offspring​—Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah (10:29, 31; 13:6, 10, 11; 14:23, 24; 15:8, 9)

During Israel’s final days, King Zechariah is assassinated by Shallum, Shallum by Menahem, Menahem’s son Pekahiah by Pekah, and Pekah by Hoshea (15:8-30)

During Pekah’s reign, Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, exiles many Israelites; in the ninth year of Hoshea, Samaria is destroyed and Israel is taken into exile because of disrespecting Jehovah; Israel’s territory is populated by other peoples (15:29; 17:1-41)

Religious reforms in Judah bring no lasting change; Babylon destroys Jerusalem and takes God’s people into exile

Jehoram of Judah marries Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel; Jehoram apostatizes, as does his son Ahaziah after him (8:16-27)

When Ahaziah dies, Athaliah tries to kill off the seed of David so that she herself can rule; Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, is rescued by his aunt and eventually made king; Athaliah is killed (11:1-16)

As long as High Priest Jehoiada lives and advises him, Jehoash restores true worship, but ‘sacrificing on the high places’ persists during his reign and that of his successors​—Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), and Jotham (12:1-16; 14:1-4; 15:1-4, 32-35)

Jotham’s son Ahaz practices idolatry; Ahaz’ son Hezekiah makes good reforms, but these are undone by the subsequent bad reigns of Manasseh and Amon (16:1-4; 18:1-6; 21:1-22)

Amon’s son Josiah undertakes firm measures to rid the land of idolatry; he is killed in a battle with Pharaoh Nechoh (22:1–23:30)

Judah’s last four kings are unfaithful: Josiah’s son Jehoahaz dies in captivity in Egypt; Jehoahaz’ brother Jehoiakim reigns after him; Jehoiakim’s son and successor Jehoiachin is carried into Babylonian exile; Jehoiakim’s brother Zedekiah reigns until Jerusalem is conquered by the Babylonians and most survivors of the conquest are taken into exile (23:31–25:21)

The American revolution: a brief history.

 The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), also known as the Revolutionary War or the American War of Independence, was initiated by delegates from thirteen American colonies of British America in Congress against Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's taxation policies and lack of colonial representation. From their founding in the 1600s, the colonies were largely left to govern themselves. The cost of victory in the 1754 to 1763 French and Indian War and the 1756 to 1763 Seven Years' War left the British government deeply in debt; the colonies, where the war was fought, equipped and populated the British forces there at the cost of millions of their own funds. The Stamp Act and Townshend Acts provoked colonial opposition and unrest, leading to the 1770 Boston Massacre and 1773 Boston Tea Party. When Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts in spring 1774 upon Massachusetts, twelve colonies sent delegates to the First Continental Congress (September 5 – October 26, 1774) to draft a Petition to the King and organize a boycott of British goods.

Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775: the British army stationed at Boston was harassed by the Massachusetts militia at Lexington and Concord after destroying colonial Assembly powder stores. In June, the Second Continental Congress appointed George Washington to create a Continental Army and oversee the capture of Boston (April 19, 1775 – March 17, 1776). The Patriots sent the Olive Branch Petition (signed July 8, 1775) to the King and Parliament, both of whom rejected it. In response, they invaded British Quebec but were repulsed. In July 1776, Congress unanimously passed the Declaration of Independence. Hopes of a quick settlement were supported by American sympathizers within Parliament who opposed Lord North's "coercion policy" in the colonies. However, after the British were driven out of Boston the new British commander-in-chief, General Sir William Howe, launched a counter-offensive and captured New York City. After crossing the Delaware Washington engaged and routed Hessian forces at the Battle of Trenton and the British at the Battle of Princeton. After British General Burgoyne surrendered at the Battles of Saratoga in October 1777, Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured that city. Washington retreated to Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778 where Prussian allied General von Steuben drilled the largely untrained Continental Army into an organized fighting unit.

French Foreign Minister Vergennes saw the war as a way to create an America economically and militarily dependent on France, not Britain. Although talks on a formal alliance began in late 1776, they proceeded slowly until the Patriot victory at Saratoga in October 1777. Fears Congress might come to an early settlement with Britain resulted in France and the United States signing two treaties in February 1778. The first was a commercial treaty, the second a Treaty of Alliance; in return for a French guarantee of American independence, Congress agreed to join the war against Britain and defend the French West Indies. Although Spain refused to join the Franco-American alliance, in the 1779 Treaty of Aranjuez they agreed to support France in its global war with Britain, hoping to regain losses incurred in 1713.

In other fronts in North America, Governor of Spanish Louisiana Bernardo Gálvez routed British forces from Louisiana. The Spanish, along with American privateers supplied the 1779 American conquest of Western Quebec (later the US Northwest Territory). Gálvez then expelled British forces from Mobile during the Battle of Fort Charlotte and the siege of Pensacola, cutting off British military aid to their American Indian allies in the interior southeast. Howe's replacement, General Sir Henry Clinton, then mounted a 1778 "Southern strategy" from Charleston. After capturing Savannah, defeats at the Battle of Kings Mountain and the Battle of Cowpens forced Cornwallis to retreat to Yorktown, where his army was besieged by an allied French and American force. An attempt to resupply the garrison was repulsed by the French navy at the Battle of the Chesapeake, and Cornwallis surrendered in October 1781.

Although their war with France and Spain continued for another two years, the British fight against the Americans ended with the Battle of Yorktown. The North Ministry was replaced by Lord Rockingham, who accepted office on the basis George III agreed to American independence. Preliminary articles were signed in November 1782, and in April 1783 Congress accepted British terms; these included independence, evacuation of British troops, cession of territory up to the Mississippi River and navigation to the sea, as well as fishing rights in Newfoundland. On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed between Great Britain and the United States, then ratified the following spring.

On the pursuit of happiness.

  

Among the most valued of rights accorded to humans is the right to the pursuit of happiness.The operative word here though is 'pursuit',indeed for many genuine happiness(Synonyms given for 'happiness' include joy,contentment) as a usual state of mind has proved and is proving quite elusive.

The production and sale of self improvement books,tapes and the like all professing to finally make available that long sought secret of a happy life has become a major industry.In the process bringing fame and fortune(interestingly these two elements figure prominently in popular notions of what is required for happiness) to a number of modern gurus and pop psychologists.

Whenever pollsters canvass the population as to what in their opinion is required for a happy life,religion(though hardly ever emerging at the very top) tends to factor in the top ten responses.

And indeed that bestselling religious text the Holy Bible has much to say on the subject,but many of its prescriptions in this regard may seem counter intuitive in the light of our prevailing global culture.What for instance are we to make of the sage's counsel at ecclesiastes7:3NASB" Sorrow is better than laughter,for when a face is sad a heart may be happy."? Or Matthew5:11NASB"Blessed(or happy) are you when people insult you and persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."

Counsel like this is a real hard sell in the entertainment mad,publicity hungry age in which we presently find ourselves.In light though of the often advanced accusation of the bible as a text that promotes extremism, it may be good to point out at this juncture that the bible does not advocate asceticism,certainly neither king Solomon nor Jesus Christ were ascetics see ecclesiastes9:7,Mattew11:19.

So what exactly are these two servants of Jehovah known for their exceptional wisdom trying to tell us.This,that in order to achieve happiness we must give up the pursuit of it.I know it makes no sense,now don't misunderstand there is nothing wrong with wanting to be happy,why,the the very second fruit of the spirit listed at Galatians5:22,23 is joy(only love is put ahead of it).Jehovah wants us to be happy.But if we love happiness more than all else we will never know true happiness.At 2Timothy3:4 the apostle Paul spoke of some who were "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God",in verse5 of the same scripture he advises against companionship with such ones.David understood the secret of true happiness Psalm34:8YLT"Taste ye and see that Jehovah is Good,O the happiness of the man that trusteth in Him."Stop pursuing happiness(it is far to fleet of foot Ecclesiastes1:2) Instead pursue Jehovah(he is willing game Acts17:27),and then happiness will pursue(and indeed overtake)you Psalm23:6

And still yet more primeval tech v. Darwin.

 Hierarchical Systems in Biology — DNA Packaging

Walter Myers III

Late last year Discovery Institute Research Coordinator Brian Miller asked me about hierarchical systems in biological organisms and how they relate to computer systems. I hadn’t thought much about it previously. However, that question has gnawed at me over the past few months and there are a couple of interesting cases I have been pondering where I believe there is hierarchical structure in nature that intersects with programmatic constructs. 

The first is the overall organization of biological organisms: how they appear to have a layered approach where structures not only build on top of lower ones, but also within those layers there is composition of various parts that work in concert with other parts. For example, in any complex multicellular animal, cells comprise the smallest unit, then you have groupings of cells into structures such as organs, and then these organs are composed to give rise to the full, working organism. Beyond that, there is the thinking part of an organism that seems to defy being reduced to its physical constituents. I will stop there, but that is grist for a future post.

Hierarchical Nature of DNA

The second case I have been thinking about for some time, which is my subject here, is the hierarchical nature of the helical DNA molecule within the cell that carries the genetic instructions to build proteins that perform the work of the cell. It is truly remarkable to see 1) how such a large volume of information can be packed into so little space with its “supercoiled” architecture, 2) the degree to which this information is compressed and packaged within the nucleus of the cell, and 3) how it can be precisely unpackaged where needed to access the instructions for any new protein the cell needs for continued operation. As we will see, it is the chromosome that represents the highest order of DNA compression and organization, containing an organism’s entire genetic content, counted in the number of chromosome pairs. For example, humans have 23 chromosome pairs with one of each of the 23 pairs contributed by the parents, totaling 46 chromosomes.

Advanced life forms, such as humans, dogs, and whales, have what are called eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells, unlike prokaryotic cells such as bacteria, contain a nucleus that stores and protects the genetic material, DNA, which is “condensed” (i.e., packaged) into chromosomes. To get an idea of just how condensed DNA is, inside each and every one of the 30 to 40 trillion cells (excluding bacteria and reproductive cells) that make up a human, if you were to stretch the 3 billion base pairs of DNA end to end, its length would be about two meters. Yet when fully packaged inside the nucleus of a cell (generally during cell division), the 3 billion base pairs in each cell fit into a space just 6 microns (.000006 meters) across. The nucleus itself is about 10 microns (.00001 meters) in diameter, providing ample room for DNA to be unpackaged as needed, as in between cell division chromosomes generally exist in a more diffused state in essential regions to enable faster access for replication or transcription. This is somewhat like the concept of memory caching in computer systems to speed up programs by avoiding slower disk reads for frequently used data. Generally, if a gene is completely packed away, then it will most likely not be expressed (i.e., transcribed and translated into a protein). This makes sense because each of the different cell types in an organism (e.g., muscle, skin, endothelial, nerve, etc.) requires only a small subset of the full set of available proteins coded in the genome.

Carefully and Ingeniously

So how do you package one meter of information content into a space 1/100,000 that size? Very carefully and quite ingeniously. The storage of DNA is very much like hierarchical file systems on Windows and Linux desktop computers compressed into a .zip file. In the same manner that there are folders within folders within folders in a desktop computer, with the actual files at the terminal level, individual genes within a DNA molecule are equivalent to “files” that in this case specify the building of a protein needed for the cell to function. DNA packaging is far more complex, however, with several levels of packaging into a highly compressed and compact structure called chromatin. Essentially, there are three orders of DNA packaging: the first order is the nucleosome, the second order is the solenoid fiber, and the third order is the scaffold loop chromatids chromosome. The diagram below demonstrates the levels of packaging.

Image credit: EreborMountain/Shutterstock.com.

The first level of packaging of DNA is where the double-stranded DNA is wrapped around spools of histone, a family of positively charged proteins that function primarily in packaging DNA, to form nucleosomes, creating the appearance of “beads” on a string. The nucleosomes themselves are then coiled into a 10 nm (10 billionths of a meter) fiber. Each nucleosome “core” consists of eight histone molecules. The nucleosomes are then further folded into the second order supercoiled solenoid fiber, which is 30 nm in width. The third order is the forming of looped domains of solenoid fibers that average 300 nm in width which are then further compressed down to 250 nm to form chromatin fiber. The chromatin fibers are further folded into 700 nm chromatids, and finally we have the highest order of structure that forms the characteristic shape of a chromosome which is 1400 nm in width as seen above. Thus, the general order of packaging is:

DNA → nucleosome → solenoid → chromatin fiber → chromatid → chromosome

A “Chicken and Egg” Problem

It is hard to fathom that such a highly complex, hierarchical mechanism of information storage on a microscopic scale could come about purely by chance, which more importantly demonstrates a clear case of the classic “chicken and egg” problem. This complex, highly orchestrated packaging model, coordinated by the machinery of enzymes (topoisomerases) and various types of histones that are proteins themselves coded in DNA, must have come prior to DNA and prior to the random variation mechanism of evolution itself. The DNA packaging model is programmed with the knowledge of what regions of the chromosome to keep tightly supercoiled and what regions to keep more loosely packed to aid in DNA transcription. Moreover, if a region needed for transcription is supercoiled, it will unwind that region and compensate for the unwinding with a compensating supercoil in a prior region. Thus, there is an astounding process of coordination taking place within the process of transcribing DNA.

Interestingly, there are companies that recognize the genius of DNA and its packaging model who are investigating using DNA molecules as a means of creating molecular-level archival data storage to solve the problem of an ever-increasing amount of digital data that is surpassing the amount of physical storage available using modern magnetic and optical media. For example, tech giant Microsoft is currently engaged in this research, noting the following on their website: “Using DNA to archive data is an attractive possibility because it is extremely dense (up to about 1 exabyte per cubic millimeter) and durable (half-life of over 500 years).” When one considers the fact that the world’s finest software engineers look to the DNA packaging topology to dramatically increase storage capability by orders of magnitude, it is reasonable to conclude that the packaging and processing of DNA is the product of a purposeful designer with a degree of engineering knowledge simply unmatched by humans.

Who then is this God and Father who is above all?

  Ephesians4:6 NASB "one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

One of the main reasons nontrintarian Christians feel compelled to reject the doctrine of the holy trinity is that it involves the same oft repeated seductions to a free lunch common to all poorly conceived philosophies.To give an example if the trinity doctrine as commonly explained by mainstream churches is true then manifestly no member of the trinity can be "over all" since not only would there be at least two others who are equal in divinity but there would be one (i.e the totality of the Godhead) who/which? would be greater than any single member.The trinity itself/himself? would alone be over all,The God,The most high,the only true God etc.

 Yet the scriptures repeatedly speak of the father alone as the most high,Ho theos i.e the God,the only true God,and as being over all including Christ.

The other purported members of the trinity are spoken of as being of God i.e subject to God so that Jesus is Son of The God(not merely the father) and never God the son,The spirit is the spirit of God(not merely the father or the son) and never as God the spirit. The Father by contrast is always the God the father and never the Father of the God clearly then the Father is the God who owns, sustains and controls the son and the spirit. The father's name alone in scripture is ever referred to as the sacred/holy name hence our lord prayed that YOUR (second person singular possessive),not our name be hallowed/sanctified.

 According to the words of our Lord and saviour Jesus the messiah the time is at hand for all seeking the approval of the one true God to reject this particular seduction to a free lunch and turn to the father i.e Jehovah/yahweh God as the one true God.

John4:23NASB "“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the FATHER in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers"

Seeking a straight answer from Darwinists.

 Can someone outline for me a stepwise Darwinian style  model of the emergence of sexual reproduction. Bearing in mind that any trial that does not succeed on its first attempt effectively resets the experiment to zero.

Lee Kuan Yew: an overview.

 Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew; 16 September 1923 – 23 March 2015), often referred to by his initials LKY, was a Singaporean statesman and lawyer who served as Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, and is recognised as the nation's founding father. He was one of the founders of the People's Action Party, which has ruled the country continuously since independence.

Lee was born in Singapore during British colonial rule, which was part of the Straits Settlements. He attained top grades in his early education, gaining a scholarship and admission to Raffles College. During the Japanese occupation, Lee worked in private enterprises and as an administration service officer for the propaganda office. After the war, Lee initially attended the London School of Economics, but transferred to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, graduating with starred-first-class honours in law in 1947. He became a barrister of the Middle Temple in 1950 and returned to Singapore, and began campaigning for Britain to relinquish its colonial rule.

Lee co-founded the People's Action Party in 1954 and won his first seat in the Tanjong Pagar division in the 1955 election. He became the de facto opposition leader in the legislature to chief ministers David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock. Lee led his party to its first electoral victory in the 1959 election, and was appointed as the state's first prime minister. To attain complete self-rule from Britain, Lee campaigned for a merger with other former British territories in a national referendum to form Malaysia in 1963. Racial strife and ideological differences led to Singapore's separation from the federation to become a sovereign city-state in 1965.

With overwhelming parliamentary control at every election, Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within a single generation. In the process, he forged a system of meritocratic, highly effective and anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning. He championed meritocracy and multiracialism as governing principles, making English the lingua franca to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve students' mother tongue and ethnic identity. Lee stepped down as prime minister in 1990, but remained in the Cabinet under his successors, holding the appointments of senior minister until 2004, then minister mentor until 2011. He died of pneumonia on 23 March 2015, aged 91. In a week of national mourning, about 1.7 million Singaporean residents as well as world leaders paid tribute to him at his lying-in-state at Parliament House and community tribute sites.

Lee has often been considered as a highly oppressive dictator and a stalwart supporter of the so-called Asian values, which espouses constant obedience to the government or face severe consequences such as caning and even the death penalty. Lee's rule was often criticised by observers from the liberal democracies of the West in response. Critics had also accused him of severely curtailing press freedoms, limits on public protests, restricting labour movements from strike action, and bringing defamation lawsuits any political opponents in his way.

The Multiverse: a brief history.

 Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, music, and all kinds of literature, particularly in science fiction, comic books and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel universes", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "parallel realities", "quantum realities", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", "alternate dimensions" and "dimensional planes".

The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.

In 2007, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggested that if the multiverse existed, "the hope of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses and other constants of the standard model that we observe in our Big Bang is doomed, for their values would be an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live."

File under "well said" LXXVII.

 

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

George Orwell

Storytelling masquerading as science (again).

Evolutionary Imagination and Belief Drive False Claims of a “Four-Legged Whale”

Casey Luskin 

The media are currently abuzz with claims of a newly discovered fossil from Egypt: a “four-legged whale.” Here are some prominent headlines:

• NPR: “Scientists Discover Fossil Of A 4-Legged Whale With A Raptor-Like Eating Style”
• Newsweek: “Scientists have found the fossil of a deadly 4-legged whale that had a jackal-like head and lived both on land and in the sea”
• New York Post: “Fossil of previously unknown four-legged whale found in Egypt”
• BBC: “New species of ancient four-legged whale discovered in Egypt”

And so on. The headlines are accompanied by an artist’s depiction of what was supposedly found. See above. The image is attributed to one of the co-authors of the technical paper, geologist Robert W. Boessenecker. 

“That’s Right, Folks”

The NPR story warns:

We regret to inform you that your nightmares are about to get worse. 

A team led by Egyptian scientists have dug up a 43 million-year-old fossil in the Sahara Desert in Egypt of a now-extinct amphibious four-legged whale.

That’s right, folks — a whale with legs.

The problem with these claims? That’s right folks — they didn’t find any of the fossil’s legs. Everything you just read about this fossil is the product of imagination. In fact, if you check the technical paper you’ll learn that they found very little of the fossil at all. Figure 1 from the paper, which can be seen online here, shows the bones that were discovered shaded in red. Zoom in and look at the drawing in the middle. You may notice, as I said, a curious absence of red-shaded leg bones. 

Also absent: the pelvis, the vast majority of ribs and vertebrae, and the front portion of the snout. Undoubtedly the organism had these bones, but to call this a “whale with legs,” or to unequivocally depict it as some species transitional between terrestrial mammals and whales (as seen above), is to impose a huge amount of evolutionary imagination on the situation. 

Was It a Whale?

Consistent with all of this, the paper notes in the abstract that what they did find was “a partial skeleton,” later stating, “The new species is based on a partial skeleton.” A complete description of the bones is provided later in the paper as follows:

an associated partial skeleton of a single individual including the cranium, the right mandible, incomplete left mandible, isolated teeth, the fifth cervical, and the sixth thoracic vertebrae and ribs. The holotype is the only known specimen.

Perhaps this organism had four legs. Perhaps it had flippers. Perhaps it was closely related to whales. Perhaps it has nothing to do with whales. No one really knows. The simple fact of the matter is that we know hardly anything about this creature because, again, so very little of it was found. Forcing this species into an evolutionary paradigm to fit preconceived ideas about cetacean evolution, and promulgating headlines about a “four-legged whale,” is beyond belief. Actually, I take that back. Belief — belief in an evolutionary paradigm — is the thing that’s driving these headlines. 

Imagination. Belief. That’s putting it politely, which I insist upon doing. We all have imaginations, and we all have beliefs. So in that sense this is understandable. But if I weren’t so polite, a variety of other terms could be used to describe telling the public this fossil represents a “four-legged whale.”

Is it any wonder that people don’t trust overhyped evolutionary claims made by the media, or by some scientists?

So what you're saying is...

  Christendom's emissaries keep trying to persuade me that their conclusions are the orthodoxy,while mine are heretical but I can't help noticing the mental contortions necessary to hold on to this 'orthodoxy' of theirs. For instance during a debate that I was recently watching between a member of the Lds church and a pair of protestants (Calvinists to be specific), one of the protestants ( displaying an astounding lack of self-awareness) attempted to use psalm90:2 as a defeater to the lds claim that God was once a man. Every time I try to use the same verse to establish permanent divinity of Jehovah with Christendom's representatives it is casually brushed aside. They would recognise the incongruity of worshiping a god that emerged from his own creation when the ancient pagans do it. But of course when they in effect to the very same thing,well,that's different. They chide the Muslim and lds  for worshiping a deity that is like a man in outward appearance while inviting them to worship a god who is a man in actuality not merely appearance. The polytheist's pantheon of specialised interdependent deities is deemed a clear violation of occam's razor as an explanation of the origin of man and the universe, while a triad of self-existent interchangeable divine persons is not and on and on.