The thumb print of Jehovah.

Another oversimplification demystified

Frederick W. Franz and Biblical Hebrew

A number of critical websites make assertions to the effect that Frederick W. Franz, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses until his death in 1992, was unable to translate a simple verse from Hebrew into English, when asked to do so during a court case in Scotland in 1954.

When one man wrote to me about the above assertion, I challenged him to prove it. He replied by sending me a copy of Robert Hommel's article on the subject. Hommel, however, concedes that Franz was not asked to translate from Hebrew into English, but from English into Hebrew. A number of other sources, however, continue to misrepresent the facts._[1]

  Franz was not asked to translate from Hebrew into English, but from English into Hebrew - a different matter altogether. 

Now, as the court record shows, Franz refused to translate a Bible verse from English into Hebrew. First of all, we must agree with Stafford_[2]  that the fact that Franz refused to do so, saying "No, I won't attempt to do that," doesn't mean that he couldn't do it. After all, his knowledge of Hebrew or Greek was not in the slightest relevant to the subject of the court case at hand, which was whether Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to ordain ministers of religion . A court is not a circus and Franz certainly wasn't obliged to go along with some lawyer's dubious tactics. Franz stood up for himself and refused to play along.

At this point it is worth asking what the attorney's point was. It should go without saying that if you have a sentence in language A and you translate it into language B and then someone else translates it back into language A again, you won't necessarily end up with the sentence you started with. Hence, asking someone to translate a text from language B back into language A and then compare the result with the original text really proves nothing. If that was the lawyer's intention, he was either extremely naive regarding how language and translation work, or he was being disingenuous. And yet, someone ignorant of how translation works could easily be fooled into thinking that the rendering was defective, simply because it was not identical with the original text. (Presumably this is what Millard means by his observation, 'but, of course, we have the Hebrew text of Genesis'.) So the lawyer's question either revealed a lamentable lack of understanding of translation principles on his part - or else it was a trap. Under those circumstances, Franz had nothing to gain by attempting to translate.

Note, also, how Hommel tries to put words into Millard's mouth. All Millard said was that he 'saw no great problem' in rendering the verse into Hebrew, but according to Hommel, Millard confirms that "there is no good reason for Franz to have  refused to perform an English-to-Hebrew translation". This is not what Millard said and, as we have seen, leaves out other likely reasons for Franz' refusal.

But even supposing for the sake of argument (not conceding) that Franz was unable to translate Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew, would that affect this qualifications as a Bible translator? Is translating from English into Hebrew the same as translating from Hebrew into English? An important principle in translation work is this: you work from the foreign language into your mother tongue. Contradicting Hommel's view that this is a "detail", something "of little significance in determining Franz's skill in Biblical Hebrew", The Translator's Handbook by Morry Sofer points out:

"A distinction must be made between the languages one translates from and into. Generally speaking, one translates from another language into one's own native language. This is because one is usually intimately familiar with one's own language, while even years of study and experience do not necessarily enable one to be completely at home with an acquired language. The exceptions to this rule are usually those people who have lived in more than one culture, and have spoken more than one language on a regular basis. Those may be able to translate in both directions. There are also rare gifted individuals who have mastered another language to such a degree that they can go both ways. They are indeed extremely rare. Given all of this, one should allow for the fact that while the ability of the accomplished translator to write and speak in the target language (i.e., one's native tongue) may be flawless, that person may not necessarily be able to write excellent prose or give great speeches in the source language (i.e., the language from which one translates). Then again, it is not necessary to be able to write and speak well in the language one translates from, while it is to be expected that a good translator is also a good writer and speaker in his or her native language."_[4]

What the Translator's Handbook says here is self-evident to most people working in translation.._[5]  Many people work as competent translators without being able speak or write the source language well. That is not to say that they can't speak it at all, but they can't speak it flawlessly. Translating, on the other hand, which implies understanding the text in the source language and rendering it into the target language, is a different matter altogether. F. W. Franz certainly knew the difference. He had just told the court: "I do not speak Hebrew." So, obviously, the fact that Franz decided not to translate the verse certainly does not prove that he was incompetent to translate Hebrew into English and is even less relevant to the question of whether he could translate Greek into English.

  It is not necessary to be able to write and speak well in the language that one translates from 

The Translator's Handbook

In any case, as Stafford - who does know Hebrew - points out in his book, the verse in question (Genesis 2:4) isn't all that easy to translate. He says: "It should not be overlooked that this verse is actually somewhat complicated. It has no finite verb but one Niphal infinitive construct, with suffix, and one Qal infinitive construct"_[6] Even Hommel's own star witness, Millard, recognises that there is "uncertainty over the passage."!

Indeed, Rolf Furuli relates his own experiment with two professors of Hebrew:

"I asked two of my colleagues who teach Hebrew at the University of Oslo, to translate the passage. Both had problems with the translation from English to Hebrew, even though they both are experienced teachers, and their results were very different."_[7]

In fact, all Bible translators, not just the NWT translators, make generous use of lexicons, grammars, commentaries and other translation aids. Few, if any, of them approach their work so casually as to attempt to translate without recourse to all the printed scholarship that is available. It is simply not expected of a translator that he or she should be able to work without all these aids. As The Translator's Handbook puts it:

No translator, no matter how accomplished or well versed in both the source and target languages, can do without dictionaries and reference literature._[8]

  Two of my colleagues who teach Hebrew at the University of Oslo ... had problems with the translation [of Genesis 2:4] from English to Hebrew 

Rolf Furuli

So, translation involves careful study of a wide variety of resources. Furthermore, translation is a synergistic group effort, in which a number of different translators contribute their expertise and talents. Additionally, there is no reason why the New World Translation Committee could not have sought the input and comments of a number of authorities on Bible languages, both inside and outside the Jehovah's Witnesses organization.

Finally, Millard observes that 'there is a difference between translating into a language and freely composing in it'. He doesn't state what the difference is, but we would submit that translating into a language is actually more difficult. When expressing your own thoughts in a foreign language, if you have difficulty with a certain sentence construction, grammatical detail or vocabulary item, you have the option of stating matters differently. You have the right to express your thoughts in your own words. But when you're translating, the thoughts aren't yours. You have the additional responsibility to faithfully represent the original. So you are working under tighter constraints. Translation is therefore more difficult than freely composing in a language. And, of course, translating verbally before an audience, without preparation and under psychological pressure, is more difficult still.

So, leaving aside for a moment the unresolved question of whether Franz was even on the NWT translation committee, my correspondent's original assertion, namely that Franz was unable to translate a simple verse from Hebrew into English has been demonstrated to be incorrect in all its details.

(1) Franz was asked to translate into Hebrew not from Hebrew into English.

(2) It can't be proved that Franz couldn't translate the verse, only that he didn't want to, and there are perfectly reasonable alternative explanations for that.  

(3) It is not a simple verse, as two teachers of Hebrew at University level had difficulty in translating it and even Hommel's own source says that there is 'uncertainty over the passage'.

A quick Google search shows that there are quite a few sites still perpetuating this calumny. That should raise a red flag for cautious readers, some of whom might like to try an experiment: write to one or two of them and suggesting that they correct the error? There is more than enough evidence for them to do so. If it is just an oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to smear Franz, then surely they'll be happy to make a correction and issue an apology. If, on the other hand, what they're really up to is character assassination, then the best you can hope for is that they'll ignore you.

The real truth is this: Witness critics don't like Franz because he was a Jehovah's Witness. They have deliberately misrepresented the facts about this whole matter, slinging as much dirt as they can in Franz' direction, hoping that some of it will stick. These are the worst kind of gutter tactics and pretty much what we have come to expect from many critics of the Watch Tower. Even if we do not agree with every rendering in the New World Translation, it is time for critics to admit that it is not some sort of evil propaganda but rather it's what James Parkinson calls it: "A relatively accurate translation from another theological perspective." So how about it? If Benjamin Kedar - quoted in the article Hommel and the New World Translation - can admit the accuracy of the New World Translation without becoming a Jehovah's Witness, so can they!

The Gospel:The Watchtower Society's commentary

GOOD NEWS

This refers to the good news of the Kingdom of God and of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. It is called in the Bible “the good news of the kingdom” (Mt 4:23), “the good news of God” (Ro 15:16), “the good news about Jesus Christ” (Mr 1:1), “the good news of the undeserved kindness of God” (Ac 20:24), “the good news of peace” (Eph 6:15), and the “everlasting good news” (Re 14:6).

The Greek word translated “good news” (“gospel” in KJ and some other versions) is eu·ag·geʹli·on. “An evangelizer” (the English word being almost a transliteration of the Greek) is a preacher of the good news.—Ac 21:8; 2Ti 4:5.

Its Content. An idea of the content and scope of the good news can be gained from the above designations. It includes all the truths about which Jesus spoke and the disciples wrote. While men of old hoped in God and had faith through knowledge of Him, God’s purpose and undeserved kindness were first “made clearly evident through the manifestation of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death but has shed light upon life and incorruption through the good news.”—2Ti 1:9, 10.

Centuries earlier God had declared the good news to Abraham, thereby indicating the means by which he purposed to provide the good news. He said: “By means of you all the nations will be blessed.” (Ga 3:8) Later, through the prophet Isaiah, Jehovah spoke of the preaching of the good news. Jesus Christ read from this prophecy in the synagogue at Nazareth, afterward saying: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.” (Lu 4:16-21) Isaiah’s prophecy described the purpose and effect of the good news to be preached, particularly from the time of Messiah’s coming.—Isa 61:1-3.

Its Progress. At Jesus’ birth the angel announced to the shepherds: “Have no fear, for, look! I am declaring to you good news of a great joy that all the people will have.” (Lu 2:10) John the Baptizer prepared the way for Jesus’ preaching of the good news, saying to the Jews: “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Mt 3:1, 2) Jesus said of John’s preaching: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.”—Mt 11:12.

During Jesus’ earthly ministry, he confined his preaching of the good news to the Jews and proselytes, saying: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mt 15:24) When sending out the 12 apostles, he commanded them: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter into a Samaritan city; but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mt 10:5, 6) On one occasion he preached to a woman of the Samaritans, who were related to the Israelites, but this was not because he had gone into the city to preach. However, the response of the woman and others was so favorable that Jesus stayed with them for two days.—Joh 4:7-42.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he gave his disciples the command: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19, 20) He also told them that their preaching would reach to “the most distant part of the earth.” (Ac 1:8) But for about three and a half years afterward the holy spirit led the disciples to confine their preaching to Jews and Samaritans. Then Peter was sent by God to bring the good news to the household of the Roman army officer Cornelius. (Ac chaps 10, 11; 15:7) From that time on, the good news was declared to the greatest possible extent over the widest area.

Its Importance. The apostle Paul wrote with strong conviction about the provision for salvation that God had made through Jesus Christ. He declared that if anyone was to declare to the Galatians something beyond what they had learned, something that was actually a different teaching, “let him be accursed.” Then, pointing to the source of the good news that he declared, Paul stated: “Neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, except through revelation by Jesus Christ.” (Ga 1:8, 11, 12) This strong declaration was necessary, for even then there were some who were trying to overthrow the true faith by preaching ‘another good news.’ (2Co 11:4; Ga 1:6, 7) Paul warned of an apostasy to come and stated that ‘the mystery of lawlessness’ was already at work; he admonished Christians to remember the purpose of the good news and to stand firm and maintain their hold on the spirit-guided traditions they had learned through the apostles.—2Th 2:3, 7, 14, 15; see TRADITION.

Faithfulness in holding on to and continuing to proclaim the good news was counted by Jesus as more important than one’s present life, and Paul recognized that faithfully declaring it was vital. (Mr 8:35; 1Co 9:16; 2Ti 1:8) The individual might suffer the loss of his most cherished possessions, even undergoing persecutions but, in turn, would receive a hundredfold now, “houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, . . . and in the coming system of things everlasting life.”—Mr 10:29, 30.

The good news is the touchstone by which mankind is judged: Acceptance of and obedience to the good news result in salvation; rejection and disobedience bring destruction. (1Pe 4:5, 6, 17; 2Th 1:6-8) Particularly with this fact in view, the individual’s motive in preaching the good news must be pure and he must preach it from the heart, out of love for those hearing. The apostles were so appreciative of the life-giving importance of the good news and were so fired with God’s spirit and with love that they imparted not only the good news but also their “own souls” to those who listened to their preaching. (1Th 2:8) God provided that the proclaimers of the good news had the right to accept material help from those to whom they brought it. (1Co 9:11-14) But Paul and his close associates so cherished their privilege as bearers of the good news that they carefully avoided making financial gain therefrom, or even giving the appearance of doing so in connection with their preaching. The apostle Paul describes his course of action in this regard at 1 Corinthians 9:15-18 and 1 Thessalonians 2:6, 9.

Enemies. The good news has been bitterly fought, and the source of the enmity is identified by the apostle: “If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.” (2Co 4:3, 4) The earliest enemies of the good news were the religious leaders of the Jews. Their enmity, however, resulted in good to the Gentiles, or people of the nations, in that it opened up the opportunity for Gentiles to be fellow partakers of “the promise in union with Christ Jesus through the good news.”—Ro 11:25, 28; Eph 3:5, 6.

Enemies of the good news caused the Christians much suffering and required the apostles to put up a hard fight before rulers in defending and legally establishing the good news so that it might spread with the greatest possible freeness.—Php 1:7, 16; compare Mr 13:9-13; Ac 4:18-20; 5:27-29.

Jesus’ Earthly Ministry and His Return. It is noteworthy that, for about six months before Jesus came to him for baptism, John the Baptizer preached: “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near,” and when Jesus appeared, John pointed to Jesus as “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!” (Mt 3:1, 2; Joh 1:29) Thus he turned the people’s attention toward the long-awaited Messianic King.—Ac 19:4.

While Jesus was on earth, he and his disciples announced: “The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Mt 4:17; 10:7) Jesus, anointed as Christ, the King, said to the Pharisees, his enemies: “The kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Lu 17:20, 21) This was the theme, or central point, of the good news during Jesus’ earthly ministry. However, it is not reported that after Jesus’ death the disciples proclaimed the Kingdom as having “drawn near” or as being at hand. Rather, the good news they preached was that after Jesus had laid down his life as the ransom price for salvation, he ascended to heaven and was then sitting at God’s right hand. They also preached about Jesus’ return at a later time and his Kingdom to come.—Heb 10:12, 13; 2Ti 4:1; Re 11:15; 12:10; 22:20; compare Lu 19:12, 15.

Jesus’ disciples asked him, “What will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” In his answer Jesus enumerated certain things due to occur at that time. He said, among other things: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Mt 24:3, 14; Mr 13:10; compare Col 1:23.) In the Revelation given to the apostle John about 96 C.E., John saw an “angel flying in midheaven” who had “everlasting good news to declare as glad tidings to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people, saying in a loud voice: ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of the judgment by him has arrived.’” (Re 14:6, 7) These inspired statements indicate that in the “last days” there would be an unparalleled proclamation of the good news of the Kingdom.

On Jehovah's temple:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

TEMPLE

A divine habitation, sacred place or sanctuary, either physical or spiritual, that is employed for worship. The Hebrew word heh·khalʹ, translated “temple,” also means “palace.” The Greek hi·e·ronʹ and na·osʹ are both rendered “temple” and may refer to the entire temple complex or to its central edifice; na·osʹ, meaning “sanctuary” or “divine habitation (dwelling),” at times refers specifically to the sacred inner rooms of the temple.—See HOLY PLACE.

Solomon’s Temple. King David entertained a strong desire to build a house for Jehovah, to contain the ark of the covenant, which was “dwelling in the middle of tent cloths.” Jehovah was pleased with David’s proposal but told him that, because he had shed much blood in warfare, his son (Solomon) would be privileged to do the building. This was not to say that God did not approve David’s wars fought in behalf of Jehovah’s name and His people. But the temple was to be built in peace by a man of peace.—2Sa 7:1-16; 1Ki 5:3-5; 8:17; 1Ch 17:1-14; 22:6-10.

Cost. Later David purchased the threshing floor of Ornan (Araunah) the Jebusite on Mount Moriah as the temple site. (2Sa 24:24, 25; 1Ch 21:24, 25) He amassed 100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver, and copper and iron in great abundance, besides contributing from his personal fortune 3,000 talents of gold and 7,000 talents of silver. He also received as contributions from the princes, gold worth 5,000 talents and 10,000 darics and silver worth 10,000 talents, as well as much iron and copper. (1Ch 22:14; 29:3-7) This total, amounting to 108,000 talents and 10,000 darics of gold and 1,017,000 talents of silver, would be worth $48,337,047,000 at current values. His son Solomon did not spend the entire amount in building the temple; the remainder he put in the temple treasury.—1Ki 7:51; 2Ch 5:1.

Workmen. King Solomon began building the temple for Jehovah in the fourth year of his reign (1034 B.C.E.), in the second month, Ziv, following the architectural plan that David had received by inspiration. (1Ki 6:1; 1Ch 28:11-19) The work continued over a seven-year period. (1Ki 6:37, 38) In exchange for wheat, barley, oil, and wine, Hiram king of Tyre supplied timbers from Lebanon along with skilled workers in wood and stone, and one special expert, also named Hiram, whose father was a Tyrian and his mother an Israelitess of the tribe of Naphtali. This man was a fine workman in gold, silver, copper, iron, wood, stones, and fabrics.—1Ki 5:8-11, 18; 7:13, 14, 40, 45; 2Ch 2:13-16.

In organizing the work, Solomon conscripted 30,000 men out of Israel, sending them to Lebanon in shifts of 10,000 for a month, with a two-month stay at home between shifts. (1Ki 5:13, 14) As burden bearers, he conscripted 70,000 from among the “alien residents” in the land, and as cutters, 80,000. (1Ki 5:15; 9:20, 21; 2Ch 2:2) As foremen over the work, Solomon appointed 550 men and apparently 3,300 as assistants. (1Ki 5:16; 9:22, 23) It appears that, of these, 250 were Israelites and 3,600 were “alien residents” in Israel.—2Ch 2:17, 18.

Length of “cubit” used. In the following discussion of the measurements of the three temples—built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod—we shall calculate them on the basis of the cubit of 44.5 cm (17.5 in.). However, it is possible that they used the longer cubit of about 51.8 cm (20.4 in.).—Compare 2Ch 3:3 (which mentions a “length in cubits by the former measurement,” this perhaps being a longer measure than the cubit that came to be commonly in use) and Eze 40:5; see CUBIT.

Plan and materials. The temple, a most magnificent structure, followed the general plan of the tabernacle. However, the inside dimensions of the Holy and Most Holy were greater than those of the tabernacle. The Holy was 40 cubits (17.8 m; 58.3 ft) long, 20 cubits (8.9 m; 29.2 ft) wide, and evidently 30 cubits (13.4 m; 43.7 ft) high. (1Ki 6:2, 17) The Most Holy was a cube 20 cubits on a side. (1Ki 6:20; 2Ch 3:8) Additionally, there were roof chambers over the Most Holy that were approximately 10 cubits (4.5 m; 14.6 ft) high. (1Ch 28:11) There was also a side structure around the temple on three sides, containing storage chambers, and so forth.—1Ki 6:4-6, 10.

Materials used were primarily stone and wood. The floors of these rooms were overlaid with juniper wood; the inside walls were of cedar engraved with carvings of cherubs, palm trees, and blossoms; the walls and ceiling were entirely overlaid with gold. (1Ki 6:15, 18, 21, 22, 29) The doors of the Holy (at the temple entrance) were made of juniper—carved and overlaid with gold foil. (1Ki 6:34, 35) Doors of oil-tree wood, likewise carved and overlaid with gold, provided entrance between the Holy and Most Holy. Whatever their exact position, these doors did not fully replace the curtain arrangement that had been in effect in the tabernacle. (Compare 2Ch 3:14.) Two gigantic cherubs of oil-tree wood, gold overlaid, occupied the Most Holy. Under these the ark of the covenant was placed.—1Ki 6:23-28, 31-33; 8:6; see CHERUB No. 1.

All the utensils of the Holy were of gold: the altar of incense, the ten tables of showbread, and the ten lampstands, together with their appurtenances. Beside the entrance to the Holy (the first compartment) stood two copper pillars, called “Jachin” and “Boaz.” (1Ki 7:15-22, 48-50; 1Ch 28:16; 2Ch 4:8; see BOAZ, II.) The inner courtyard was constructed of fine stone and cedarwood. (1Ki 6:36) The courtyard furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, the great “molten sea,” ten carriages for water basins, and other utensils were of copper. (1Ki 7:23-47) Dining rooms were provided around the perimeter of the courtyards.—1Ch 28:12.

An outstanding feature of the construction of this temple was the fact that all the stone was cut at the quarry, so that it fit perfectly at the temple site. “As for hammers and axes or any tools of iron, they were not heard in the house while it was being built.” (1Ki 6:7) The work was completed in seven and a half years (from spring 1034 B.C.E. to fall [Bul, the eighth month] 1027 B.C.E.).—1Ki 6:1, 38.

Inauguration. In the seventh month, Ethanim, apparently in the 12th year of Solomon’s reign (1026 B.C.E.), Solomon congregated the men of Israel to Jerusalem for the temple inauguration and the Festival of Booths. The tabernacle with its holy furniture was brought up, and the ark of the covenant was placed in the Most Holy. (See MOST HOLY.) At this Jehovah’s cloud filled the temple. Solomon then blessed Jehovah and the congregation of Israel and, standing on a special platform before the copper altar of sacrifice (see ALTAR), offered a long prayer praising Jehovah and asking for his loving-kindness and mercy in behalf of those who turned toward Him to fear and to serve Him, both the Israelite and the foreigner. A grand sacrifice of 22,000 cattle and 120,000 sheep was offered. The inauguration occupied 7 days, and the Festival of Booths 7 days, after which, on the 23rd day of the month, Solomon sent the people home joyful and thankful for Jehovah’s goodness and bountifulness.—1Ki 8; 2Ch 5:1–7:10; see SOLOMON (Inauguration of the temple).

History. This temple existed until 607 B.C.E., when it was destroyed by the Babylonian army under King Nebuchadnezzar. (2Ki 25:9; 2Ch 36:19; Jer 52:13) Because of the falling away of Israel to false religion, God permitted the nations to harass Judah and Jerusalem, at times stripping the temple of its treasures. The temple also suffered periods of neglect. King Shishak of Egypt robbed it of its treasures (993 B.C.E.) in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, only about 33 years after its inauguration. (1Ki 14:25, 26; 2Ch 12:9) King Asa (977-937 B.C.E.) had respect for Jehovah’s house, but to protect Jerusalem he foolishly bribed King Ben-hadad I of Syria, with silver and gold from the treasures of the temple, to break his covenant with Baasha king of Israel.—1Ki 15:18, 19; 2Ch 15:17, 18; 16:2, 3.

After a period of turbulence and neglect of the temple, King Jehoash of Judah (898-859 B.C.E.) oversaw its repair. (2Ki 12:4-12; 2Ch 24:4-14) In the days of his son Amaziah, Jehoash king of Israel robbed it. (2Ki 14:13, 14) King Jotham (777-762 B.C.E.) did some construction work on the temple area, building “the upper gate.” (2Ki 15:32, 35; 2Ch 27:1, 3) King Ahaz of Judah (761-746 B.C.E.) not only sent the treasures of the temple to Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, as a bribe but he also polluted the temple by building an altar patterned after one in Damascus and by replacing the copper altar of the temple with it. (2Ki 16:5-16) Finally he closed the doors of Jehovah’s house.—2Ch 28:24.

Ahaz’ son Hezekiah (745-717 B.C.E.) did what he could to undo the bad works of his father. At the very beginning of his reign, he reopened the temple and had it cleaned up. (2Ch 29:3, 15, 16) However, later on, for fear of Sennacherib king of Assyria, he cut off the doors and the doorposts of the temple that he himself had caused to be overlaid with gold and sent them to Sennacherib.—2Ki 18:15, 16.

But when Hezekiah died, the temple entered a half century of desecration and disrepair. His son Manasseh (716-662 B.C.E.) went beyond any of Judah’s previous kings in wickedness, setting up altars “to all the army of the heavens in two courtyards of the house of Jehovah.” (2Ki 21:1-5; 2Ch 33:1-4) By the time of Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (659-629 B.C.E.), the formerly magnificent edifice was in a state of disrepair. Evidently it was in a disorganized or cluttered condition, for High Priest Hilkiah’s finding the book of the Law (likely an original scroll written by Moses) was an exciting discovery. (2Ki 22:3-13; 2Ch 34:8-21) After the temple’s repair and cleansing, the greatest Passover since the days of Samuel the prophet was celebrated. (2Ki 23:21-23; 2Ch 35:17-19) This was during the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah. (Jer 1:1-3) From this time until the temple’s destruction, it remained open and in use by the priesthood, though many of the priests were corrupt.

The Temple Built by Zerubbabel. As foretold by Jehovah’s prophet Isaiah, God raised up Cyrus king of Persia as a liberator of Israel from the power of Babylon. (Isa 45:1) Jehovah also stirred up his own people under the leadership of Zerubbabel of the tribe of Judah to return to Jerusalem. This they did in 537 B.C.E., after 70 years of desolation, as Jeremiah had foretold, for the purpose of rebuilding the temple. (Ezr 1:1-6; 2:1, 2; Jer 29:10) This structure, though not nearly so glorious as Solomon’s temple, endured longer, standing for nearly 500 years, from 515 B.C.E. to very late in the first century B.C.E. (The temple built by Solomon had served about 420 years, from 1027 to 607 B.C.E.)

In Cyrus’ decree he ordered: “As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the true God, which was in Jerusalem.” (Ezr 1:1-4) Cyrus also returned 5,400 vessels of gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Solomon’s temple.—Ezr 1:7-11.

In the seventh month (Ethanim, or Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., the altar was set up; and in the following year, the foundation of the new temple was laid. As Solomon had done, the builders hired Sidonians and Tyrians to bring cedar timbers from Lebanon. (Ezr 3:7) Opposition, particularly from the Samaritans, disheartened the builders, and after about 15 years those opposers even incited the king of Persia to ban the work.—Ezr 4.

The Jews had stopped their temple building work and had turned to other pursuits, so Jehovah sent his prophets Haggai and Zechariah to stir them to renew their efforts in the second year of Darius I (520 B.C.E.), and thereafter a decree was made upholding Cyrus’ original order and commanding that moneys be provided from the royal treasury, to supply what the builders and priests needed. (Ezr 5:1, 2; 6:1-12) The building work was carried on, and the house of Jehovah was completed on the third day of Adar in the sixth year of Darius (probably March 6 of 515 B.C.E.), after which the Jews inaugurated the rebuilt temple and held the Passover.—Ezr 6:13-22.

Little is known about the details of the architectural plan of this second temple. Cyrus’ decree authorized the building of a structure “its height being sixty cubits [c. 27 m; 88 ft], its width sixty cubits, with three layers of stones rolled into place and one layer of timbers.” The length is not stated. (Ezr 6:3, 4) It had dining rooms and storerooms (Ne 13:4, 5), and undoubtedly it had roof chambers, and possibly other buildings were associated with it, along the same lines as Solomon’s temple.

This second temple did not contain the ark of the covenant, which seems to have disappeared before Nebuchadnezzar captured and looted Solomon’s temple in 607 B.C.E. According to the account in the Apocryphal book of First Maccabees (1:21-24, 57; 4:38, 44-51), there was one lampstand instead of the ten that were in Solomon’s; the golden altar, the table of showbread, and the vessels are mentioned, as is the altar of burnt offering, which, instead of being of copper as was the altar in Solomon’s temple, is there described as being of stone. This altar, after being defiled by King Antiochus Epiphanes (in 168 B.C.E.), was rebuilt with new stones under the direction of Judas Maccabaeus.

The Temple Rebuilt by Herod. This temple is not described in any detail in the Scriptures. The primary source is Josephus, who personally saw the structure and who reports on its construction in The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. The Jewish Mishnah supplies some information, and a little is gained from archaeology. Therefore the description set forth here is from these sources, which in some instances may be open to question.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 543.

In The Jewish War (I, 401 [xxi, 1]), Josephus says that Herod rebuilt the temple in the 15th year of his reign, but in Jewish Antiquities (XV, 380 [xi, 1]), he says it was in the 18th year. This latter date is generally accepted by scholars, although the beginning of Herod’s reign, or how Josephus calculated it, is not established with certainty. The sanctuary itself took 18 months to build, but the courtyards, and so forth, were under construction for eight years. When certain Jews approached Jesus Christ in 30 C.E., saying, “This temple was built in forty-six years” (Joh 2:20), these Jews were apparently talking about the work that continued on the complex of courts and buildings up until then. The work was not finished until about six years before the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.

Because of hatred and distrust of Herod, the Jews would not permit him to rebuild the temple, as he proposed, until he had everything prepared for the new building. For the same reason they did not consider this temple as a third one, but only as a rebuilt one, speaking only of the first and second temples (Solomon’s and Zerubbabel’s).

As to Josephus’ measurements, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (1889, Vol. IV, p. 3203) says: “His horizontal dimensions are so minutely accurate that we almost suspect he had before his eyes, when writing, some ground-plan of the building prepared in the quartermaster-general’s department of Titus’s army. They form a strange contrast with his dimensions in height, which, with scarcely an exception, can be shown to be exaggerated, generally doubled. As the buildings were all thrown down during the siege, it was impossible to convict him of error in respect to elevations.”

Colonnades and gates. Josephus writes that Herod doubled the size of the temple area, building up the sides of Mount Moriah with great stone walls and leveling off an area on the top of the mountain. (The Jewish War, I, 401 [xxi, 1]; Jewish Antiquities, XV, 391-402 [xi, 3]) The Mishnah (Middot 2:1) says the Temple Mount measured 500 cubits (223 m; 729 ft) square. On the outer edge of the area were colonnades. The temple faced the E, as did the previous ones. Along this side was the colonnade of Solomon, consisting of three columns of marble pillars. On one occasion, in the wintertime, Jesus was approached here by certain Jews asking if he was the Christ. (Joh 10:22-24) In the N and W were also colonnades, dwarfed by the Royal Colonnade on the S, consisting of four rows of Corinthian pillars, 162 in all, with three aisles. The pillars’ circumferences were so great that it took three men with outstretched arms to reach around one of them, and they stood much higher than those of the other colonnades.

There were evidently eight gates leading into the temple area: four on the W side, two on the S, and one each on the E and N. (See GATE, GATEWAY [Temple Gates].) Because of these gates, the first court, the Court of the Gentiles, also served as a thoroughfare, travelers preferring to go through it instead of outside around the temple area.

Court of the Gentiles. The colonnades surrounded the large area named the Court of the Gentiles, so called because Gentiles were permitted to enter it. It was from it that Jesus, on two occasions, once near the beginning and once at the close of his earthly ministry, expelled those who had made the house of his Father a house of merchandise.—Joh 2:13-17; Mt 21:12, 13; Mr 11:15-18.

There were several courts through which a person passed as he proceeded to the central building, the sanctuary itself. Each succeeding court was of a higher degree of sanctity. Passing through the Court of the Gentiles, one encountered a wall three cubits (1.3 m; 4.4 ft) high, with openings through which to pass. On its top were large stones bearing a warning in Greek and Latin. The Greek inscription read (according to one translation): “Let no foreigner enter inside of the barrier and the fence around the sanctuary. Whosoever is caught will be responsible for his death which will ensue.” (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, edited by H. Gehman, 1970, p. 932) On the occasion when the apostle Paul was mobbed in the temple, it was because the Jews rumored that he had brought a Gentile within the forbidden area. We are reminded of this wall, though Paul was using the term “wall” symbolically, when we read that Christ “destroyed the wall” that fenced off Jew from Gentile.—Eph 2:14, ftn; Ac 21:20-32.

Court of Women. The Court of Women was 14 steps higher. Here women could enter for worship. Among other things, the Court of Women contained treasure chests, near one of which Jesus stood when he commended the widow for giving her all. (Lu 21:1-4) In this court were also several buildings.

Court of Israel and Court of Priests. Fifteen large semicircular steps led up to the Court of Israel, which could be entered by men who were ceremonially clean. Against the outside wall of this court were storage chambers.

Then came the Court of Priests, which corresponded to the courtyard of the tabernacle. In it was the altar, built of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah, it was 32 cubits (14.2 m; 46.7 ft) square at the base. (Middot 3:1) Josephus gives a higher figure. (The Jewish War, V, 225 [v, 6]; see ALTAR [Postexilic Altars].) The priests reached the altar by an inclined plane. A “laver” was also in use, according to the Mishnah. (Middot 3:6) Around this court also were various buildings.

The temple building. As previously, the temple proper consisted primarily of two compartments, the Holy and the Most Holy. The floor of this building was 12 steps above the Court of Priests. Even as with Solomon’s temple, chambers were built on the sides of this building and there was an upper chamber. The entrance was closed by golden doors, each 55 cubits (24.5 m; 80.2 ft) high and 16 cubits (7.1 m; 23.3 ft) broad. The front of the building was wider than the back, having wings or “shoulders” that extended out 20 cubits (8.9 m; 29.2 ft) on each side. The inside of the Holy was 40 cubits (17.8 m; 58.3 ft) long and 20 cubits wide. In the Holy were the lampstand, the table of showbread, and the altar of incense—all of gold.

The entrance to the Most Holy was a beautifully ornamented thick curtain, or veil. At the time of Jesus’ death, this curtain was torn in two from top to bottom, exposing the Most Holy as containing no ark of the covenant. In place of the Ark was a stone slab upon which the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement. (Mt 27:51; Heb 6:19; 10:20) This room was 20 cubits long and 20 cubits wide.

The Jews used the temple area as a citadel, or fortress, during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. They themselves set fire to the colonnades, but a Roman soldier, contrary to the wishes of the Roman commander Titus, fired the temple itself, thereby fulfilling Jesus’ words regarding the temple buildings: “By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”—Mt 24:2; The Jewish War, VI, 252-266 (iv, 5-7); VII, 3, 4 (i, 1).

Jehovah’s Great Spiritual Temple. The tabernacle constructed by Moses and the temples built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod were only typical, or pictorial. This was shown by the apostle Paul when he wrote that the tabernacle, the basic features of which were included in the later temples, was “a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things.” (Heb 8:1-5; see also 1Ki 8:27; Isa 66:1; Ac 7:48; 17:24.) The Christian Greek Scriptures disclose the reality represented by the type. These Scriptures show that the tabernacle and the temples built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod, along with their features, represented a greater, spiritual temple of Jehovah, “the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man.” (Heb 8:2) As revealed by its various features, that spiritual temple is the arrangement for approaching Jehovah in worship on the basis of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.—Heb 9:2-10, 23.

The inspired letter to the Hebrews states that in this spiritual temple the Most Holy is “heaven itself,” the area where the person of God is. (Heb 9:24) Since only the Most Holy is “heaven itself,” then the Holy and the priestly courtyard, as well as their features, must pertain to things on earth, those things having to do with Jesus Christ during his ministry on earth and his followers who are “partakers of the heavenly calling.”—Heb 3:1.

The curtain was a barrier separating the Holy from the Most Holy; in Jesus’ case it represented “his flesh,” which he had to lay down in sacrifice, giving it up forever, to be able to enter heaven, the antitypical Most Holy. (Heb 10:20) Anointed Christians must also pass the fleshly barrier that separates them from access to God’s presence in heaven. Consistently, the Holy represents their condition as spirit-begotten sons of God, with heavenly life in view, and they will attain to that heavenly reward when their fleshly bodies are laid aside in death.—1Co 15:50; Heb 2:10.

While still in the antitypical Holy, these who have been anointed with holy spirit and who serve as underpriests with Christ are able to enjoy spiritual enlightenment, as from the lampstand; to eat spiritual food, as from the table of showbread; and to offer up prayer, praise, and service to God, as if presenting sweet-smelling incense at the golden altar of incense. The Holy of the typical temple was screened off from the view of outsiders, and similarly, how a person knows that he is a spirit-begotten son of God and what he experiences as such cannot be fully appreciated by those who are not.—Re 14:3.

In the ancient temple courtyard was the altar for offering sacrifices. This foreshadowed God’s provision, according to his will, for a perfect human sacrifice to ransom the offspring of Adam. (Heb 10:1-10; 13:10-12; Ps 40:6-8) In the spiritual temple the courtyard itself must pertain to a condition related to that sacrifice. In the case of Jesus, it was his being a perfect human that made the sacrifice of his life acceptable. In the case of his anointed followers, all of these are declared righteous on the basis of their faith in Christ’s sacrifice, and thus they are viewed by God as sinless while in the flesh.—Ro 3:24-26; 5:1, 9; 8:1.

The features of “the true tent,” God’s great spiritual temple, already existed in the first century C.E. This is indicated by the fact that, with reference to the tabernacle constructed by Moses, Paul wrote that it was “an illustration for the appointed time that is now here,” that is, for something that existed when Paul was writing. (Heb 9:9) That temple certainly existed when Jesus presented the value of his sacrifice in its Most Holy, in heaven itself. It must actually have come into existence in 29 C.E., when Jesus was anointed with holy spirit to serve as Jehovah’s great High Priest.—Heb 4:14; 9:11, 12.

Jesus Christ promises the spirit-begotten Christians that the one who conquers, who endures faithfully to the end, will be made “a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore.” (Re 3:12) So, such a one is granted a permanent place in “heaven itself,” the antitypical Most Holy.

Revelation 7:9-15 reveals “a great crowd” of other worshipers of Jehovah sharing in pure worship at the spiritual temple. Those making up this “great crowd” are not described in terms that identify them as underpriests. The ones who make up this “great crowd” are said to have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Because of their faith in the sacrifice of Christ, they are credited with a righteous standing that makes possible their preservation through “the great tribulation,” so they are said to “come out of” it as survivors.

At Isaiah 2:1-4 and Micah 4:1-4, reference is made to a ‘lifting up’ of “the mountain of the house of Jehovah” in “the final part of the days,” and it is foretold that there would be a gathering of people of “all the nations” to that “house of Jehovah.” Since there has been no physical temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem since 70 C.E., this must refer, not to some physical structure, but to an elevating of true worship in the lives of Jehovah’s people during “the final part of the days” and a great gathering of people of all nations to share in worship at Jehovah’s great spiritual temple.

Detailed description of a temple of Jehovah is also found at Ezekiel chapters 40-47, but it is not a temple that was ever built on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, nor would it fit there. So, it must be another illustration of God’s great spiritual temple. Special consideration is given in the account to the provisions that emanate from the temple and to the fact that precautions are taken to keep out all who are unworthy to be among the worshipers in its courtyards.

Ezekiel’s temple vision. In 593 B.C.E., in the 14th year after the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple therein, the priest-prophet Ezekiel, transported in vision to a high mountaintop, beheld a great temple of Jehovah. (Eze 40:1, 2) To humiliate and bring about repentance of the exiled Jews, also doubtless to comfort faithful ones, Ezekiel was instructed to relate everything he saw to “the house of Israel.” (Eze 40:4; 43:10, 11) The vision gave careful attention to the details of measurement. The units of measure used were the “reed” (the long reed, 3.11 m; 10.2 ft) and the “cubit” (the long cubit, 51.8 cm; 20.4 in.). (Eze 40:5, ftn) This attention to measurement has led some to believe that this visionary temple was to serve as a model for the temple later constructed by Zerubbabel in the postexilic period. There is, however, no conclusive substantiation of this assumption.

The entire temple area was evidently a square 500 cubits to a side. It contained an outer courtyard, an elevated inner courtyard, the temple with its altar, various dining rooms, and a building to the W, or rear, of the temple. Providing access to the temple’s outer and inner courtyards were six huge gateways, three for the outer courtyard and three for the inner courtyard. These faced N, E, and S, each inner gate being directly behind (in line with) its corresponding outer gate. (Eze 40:6, 20, 23, 24, 27) Inside the outer wall was the lower pavement. It was 50 cubits (25.9 m; 85 ft) wide, the same as the length of the gateways. (Eze 40:18, 21) Thirty dining rooms, likely places for the people to eat their communion sacrifices, were located there. (Eze 40:17) At each of the four corners of this outer courtyard were locations where the people’s portions of their sacrifices were cooked by the priests, according to the Law’s requirement; then they were apparently consumed in the provided dining rooms. (Eze 46:21-24) The remainder of the outer courtyard between the lower pavement and the gates to the inner courtyard was apparently 100 cubits in width.—Eze 40:19, 23, 27.

The priests’ dining rooms were separated from the people’s, being placed closer to the temple. Two of these, along with two dining rooms for the temple singers, were in the inner courtyard beside the massive inner gateways. (Eze 40:38, 44-46) The priests also had dining-room blocks, to the N and S of the sanctuary itself. (Eze 42:1-12) These dining rooms, in addition to their most evident purpose, were places for the priests to change the linen garments used in temple service prior to their entering the outer courtyard. (Eze 42:13, 14; 44:19) Also in that area, to the rear of the dining-room blocks, were the boiling and baking places of the priests, intended for the same basic purpose as those in the outer courtyard, but these for only the priests.—Eze 46:19, 20.

Progressing across the outer courtyard and through the inner gateway, one entered the inner courtyard. The edge of the inner courtyard was 150 cubits (77.7 m; 255 ft) from the edge of the outer courtyard on the E, N, and S. The inner courtyard was 200 cubits (103.6 m; 340 ft) wide. (Ezekiel 40:47 says the inner courtyard was 100 cubits square. This evidently refers to just the area in front of the temple and into which the inner gateways led.) Prominent in the inner courtyard was the altar.—Eze 43:13-17; see ALTAR (Altar of Ezekiel’s Temple).

The sanctuary’s first room, 40 cubits (20.7 m; 68 ft) long and 20 cubits (10.4 m; 34 ft) wide, was entered by a doorway having two 2-leaved doors. (Eze 41:23, 24) Therein was “the table that is before Jehovah,” a wooden altar.—Eze 41:21, 22.

The outer walls of the sanctuary had side chambers four cubits (2 m; 6.8 ft) wide incorporated into and against them. Rising three stories, they covered the western, northern, and southern walls, 30 chambers to a story. (Eze 41:5, 6) To ascend the three stories, winding passages, seemingly circular staircases, were provided on the N and S. (Eze 41:7) To the rear, or W, of the temple, lying apparently lengthwise N to S, was a structure called bin·yanʹ, a ‘building to the west.’ (Eze 41:12) Although some scholars have attempted to identify this building with the temple or sanctuary itself, there appears no basis for such an identification in the book of Ezekiel; the ‘building to the west,’ for one thing, was of different shape and dimensions from those of the sanctuary. This structure doubtless served some function in connection with the services carried on at the sanctuary. There may have been a similar building or buildings W of Solomon’s temple.—Compare 2Ki 23:11 and 1Ch 26:18.

The Most Holy was of the same shape as that of Solomon’s temple, being 20 cubits square. In the vision, Ezekiel saw Jehovah’s glory come from the E, filling the temple. Jehovah described this temple as “the place of my throne.”—Eze 43:1-7.

Ezekiel describes a wall 500 reeds (1,555 m; 5,100 ft) on each side, around the temple. This has been understood by some scholars to be a wall at a distance of about 600 m (2,000 ft) from the courtyard, a space surrounded by the wall “to make a division between what is holy and what is profane.”—Eze 42:16-20.

Ezekiel also beheld a stream of water flowing “from under the threshold of the House eastward” and south of the altar, growing into a deep and mighty torrent as it flowed down through the Arabah into the north end of the Salt Sea. Here it healed the salt waters so that they became filled with fish.—Eze 47:1-12.

Anointed Christians—A Spiritual Temple. Anointed Christians on earth are likened to a number of things, including a temple. This comparison is fitting because God’s spirit dwells within the congregation of anointed ones. Paul wrote to the Christians in Ephesus “in union with Christ Jesus,” those who are “sealed with the promised holy spirit,” saying: “You have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. In union with him you, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit.” (Eph 1:1, 13; 2:20-22) These “sealed” ones, laid upon Christ as Foundation, are shown to number 144,000. (Re 7:4; 14:1) The apostle Peter speaks of these as “living stones” being “built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood.”—1Pe 2:5.

Since these underpriests are “God’s building,” he will not let this spiritual temple suffer defilement. Paul emphasizes the holiness of this spiritual temple, and the danger to one who attempts to defile it, when he writes: “Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you people are.”—1Co 3:9, 16, 17; see also 2Co 6:16.

Jehovah God and the Lamb ‘Are Its Temple.’ When John sees New Jerusalem coming down from heaven, he remarks: “And I did not see a temple in it, for Jehovah God the Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb is.” (Re 21:2, 22) Since the members of New Jerusalem will have direct access to the face of Jehovah himself, they will not need a temple through which to approach God. (1Jo 3:2; Re 22:3, 4) Those who make up New Jerusalem will render sacred service to God directly under the high priesthood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. For this reason the Lamb shares with Jehovah in being, in effect, the temple of the New Jerusalem.

An Impostor. The apostle Paul, in warning of the apostasy to come, spoke of “the man of lawlessness” as setting himself up “so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god.” (2Th 2:3, 4) This “man of lawlessness” is an apostate, a false teacher, so he actually seats himself only in what he falsely claims to be that temple.—See MAN OF LAWLESSNESS.

An Illustrative Use. On one occasion, when the Jews demanded a sign from Jesus, he replied: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews thought he was speaking of the temple building, but the apostle John explains: “He was talking about the temple of his body.” When he was resurrected by his Father Jehovah on the third day of his death, the disciples recalled and understood this saying and believed it. (Joh 2:18-22; Mt 27:40) He was resurrected, but not in his fleshly body, which was given as a ransom sacrifice; yet that fleshly body did not go into corruption, but was disposed of by God, just as a sacrifice was consumed on the altar. Jesus, when resurrected, was the same person, the same personality, in a new body made for his new dwelling place, the spiritual heavens.—Lu 24:1-7; 1Pe 3:18; Mt 20:28; Ac 2:31; Heb 13:8.

Irreducible complexity v. Darwin

ID’s Top Six — The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Editor’s note: In the past we’ve offered the top 10 problems with Darwinian evolution (see here for a fuller elaboration), and the top five problems with origin-of-life theories. But somehow we neglected to offer a parallel listing of the top evidence supporting intelligent design. Many different sources pointing to design in nature could be adduced, but we decided to distill it all down to six major lines of evidence. Sure, five or ten would have been more conventional, but when did ID advocates start playing to expectations?

So here they are, their order simply reflecting that in which they must logically have occurred within our universe. Material is adapted from the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design, which is an excellent resource for introducing the evidence for ID, along with Stephen Meyer’s books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines

Molecular machines are another compelling line of evidence for intelligent design, as there is no known cause, other than intelligent design, that can produce machine-like structures with multiple interacting parts. In a well-known 1998 article in the journal Cell, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts explained the astounding nature of molecular machines:

[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

There are numerous molecular machines known to biology (this article describes 40 of them). Here’s a description of two well-known molecular machines from Discovering Intelligent Design:

Ribosome: The ribosome is a multi-part machine responsible for translating the genetic instructions during the assembly of proteins. According to Craig Venter, a widely respected biologist, the ribosome is “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a minimum of 53 proteins. Bacterial cells may contain up to 100,000 ribosomes, and human cells may contain millions. Biologist Ada Yonath, who won the Nobel Prize for her work on ribosomes, observes that they are “ingeniously designed for their functions.”

ATP Synthase: ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the primary energy-carrying molecule in all cells. In many organisms, it is generated by a protein-based molecular machine called ATP synthase. This machine is composed of two spinning rotary motors connected by an axle. As it rotates, bumps on the axle push open other protein subunits, providing the mechanical energy needed to generate ATP. In the words of cell biologist David Goodsell, “ATP synthase is one of the wonders of the molecular world.”

But could molecular machines evolve by Darwinian mechanisms? Discovering Intelligent Design explains why this is highly improbable due to the irreducibly complex nature of many molecular machines:

Many cellular features, such as molecular machines, require multiple interactive parts to function. Behe has further studied the ability of Darwinism to explain these multipart structures.

In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe coined the term irreducible complexity to describe a system that fails Darwin’s test of evolution:

“What type of biological system could not be formed by ‘numerous successive slight modifications’? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

As suggested earlier, Darwinism requires that structures remain functional along each small step of their evolution. However, irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve in a step-by-step fashion because they do not function until all of their parts are present and working. Multiple parts requiring numerous mutations would be necessary to get any function at all — an event that is extremely unlikely to occur by chance.

One famous example of an irreducibly complex molecular machine is the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is a micro-molecular propeller assembly driven by a rotary engine that propels bacteria toward food or a hospitable living environment. There are various types of flagella, but all function like a rotary engine made by humans, as found in some car and boat motors.

Flagella contain many parts that are familiar to human engineers, including a rotor, a stator, a drive shaft, a u-joint, and a propeller. As one molecular biologist wrote in the journal Cell, “[m]ore so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.”

Genetic knockout experiments by microbiologist Scott Minnich show that the flagellum fails to assemble or function properly if any one of its approximately 35 genes is removed. In this all-or-nothing game, mutations cannot produce the complexity needed to evolve a functional flagellum one step at a time, and the odds are too daunting for it to assemble in one great leap.

What about the objection that molecular machines can evolve through co-option of pre-existing parts and components? Again, Discovering Intelligent Design explains why this proposition fails — and why molecular machines point to design:

Irreducibly complex structures point to design because they contain high levels of specified complexity — i.e., they have unlikely arrangements of parts, all of which are necessary to achieve a specific function.

ID critics counter that such structures can be built by co-opting parts from one job in the cell to another.

Co-option: To take and use for another purpose. In evolutionary biology, it is a highly speculative mechanism where blind and unguided processes cause biological parts to be borrowed and used for another purpose.

Of course we could find many more pieces of evidence supporting ID, but sometimes shorter is more readable, and five makes for a nice concise blog post that we hope you can pass around and share with friends.

But there are multiple problems co-option can’t solve.

First, not all parts are available elsewhere. Many are unique. In fact, most flagellar parts are found only in flagella.

Second, machine parts are not necessarily easy to interchange. Grocery carts and motorcycles both have wheels, but one could not be borrowed from the other without significant modification. At the molecular level, where small changes can prevent two proteins from interacting, this problem is severe.

Third, complex structures almost always require a specific order of assembly. When building a house, a foundation must be laid before walls can be added, windows can’t be installed until there are walls, and a roof can’t be added until the frame complete. As another example, one could shake a box of computer parts for thousands of years, but a functional computer would never form.

Thus, merely having the necessary parts available is not enough to build a complex system because specific assembly instructions must be followed. Cells use complex assembly instructions in DNA to direct how parts will interact and combine to form molecular machines. Proponents of co-option never explain how those instructions arise.

To attempt to explain irreducible complexity, ID critics often promote wildly speculative stories about co-option. But ID theorists William Dembski and Jonathan Witt observe that in our actual experience, there is only one known cause that can modify and co-opt machine parts into new systems:

“What is the one thing in our experience that co-opts irreducibly complex machines and uses their parts to build a new and more intricate machine? Intelligent agents.”

Two videos, produced by Discovery Institute, explain the complexity and design of some well-known molecular machines, with memorable animations. First, on ATP synthase: