Isaiah9:6 demystified

Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
  
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ.  Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is  the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses.  (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense.  In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by Jehovah himself.  This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986).

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers.  Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God.  (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].)
   
The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance.  In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).  It is interesting that the  ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel."   

The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.

So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person."  Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"!  [See the sidebar: "God and gods"]

In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others.  (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.)  This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.

At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son.  They do not say the Son is the Father.  They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father,   we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero."  Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us: 


"In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf.  Isa 9:6]."  (Bracketed information included in original footnote.  Emphasis is mine)
     
In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm."

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?

The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples. 

........................
  
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today.  The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.


For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
  
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King."  Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King."  Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" -  p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.  And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840  
And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm . 


I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” 

  Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference!  - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB;  JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and  ASV (footnote).  Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].

(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.) 


But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.


Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” 

And John Gill wrote: 

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’” 

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as: 

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.


Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says: 


"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
  
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
    
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it: 

[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace; 
[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
  
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism.  Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a  parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means  [a]"quick to the plunder;   [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born;  [b] unto us a son is given."  It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

Posted by Elijah Daniels  

Ezekiel Chapter 3 American Standard Version

 3.1 And he said unto me, Son of man, eat that which thou findest; eat this roll, and go, speak unto the house of Israel.

2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat the roll.

3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.

4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.

5 For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of a hard language, but to the house of Israel; 6 not to many peoples of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee.

7 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are of hard forehead and of a stiff heart.

8 Behold, I have made thy face hard against their faces, and thy forehead hard against their foreheads.

9 As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they are a rebellious house.

10 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thy heart, and hear with thine ears.

11 And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord JEHOVAH; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.

12 Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of JEHOVAH from his place.

13 And I heard the noise of the wings of the living creatures as they touched one another, and the noise of the wheels beside them, even the noise of a great rushing.

14 So the Spirit lifted me up, and took me away; and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; and the hand of JEHOVAH was strong upon me.

15 Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river Chebar, and to where they dwelt; and I sat there overwhelmed among them seven days.

16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of JEHOVAH came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thy hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and thou hast delivered thy soul.

22 And the hand of JEHOVAH was there upon me; and he said unto me, Arise, go forth into the plain, and I will there talk with thee.

23 Then I arose, and went forth into the plain: and, behold, the glory of JEHOVAH stood there, as the glory which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face.

24 Then the Spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet; and he spake with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within thy house.

25 But thou, son of man, behold, they shall lay bands upon thee, and shall bind thee with them, and thou shalt not go out among them: 26 and I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover; for they are a rebellious house.

27 But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord JEHOVAH: He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house.

Deuteronomy32-39 demystified

 No Other gods/God - Deut. 32:39

Translators have different interpretations here. The usual trinitarian translation has God (YHWH) saying something like this:

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” - KJV.

Thus they say that the Word cannot be called 'a god' since God (YHWH) has no god beside Him.

But some trinitarian translators have rendered it this way:

“See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” - Douay.

“Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.” - NKJV.

“Don’t you understand? I am the only God; there are no others. ….” - CEV.

“Now, see that I, and only I, am God! There is no other God! ….” - ERV.

“See, I am the only God. There are no others.” - God’s Word.

“See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me.” - Holman Christian Standard Bible.

In these renderings there is no other God, but that would not rule out the fact that other ‘gods’ may be with Him.

…………………….

Even if you choose the “no god with [or besides] me” interpretation, it is not necessarily a trinitarian ‘proof.’ It has to do with the context of God’s statement here. Here it is in context:

32:15“But Jeshurun [Israel] grew fat and kicked— You are grown fat, thick, and sleek—
Then he forsook God who made him, And scorned the Rock of his salvation. 16 “They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger.
17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread. 18 “You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth. ….

21 “They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation, ….

39 “See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” - NASB.

……………

God (YHWH) here has been consistently speaking of Israel’s love affair with false gods. Obviously none of these are acceptable to God - none of these are “with” Him nor are anything compared to the True God. So it is probable that the verse in question is speaking of false gods only.

This does not mean that God does not call God-appointed persons (including men and angels)‘gods.’

The majority, if not all, recognized scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course) admit this. These include scholars from the early centuries of Christendom until now. Some of those I have found are:

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).” - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." -

And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35:

The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is,

‘If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.’ -Barnes' Notes on the New Testament

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6;  97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”




Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”




The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim [‘gods’]: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”




The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”




Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.



(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

James Tour vs. Lee Cronin: yet more postgame commentary.

 

An uprising in the kingdom of the titans?

 

The true hope for our dead: the Watchtower Society's commentary.

 A Marvelous Hope

Wol.JW.org

WILL death continue for all time to claim victims and occasion expressions of grief? Or, is there any hope that death will be abolished and that those now held fast in its grip will be released?

Since Jehovah God gave life to the first human pair, Adam and Eve, it logically follows that he can also restore to life those who are now sleeping in death. This is what the ancient patriarch Job believed. On account of the intense suffering he was enduring, he directed these words to God: “O that in Sheol [gravedom] you would conceal me, . . . that you would set a time limit for me and remember me! . . . You will call, and I myself shall answer you. For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.”​—Job 14:13-15.

Basis for Hope

By reason of God’s creating Adam and Eve and endowing them with the ability to procreate, humans are the ‘work of God’s hands.’ As descendants of sinner Adam, they are imperfect and subject to death. Yet God does not want to see the human family as a whole reduced to the lifeless dust from which he created the first man Adam. He yearns or longs for the day that he has determined upon for restoring billions of dead humans to life.

That we might have confidence in his ability to resurrect the dead, Jehovah God at times empowered men to do this. He also inspired men to provide a dependable record of past resurrections. This record is contained in the Bible. What do we learn from it?

The Hebrew prophet Elijah raised the only son of a widow who lived in the city of Zarephath. (1 Ki. 17:21-23) At Shunem, in the northern part of Israel, Elijah’s successor Elisha resurrected the only son of a prominent hospitable woman.​—2 Ki. 4:8, 32-37.

Many centuries thereafter Jesus Christ brought great happiness to a number of persons who had lost loved ones in death. Jairus, a presiding officer in a synagogue near the Sea of Galilee, had the joy of seeing his daughter raised from the sleep of death. A widow at Nain, to the southwest of the Sea of Galilee, saw her only son come to life on the very bier that the bearers were carrying to a tomb outside the city. Mary and Martha of Bethany, not far from Jerusalem, had their brother restored to them after he had been dead four days.​—Mark 5:22, 35, 41-43; Luke 7:11-17; John 11:38-45.

Later, two of Jesus’ apostles were instrumental in restoring dead persons to life. The apostle Peter resurrected Dorcas (Tabitha) at the Mediterranean coastal city of Joppa. (Acts 9:36-42) And at Troas, in the Roman province of Asia, the apostle Paul raised Eutychus from the dead.​—Acts 20:6-12.

The most remarkable resurrection of all time was that of Jesus Christ. That resurrection was thoroughly established as fact. Upward of five hundred witnesses saw the risen Christ. So overwhelming was the evidence that the apostle Paul pointed out that denial of the resurrection meant denial of Christian faith as a whole. He stated: “If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised up. But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain. Moreover, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we have borne witness against God that he raised up the Christ, but whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up.”​—1 Cor. 15:13-15.

Kinds of Resurrections

The resurrection of Jesus Christ, however, was very different from that of all others who were restored to life during the first century C.E. and earlier. He experienced a change in nature. The Bible tells us that he was “put to death in the flesh” but “made alive in the spirit.” (1 Pet. 3:18) Only those chosen from among mankind to be associate rulers with him share in a resurrection like his​—a resurrection to immortal spirit life in the heavens. Regarding these, the Bible says: “Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.”​—Rev. 20:6.

Note that this kind of resurrection is called the “first resurrection.” Hence, there must be yet another resurrection involving the billions of dead humans who will come under the rulership of Jesus Christ and his associate king-priests. Describing this latter resurrection as he saw it in a vision, the apostle John wrote: “The sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades [gravedom] gave up those dead in them.”​—Rev. 20:13.

But where will all those dead persons be raised? They will be resurrected to life on earth, as were those whom the Hebrew prophets, as well as Jesus and his apostles, resurrected. That there will be a resurrection to earthly life is also confirmed by what was revealed to John about the changed conditions to exist on earth among mankind. We read: “The tent of God is with mankind . . . And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”​—Rev. 21:3, 4.

But might the removal of death from humankind pose untold problems due to overcrowding of the earth? No. Why not? Because God’s original purpose was that the earth be filled, not overpopulated. (Gen. 1:28) So we can rest assured that the One who has the ability to restore the dead to life will have no difficulty in seeing to it that this earth will continue to be a delightful home for mankind.

What Will Be Resurrected?

Raising people from the dead is indeed a stupendous miracle. Since what humans are as persons appears to be inseparably linked with their physical bodies, many people find it hard to understand how resurrection is possible. In most cases, nothing remains of the dead person’s physical organism. The corpse may even have been burned or perhaps devoured by birds, fish or beasts. So how can those who are resurrected really be the same persons who died?

The creation of Adam makes it clear that what made him a person was what God did. The elements from which Adam was made had no personality. However, when Jehovah God energized the lifeless body composed from elements of the ground, Adam became a person with a distinct personality. The possession of the spirit of life that God put in the lifeless body when energizing it made Adam a living soul.​—Compare Genesis 1:21, 24 regarding “soul.”

What makes Adam’s descendants the personalities that they are is not the substance making up their bodies but the hereditary estate that is transmitted within that substance ​—an inheritance consisting of the qualities, traits and abilities that distinguish the possessors from others as persons. Furthermore, even in life the human body constantly undergoes change. The molecules making up a person’s body today are not the same ones as those that made up his body some seven years ago. Nevertheless, though his substances are different as to molecules, the person is still the same person. Why? Because the bodily organs and features are still there despite the gradual change of the molecules; even the fingerprints have remained the same.

Clearly, then, resurrection does not depend upon the preservation of the same molecules. The resurrected person can, in fact, even be of a different substance, as is the case with those raised to spirit life in the heavens. Of the heavenly resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote: “What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and to each of the seeds its own body. . . . And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. . . . So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:36-44) However, for the resurrected ones to be the same persons, they must bear the personal identity of their former life.

That intangible thing​—the traits and qualities making organized matter a distinct person—​rests with God, and he is able to put that identical personality within the resurrection body. That is why the resurrected person is not merely a copy. He is the identical person, possessing every mental and emotional trait that made him what he was before his death.

This explains why Jesus said to his disciples: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body.” (Matt. 10:28) True, men can take away life, causing the body to become lifeless. But they cannot take away a person’s God-given title to be a living soul. They cannot blot out anyone from God’s provision for them to be awakened from the sleep of death. Only God can cancel a person’s opportunity of living again as a soul. When that is the case, the person is totally destroyed. Even if the identical molecules making up a person’s body could be assembled, these would be of no value without the God-given title for one to live again. God alone can supply that needed life-force.

Accordingly, the raising of the dead is possible only because God exists. While not spelling out the details, the Bible provides enough information for one to have a basis for solid faith in the resurrection. You can personally benefit from this marvelous hope both now and in the future. How?

2Corinthians4:4 demystified.

 2 Cor. 4:4 "Christ, who is the image of God"

First, an image, likeness, reflection (no matter how perfect) is still only an image - - it's not the real thing. It's not even equal to the real thing! 
2 Cor. 4:4 - "Christ, who is the image [eikon] of God". 

Notice, this is no longer the fleshly Jesus on earth. This is the resurrected, glorious, heavenly Christ. But he still is not God. He is the image of God! He is seated (or standing) beside God (Acts 2:33-36; Ro. 8:34; Heb. 10:12, 13; 1 Pet. 3:22). He is not God. The Father alone, beside whom Jesus is seated, is Jehovah God (Eph. 1:17, 20; Rev. 3:21; Ps. 110:1). In fact God (the Father alone) is the God of Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 17; Rev. 3:12; Micah 5:4, ASV).

Yes, Jesus is the image of God. And how should we consider the worship of an image of God as being God? (Ex. 20:4, 5; Lev. 26:1)

In spite of a man (and the heavenly Christ) being in the image of God, we don't know exactly what God looks like. ("No man has seen God at any time" [but many men have seen Christ, even after his resurrection] - Jn 1:18; 1 John 4:20). We know, however, that the man created by God to be in God's image and likeness (Adam), the son of God (Luke 3:38), was a single person. He could have easily been created as three separate persons. He could have been created with three faces. But God expressly made him (in his image) with one body, one head, one face, one mind, one personality: one person.

"...it is the whole of man, rather than some part or aspect of him, that is the image of God. The whole man, body and soul, is the image of God." - p. 508, New Bible Dictionary, Dr. J. D. Douglas, Ed., (Editor-at-large, Christianity Today), Tyndale House Publ., 1984. 

Jesus, too, being an image of God, had those very same qualities. Surely God, the one in whose image we are, is one person. Surely the God who Jesus perfectly reflects, then, is one person. (In spite of numerous rationalizations designed to show the "plurality" of God. Using such "evidence" we could even find many trinitarian-like generalizations and allegorical "proofs" to show that Christ himself is actually composed of many persons: a 'three-in-one' Christ, for example - See the TRIN-TYPE study.) 

The fact that a man is in God's image tells us (1) that a man cannot possibly be
that God, and (2) that God is a single person also (to correspond with a man being in His image). In the same manner, but more perfectly, we see (1) that Jesus, the image of God, cannot be God, and (2) that, again, as represented by the single-person Christ himself (God's perfect image), God must also be one, single person (the Father alone, Jehovah). 

It is highly significant that we never see Jehovah (or the Father, who alone is Jehovah) described as being in the image of God. He is
God (alone)! 

Would the inspired Bible writers (who knew the scriptures and knew that an image of God was not to be worshiped as God) really call Jesus an "image
of God" if they believed he actually was God? Would those same inspired writers who tell us to worship the Father in truth really believe we should worship Jesus as God and then call him the image of God?

- You must not worship an image of God. - Lev. 26:1, NIV.
- Jesus is the image of God. - 2 Cor. 4:4
- The Father is the only true God. - Jn 17:3 
- We must worship the Father in truth. - Jn 4:24


Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Norway's targetting of JWs: the minority report

 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway: Why the Oslo District Court Decision Is Wrong

Massimo Introvigne

On March 4, 2024, the Oslo District Court ruled against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and upheld the decisions of the government and the State Administrator of Oslo and Viken who denied the Jehovah’s Witnesses the state subsidies they had peacefully received for thirty years based on Section 16 of the Norwegian Constitution (“All religious and philosophical communities must be supported on an equal footing”). Registration as a religious organization of the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses under Law No. 31 of April 24, 2020, was also denied.The District Court is aware that this was a difficult decision with serious consequences. It observes that at least, under Law No. 31 the lack of registration would not prevent the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses to continue their activities and to teach what they teach everywhere in the world (except in a few totalitarian countries that have banned them, including Russia). The consequences of the non-registration are that they will not be eligible for state subsidies, nor will they be able to celebrate legally valid marriages.

       State subsidies in Norway are not a gift. Since the Church of Norway, a Lutheran denomination, is a state church supported by the government with transfers of money proportional to the number of its members, the Constitution mandates that to respect the principle of equality other religions should receive the same proportional subsidies. The judge himself acknowledges that not being able to celebrate legal marriages within one’s religious community may be perceived as discriminatory. He also agrees that the decision may have a broader “stigmatizing effect.”Yet, the judge believes that all these admittedly important factors “are not weighty enough” when compared to the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by practicing shunning, violate in his opinion their members’ freedom to change their religion. Shunning is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching recommending that members do not associate with those who have been disassociated as unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization (as opposed to simply becoming inactive). Cohabiting relatives are not shunned, although they are excluded from the family’s religious activities.Here, I find the decision slightly confusing. At times, it seems that the judge regards the shunning both of adult and minor ex-members as grounds for his decision. In other passages, however, he seems to acknowledge that Law no. 31 includes a note that “if adult members of their own free will follow rules that restrict their rights and freedoms, they cannot be considered violations… Essentially, this also applies even if the obligations can be considered harmful.” In its conclusion, the decision cautiously focuses on the alleged violation of the “right to opt out” of children.The decision notes that the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to leave a religious organization. The judge is persuaded that Jehovah’s Witnesses in practice are prevented from leaving since they know that, if they leave, they will be shunned.

As mentioned earlier, it is at times unclear whether in the end the objection only concerns the shunning of minors or also extends to adults. In the second case, the decision is patently absurd and runs counter to dozens of decisions on shunning by jurisdictions in other countries, including supreme courts. They have noted that religious organizations have the right to self-organize themselves as they deem fit. Christian groups also have the right to interpret the Bible in their own way. The interpretation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this case is not even particularly original. Clearly, something similar to the shunning they practice today is taught in 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”), and 2 John 10–11 (“Do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work”). Others may suggest a non-literal interpretation of these passages, but it is not for secular courts of law to second-guess religious organizations on their interpretation of the Bible.The main objection is, however, another. All human organizations have what sociologists call exit costs. By leaving a demanding but well-paid job I may gain more freedom but lose a good salary. The loss of the salary is my exit cost. Shunning is a typical exit cost. A spouse that decides unilaterally to divorce and to marry a different partner may be shunned by the abandoned ex-spouse, perhaps even by children. Members of a political party who quit and join a political organization with the opposite ideology may be shunned as traitors by their former comrades. Several religions, including Islam and branches of ultra-orthodox Judaism, treat “apostates” in a less charitable way than the Jehovah’s Witnesses.The Norwegian judge’s argument is that to avoid the exit costs we are compelled to remain in a religious organization we may no longer believe in and are thus denied our right to leave it that is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. But by applying the same argument, one can argue that marriage or political parties are also institutions that violate the rights of those who want to divorce or change political affiliation, since the exit costs may make them reluctant to leave.Sociologists know that eliminating exit costs is not possible. They are an unavoidable feature of organized social life. Sometimes, one has the impression that the enemies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are precisely asking courts of law to compel those who do not want to communicate with their former co-religionists to do it, which is not only unfair but impossible. More often, opponents argue that what they want is that judges would prevent the organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching shunning. But that would put the judges in the strange position of interpreting 1 Corinthians and 2 John and substitute their opinion to the one of a religious organization in determining what these venerable Biblical texts “really” mean.In the end, the Oslo judge found it safer to focus on minors who are first baptized and then, if they become unrepentant sinners, shunned. One can measure the cultural distance of the judge’s own feelings from those of any conservative religious group, not only the Jehovah’s Witnesses, when he wrote that he finds it “reasonable to expect” that most minors would engage in “sexual relations with their boyfriends or girlfriends.” Apart from the cultural problems of the judge in understanding conservative religion, he accepts the opinion of an “apostate” ex-member that minors are baptized and become Jehovah’s Witnesses when they are not mature enough to understand their obligations. But surely this is a drastic conclusion one cannot arrive at on the basis of one witness or a few anecdotical examples. What would be required is a quantitative study of those baptized as minors. Nothing similar is quoted in the decision. Although Norway has introduced a system of “youth punishment” with more lenient penalties for them, minors can be tried from criminal offenses from age 15. If they are mature enough in Norway to stand a trial before a criminal court, perhaps they are also mature enough to make informed religious decisions.Once they have been baptized, minors run the risk of being shunned. Again, some opponents may have told the judge that this is not rare but among his numerous witnesses he found only one woman, now 40, who was disfellowshipped for a sexual offense and shunned as a minor, when she was 14, thus 26 years ago. She testifies that after a “short time” she was allowed to return to the fold by writing a “letter of regret” and attending a “short meeting.” There is simply no evidence that disfellowshipping minors, with the consequence that they are shunned (but not by cohabiting relatives), is more than a rare occurrence.It may be objected that a rare injustice would be an injustice, nonetheless. The answer is that, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in cases about the dissolution of organizations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia in 2010 (Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia) and 2022 (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia), denial or cancellation of registration of a religious organization is a serious measure with dramatic consequences for its members that states can adopt only in case of frequent and obvious crimes or misdemeanors. Shunning minors is not frequent, and the “principle of proportionality” between the fact and the sanction mentioned by the ECHR in its decisions about Russia would not be respected even if this was a crime.

But is it a crime? The judge himself admits that Jehovah’s Witnesses, in good faith, perceive shunning as a “loving and meaningful arrangement,” a painful medicine (painful, it should be added, for those who shun and not only for those who are shunned) that in many cases helps restoring family harmony and morality, as those shunned end up understanding their mistakes and repenting.According to the decision, the violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would be in the fact that to minors, just as to adults, would be denied the freedom to “opt out” of the organization. Afraid of being shunned, minors who would want to quit in the end are dissuaded from leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which the judge thinks violates their right to change their religious affiliations. However, if the minors are mature enough to understand their obligations when they are baptized—and no evidence has been offered that this is not the case—they are aware of the exit costs just as the adults are. It is also false that a young boy or girl does not have experience of exit costs: he may decide to break a relation with a boyfriend or a girlfriend, quit a group of friends, leave a sport club, in extreme cases even leave the family and go live elsewhere. All these experiences have painful exit costs.The decision argues that, because youth are especially fragile, the experience of shunning is more traumatic for them. This is possible, but youths also have greater flexibility in socialization than adults. Young Jehovah’s Witnesses attend public schools, where after disfellowshipping they can continue to attend or newly enter into circles of friends who are not part of their former religion. The judge insists on the pain of not being able to communicate with grandparents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, grandparents may cut ties with their children and grandchildren for a variety of reasons, none of which courts of law can really correct. And even outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, minors who do something that is perceived by their relatives as a betrayal of the family or an expression of moral corruption may find themselves, for all practical purposes, “shunned.”It is difficult to disagree with professor of religious history, Dag Øistein Endsjø, who told the leading Norwegian Christian daily newspaper “Vårt Land” that the verdict is against numerous decisions rendered in other countries, as well as against the case law of the European Court of Human Rights where it would have limited chances to survive. It is also against simple logic. Perhaps a higher Norwegian court will acknowledge it even before the court in Strasbourg.

Isaiah42:8 demystified.

 Will Not Share Glory:

Is. 42:8 - "I am the LORD [Jehovah - ASV]: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" - KJV.

Heb. 1:3 - "[Jesus] being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" - KJV.

After quoting the above two verses, some trinitarians will claim that they prove that Jesus is Jehovah.  They claim that if Jehovah will not share his glory with anyone else, then Jesus must be Jehovah because he shares Jehovah's glory.

Well, first we should note that others have "shared" or reflected Jehovah's glory.  For example, the angel at Luke 2:9 appeared with "the glory of the Lord."  God was not physically present, but the angel He personally sent to represent him was there with God's reflected glory to identify him as being from God and representing God.  This particular angel was not even Jesus since Jesus had already been born on earth (verse 11).  We see a similar thing at Rev. 21:10, 11 where the city of holy Jerusalem has descended from God and has the glory of God!  That is how it can be identified as being from God:  It has the glory of God!

Why, even some Christians will reflect God's glory: 2 Cor. 3:7-18.  And Jesus himself said that the glory which the Father had given him he had also given to his followers! - John 17:22.

So it certainly appears that God allows his glory to be with others who represent him as a sign of the authority He has given them and who do not represent that glory as being their very own.

But there is something else that makes the trinitarian argument incredibly poor (if not downright dishonest).  That is the actual meaning of "glory."  You see, "glory" meant, even as it does today, two different things.  Often it meant "honor" or "praise" which a person has earned.  On occasion, however, the same word  meant the visible, brilliant light radiating from something or someone.

So we can see that Isaiah also uses this meaning at Is. 60:1-3 where "shine," "light," "brightness" are used in conjunction with God's "glory" and that glory (`kaw-bode' in the Hebrew) will be seen.  We find this same meaning at Acts 7:55 (where the glory was seen), Luke 2:9 (where the glory `shone' all around them).  Obviously, a visible light-radiating type of glory is intended at these places.

But at Is. 42:12 and 43:7 we can see that the same Hebrew word "kaw-bode" clearly means "honor" or "praise."  In fact, that same Hebrew word ("kaw-bode") is even translated as "honour" at Ps. 66:2 (and 30 other places in the KJV).

Even today in modern English we have those same two meanings for "glory." 

(1) "Praise, honor, or distinction accorded by common consent; renown," and (2) "Brilliancy; splendor." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, ("Glory").

For example, we might say that the Nobel Prize winner did not want to share the glory with another scientist who had merely copied some of his scientific work.  "Glory" in this sense is not a visible brightness or radiance he gives off but the recognition, honor, and praise he will receive.  The glory of a beautiful sunset, however, is a visual brightness or beauty which others receive or observe.

So which meaning was intended at Is. 42:8?  (1) A shining visible "glory" given off by someone or (2) "praise" and "honor" owed to someone?

Well we can see from how it's used at Is. 42:8 that it clearly means "praise" or "honor" -  "I am [Jehovah]: that is my name [see Ps. 83:18] and my glory [`kaw-bode'] will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."  This style of writing is very common in the Holy Scriptures.  It is called parallelism because similar (or parallel) meanings are written (in different words) beside each other.

For example: the familiar verse at Is. 9:6 begins "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given."  You can easily see that the second clause ("unto us a son is given") is parallel (similar in meaning) to the first clause ("unto us a child is born").

We can see, then, that the entire verse at Is. 42:8 is about the honor that is due God alone.  Jehovah starts the verse by declaring his name (to which he has said honor is due forever - Ps. 83:18; Ps. 86:9; Ps. 113:1-3; Ps. 145:21; Ezek. 39:6, 7).  He then follows that with the parallelism: (1) "my glory [`kaw-bode'] I will not give to another" and (2) "neither my praise to graven images."  Clearly the word "glory" (paralleled by "praise" in the next statement of this verse) here means "praise" or "honor." - see Is. 42:12, 17. 

And just as clearly, we can see that the word "glory" at Heb. 1:3 means the visible radiance given off by him (as with the angel of Luke 2:9 who reflected God's glory). - see Heb. 1:3 in TEV, NIV.  In fact, some modern trinitarian Bibles even translate Heb. 1:3 as "He reflects the glory of God"   - RSV (compare NAB; MLB; GNB; and Moffatt's translation). 

Therefore, if God said "I shall not share the praise or honor due me" at Is. 42:8, what kind of "evidence" is it to point out that Jesus reflects God's visible radiance at Heb. 1:3?


John 17:5 
John 17:5 is also used by some trinitarians to show that Jesus had the glory of God:

“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence [para] with the glory I had with [para] you before the world began.” - NIV.

The key here is the Greek word para. This word literally means “beside,” “by the side of” (W.E. Vine, pp. 112 and 1040). So the first use of para in the NIV rendering above is clearly understood. 

But the second use in the NIV quote (“with”) is ambiguous. It could be understood (wrongly in this case) as Jesus shared the glory with God (which trinitarians want to be true). Whereas, it more honestly means Jesus asks to receive from God the glory he used to have when he was by the side of God.

That is why these trinitarian Bibles and scholars have rendered John 17:5 as:

“In xvii. 5 [Jesus] speaks of ‘the glory which I possessed at thy [God’s] side (para soi) before the world existed’, and in xvii. 24 of ‘my glory which thou gavest me because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world’.” - p. 260, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, C. H. Dodd.

“By the side of thyself.” - A. T. Robertson, p. 275, Word Pictures.

“what is involved [in John 17:5] is the glory that Jesus possessed before the foundation of the world in the presence of God” - p. 151, John 2, Ernst Haenchen.

“So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.” - NRSV.

“Now, Father, do such honor to me in your presence as I had done me there before the world existed.” - An American Translation (AT), Smith and Goodspeed. 

“now, Father, glorify me in thy presence with the glory which I enjoyed in thy presence before the world began.” - Moffatt.

“So now, Father, glorify me up there in your presence just as you did before the world existed.” - C.B. Williams.

“now glorify me in turn, Father, alongside yourself with the glory that I did have alongside you before the world was.” - Byington.

John 17:5 - “5. WITH,] lit. ‘along-side of thyself .. along-side of thee.’” - Young’s Concise Commentary.

I don’t think anyone would deny that the Son of God had a glory of his own in heaven, as do the heavenly host. So this verse merely shows Jesus asking God that he be returned to the glory he previously had (which had been given to him by God - 17:24.)

John10:33 demystified.

 John 10:33 "a god" or "God"?

John is the only Gospel writer who used the word theos in all its meanings. It should not be surprising, then, that he is also the only Gospel writer who clearly applies the title theos directly to Jesus!  John, like some of those ancient Hebrew Scripture writers of the Old Testament who used elohim in all its various meanings, used it to mean the only true God over 90% of the time.  But in a few scriptures he used it to mean "a god" in its positive, subordinate, secondary sense.  A clear instance of this is found at John 10:33-36 where Jesus quotes from and comments on Psalm 82:6.

It is certainly better to use the trinitarian-translated New English Bible (NEB) here because it obviously translates theos correctly at John 10:33 ("a god") whereas the King James Version and many other trinitarian translations do not. 

The context of John 10:33-36 (and of Psalm 82:6 which is quoted there) and NT Greek grammar show "a god" to be the correct rendering. Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young, confirms this: 

"`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...."

It is also admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint.

A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by trinitarians Newman and Nida insists that "a god" would not be "in keeping with the theology of John" and the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, but, nevertheless, also admits: 

     "Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate  [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do.  One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine indicates the proper rendering here:
"The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
So, in the NEB it reads: 

" 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god.'  Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"?  Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside.  Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's SON"?' "

Not only do we see John using theos in its positive alternate meaning here, but we also see Jesus clarifying it.  When some of the Jews were ready to stone him because they said he was claiming to be a god (Jesus' reply about men being called gods in the scriptures would have been nonsensical if he were replying to an accusation of being God), Jesus first pointed out that God himself had called judges of Israel gods (Ps. 82:6)!

Posted by Elijah Daniels

The ego that cogitates is beyond the grasp of the physical sciences?

 “Lived Experience” Is Science’s Blind Spot

Denyse O Leary

Seriously, last month we noted an article by University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank at Big Think. There he protested the use of the term “hallucinate” to describe absurd chatbot glitches: “Its mistake is not a matter of making a false statement about the world because it doesn’t know anything about the world. There is no one in there to know anything about anything.”

In that short essay, he mentioned that he and two colleagues — Dartmouth College theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser and philosopher Evan Thompson — would publish a book this month, The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience offering a bigger picture. Now that the book is out, they talk a bit more about it:

Cosmology tells us that we can know the Universe and its origin only from our inside position, not from the outside. We live within a causal bubble of information — the distance light traveled since the Big Bang — and we cannot know what lies outside. Quantum physics suggests that the nature of subatomic matter cannot be separated from our methods of questioning and investigating it. In biology, the origin and nature of life and sentience remain a mystery despite marvelous advances in genetics, molecular evolution, and developmental biology. Ultimately, we cannot forgo relying on our own experience of being alive when we seek to comprehend the phenomenon of life. Cognitive neuroscience drives the point home by indicating that we cannot fully fathom consciousness without experiencing it from within. 

ADAM FRANK AND MARCELO GLEISER AND EVAN THOMPSON, THE “BLIND SPOT” IN SCIENCE THAT’S FUELING A CRISIS OF MEANING, BIG THINK, MARCH 7, 2024

The Heart of Science

What about the grand narratives of science? “At the heart of science lies something we do not see that makes science possible, just as the blind spot lies at the heart of our visual field and makes seeing possible.”

The tragedy the Blind Spot forces on us is the loss of what’s essential to human knowledge — our lived experience. The Universe and the scientist who seeks to know it become lifeless abstractions. Triumphalist science is actually humanless, even if it springs from our human experience of the world. This disconnection between science and experience, the essence of the Blind Spot, lies at the heart of the many challenges and dead ends science currently faces in thinking about matter, time, life, and the mind. 

FRANK, GLEISER AND THOMPSON, A CRISIS OF MEANING

What Gets Ignored

They are right about the dead ends. But is it true that the dead ends result merely from ignoring human experience? Surely, what’s ignored (or, more usually, denied or forbidden for discussion) is the immaterial nature of the human mind. Also off the table are questions like whether a cosmos where some beings (ourselves) clearly have immaterial intelligence can be created if an Intelligence does not underlie the universe. It’s quite likely that some fundamental questions cannot be answered within the allowed materialist framework.

But it’s interesting to see that these three thinkers are posing the questions — at least in this essay — in an open-ended way, almost as if they sense that dredging up pat materialist answers that don’t really work won’t help much.

The language of engineering proves superior to Darwinese in describing molecular biology.

 Is It Becoming Acceptable to Speak of Biological Systems and Processes in Terms of Design?

David Coppedge

To the question posed in the headline, the answer is: It seems that way sometimes. And can speaking about design in such a context be done without getting hammered by the press, censored, or ridiculed? Perhaps. We’ll see. In the following example, think of the Darwinese as packing peanuts that can be removed to get to the important items inside.

A remarkable paper was published in BioEssays in January, with three authors from the University of Washington, Steven S. Andrews, H. Steven Wiley, and Herbert M. Sauro. None has any known sympathies for intelligent design. And yet much of their paper, “Design patterns of biological cells,” could have been written by any one of the PhDs presenting ideas at the Conference on Engineering in Living Systems (CELS).

Design patterns are generalized solutions to frequently recurring problems. They were initially developed by architects and computer scientists to create a higher level of abstraction for their designs. Here, we extend these concepts to cell biology to lend a new perspective on the evolved designs of cells’ underlying reaction networks. We present a catalog of 21 design patterns divided into three categories: creational patterns describe processes that build the cell, structural patterns describe the layouts of reaction networks, and behavioral patterns describe reaction network function. Applying this pattern language to the E. coli central metabolic reaction network, the yeast pheromone response signaling network, and other examples lends new insights into these systems.

Taken for Granted

The authors do not question Darwinian evolution, taking it for granted some 14 times in the paper. They speak of “the evolution of complex life” and convergent evolution, even speculating on whether life on other planets would evolve the same way as it has on Earth. Such talk is common in biomimetics literature as well: e.g., one writer spoke of an ingenious solution that was “refined over more than 420 million years of evolution,” as if natural selection gave an organism a head start. We can safely dismiss such statements as either poetic license or a misunderstanding of evolution in its usual unguided sense.

The important items are these: a catalog of 21 design patterns presented as solutions to engineering problems that cells have solved. Here’s one example:

Pores and pumps

Problem

Cellular components, from ions to proteins, typically need to be localized to the correct sides of membranes, including the plasma membrane, nuclear membrane, and other organelle membranes.

Solution.

Trans-membrane pores and pumps that use either active or passive transport. These pores and pumps are typically quite selective about what molecules they transmit and are often gated by external signals.

Cell membranes are quite permeable to oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other small nonpolar molecules but are effectively impermeable to larger and more charged species, a property that is essential to establishing and maintaining cell organization. Transport of these latter species occurs via transporters and channels, including ion channels, passive and active transporters for ions or other small molecules, proton pumps, ABC transporters, photosynthetic reaction centers for electron transport, and ATP synthase proteins for mitochondrial proton transport. The nuclear pore complex is a particularly large pore, which enables passive transport of small molecules and performs active transport on proteins that carry nuclear localization or nuclear export signals.

Readers can enjoy all 21 of these design patterns at their leisure in the open-access paper. The key takeaway is that the authors are looking at cells not as poorly designed conglomerations of haphazard parts that some blind tinkerer cobbled together from whatever pieces of stuff were available, but as collections of elegant solutions to real problems familiar to engineers. It represents a noteworthy step toward design thinking in biology from an unexpected source.

Motivation for the Paper

In a video within the paper, Dr. Sauro from the Bioengineering Department explains what motivated the paper. He begins his answer by holding up a copy of Bruce Alberts’s textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, a thick tome with 1,500 pages. 

We started thinking: Is there any way we could abstract this information at a higher level, to help us comprehend what’s going on in a cell? And we were struck by this other book, which is totally different, Design Patterns. It’s a famous book in computer science by a so-called Gang of Four. It’s an interesting book because it describes how to solve complex problems in a sort of simplified way. And we thought: Is there was any way to marry this book with the Alberts book? That’s basically what motivated us to write this paper.

Following the order of the Design Patterns book, the authors divided systems in molecular biology into the same three basic categories: creational (such as the synthesis of a protein), structural (such as a phosphorylation cascade with inputs and outputs), and behavioral (such as a relaxation oscillator). 

From this outline, the authors correlated the computer scientists’ design patterns with their actual implementations in cells. The implementations look like logic diagrams in circuit design. Mechanisms can be quite different, Sauro explains, and yet the underlying design pattern can be the same when examined at a higher level. 

Importance of the Paper

Dr. Sauro feels the paper is important for a number of reasons. It provides a new way of communicating ideas in molecular biology, so that computational theorists and experimentalists can understand each other. Another benefit of the approach is to motivate other biochemists to build on their scaffolding of design patterns. This assumes many more engineering solutions can be identified; indeed, Sauro hopes others will help construct a searchable database of design patterns. Machine learning, then, could recognize patterns in newly identified networks in living organisms, expanding our understanding cellular networks. This would be very helpful for complex signaling networks, for instance, when it is hard to determine what is going on. Machine learning could compare known design patterns with the input/output behavior of the components, leading to an “Aha!” moment that untangles the complexity into a recognizable logic diagram.

Sauro credits primary author Steven Andrews for the clear and readable form in which the paper was presented. He hopes many scientists will read it, because it covers a wide range of biology and should interest all biologists — and, we would add, engineers. It is a springboard for ideas that also might interest those preparing for the next CELS conference.

Design patterns are recurrent solutions to commonly encountered problems. All biological cells encounter the same problems of how to construct the biochemical components that they are built from, how to connect those components together into useful reaction networks, and how to use those reaction networks to animate life.

The authors are quick to acknowledge certain predecessors in biological design thinking. 

The idea of understanding cellular systems in terms of functional parts is of course not new. For example, Hartwell et al. argued for a modular view of cell biology, Del Vecchio et al. emphasized the central roles of control mechanisms, and Khammash’s group has focused on mechanisms that provide integral feedback control. In contrast to these and other works, our focus is larger, covering a wider swath of cell biology mechanisms. Also, our perspective is subtly different. Rather than focusing on a particular biological topic, our emphasis is on the development of a catalog of the solutions that cells have evolved to solve specific problems. This design pattern concept is useful for abstracting a broad range of cell functions into a manageable set of distinct patterns, enabling one to better see parallels and

Future of the Design Pattern Approach

Clearly, design thinking is a fruitful heuristic for discovery. But what about the “interlinked and hierarchical design patterns” mentioned next? Could those evolve? In the Illustra film Darwin’s Dilemma, such hierarchical patterns (exemplified in the body plans of the Cambrian fauna), are shown to resist Darwinian approaches because they require top-down design, as with a blueprint or logic diagram before assembly begins. Is this not the case with all “design patterns”?

The authors grant too much creativity to the neo-Darwinian mechanism. They assume that problems motivate their own solutions in biology:

Going even farther afield, one can speculate about life on other planets, where again the same problems would likely arise, and again would necessarily be addressed with many of the same solutions. This suggests that the design patterns listed here, along with others not addressed, could be reasonably considered universal principles of life.

Most likely this kind of speculation will wither on its own as the successors of Bruce Alberts add more pages to molecular biology textbooks. If, as the authors conclude, those involved in simulating cells will refer to a database of design patterns in their multiscale modeling, it should become increasingly clear that cells resemble engineered masterpieces. Darwinese would then decline as superfluous words in future research projects focused on design patterns.