Yet more on John Ch.1:1c

JOHN 1:1c: "God," "divine" or "a god" ?

Onlytruegod.org

Perhaps the translation that has stirred the most controversy in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is John 1:1.

The New World Translation reads here :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god."

Most are familiar with the King James Version :

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

The latter is followed by most, but not all, modern translations, such as:

The Revised Standard Version

The New Revised Standard Version

The Modern Language Bible

The New Testament in Modern English

The New Testament in the Language of the People

The New American Standard Version

New American Bible

The Twentieth Century New Testament

The New International Version

The Jerusalem Bible

The 3 translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed has:

"...and the Word was divine."

Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God."

The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was."

Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1 with the New World Translations' :

"and the Word was a god." we have:

The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808)

The New Testament in Greek and English(A. Kneeland, 1822.)

A Literal Translation Of The New Testament(H. Heinfetter, 1863)

Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885)

The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G. W. Horner, 1911)

Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J. Becker, 1979)

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J. S. Thompson, 1829)

Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S. Schulz, 1975)

Others from each 'group' could be cited.

So from the incept we can see that "and the Word was God," is only one possible rendering of John 1:1. However, the rendering as found in the New World Translation has come under severe criticism.

One late well known critic, William Barclay, Bible translator and commentator, even saying that such a rendering as, "and the Word was a god," is "grammatically impossible."

One website says, after listing 18 translations that read at John 1:1 as "the Word was God," and 8 others such as the New English Bible and Todays English Bible:

"Out of all the existing translations of the Holy Bible, taken from the original languages, ONLY those published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society deny that Jesus is God."

Clearly, this is not the case, as the above lists shows. Unless of course the writer of the above thinks the Watchtower Bible &Tract Society published those others that say,"a God/god from the "original languages!"

"Evidence of abysmal ignorance," "not held by any reputable Greek scholar," "is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholar," "rejected by all recognised scholars of Greek language," "obsolete and incorrect," "neither scholarly nor reasonable," "pernicious," "reprehensible," "monstrous," "intellectually dishonest," "totally indefensible."(to check up on the credibility of such remarks made go to Is The New World Translation Biased )

The above are some of the strong language used by some towards the New World Translation's rendering of "KAI QEOS HN HO LOGOS." Well, if the above is anything to go by any advocate of the "..a god" translation might as well throw the towel in right now! But let us see. You, our reader, can judge for yourselves whether the case is closed already because of such comments by scholars of 'repute.'

Firstly, is the translation of "theos en ho logos," as "the Word was a god," grammatically impossible?

"Grammatically impossible," so said Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."-An Ancient heresy in Modern Dress, Expository Times, 65, Oct.1957.

Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College, Ca, USA wrote us:

"As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured."

D.Moody Smith Jnr, George Washington Ivey Professor of N.T. wrote us:

"As to John 1:1 the translation "a god" is possible, but in the context* clearly not what is intended. "Divine" is better, but John clearly wants to say Jesus was theos°..."

(*on context see below. ° Exactly, again, see below)

Notice that these two scholars are honest enough to say that the rendering of John 1:1c as found in the NWT is grammatically possible! Of course, they both reject such a translation but on grounds other than grammar. So a question does come to one's mind here. Who exactly is being "intellectually dishonest?" Has it been the NWT Translation Committee or the above late scholar?

Stan Bruce lecturer in New Testament Greek at All Nations Christian College, Hertfordshire, UK, for over 30 years has written:

"Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God."-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, "Lesson 3," p.23. Italics his.

Once again, another scholar is stating that on grounds of grammar John 1.1c could be translated the way the NWT renders it. (Note however this scholars 'mistake.' He correctly states that "according to rules of Greek grammar" it could also be translated "The Word was (the)God." While this is true this would make the "Word" the "God" he is said to be with and hence this translation as understanding QEOS(theos) as definite, as "the God," teaches Sabbellianism-a form of Modalism, that the Word was God the Father! Some trinitarian scholars have realised this and now argue against understanding theos here as definite but as qualitative. Bruce goes on to write on the same page "We need to base our decision between these two alternatives on the context. It is surely appropriate that [theos] is understood in the way in which it is used elsewhere in the gospel, and especially in the immediate context, i.e. with reference to God; there is no hint elsewhere in the New Testament of Jesus as a separate deity." If QEOS(theos) is used in John 1.1c in the "way it is used elsewhere in the gospel" this is tantamount to saying that the Word was the God he is said to be with...sabellianism once again! That there is indeed a "hint" that the Word is a "separate deity" can be seen by the fact that the Word is distinguished from HO QEOS(ho theos), the God by the word pros, "with" and hence he is not that "God." There are indeed two theoi("gods") here and they are not one and the same! More on this below. On the following page of Bruce's book on N.T. Greek we can learn why this undoubtedly competent and experienced, if biased towards the Trinity doctrine scholar has erred. For on that page he refers to "Bowman, R. M., Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ and the Gospel of John" !!)

Murray J. Harris:

"According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god."-Jesus As God, 1992, pp.60. (Again, Harris rejects this translation on grounds other than grammar.)

C.H.Dodd has also written:

"If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language,[theos en ho logos]might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense["signifying one of a class of beings regarded as divine"-Dodd, ibed).....The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.(italics ours)

Again, note "possible translation" and "cannot be faulted." Dodd rejects this translation but on grounds other than grammar

One website quotes R.Bowman who states regarding the 'use' of Dodd here by those who wish to support the "a god" rendering:

"I don't think Dodd says "a god" is an "acceptable" translation. He says it can't be faulted as a "literal" translation, but there's a big difference. Notice how Dodd qualifies the quote you provided: "*If* translation..." His point is that translation is NOT merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word. If it were, "a god" could not be "faulted." Murray J. Harris in his excellent book, _Jesus as God, also says that "a god" is grammatically possible - as is "God was the Word" and "The Word was God." He also notes that a "literal" translation of Jn 8:44 could be "you belong to the father of the devil," if "only grammatical considerations were taken into account" (p. 60). Clearly, "only grammatical considerations" do not a proper translation make!"

We would answer:

Dodd is saying that to translate the words "theos en ho logos" by "the Word was a god" is grammatically "possible." As we(and most if not all Jehovah's Witnesses)are only quoting Dodd for that reason his comments do indeed support the rendering of the above Greek as "and the Word was a god." Remember, it has been on grammatical grounds that certain scholars have dismissed such a rendering in the past! Of course there can be a "big difference" between a "literal translation" and an "acceptable" translation. Who has argued otherwise we might ask? But a "literal" translation and an "acceptable" translation are not mutually exclusive are they? If so then the translation of "and the Word was God," which is also a literal translation, might not be an "acceptable" one either! But is this the case here with "and the Word was a god" ? We believe that it is both a "literal" translation and an "acceptable" translation because the "literal" translation agree with the context, that is, there are two QEOI here and they are distinguished in the Greek by the use of the word PROS and so should be distinguished by the English translation. This is done admirably by the "literal" translation "and the Word was a god." It is not done by the translation "and the Word was God"! And who has argued that translation is "merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word". Certainly not the New World Translation Committee! As it has not been how they have approached this or any other Greek contruct/sentence in the N.T. we wonder why Bowman wish to state this by quoting Dodd here? To mislead? To offer a 'red herring'? To create a 'straw man' arguement? Bowman also states: "Clearly, "only grammatical considerations" do not a proper translation make!" Quite! But the New World Translation at John 1:1c has not offered the rendering they did "only on grammatical considerations"! Another 'straw man' from Bowman! And if " "only grammatical considerations" do not a proper translation make" then this applies just as much to the translation that trinitarians prefer, namely, "and the Word was God."

So the following from Walter Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults" is wholly erroneous when he states: "Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text."

One has to wonder how many persons has this late author has managed to mislead?

C.H.Dodd's rejection of the translation, "the Word was a god," are on grounds other than grammar. Jehovah's Witnesses, indeed others, would contend with him on that. Interestingly, James Parkinson has written: "

"It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1. If Colwell's rule is correct (that the definite predicate nominative does not take the article) then "the Word was God" would be allowable. This translation is rejected on two sides. Because the indefinite predicate nominative would also not take the definite article, "the Word was a god" should be no less allowable. Still others think the Greek theos here implies a quality and translate it as "the Word was divine." Rejecting all three, the New English Bible says, "What God was the Word was." The ancient reading of John 1:18 mentioned above will impact the translation of verse 1. C. H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges of the Word was a god--"As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." He rejects it, saying, "The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johanine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole" (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!) Paralleling with John 4:24 ("God is [a] spirit"), Dodd rejects also the AV rendering of John 1:1 in favor of that of the NEB. As for the original text of John 1:18, he dismisses it as "grammatically exceptional, if not eccentric.(Actually the Greek from here is not identical to that of John 4:24, but to that of I Timothy 6:10)."

Note the astute remark by Parkinson, "It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1." He is aware of the problem of Dodd's stance given above by commenting,"as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!". Quite! But on this and whether the Trinity should influence a translator's choice of rendering John 1:1, see the book, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by R.Furuli, Chapter 4, 'The Trinity Doctrine as a Translation Problem', pp. 109-140.

Some have claimed that it is on the "mere lack of the article," that the New World Translation came by it's translation.

For instance, we have read:

"Just because a noun is not preceded by the article does not automatically justify the insertion of the English indefinite "a". This is a gross over-simplification of the facts, a practice unfortunately common amongst those who are not properly trained in the Greek language. I am aware that this is a serious charge, however, the facts reveal that the WTB&TS has consistently refused to name any of it's NWT translators...".

This person has accused the NWT of practicing something it does not practice. A straw man has been created. It is a "serious charge". Not least because it's a false one but it also impugns the scholarship of others such as those we have quoted herein. To bolster this charge he trys to show that the anonimity of those behind the New World Translation indicates something unscholarly about their work. An ad hominem. Although the NWT Translation Committee thought that the omission was important(and it is)it is not "merely" because in the phrase "kai theos en ho logos" the word "theos" lacks the article that it so translated. Any one reading what the NWTTC has said(and critics as the above should have done!)will be able to see this. For instance, the NWT Translation Committee have said:

"While the Greek langauge has no indefinite article corresponding to the English "a," it does have the definite article ho, often rendered into English as "the."...Frequently, though, nouns occur in Greek without the article. Grammarians refer to these nouns as "anarthrous," meaning "used without the article." Interestingly, in the final part of John 1:1, the Greek word for "god," theos, does not have the article ho before it. How do translators render such anarthrous Greek nouns into English?

"Often they add the English indefinite article "a" to give the proper sense to the passage.....This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a "the," understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing."-The Watchtower, 1975, p.702.

So, in this case before us, Why did the NWT choose to use the English "a" in John 1:1c? Let them answer:

"The New World Bible Translation Commitee chose to insert the indefinite article "a" there. This helps to distinguish "the Word," Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was "with, "Jehovah, the Almighty....Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs[Jn.4:19; 6:70; 8:34, 44; 10:1, 13; 18:26, 37.],and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement....We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of course, neither Colwell(as noted above)nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar" It was "individual judgement" which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgement in this place by the translation "a god."...The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar. Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject- John 20:17; Rev.3:2, 12; 1 Cor.11:3; 15:28."-ibed

So the NWT rendering was due to

(1)The lack of the article in the phrase,"kai theos en ho logos."

(2)Context. The Word was "with" the God[ho theos in John 1:1, 2]

(3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.

On (1) and (2) The Translator's New Testament says:

"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos(God)so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'"

Vincent Taylor says:

Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118.

This nicely leads us into this, which we have recently come across on a site critical of the NWT's John 1:1 rendering:

"Merrill C. Tenney comments further, "To say the absence of the article bespeaks of the non-absolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous theos appears (e.g. 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just "a god" (Tenney, Merrill. "The Gospel of John" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Regency, 1981, p.30). The NWT renders the first three anarthrous appearances of theos Tenney mentions as "God," and the last as "god" (no "a"). But if the WT were consistent in the application of its own Greek "rules" each of these should read, "a god."."

We have read also, "If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times theos appears anarthrously...".

One has to wonder who has ever "dogmatically asserted" that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite! Not the NWT Translation Committee at any rate!

Dr Jason BeDuhn shows the ignorance of the above by saying:

"In fact the KIT[Appendix 2A, p.1139]explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject. He[one particular critic who said the same as above]goes on to insist that the NWT is inconsistent because other uses of THEOS without the article in John 1 are not translated the same way (a charge repeated by Countess, as mentioned in the Stafford book, from the same ignorance.) He fails to note that not only that the constructs are different, but that these other uses are not nominative (THEOS) but genitive (THEOU); the latter form is governed by totally different rules. The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple."

The above clearly shows that this "ignorance" is consistently repeated.

Notice the following example where the writer gives Countess as his source. We may have here a case of the blind leading the blind!:

"The word "God" appears 282 times in the Greek without the article (anarthrous) in the New Testament. In order to be consistent with their "a god" translation, the New World Translation (NWT) should translate all anarthrous verses "a god." But this is not what we find. Instead, the NWT translates it "God" a whopping 266 times and god, a god, gods, and godly only 16 times! (The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, Robert H. Countess, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982, pp. 54-55). This proves the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to fit their theology. The verse is correctly translated, "The Word was God."

"The New World Translation overlooks Colwell's rule in Greek which says, "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." Simply stated, the word "God" doesn't need an article in John 1:1 because in Greek it precedes the verb.

"In The New World Translation "God" is capitalized in John 1:6, 12, 13, and verse 18 (twice), yet all are without the articles! This proves once again, the committee that translated the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to "a god."

End of quote

We will look later whether the NWT "overlooks" Colwell's rule. The 2nd point made above shows an ignorance of basic Greek! However:

Those who have looked into the construction we find in John 1:1c: "theos [the predicate]was[the verb]the logos[articular subject]say:

"At a number of points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind. As Colwell called attention to the possibility that such nouns may be definite, the present sudy has focused on their qualitative force. In Mark 15:39 I would regard the qualitative emphasis as primary, although there may also be some connotation of definiteness. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite." -P.Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92.1, 1973, pp.85, 87.(About Harner and the NWT editors quotation of him here, see below.)

This scotch's the arguement that the definite article was not needed but would be understood, because of the word order of the phrase, so that the phrase should read,"and the Word was God." In the translation of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," the reader would not be aware that in the Greek text the first occurrence of "God," has the article, and the second has not. Yet, if the omission in the second case is "significant," then this should be brought out in translation.

So, what is the correct way, even the 'best' way, to translate; "kai theos en ho logos?"

First of all, whenever we come across the indefinite "a" or "an" in an English translation these words are an insertion by the translator to bring out the correct thought inherent in the Greek. When the article is used it identifies a particular noun, so that when we say,"the man," we have a particular man in mind. When we use the indefinite article "a man," we are describing one of a group/class, so that "a man," means "one of mankind." Or, it could be describing the characteristics or qualities of that noun, so that "a man" means "man-like," "is manly." So, in Greek a noun can be definite, indefinite or qualitative, or a combination of them. We have just seen that the predicate noun "theos," in "theos en ho logos," cannot be considered definite. So that must mean it is either indefinite or qualitative or a combination of both indefinite/qualitative.

How have translator's translated singular anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb as we find in John 1:1c? Often they have used the English indefinite article. The New World Translation, Reference Edition(1984) has an appendix that lists of 11 instances of this syntax in Mark and John showing how they have been translated in 6 different Bible translations- 5 of whom come from the group above that translate the singular anarthrous predicate "theos" in John 1:1c as definite. In all instances they have, of course, translated them using the English indefinite article. The appendix says, in part:

"In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous [theos] in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read " a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."-Appendix 6A, p.1579.

Does this mean that the NWT Translation Committee regarded the anarthrous predicate "theos" in John 1:1c as purely "indefinite"? The 1950 1st edtion of the NWT contained an appendix that discussed John 1:1. Therein we read after citing both Goodspeeds' and Moffatts' translation: "and the Word was divine":

"Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos "was divine" is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God.....Careful translators recognise that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality,whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone".

This is exactly what one scholar wrote:

An Exegetical Grammer Of The Greek New Testament, William D Chamberlain

page 57:

"d. A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: en tois propsetais (Heb. 1:1), 'in the prophets,' calls attention to a particular group, while en uio (Heb. 1:2), 'in son,' calls attention to the rank of the Son as a 'spokesman' for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, 'in his Son,' italicizing 'his.'

The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: theos en ho logos(Jn. 1:1), the Word was God; kai ho logos sarz egento (Jn. 1:14), 'And the Word became flesh'; esontai oi eschatoi protoi (Mt. 20 :16), 'the last shall be first.' The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., ho theos en ho logos would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in ho theos agape estin (1 Jn. 4 :8), 'God is love.' As the sentence now stands 'love' describes a primary quality of God; the article he with agape would make God and love equivalents, e. g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love." -end of quote.

So, one could summarize by saying:

"The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned.

"Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God."

(William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger.)

So we can see that the NWT Translation Committee recognized that the noun "theos" was primarily qualitative as well as being indefinite. It was considered primarily qualitative because of the Greek word order. If the verb, a form of 'I am', comes before the anarthrous predicate nominative then, as a rule, it would be considered primarily indefinite. If after, primarily qualitative. But the noun would not be wholly qualitative, the noun would not lose its indefinitness or definitiveness. What would this mean to our understanding of John 1:1c? Well, the meaning of "and the Word was a god," would then be that the Word was "godlike"-divine, holy, powerful and not just "a god," in the sense he was just one of many "gods," in the class of "gods." (Yet John 1:18 shows that the Word was in a 'god class' of it's own for the Word was the "only begotten" theos). The Word was a "divine one." Or, as one German translator puts it: "and godlike sort was the Logos."-Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, by Johannes Schneider.

However, the NWT Translation Committee chose to use the indefinite article "a" to so render as it did and not like Moffatt and Goodspeed, because of two factors. One, it's avowed principle of being as "literal as possible" and second, the context*, as the Greek shows a contrast between two that are "theos" but only one is "ho theos," "the God." As the Word was with "the God," the Word could not be that "God," and, yet the Word was "theos"(°-cp. Moody-Smith's comment above,)so the Word must be distinguished from "God" by literally translating "theos." One way to do that is saying that the Word was "a god." A higher case 'G' is rightly used for the One said to be "THE" theos, and hence a lower case used for the Word said to be with this "God," "ho theos," the Almighty God. Can the use of the indefinite article bring out the qualitativeness of a noun though?(* re context-cp. D.Moody Smith's comment quoted above.)

In the book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, An Answer to Scholars and Critics, the author, Greg Stafford, a Jehovah's Witness himself, cites and discusses three examples where he believes that "a qualitative/indefinite aspect is evident." One of these is Acts 28:4 where it is said of Paul, "the man is a murderer," from the Greek "phoneus estin ho anthropos." We can do no better here than quote Stafford:

"In translations of this verse the qualitative/indefinite aspect of the noun is usually brought out by means of the indefinite article. The indefinite aspect seems clear enough, and the qualitative nuance naturally follows from the noun used to describe Paul. How can he be a murderer without owning the qualities of a murderer? This text provides an exact parallel to John 1:1c, where we have an anarthrous preverbal nominative followed by an articulated subject."

Agreeing with the above are the comments, on this and Stafford's position here, is Dr Jason BeDuhn who has written:

"The Jehovah's Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense- that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: "And the Word was divine."

For the reason why this preference of translation of John 1:1c by Dr. Beduhn does not undermine this site's 'use' of him re the New World Translation click here.

".....I have already told you that "the Word was divine" is a very simple and accurate way to convey the qualitative sense of this construct, and I am pleased to see that Stafford comes to the same conclusion. Towards the end of the chapter, Stafford cites Acts 28:4, which is a perfect choice, and shows how this qualitative sense for the anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb works."

Another "exact parallel" is 1 Kings 18:27LXX. It has the same sentence structure as John 1:1. It says: "Call at the top of your voice, for he is a god"; "a god" is the natural translation of the Greek "theos estin", or "god he is." Stafford gives two other examples of qualitative/indefinite nouns; John 14:19 and from The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 12:1.

There is no doubt then that the use of the English indefinite article can be used to bring out both the qualitative aspect of a Greek noun and the indefiniteness derived from it's context.

How might this discussion be ended. Surely, anyone should be able to agree that the New World Translation rendering here is justifable at least. It breaks no 'rule' of grammar. It properly distinguishes between the one who is "Ho theos," and the Word as "theos." It fits in with the context better than the popular rendition.The context shows two individuals, two beings(not just two 'persons'), one who is said to be "with" the other and so therefore they cannot be identical. True, "ho theos," is the Father, but John is not only distinguishing between the Father and the Word, but between two beings, one described as the theos and one who is an anarthrous theos. A translation should do so aswell. Such translations such as "and the Word was God," certainly do not. Jehovah's Witnesses will say that the NWT's rendering of "a god," agrees with the rest of scriptures that portray Jesus not as "God," "the God," "God Almighty," whose name is, in English, Jehovah, but as his Son, who was sent to do his Father's will and remained subordinate to Him even after his resurrection, and who he called his God(Rev.3:12), the One he too worships and directs all worshippers to(Luke 4:8).(see "Jesus as Theos.")

So what is the real issue involved here in the severe criticism that such a rendering,"and the Word was a god," has been met with. In short it's all to do with theology. Jehovah's Witness deny the trinity and indeed speak out 'against' it. We recommend the Awake 1972, May 22nd, pp.27-28 on this: Is it Grammar or Interpretation?

Lastly, it might be pointed out. Such scholars as Bruce Metzger and the late William Barclay's strong condemnation of the New World Translation here was based on Colwell's rule. At least their condemnation was, back then, in the 1960's, The NWT Translation Committee rejected such a 'rule' here, back then, and still do. They have been joined by others. Who has been proven right? These 'reputable' scholars or the anonymous persons, who were and are still, much maligned and their scholarship brought into question from all quarters? Do we need to tell you?

*Harner- Although he understands that 'theos' in John 1:1c is not definite that does not mean that he believes that "and the Word was a god" is correct. He had written, "Perhaps the clause[John 1:1c]could be translated "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos."

So BeDuhn is right about Harners "religous commitments." The NWT might agree that "theos" here is qualitative but would then disagree with Harner in believing that the Word was equal to the one called "God" here. The NWT editors cite Harner simply because he says that the anarthrous theos is not definite. Scholars, such as Metzger, had argued strongly in the past against such a translation as "...a god," from the belief that theos here WAS definite. As Stafford points out,"..to use Harners article in support of this view[that the anarthrous theos is not definite but qualitative]is certainly appropriate, since that is one of the primary purposes of his article!" It is quite clear that the belief that Jesus is part of a tri-une God-head has 'influenced' Harner's view of what the qualitative force of theos here indicates about the Word. It is the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses that to do this is erroneous, not least because the Trinity is, in it's full conception, a 4th century doctrine and should have no place in deciding what John was saying at the end of the 1st.In defending John 1:1c as proof of Jesus' deity in the sense he was "God," we have read: "The WT is ignoring the distinction between "Person" and "essence." The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father, but it does not then follow He is not of the same ESSENCE as Him." Here we have a prime example of importing a term,"essence," used by later 'theologians' from after the 1st century into John's Gospel. The Bible does not contain that word or the idea that Trinitarians mean by it. It is wholly erroneous to import such a 3rd/4th century word and idea into a discussion of John 1:1. Also, John is not distinguishing the two beings here in terms of person but as two which are "theos." So, what John 1:1 is saying, rather than just "The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father," it is saying that the "Word" is not the same "theos"("god") as the one with whom he was with. Translations such as "and the Word was God" make out he was the "God" he was "with"! Even Trinitarians disagree with that, for that would mean that the Word was the Father! So we have translations that apparently recognise the confusion inherent in the "Word was God" translations and paraphrase the sentence to read "and he was the same as God."-Today's English Version(1976) Notice the 'addition' of the words "same as." It could be interpreted as saying he, the Word, although "with and the same as" "God" makes him other than "God." We see nothing wrong with this translation despite what the translator's think it is intended to mean. One man can be with another man, a particular "man"("the man")and be the same as them, being "man", that is 'of Mankind,' "a man." But if that was said to anyone would they think the first "Man" was the "man" he was with? No, they would rightly conclude that was the second "man" mentioned was like him is that they were both men but not actually him. Nor, then, was the Word "God"(ho theos)in John 1:1 when John wrote that the Word was with this one and was "theos."

A reproduction of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott as published by Fowler & Wells NY., 1883.

 You may notice that in Wilson's interlinear reading of John 1:1 he literally translates John 1:1c "kai theos en ho Logos" as "and a god was the Word." He shows that the Word or "Logos" is not the same "theos" as the one he was with by translating it in his main translation as "and the LOGOS was God." Note that it is "God" in lower case than the other occurrence which he has as "GOD."

Re scholars such as Metzger and Barclay. Any remarks we have said about them above does not take away the fact that they are excellent scholars in their field and we do not wish to be understood as saying otherwise. These two have contributed much over the years which to those who are interested have much benefited. But their remarks do highlight the fact that what credentials you have, whatever qualifications you may have gained, a person's theology can 'get in the way' of an objective approach to Bible translation and understanding.

We have read the following: "...if you are going to insist on a translation,you must be prepared to defend it in such a way as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation.In other words ,if theos en ho logos is "a god," how could John have said "the Word was God?"

Good question and one which can be answered.

Greg Stafford, after quoting Wallace where the latter says, "The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father,"(Greek Grammar,note 31,),writes,"However,there is a more concise way John could have communicated the precise distinction Wallace makes, had he simply written,[[ho logos en pros ho patera[or, pros theos patera], kai theos[or, ho theos]en ho logos("the Word was with the Father[or, 'with God the Father], and the Word was God"). If John had wanted to state that the Word was God but distinct from the Father, then the above, or some variation thereof, is all he need have written. Had he done so, there would be some justification for distinguishing the two in terms of "person," although not necessarily in the later Trinitarian sense in which the Father and Son are distinguished as "persons" in the "Godhead." However, as John 1:1 stands in our Greek texts today, a distinction can only be made in terms of theos, without reading later theology into the text. We agree that ho theos is the Father, but since John is careful to distinguish the being of the Father(ho theos) from that of the Word,we must also do so in our translations of this passage."-Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. 1st edition, p.219-220.(2nd edition now available)

So,

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God."-New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

In the 1950 edition of the New World Translation an appendix at the back discusses the reasons why the NWTTC choose to render John 1:1 as they did. Therein they quoted from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey which remarks on p.148, paragraph (3): "The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4;6, [lit., "market was the place] and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1[kai theos en ho logos], and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with [theos]." The said NWT(1950) appendix went on to say about this remark by the above Grammarians: "Instead of translating John 1:1, and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with Xenophon's statement, and the place was a market." Mantey has charged that the NWT appendix has misused his remarks as quoted above. A letter he wrote to a certain individual has been re-produced in various books that are critical of Jehovah's Witness and the New World Translation. However,despite what Mantey has said in that letter what his Grammar does say in regard to John 1:1 and Xenophon 1:4:6,t hat is, they are "parallel" in their sentence construction: both are examples where the predicate nominative is anarthrous and precede the verb and the subject is after the verb and has the article. There is no getting away from it that Dana and Mantey, although not intending to, has given the basis or allowance of the translation of 'kai theos en ho logos' as "and the word was a god." For a deeper discussion of this, between a Jehovah's Witness and a Trinitarian, re Dana and Mantey's Manual Grammar, the NWT(1950)appendix, John 1:1, the letter to Mantey here alluded to and Mantey's response, which has had wide publicity, go to Debatelog/Hommel

The mad king schools his rival

 

Taking stock after the hangover?

 

Yet more on why Darwinism tends to be the real science stopper.

 How the Myth of Junk DNA Hindered Science

Andrew McDiarmid

For decades, we’ve been told that only a tiny percentage of DNA is functional and that the vast majority is useless junk. Although this claim never made sense from an engineering standpoint in the first place, it served as a powerful myth to push the narrative that we’re simply the result of unguided, undirected natural processes, a long string of mistakes and copying errors that left its imprint in the form of pervasive junk DNA. On a new episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson and Dr. Casey Luskin unpack the myth of junk DNA and how it has hindered the progress of science.

The junk DNA paradigm wasn’t just an honest mistake, as some evolutionists now claim. It was a purposeful attempt to wrap an evolutionary narrative around conflicting evidence. Dr. Luskin explains: “The concept of junk DNA has discouraged scientists from investigating in research what this non-coding DNA is actually doing. So it has actually hindered our ability to progress in our understanding of the genome and genomics.”

On the flip side, the idea of function in non-coding regions of DNA fits naturally into a design hypothesis. Indeed, Luskin points out that intelligent design proponents have been predicting function since at least the 1990s. Ironically, opponents of intelligent design have long claimed that ID is a science stopper. But studying systems in the natural world as products of design actually promotes scientific study and understanding, opening the door to new questions and research. The real science stopper is the theory that leaves us shackled to 19th century materialism and to a mechanism that has neither the time nor the creative power to produce the stunning complexity and diversity of life we find on Earth: Darwinian evolution. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Dig Deeper

Here’s a list of 800 Papers recently compiled by Luskin and colleagues showing function for non-coding regions of DNA!

    

Yet even more on why Junk DNA is Junk science.

 

On the technology of matter.

 Listen: Justin Brierley and a “Mind Behind Matter”

David Klinghoffer

“Something has changed in the past few years: an openness to purpose, agency, even a Mind behind it all,” says the very fine interviewer Justin Brierley in the latest episode of his “long form” podcast documentary series, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. I highly recommend the new episode, “The Logos Behind Life: The dissident scientists discovering a mind beyond matter.” It’s like an in-depth and really high-quality magazine essay, with Brierley interviewing a range of thinkers whom you don’t regularly see in direct dialogue, from Stephen Meyer to Denis Noble to Roger Penrose to Paul Davies to William Lane Craig and others. 

Not all are religious believers. And as Daniel Witt pointed out this morning, Denis Noble still considers himself a Darwinist — though his “nemesis” Richard Dawkins denies him the title. Noble’s view is that there is purpose or agency at work in the cell that makes use of the information stored in DNA, as we would the information in a library, which is the reverse of the traditional neo-Darwinist view of Dawkins where the “selfish gene” is in the driver’s seat. 

It would be interesting for Brierley to talk with biologist Richard Sternberg who doubts, on mathematical grounds, that the information for life could be stored in a material genome at all. A memorable ID the Future Podcasts with him points to the “gaps in the computability of what happens in the cell, which could help shed light on how machine-like organisms are or are not, how evolvable they are, and whether artificial life is possible.” Anyway, do enjoy Justin’s series which is up to 20 episodes now, and shares the title of his recent book on the same subject.

Mankind's extended childhood vs. Darwin.

 “Evolutionary” Analysis of Childhood Is Just Speculation

Denyse O Leary

University of Central Lancashire archaeologist Brenna Hassett describes as “patently ridiculous” the fact that the average human spends at least a quarter of a lifespan growing up. But then, she reflects, humans dominate the planet.

Is There a Connection?

Her essay at Aeon aims to reveal the “evolutionary benefit” to this arrangement. In it, she reveals a number of interesting facts about human childhood as compared with the maturation of other animals.

For example, relative to other primates, humans are “largely tedious monogamists.” Only about 15 percent of primates have similar “pair bonds” (it is much more common among birds). A variety of evolutionary theories attempt to account for this. Her own take:

What does seem clear is that humans have opted for a mating system that doesn’t go in as much for competition as it does for care. The evolution of ‘dads’ — our casual word for the pair of helping hands that, in humans, fits a very broad range of people — may in fact be the only solution to the crisis that is the most important feature of human babies: they are off-the-scale demanding.

BRENNA HASSETT, “HOW TO GROW A HUMAN,” AEON, JULY 10, 2023

Hassett, author of Growing Up Human (Bloomsbury Sigma 2022), offers a number of thoughts on the hazards of human childbirth and child raising, as she seeks to account for long childhoods in an evolutionary scheme:

The answer may be in that glorious pinchable baby fat. Having precision-engineered our offspring to siphon resources from their mothers in order to build calorifically expensive structures like our big brains and our chubby cheeks, we have, perhaps, become victims of our own success. Our babies can build themselves up to an impressive size in the womb, one that comes near to being unsurvivable.

HASSETT, “HOW TO GROW A HUMAN”

And yet so many mothers and babies beat those odds that there are still people rabbiting on about a population crisis…

One striking observation Hassett shares is that human babies are breastfed for a much shorter period than that of primate apes (four to eight years) even though they stay around much longer (full human maturation takes between twenty and thirty years).

Lastly, she notes the importance in human societies of “that unlikely creature, the grandmother,” which she attributes to the evolution of menopause:

If the goal is to keep the species going, then calling time on reproduction sounds catastrophically counterintuitive, and, yet, here we are, awash in post-reproductive females. Why? Because, despite the denigration many older women face, women do not ‘outlive’ their sole evolutionary function of birthing babies. If that was the only purpose of females, there wouldn’t be grandmas. But here they are, and ethnographic and sociological studies show us very clearly that grandparents are evolutionarily important: they are additional adults capable of investing in our needy kids.

HASSETT, “HOW TO GROW A HUMAN”

Why Evolution Claims Don’t Explain Much

At this point, her “evolution” analysis completely breaks down. The fundamental problem with this kind of analysis is that we would find ourselves in exactly the same position with respect to the hard information provided if we assumed that no evolution had ever taken place.

For example, let’s assume “no evolution”: Humans are “tedious monogamists” because, to the extent that we use our unique powers of reason, we clearly see that long-term relationships are suited to our longevity (which includes and is inflated by long childhoods). 

What chimpanzees or gibbons do differently is irrelevant. We don’t make decisions for them (in the wild) and they can’t make decisions for us.

Humans have comparatively difficult childbirths but that is just the sort of thing reasoning beings would notice, which is why midwifery/obstetrics was invented. Of all the species to have difficult childbirths, we are best suited to addressing the problem.

The reason there are grandmas (and great-grandmas) is that no one ate them years earlier. The reason no one ate them is most likely that most humans were aware of the relationship and feared retribution for such acts by a power that upholds the order of the universe. Honoring parents is an important feature of the religions of which we have any record and the very existence of grandmothers suggests that it is much older.

The evolutionary theorizing that so many essays like Hassett’s serve up doesn’t advance our knowledge of the topic at hand. We have no hard knowledge of how features of human life such as long childhoods and menopause developed. The theorizing merely interprets it all in an “evolutionary” light — interpretation without additional facts.

This sort of thing is thought of as science partly out of courtesy and partly out of fear of the Darwinists — who can hardly be expected to welcome an unsparing analysis of what exactly they contribute to the actual knowledge of being human.

Yet more on the fossil record's anti Darwinian bias.

 

Darwinism's trouble's three?

 

Gunther Bechly on the hostility of the fossil record re:Darwinism.

 

File under "Well said" CVII

"“A tree is identified by its fruit. If a tree is good, its fruit will be good. If a tree is bad, its fruit will be bad. "

Jesus of Nazareth.@Matthew ch.12:33NLT

A trillions strong Choir sings of pimeval technology

 Trillions of Cicadas Sing of Intelligent Design

David Coppedge

Love them or hate them, the cicadas are coming — trillions of them. Maybe quadrillions. Having lived underground for years, they’re all coming up for a brief frolic of food, song, and dance. After a few weeks of play, their newborn larvae will crawl back into the soil till next time their internal clocks strike all at once.

Scientists are intrigued by the coordinated emergence of these insects in prime numbers of years: 13 and 17. This year is special for having two broods emerge at the same time: Brood XIII (17 year cycle) and Brood XIX (13 year cycle). This particular convergence only occurs every 221 years. The last time it happened, in 1803, Thomas Jefferson was President. Most easterners will see one brood or the other, but in the overlapping region around the Great Lakes, residents will get the double show. Scientists will be taking advantage of this rare convergence to learn more about cicadas.

There are 15 species of periodic cicadas, each with their own prime number and cycle. Their territories span 29 states from New York to eastern Texas. Often confused with locusts, cicadas are basically harmless to humans and plants, although their sheer numbers can seem overwhelming and their collective noise deafening. Mostly heard and not as often seen, they make some of the loudest sounds of any insect. The males make the sound using a flexible membrane on the torso that they can flex with their abdominal muscles. Cicadas also emit a collective mist of urine that is also harmless, consisting almost entirely of water. For those that can’t take the noise or mist in the overlapping region, give them a couple of weeks to do their thing and it will be over till 2037. In the meantime, birds will have a feast day, and consider, if you can bear it, that the bugs are edible for humans. Any confectioners in the crowd? Free ingredients for the taking! Probably best covered in chocolate.

Cicadas, Darwin, and Design

When I last wrote about cicadas in 2016, a different brood was emerging in the northeast, a 17-year brood. In that article, we considered questions about whether the Darwinian explanation for the prime-number synchronization was satisfactory, and we considered some of the design features of these insects. 

            If predation is a problem, why the billions at once? With so many, they could come up every year and do just fine. Why wait? And if selection pressure helps the cicadas, can’t it help the predators the same way? Where are the 17-year predators? Besides, you wonder what the predators are eating outside the two-to-six-week window the cicadas are active.

Like the peppered moths and the Galápagos finches, the evolutionary story of cicadas offers a certain intuitive satisfaction, until you start asking questions. Worse, it distracts from the really interesting aspects that really need explaining.

                     Now that eight years have passed, more information has been published that should increase our awe of this phenomenon. In 2022, Günter Bechly showed a photo of a fossil cicada in Cretaceous amber that has essentially the same body plan as modern cicadas. Any evolution in 115 million years has been mostly cosmetic.

The Aesthetics of Cicadas

AP reporters Seth Borenstein and Carolyn Kaster did their best to make the cicadas look pretty, with photographs and prose exalting their “rich reds, gentle greens and basic blacks” as an example of “Nature’s artwork” (in the eyes of “some beholders” at least). They can seem overpowering in numbers and might strike some as strange — even alien.

               But individually, up close and personal, a cicada has splashes of color, subtle shapes and that special something that some scientists and artists say translate to beauty. Even if to the average person it’s just a bug… To artists and scientists, cicadas are more awe-inspiring than awful. 

      Another scientist expresses his appreciation for these wonders of nature.

                   “There’s a lot of things in the world today to get freaked out about. Cicadas aren’t one of them,” said Mount St. Joseph University biologist Gene Kritsky, who wrote a book on this year’s dual emergence. “They’re beautiful insects. They’ve got these red eyes, black bodies, orange-colored veins on these membranous wings. I love the way they come up in these big numbers. I like that I can predict when they come out. It’s a scientific experiment every time

      

Perhaps this is excusable praise from a scientist who earned tenure from his research on cicadas. 

Cicada Superlatives

Now that you know not to be creeped out by the bugs, you can tolerate a short animated photo of one coming out of the ground like a boxer ready to fight. It’s in Seth Borenstein’s   earlier AP story of the coming “Cicada-geddon” arriving in May and June. Nice buggy!

“We’ve got trillions of these amazing living organisms come out of the Earth, climb up on trees and it’s just a unique experience, a sight to behold,” [Saad] Bhamla said. “It’s like an entire alien species living underneath our feet and then some prime number years they come out to say hello.”

The emerging cicadas climb up trees to make noise and mate. After the eggs are laid in the tree, the nymphs fall to the ground and dig down to the roots where they will live and feed on water and nutrients in xylem, using specialized pumps in their heads. 

The cicada gets so much fluid that it has a lot of liquid waste to get rid of. It does so thanks to a special muscle that creates a jet of urine that flows faster than in most any other animal, said Georgia Tech’s Bhamla.

There they will live in hiding till the prime clock strikes again. At New Scientist, Corryn Wetzel explained that double emergences are not that rare, since there are 15 species, three on the 13-year cycle and twelve on the 17-year cycle.

It isn’t so much the number of cicadas but the area these red-eyed insects will invade. “It’s not unheard of to have dual brood emergences, but this one is notable for the geographic range it covers,” says Jonathan Larson at the University of Kentucky. “It’ll be a spectacular force of nature.”

Can Cicadas Be Darwinized

The above articles all assume evolution. Can research scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals justify the Darwinian origin story? Chinese Academy scientist Hui Jiang and 12 other international colleagues tried to. In Nature Communications, the team wrote about a “Mesozoic evolution of cicadas and their origins of vocalization and root feeding.” They spoke of evolution 30 times and origin 3 times, but never mentioned mutations or natural selection — a major omission if these “beautiful” bugs diverged from ancestral insects by Darwin’s celebrated mechanism. Their explanation consists primarily of possibilities, perhapses, and maybes.

Our results suggest that Cicadidae and Tettigarctidae might have diverged at or by the Middle Jurassic, with morphological evolution possibly shaped by host plant changes. The discovery of tymbal structures and anatomical analysis of adult fossils indicate that mid-Cretaceous cicadas were silent as modern Tettigarctidae or could have produced faint tymbal-related sounds. The discovery of final-instar nymphal and exuviae cicadoid fossils with fossorial forelegs and piercing-sucking mouthparts indicates that they had most likely adopted a subterranean lifestyle by the mid-Cretaceous, occupying the ecological niche of underground feeding on root.

Even granting those possibilities, the major questions remain unanswered: without begging the question of evolution, what mutations were selected in a Darwinian manner? 

Here, we report newly described adults, a final-instar nymph, and exuviae of Cicadoidea from mid-Cretaceous (~99 Ma) Kachin amber that originated in northern Myanmar (Fig. 1). We use morphological data from fossil and extant Cicadoidea to conduct phylogenetic and morphological disparity analyses, trying to clarify the phylogenetic relationships between Mesozoic fossil and extant cicadoids and to illuminate macroevolutionary changes in their body structure adaptations. We discover the membranous tymbal and tymbal muscles associated with cicadoid sound production in the fossil record, and report fossil final-instar nymphs with specialised forelegs and long piercing-sucking mouthparts, indicative of both fossorial and root-feeding behaviours. In sum, we provide a more comprehensive picture of the relationships, and ecological and evolutionary history of early Cicadoidea.

Given the diversity of insects worldwide, how can the fossils in Myanmar explain cicadas halfway around the world in Michigan? If some cicadas today don’t make noise, and don’t live underground, why assume that extant cicadas evolved from silent ones in different niches? 

One can look through the open-access paper and find little more than suggestions that various cosmetic features, such as the shapes of sclerites on this or that body part, are “stem” (primitive) or “crown” (fully evolved) features between the fossils and living cicadas. 

As the forewings are connected to the mesothorax, the enlargement of the exposed mesonotum may suggest enhancement of the thoracic flight muscles, which appears also to indicate a transformation in wing morphology and flight capabilities. This trend also reveals the obvious difference in the appearance of the thoracic notum of extant tettigarctids and cicadids from an evolutionary perspective.

If the two groups are extant, why appeal to neo-Darwinism at all? Did evolution leave the tettigarctids behind? Each insect in each group is adapted to its niche. One cannot claim that one evolved from the other without begging the question of common ancestry by mutation and selection. But just keep waiting: someday the evolutionary biologist may reach the nirvana of understanding. For now, they can only visualize evolutionary transitions as possibilities.

Our research demonstrates that highly specialised, homologous body structures in insect fossils may contain identifiable transitional variants previously have been overlooked. Meticulous investigation of these continuous morphological transformations may allow for a more precise understanding of the influence of temporal and spatial changes on morphological evolution and further assist in elucidating the patterns of macroevolution.

Unscientific Explanations

A common defect in explanations like this is assuming that environments have causal power over body plans. In this case, the rise of angiosperms gave the primitive cicadas an opportunity to evolve to feed on them — that is, if you are willing to leave science behind and trust your imagination.

We consider that there might be a broad host shift or tendency in the evolution of Cicadoidea to feed on angiosperms when this newly emerged plant group diversified during the Early Cretaceous.

Bechly had something to say about the “newly emerged” angiosperms, Darwin’s “abominable mystery.” 

Ascribing power to the environment commits two logical blunders: (1) inadequate causation and (2) special pleading. If angiosperms somehow caused cicadas to develop specialized mouthparts, head pumps, urine muscles, and underground lifestyles, why didn’t it do the same for all other insects similar to cicadas? One would think a law of nature (like natural selection is purported to be) would result in similar effects. To say it only drove cicadas underground to live on root xylem and then emerge every 17 years leaves all the other insects in the same environment unexplained. 

The evidence for root-feeding is the most poorly documented herbivore functional feeding group in the fossil record… Root feeding undoubtedly provides advantages for cicada nymphs to migrate to and to inhabit for extended time underground, apparently representing a successful and highly specialised survival strategy.

If it is such a great strategy, why didn’t it drive grasshoppers and locusts underground? Strategy, furthermore, sounds like a word of intent. Whose intent? Nature’s? Scientific explanations were supposed to get away from personification.

Having used possibility words dozens of times (may have, possibly, likely, suggests), these scientists should admit they do not have answers, and should open themselves to other possibilities, like design. If their favored Darwinian toolkit cannot explain with any certainty the slight rearrangements of existing body parts like sclerites, how can it begin to approach the far more difficult challenges of body systems (e.g., flight, muscles, jointed limbs, sensory organs, digestive systems, reproduction, nervous systems, instincts) and their coordination into functionally complete organisms? 

Open the Discussion

Surely a “fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question,” as Darwin said, to which he added about his “mere abstract” in The Origin, “and this cannot possibly be here done.” Okay, well; his disciples now have had 165 more years to do it. Let them produce the goods instead of making promises that more research “may allow for a more precise understanding” someday.

Incidentally, the research team never did explain the prime number cycles of periodic cicadas. And I’d like to ask how the bugs’ beautiful red compound eyes can remain functional for 17 years underground in the dark to work just fine the day they’re needed. Surely there is plenty of research left for scientists who view design and beauty in nature with knowledge of engineering requirements for functional coherence. 

Micah Ch.5 v.2 demystified.

   Micah 5:2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT THE TRUE, ETERNAL GOD HAD NO BEGINNING!

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


of old (Gen 6:4)

days of old (Deuteronomy 32:7)

From ancient times (Joshua 24:2)

from ancient times. (1 Samuel 27:8)

the ancient path (Job 22:15)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 22:28)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 23:10)

the ancient nation (Isaiah 44:7)

ancient ruins (Isaiah 58:12) 

ancient ruins (Isaiah 61:4) 

the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9)

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

          the ancient paths (Jeremiah 18:15)

         the ancient waste places (Ezekiel 26:20)

         the days of old (Malachi 3:4)

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

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

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

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

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


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

E.T's home finally located?

 

Junk science re:DNA is a science stopper?

 

The Iranian revolution: a brief history

 

An interlude XIX

 

On artificial intelligence and actual stupidity

 

On the myth of the gay gene.

 

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Scientific American 

Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

Analysis of half a million people suggests genetics may have a limited contribution to sexual orientation

By Sara Reardon on August 29, 2019

Few aspects of human biology are as complex—or politically fraught—as sexual orientation. A clear genetic link would suggest that gay people are “born this way,” as opposed to having made a lifestyle choice. Yet some fear that such a finding could be misused “cure” homosexuality, and most research teams have shied away from tackling the topic.

Now, a new study claims to dispel the notion that a single gene or handful of genes make a person prone to same-sex behavior. The analysis, which examined the genomes of nearly half a million men and women, found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there are no specific genetic predictors. Yet some researchers question whether the analysis, which looked at genes associated with sexual activity rather than attraction, can draw any real conclusions about sexual orientation.

“The message should remain the same that this is a complex behavior that genetics definitely plays a part in,” said study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a computational biologist at genetic testing company andMe in Mountain View, Calif., during a press conference. The handful of genetic studies conducted in the past few decades have looked at only a few hundred individuals at most—and almost exclusively men. Other studies have linked sexual orientation with environmental factors such as hormone exposure before birth and having older brothers.

             In the new study, a team led by Brendan Zietsch of the University of Queensland, Australia, mined several massive genome data banks, including that of 23andMe and the UK Biobank (23andMe did not fund the research). They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.

The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience. Two of these genetic markers sit close to genes linked to sex hormones and to smell—both factors that may play a role in sexual attraction. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences. The findings were published Thursday in Science.

                  Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ’gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study.

The research has limitations: almost all of the participants were from the U.S. or Europe, and the individuals also tended to be older—51 years old on average in the 23andMe sample and at least 40 in the UK Biobank sample.

Still, researchers welcome the data. “A lot of people want to understand the biology of homosexuality, and science has lagged behind that human interest,” says William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who also was not involved in the work. “It’s been a taboo topic, and now that we’re getting information I think it’s going to blossom.”

                  The study will not be the last word on the vexing question of what causes homosexuality, however. In 1993 geneticist Dean Hamer of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and his colleagues published a paper suggesting that an area on the X chromosome called Xq28 could contain a “gay gene.” But other studies, including the new paper, found no such link, and Sathirapongsasuti says that the new study is the final nail in the coffin for Xq28 as a cause of same-sex attraction.

But Hamer, now retired, disagrees. His study, which analysed the genomes of 40 pairs of gay brothers, looked exclusively at people who identified as homosexual. He sees the new paper as an analysis of risky behavior or openness to experience, noting that participants who engaged in at least one same-sex experience were also more likely to report having smoked marijuana and having more sexual partners overall. Hamer says that the findings do not reveal any biological pathways for sexual orientation. “I’m glad they did it and did a big study, but it doesn’t point us where to look.”

Rice and Vilain agree that the conclusion is unclear. A more detailed questionnaire that looks at more aspects of sexuality and environmental influences would allow the researchers to better pinpoint the roots of attraction.

                        The authors say that they did see links between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but concede that the genetic links do not predict orientation. “I think it’s true we’re capturing part of that risk-taking behavior,” Sathirapongsasuti says, but the genetic links still suggested that same-sex behavior is related to attraction.

Nevertheless, Hamer and others praise the new contribution to a field that suffers from a dearth of good studies. “I hope it will be the first of many to come.”

More on Dawinists' we don't know what it does therefore it does nothing argument.

 Did Dr. Dan Make Us Change Our Position on Junk DNA?

Jonathan Mclatchie

Last week, I published a review of Casey Luskin’s recent debate with Rutgers University professor Daniel Stern Cardinale (“Dr. Dan”) of the Creation Myths YouTube channel. I noted that Luskin did a good job during the debate of refuting Dr. Dan’s main arguments that most of our genome is junk — and I also pointed out that after the debate we posted a follow-up article that refuted his claim that “degraded” LINE elements cannot be functional. Now, Dr. Dan is claiming that he forced Discovery Institute to “change” its take on the percent of the genome that is functional. This claim is totally false and it perhaps reflects Dr. Dan’s wish to find a positive spin on the substance of what happened during the debate. 

We’ll get to that in a moment, but first, let’s recap what happened during the debate.

Point 1: Luskin Refutes Dr. Dan’s Main Argument

The first of Dr. Dan’s two primary arguments during the debate was that most of the transcribed DNA documented by ENCODE cannot be functional since 70 percent of the coverage is transcribed at a rate of less than one transcript per cell. Luskin refuted this argument during the debate, making two main points. First, this statistic is an average — and, therefore, a mean of one transcript per cell does not imply that every cell has only one transcript or less. Second, there are plenty of examples of cases where there is a low copy number of RNA transcripts that are nonetheless functional. See my previous article for details. I observed that it was curious that, after these rejoinders were made by Casey Luskin, Dr. Dan never revisited this argument throughout the remainder of the debate.

Point 2: We Refute Dr. Dan’s Fallback Argument

After abandoning his first argument, Dr. Dan’s then fell back to a secondary argument — namely that large percentages of our genome are composed of “degraded” repetitive DNA which he claimed are “absolutely not” functional. Well, during the debate Luskin gave examples of “degraded” repetitive DNA that can be functional, and after the debate Richard Sternberg, Luskin, and I co-authored an article that reported over 50 peer-reviewed papers showing that what Dr. Dan calls “degraded” LINE elements can be functional. The only thing that Dr. Dan’s secondary argument showed is that evolutionists continue to assume that if they do not understand what a particular genetic element is doing then this constitutes grounds for thinking that it is functionless.

Did We Change Our Arguments in Response to Dr. Dan?

The short answer is no, we didn’t change our arguments in response to Dr. Dan because he did not raise any points that warranted our changing anything. To appreciate why this is the case, one first must appreciate our position. 

In Casey Luskin’s opening statement in the debate — before Dr. Dan had made any arguments — Luskin fully acknowledged that there’s much we don’t know about the genome. He stated the following:

So again we’re going to deep dive into this today but I think it’s good to start with some points of agreement. I fully agree with Dr. Dan, and I’m assuming this is what you think Dr. Dan so forgive me if I’m misrepresenting you, but I thought these are reasonable things — that there is still a lot we don’t know about the genome. And I agree with you that probably some of it is going to turn out to be “junk”. I also agree with you that there’s much transcription going on where we still don’t know what it’s for. Some of it could even be quote-unquote stochastic. But I certainly agree that there’s a lot we don’t know, and that science will reveal much to us in the coming years. 

That was from Luskin’s opening statement, before Dr. Dan had made any substantive points. And it was entirely consistent with what Luskin has said in the past. For example in a paper last year in the journal Religions, Luskin stated the following about junk DNA

Junk DNA genetic arguments for common human–ape ancestry have also come under significant critique in recent years due to the discovery of mass-functionality for non-coding or “junk” DNA in the human genome. A major 2012 Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported “biochemical functions for 80%” of the human genome (ENCODE Project Consortium 2012, p. 57). Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, “80 percent will go to 100” since “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.” (Yong 2012). In the wake of this research, the journal Science published an article titled “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA” which stated that these findings “sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases” (Pennisi 2012, p. 1159). Evidence of functions for non-coding DNA has continued to mount at a high pace. A 2021 article in Nature reported that over 130,000 specific “genomic elements, previously called junk DNA” have seen specific functions identified (Gates et al. 2021, p. 215), followed by a paper in Genome Biology and Evolution which concluded, “The days of ‘junk DNA’ are over” (Stitz et al. 2021, p. 11). There is still much we do not understand about the genome and there are many specific genetic elements for which no function has yet been discovered. Nonetheless, this evidence suggests a strong trendline in the research literature away from non-functionality for “junk” DNA. 

Luskin later wrote the following in that paper:

Again, it is true that there is still much we do not know about junk DNA and there are many specific genetic elements (including pseudogenes and ERVs) for which specific functions have not yet been discovered. However, recent trends in research show that far more functionality is being discovered than was anticipated, leading to the possibility of mass functionality for junk DNA. As a 2023 academic book on RNA states:

“While the story is still unfolding, we conclude that the genomes of humans and other complex organisms are not full of junk but rather are highly compact information suites that are largely devoted to the specification of regulatory RNAs. These RNAs drive the trajectories of differentiation and development, underpin brain function and convey transgenerational memory of experience, much of it contrary to long-held conceptions of genetic programming and the dogmas of evolutionary theory.”

(Mattick and Amaral 2023, p. vii) 

So Luskin has been very clear that there’s a lot we do not know about the genome — including many specific genetic elements for which we have not yet discovered their specific functions — and much remains to be discovered. But we do have evidence that over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed, and that’s evidence of function. Plus, the numerous scientific papers discovering function for “junk” DNA show the trendline of the research strongly implies the large bulk of the genome is functional. 

Does Lack of Knowledge of Specific Function Imply Junk?

Does our lack of knowledge of the specific function for a genetic element imply it is probably junk? Again, the answer is no.

I also noted in my review that “Though Dr. Dan is correct that we currently know of specific functions for significantly less than half of the genome, this is hardly a strong argument for supposing that the ‘dark regions’ of the genome are non-functional ‘junk’ — particularly given the trends in the scientific literature over the last couple of decades — and the fact that the great majority of our genome is transcribed.” Dr. Dan has now put out a video titled “I Made Discovery Institute Change Their Junk DNA Argument.” In the video, Dr. Dan quoted my statement above, together with Luskin’s remark from his concluding statement: “I mean it could be another hundred years before we cross that 50 percent threshold, but I predict we’re going to get there and we’re going to go above that.” Dr. Dan contends that this is a significant shift in our position on the subject of junk DNA.

In support of his contention, Dr. Dan cites a few past articles from Evolution News, which he contends are at odds with this statement. Here is a list of the relevant quotes:

Casey Luskin, on March 28, 2024:

“…the concept of junk DNA — long espoused by evolutionists — has overall been refuted by mountains of data and is no longer even considered valid by many biologists.”

“A major Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported evidence of ‘biochemical functions for 80%’ of the human genome. Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, ’80 percent will go to 100’ since ‘almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.’”

Evolution News, on August 4, 2020:

“Skipper says it was ‘striking’ to find that they were able to assign a ‘biochemical function’ to 80 percent of the genome…”

Casey Luskin, on July 9, 2015:

“I should note that for my part, I think that the percentage of our genome that is functional is probably very high, even higher than 80%.”

“ENCODE critics who say the genome is junky rely primarily on theory. ENCODE proponents who say the genome is functional rely primarily on data.”

Dr. Dan contends that my (and Luskin’s) statements that we do not know the functions of significantly more than half of the genome are incompatible with the statements given above. This is not the case because, as noted, not knowing the specific function does not mean we don’t have evidence of function. Indeed, Luskin clearly stated during the debate that we are well over the 50 percent threshold” when it comes to evidence of genome function. As Luskin argued, over 80 percent of the genome is known to be transcribed into RNA, and it has long been our contention that the fact that over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed is prima facie evidence of function. (ENCODE only studied about 147 cell types, leading to the prediction Luskin quoted that as more cell types are studied “80 percent will go to 100.”) This does not mean that we know the specific function of all of the sequences that are transcribed, but again we don’t need to know the specific function to have evidence for some real function. Assigning specific functions to DNA sequences is not the only sort of evidence that may be adduced for functionality. Transcription itself is evidence that there is a function. Indeed, as Luskin noted during the debate, an ID-friendly RNA biologist at an Ivy League school told him that in their field, the dominant thinking in the field holds: “If it’s transcribed, it has a function.”

Moreover, the trends in the scientific literature — documenting more and more function of the dark regions of the genome — give us strong reason for confidence that those trends will continue. Thus, it’s not at all hard to envision virtually all of these transcribed regions have a specific function that is just waiting for us to discover. 

The only statement listed above that might be construed as being at odds with this is the quote from the 2020 Evolution News article. However, here is the statement in context:

Skipper says it was “striking” to find that they were able to assign a “biochemical function” to 80 percent of the genome: striking, because “not such a long time ago, we still considered that a vast proportion of the human genome was simply junk.” Birney comments, “It’s very hard to get over the density of information” in the genome. They found places that are “much more complex” than expected, and loci thought to be completely silent are actually “teeming with life, teeming with things going on; we still really don’t understand that…” 

Neither Casey Luskin nor I wrote those words, nor did any Discovery Institute author. Indeed, those quotes are pulled from a video from Nature. Skipper’s comment that they are “able to assign a ‘biochemical function’ to 80 percent of the genome” is clumsily worded. However, Birney’s statement (also quoted in the Evolution News article) adds more nuance: “It’s like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things that we thought we understood and yet it’s much, much more complex. And then places of the genome that we thought were completely silent and they’re teeming with life. They’re teeming with things going on. We still really don’t understand that.” Thus, Birney appears to agree that we do not know what is going on in many of these regions, though we nonetheless have evidence of function. This supports what we are saying about the genome, not Dr. Dan’s view. 

Of course, Dr. Dan objects to our contention that transcription constitutes prima facie evidence of function, since the mean level of transcription for much of the transcribed regions is less than a single transcript per cell. But we rebutted that argument during the debate, and it is curious that Dr. Dan still (even in his latest video) has not addressed, nor even remarked on, our rebuttal to his objection — that this is only an average and that even low copy number transcripts can be functional. 

Dr. Dan Should Stop Projecting His Own Views Upon Us

To conclude, we have not changed our position on junk DNA as a result of Dr. Dan’s debate with Casey Luskin. Luskin’s comment about the “50 percent threshold” pertained to our not having yet identified the specific function for 50 percent of the genome — he was NOT claiming that there is no evidence of function for 50 percent of the genome, and he was certainly NOT conceding that there is evidence that 50 percent of the genome is junk. Instead, as we have noted, because over 80 percent of the genome is transcribed, this provides prima facie evidence that at least 80 percent of the genome is functional even if we have not yet identified the specific function. In fact, Luskin stated this upfront in his opening statement — fully acknowledging that there is much we have yet to learn about the genome. 

In this debate, Dr. Dan is the only party who is arguing that if we have not identified the specific function, then even if it is transcribed, we are safe to assume it is probably junk. He seems to think that if we concede that we don’t know the specific function, that therefore this means it is junk. Dr. Dan must be projecting his own views upon us because he is the only party here who thinks like that. We certainly don’t. We are not arguing that way because it is a science-stopping argument. We believe that the evidence of mass-transcription of the genome plus the trendline of the research indicate that the vast majority of the genome is functional. Dr. Dan is welcome to disagree with us, but he should not impose his own science-stopping views upon us