Time to close the door on the world's huddled masses?:pros and cons.

The dragon in winter

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the biblical meaning of "soul"

SOUL

The original-language terms (Heb., ne′phesh [נֶפֶשׁ]; Gr., psy·khe′ [ψυχή]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.

The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of ne′phesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

More recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’” He added: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·khe′ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·khe′ and ne′phesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy Sons, New York, 1970.

Ne′phesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense ne′phesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

As for the Greek word psy·khe′, Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as “life,” and “the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,” “a living being,” and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used “of animals.” Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of “departed spirit,” “the immaterial and immortal soul,” “the spirit of the universe,” and “the immaterial principle of movement and life.” Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy·khe′ was also applied to the “butterfly or moth,” which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·khe′ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

In view of such inconsistency in non-Biblical writings, it is essential to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, showing what the inspired writers meant by their use of the term psy·khe′, as well as by ne′phesh. Ne′phesh occurs 754 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures, while psy·khe′ appears by itself 102 times in the Westcott and Hort text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, giving a total of 856 occurrences. (See NW appendix, p. 1573.) This frequency of occurrence makes possible a clear concept of the sense that these terms conveyed to the minds of the inspired Bible writers and the sense their writings should convey to our mind. An examination shows that, while the sense of these terms is broad, with different shades of meaning, among the Bible writers there was no inconsistency, confusion, or disharmony as to man’s nature, as existed among the Grecian philosophers of the so-called Classical Period.

Earth’s First Souls. The initial occurrences of ne′phesh are found at Genesis 1:20-23. On the fifth creative “day” God said: “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls [ne′phesh] and let flying creatures fly over the earth . . .’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul [ne′phesh] that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Similarly on the sixth creative “day” ne′phesh is applied to the “domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth” as “living souls.”—Ge 1:24.

After man’s creation, God’s instruction to him again used the term ne′phesh with regard to the animal creation, “everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul [literally, in which there is living soul (ne′phesh)].” (Ge 1:30) Other examples of animals being so designated are found at Genesis 2:19; 9:10-16; Leviticus 11:10, 46; 24:18; Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9. Notably, the Christian Greek Scriptures coincide in applying the Greek psy·khe′ to animals, as at Revelation 8:9; 16:3, where it is used of creatures in the sea.

Thus, the Scriptures clearly show that ne′phesh and psy·khe′ are used to designate the animal creation lower than man. The same terms apply to man.

The Human Soul. Precisely the same Hebrew phrase used of the animal creation, namely, ne′phesh chai·yah′ (living soul), is applied to Adam, when, after God formed man out of dust from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, “the man came to be a living soul.” (Ge 2:7) Man was distinct from the animal creation, but that distinction was not because he was a ne′phesh (soul) and they were not. Rather, the record shows that it was because man alone was created “in God’s image.” (Ge 1:26, 27) He was created with moral qualities like those of God, with power and wisdom far superior to the animals; hence he could have in subjection all the lower forms of creature life. (Ge 1:26, 28) Man’s organism was more complex, as well as more versatile, than that of the animals. (Compare 1Co 15:39.) Likewise, Adam had, but lost, the prospect of eternal life; this is never stated with regard to the creatures lower than man.—Ge 2:15-17; 3:22-24.

It is true that the account says that ‘God proceeded to blow into the man’s nostrils the breath [form of nesha·mah′] of life,’ whereas this is not stated in the account of the animal creation. Clearly, however, the account of the creation of man is much more detailed than that of the creation of animals. Moreover, Genesis 7:21-23, in describing the Flood’s destruction of “all flesh” outside the ark, lists the animal creatures along with mankind and says: “Everything in which the breath [form of nesha·mah′] of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” Obviously, the breath of life of the animal creatures also originally came from the Creator, Jehovah God.

So, too, the “spirit” (Heb., ru′ach; Gr., pneu′ma), or life-force, of man is not distinct from the life-force in animals, as is shown by Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, which states that “they all have but one spirit [weru′ach].”

Soul—A Living Creature. As stated, man “came to be a living soul”; hence man was a soul, he did not have a soul as something immaterial, invisible, and intangible residing inside him. The apostle Paul shows that the Christian teaching did not differ from the earlier Hebrew teaching, for he quotes Genesis 2:7 in saying: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul [psy·khen′ zo′san].’ . . . The first man is out of the earth and made of dust.”—1Co 15:45-47.

The Genesis account shows that a living soul results from the combination of the earthly body with the breath of life. The expression “breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ru′ach), of life]” (Ge 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air (with its oxygen) that the life-force, or “spirit,” in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature’s body, as is discussed under LIFE; SPIRIT.

Since the term ne′phesh refers to the creature itself, we should expect to find the normal physical functions or characteristics of fleshly creatures attributed to it. This is exactly the case. Ne′phesh (soul) is spoken of as eating flesh, fat, blood, or similar material things (Le 7:18, 20, 25, 27; 17:10, 12, 15; De 23:24); being hungry for or craving food and drink (De 12:15, 20, 21; Ps 107:9; Pr 19:15; 27:7; Isa 29:8; 32:6; Mic 7:1); being made fat (Pr 11:25); fasting (Ps 35:13); touching unclean things, such as a dead body (Le 5:2; 7:21; 17:15; 22:6; Nu 19:13); being ‘seized as a pledge’ or being ‘kidnapped’ (De 24:6, 7); doing work (Le 23:30); being refreshed by cold water when tired (Pr 25:25); being purchased (Le 22:11; Eze 27:13); being given as a vow offering (Le 27:2); being put in irons (Ps 105:18); being sleepless (Ps 119:28); and struggling for breath (Jer 15:9).

It may be noted that in many texts reference is made to “my soul,” “his [or her] soul,” “your soul,” and so forth. This is because ne′phesh and psy·khe′ can mean one’s own self as a soul. The sense of the term can therefore often be expressed in English by use of personal pronouns. Thus Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (p. 627) shows that “my ne′phesh” means “I” (Ge 27:4, 25; Isa 1:14); “your [singular] ne′phesh” means “thou” or “you” (Ge 27:19, 31; Isa 43:4; 51:23); “his ne′phesh” means “he, himself” (Nu 30:2; Isa 53:10); “her ne′phesh” means “she, herself” (Nu 30:5-12), and so forth.

The Greek term psy·khe′ is used similarly. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 54) says it may be used as “the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:—1st person, John 10:24 (‘us’); Heb. 10:38; cp. [compare] Gen. 12:13; Num. 23:10; Jud. 16:30; Ps. 120:2 (‘me’); 2nd person, 2 Cor. 12:15; Heb. 13:17,” and so forth.

Represents life as a creature. Both ne′phesh and psy·khe′ are also used to mean life—not merely as an abstract force or principle—but life as a creature, human or animal.

Thus when Rachel was giving birth to Benjamin, her ne′phesh (“soul,” or life as a creature) went out from her and she died. (Ge 35:16-19) She ceased to be a living creature. Similarly, when the prophet Elijah performed a miracle regarding the dead son of the widow of Zarephath, the child’s ne′phesh (“soul,” or life as a creature) came back into him and “he came to life,” was again a living creature.—1Ki 17:17-23.

Because the creature’s life is so inseparably connected with and dependent on blood (shed blood standing for the life of the person or creature [Ge 4:10; 2Ki 9:26; Ps 9:12; Isa 26:21]), the Scriptures speak of the ne′phesh (soul) as being “in the blood.” (Ge 9:4; Le 17:11, 14; De 12:23) This is, obviously, not meant literally, inasmuch as the Scriptures also speak of the “blood of your souls” (Ge 9:5; compare Jer 2:34) and the many references already considered could not reasonably be applied solely to the blood or its life-supporting qualities.

Ne′phesh (soul) is not used with reference to the creation of vegetable life on the third creative “day” (Ge 1:11-13) or thereafter, since vegetation is bloodless.

Examples of the use of the Greek psy·khe′ to mean “life as a creature” may be found at Matthew 6:25; 10:39; 16:25, 26; Luke 12:20; John 10:11, 15; 13:37, 38; 15:13; Acts 20:10. Since God’s servants have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again as “souls,” or living creatures. For that reason Jesus could say that “whoever loses his soul [his life as a creature] for the sake of me and the good news will save it. Really, of what benefit is it for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his soul? What, really, would a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mr 8:35-37) Similarly, he stated: “He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.” (Joh 12:25) These texts, and others like them, show the correct understanding of Jesus’ words at Matthew 10:28: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” While men can kill the body, they cannot kill the person for all time, inasmuch as he lives in God’s purpose (compare Lu 20:37, 38) and God can and will restore such faithful one to life as a creature by means of a resurrection. For God’s servants, the loss of their “soul,” or life as a creature, is only temporary, not permanent.—Compare Re 12:11.

Mortal and destructible. On the other hand, Matthew 10:28 states that God “can destroy both soul [psy·khen′] and body in Gehenna.” This shows that psy·khe′ does not refer to something immortal or indestructible. There is, in fact, not one case in the entire Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, in which the words ne′phesh or psy·khe′ are modified by terms such as immortal, indestructible, imperishable, deathless, or the like. (See IMMORTALITY; INCORRUPTION.) On the other hand, there are scores of texts in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that speak of the ne′phesh or psy·khe′ (soul) as mortal and subject to death (Ge 19:19, 20; Nu 23:10; Jos 2:13, 14; Jg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1Ki 20:31, 32; Ps 22:29; Eze 18:4, 20; Mt 2:20; 26:38; Mr 3:4; Heb 10:39; Jas 5:20); as dying, being “cut off” or destroyed (Ge 17:14; Ex 12:15; Le 7:20; 23:29; Jos 10:28-39; Ps 78:50; Eze 13:19; 22:27; Ac 3:23; Re 8:9; 16:3), whether by sword (Jos 10:37; Eze 33:6) or by suffocation (Job 7:15), or being in danger of death due to drowning (Jon 2:5); and also as going down into the pit or into Sheol (Job 33:22; Ps 89:48) or being delivered therefrom (Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; Pr 23:14).

Dead soul. The expression ‘deceased or dead soul’ also appears a number of times, meaning simply “a dead person.”—Le 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Nu 5:2; 6:6; Hag 2:13; compare Nu 19:11, 13.

Desire. At times the word ne′phesh is used to express the desire of the individual, one that fills him and then occupies him in achieving its goal. Proverbs 13:2, for example, says of those dealing treacherously that ‘their very soul is violence,’ that is, that they are ‘all out’ for violence, in effect, become violence personified. (Compare Ge 34:3, ftn; Ps 27:12; 35:25; 41:2.) Israel’s false shepherds are called “dogs strong in soul[ful desire],” who have known no satisfaction.—Isa 56:11, 12; compare Pr 23:1-3; Hab 2:5.

Serving With One’s Whole Soul. The “soul” basically means the entire person, as has been shown. Yet certain texts exhort us to seek for, love, and serve God with ‘all our heart and all our soul’ (De 4:29; 11:13, 18), while Deuteronomy 6:5 says: “You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.” Jesus said it was necessary to serve with one’s whole soul and strength and, additionally, “with your whole mind.” (Mr 12:30; Lu 10:27) The question arises as to why these other things are mentioned with the soul, since it embraces them all. To illustrate the probable meaning: A person might sell himself (his soul) into slavery to another, thereby becoming the possession of his owner and master. Yet he might not serve his master wholeheartedly, with full motivation and desire to please him, and thus he might not use his full strength or his full mental capacity to advance his master’s interests. (Compare Eph 6:5; Col 3:22.) Hence these other facets are evidently mentioned to focus attention on them so that we do not fail to remember and consider them in our service to God, to whom we belong, and to his Son, whose life was the ransom price that bought us. “Whole-souled” service to God involves the entire person, no bodily part, function, capacity, or desire being left out.—Compare Mt 5:28-30; Lu 21:34-36; Eph 6:6-9; Php 3:19; Col 3:23, 24.

Soul and Spirit Are Distinct. The “spirit” (Heb., ru′ach; Gr., pneu′ma) should not be confused with the “soul” (Heb., ne′phesh; Gr., psy·khe′), for they refer to different things. Thus, Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Word of God as ‘piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow.’ (Compare also Php 1:27; 1Th 5:23.) As has been shown, the soul (ne′phesh; psy·khe′) is the creature itself. The spirit (ru′ach; pneu′ma) generally refers to the life-force of the living creature or soul, though the original-language terms may also have other meanings.

Illustrating further the distinction between the Greek psy·khe′ and pneu′ma is the apostle Paul’s discussion, in his first letter to the Corinthians, of the resurrection of Christians to spirit life. Here he contrasts “that which is physical [psy·khi·kon′, literally, soulical]” with “that which is spiritual [pneu·ma·ti·kon′].” Thus, he shows that Christians until the time of their death have a “soulical” body, even as did the first man Adam; whereas, in their resurrection such anointed Christians receive a spiritual body like that of the glorified Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:42-49) Jude makes a somewhat similar comparison in speaking of “animalistic men [psy·khi·koi′, literally, soulical (men)], not having spirituality [literally, not having spirit (pneu′ma)].”—Jude 19.

God as Having Soul. In view of the foregoing, it appears that the scriptures in which God speaks of “my soul” (Le 26:11, 30; Ps 24:4; Isa 42:1) are yet another instance of an anthropomorphic usage, that is, the attributing of physical and human characteristics to God to facilitate understanding, as when God is spoken of as having eyes, hands, and so forth. By speaking of ‘my ne′phesh,’ Jehovah clearly means “myself” or “my person.” “God is a Spirit [Pneu′ma].”—Joh 4:24; see JEHOVAH (Descriptions of his presence).

At last some candor from a Darwinian apologist

An Honest Assessment of Why Darwinism Is Popular
Granville Sewell September 21, 2015 2:47 PM 


High school and college biology texts almost uniformly present Darwinian evolution as a theory that is now as well established as any other theory in science, and almost uniformly refuse to acknowledge that any serious scientists have doubts that the struggle for survival could produce human brains and human consciousness.


James Madison University mathematician Jason Rosenhouse has written a post criticizing a post, "Mathematicians Are Trained to Value Simplicity," that I wrote at Uncommon Descent. The main point of my article was that if you don't believe in intelligent design, you must believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone can rearrange the basic particles of physics into (for example) Apple iPhones and nuclear reactors. I linked to a video, embedded below, which makes this point in a little more "scientific" manner.My first thought on reading the response from Rosenhouse was, wouldn't it be nice if high school biology texts presented as honest an assessment of the real reasons most scientists accept Darwinism as Jason Rosenhouse does. He writes:

Personally, I find it incredible that the four fundamental forces of physics, operating from the moment after the Big Bang, could rearrange matter into everything that we see today. That unintelligent causes can ultimately lead to the creation of intelligent creatures, who can then rearrange matter and energy in clever ways, is, I entirely agree, hard to believe. And Darwinian evolution strains credulity as well. I am very sympathetic to the view that natural forces do not construct delicate, biomolecular machines.

But he concludes:

However superficially implausible they seem, the only alternative on offer is much harder to believe.

Sewell urges us to look for the simple explanation. But there is nothing simple in the idea of an omnipotent magic man who lives in the clouds. Whatever mysteries you think you have found in the naturalistic view of life pale in comparison to what happens when you try to comprehend an entity with the attributes God is said to have...

Young children are content with magical, supernatural explanations for things. But as we grow up most of us come to realize that invocations of God never really explain much of anything. They just create big mysteries where only small ones existed before.

Actually, I didn't say "God" was a simple explanation. I didn't even mention God. I just said that there was a very simple argument against any naturalistic explanation. Of course I do understand why many people find invocations of "God" difficult to accept. All explanations of how we got here are difficult to believe. Yet here we are.

But telling high school students that no good scientists doubt that the survival of the fittest can account for all the magnificent species in the living world, and pretending to be surprised that anyone would find this idea surprising, is not the only alternative to attributing it to a "magic man who lives in the clouds." There is always the alternative of honestly admitting that we don't know how life began or evolved, and that some scientists think these problems are fundamentally harder than others solved by science.

How about acknowledging, as Rosenhouse does, that "Darwinian evolution strains credulity," and that it remains popular with scientists primarily because they see it as the only alternative to intelligent design? Then maybe we could let students wrestle for themselves with the philosophical question of whether it seems more reasonable to believe that intelligence came first and created the unintelligent forces of nature, or that these unintelligent forces created intelligence.

Now if biology textbooks would start presenting evolution as candidly as Jason Rosenhouse does, I would be quite satisfied.

Dr. Sewell is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso, and author of a recent Discovery Institute Press book, In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design, 2nd edition.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on "Judgment Day"

Judgment Day—What Is It?:

HOW do you picture Judgment Day? Many think that one by one, billions of souls will be brought before the throne of God. There, judgment will be passed on each individual. Some will be rewarded with heavenly bliss, and others will be condemned to eternal torment. However, the Bible paints quite a different picture of this period of time. God’s Word portrays it, not as a terrifying time, but as a time of hope and restoration.

At Revelation 20:11, 12, we read the apostle John’s description of Judgment Day: “I saw a great white throne and the One seated on it. From before him the earth and the heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds.” Who is the Judge described here?

Jehovah God is the ultimate Judge of mankind. However, he delegates the actual work of judging. According to Acts 17:31, the apostle Paul said that God “has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed.” This appointed Judge is the resurrected Jesus Christ. (John 5:22) When, though, does Judgment Day begin? How long does it last?

The book of Revelation shows that Judgment Day begins after the war of Armageddon, when Satan’s system on earth will be destroyed.* (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:19–20:3) After Armageddon, Satan and his demons will be imprisoned in an abyss for a thousand years. During that time, the 144,000 heavenly joint heirs will be judges and will rule “as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years.” (Revelation 14:1-3; 20:1-4; Romans 8:17) Judgment Day is not some hurried event lasting a mere 24 hours. It lasts a thousand years.

During that thousand-year period, Jesus Christ will “judge the living and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1) “The living” will be the “great crowd” that survives Armageddon. (Revelation 7:9-17) The apostle John also saw “the dead . . . standing before the throne” of judgment. As Jesus promised, “those in the memorial tombs will hear [Christ’s] voice and come out” by means of a resurrection. (John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15) But on what basis will all be judged?

According to the apostle John’s vision, “scrolls were opened,” and “the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds.” (Revelation 20:12) Are these scrolls the record of people’s past deeds? No, the judgment will not focus on what people did before they died. How do we know that? The Bible says: “The one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Romans 6:7) Those resurrected thus come to life with a clean slate, so to speak. The scrolls must therefore represent God’s further requirements. To live forever, both Armageddon survivors and resurrected ones will have to obey God’s commandments, including whatever new requirements Jehovah might reveal during the thousand years. Thus, individuals will be judged on the basis of what they do during Judgment Day.

Judgment Day will give billions of people their first opportunity to learn about God’s will and to conform to it. This means that a large-scale educational work will take place. Indeed, ‘the inhabitants of the land will learn about righteousness.’ (Isaiah 26:9) However, not all will be willing to conform to God’s will. Isaiah 26:10 says: “Even if the wicked is shown favor, he will not learn righteousness. Even in the land of uprightness he will act wickedly, and he will not see the majesty of Jehovah.” These wicked ones will be put to death permanently during Judgment Day.—Isaiah 65:20.


By the end of Judgment Day, surviving humans will have “come to life” fully as perfect humans. (Revelation 20:5) Judgment Day will thus see the restoration of mankind to its original perfect state. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Then a final test will take place. Satan will be released from his imprisonment and allowed to try to mislead mankind one last time. (Revelation 20:3, 7-10) Those who resist him will enjoy the complete fulfillment of the Bible’s promise: “The righteous will possess the earth, and they will live forever on it.” (Psalm 37:29) Yes, Judgment Day will be a blessing to all faithful mankind!

Revelation's 144,000 literal or figurative.:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Questions From Readers:

Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses take the number 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation literally and not symbolically?

The apostle John wrote: “I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand.” (Revelation 7:4) In the Bible, the phrase “those who were sealed” refers to a group of individuals who are chosen from among mankind to rule with Christ in heaven over the coming Paradise earth. (2 Corinthians 1:21, 22; Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) Their number, 144,000, is understood literally for several reasons. One is found in the immediate context of Revelation 7:4.

After the apostle John was told in vision about this group of 144,000 individuals, he was shown another group. John describes this second group as “a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues.” This great crowd refers to those who will survive the coming “great tribulation,” which will destroy the present wicked world.—Revelation 7:9, 14.

Note, however, the contrast that John draws between verses 4 and 9 of Revelation chapter 7. He states that the first group, “those who were sealed,” has a definite number. However, the second group, “a great crowd,” is without a definite number. With that in mind, it is logical to take the number 144,000 to be literal. If the number 144,000 were symbolic and referred to a group that is actually numberless, the force of the contrast between those two verses would be lost. Thus, the context strongly indicates that the number 144,000 must be taken literally.

Various Bible scholars, past and present, reached the same conclusion—that is, the number is literal. For instance, in commenting on Revelation 7:4, 9, British lexicographer Dr. Ethelbert W. Bullinger observed some 100 years ago: “It is the simple statement of fact: a definite number in contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter.” (The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” page 282) More recently, Robert L. Thomas, Jr., professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary in the United States, wrote: “The case for symbolism is exegetically weak.” He added: “It is a definite number [at 7:4] in contrast with the indefinite number of 7:9. If it is taken symbolically, no number in the book can be taken literally.”—Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1, page 474.

Some argue that since Revelation contains highly symbolic language, all numbers found in this book, including the number 144,000, must be symbolic. (Revelation 1:1, 4; 2:10) That conclusion, though, is clearly not correct. Granted, Revelation contains numerous symbolic numbers, but it also includes literal numbers. For instance, John speaks of “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14) Clearly, the number 12 mentioned in this verse is literal, not symbolic. Further, the apostle John writes about “the thousand years” of Christ’s reign. That number is also to be taken literally, as a careful consideration of the Bible shows.* (Revelation 20:3, 5-7) Hence, whether a number in Revelation is to be taken literally or symbolically depends on its background and setting.

The conclusion that the number 144,000 is literal and refers to a limited number of individuals, a relatively small group when compared with the “great crowd,” also harmonizes with other Bible passages. For instance, later in the vision that the apostle John receives, the 144,000 are described as those who “were bought from among mankind as firstfruits.” (Revelation 14:1, 4) The expression “firstfruits” refers to a small representative selection. Also, while Jesus was on earth, he spoke about those who will rule with him in his heavenly Kingdom and called them a “little flock.” (Luke 12:32; 22:29) Indeed, those from among mankind who will rule in heaven are few in comparison with those of mankind who will inhabit the coming Paradise earth.


Hence, the context of Revelation 7:4 and related statements found elsewhere in the Bible bear out that the number 144,000 is to be taken literally. It refers to those who will rule in heaven with Christ over a paradise earth, which will be filled with a large and undetermined number of happy people who worship Jehovah God.—Psalm 37:29.

Continuing to rethink the unrethinkable III

Time to shut down the metropolis?:pros and cons.

Yet more hype and hubris re:the family album

Hominid Hype and Homo naledi: A Unique "Species" of Unclear Evolutionary Importance

Casey Luskin September 20, 2015 6:40 PM |

The media is once again abuzz over the discovery of a new hominin fossil. The fossil is named Homo naledi, represented by hundreds of bones found in a cave near Johannesburg, South Africa. Biologic Institute biologist Ann Gauger has already commented on the find here and here.

It has long been recognized that we are missing fossils documenting the supposed transition from the apelike genus Australopithecus to the humanlike Homo. Despite what you may be hearing in the media, Homo naledi does not solve this problem.

Some have envisioned the hallowed intermediate link being a creature with an apelike body and a human-like head. For some time, Homo habilis was such a candidate -- until cooler heads prevailed, as I noted earlier . Others have hoped we'd uncover something with a more Homo-like postcranial (below the head) skeleton but a more australopith-ape-like body. Indeed, almost exactly four years ago, in a post titled "Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle, I noted these precise arguments with regard to Australopithecus sediba.

Coincidently, we're right now in almost exactly the same place in the election cycle, and seeing almost identical claims about this new fossil discovery. Indeed, Homo naledi was discovered (and is being promoted) by the same researcher, Lee Berger, that unveiled (and promoted) sediba, although, as we'll see, naledi has a very different and unique set of traits from sediba. Numerous recent articles have hailed Homo naledi as the newest human ancestor: CNN: "Homo naledi: New species of human ancestor discovered in South Africa," PBS: "Trove of fossils from a long lost human ancestor," Vocativ: "Meet Homo Naledi: Your Newest Human Ancestor," Daily Mail: "Scientists discover skull of new human ancestor Homo Naledi," NBC New York: "Scientists Discover Homo Naledi, Early Human Ancestor," and so on.

Ironically, all of these claims are pure hype because, as we'll see, no one knows how old these bones are, and so it's entirely possible they're younger than our own species, making it, at present, a very real possibility that it's chronologically impossible for them to be anything remotely close to our "ancestor."

The main claim about Homo naledi is that it is a small-brained hominin (when compared to humans) that has other features that are very humanlike -- especially its hands and feet. As the news headlines suggest, there has been an immense amount of hype about this species, consistent with the hype surrounding Australopithecus sediba, which again was discovered and promoted by the same researcher, Lee Berger. However, while there are some humanlike aspects of its body plan, my overall impression is that this is a highly unique species that doesn't fit well into previously established categories.

The technical paper, "Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa," appeared in a lesser-known journal, eLife. It's a great find due to the sheer number of bones that were find, but to my mind its publication in eLife is immediate hint that this fossil isn't an earthshattering "transitional form," because if it were, we almost unquestionably would have seen the fossil published in Science or Nature. Many comments there reveal this fossil to be unique -- precisely with regard to features that are said to be humanlike:

Regarding the head, the technical paper states, "Cranial morphology of H. naledi is unique..." The paper continues:
H1 is further distinguished from H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens by its relatively small facets for the Mc1 and scaphoid on the trapezium, its low angle between the Mc2 and Mc3 facets on the capitate, and by its long and curved proximal and intermediate phalanges on rays 2-5.
H1 is differentiated from all known hominins in having a Mc1 that combines a mediolaterally narrow proximal end and articular facet with a mediolaterally wide distal shaft and head, a dorsopalmarly flat and strongly asymmetric (with an enlarged palmar-lateral protuberance) Mc1 head, and the combination of an overall later Homo-like carpal morphology combined with proximal and intermediate phalanges that are more curved than most australopiths. H1 also differs from all other known hominins except H. neanderthalensis in having non-pollical distal phalanges with mediolaterally broad apical tufts (relative to length).

The hands are claimed to be humanlike but they have key unique features and are, unlike human hands, are tailored for climbing. ABC News reported: "Homo naledi had human-like hands and feet, but Tattersall said it was impressive that it also had climbing features, more similar to an ape." CNN reports: "Its hands are superficially humanlike, but the finger bones are locked into a curve -- a trait that suggests climbing and tool-using capabilities." And even Berger states: "It's pretty clear from those fingers that they're [for] climbing." Moreover, the technical paper notes the hand's "unique first metacarpal morphology" and states: "One of the most unique aspects of H. naledi is the morphology of the first metacarpal; the derived aspects of this anatomy are present in every one of seven first metacarpal specimens in the collection."
The femur is unique: "The femur of H. naledi differs from those of all other known hominins in its possession of two well-defined, mediolaterally-running pillars in the femoral neck. The pillars run along the superoanterior and inferoposterior margins of the neck and define a distinct sulcus along its superior aspect."
The tibia is unique: "The tibia of H. naledi differs from those of all other known hominins in its possession of a distinct tubercle for the pes anserinus tendon."
The foot has unique traits: "The foot of H. naledi can be distinguished from the foot of H. sapiens only by its flatter lateral and medial malleolar facets on the talus, its low angle of plantar declination of the talar head, its lower orientation of the calcaneal sustentaculum tali, and its gracile calcaneal tuber." Moreover, the technical paper states:
The phalanges are moderately curved, slightly more so than in H. sapiens. The only primitive anatomies found in the foot of H. naledi are the talar head and neck declination and sustentaculum tali angles, suggestive of a lower arched foot with a more plantarly positioned and horizontally inclined medial column than typically found in modern humans.
The lower limb has unique features: "The lower limb of H. naledi is defined not only by a unique combination of primitive and derived traits, but also by the presence of unique features in the femur and tibia. ... Unique features in the lower limb of H. naledi include a depression in the superior aspect of the femoral neck that results in two mediolaterally oriented pillars inferoposteriorly and superoanteriorly, and a strong distal attachment of the pes anserinus on the tibia."
Even Berger admits, "It doesn't look a lot like us." He also states: "There may be debate over the Homo designation" since "the species is quite different from anything else we have seen."

It wouldn't be surprising if later analyses change our understanding of the fossil. One scientist suggests new interpretations may be forthcoming:

Carol Ward, a professor of pathology and anatomical sciences at the University of Missouri who was not involved with the study said she was disappointed by the lack of empirical data presented in the paper. "There are only tiny composite pictures of the fossils, so you can't see them and there are no comparative data comparing it to anything else," said Ward. "There's nothing we can use to make our own judgments about the validity of what they are saying."
An "Anatomical Mosaic"

For now, the promoters of Homo naledi are are calling it an "anatomical mosaic." That terminology raises a red flag. In the parlance of evolutionary biology, it means the fossil is a strange organism that doesn't fit well into the standard phylogeny. Indeed, just four years ago Australopithecus sediba was the transitional form du jure between Australopithecus and Homo. If people now want to advocate Homo naledi as the new transition, then they have to radically change the phylogeny. As Berger confirms, the two species have very different mixtures of traits:

"Naledi is almost the mirror of sediba," says Berger. "Almost everywhere in the sediba skeleton where you see primitive features, in naledi you see derived features. And almost everywhere that sediba is derived, naledi is primitive."
If Australopithecus sediba somehow turned into Homo naledi, then that would be a very odd, unparisimonious evolutionary story. Yet both species have now been called a human ancestor in the past few years. The claims, it would seem, cannot both be true.

Another major challenge to claims for naledi as a transitional form is the fact that the age of these newly reported fossils is currently totally unknown. Thus it's not at all clear how it might fit into any evolutionary scheme. For all we know at present, the fossils are very young (say, less than 250,000 years old), and are far removed from any hypothetical evolutionary transition between Australopithecus and Homo.

There are at least four controversies surrounding Homo naledi we're probably going to be hearing about for a long time. These strike at the heart of whether the species -- if it is a single species -- is a some kind of a "transitional form" or just another weird hominin that might not fit anywhere else:

Controversy 1: How Old Is Homo naledi?

No one knows the age -- either generally or precisely -- of the bones currently assigned to Homo naledi. As The Scientist reports:

The team has not yet been able to determine an approximate age for the fossils. Ward said this information will be key to interpreting their significance to human evolution. "It's an amazing collection of fossils, unprecedented and stunning," she said, "but without a date, they don't tell us much other than there was another kind of hominin out there."
Likewise Scientific American notes,

The age of the fossils has yet to be determined, leaving other scientists unsure of what to make of them. ... exactly where H. naledi belongs in the human family tree, apart from somewhere on the Homo branch, is unclear. The confusion arises in large part from the fact that thus far the researchers have been unable to determine the age of the bones.
But some of naledi's advocates think they know what to make of the fossils, despite the compete current lack of an age for these fossils. How do they know? Evolutionary assumptions, which drive a desire among some that the bones should turn out to be somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million years old. As the Associated Press reports:

Lee Berger, a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who led the work, said naledi's anatomy suggest that it arose at or near the root of the Homo group, which would make the species some 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old. The discovered bones themselves may be younger, he said.
It is evolutionary interpretations, not the data, that are guiding the proposed dates of the bones. Smithsonian paleoanthropologist Rick Potts brings the conversation back to earth:

Rick Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the discovery, said that without an age, "there's no way we can judge the evolutionary significance of this find."
If the bones are about as old as the Homo group, that would argue that naledi is "a snapshot of ... the evolutionary experimentation that was going on right around the origin" of Homo, he said. If they are significantly younger, it either shows the naledi retained the primitive body characteristics much longer than any other known creature, or that it re-evolved them, he said.

Until the ages are determined, it's better to remain cautious about interpretations of these fossils -- something the media has not been doing lately.
Controversy 2: Is Homo naledi a single species?

The question of whether the bones currently assigned to Homo naledi represent a single species may seem like an academic one but it actually could bear directly upon whether it's something like a transitional form, or nothing of the kind. Jeffrey Schwartz, an anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh, thinks the bones represent multiple species because of the two different types of skulls found in the cave:

Inevitably, though, there are dissenting views. "To me, having studied virtually the entire human fossil record, the specimens lumped together as Homo naledi represent two cranial morphs," says Jeffrey Schwartz at the University of Pittsburgh in Philadelphia.
[...]

As for the Dinaledi finds, Schwartz and Tattersall point out that although the foreheads of some of the new skulls are gently sloped, one skull has a taller forehead with a distinct brow ridge -- suggesting two species are present. "Putting these fossils in the genus Homo adds to the lack of clarity in trying to sort out human evolution," says Schwartz.

That's a very significant observation. There are two different types of skulls found in the cave. Normally that would suggest multiple species, but these authors want there to be a single species with a small brain and human-like hands and feet -- the "transitional mosaic."
Thus, according to New Scientist, Lee Berger explains away the criticisms of Schwartz and Tattersall. He says the different skulls "can be explained by differences between males and females of the same species." Perhaps so, but it's also a very real possibility that there are multiple species within the cave.

The fact that Berger appeals to sexual dimorphism (different morphologies between males and females of a single species) to explain the different skulls is revealing. It shows that there is indeed a challenge to his "single species" claim. However, if there are multiple species, then you don't necessarily know that humanlike hands and feet didn't come from something more like us, whereas the small heads came from another species more like an australopith. We just don't know. As Nature News reports:

Jeffrey Schwartz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, thinks that the material is too varied to represent a single species. "I could show those images to my students and they would say that they're not the same," he says. One of the skulls looks more like it comes from an australopithecine, he says, as do certain features of the femurs.
Complicating all of this is the fact that many of the bones were jumbled up in the cave. CNN reports:

"The first thing that you would see, especially in the early stages of the investigation, was just bones. Bone debris everywhere," says K. Lindsay Hunter, an American scientist and one of the "astronauts" on the Rising Star expeditions, which were conducted in November 2013 and March 2014.
Likewise ABC News reports:

"Everywhere that my headlamp shone, I could see that there was bone on the floor. Not full bone but fragments of material," Marina Elliott, one of the authors of the study detailing the find, told BBC News. "It was an incredible thing to see."
Observations like these show how it can be very difficult to determine which hands or feet were connected to what craniums and other bones in a living individual. The discoverers/promoters of the fossils claim they all belong to a single species, but do we know that's true?

Controversy 3: Did Homo naledi Bury Its Dead?

A major claim being promoted in the media holds that Homo naledi ritualistically buried its dead, a testimony to its supposedly human-like intellect. The New York Times described it this way:

Besides introducing a new member of the prehuman family, the discovery suggests that some early hominins intentionally deposited bodies of their dead in a remote and largely inaccessible cave chamber, a behavior previously considered limited to modern humans. Some of the scientists referred to the practice as a ritualized treatment of their dead, but by "ritual" they said they meant a deliberate and repeated practice, not necessarily a kind of religious rite.
Even if this story is true, it's not the case that this species buried its dead in any manner like humans bury their dead. The bones weren't buried in the ground. Rather, it seems like the bodies were just tossed into the back crevice of a cave and left there to rot, as New Scientist explains:

The cave layout seems not to have changed in thousands of years, so either bodies were dragged into the caves and "posted" down the shaft, or else people crawled down there alive and subsequently died.
The bones were found at the very back of a large cave in a small chamber that was separated from the cave through a narrow bottleneck, kind of like a stomach that's separated by something like an esophagus. As New Scientist explains, "To reach the chamber, you have to descend through a narrow, 12-metre vertical shaft."

The cave layout means that if this species did "bury" its dead, then it would have had to crawl very far back into a deep dark cave, dragging a body with it. Some have suggested that would require using torches. Is that likely? This species had a small brain not much larger than a chimp, and we definitely don't see any extant evidence that species with that kind of intelligence could use fire, or bury its dead. Burial by torchlight seems highly unlikely for a species of this level of intelligence. As Scientific American explains:

The suggestion that small-brained H. naledi was systematically disposing of its dead has likewise raised eyebrows. "It would be quite radical," says Alison Brooks of George Washington University. "There are people who think Neandertals didn't bury their dead," she observes. (Neandertals are our closest relatives; they had brains as large as our own and engaged in a host of sophisticated behaviors. Whether or not they buried their dead is a matter of some debate. ) "I don't want to rule it out entirely that they're right, but I just think it is so far out there that they really need a higher standard of proof." Brooks adds that the team would have a better case if it could show that the remains all date to the same time period.
Another problem is that "burying" the dead in this manner would require shimmying through a very narrow crevice in the cave while dragging a body -- something that could be physically challenging for any hominin of any level of intelligence to do. The Scientist explains what modern-day researchers had to go through to get to the chamber where the bones were found:

To reach the ancient specimen-rich chamber, researchers had to squeeze through a tiny gap just 7.5 inches wide. The remains appear to have arrived in the cave fully intact and decomposed after deposition. Researchers found no indication of predation. ... Ward is also skeptical of the intentional burial explanation. "If it's really that hard to get to the cave, how do you get to that long dark cave carrying your dead grandmother?" she asked.
Indeed, even if there is deliberate disposal of the dead, that doesn't necessarily mean that members of Homo naledi were the ones doing the burying, as the Associated Press reminds us: "Potts said a deliberate disposal of dead bodies is a feasible explanation, but he added it's not clear who did the disposing. Maybe it was some human relative other than naledi, he said."

An article at IFL Science frames the problem well:

So how did this collection of individuals arrive in this dark, isolated and extremely difficult to access cave? And difficult is not an understatement: one of the narrowest cracks was a mere 17.5 centimeters wide, and as far as the group can tell, there were no other entrances to the tiny chamber. So unwelcoming that no other species were found here, aside from a few rodent and bird bones.
Unless the cave has changed significantly, it would be very difficult to drag a dead body through such a small gap.

So what happened? Much more likely, the individuals who were found in the back of the cave got there alive, wriggling their way in on their own.

There is a good explanation of how these bones got there, an explanation that's consistent with all the evidence: the individuals were running away from a predator and fled into the deep darkness of a cave where perhaps they got stuck or lost. Perhaps they were afraid to leave the cave. Perhaps it was too dark to find their way out. In any event, in this scenario, they died. Whatever the reason, it's easy to imagine these apelike creatures fleeing into a deep, dark cave as the most expedient way to escape when being chased by some unfriendly African predator (pick your species). At least one person, Travis Pickering of the University of Wisconsin, seems to feel the same way, as Scientific American reports:

Pickering adds that it is impossible to say whether the H. naledi individuals were lured or pushed into the cave to be murdered, or whether they were placed there, once dead, as part of a ritual. In fact, another, contemporaneous human species might have disposed of H. naledi's bones in that spot."
And even if the individuals were placed at the back of the cave by their friends after they died, does that mean they were "buried"? William Jungers says no. He explains in The Scientist:

William Jungers, chair of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University in New York who was not involved with the study, cautioned against attributing too much meaning to the notion of intentional burial. "Dumping conspecifics down a hole may just be better than letting them decay around you," he said. Jungers added that there may once have been another, easier to access, entrance to the cave.
Given the lack of evidence and the availability of plausible alternatives, why do naledi's discoverers prefer the theory that the species ritualistically buried its dead ? IFL Science suggests an explanation:

After ruling all of the probable scenarios, such as mass death, transport by water and predation, the team was left with the improbable: this species was deliberately, repeatedly disposing of its dead in a protected area, away from the external environment. Before now, we thought that was a characteristic specific to modern humans.
Actually I don't think this is entirely correct. The team that discovered Homo naledi seems to have ignored the obvious interpretation -- that the individuals were trying to escape predators -- in favor of the view that they were burying their dead. The species' promoters preferred this explanation because they want a small-brained species that has human-like behavior. Evolutionary considerations, again, are what's driving the conclusions here.

Controversy 4: Does "Homo" naledi Belong in Homo?

As I discussed recently, the definition of the genus Homo is controversial, and definitions are often influenced by evolutionary biases. In that article I recounted how Jeffrey Schwartz and Ian Tattersall argued that species have often been sloppily shoehorned into Homo. Given that Schwartz and Tattersall have been critical of placing naledi within Homo, their recent piece in Science may have been a preemptive strike against the promoters of naledi placing it within "Homo."

Ian Tattersall told ABC News: "We're [probably] looking at a cousin rather than an ancestor, but who knows."

"Who knows..." That is exactly right. Even Berger stated: "We need to be very cautious about proclaiming everything we find as the direct ancestors of humans, it's clear there are a lot of experiments going on out there."

Isn't that the central message here? It should be, which therefore makes it odd that Berger told the New York Times that naledi is a "new species of human ancestor."

In any case, other scientists are skeptical that it belongs in Homo, as Scientific American reports:

The team's claims have met with skepticism. "I find [the discovery] fabulous but confusing," says Susan Antón of New York University, who studies the evolution of Homo. She notes that the remains highlight an ongoing debate among paleoanthropologists about what constitutes the genus in the first place. Early Homo fossils tend to be scrappy at best, which makes it hard to figure out which traits first distinguished our genus from Australopithecus. H. naledi has multiple body parts preserved, but "we don't have any idea how old this stuff is or whether it's relevant to the origin of Homo," Antón comments.
Bernard Wood of George Washington University agrees with the authors that the remains represent a new species, but he does not think that they will force experts to revise the overarching story of human evolution. Instead he suspects that bones represent a relic population that might have evolved its odd traits in relative isolation in South Africa, which he describes as a cul de sac at the bottom of the African continent. Wood points to another small-brained species of Homo, H. floresiensis from the island of Flores in Indonesia, as another example of such a relic population.

As I noted above in listing "Homo" naledi's unique feature, the species is primarily said to belong in Homo on the basis of its hands and feet -- but even those parts of the body have unique features. Another major feature said to place the species within Homo is its relatively tall height of about 5 feet. But such a height is known within australopithecines as well, as the technical paper explains:
H. naledi has a range of body mass similar to small-bodied modern human populations, and is similar in estimated stature to both small-bodied humans and the largest known australopiths. ... Some large australopiths also had long tibiae and presumably comparably tall statures, as evidenced by the KSD-VP 1/1 skeleton from Woranso-Mille.
So its stature was not necessarily humanlike and could be australopithlike. For me, here's the most significant reason why it doesn't belong in Homo: "The endocranial volume of all H. naledi specimens is clearly small compared to most known examples of Homo." That's an understatement. The paper continues: "The resulting estimates of approximately 560cc and 465cc, respectively, overlap entirely with the range of endocranial volumes known for australopiths. Within the genus Homo, only the smallest specimens of H. habilis, one single H. erectus specimen, and H. floresiensis overlap with these values." (And as we've noted recently, habilis probably doesn't belong in Homo.)

Schwartz himself wrote a scathing op-ed in Newsweek, "Why the Homo Naledi Discovery May Not Be Quite What it Seems." He argued that "Homo naledi" may in fact represent multiple species, and probably doesn't belong in Homo:

Enter the newly announced species, Homo naledi, which is claimed to be our direct ancestor because it has features of australopiths and Homo. Why is it a species of Homo? Because some specimens seem to be like us. Why australopith? Because other specimens have some of their features. Why do all belong to the same species? Because they were found in the same cave. but, the published images tell a different story.
Viewed from the side, two partial skulls are long and low, with a long gently sloping forehead that flows smoothly into the brow -- nothing like us, or most specimens regarded as Homo. A third partial skull is very short and rounded, with a high-rising forehead that is distinguished from a distinct, well-defined brow by a shallow gutter -- not like the other skulls, and not like us or most specimens regarded as Homo. The femur has a small head (the ball end that fits in the hip socket) that is connected to the shaft of the bone by a long neck, and, below the neck, is a "bump" of bone that points backward. These features are seen in every australopith femur. In us, and all other living primates, the head of the femur is large and the neck short, and the "bump" points inward. Further, the teeth are very similar to those from a nearby fossil site that has yielded various kinds of australopith. Even at this stage of their being publicized, the "Homo naledi" specimens reflect even greater diversity in the human fossil record than their discoverers will admit.

The specimens found in this cave are very diverse, suggesting they might belong to multiple species. But if that's the case, then we don't know that we've found one single species with a mixture of human-like and australopithecine traits. The supposedly transitional "mosaic" falls apart.

This brings us back, in a full circle, to Australopithecus sediba. As I mentioned at the beginning, exactly four years ago the media were eagerly promoting that species as the latest "human ancestor" or "transitional form." And what happened? What always happens happened: cooler heads prevailed and it was found that sediba was from the wrong time period and had the wrong set of traits to be a link between humanlike members of the genus Homo and the apelike members of Australopithecus. What will become of "Homo naledi" remains to be seen. So far, though, its pathway reminds me of other hominin fossils whose "transitional" or "ancestral" status ultimately went belly up. A strong dose of healthy skepticism is warranted.