A theory of everything re:design detection? V

 Orgelian Specified Complexity

William Dembski

As I noted at the start of this series on “specified complexity,” which I’m concluding today, Leslie Orgel introduced that term in his 1973 book The Origins of Life. Although specified complexity as developed by Winston Ewert, Robert Marks, and me attempts to get at the same informational reality that Orgel was trying to grasp, our formulations differ in important ways. 

For a fuller understanding of specified complexity, as an appendix to the series, it will therefore help to review what Orgel originally had in mind and to see where our formulation of the concept improves on his. Strictly speaking, this subject is mainly of historical interest. Because The Origins of Life is out of print and hard to get, I will quote from it extensively, offering exegetical commentary. I will focus on the three pages of his book where Orgel introduces and then discusses specified complexity (pages 189–191). 

"Terrestrial Biology”

Orgel introduces the term “specified complexity” in a section titled “Terrestrial Biology.” Elsewhere in his book, Orgel also considers non-terrestrial biology, which is why the title of his book refers to the origins (plural) of life — radically different forms of life might arise in different parts of the universe. To set the stage for introducing specified complexity, Orgel discusses the various commonly cited defining features of life, such reproduction or metabolism. Thinking these don’t get at the essence of life, he introduces the term that is the focus of this series:

It is possible to make a more fundamental distinction between living and nonliving things by examining their molecular structure and molecular behavior. In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. (p. 189)

So far, so good. Everything Orgel writes here makes good intuitive sense. It matches up with the three types of order discussed at the start of this series: repetitive order, random order, complex specified order. Wanting to put specified complexity on a firmer theoretical basis, Orgel next connects it to information theory:

These vague ideas can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. On the other hand, a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. Complex but random structures, by definition. need hardly be specified at all. (p. 190)

Orgel’s elaboration here of specified complexity calls for further clarification. His use of the term “information content” is ill-defined. He unpacks it in terms of “minimum number of instructions needed to specify a structure.” This suggests a Kolmogorov information measure. Yet complex specified structures, according to him, require lots of instructions, and so suggest high Kolmogorov information. By contrast, specified complexity as developed in this series requires low Kolmogorov information. 

At the same time, for Orgel to write that “complex but random structures … need hardly be specified at all” suggests low Kolmogorov complexity for random structures, which is exactly the opposite of how Kolmogorov information characterizes randomness. For Kolmogorov, the random structures are those that are incompressible, and thus, in Orgel’s usage, require many instructions to specify (not “need hardly be specified at all”). 

Perhaps Orgel had something else in mind — I am trying to read him charitably — but from the vantage of information theory, his options are limited. Shannon and Kolmogorov are, for Orgel, the only games in town. And yet, Shannon information, focused as it is on probability rather than instruction sets, doesn’t clarify Orgel’s last remarks. Fortunately, Orgel elaborates on them with three examples:

These differences are made clear by the following example. Suppose a chemist agreed to synthesize anything that could be described accurately to him. How many instructions would he need to make a crystal, a mixture of random DNA-like polymers or the DNA of the bacterium E. coli? (p. 190)

This passage seems promising for understanding what Orgel is getting at with specified complexity. Nonetheless, it also suggests that Orgel is understanding information entirely in terms of instruction sets for building chemical systems, which then weds him entirely to a Kolmogorov rather than Shannon view of information. In particular, nothing here suggests that he will bring both views of information together under a coherent umbrella. 

The Language of Short Descriptions

Here’s is how Orgel elaborates the first example, which is replete with the language of short descriptions (as in the account of specified complexity given in this series):

To describe the crystal we had in mind, we would need to specify which substance we wanted and the way in which the molecules were to be packed together in the crystal. The first requirement could be conveyed in a short sentence. The second would be almost as brief, because we could describe how we wanted the first few molecules packed together, and then say “and keep on doing the same.” Structural information has to be given only once because the crystal is regular. (p. 190)

This example has very much the feel of our earlier example in which Kolmogorov information was illustrated in a sequence of 100 identical coin tosses (0 for tails) described very simply by “repeat ‘0’ 100 times.” For specified complexity as developed in this series, an example like this one by Orgel yields a low degree of specified complexity. It combines both low Shannon information (the crystal forms reliably and repeatedly with high probability and thus low complexity) and low Kolmogorov information (the crystal requires a short description of instruction set). It exhibits specified non-complexity, or what could be called specified simplicity.

A Fatal Difficulty

Orgel’s next example, focused on randomness, is more revealing, and indicates a fatal difficulty with his approach to specified complexity:

It would be almost as easy to tell the chemist how to make a mixture of random DNA-like polymers. We would first specify the proportion of each of the four nucleotides in the mixture. Then, we would say, “Mix the nucleotides in the required proportions, choose nucleotide molecules at random from the mixture, and join them together in the order you find them.” In this way the chemist would be sure to make polymers with the specified composition, but the sequences would be random. (p. 190)

Orgel’s account of forming random polymers here betrays information-theoretic confusion. Previously, he was using the terms “specify” and “specified” in the sense of giving a full instruction set to bring about a given structure — in this case, a given nucleotide polymer. But that’s not what he is doing here. Instead, he is giving a recipe for forming random nucleotide polymers in general. Granted, the recipe is short (i.e., bring together the right separate ingredients and mix), suggesting a short description length since it would be “easy” to tell a chemist how to produce it. 

But the synthetic chemist here is producing not just one random polymer but a whole bunch of them. And even if the chemist produced a single such polymer, it would not be precisely identified. Rather, it would belong to a class of random polymers. To identify and actually build a given random polymer would require a large instructional set, and would thus indicate high, not low Kolmogorov information, contrary to what Orgel is saying here about random polymers.

Finally, let’s turn to the example that for Orgel motivates his introduction of the term “specified complexity” in the first place:

It is quite impossible to produce a corresponding simple set of instructions that would enable the chemist to synthesize the DNA of E. coli. In this case, the sequence matters: only by specifying the sequence letter-by-letter (about 4,000,000 instructions) could we tell the chemist what we wanted him to make. The synthetic chemist would need a book of instructions rather than a few short sentences. (p. 190)

Orgel’s Takeaway

Given this last example, it becomes clear that for Orgel, specified complexity is all about requiring a long instructional set to generate a structure. Orgel’s takeaway, then, is this:

It is important to notice that each polymer molecule on a random mixture has a sequence just as definite as that of E. coli DNA. However, in a random mixture the sequences are not specified. Whereas in E. coli, the DNA sequence is crucial. Two random mixtures contain quite different polymer sequences, but the DNA sequences in two E. coli cells are identical because they are specified. The polymer sequences are complex but random: although E. coli DNA is also complex, it is specified In a unique way. (pp. 190–191)

This is confused. The reason it’s confused is that Orgel’s account of specified complexity commits a category mistake. He admits that a random sequence requires just as long an instruction set to generate as E. coli DNA because both are, as he puts it, “definite.” Yet with random sequences, he looks at an entire class or range of random sequences whereas with E. coli DNA, he is looking at one particular sequence. 

Orgel is correct, as far as he goes, that from an instruction set point of view, it’s easy to generate elements from such a class of random sequences. And yet, from an instruction set point of view, it is no easier to generate a particular random sequence than a particular non-random sequence, such as E. coli DNA. That’s the category mistake. Orgel is applying instruction sets in two very different ways, one to a class of sequences, the other to particular sequences. But he fails to note the difference. 

A Different Tack

The approach to specified complexity that Winston Ewert and I take, as characterized in this series, takes a different tack. Repetitive order yields high probability and specification, and therefore combines low Shannon and low Kolmogorov information, yielding, as we’ve seen, what can be called specified simplicity. This is consistent with Orgel. But note that our approach yields a specified complexity value (albeit a low one in this case). Specified complexity, as a difference between Shannon and Kolmogorov complexity, takes continuous values and thus comes in degrees. For repetitive order, specified complexity, as characterized in this series, will thus take on low values.

That said, Orgel’s application of specified complexity to distinguish a random nucleotide polymer from E. coli DNA diverges sharply from how specified complexity as outlined in this series applies to these same polymers. A random sequence, within the scheme outlined in the series, will have large Shannon information but also, because it has no short description, will have large Kolmogorov information, so the two will cancel each other, and the specified complexity of such a sequence will be low or indeterminate.

On the other hand, for E. coli DNA, within the scheme outlined in this series, there will be work to do in showing that it actually exhibits specified complexity. The problem is that the particular sequence in question will have low probability and thus high Shannon information. At the same time, that particular sequence will be unlikely to have a short exact description. Rather, what will be needed to characterize the E. coli DNA as exhibiting specified complexity within the scheme of this series is a short description to which the sequence answers but which also describes an event of small probability, thus combining high Shannon information with low Kolmogorov information. 

Specified complexity as characterized in this series and applied to this example will thus mean that the description will include not just the particular sequence in question but a range of sequences that answer to the description. Note that there is no category mistake here as there was with Orgel. The point of specified complexity as developed in this series is always with matching events and descriptions of those events, where any particular event is described provided it answers to the description. For instance, a die rolls exhibiting a 6 answers to the description “an even die roll.”

So, is there a simple description of the E. coli DNA that shows this sequence to exhibit specified complexity in the sense outlined in this series? That’s in fact not an easy question to answer. The truth of Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design hinges on the answer. Orgel realized this when he wrote the following immediately after introducing the concept of specified complexity, though his reference to miracles is a red herring (at issue is whether life is the result of intelligence, and there’s no reason to think that intelligence as operating in nature need act miraculously):

Since, as scientists, we must not postulate miracles we must suppose that the appearance of “life” is necessarily preceded by a period of evolution. At first, replicating structures are formed that have low but non-zero information content. Natural selection leads to the development of a series of structures of increasing complexity and information content, until one is formed which we are prepared to call “living.” (p. 192)

Orgel is here proposing the life evolves to increasing levels of complexity, where at each stage nothing radically improbable is happening. Natural selection is thus seen as a probability amplifier that renders probable what otherwise would be improbable. Is there a simple description to which the E. coli DNA answers and which is highly improbable, not just when the isolated nucleotides making up the E. coli DNA are viewed as a purely random mixture but rather by factoring in their evolvability via Darwinian evolution?

A Tough Question

That’s a tough question to answer precisely because evaluating the probability of forming E. coli DNA with or without natural selection is far from clear. Given Orgel’s account of specified complexity, he would have to say that the E. coli DNA exhibits specified complexity. But within the account of specified complexity given in this series, ascribing specified complexity always requires doing some work, finding a description to which an observed event answers, showing the description to be short, and showing the event precisely identified by the description has small probability, implying high Shannon information and low Kolmogorov information. 

For intelligent design in biology, the challenge in demonstrating specified complexity is always to find a biological system that can be briefly described (yielding low Kolmogorov complexity) and whose evolvability, even by Darwinian means, has small probability (yielding high Shannon information). Orgel’s understanding of specified complexity is quite different. In my view, it is not only conceptually incoherent but also stacks the deck unduly in favor of Darwinian evolution. 

To sum up, I have presented Orgel’s account of specified complexity at length so that readers can decide for themselves which account of specified complexity they prefer, Orgel’s or the one presented in this series.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at BillDembski.com

On false prophets and false accusers.

       

Suppose I had access to everything you had done or said since you were a little child, stored on a computer. It would be a simple matter for me to pick out a hundred or two hundred of the worst things you’d said and done over the course of your life, to write them up in a list with dates, times and places and then to proclaim, in the same way as a correspondent did in one of his emails to me: “The question is not what you have got wrong, but whether you got anything right.” On the other hand, by a similar process of selecting the 100-200 kindest, most generous, loving things you’d done, I could equally make you look like a saint. Both pictures would be true in a sense, but neither would be the whole truth. Why is this important?

The WatchtowerIn the last 125 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published literally millions of words in publications such as The Watchtower. This includes powerful arguments against atheism and the theory of evolution, eloquent defences of the Bible as the inspired word of God, articles upholding the Bible’s stance on moral issues such as abortion, fornication, adultery and homosexual lifestyles. Watchtower publications have long exhorted their readers to display Christian qualities and imitate Jesus. They have shown how applying the Bible’s counsel can benefit family life. Through The Watchtower, millions of people have been comforted by the Bible’s message of hope.

You might expect that evangelical Christian organizations would happily applaud most of the above. After all, evangelical Christians believe in God and reject evolution, consider the Bible to be God’s inspired word, oppose sexual sins and abortion. They, too, speak of the need to imitate Jesus and display Christlike qualities. You would expect, then, that evangelical Christian groups could find a lot of positive things to say about The Watchtower. You’d think they’d congratulate Jehovah’s Witnesses for energetically spreading the above-mentioned views throughout the world and in literally hundreds of languages. But you would be wildly wrong.

An analysis of quotations from The Watchtower and other Jehovah’s Witness publications made by evangelical Christian writers - particularly on the Internet, but also in print - reveals that, far from commending Witness literature for all the positive material they publish, these writers consistently attack Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively seek anything that could possibly be used to discredit them - including many things published more than 100 years ago!

You could compare their attitude with that of a man who visits one of the world’s most beautiful cities - say Vienna. Instead of touring the most attractive parts of the city, though, this man visits the Municipal Garbage Dump and photographs the rubbish there. Then he goes to the industrial area and photographs the factories. Everywhere he goes he looks for the ugliest, most sordid parts of the city. Making copious use of close-ups to highlight the least attractive parts and using the most unflattering camera angles, he ensures his pictures give the worst possible impression. Then, on his return home, he shows the photographs to his friends, to convince them that Vienna is the most awful city in the world.

In resorting to similar tactics, critics of Witness publications immediately reveal their bias. The Watchtower Society is their ideological opponent, to be defeated at all costs. They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years. They take whatever suits their purpose and ignore the rest. They rip quotes out of their context, attempting to make it look as though they say much more than they actually meant. Why do they do it? They do it because it is their job to do it! In short, they are far from being an objective source of information.

Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery. It is easy to detect an agenda behind this type of mudslinging. Just about anyone who wanted to believe it has already done so. And as for the rest of us, what hasn't killed us has made us stronger.

But we should not reject a person’s criticism simply because we feel it is wrongly motivated. Prejudiced and hate-filled people can sometimes be at least partially right. As Christians, we should be discerning, remembering the admonition of the proverb, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word.” (Proverbs 14:15) With that in mind, let us examine the assertions commonly made in anti-Witness literature concerning the Witnesses’ alleged “false prophecies”.

Taken Out of Context

We have not the gift of prophecy 

Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.

The standard technique of critics appears to be to present a list of alleged “false prophecies”, the longer the better. There are dozens of such lists on the Internet. These take the form of quotations from The Watchtower and other Witness publications.

Whereas the majority of the quotes themselves are accurate, the context in which they were presented - both the immediate context of the printed page and the historical context - is omitted. Selective quotations ensure that anything that gives the impression of certainty is usually included, whereas any cautionary statements are omitted.We are not for a moment denying that the publications - in particular the earlier ones - have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen. Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:[1]

With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction. 

With regard to 1914: : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).[2]

With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."[3]

With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.[4]

Charles Taze RussellIt’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe. By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.

No Claim of Inspiration

Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications. Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect. Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case. (This is just a small selection of examples. Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)

1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."

1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”[5]

We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology.Zion's Watch Tower, 1908

1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.[6]1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.[7]

Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?[8]

1910s: However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.[9]

1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.[10]

1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended[11]

1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.[12]

1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances,nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.[13]

1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it[14]

Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)[15]

Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975

F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.

1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.[16]

1980s: It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.[17]

1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.[18]

2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.[19]

It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications. Thus, the critics' assertion that “the Watch Tower claims to be an inspired prophet” is manifestly false. 

Did Haydon Covington concede that the Watch Tower is a False Prophet?

Did Haydon Covington concede in the Walsh trial that the Watch Tower Society has promulgated false prophecy, as is stated by critics? Even if he had done so, what would that have proved? If Covington had said that the thought the Society was a false prophet, then he would have been mistaken, that is all. However, a look at the court record (even as it is quoted on anti-Witness web pages) shows that Covington did nothing of the sort. 

Critics' allegations that 'The Watchtower claims to be an inspired prophet' are manifestly false

The court records show that Covington said: “I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy ... there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.” When asked hypothetically if it would have been a false prophecy if the Society had authoritatively promulgated 1874 as the date for the return of Christ’s coming, Covington himself pointed out that this was only an assumption, and is then is recorded as having said the words “I agree that”. This is an incomplete sentence in English. Now it could very well be that he was interrupted and was not intending to agree that a false prophecy had been made. If we take the court to read “I agree to that”, he was simply agreeing hypothetically that the Society would have been guilty of false prophecy under a certain set of circumstances, namely if it had promulgated as authoritative that Christ returned in 1874. Now the records show that Covington had not studied the Society’s literature relating to 1874, saying “you are speaking of a matter that I know nothing of.” So, Covington’s comments, viewed in their proper context do not prove the point Witness critics are trying to make. Covington certainly did not mean that the Society was responsible for a false prophecy, as he had just a few moments earlier stated the very opposite. And as we have seen, the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves.

Of course, Witnesses do believe that God is using them - and their publications - to accomplish his work. But that is not the same as believing that God personally directs the writing of Watchtower Publications in the way that he inspired the Bible. The above quotations - and many others - show that at no time in the history of the organization has it claimed to be God’s prophet, inspired or infallible.[20]

It is evident here that critics are setting up a straw man argument. In other words, they are imputing to Watch Tower a position that it does not claim for itself and then refuting that position, instead of the Society’s actual position. This is really nothing but a dishonest debating trick.

Thus, the Watch Tower quotations, taken in context and stripped of all hyperbole and rhetoric, establish basically one thing only: that Watch Tower publications have on a number of occasions presented interpretations of Bible prophecies which later turned out to be incorrect. It is not possible to argue on the basis of the Watchtower literature that (1) the Society claims that its literature is inspired of God or infallible, (2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet.

Admittedly, it would certainly have been better for all concerned had the publications refrained from publishing such speculative interpretations, which doubtless led to disappointment for many. ‘The Watchtower’, far from covering over these facts, has admitted openly that this is the case, as is seen from the following extract from The Watchtower.

In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.[21]

Thus the Watch Tower Society has recognised that it was a mistake to speculate. But was it the only ever religious organization to make such a mistake?

Double Standards and Bigotry

If Jehovah’s Witnesses have had mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, they are far from alone. Many other students of the Bible - including some highly respected Catholic and Protestant writers - have made similar mistakes to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whole books have been written on the subject of predictions that failed to come true, but let’s look at just three examples from the world of Protestantism: Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham.

Protestant leader Martin Luther, believed that the end would come in his day. He believed theMartin Luther Turkish war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"?[22] and that "Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door"[23]

John WesleyMethodist founder John Wesley wrote: "1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan."[24]

In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in LosBilly GrahamAngeles: “I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.”[25]

If it had been Jehovah’s Witnesses who had said the things that Luther, Wesley and Graham proclaimed, these proclamations would have been added to the list of quotations supposedly proving McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185.that the Witnesses are false prophets. Unsurprisingly, however, the sources that attack the Witnesses for false prophecy do not generally take the same position when it comes to Protestant figures who have made very similar errors.

This should give all of us food for thought. If a newspaper editor were to publish in his paper all the crimes committed by members of just one ethnic group or race, dwelling on them in great detail, even repeatedly bringing up very old offences, but at the same time, ignoring all the crimes committed by members of another group (perhaps his own), then thinking people who looked at the facts would conclude that he was nothing but a bigot. What are we to think, then, when certain ones opposed to Jehovah’s Witnesses constantly harp on what they incorrectly and maliciously term “false prophecies” of the organization, reproducing ad nauseam the same quotations from Watch Tower literature, the majority of which were published almost 100 years ago, while remaining deadly silent about all similar errors by those who share their theological convictions? Is the word ‘bigoted’ any less appropriate? At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities.

Were Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham false prophets?

I do not think that the comments of Luther, Wesley or Graham make them false prophets, for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Watch Tower is a false prophet, namely, that interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.

Prophecy and Interpretation

It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are being guided by God. But, ‘guidance’ is a much broader concept than ‘inspiration’. True, inspiration is a form of guidance, but it is only one form. In this regard, Stafford makes a very telling point:

It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will which are then channelled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.[26]

“Prophecy” involves much more than simply predicting the future. It involves claiming to have a message directly from God. It is not the same as interpreting events or even interpreting the prophetic parts of the Bible. Russell understood this and that is why he said: “The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth”, adding “we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration”[27]

The Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. 

Similarly, when Wesley drew the conclusion that the end would come in 1836, he did so on the basis of his understanding of the Bible. Of course, this understanding turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, but that does not make him a false prophet. When Billy Graham stated in 1950 that the end would come within two years, he was not claiming that God had personally spoken to him through a dream or a vision. He was just stating what he believed after comparing world events with what he knew from the Bible. No charitable person would accuse Graham of being a false prophet because of that (although it is obvious that he did make an error of judgment). Likewise, when Luther stated that the Turkish war would lead to the end of the world, he was woefully mistaken, but that certainly does not make him a false prophet. Incidentally, Luther, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, also contradicted Copernicus and insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe! [28]

Thus, the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God, seen visions or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible. It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible, but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have some questions to answer:

(1) Do they think it is truthful and fair to focus on a minute selection of the Watch Tower’s published material - the most negative part - and ignore everything else?

(2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours). On what do they base that conclusion, and how do they explain the dozens of quotations I have presented from the Society’s literature - from all periods of its history - where the Society denies that?[29]

(3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations?

(4) Do they believe that others who have had mistaken expectations, including Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham, are false prophets, and if not, why not?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they should be above honest criticism and have not hidden the fact that they have made errors in their interpretations. But honest criticism implies respect for truth - the whole truth, not just extracts taken out of context and twisted to give an impression that they were never intended to give.

Beware of half truths. You might end up believing the wrong half!

Footnotes and References

[1] I am grateful to other Witness writers for bringing many of these citations to my attention. Additionally, the book Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition [JWD2] by Greg Stafford contains extensive research on this matter. Quotations from publications after 1950 are generally taken from the Watchtower Library 2003 CD-ROM. Almost all Russell’s writings are freely available on the Internet.

[2] Zion's Watch Tower, January 1, 1908 (reprint) page 4110

[3] The Watch Tower, January 1, 1925, page 3.

[4] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.

[5] Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1883, page 425.

[6] Zion 's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080 (emphasis added).

[7] "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 March 1904, reprint, 3327 (emphasis added).

[8] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.

[9] The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348 (emphasis added).

[10] Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), 61-62 (emphasis added).

[11] Light, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1930), 194 (emphasis added).

[12] The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, pp. 157-8.

[13] "Name and Purpose of the Watchtower," The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, 262-263 (emphasis added)

[14] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.

[15] The Watchtower, 15 August 1968, page 499.

[16] The Watchtower, 1 March 1979, page 23-24.

[17] Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 9. (Published 1988)

[18] Jehovah’s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 708 (Published 1993)

[19] The Watchtower, 1 December 2002, page 17.

[20] Occasionally, The Watchtower (for example 1 April 1972) has referred to true Christians (not specifically to the writers of Watch Tower publications) as “prophets”. However, the word is placed in inverted commas, which shows that it is not meant literally. The 1972 article is simply drawing parallels between experiences in the life of the prophet Ezekiel and those of Christians today as they fulfil Christ’s commission to preach to all the nations. This sense of the word ‘prophecy’ is recognised by many ‘mainstream’ Christians., Billy Graham’s biography is called “A prophet with Honor” . Pope John Paul II spoke of ‘the ‘prophetic office’ of the People of God - meaning their responsibility to give a Christian witness. (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264of.htm) In view of other comments (cited in the main article) in which the Society specifically repudiates prophet status, both before and after this article was published, attempts to use this article to demonstrate that the Watch Tower Society claims to be an inspired prophet are obviously misrepresenting the sense of the article.

[21] The Watchtower, 15 March 1980, page 17-18.

[22] John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken [Army Sermon Against the Turks],"Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.

[23] Ibid, p. 201.

[24]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxviii.xxiii.html

[25] McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)

[26] Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pp. 462-3.

[27] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506

[28] Luther is also quoted on certain websites as having said that Jesus would return 300 years from his time. (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther, trans. by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby [London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818], pp. 7,8.) I have not been able to verify this source, although I have no reason to doubt it.

[29] A computer search for the expression “inspired prophet” on the Watchtower 2003 CD-ROM (containing The Watchtower) since 1950 plus most other publications, revealed that the expression came up 44 times. Every single occurrence was referring to a Bible writer.

Micah5:2 demystified.

 Micah 5:2

Some trinitarians tell us Micah 5:2 (or 5:1 in some versions) teaches that Jesus has always existed ("from everlasting" - KJV). And since only God has existed for all eternity, Jesus must be God! 

But look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)

Why would these trinitarian translations admit such a thing? Perhaps because it is difficult to honestly translate the Hebrew motsaah with a word that does not include this understanding. (Even when "goings forth" is the rendering, it appears it should also be with the understanding of "originating." For example, if we said "the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang from - the king! And when Micah 5:2 says of the Messiah: "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth [the Messiah]," it can only mean that, in his earthly existence, he originated in Bethlehem!) 

Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.  

And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans.

It would make no sense to interpret this as meaning the Messiah's human origin springs from ancient times. We have just been told that in Micah's time the Messiah's human origin was to be a future event and would take place in Bethlehem. Also there are no humans who haven't sprung from the very first pair in ancient Eden. It would be ridiculous to make the point that the human Messiah came from ancient stock since every human has done so. It must mean that his pre-existence as a spirit person in heaven originated in very ancient times (as the very beginning of God's creation - Rev. 3:14; Prov. 8:22). The Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint, in fact, at Micah 5:2 says: "and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe], from ancient days [aionos]." 

The NIV Study Bible, in a footnote for Micah 5:2 explains: "origins...from of old. His beginnings were much earlier than his human birth." 

BUT THE TRUE, ETERNAL GOD HAD NO BEGINNING!

As for the Hebrew word olam, it can often be understood as “ancient times” or “of old” and does not necessarily refer to “eternity.” Here is how olam is used in the following scriptures in the NASB:


of old (Gen 6:4)

days of old (Deuteronomy 32:7)

From ancient times (Joshua 24:2)

from ancient times. (1 Samuel 27:8)

the ancient path (Job 22:15)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 22:28)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 23:10)

the ancient nation (Isaiah 44:7)

ancient ruins (Isaiah 58:12) 

ancient ruins (Isaiah 61:4) 

the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9)

the days of old (Isaiah 63:11)
          an ancient nation, (Jeremiah 5:15)
          the ancient paths (Jeremiah 6:16)

          the ancient paths (Jeremiah 18:15)

         the ancient waste places (Ezekiel 26:20)

         the days of old (Malachi 3:4)

Micah 5:2 literally says "days of olam." This same wording is found again in Micah at Micah 7:14:

Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old [‘days of olam’] (Micah 7:14).

Try substituting “eternity” in the above scriptures. It’s clear that the NASB has rendered olam correctly in those scriptures. 

So, adding the fact that the Messiah had a beginning in this verse to the possibility of olam meaning “ancient” as translated here in numerous Trinitarian Bibles and and in many other scriptures, it seems evident that the RSV has correctly rendered Micah 5:2 - 

(RSV) Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 

It's also very important to examine Micah 5:4 where Jehovah is recognized as being the God of the Messiah! (The NIVSB tells us in a footnote for this verse that the LORD [`Jehovah'] here - the God of the Messiah - refers to "God the Father.")

Posted by Elijah Daniels

Jehovah's Witnesses and pyramidology demystified II

 

Was Charles Taze Russell Buried Under a Pyramid?

Russell is NOT buried under a pyramid. The pyramid was built in the middle of the cemetery.

The pyramid was erected after his death by J.A. Bohnet a Bible Student. The monument was built in the middle of the WTS plot in the cemetery. It was to be a marker of sorts for the Bible House family (those who worked at the headquarters in Pa). The pyramid contains a cross, crown and wreath symbol, scripture quotes, an open book which has names of Bible Students who died and were buried in the  cemetery.

Russell and the early Bible Students thought that God had directed the building of the Great pyramid by Hebrews as a secondary way to confirm the Bible's chronology.

This was not a belief that the Bible Students made up, but was commonly taught in many mainstream Churches which they had just come out of. It took them time to discern what was true and what was myth. In the 1800s some religious scholars felt that the Great Pyramid was built by the Hebrews under God's direction. They believed that biblical texts such as Isa 19:19-20 foretold that the Pyramid contained clues to the interpretation of Biblical prophecies that would be understood in the end times.

But Witnesses corrected their wrong understandings while other religions continue to believe obvious myths associated with the cross and holidays. And there are still theologians and accepted members of mainstream churches who still teach Pyramidology, numerology, and mix "New Age" metaphysics with no repercussions from their respective organizations.


Jehovah's Witnesses have never hidden the fact that they had incorrect beliefs due to ignorance, but we regularly study our history. But, the Bible shows that God allows his servants to gradually understand (Pro. 4:18; Jn 16:12) just as the prophets and Apostles had to gradually learn and change their understandings (Dan. 12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12).

So, concern with past beliefs which were incorrect is a waste of time and distracts from the real issue. That is, a FAILURE to correct false doctrine or actions when presented with solid evidence would be proof that a religion or an individual is not God's organization or a Christian.

It is hypocritical and it's illogical to address past beliefs which have been changed in order to cast doubt on current teachings of any religion. What someone taught years ago has no bearing on the accuracy of what is taught now.

Rejecting current beliefs based on past misunderstanding is just plain unintelligent.

Was Charles Taze Russell Buried Under a Pyramid?

Russell is NOT buried under a pyramid. The pyramid was built in the middle of the cemetery.

The pyramid was erected after his death by J.A. Bohnet a Bible Student. The monument was built in the middle of the WTS plot in the cemetery. It was to be a marker of sorts for the Bible House family (those who worked at the headquarters in Pa). The pyramid contains a cross, crown and wreath symbol, scripture quotes, an open book which has names of Bible Students who died and were buried in the  cemetery.

Russell and the early Bible Students thought that God had directed the building of the Great pyramid by Hebrews as a secondary way to confirm the Bible's chronology.

This was not a belief that the Bible Students made up, but was commonly taught in many mainstream Churches which they had just come out of. It took them time to discern what was true and what was myth. In the 1800s some religious scholars felt that the Great Pyramid was built by the Hebrews under God's direction. They believed that biblical texts such as Isa 19:19-20 foretold that the Pyramid contained clues to the interpretation of Biblical prophecies that would be understood in the end times.

But Witnesses corrected their wrong understandings while other religions continue to believe obvious myths associated with the cross and holidays. And there are still theologians and accepted members of mainstream churches who still teach Pyramidology, numerology, and mix "New Age" metaphysics with no repercussions from their respective organizations.


Jehovah's Witnesses have never hidden the fact that they had incorrect beliefs due to ignorance, but we regularly study our history. But, the Bible shows that God allows his servants to gradually understand (Pro. 4:18; Jn 16:12) just as the prophets and Apostles had to gradually learn and change their understandings (Dan. 12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12).

So, concern with past beliefs which were incorrect is a waste of time and distracts from the real issue. That is, a FAILURE to correct false doctrine or actions when presented with solid evidence would be proof that a religion or an individual is not God's organization or a Christian.

It is hypocritical and it's illogical to address past beliefs which have been changed in order to cast doubt on current teachings of any religion. What someone taught years ago has no bearing on the accuracy of what is taught now.

Rejecting current beliefs based on past misunderstanding is just plain unintelligent.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Pyramidology demystified.

 

Charles T. Russell and "Pyramid Chronology"

Pyramid Chronology

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses occasionally cite Charles T. Russell's interest in "Pyramid Chronology" as another one of their attempts to discredit the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In order to address this subject properly, a brief look at the history of the subject and the broad general perception at that time would be beneficial.

In 1859, an "eminently respectable Nottinghamshire Victorian" (Moffett quote) and respected London publisher, John Taylor, published his book, The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? And Who Built It?.

Taylor was also an earnest student of mathematics who had spent many long hours examining and analyzing the most accurate and detailed measurements then available for the Great Pyramid: Howard Vyse's survey in 3 volumes - Operations Carried On At The Pyramids Of Giza.

Taylor's eight-volume work claimed the Great Pyramid had been built through the inspiration of the God of the Bible. The various measurements of that pyramid were, he said, God-inspired messages to His people.

Then Dr. Charles Piazzi Smyth took over. He was

"a fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's august high command of the sciences, [and] his father, Admiral William Henry Smyth, had been one before him. At the time the younger Smyth encountered Taylor's theories, he was both professor of astronomy at Edinburgh University and Astronomer Royal of Scotland." - Moffett.

Inspired by Taylor's studies, Smyth launched into a fresh analysis of Howard Vyse's figures. His calculations and conclusions startled the world: not only was Taylor correct, he declared, but there were many new revelations to be found!

From 1864 until 1890 (at least) Piazzi Smyth was the greatest authority on the revelations of the Great Pyramid measurements. This respected scientist sincerely believed and taught, among other things, that the various measurements in and on the Pyramid were put there through inspiration from God by its Hebrew builders to encourage and inform God's modern people.

Many later studies by others came up with slightly different measurements and different interpretations, but Piazzi Smyth's were certainly the most impressive from the standpoint of scholastic authority, scientific sincerity, and world-wide endorsements. "As late as 1932," Moffett tells us, "there were still those ready to take up the cudgel for the Astronomer Royal." Others, however, also became popular in this field.

"The heyday of pyramidology was to dawn in 1924, with the publication of The Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message. This was primarily the work of an English structural engineer named David Davidson." - Moffett.

Many intelligent, knowledgeable people around the world were convinced that the Great Pyramid had been divinely constructed to reveal Biblical truths. True, there was some argument as to which of the many different measurements being reported were the proper measurements. And there were various interpretations as to what each measurement actually represented. And there were a number of stuffy "curmudgeons" who still wouldn't be convinced by what seemed to be overwhelming statistical proof. But "Pyramid Fever" ran high, nevertheless.

And in 1890 the respected Dr. Piazzi Smyth was the Pyramid Chronology expert!

So, when C. T. Russell began examining Dr. Smyth's work and comparing it to his own attempts at chronology based on the Bible alone, it is no wonder he became very excited at what appeared to be an exact proportional match between the lengths of various consecutive measurements in the Pyramid and the lengths of consecutive time periods in his own Bible chronology.
As a result, in 1890, Russell's "Pyramid" calculations and their interpretation by him were forwarded to Piazzi Smyth in England. Smyth heartily endorsed them in his Dec. 21, 1890 letter which was reproduced in Studies in the Scriptures when Russell published his Great Pyramid testimony. - see pp. 311-312, Thy Kingdom Come.

As Russell tells us in that very same work which Piazzi Smyth had reviewed and praised:

"The first work of importance on the subject, proving that the Great Pyramid possessed scientific features, was by Mr. John Taylor, of England, A.D. 1859, since which time the attention of many able minds has been given to the further study of the testimony of this wonderful `Witness;' especially since Prof. Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland ... gave to the world the remarkable facts of its construction and measurements, and his conclusions therefrom. To his scholarly and scientific work, `Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid,' we are mainly indebted for the data made use of in this chapter....

"A few years after Prof. Smyth's return, came the suggestion that the Great Pyramid is Jehovah's`Witness,' and that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to natural science .... The suggestion came from a young Scotsman, Robert Menzies, who, when studying the scientific teachings of the Great Pyramid, discovered that prophetic and chronological teachings co-exist in it.

"Soon it became apparent that the object of its construction was to provide in it a record of the divine plan of salvation, no less than the record of divine wisdom relating to astronomical, chronological, geometrical, and other important truths." - pp. 319-320, Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures.

Later confirmation for Russell's "pyramid chronology" came from Dr. John Edgar, M.A., B.So., M.B., C.M., F.F.P.S.G., of Glasgow, Scotland, who, with his brother Morton, visited the Great Pyramid in 1909 to critically test Russell's interpretations.

"Their verdict, after a most elaborate investigation, was a thorough endorsement of Pastor Russell's interpretation" - p. 4953 [bound volume], Jan. 1, 1912 WT.

However, it must be noted that it was extremely difficult to determine exactly where to start (or end) many of the measurements in the Great Pyramid, and more and more differing measurements began to be made and promoted as Smyth's theories became more and more popular. It is even claimed that Smyth himself had used two different measurements for one of the passages - WT, p. 3451, Nov. 1, 1904, letters from readers.

Also, as Moffett, in his book debunking the various pyramidology theories, points out:

"if you took enough measurements and chose selectively, it would be possible to prove virtually anything." - p. 38, Secrets of the Pyramids Revealed.


I have no doubt that Taylor, Prof. Piazzi Smyth, and C. T. Russell (and thousands of others) were sincere, religious men who truly believed their interpretations of the Pyramid measurements. They were victims of statistical coincidences and multiple variables: it all honestly appeared to be mathematically precise proof - inescapably certain!

Although convinced of the accuracy of his pyramid chronology interpretations, Russell, nevertheless, considered it as merely corroborating the testimony of the Bible. It was "for a sign and a witness unto the Lord of Hosts." He wrote: "IF this, indeed, prove to be a Bible in stone; IF it be a record of the secret plans of the Great Architect of the universe, displaying his foreknowledge and wisdom; it should and will be in full accord with his written word." - pp. 317, 326, 341, Thy Kingdom Come.

Nevertheless, we must finally conclude, as with some other date interpretations, that Russell was incorrect. This does not make him a False Prophet. He was no more (or less) than what he continually proclaimed himself to be: a mere imperfect man striving (with the aid of God's Spirit) for the truth. That his imperfect flesh did not always allow him perfect accord with the Holy Spirit should come as no surprise. Otherwise we would be treating him as an Inspired Prophet and regarding his every word as "Scripture" (which, as we know, he strongly opposed). Instead, he is merely a brother, a fellow servant.

John1:1 demystified.

 John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god."

John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god."
                     - NT Greek:-  θεὸς      ἦν         ὁ          λόγος 

                                         -"god      was     the       word."

A. In NT (New Testament) Greek the word used for "God" and "a god" is theos (θεὸς).  

B. The Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) always used the article "the" (o with a tiny "c" above it in NT Greek:  ὁ  ) with theos when they intended "God."  That is, when they meant to say "God" they would always write ho theos (ὁ θεὸς). [This does not always hold true for other Greek forms of "God" e.g. theou or theon  or theo.]

C. The only exceptions in these inspired writings (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, John, 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, and Revelation) are those things which can (and do) cause ambiguous or erratic use (or non-use) of the article ("the"). These things, as noted by most NT grammarians, include added phrases (usually prepositional in meaning, like "god of israel,"  "the god of me," or "god to you"), numerals ("one God"), appositives, abstract nouns, personal names, etc. But, fortunately, John 1:1c has none of these exception-causing things. 

D. Therefore, if we restrict our examples to those used by John only and which are closest in construction to John 1:1c, we should thereby avoid any and all honest dissension concerning definite article use (and non-use) and different grammatical constructions, etc.

E. Here, then, are all the constructions which are most closely parallel to John 1:1c (a single non-abstract, unmodified, singular predicate noun without a definite article coming before the verb and a single non-abstract, unmodified noun (or pronoun) used as a subject coming after the verb) found in all the writings of John:   1. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all Bibles.   2. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all Bibles.   3. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all Bibles.   [4. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text.] 

F. Trinitarian NT Greek experts Dana and Mantey specifically give us an example of "a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1"! Yes, these prominent trinitarian scholars have translated "market was the place" in the literal ancient Greek as "and the place was a market." They even described this example as a parallel to John 1:1! - p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publ. 

G. We are dealing exclusively with nouns as found in John 1:1c. That is, a singular noun which is a person, place, or thing and which can be used with both an indefinite article ("a" or "an" - in English only: Greek has no indefinite article) and a definite article ("the") and which can be properly changed into a recognizably plural form: e.g., "WORD": "a word"/"the word"/"words;" - "GOD": "a god"/"the god"/"gods;" - "HOUSE": "a house"/"the house"/"houses;" etc. 

H. So we can see that words like "pretty," "holy," or "true," for example, cannot normally be made plural ("trues") and do not use articles by themselves alone ("a pretty," "a true") and are, therefore, not nouns as found at John 1:1c and cannot be used as proper examples in an attempt to interpret John 1:1c. 

I. Also, this singular, concrete noun, to be a proper example (equivalent to John 1:1c), must be without additional phrases joined to it: "a man of the world," "a house of bricks," etc. (pp. 780, 781, A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Broadman Press;  p. 175, C. F. D. Moule, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press;  p. 137, Dana and Mantey Grammar) and, possibly, not even modified by any adjectives (Robertson, p. 763). 

J. To be most certain, we need such proper examples to have a subject (a single noun or pronoun "doing" the verb) coming after the verb and the predicate noun (a singular noun as described above and which is the same thing as the subject) coming before the verb in the NT Greek exactly as found in John 1:1c. "god was the word."

K. To find such examples we need a Greek-English New Testament Interlinear Bible (available in any "Christian" book store or from any Jehovah's Witness). Then we search through all of John's writings to find all the predicate nouns (also called predicate nominatives) which come before the verb (and meet the above requirements) in the NT Greek. Since we are concerned about John's use (or non-use) of grammatical rules in order to determine the intended meaning of John 1:1c, we must use only examples from John's writings as proper evidence. 

L. The easiest way to do this is to carefully read through all the full-English portion of the writings of the Gospel writers in an interlinear Bible and find all the verbs which could take a predicate noun ("is," "are," "am," "was," "were," "be," "become," "became"). Then determine if a noun (as described in our requirements above) comes after that verb in the English. If it does, and if it is "equal to" the subject, we have found a predicate noun, e.g., "the bird was an eagle." In English, then, the noun "bird" comes before and is "doing" the verb "was" and is therefore the subject. The noun "eagle," in English, comes after the verb "was" and is the same thing as the subject and is therefore a predicate noun (p.n.). 

M. Then, after finding a proper predicate noun (p.n.), we must look at the NT Greek text (which has the equivalent English word written above each Greek word in the interlinear Bible) and see if the predicate noun we found in the English translation on the other page ("eagle" in the example above) actually comes before the verb in the Greek. If it comes before the verb, and if it is anarthrous (that is, without the article, "the") and meets the other requirements above, then we may have found a proper example to compare with John 1:1c. 

N. So when all the proper examples (those most closely equivalent to the actual grammatical usage found at John 1:1c) found in John's writings are examined in the most-respected trinitarian Bibles (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"! (Compare `the Prophet' at Jn 1:21 and Robertson, p. 768: article used when noun is only one of its kind.) 

O. Such a rendering is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think. Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called "gods" or "a god" by the inspired Bible writers. This understanding was also found in most of the writings of the Christians of the first three centuries after the death of Christ and, in fact was even taught by famed trinitarians Athanasius (4th century) and St. Augustine (5th century A.D.)

P. Even the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, Origen (died 254 A.D.), tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word was a god"! - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Q. In fact, even certain trinitarian scholars have correctly admitted that those very first readers for whom John wrote his Gospel were already aware of the `Logos' concept even before John wrote to them. This was the concept of famed Jewish scholar and writer, Philo. In this best-known Jewish concept of the Logos of that time, the Word ("Logos") was "the Son of God" and "with God" and "a god" in his own right, but he was certainly not God nor equal to the one true God! 

R. The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word (`Logos') proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers were already familiar with: "The Word (Logos) was a god."!

S. And, of course, John himself recorded the following prayer by Jesus: "Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who ALONE art truly God..." - John 17:1, 3, NEB.

If we examine every place in John's (and the other Gospel writers) writings where he has used theos (the form which is used for subjects and predicate nouns and ends with an `s') to mean "God," we find he always uses the article (ho, `the') with it, unless it is accompanied by a "prepositional" modifier: "of you"; "to us"; with him"; "for all"; etc.

In other words, when a proper example (comparable to John 1:1c) is used (as it very often is), theos will have the article "the" (ho or ὁ   in the NT Greek) with it to mean "God" (ὁ   θεὸς,  `the god').  For example:

Jn  3:2;  Jn  3:16;   Jn  3:17;   Jn  3:33;  Jn  3:34;  Jn  4:24;  Jn  6:27;  Jn  8:42;  Jn  9:29;  Jn  9:31;   Jn 11:22;  Jn 13:31; Jn 13:32; etc.

When proper examples do not have the article, "a god" is intended!  Here's one way to look for all the uses of theos in John's and also note whether o (the) is used with it.  Half way down the following page are the instructions for finding theos in the NT:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/online-bible-tools-and-research-study.html

For comparison, look at the examples of "man" (anthropos in NT Greek).  John uses the article "the" (ὁ) with anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) to indicate a certain, definite "man."  But when he uses it alone (and, again, without "prepositional" additions such as "of the world" "in the house"; "with the Lord"; etc.),  it simply means "a man."  For example:

John 1:6;  Jn 3:4;  Jn 3:27;  Jn 7:23;  Jn 7:46;  Jn  9:16;  Jn 10:33;  Jn 16:21; etc.

Trinitarian scholars, in desperation, have invented "grammar rules" in the last century or two in order to "make" John 1:1c say "and the Word was God [ho theos]."

One, which initially makes the most sense, but is completely false, nevertheless, is "Colwell's Rule." It says that when the predicate noun comes before its verb (theos coming before `was' in John 1:1c) in the original NT Greek, the definite article may be "understood" to be with it!  This is provably false as I have shown in my article on John 1:1c (DEF).

The other "rule" is that when the predicate noun comes before its verb (as in John 1:1c, of course), the predicate noun (theos in John 1:1c) is understood to be qualitative, and, therefore, for some reason, that makes the Word equal to God!  This is also provably wrong.

The trinitarian scholars who want to believe "Colwell's Rule" say that the `qualitative' rule is false.  And those trinitarian scholars who believe the `qualitative' rule say that "Colwell's Rule" applied to John 1:1c is heresy!

But it matters little since both made up `rules' are completely false when proper examples (comparable to the actual usage at John 1:1c) are used!

For example, look at John 10:33.  The predicate noun "man" (anthropos) comes before its verb "being," and yet we do not find it consistently translated, even by trinitarian scholars and translators as: "you, being human" (qualitative) or "you being the man" (Colwell's Rule").

If they truly believed the "qualitative" rule or "Colwell's Rule," they would not have rendered it "you, being a man," as they so often do!

Posted by Elijah Daniels

Isaiah 44:6 demystified.

 4. Isaiah 44:6

Is. 44:6 is not really a "speaker confusion" example (although it's like the above "proof" in other ways). It's a "pronoun confusion" trick. It's extremely poor, but some trinitarians are actually desperate enough for "evidence" to use it anyway. Is. 44:6 in the American Standard Version (ASV) says, "Thus saith Jehovah [the LORD - KJV], the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts...." The "proof" here, according to a few trinitarians, is that there are two `different' Jehovahs [LORDs] mentioned! And one is the redeemer of the other!

The trick here is that these trinitarians pretend the pronoun "his" refers to Jehovah when it actually refers to Israel. The following trinitarian Bibles, however, actually translate it correctly (e.g., "Thus says the LORD, Israel's King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts" - NAB): NIV, JB, LB, GNB, REB, NJB, and Moffatt. And the trinitarian Bibles which use capitalized pronouns for God ("Me, My, He, His," etc.) also show, by their lack of capitalization, that "his" refers to Israel in this scripture: "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts" - NASB (see also MLB, Beck, and Young translations).

Posted by Elijah Daniels