Design deniers remain gatekeepers of the agrora?

 Healthy Debate? No Thanks, Says National Association of Biology Teachers

Herman B Bouma

A recent article here by Wesley J. Smith highlighted how mainstream science seeks to stifle opposition instead of encouraging open and honest debate. The article reminded me of a recent experience I had involving the Board of Directors of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT).

Nothing Unscientific About Design

When I attended the annual conference of the NABT in November 2023, I met Amanda Townley, the president-elect of the NABT. During our conversation I mentioned I had a proposal for amending the NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution and I asked her what was the procedure for proposing an amendment to a Position Statement. She asked what it concerned and I said it was a clarification that there is nothing unscientific about a theory of design, including in the field of biology. She said only members of the Board of Directors could propose Position Statements or amendments thereto, but she said she would be willing to present my proposal at an upcoming meeting of the Board. She asked me to send her an explanation of the proposal. The explanation I sent to her is set forth below.

Proposal by Herman B. Bouma for Amending NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

I highly recommend that the NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution be amended to make clear that there is nothing inherently unscientific about a theory of design, including in the field of biology.

Suppose an American geologist went to England to study its rock formations and happened to come upon Stonehenge. As a scientist, is he precluded from theorizing that Stonehenge is the result of design? If he cannot refer to design, then he might come up with a theory that Stonehenge is the result of a volcanic eruption or the result of deposition by an ancient river. Those are certainly theories, but not very good ones. 

As a scientist, the geologist might have a predilection to explain Stonehenge in terms of natural processes. However, given what he knows about natural processes and given the layout of the stones in Stonehenge, and realizing science should not rule out any logical possibility, he would rightly conclude that design is the best explanation.

Many well-known scientists have had no problem theorizing about design in biology:

Darwin himself theorized that the first forms of life (at most, 8-10 forms) were the result of design;

Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with a theory of natural selection at the same time as Darwin, later abandoned that theory and instead subscribed to a theory of design;

Louis Agassiz, a leading naturalist at Harvard University and “the father of the American scientific tradition,” opposed Darwin’s theory of natural selection and subscribed to a theory of design;

Even Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary atheist, has theorized that DNA might be the result of design (by space aliens);

Dr. Sudip Parikh, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, addressed the concept of design when he spoke at the National Press Club on April 5, 2021. A questioner noted that Darwin himself theorized that the very first forms of life were the result of design and asked Dr. Parikh if theorizing about design in nature is unscientific. Instead of stating that it is unscientific, he said we should be teaching our students to follow the evidence, “wherever that evidence takes them.”

Of course, if a theory of design is presented in a science classroom of a public school in the United States, then, given the separation of church and state required by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the theory cannot identify the designer with any particular religion.

Acknowledging that there is nothing unscientific about a theory of design in biology would go a long way toward restoring trust in science, which is now seen by many as ignoring the obvious (design).

In an email to me on February 8, 2024, Ms. Townley (now the president of the NABT) informed me that she presented my proposal for amending the NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution at the January 2024 meeting of the Board of Directors. She said, “The board heard the proposal and voted to decline the amendment.”

I replied, “Could the Board give me its reasons for declining the amendment? In particular, could it respond to the arguments set forth in my statement supporting the proposal? That would be much appreciated.”

She replied, “The board declined discussion of the amendment and unanimously declined to amend the statement, therefore there are no counter arguments available to share.”

No Debate, Please; We’re Biology Teachers

In an email on February 9, 2024, I replied that I was “very disappointed the Board wasn’t interested in engaging in a healthy debate on the issue of design, especially since Louis Agassiz and Charles Darwin thought there was nothing unscientific about it.” I stated that scientists and science teachers should be interested in promoting debate, not stifling it. I also noted, “If the NABT is sincerely interested in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, it should promote the inclusion of those who share the perspective of Louis Agassiz and Charles Darwin, i.e., that design is a legitimate scientific concept.”

In an email to Ms. Townley on February 22, 2024, I again expressed my disappointment that the Board did not give any reasons for its rejection of my proposal and stated that “I would find it very helpful if you, or someone else at the NCSE [National Center for Science Education], could prepare for me a brief response to the arguments I presented in my proposal.” (I should note that, in addition to being the new president of the NABT, Ms. Townley is now also the new executive director of the NCSE.)

In a response the same day, Ms. Townley thanked me for my email but stated, “As noted previously, the Board deemed that the matter did not warrant discussion or debate and unanimously declined discussion. Your disappointment at that outcome is noted, however, no further discussion or argumentation will be provided.” Like the Board, neither she nor the NCSE had any interest in discussing or debating the question of whether design is a legitimate scientific concept in the field of biology.

It is clear that one way mainstream science seeks to stifle opposition is by simply refusing to discuss or debate opposing views. 

The body's war machine vs. Darwin.

 Newly Discovered War Machines in the Immune System

David Coppedge

An armored terrorist lurks in the city. Suddenly, thousands of pieces of sticky rope fly at him from all directions. They bind together, immobilizing him in a net. The net dissolves the intruder’s armor, and simultaneously signals for miniature robotic snipers who land on the net, using it as a scaffold. They fire armor-penetrating bullets through the net and into the terrorist’s compromised armor. Reinforcements install kill switches inside his body, forcing the terrorist to commit involuntary suicide.

Something like that describes a newly discovered molecular machine that helps fight infectious pathogens in our body cells. The news from Yale University says:

Yale scientists have discovered a family of immune proteins, which they describe as a “massive molecular machine,” that could affect the way our bodies fight infection. 

The immune proteins forming the net around the pathogen are called guanylate binding proteins, or GBPs. They have been known for a decade, but their mode of operation was only recently uncovered by Yale researchers. A short video shows these GBP1 proteins (the sticky ropes) as yellow pillar-shaped dimers rushing in, unfolding and linking up, surrounding the outer membrane of a bacterium (its armor). In short order the bacterium is surrounded with an inescapable straitjacket. There can be up to 30,000 of these proteins enclosing the pathogen in a type of body bag.

“What we found is among the most impressive examples of a biological machine in action that I’ve ever seen,” said John MacMicking, a professor of microbial pathogenesis and of immunobiology at Yale, and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. MacMicking is senior author of the study.

The bacterial cell wall armor is no match for the immune system’s armor-piercing bullets. Even bacteria able to modify the lipopolysaccharides (LPS) that comprise the outer membrane (OM) have no chance. GBP1 knows all the configurations.

Human GBP1 still targeted cytosolic Stm [Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium] irrespective of bacterial size, shape, motility, or OM composition; the latter spanned LPS chains of different length, charge, and chemical structure. Such broad ligand promiscuity may help GBP1 combat gram-negative pathogens that modify their LPS moiety in an attempt to evade innate immune recognition and antimicrobial killing.

With the pathogen’s armor covered, the GBP proteins work to disentangle the lipopolysaccharide threads of the outer membrane. Having detected the help signal, reinforcements come in, firing caspase-4 grenades and interferon-γ kill switches into the bacterium, forcing it to commit pyroptosis, a form of programmed cell death.

“We are literally observing Mother Nature at work, looking at how these proteins operate in 3-dimensional space and at a particular location,” said MacMicking. “In just a few minutes they unfold and insert into the bacterial membrane to form a truly remarkable nanomachine and innate immune signaling platform.”

The bacteria coated with GBP straitjackets can be as small as 750 billionths of a meter (nanometers). The scientists found that this body-bag method works on bacteria regardless of shape. It works on viruses, too.

Imaging Design in Detail

This discovery was only made possible by recent advances in imaging technology. With cryo-electron microscopy, the researchers were able to “slice” whole live cells that had been quick-frozen. The resulting slices were assembled into tomograms, giving glimpses of heretofore unseen realities at work inside our body cells.

Our immune system mobilizes numerous proteins to detect viruses and bacteria — and to bring them under control. But until recently, limits to research technology have thwarted scientists’ understanding of how to prevent different pathogens from occupying and replicating within specific parts of our cells in the first place.

Harnessing the latest cryo‐electron microscopy techniques to look inside human cells, researchers at the Yale Systems Biology Institute have identified a family of large immune proteins that assemble into a massive signaling platform directly on the surface of microbial pathogens.

The researchers say they found thousands of GBPs building what amounted to a coat of armor (GBP1 coat complex) around the bacteria, allowing other defense proteins to recognize and kill encapsulated bacteria as well as mobilize immune cells for protection.

This reinforces an ID expectation that the more detail revealed, the more the design evidence becomes apparent. Evolution may look plausible from afar, but the angel is in the details. 

How Reinforcements Are Called

After the bacterium is immobilized, the GBP1 straitjacket becomes a scaffold for snipers to dismantle the intruder’s armor. The GBP family of proteins serve not only as the sticky ropes coating the intruder and disrupting its armor; they are also equipped with radios to call in the snipers and bomb squad. These proteins install the kill switches.

Thus, insertion of human GBP1 seems to disrupt lateral LPS-LPS interactions to compromise OM integrity. This not only activates the caspase-4 inflammasome pathway but allows the passage of small antimicrobial proteins such as APOL3 to directly kill pathogenic bacteria.

Human GBP1 was found to be “obligate for initiating the entire signaling cascade,” the scientists found via knockout experiments. It’s the captain in command.

Irreducible Complexity in Peace and War

ID advocates enjoy the examples of irreducible complexity (IC) in peacetime: the ATP synthase motor, kinesin, and the DNA translation mechanism. But when intruders threaten the life of a cell or its host organism, IC can fight with lethal intensity in an “all hands on deck!” war campaign. Its armed forces are always at the ready.

An emerging paradigm for innate immune signaling cascades is the higher-order assembly of repetitive protein units that generate large polymers capable of amplifying signal transduction. Our results identify human GBP1 as the principal repetitive unit, numbering thousands of proteins per bacillus, that undergoes dramatic conformational opening to establish a host defense platform directly on the surface of gram-negative bacteria. This platform enabled the recruitment of other immune partners, including GBP family members and components of the inflammasome pathway, that initiate protective responses downstream of activating cytokines such as interferon-γ. Elucidating this giant molecular structure not only expands our understanding of how human cells recognize and combat infection but may also have implication for antibacterial approaches within the human population.

Isn’t it nice to know that “eukaryotes have evolved compartment-specific immune surveillance mechanisms that alert the host to infection and recruit antimicrobial proteins that help bring microbial replication under control”? Actually, Charles Darwin never proved that his proposed mechanism of natural selection was capable of creating anything beyond simple variation within a species. His use of rhetoric and the analogy of domestic breeding was recognized even by his contemporaries as a mere suggestive hypothesis lacking scientific demonstration. 

Robert Shedinger shows this in Darwin’s own words in the new book Darwin’s Bluff. Aware that the Origin of Species was a “mere abstract” falling short scientific standards, Darwin promised a “big book” with the evidence. But he never published one. Why? Shedinger suggests he knew the evidence was lacking, and he was afraid of criticism. Instead, he relied on friends to promote his views. Darwin’s friends ran with “natural selection” as an all-purpose can opener to explain nature without an intelligent designer, using imagination and storytelling instead of hard evidence. In my experience reading the best of neo-Darwinian explanations, that’s still all they have to offer. Demonstration of selection’s alleged creative power is lacking, especially for irreducibly complex “massive molecular machines” like this one.

The discovery of a multi-component system able to mount a coordinated response to a threat speaks instead of Foresight: preparedness for a future eventuality. Darwin’s mechanism has no foresight or goal. At best, it can only preserve what it already has. Our uniform experience with foresight is that it is a capability of designing intelligence. That is Undeniable.

Zechariah 2:10-15 demystified

 3a.    Zechariah 2:10-15

This is virtually the same ‘proof’ as that of Is. 48:16 above.

Here is how it was presented to me (in blue) and my response.

“So who was the Jehovah that sent Jehovah in Zechariah 2:10, 11...It was Jehovah who declared this...are you saying Jehovah (the only God...the Father) was sent to tabernacle with us, by Jehovah (the only God...the Father)? Please answer this...YHVH declared it. He was being sent by YHVH...which one is the Father or both or is one the Word (who would also be YHVH but not the Father)? Please exegete this passage…”

This is the same as the Trinitarian argument that Is. 48:16 shows two different persons as Jehovah.

Similarly, we may note that various Trinitarian scholars have shown by quotation marks and use of parentheses that the “sent me” passages in Zechariah also do not refer to Yahweh.

The Jerusalem Bible uses parentheses to separate these passages from the words spoken by Yahweh.

The New Jerusalem Bible uses quotations marks to show where Jehovah’s words start and end. The passages in question are not included.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) also uses quotation marks to show Jehovah’s words. The passages in question are not included in them.

The Good News Bible also uses quotation marks to show that YHWH did not speak the words in the passages including “sent me.”

The Bible: A New Translation (Dr. James Moffatt) uses both quotation marks and Parentheses to separate the words of Yahweh from those of the "sent me" passage.

The Contemporary English Version shows Yahweh speaking in Zech. 2:6-7. The rest of Zechariah 2 are the words of the prophet.

The Easy-to-Read Version also shows Jehovah speaking in Zech. 2:6-7, but all the parts that refer to knowing the prophet was sent by Jehovah are spoken by the prophet.

Remember Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, for example, informs Bible readers: 

“The language of the MESSENGER frequently glides into that of the SENDER, e.g. Gen. 16:10 …Zech 2:8-11.” and, “what a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the MASTER.” - “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation” - Preface.

The original manuscripts had no punctuation and this has to be added by the translator as he sees fit.

The point is that these were translated by Trinitarian scholars for a (mostly) Trinitarian readership! They certainly would not have taken a real Trinitarian ‘proof’ and neutralized it!

This was followed by this response (in blue) followed by my answer:

“The absolutely non-Trinitarian Masoretic Text has this in verses 14, 15 and literally reads in English... "14 'Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. 15 And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people, and I will dwell in the midst of thee'; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.” 

This quote is from JPS, 1917 (Margolis). If you are going to quote from a source, you should identify it.

First, the Masoretic Text has YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) instead of ‘LORD.’

Second, the JPS, 1917 translation you quote says:

(2:12) For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: 'Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. (2:13) For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them'; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. (2:14) 'Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. (2:15) And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be My people, and I will dwell in the midst of thee'; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.

Notice the quotation marks this translation uses for Yahweh’s words (highlighted in red). They start at the end of verse 12 and end at ‘that served them’ near the end of verse 13. Then again they start at the beginning of verse 14 and end at ‘midst of thee’ in verse 15. The words following these quotes are the words of the prophet.

Posted by Elijah Daniels

Following the politics?

 What’s in a Name? Debating the Anthropocene Epoch

Denyse O Leary

Earlier this month, geologists voted down a proposal to give the years since 1950 a geological name, the Anthropocene Epoch. The vote at the subcommission of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) was 12 to 4, with 2 abstentions. Thus, the period in which we now live — which started with the end of the last Ice Age, roughly 11,700 years ago — will continue to be called the Holocene Epoch.

Why Does It Matter?

Assigning names to eras is a way of teaching history. That often includes imparting a message or a value judgment. Think “Dark Ages,” for example, or “Golden Age of Jazz.” Such terms are not mere names.

The geologists were asked by peers to rule that the human impact on Earth in the past 75 years has been so great that it should be an epoch all its own. But committee members pointed to the growth of agriculture over the entire Holocene and the Industrial Revolution that began centuries ago. At least one mentioned the impact of colonization over recent centuries.

Humans are accused of hastening the extinction of the mammoth, last noted about 4,000 years ago, and the mastodon, last noted about 10,000 years ago. We are also accused of extinguishing the giant versions of cave bears, sloths, and armadillos as we spread over the globe, which must have had an environmental effect. So why the sudden focus on the last 75 years?

Nuclear Weapons Drove the Demand for Name Change

From New Scientist, we learn that, for some scientists, the spread of nuclear weapons justifies naming a new epoch. Still, for most committee members, the brevity of the period was a deciding factor:

“The time span of the proposed Anthropocene is no more than 75 years — a single human lifetime,” says [Mike] Walker. “This does not fit comfortably into the geological time scale, where units typically span thousands, tens of thousands or millions of years.”

[Simon] Turner and [Colin] Waters disagree with the decision, arguing that there is ample evidence for the Anthropocene: “All these lines of evidence indicate that the Anthropocene, though currently brief, is — we emphasise — of sufficient scale and importance to be represented on the Geological Time Scale.” 

CHEN LY, “SURPRISE DECISION NOT TO DEFINE THE ANTHROPOCENE SHOCKS SCIENTISTS, NEW SCIENTIST, MARCH 5, 2024

Of course, if impact rather than duration is the deciding criterion, surely the period of the total extinction of the dinosaurs — which may have taken a similar amount of time — should also have its own epoch name. Currently, the extinction simply marks the end of the Cretaceous Era (145–66 mya), though it is sometimes called the K–T event, to emphasize the role of the asteroid hit.

In any event, a number of scientists were vocal about their disappointment and efforts are underway to get the vote canceled due to “procedural irregularities.”

Some Underlying Issues

The current impetus for the name change stems from the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG),which, last July, found radioactive isotopes dating from the 1950s preserved in the bed of Crawford Lake (pictured above) in a wilderness in southern Ontario, Canada.

But University of Alberta geologist John Weissenberger thinks that the driving force is current angst over the environment:

The concept of the “Anthropocene” is saturated with society’s current angst about the environment and the belief that we are doing irreparable harm to the planet. If this is true, one might argue, then surely we humans have launched a new geological epoch that will forever stain the earth’s geological record. As with many other parts of these debates, however, this one says as much or more about us and our collective psyche than it does about the planet and its natural history.

JOHN WEISSENBERGER, TINKERING WITH TIME: THE CAMPAIGN TO CONJURE UP AN “ANTHROPOCENE” EPOCH, C2C JOURNAL, FEBRUARY 16, 2024

He contends that, far from our profoundly changing the planet, if human civilization were wiped out, it’s not clear how much would even be left to find after a few million years. True, there are lots of humans — but there were lots of dinosaurs too. The fossils we discover are a depressingly small sample.

Thus, he worries, “Some earth scientists on the Anthropocene bandwagon are surely well-intentioned, but others are likely to be chasing potential research dollars that come from supporting ‘societally relevant’ science and have thus been drawn into this politicized enterprise.”

Getting Off the Bandwagon

University of Maryland geographer Erle C. Ellis, a founding member (2009) of the group pushing the new epoch, agrees that the name change is unwarranted but offers a quite different perspective from Weissberger’s. He resigned in 2023 because he thinks that creating a new epoch for every key development understates the effect of human actions:

I resigned because I was convinced that this proposal defined the Anthropocene so narrowly that it would damage broader scientific and public understanding.

By tying the start of the human age to such a recent and devastating event — nuclear fallout — this proposal risked sowing confusion about the deep history of how humans are transforming the Earth, from climate change and biodiversity losses to pollution by plastics and tropical deforestation.

ERLE C. ELLIS, “THE ANTHROPOCENE IS NOT AN EPOCH — BUT THE AGE OF HUMANS IS MOST DEFINITELY UNDERWAY,” THE CONVERSATION, MARCH 5, 2024

Whether Weissenberger or Ellis proves more correct in the long run, today’s reality is that the Anthropocene bandwagon, broadcasting so much cultural vibe, may not run out of gas any time soon. As in some other disciplines today, science had just better not get in the way.

Genesis 19:24 demystified.

 Gen. 19:24 ("Jehovah rained down fire ... from Jehovah")

"Then the LORD rained down upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." - KJV. 

        This one seems too ridiculous to even bother with, but some trinitarians appear to be serious about it.  It goes this way: when we read Gen. 19:24, we find there are two different persons who have the only personal name of God, "Jehovah," (or "LORD" in some mistranslations).  Therefore these two different persons with God's personal name show the "plural personality" of that one God. 

        Even if we assume this to be a correct translation, it seems obvious that it can be honestly interpreted as a simple repetition of the same person's name.  That is, the very same person who produced the brimstone and fire, Jehovah, is also the one who rained it down upon these cities.

        The explanatory note by trinitarian Dr. Young in Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, for this verse states: "JEHOVAH...JEHOVAH, i.e. from Himself."

        If that is the correct explanation, then this scripture might provide a somewhat parallel example: "And King Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked besides what was given her by the bounty of King Solomon." - 1 Kings 10:13, RSV.  (Cf. KJV.)  Even though this is a very literal translation of the original manuscripts and the one personal name of King Solomon is actually used twice, we surely don't believe there were two different persons making up the one King Solomon!  Wouldn't we interpret this as Dr. Young (and others) have done with "Jehovah" above?   That is obviously how the Living Bible, NIV, MLB, NASB, etc. have interpreted it.   ("King Solomon gave her everything she asked him for, besides the presents he had already planned." - LB.) 

        Another honest explanation for Gen. 19:24 given by trinitarian scholars themselves is that the use of the phrase in question ("from the LORD out of heaven") is in doubt.  The very trinitarian New American Bible, 1970 ed. (Catholic) encloses the last part of Gen. 19:24 in brackets: "the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah [from the LORD out of heaven]."  And the preface to the NAB tells us: "Doubtful readings ... appear within brackets." - p. 45, St. Joseph Edition. 

        That is why these trinitarian Bible translations have actually omitted that doubtful portion: NEB, REB, AT, Mo, LB, and GNB.  (E.g. "then the LORD rained down fire and brimstone from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah." - New English Bible.)  And others, like the NJB, have rendered it "[Jehovah] rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire of his own sending."  Certainly no trinitarian Bible translation would do this if it could possibly be used as honest trinitarian evidence!


Posted by Elijah Daniels

The empire of the gene has fallen? Pros and Cons

 

A clash of old school titans.

 

Deuteronomy6:4 demystified.

 ECHAD (א ח ד)

I have seen Deut. 6:4 - “YHWH [Jehovah] our God, YHWH [Jehovah] one [Echad,  
  א ח ד  in Hebrew]” - rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They usually say something like this: “At Deut. 6:4 the word ‘one’ is echad [1] in Biblical Hebrew, which means ‘composite unity’ or ‘plural oneness’.”

The examples that they cite which are supposed to verify this understanding for echad are usually either Gen. 2:24 - “They [two persons] shall be one [echad] flesh,” or Gen. 1:5 - “the evening and the morning were the first (or one) [echad] day,” or Numbers 13:23 - “one [echad] cluster of grapes.” 

In addition to insisting that echad means “plural oneness” some of them also insist that, if God had intended the meaning of “absolute oneness” (singleness, only one individual) at Deut. 6:4, he would have used the word yachid (or yacheed). 

So let’s examine the intended meanings of echad and yachid and the scriptures cited above. 

First, it certainly wouldn’t be surprising to find that some recognized trinitarian authority on Biblical Hebrew had written somewhere that echad means “united or plural oneness.” but I haven’t found one yet! 

Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew: 

The only definition given for echad in the very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: “a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one”. We find no “plural oneness” there! 

The highly respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is “a numeral having the power of an adjective, one.” He then lists the various meanings of echad as: 

“(1) The same,” 

“(2) first,” 

“(3) some one,” 

“(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,”[2]

“(5) one only of its kind,” 

“(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] ‘one ... another’,” 

“(7) [K echad] AS one man.” [The initial consonant of this word, “K,”  actually means “as” or “like,” so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]

Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word (achadim) which means “joined in one, united.” This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House. Surely, if God (Jehovah) were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means “united one” would have been used to describe “Him” repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)! 

By using a good Bible Concordance (such as Strong’s or Young’s) we can find all the uses of echad in the Bible. Unfortunately (due to space limitations), Young’s and Strong’s both list the rare plural form (achadim in Hebrew letters) and the “AS one” (Kechad) form along with the common singular form (echad) without distinguishing among them. 

Nevertheless, since both the plural form achadim and the kechad form are used quite rarely (see Ezek. 37:17 and 2 Chronicles 5:13 for examples), we can see that the overwhelming majority of the uses of echad listed in these concordances (over 500) obviously have the meaning of singleness just as we normally use the word “one” today. 

If you should find a scripture listed as using echad in your concordance that definitely has the meaning “plural oneness” or “together,” or “as one,” you should check it out in an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible. If the word in question is really the echad form of the word (as at Deut. 6:4), then it will end with the Hebrew letter “d” (similar to '7') in the Hebrew portion of your interlinear. If, however, it is really the plural form of the word (achadim), then it will end in the Hebrew letter “m” (similar to 'D'). And if the word is really Kechad (“AS one”), it will begin with the Hebrew letter “k” (similar to a backward 'C'). Remember, though, that Hebrew reads from right to left (so the LAST letter of a Hebrew word is really the letter at the extreme LEFT.) 

Using your concordance along with an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible in this manner, I don’t believe you will ever find echad (as used at Deut. 6:4) literally meaning “plural oneness”! 

Further emphasizing the impropriety of this “plural oneness” interpretation of echad are the many trinitarian renderings of Deut. 6:4. In the dozens of different trinitarian Bible translations that I have examined none of them have rendered Deut. 6:4 (or Mark 12:29 in the Greek NT) in such a way as to show anything even faintly resembling a “plural oneness”!! 

Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders Deut. 6:4 as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.” Notice that there’s not even a hint of a “plural oneness” Jehovah! 

The equally trinitarian (and nearly as “freely” translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: “The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God.” - Compare the equally “free-handed” (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible. 

And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - New Revised Standard Version.


“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!” - New American Bible.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).

“Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” - New Jerusalem Bible.

“Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone.” - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.

“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).

“The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God.” - A New Transation, Moffatt .

The trinitarian ASV (also the RSV) gives 4 different possible renderings of Deut. 6:4. One of them is identical with The Living Bible, and none of them includes an understanding of a “plural oneness” God! 

The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a “trinity” God --- or even just a “plural oneness” God) as: “The Lord our God is the one and only God.” Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. “’... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...’ Realizing this man’s understanding, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’” 

Why doesn’t this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a “plural oneness” meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad? 

Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = “plural oneness” interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: “Jehovah is a composite unity;” or “Jehovah is the United One;” or “Jehovah is a plural oneness;” etc. 

Instead they have clearly shown that God (who inspired it), Moses (who wrote it under inspiration), and even Jesus himself (who taught that it was part of the most important commandment of all - Mark 12:28-29, LB; GNB; etc.) intended this scripture to show God as a single person only! 

Similarly, the three annotated trinitarian study Bibles I own would certainly explain any intended “multiple-oneness” meaning for echad at Deut. 6:4 (if there were any possibility of such an interpretation). But the extremely trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., gives no hint of such an understanding of echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., likewise gives no hint of such an understanding in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And that trinitarian favorite: The NIV Study Bible, 1985, also gives no hint of such a meaning for echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). The only possible reason for all these trinitarian study Bibles ignoring this “proof” is that it simply is not true! 

The examples given by some trinitarians to show a “plural oneness” meaning for echad don’t stand up either. The Gen. 2:24 example of a man and wife becoming “one (echad) flesh” certainly does not mean one literal body of flesh is composed of two people. 

A man and wife becoming “one flesh” also doesn’t mean that two different persons suddenly become equal or identical. They are still two distinct individuals (one is lord and head over the other according to the Bible) and do not share nervous, circulatory, skeletal, etc. systems. They both did not have to (and, in fact, did not) come into existence at the same time, nor do they both have the same minds, personalities, nor even equal authority! 

So, then, how did the Bible writers understand that the two became “one”? It should be enough to show that being “one” with someone else merely shows how two (or more) people are “united in purpose” as though they were one person in that respect only (purpose). - See the ONE study.

Notice how the following scripture uses the very same “one flesh” reference:
Ephesians 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. - NKJV.
This could be understood as in the “one in purpose” interpretation above, and/or it could be understood in the “close relationship” understanding below. But it clearly is speaking of Jesus and his followers being “one flesh.” 
Another way a man and wife can be considered “one flesh” has to do with what the word “flesh” (basar) meant in ancient Biblical Hebrew. Any good concordance will show you that “flesh” (basar) in Bible usage often means a close relative. Gen. 37:27 is an example of this: “for he is our brother and our flesh.” 

And the equivalent NT Greek word for “flesh” (sarx) could be used in the same manner. At Ro 11:14, “my flesh (sarx)” - KJV is also rendered: “my fellow Jews” - RSV; “my own race” - MLB, TEV, GNB, NEB; “my own people” - NIV; “my fellow countrymen” - NASB. 

The King James Version even translates this OT Hebrew word (basar) as “KIN” at Lev. 18:6 and 25:49. The New English Bible translates it “blood-relation.” With this common understanding for “flesh” it is clear that the expression “one flesh” at Gen. 2:24 can simply mean that the two married people are now to be considered as closely related as “blood-relatives.” In other words, their closest “flesh” (relatives) used to be their parents. Now they are to consider their new relationship to one another as being even stronger than that with their parents: “therefore shall a man leave his mother and father” - Gen. 2:24. 

To argue that a man and woman somehow, in some mysterious supernatural way, literally become one flesh, is simply not what was intended in the original language. 

It is no more mysterious than my saying that my wife Karen and I (and our children, Randy and Robin) have become a single (or “one”) family (“relationship,” “kin”). I certainly don’t mean to imply some “mysterious” plurality by the word “single” even though there happen to be two (or four) members in that one family (relationship, “flesh”). Or, a person could have dozens of members in his one, single family (“flesh”). Or, a person might be the sole surviving member (“absolute mathematical oneness”) of his one family - it’s still only one family and the singularity or plurality of its composition has nothing whatsoever to do with its being one single family! 

It’s no different from talking about two families, three families, etc. We are talking about a definite mathematical number of families, not the numerical composition within those families. The “one flesh” example works exactly that same way. 

A few “echad = multiple oneness” trinitarians even claim that a man and woman becoming “one flesh” means “they are one in nature ... one in human nature as the Father and Son are one in the God-nature.” 

This kind of reasoning would mean that the man (or the woman) before marriage (before they “became one flesh”) was not by himself already equally “one” in human nature with the rest of mankind! Then what kind of nature did this person possess before he married? 

Each person (whether they ever marry and become “one flesh” or not) obviously already possesses human nature equally with any other human being. But when they marry, they are supposed to become one in purpose, goals, etc., the closest of relatives, not suddenly become human beings and thereby gain human nature! 

Strangely, one recent anti-Watchtower letter sent by a relative to a local Witness used the above example for “one” in marriage being “one” in nature and then said: 

“‘the marriage relationship portrays the mystical oneness and union of Jesus, the Bridegroom with His Bride, His Church’ just as it portrays that the man and his wife ‘are ... one in nature ... as the Father and Son are one in the God-nature.’” 

Yes, this writer was actually saying, then, that just as the Father and Son are one, so the man and wife are one, and so Jesus and his Church (all his true followers) are one! In other words, in trinitarian terms, Jesus and his Father are equally God; and Jesus (God in every sense, they would say) and his Church (also equal in nature with Jesus) must then be equally God also!! 

Clearly it means, instead, that Jesus, the bridegroom, and his bride, his church (of “brothers”) are one in purpose only (as are God and his Son). - 

“That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may also be in us ... that they may be one even as we are one.” - John 17:21, 22, ASV. 

Even if the Hebrew echad were used here at John 17:22 for “one” (as the famous Lutheran trinitarian scholar, Franz Delitzsch translated it in his Hebrew New Testament), it is obvious that it does not mean some mysterious plural oneness wherein the individuals are all equally the Father, or equally the Son, and certainly not all equally God! (In any case, John would have used the masculine form of “one” in the NT Greek, heis, at John 17:22 if he had intended any of the above “trinitarian” meanings. Instead, he used the neuter form, hen, in NT Greek which signifies a union of purpose - see the ONE study). 

Delitzsch also translates the NT Greek heis at 1 Cor. 9:24 (“only one” - NIV, NEB, TEV, GNB, RSV; “only one person” - The Living Bible) as echad ! There is certainly no “plural oneness” intended here! - Hebrew New Testament, Delitzsch, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981. 

If a person will not acknowledge the obvious figurative meaning of “one” as “united in purpose,” then he is saying that as man and wife become absolutely equal in nature by marriage (and as Jesus and the Father are “absolutely equal in nature” and are, therefore, equally God) so do Jesus and his Church become “one” or “equal in nature” and, therefore, the Church (Jesus’ “brothers”) is equally God! 

Such reasoning is obviously ludicrous and illustrates what was really figuratively intended by “one” in marriage and other relationships: they are as though they were literally “one” in only one respect: unity of purpose! 

As the bride is to become “one” in purpose with her husband (although he is designated to be head over his wife - 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), so, too, those chosen ones are to become “one” in purpose with Jesus (although he is to be their head - Eph. 5:23; 1 Cor. 11:3 - so he does not conform to their will and purpose, nor are they equal to him, but they willingly conform to his purpose so that they may be “one”), and so, in like manner, Jesus has become “one” in purpose with his Father (the only true God - John 17:3) who is his head. The Father does not conform to the will and purpose of Jesus, nor is Jesus in any way equal to the Father, but Jesus willingly and perfectly conforms to his Father’s purpose and will! - “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (wife) is the man; and the head of Christ is God [not ‘Christ is equal to God’].” - 1 Cor. 11:3, ASV. 

So, why couldn’t the absolute mathematical oneness of echad at Deut. 6:4 be describing a figurative unity of purpose just as the Greek “one” (hen) does at John 17:21, 22? 

That is, if Jesus can describe certain chosen men, and his Father (God alone), and himself figuratively as all being “one” (in purpose only), why couldn’t God be telling us at Deuteronomy 6:4 that he is more than one person, all of whom are united in purpose? One reason is that the word used for “one” in this sense is neuter (hen). But the word used for “one” at Deut. 6:4 in the ancient Greek Septuagint (and at Mk 12:29 in the New Testament) is the masculine heis! - cf. Mk 2:7. 

We also know that such an interpretation is ridiculous because of the clear context of Deut. 6 (and the clear statements of the rest of the Bible). Nowhere in Old or New Testament is God said to be more than one person. No one would have possibly understood Deut. 6:4 as meaning “Jehovah is a ‘many persons united in one purpose’ God” at that time or for thousands of years thereafter (certainly not until hundreds of years after Jesus’ death - see the HIST study, parts 2-5). 

The context of Deut. 6:4 and 6:13-15 shows that God is not speaking of all persons who could be considered to be “united in purpose” with the Father (this would have included the Father and the Word, of course, but it would also have included the millions of faithful angels, and today it would include a large number of faithful Christians!). Remember that when “one” is used figuratively for “united in purpose” it is always describing a relationship between certain individuals or groups who are identified in context. There is no such identification (nor even the slightest suggestion of such an identification) found in Deut. 6. 

We cannot believe that Deut. 6:4 is saying that all those who are “united in purpose” with Jehovah are Jehovah! But that is the only figurative use we could possibly have for echad at Deut. 6:4. Otherwise we are left with the literal meaning (mathematical oneness, a single individual) of echad (which is obviously intended in the vast majority of uses of echad and which is obviously intended at Deut. 6:4, 13-15 and further explained at Mark 12:29, 32.) 

Just as no Bible translation (including all the many trinitarian translations I have examined) renders Deut. 6:4 with any kind of suggestion that “Jehovah is a multiple unity,” no translation suggests it should be rendered with the understanding that “Jehovah is united in purpose.” 

It is also clear from other Bible statements that God is a single person: the Father in heaven. (Jehovah is never described as “the Son,” “the Messiah,” “the Holy Spirit,” or any other individual but the Father - Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 3:19 - and conversely, no heavenly person except Jehovah is ever called the Father! - Matt. 23:9.) 

Notice how Jesus used the word monos (“only,” “alone”) to describe God (Jehovah, the Father) at John 17:1, 3. “Father ... they should know thee the only [monos] True God.” Or, “Father ... who alone art truly God” - NEB.

But let’s look at another example where echad is supposed to literally mean “plural oneness.” 

Almost anything we can name is composed of different elements or parts. If I should say, “Randy was the first (another way echad may be rendered into English) runner to cross the finish line,” I am not referring to the fact that he has two legs (or flesh, blood, and bones) which together help compose the whole of that one (or “first”) individual. I am saying (as everyone well knows) that, at the time he crossed the finish line, Randy was the only one who had done so (whether he had one or two legs, etc.). In the same sense of absolute mathematical order I would say that the very next runner (whether it should happen to be a woman, horse, octopus, snail, etc.) is the second individual runner to cross the finish line regardless of how many legs, arms, etc. that racer has. So, Robin, the second runner to cross the finish line is no more a “plural twoness” than Randy, the first one, is a “plural oneness”! 

Therefore, “the evening and the morning were the first [echad] day [‘one day’ - RSV]” - Gen. 1:5, KJV - means exactly what it says, just as “the evening and the morning were the second [sheni] day” - Gen. 1:8 - means exactly what it says and so on through six days! 

“The first [echad] day” does not in any sense refer to the individual parts which compose that day (or a “plural oneness”) any more than “the sixth day” refers to a “plural sixness” making up that single day! They are absolute mathematical numbers and do not refer to internal composition but, instead, to single, individual things. 

And so it is with the example of “one [echad] cluster of grapes” at Numbers 13:23. Here again “one” [echad] obviously means only one (singleness, absolute mathematical oneness) for whatever word it is applied to. 

It is the word “cluster” in this scripture which means “one thing composed of many individual items,” but there is only one single (absolute mathematical oneness) “cluster”! 

This is no different from one (echad) single tribe (whether composed of one single, last person or millions of persons) at Judges 21:3, 6 and two tribes (whether each is composed of one person or millions) at Joshua 21:16. Echad literally means “single,” “only” as can plainly be seen at Exodus 12:46, “one house;” Ex. 33:5, “one moment;” Numbers 7:21, “one bullock, one ram, [etc.].” 



Yachid

A few trinitarians insist that not only does echad mean “plural oneness,” but that, if singleness were intended by the Bible writer, the Hebrew word yachid would have been used at Deut. 6:4. 

Here is how it was presented to me by one trinitarian: 

“The word for ‘one’ in this great declaration [Deut. 6:4] is not Yachid which is an absolute oneness but rather echad which means ‘united one.’ Had the Holy Spirit desired to state absolute mathematical oneness in this all-important declaration, He could have easily used the word yachid, couldn’t He?” 

We have already seen the absolute falsity of the “echad-means-’plural-oneness’” idea. But what about yachid? Did the Bible writers really use it whenever they meant “absolute mathematical oneness”? We have already seen that they really used echad for “absolute mathematical oneness,” and a good concordance will show they did this consistently—many hundreds of times! 

Yachid, on the other hand, is only used about 12 times in the entire Bible and then only in a narrow, specific sense. 

The Old Testament language authority, Gesenius, tells us that yachid is used in three very specialized ways: (1) “only” but primarily in the sense of “only begotten”! - Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Jer. 6:26; and Zech. 12:10. (2) “solitary” but with the connotation of “forsaken” or “wretched” ! - Ps. 25:16; 68:6. (3) As yachidah (feminine form) meaning “only one” as something most dear and used “poet[ically] for ‘life’ - Ps. 22:20; 35:17.” - p. 345 b. 

We find yachid is never used to describe God anywhere in the entire Bible! But it is used to describe Isaac in his prefigured representation of the Messiah: Gen. 22:2, 12, 16. It is also used at Judges 11:34 for an only-begotten child. The ancient Greek Septuagint translates yachid at Judges 11:34 as monogenes (“only-begotten”): the same NT Greek word repeatedly used to describe Christ (even in his pre-human heavenly existence - 1 John 4:9). Monogenes, however, like the Hebrew yachid, is never used to describe the only true God, Jehovah (who is the Father alone). 

So, if Jehovah were to describe himself as “forsaken” or “wretched,” or were speaking poetically about his “dear life,” or were describing himself as the “only-begotten son” (which he never does anywhere in the Bible!), then he might have used yachid.[3] 

But since he was describing his “mathematical oneness” at Deut. 6:4, he properly used echad! 

As we pointed out at the beginning, there are Hebrew words that mean “plural oneness,” but echad is not one of them. As another example, notice the clear meaning of echad as “absolute mathematical oneness” at Gen. 42:11 where the sons of Jacob say, “we are all one [echad] man’s sons.” They certainly weren’t saying “we are all sons of different men who together make up a ‘plural oneness’ man.”! Instead, the inspired Bible writer wrote that they were all sons of one [echad not yachid] single, solitary man. 

We see the same thing at Malachi 2:10 even though we find two different interpretations by trinitarian translators. 

Some translate it: 

“have we not all one [echad] father? Has not one [echad] God created us?” - RSV. 

The meaning of this rendering seems to be that everyone has a single person as his earthly father and, by comparison, we also all have a single [echad] person as our God and Creator in heaven. 

Other trinitarian scholars translate Malachi 2:10 as: 

“Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us?” - NAB (1970 and 1991). 

“Is there not one Father of us all? Did not one God create us?” - NJB.

“Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?” - JB.

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” - NKJV.

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” - The Amplified Bible.

“Is there not one Father to us all? Has not one God created us?” - MKJV, Green.

“Don’t all of us have one Father? Hasn’t one God created us?” - In the Language of Today, Beck.

“Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God made us?” - NLV.

We clearly see in these trinitarian translations that the common Hebrew use of parallelisms was intended by the inspired Bible writers. That is, the first half of the verse is differently worded but parallel in meaning with the second half. Therefore, the first half refers to God just as the second half does, so the translator has capitalized “Father” to make such an interpretation unmistakeable. The meaning in this interpretation, then, is: 

“We all have one [echad] Father (the only person who is God),” and, in parallel meaning,

“We all have one [echad] Creator (a single person as God).” - Compare 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6. 

No matter which interpretation you prefer, it is clear that the comparison with (or parallel with) a single individual father (whether we interpret it as the single male human parent or the single person, God the Father), who is called “one [echad] father/Father,” is a single individual who is called “one [echad] God”! The comparison (or parallel) would be senseless if echad meant one single person for “father/Father” (as it must) in its first half and “plural oneness” persons for “God” (as it clearly doesn’t) in its second half! 

The inspired Bible writers at Gen. 42:11, Malachi 2:10, and Deut. 6:4 could easily have used a word that really means “united one”[4] - but they didn’t! The inspired Bible writer at Deut. 6:4 could also have easily said (and definitely should have said if it were true) that “God is three persons who together make up the one God” or even just “the one God is three persons,” but he didn’t, and neither did any other Bible writer! He should also have used yachid repeatedly in the Bible for God if Jehovah is ever to be understood as being Jesus (“the only-begotten”), but no Bible writer describes Jehovah that way, ever! 

A footnote for Deut. 6:4 in the very trinitarian The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says: 

“this passage contains the basic principle of the whole Mosaic law, the keynote of the Book of Deuteronomy: since the Lord [Jehovah] alone is God, we must love him with an undivided heart. Christ cited these words as ‘the greatest and the first commandment,’ embracing in itself the whole law of God (Mt 22:37f and parallels [especially see Mark 12:28-34]).” 

As the ASV renders it in a footnote for Deut. 6:4 - “Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one”. Yes, the great distinction between Israel and all the nations around them was that they worshiped only one [”absolute mathematical oneness”] person as God (as they always have, and as they still do today - see the ISRAEL study). 

The only honest interpretations of “this great declaration” of Deut. 6:4 are “Jehovah our God is only one [echad] person” or “Jehovah our God is only one God”! 

Judging by the literal meanings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek (NT and Septuagint OT) Scriptures Deut. 6:4 actually says: “Hear Israel, Jehovah the God of us, Jehovah is one” (Sept. Greek) and “Jehovah our God, Jehovah [is] one” (Hebrew - Interlinear Bible). But in any case echad clearly refers to a single, solitary [absolute mathematical oneness] being, not a “multiple oneness”! 

So even the very trinitarian literal translation, the New King James Version[5], (like the very trinitarian ETRV [6] paraphrase Bible) translates echad at Deut. 6:4 correctly as: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Jehovah] our God, the LORD [Jehovah] is one!” 

The meaning is clear. It is expressed perhaps even more clearly in the popular trinitarian paraphrase Bible, The Living Bible: “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.”




NOTES

1. Or echod according to Dr. Walter Martin’s use of this preposterous “evidence” - p. 69, The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed.



2. In English the words “a” and “an” are indefinite articles. For example, then, ‘one [echad] cow’ in Hebrew could mean ‘A cow’ in English - it certainly would not mean ‘a plural oneness cow’! In fact this whole “proof” is exactly like saying “a” is a multiple oneness indefinite article. And, of course, they would find a few (out of thousands of others) uses like “a committee,” “a month,” “a musical trio,” etc. and brilliantly conclude that “a” here has to be a multiple oneness, because “committee, or “trio,” etc. is composed of more than one person!



3. As for any use of yachid by a 12th or 13th century A.D. Rabbi (as a few trinitarians resort to in defense of “yachid” for God), what has this to do with what Scripture actually says? Maimonides (or Moses Ben Maimon) lived from 1135-1204 A.D. and was a well-known Jewish philosopher and commentator.



For what it’s worth, Maimonides also wrote: “Can there be a greater stumbling block than [Christianity}? …. [Trinitarian Chrisianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord.”- Mishnah Torah, “The Laws of Kings and Their Wars,” chapter 11.



And Steve Gross writes:



“Let me quote Evelyn Garfiel, author of Service of the Heart: A Guide to the Jewish Prayerbook (Jason Aronson, Inc., 1958, 1989). Here she is discussing the Yigdal prayer (pp 52-54):



“ ‘ …. It must be stated categorically that this ‘Confession of Faith’ [the ‘Thirteen Creeds’ of Maimonides] as it has sometimes been called, has no legal, doctrinal standing in Judaism; that it is not, in any case, the Jewish creed. It was written (in his Commentary to the Mishnah) by Maimonides when he was twenty-three years old, and he never referred to it again in all the rest of his writings.



“ ‘The need to formulate the Jewish religion in a clearly stated creed had apparently not been felt in the previous two millennia of its existence. It was only in the late Middle Ages, when Aristotelian philosophy dominated the whole intellectual world, that Maimonides was impelled to try to set down the basic axioms of Judaism as he understood them, and in the light of the philosophy current in his day. 


….


“ ‘During his lifetime and for many years afterward, Maimonides was bitterly opposed by many Rabbis. They felt that something extraneous to the genuine Jewish tradition was being injected into it by this precipitation of Aristotelian philosophy and by these strange formulations of belief... Crescas, in some ways the most subtle and brilliant of the Jewish philosophers, Nachmanides (the Ramban), Abarbanel, and others all registered strong opposition to Maimonides Creeds. ….



“ ‘The Shulhan Arukh ... does not even mention the Thirteen Creeds. Someone - perhaps a printer, but no one knows exactly who - included the Creeds in an edition of the Prayer Book sometime after 1400....’ ” [emphasis added - RDB]




4. Among the Hebrew words that can mean “united oneness,” such as achadim and Kechad, are the various forms of yachad. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, 1981, p. 1529, tells us that #3161 yachad means “to be united” and #3162 yachad means “unitedness”. 

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 430, 431, also describes the various forms of yachad: “yachad appears about 46 times and in all periods of Biblical Hebrew. Used as an adverb, the word emphasizes a plurality in unity.” Used as a verb “yachad means ‘to be united, meet.’” And, although the noun yachad occurs only once, it is still used “to mean ‘unitedness.’” 

You will not find yachad in any of its many forms that mean “united” or “plurality in unity” ever used to describe God!! 

However, we do find other Hebrew words that, like echad, clearly mean “single,” “only,” “alone,” etc. and these words are used to describe the one person who alone is the Most High God. 

For example, The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, p. 1496, tells us that #905 bad (“bod”) means “separation, apart, alone.” 

Also Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, pp. 280, 281, states, “in most of its appearances (152 times) this word [bad] is preceded by the preposition le. This use means ‘alone’ (89 times): ‘And the Lord God said. It is not good that the man [Adam] should be alone [bad] ....’” - Gen. 2:18. 

Yes, Adam was the only person of humankind in existence, and, therefore, he was described by God as being alone in that special sense (bad in Hebrew). (There were myriads of spirit persons, the angels. There was God Himself. There were innumerable other creatures. And yet, Adam, as the only one of mankind, was alone [bad]!) Then, as soon as God created another person of his own kind for Adam, he was no longer alone (bad)! 

This use of bad (“alone”) is frequently used to describe the person who is God. For example, 1 Sam. 7:3, “direct your hearts unto Jehovah [a personal name] and serve him [masculine singular] only [bad].” - ASV. 

And 2 Kings 19:15, “O Jehovah, the God of Israel, that sittest above the cherubim, thou [second person singular] art the God, even thou alone [bad].” - ASV. 

And Psalm 83:16, 18, “Fill their faces with confusion, that they may seek thy name, O Jehovah. .... That they may know that thou [singular] alone [bad], whose name is Jehovah [singular personal name], art the Most High over all the earth.” - ASV. - (Also see Neh. 9:5, 6; Ps. 86:10; Is. 37:16.) 

5. With a “symbol for the Trinity” on the title page which symbolizes “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ... indivisibly One God.” Published and copyrighted by Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.


6. “Listen, people of Israel! The Lord [Jehovah] is our God. The Lord [Jehovah] is one!” - Holy Bible - Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, Fort Worth Texas, 1992.  


Posted by Elijah Daniels  at 9:28 PM 

"The science" is trustworthy?