Been there done that and then some.

The undead continue to wander Darwinism's badlands.

There You Go Again, Nathan Lents
Jonathan Wells

Nathan Lents is professor of biology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. In 2015, Dr. Lents wrote  on his “Human Evolution” blog” blog, “The human eye is a well-tread [sic] example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” It’s clunky because

the photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward…. This is not an optimal design for obvious reasons. The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back. It’s as if you were speaking into the wrong end of a microphone.

According to Lents, “there are no working hypotheses about why the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards. It seems to have been a random development that then ‘stuck’ because a correction of that magnitude would be very difficult to pull off with random mutations” in the course of evolution.

In 2017, I published a book titled  Zombie Science, which included a chapter on the human eye showing why the “clunky design” claim doesn’t fit the evidence. The claim is false because the photoreceptor cells in the human retina are so active that they must be nourished by a dense network of blood vessels and constantly renewed by a layer of specialized epithelial cells. If the blood vessels and epithelial cells were in front of the photoreceptor cells, where Lents thinks they should be, we would be almost blind. Instead, human eyes (and the eyes of other animals with backbones) are  very well designed.

Apparently, Dr. Lents didn’t read my book. That’s OK; I don’t have time to read every book written even by my own colleagues. Instead, Dr. Lents just published his own book titled Human Errors , in which he repeats on page 5 his claim that the human eye is badly designed because the photoreceptor cells “appear to be installed backward.”

Over thirty years ago, Richard Dawkins had used this claim as an argument for Darwinian evolution in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. Since then the argument has been repeated by evolutionary biologists George Williams, Kenneth R. Miller, Douglas Futuyma, and Jerry Coyne, among others.

But even before Dawkins published his claim in 1986, scientists writing in standard textbooks on eye physiology had shown why the “backwards retina” is functionally better than its opposite. Those scientists and textbooks included Gordon Walls in The Vertebrate Eye (Hafner, 1963); Sidney Futterman in Adler’s Physiology of the Eye (Mosby, 1975); and Paul Henkind, Richard Hansen, and Jeanne Szalay in Physiology of the Human Eye and the Visual System (Harper & Row, 1979). Abundant evidence that Dawkins’s claim was false had also been published in scientific journals in  1967, 1969, 1973, and 1985.

Obviously, Dawkins didn’t bother to check the scientific literature before claiming that the human eye is badly designed. He simply assumed that Darwinian evolution is true and that he knew how an eye should be designed. Williams, Miller, Futuyma, Coyne, and Lents also neglected to check the scientific literature when they repeated Dawkins’s false claim.

For most people (myself included), science is an enterprise that pursues truth by comparing hypotheses with evidence. For some people, science is an enterprise that searches for natural explanations on the assumption that everything can be explained in terms of material objects and the forces among them. Mind, spirit, free will, and God are excluded from consideration. The first is empirical science; the second is applied materialistic philosophy. When people persist in defending materialistic explanations even when they don’t fit the evidence (and are thus empirically dead), I call this enterprise  “zombie science.” 

The argument that the bad design of human eyes provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design is an example of zombie science. 

Yet more on avoiding the ranks of the insane.

On avoiding the ranks of the insane.

On trinitarians' shifting of the goalposts.

The relationship between God and his people is frequently described by God as one of marriage. He is the “husband” and his true worshipers are the “wife.” As in a scriptural marriage the true worshipers (“the wife”) must be completely faithful to their head, Jehovah alone. When the worshiper(s) are unfaithful to him, God describes them as “adulterous,” “adulteresses,” “harlots.” He rejects or “divorces” such ones, and they are to be destroyed for their “adultery.” In spite of wanting to be in favor with the one true God, many of His people throughout history have also become enamored with false gods and philosophies and want to add these things to their worship. They have used different rationalizations to justify their infidelity or “adultery.” One of these rationalizations may be called “redefinition” since it takes a well-known term or concept and gives it a new meaning to help justify their “adultery.” 

To illustrate, let’s imagine a country where men are in a 3-to-one majority over women. Women, however, have come to dominate in all areas including government. One of the laws of the land handed down through the ages is - “Monogamy must be maintained: One man can have only one wife, and one woman can have only one husband.” 

Imagine, then, that Christina is married to Abbot. She knows the law of the land, but she secretly marries Sonny anyway. Later she also secretly marries Hollis. When all this is exposed, she declares that Abbott, Sonny, and Hollis are all her husband. In the one husband, she declares, there are three persons (all equally her one husband). The one woman became “one flesh” with her first husband. The two became one flesh. In like manner, therefore, the three men have become “one flesh” with the woman. Obviously, then, the 3 persons are actually one “husband” (one flesh) to the woman. 

The women of this land really like Christina’s interpretation of the law (which is actually based on a redefinition of the terms “husband” and “monogamy”), so they declare that it is the correct legal definition. The law, then, appears to remain the same: only one husband for a woman. But now each woman can marry more than one man. It is still “monogamy” and she still has only one “husband” according to the redefinition. Of course up until this time the term “husband” had always meant one man, and “monogamy” had always meant “one man married to one woman.” 

So everyone is happy now! Or are they? 

If this law were simply made by humans to satisfy a need at the time, then it certainly can (and should) be changed as needed as time passes. But if this law were a command from the Almighty Supreme Deity and Creator of mankind, His creatures have absolutely no right to change its original meaning to suit their desires. 

So this redefinition is, in reality, adultery. It is literal adultery on Christina’s part no matter how she redefines terms. It is literal adultery no matter what the rest of the nation says --- no matter what the “orthodox” is defined (or redefined) to be by the human judges, the spiritual leaders, etc. It is an adultery of the clear meaning of the original terms. It is an adultery of God’s law. It is “adultery” and “harlotry” in the nation’s relationship to God. And it is “adultery” in an individual’s relationship to God if she accepts this new “orthodox”redefinition of God’s law and marries more than one person (or even merely quietly condones this redefinition of God’s word for her fellows)! 

The very same kind of redefinition has been used by trinitarians from the beginning (fourth century A.D.) to commit adultery in their relationship to the one true God. In order to ‘legally’ change the ‘orthodox’ knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ (which means eternal life - John 17:3), they have made up new meanings for (redefined) “God” and “monotheism”! And in the process they also had to redefine other terms such as (1) “beginning,” (2) “firstborn,” (3) “only-begotten,” (4) “image” [eikon and charakter], (5) “substance/essence,” (6) “eternal generation,” (7) echad, (8) ego eimi, (9) ehyeh, (10)harpagmos, (11) huparchon, (12) morphe, (13) Logos, (14) theos, (15) and even God’s only personal name (%&%*, “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”). 

The only true God had always been revealed to His people as a single person. The word “God” as applied to the Creator had no other meaning than one single person! He was known as the Father, and his singular, personal name was “Jehovah”! There was no other meaning for “God” among the Israelites and all their sects (including Christians) untilChristendom began to desire a “God” that conformed to the understanding of the very influential, “intellectual” pagan religions and philosophies of the time - (see the ISRAEL and HIST studies). 

At this time (around the fourth century A.D. - hundreds of years after the deaths of the Apostles and even the “Apostolic Fathers”) Christendom developed and “legalized” the trinity doctrine of three persons being equally the one God - (see HIST study). To do this (and still claim to keep the Scriptures as the word of God) they tried to change portions of the Scriptures by adding and deleting certain portions as they made new copies. This was only partly successful for them. Over the centuries many of these have been discovered and restored to their original wording. But they also redefined and reinterpreted many parts of the Holy Scriptures. This was more successful for them, although they still had to claim the new doctrine as a “Mystery” that could not be understood since it was still so contradictory, confusing, and unreasonable. 

First, of course, the word “God” was redefined by them from the originally intended and understood “single-person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning. (This, of course is parallel with our example of the adulterous woman above. She redefined “husband” from the originally intended and understood “single person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning.) 

Along with this the term “monotheism” had to be redefined (much as “monogamy” in the example above )[A]. What had been considered from the first as “the belief in one person only as the only Most High God” was now redefined as “the belief in one God (who is composed of many individuals).” Now Christendom could have as many persons who were “God” as they liked - the very essence of the highly influential “upper class” polytheistic pagan religions surrounding them - see the HIST study. 

This is exactly what the adulterous nation in our example did: “monogamy” was redefinedfrom its original meaning of “marriage of one person to another single person” to “marriage of one person to one multiple-person ‘husband’”!) 

In reality, of course, this is merely a method of applying the word “monogamy” to the paganistic practice of polygamy[B]

In the very same way the redefining of the word “monotheism” by Christendom is merely a method of applying the word “monotheism” to the paganistic practice of polytheism![C] 

Some Examples of Trinitarian Redefinition 

 (1) “Beginning” (arkhe in NT Greek). In the writings of the Apostle John there was only one meaning for the NT word arkhe: “beginning.” True, a few NT writers (Paul and Luke) occasionally gave different meanings (“magistrate,” “power,” “principality,” “principle,” “rule” according to Strong’s Concordance) for this word, but John, in all his writings, did not. And he always used other words for “ruler” and “source.” 

Many trinitarians, however, had to redefine John’s intended meaning for this NT Greek word because of one scripture: Rev. 3:14. Since the doctrine of Jesus and God that they had invented insisted that Jesus had always existed, they could not allow the originally-intended meaning of John that Jesus was the “beginning of God’s creation.” Instead, theyredefined John’s intended meaning of arkhe as either “source” or “ruler” - see NIV; NEB;NAB; LB; GNB. For evidence that this is a false interpretation of John’s intended meaning for this scripture see the BWF study. 

(2) “Firstborn” (prototokos in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the one born (or produced) first”! In fact, it is even paralleled in scripture by “the beginning of his father’s [creative or procreative] power” (e.g. Gen. 49:3, which of course also parallels the description of Jesus in #1 above: “Thebeginning of God’s [Jesus’ Father’s] creation”). Instead, some trinitarians have redefinedthis word as “the pre-eminent one.” They did this, again, because of one scripture: Col. 1:15. Paul here calls Jesus: “the firstborn of creation”! Since this also clearly means Jesus was the first creation of God (like Rev. 3:14 above), they were forced to redefine prototokos(but only at Col. 1:15). For evidence of the impropriety of this interpretation see the BWF study. 

(3) “Only-begotten” (monogenes in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the only one born (or generated)”! It is used in scripture to describe one who is the only offspring of a parent. It would not be applied to an adopted child, for instance, but only to the one who, alone, was actually produced, generated, or created by that parent. Instead, some trinitarians have redefined this word as “only” so that “the only-begotten Son” can now be interpreted as “the only Son.” This was done in an attempt to allow for the interpretation that Jesus has always existed and was never created or produced by the Father (although the clear significance of the word ‘Son’ itself even testifies otherwise). For evidence of the impropriety of this trinitarian redefinitionsee the OBGOD study. 

(4) “Image” (eikon and charakter). These words are sometimes applied to Jesus Christ as the “image of God” or the “stamp of God” (as in the stamped impression of a king, president, etc. found on a coin). - 2 Cor. 4:4 and Heb. 1:3. 

As any objective person would immediately admit, an image (or stamped impression) of something is merely a representation of the real thing. It cannot actually be the real thing itself simply because it is an image of the real thing! The Greek words above that are applied to Jesus mean, then, that Jesus cannot actually be God! 

But trinitarians have “redefined” these terms to mean (only when applied to Jesus, of course) that somehow the image really is the thing it represents! See the IMAGE study (section #2 and endnote #6).

(5) “Substance/essence” (substantia, ousia, and homoousia [“same substance/essence”]).Ousia is used only twice in scripture and means “estate” as in the sense of “possessions, property” - Luke 15:12, 13, NASB; “property,” RSV; cf. NIV. However, those who actually invented the trinity doctrine and forced it upon the rest of the world of Christendom (Council of Nicaea - 325 A. D. and Council of Constantinople - 381 A. D.) desperately sought for justification of their theory of God. So they appealed to the writings of earlier Christians, in particular the extremely influential Origen. Homoousia (never used in Scripture at all!) was apparently used in the paganistic Gnostic religion to describe how “the heavenly powers shared in the divine fullness,” but Origen used it (before 231 A.D.) in the sense of “a unity ofwill” (see #7, “one,” below). So when the trinitarians appealed to the writings of Origen to justify their “unity of substance” of the Father and Son, they were actually redefiningOrigen’s well-known (at that time) intended meaning for the term. They also appealed to the writings of Tertullian and his use of “unity of substantia” of the Son of God with God. But, again, trinitarians actually redefined Tertullian’s intended meaning for the word. See the HIST study, notes #86-88 and #105-108. 

As an example, here’s a quote from Origen’s Origen De Principiis, IV, 1, 36: 

“Everyone who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is a partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyesparticipate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature.” - p. 381, Vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing, 1989 printing.

So according to Origen’s own example of “one nature”: the bird, cat, man, and angel who are all watching the same light are “of one essence and nature”! All it means is that two or more things have something in common! My dog and I enjoying a swim in the same pond are “of one ‘essence’ and nature” according to Origen’s usage! My beautiful daughter and her cat, Moose, who are both frightened by the same vicious dog are “of one ‘essence’ and nature”! 

Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had come to have a different meaning for some Christians. Noted scholar (and trinitarian) Robert M. Grant tells us that the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, “seems to have been willing to speak of the Logos [the Word] ashomoousios with the Father; this notion too was condemned at the final synod of 268.” Grant tells us that this same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul of Samosata! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper and Row, 1970. 

It would be strange indeed if those Christians who condemned this doctrine believed thathomoousios was intended to mean by Paul what it had meant for Origen (and other early Christians). They surely would not have disagreed with the statement that the Word (Logos) was united in will [homoousios] with the Father as Origen and others taught. 

Therefore these Christians must have known that the heretical Bishop was intending a newmeaning that God and the Word were of one substance in a more literal sense that suggested that Jesus was equally God (and they most emphatically denied that teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in a new literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!

“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature [substance/essence] is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[reek] philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.” - Dictionary of the Bible by trinitarian J. L. McKenzie (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1965), p. 899.

(6) “Eternal generation.” This, also, is a completely non-scriptural term. However, many trinitarians were unable to deny that Scripture showed that the Son was generated or produced by the Father. They needed a redefinition of this idea to protect their “the Son has existed eternally” idea. So they turned to Origen, again, pointed to his use of the term “eternal generation,” and claimed that this, somehow, meant that, although the Son had been “generated” by the Father, he, nevertheless, had existed eternally. However, as they well knew at that time, Origen did not intend such a meaning. Trinitarian Church historian, Bernard Lohse admits that Origen intended a different meaning for “eternally generated” from what later trinitarians changed it to: 

“It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity” - p. 47, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1985, Fortress Press.

(7) “One” (echad in OT Hebrew). This ancient Hebrew word was used, in this form, echad, to mean numerical oneness. For example, “one cow” would be written as “echad cow.” It was used hundreds of times in scripture and, in this form, never meant “a multiple unity,” “aplural oneness,” etc. However, trinitarians were worried about the clear statement at Deut. 6:4 - “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one [echad].” God’s chosen people from the time of Moses to the time of the first Christians (in fact Judaism from its beginning down to today still has the same understanding) understood this as meaning God is one person only - Jehovah, the Father! So some trinitarians redefined the clear meaning of echad as “multiple oneness” so they could “interpret” this scripture as “Jehovah [or the LORD] is a multipleoneness” or “a plural unity.” This is a completely false and dishonest translation of echad. - See the ECHAD study.

Also “one” in the NT Greek at John 10:30 has been redefined by many trinitarians. When Jesus said ‘the Father and I are one,’ he clearly meant ‘we are one (or united) in purposeand will.’ - see the ONE study. But you know, of course, what many (most?) trinitarians say this means. 

(8) ego eimi (literally, “I am”). There is no doubt that this term is usually translated into English as “I am” (occasionally “I was,” “I have been,” or “it is I”). But at John 8:58 trinitarians want it to mean much more. Among other claims they make for this term at this scripture, many trinitarians claim that since the clause ends with the words “I am” in this scripture this, somehow, makes it “Absolute”! Being “Absolute” causes it to mean, they claim, “I ameternally existent” or “I have existed eternally.” There is absolutely no valid reason to invent such a meaning (or redefine “I am”)! We only have to look at other places where egoeimi is “Absolute” to see that this redefinition is absolute nonsense. 2 Kings (2 Samuel in English Bibles) 15:26 - King David uses the “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. Is. 6:8 - Isaiah identifies himself with the same “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. And, in the New Testament, John 9:9 - The ex-blind man identifies himself with the “Absolute” ego eimi “I am he” - KJV, ASV. 

And even when we examine Jesus’ use of this “Absolute” ego eimi, we find the same thing. John 6:20 - Jesus identifies himself to his frightened disciples, who think he is an apparition, by using the “Absolute” ego eimi “It is I” - KJV, RSV. No trinitarian Bible ever interprets Jesus’ identification of himself here as “I am eternal” (and it would be incredibly ludicrous if it did)! Also see John 18:5,8. These (and many other instances of the “Absolute” ego eimi)plainly do not mean “I am eternal,” so why should any honest, rational Bible student claim it must mean that at John 8:58? - See the I AM study. 

Some trinitarians have used this same redefinition for another “be” verb: en (hn in NT Greek characters) which is usually translated “was.” They insist that the “was” (hn) found in Jn 1:1 must be defined as meaning that the Word (Jesus) was “eternally” with God and “eternally” was God. This is as ludicrous and dishonest as the above redefinition. -see "Was" and "Beginning" in John 1:1 .

(9) Ehyeh in OT Hebrew. This word means (and is nearly always rendered into English) “I will be” every time it is used in the Scriptures. More important, for discussions of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, It is ALWAYS rendered as “I will be” in all of Moses writings! However, trinitarians have redefined this word to mean “I Am” (at Exodus 3:14 only). They have done this in an attempt to provide some basis for a trinitarian “I Am” reasoning for John 8:58. But the word simply does not mean “I am” at Ex. 3:14, and its Greek translation at Ex. 3:14 in the ancient Septuagint (ca. 200 B.C.) also does not mean “I am” (even though some dishonest trinitarians claim it is the very same Greek wording used by Jesus at John 8:58)! - See the I AM study. 

(10) Harpagmos in NT Greek. This word occurs only once in the NT at Phil. 2:6. However, it occurs 16 times in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. In every case it means “taking something by force” or “something taken by force.” We know that the NT Greek word from which harpagmos derived (harpazo) means the “act of seizing or something seized.” It invariably has the meaning of “forceful seizure”: taking something forcefully from someoneagainst his will. 

But many trinitarians have redefined this word at Phil. 2:6 because its true meaning disproves the trinity doctrine. So they give harpagmos the new meaning of “cling to,” “held onto,” “retained,” “grasped,” etc. - See the PHIL study.

(11) Huparchon in NT Greek. Although this NT Greek word literally means “under abeginning,” it is commonly translated as one of the “be” verbs (“is,” “was,” “being,” “existed”). However, some trinitarians insist that it means an endless existence! The onlytime they insist on this meaning is when it is found at Phil. 2:6! It is not difficult to find other uses of this term in the NT. They not only never mean “an eternal pre-existence” or “continuing to exist eternally,” but they clearly are speaking of things that have come intoexistence. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (trinitarian) even defines huparchon as “toBEGIN under (quietly). i.e. come into existence” - #5225. 

In other words, the honest, intended meaning for huparchon could be brought out by translating it into English as “came into existence” but not as “always existed” (or anything comparable)! This means that Phil. 2:6 could be honestly translated “Who, though he came into existence [huparchon] in the form of God (or ‘a god’), did not even consider forcefully seizing [harpagmos] equality with God.” It cannot be honestly translated (with the trinitarian-redefined huparchon) as “he always [huparchon] had the nature [form] of God.” - TEV. See the PHIL study. 

(12) Morphe in NT Greek. A few trinitarian “scholars” even attempt to redefine morphe(again, only at Phil. 2:6) as including the idea of absolute “essence” or “nature”! The word actually is defined in NT lexicons of respected trinitarian scholars as “form in the sense ofoutward appearance” and “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision” (cf. Mark 16:12).

So morphe is not honestly translated with its trinitarian-redefined meaning: “he always had the nature [morphe] of God.” - TEV. Instead, an honest translation of Phil. 2:6 could be “he came into existence [huparchon] with the outward appearance [“form” - morphe] of God [or ‘a god’].” - See the PHIL study. 

(13) Logos (“Word” in NT Greek). This NT Greek word is used by John in the prologue of his Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). He uses it in a way that is not used elsewhere in the New or Old Testament, but he assumes that his readers (late first century Jews) already understand that term since he does not explain it. It is obvious from the way John uses this Logos that it is meant to describe Jesus’ heavenly pre-existence. Jn 1:1 tells us that the Logos (“the Word”) was with God in the beginning. And it even says that the Logos was theos (“God” or “a god” in NT Greek). Trinitarians have interpreted this to mean that John was using theLogos concept of Greek paganism. Therefore, many of them say, John really meant “TheLogos was God”! They say that the paganistic Greek Logos was understood to be God, so John, likewise, used the term in that way.

However, it is unlikely that John would use such a pagan term or that he would expect his Jewish readers (who were forbidden by the Holy Scriptures to even read or study such things) to understand such a meaning for that term. But even if he did, the Logos was still not equally God, even in Greek paganism. 

There is a meaning for Logos, however, that was popularly known by first and second century Jews. This is the Logos concept taught by the famed first century Jewish scholar Philo. Philo accepted the Holy Scriptures as the infallible, inspired word of God. He tried to teach all men (including the Greeks and Romans) that the Scriptures were the teachings of the only true God, the Father alone. So he adapted (redefined) some of the terms the Greeks were already familiar with (including Logos) to conform to the truth of the Bible. His teachings became very popular among Jews throughout the ancient world. 

It is very important to know that the Logos of Philo which most Jews were familiar with,unlike the Logos of paganism, was described by such terms as John used to describe hisLogos. These terms include “Son of God” [Jn 1:34]; one who is “with God” [Jn 1:1]; “light” [Jn 1:4]; “manna” [Jn 6:31-51]; “shepherd” [Jn 10:11]; “Paraclete” (‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’) [1 Jn 2:1]; one “through [dia] which the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3]; and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death” [Jn 4:14], etc. 

But most important, for this discussion, the well-known Jewish Logos of Philo specifically called the “the Word” theos. As all commentators on Philo’s Logos doctrine will attest (including all trinitarians who are willing to discuss it at all), Philo never used the definite article with theos when he intended it to be used for the Logos. Furthermore, he intended the meaning of “a god” by this usage, whereas he always used the definite article with theoswhen he intended it to be used for God! 

So when trinitarians say John intended the meaning of “the Word (Logos) was God” at John 1:1, they are redefining John’s original meanings of both Logos and theos.

(14) the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos (see the BOWGOD study) as found at John 1:1. - Also see the LOGOS and PRIMER studies. 

Of course trinitarians have had to redefine many other terms. Perhaps the worst of all trinitarian redefinitions, however, is the actual changing of God’s Most Holy Personal Name. Men may have many titles: President; Boss; Judge; Senator; Doctor; Admiral; Lord; Brother; etc. But every individual person has only one personal name: Theodore Roosevelt; Isaac Newton (“Sir” is a title); Thomas Jefferson; Moses; Joshua; Jesus. Yes, “Jesus” is the only personal name of the Christ (title), the Son of God (title), our Savior (title) and King (title). This personal name has the literal meaning of “Jehovah is the Savior” or “Jehovah Saves.” Think of the sacrilege, the blasphemy of actually redefining Jesus’ very own personal name. 

What should we think of anyone who actually rewrote the original manuscripts of the NT by “translating” every instance of the thousands of uses of the personal name “Jesus” found in the inspired scriptures as “LAMB”? Then the name “Jesus” would no longer appear in the thousands of places it was originally written at God’s direction and command. For example Luke 1:31 would now read: 

“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name the LAMB,”

and Phil. 2:10, 11 would now read: 

“That at the name of the LAMB every knee should bow .... and that every tongue should confess the Christ, the LAMB is Lord”!

Wouldn’t this be an obvious example of blasphemous redefinition? 

(15) Well, then, the very same thing is even more blasphemous when it concerns the only personal name of God himself, “Jehovah” (which has the literal meaning of “He Who Will Be”)! Of the nearly 7000 times the inspired Bible writers used God’s only personal name in the Scriptures, most trinitarian Bibles (e.g., RSV, NASB, NIV, GNB) have redefined them all as the LORD. Some, such as the KJV, have used the proper translation of “Jehovah” (English form) or “Yahweh” (possible Hebrew form) fewer than ten times and then redefinedthe 6000 (plus) other instances as “the LORD”! They have done this in spite of the fact that God has commanded that his holy personal name be known and used forever! 

“Yes, tell [the Israelites], JEHOVAH, the God of your ancestors .... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations.” - Ex. 3:15, Living Bible. 

“Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name O LORD [“Jehovah”]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” - Ps. 83:16-18, KJV. 

True, such redefinition helps trinitarians “interpret” scriptures which would otherwise disprove the trinity, but think of the consequences! 

* * * * * * 

The real effect of redefining the words used in the inspired Holy Scriptures is that of spiritual adultery. We must be no part of such blasphemous disobedience, dishonesty, and deceit. Those early fourth century Christians who desired the attractive trappings of the world (which included the multiple godhead favored by the surrounding very powerful, very influential pagan nations) became “adulteresses” to the one true God, their “husband and owner”! - See the HIST study paper.

“Do you not realize, you adulteresses, that friendship with the world is enmity toward God? Therefore, whoever determines to be a friend of the world becomesGod’s enemy.” - James 4:4, The Modern Language Bible.

 We must not participate in the process of blasphemous redefinition, of course. But we must also not continue to teach them or even seem to condone them by our silence or passivity. If we remain (with the “many”) members of an organization that teaches such things, we are condoning those things. Our very presence (or even our name on the membership list) is reinforcing that blasphemy. 

And, certainly, if we participate in (or even condone by our silence or passivity) theredefining of the very knowledge of God Himself, we are committing “adultery” in the highest sense and establishing ourselves with the “many” in the middle of the broad road that leads to eternal destruction. 

“...those who are real worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” - Jn 4:23, 24, NEB.

“Father, .... this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God...” - Jn 17:1, 3, KJV.

“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed ... taking vengeance on them that know not God ... with everlasting destruction” - 2 Thess. 1:7, 8, 9, KJV. 

“Go in by the narrow gate; for broad and roomy is the road that leads to destruction, and many are going in by it. But narrow is the gate and hard is the road that leads to life, and few are they that find it.... Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only those whopractice doing the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, was it not in your name that we prophesied ... and did many wonder-works?’ And then I will say to them openly, ‘I never knew you at all. Go away from me, you who practiced doing wrong.’” - Matt. 7:13, 21-23, CBW.

As in our original example we can easily give our own new meanings, which we and themany around us prefer, but the result is still spiritual adultery. 

* * * * *

  

NOTES 

A           The word “monotheism” does not refer to a single God (or even “God-nature”) which is composed of many persons! It means, instead, a religion which has one and only one [monos] single person who is worshiped as the Most High God. This really has nothing to do with a “God-nature”! Contrast the word “polytheism” with “monotheism.” 

Polytheism is a religion with many persons sharing the worship which is properly due the Most High God Alone. For one function (war, for example) one deity receives the worship and sacrifices. On another occasion another deity (the goddess of love, for example) may receive the worship and sacrifices. It doesn’t matter whether they all share the same nature (as gods), as they most often did. What mattered was the position or authority and power each one held.

B        Also note that the NT word for “onlybegotten” (monogenes) means asingle individual who alone was directly created (or procreated) by someone. You would not even properly call one twin (or one out of a set of triplets who had somehow all been born at the same instant) “the only begotten”(monogenes) ! Actually they would have to be described as part of a group of “many-begotten” (polygenes) ! 

C          Some ancient Hindus took their polytheism another step. They said thatall Hindu gods are really one in nature (and being) with the Supreme God, therefore they were all True God. This did not, however, make them actual monotheists!

In exactly the same way, trinitarians are not monotheists! They could be described as polytheists or, like those ancient Hindus, as having a form of pantheistic polytheism. 

　

It's official, 'Junk DNA'= Junk science

Genetics Leaves Central Dogma and Junk DNA in the Rear-View Mirror
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Today, we look at some discoveries that continue to leave the Central Dogma and “junk DNA” in the rear-view mirror. Through the front windshield, we see discoveries about epigenetics coming fast.

New Form of Regulatory DNA

A “mysterious” form of DNA shaped like a four-stranded knot, once thought to exist only in the lab, has been discovered to be active in cell nuclei. Yasemin Saplakoglu reports in Live Science that “many scientists thought that it couldn’t possibly exist in human cells,” because it loves acidic environment not found naturally in the body. Called an i-motif, the structure has been now reported by Australian scientists in a paper in Nature Chemistry, and the rush is on to see what it does. Saplakoglu thinks “it may play an important role in regulating our genes.” Co-author Marcel Dinger sees much more to discover in the forward view:

“There’s so much of the genome that we don’t understand, probably like 99 percent of it,” Dinger said. Seeing DNA folded like this in living cells “makes it possible to decode those parts of the genome and understand what they do.”

How often have we heard about new roles for junk DNA? Here’s another: “A conserved function for pericentromeric satellite DNA” announced in the journal eLife by researchers at the University of Michigan. This one got promoted from junk to captain:

A universal and unquestioned characteristic of eukaryotic cells is that the genome is divided into multiple chromosomes and encapsulated in a single nucleus. However, the underlying mechanism to ensure such a configuration is unknown. Here we provide evidence that pericentromeric satellite DNA, which is often regarded as junk, is a critical constituent of the chromosome, allowing the packaging of all chromosomes into a single nucleus.

Old-school geneticists considered this kind of DNA as “junk” or “selfish” DNA that perpetuated itself for no purpose, says Science Daily. But lead author Yukiko Yamashita and colleagues “were not quite convinced by the idea that this is just genomic junk.” For one thing, it is highly conserved, so “If we don’t actively need it, and if not having it would give us an advantage, then evolution probably would have gotten rid of it. But that hasn’t happened.” When they took a closer look, they found that cells in fruit flies, mice, humans and probably all vertebrates cannot survive without it. Using a protein named D1 that binds to the satellite DNA, they found it provides vital attachment points for molecular machines that keep chromosomes in the nucleus. Without it, DNA would float off into buds with only part of the genome, and the cell would die.

The similar findings from both fruit fly and mouse cells lead Yamashita and her colleagues to believe that satellite DNA is essential for cellular survival, not just in model organisms, but across species that embed DNA into the nucleus — including humans.

Genetics Without the “Epi” Prefix Is Incomplete

A geneticist at , Johns Hopkins is telling colleagues not to forget the “epi” in genetics research. “In a review article published April 5 in the New England Journal of Medicine scientist Andrew Feinberg, M.D., calls for more integration between two fields of DNA-based research: genetics and epigenetics.” It is essential for human disease prevention and mitigation, Feinberg notes, but from his vantage point, “scientists know comparatively little about how existing drugs may be altering patients’ epigenomes.” 

He suggests that combining genomewide and epigenomewide association studies can overcome problems of assigning cause and effect to specific alterations among either type of study alone.

Identity Crisis Solved

Why do cells with identical genes perform unique jobs? Consider how different a blood cell is from a brain cell, and yet they both share the same genome in their nuclei. Researchers at Trinity College Dublin explored the question of “cellular identity,” which they say is “central to the field of epigenetics,” and “made a significant discovery that explains how and why the billions of different cells in our bodies look and act so differently despite containing identical genes.”

Central to this is a group of epigenetic regulators, called Polycombs, which are vital to regulating cellular identity in multicellular organisms of both the plant and animal kingdoms. The Bracken lab studies the biology of these Polycomb epigenetic regulators, and their newly discovered PALI1 and PALI2 proteins form a new family of Polycombs that are unique in that they are only present in vertebrates — they are not found in invertebrate animals, or plants.

The uniqueness of these regulators to vertebrate animals does not mean that plants and invertebrates lack mechanisms to achieve cellular identity; they just have different ones.

The Anti-Dogmatists

Confidence in the Central Dogma been collapsing for a long time now. The idea that DNA is the master molecule, making RNA that makes proteins and that’s all you need to know — taught uncritically since the 1960s — cannot stand up to all the new discoveries. At The Conversation, Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger explain “Why genes don’t hold all the answers for biologists.”

It is still widely believed that the gene is the foundation of life — that its discovery has provided information about how all living beings are controlled by the genetic factors they inherit from their parents.

But scientists and philosophers are beginning to doubt the relevance of the gene for understanding biology.

Despite being central to the subject for over a century, there has never been a universally accepted, constant definition of what genes actually are. From the beginning, scientists have tried to link human characteristics to genes, but had limited success in establishing stable connections.

Rheinberger is a historian of science at the Max Planck Institute. Together, the two produced a book called The Gene: From Genetics to Postgenomics that undermines the neat picture of genetics as a triumph of 20th-century science. While readers of the press release will enjoy the short video biography of Gregor Mendel, the 19th-century father of genetics whose work was largely ignored until well into the 20th century, genetics today is much more complicated

Biologists will of course continue to talk about genes in the future. But genes will no longer be seen as the blueprint for life, even if technological and medical applications of gene technology suggest this. Instead, they are increasingly seen as only one of the many resources that organisms make use of in adapting to challenges in their environments.

Conclusion

The old genetics of the late 20th century was powerful enough evidence of intelligent design, with its systems of highly-accurate transcription and translation of encoded information. Now, we find that the old picture was far too simplistic. And the surprising lack of “genes” found by the Human Genome Project, feeding rumors of useless “junk” pervading our genome, is rapidly being supplanted by evidence of hierarchical codes and functions everywhere. 

If the old genetics was sufficient to allow A.E. Wilder-Smith to help convince Matti Leisola to become a Darwin  Heretic in the 1970s (pp. 40-41), how much more will the flood of new discoveries, illustrated by these few examples, persuade the next generation of geneticists that Darwinism is hopelessly inadequate to account for the complexity of life? It’s like having to account for half a dozen codes instead of one. The future looks bright for ID in next-generation genetics, embedded in epigenetics. The nucleus is a whole new ball game.