The lawless dead vs. Eternal torture.

  Roman ch.7:1NIV"Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?"

At death law ends and hence sin ends and sanction for sin ends.

Romans ch.6:7NIV"because anyone who has died has been set free from sin."

These facts are key to understanding how Christ substitutionary atonement works. 

If it is not literally the case that no further penalty can be exacted from the dead as the transition from living to dead is itself a plenary payment of the Divine sanction Christ death and resurrection does not constitute a legal substitution for anyone.

So the claim of some kind of additional post mortem penalty is irrational.

For the defence

      An unabridged excerpt of Bill davidson's article in the Nov.2nd 1946 edition of Collier's Entitled:Jehovah's travelling salesmen:P.75  

"because of the obviously huge income from the millions of publications every year the board of directors have often been accused of using Jehovah's Witnesses as a personal racket. 

There is no evidence to support these charges.The leaders actually live in lower middle class simplicity,and the first president of the Society,Charles Taze Russel,left exactly $200 in his will when he died in 1916.He had been the owner of a chain of haberdashery stores and a very wealthy man at one time.The same thing is true of Judge Joseph F.Rutherford,the second president.A few years ago,Roger baldwin of the American civil liberties union became one of the few men outside of the board of directors to get some official notion of the organisations finances.Baldwin is convinced that the million dollar profit of that particular year was almost completely eaten up by foreign publication losses,administration expenses and the tremendous legal expenses necessary to defend the witnesses in courtrooms."

Page 4 paragraph 1 Watchtower society's charter."It does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit,incidentally or otherwise,to its members,directors or officers.Its members shall be only men who are mature,active and faithful witnesses of Jehovah devoting full time to performance of one or more of its chartered purposes under its direction and by its authority,or such men who are devoting part time as active presiding ministers or servants of congregations of Jehovah's witnesses."

A new AI overlord in town?

 

The supremacy of the God and Father of Jesus is common sense itself.

          Luke Ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David,"

John Ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. "

The God and Father of Jesus christ is the MOST HIGH God and thus is co equal to no one.

John Ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. "

According to Jesus his God and Father is the one and only God of Israel . By common consent the God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the one and only God of Israel is not triune.

John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”"

The God and Father of Jesus is not triune by common consent . The God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of Jesus' disciples . Therefore the God and Father of Jesus' disciples is not triune.

Matthew Ch.24:36NIV"“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, f but ONLY the Father. "

ONLY the God and Father of Jesus Christ is omniscient thus only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the MOST HIGH God.

Roman's Ch.1:9EHV"To be sure, (the)God, whom I serve with my spirit by proclaiming the gospel of his Son, is my witness to how constantly I make mention of you. In all my prayers, "

Roman's Ch.3:30NIV"since there is only ONE(Grk.eis) God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. "

Paul was an actual monotheist and thus rendered exclusive sacred service to one most high God. Whom he clearly identifies as the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

Matthew Ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”" not merely the living Father but the living God to whom all believers owe EXCLUSIVE Devotion/Sacred Service.

Malachi Ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father b ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?"

The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God.

On recognizing JEHOVAH’S Signature.

 Richard Dawkins, the Koala, and the Giraffe

Wolf Ekkard Lonnig

Editor’s note: We are pleased to offer this Abstract from Part I of a new paper by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Richard Dawkins, the Koala, and the Giraffe: How Evolutionists Overlook Signatures of Design, Part I.”

Abstract: Key Points of the Contents

Referring to science broadcaster Robyn Williams (Australia), Richard Dawkins believes that the koala’s pouch opens downwards due to its ancestry from a wombat-like animal instead of upwards as in the kangaroo — “a legacy in history.” A similar legacy, he assumes, also accounts for the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe.  

The Australian Koala Foundation contradicts him on this: The pouch “faces straight outwards rather than backwards” (emphasis added). The IFAW (Australia) agrees that, as compared with kangaroos, koalas “have a more centrally located opening.” And that is for good reasons: “The pouch protects young koalas, called joeys, from injury while the mother climbs among trees.” 

Now, Darwin correctly observed that “false facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often long endure.” I consider the statement about the backwards opening pouch of the koalas to be “a false fact” to bolster neo-Darwinism — a false fact still widely repeated in many public statements. Check Google on the pouch of the koala. 

A series of links to videos and pictures shows the enormous differences between koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and wombat (Vombatus ursinus) babies emerging from their pouches. This is likewise for good reasons: koalas are fully arboreal whereas wombats live on the ground and especially underground. 

As for the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, see here.   

I remind the reader of a massive contradiction within the theory of evolution itself: “The genetic message, the program of the present-day organism…resembles a text without an author, that a proof-reader has been correcting for more than two billion years, continually improving, refining and completing it, gradually eliminating all imperfections” (Nobel laureate Francois Jacob). I give similar assertions by other authors in the text. And now, as a result of limitless, omniscient, and omnipotent natural selection over millions of years, “gradually eliminating all imperfections,” how are we to account for the koala’s imperfection, a pouch that “opens downwards, instead of upwards as in a kangaroo,” or an entirely superfluous long detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe?

I cite thirty special adaptations in the arboreal/tree-living koala. Most of them are problematic from the perspective of gradual evolution, but, according to Dawkins, “evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.” I subsume the overall system of synorganizations (the term used by evolutionist A. Remane), or “co-adaptations,” under the subheading “Signatures of Design in the Koala.”

Applying neo-Darwinism to the koala’s “two thumb adaptation” is shows — when starting with a hand/front paw like that of the wombat — the following result: After discussing several presuppositions and implications of gradualism, thousands of steps in millions of years would be necessary for the specific adaptation of the koala’s hand alone. And, just to emphasize the point: according to population genetics, here also “each new successful evolutionary step would imply the substitution of an entire Phascoarctos-like population.” 

In summary: According to evolutionary biologist Danielle Clode in her book about the koala (2023), “Koalas are singular creatures: idiosyncratic and inimitable. They are sometimes described as being ‘like bears,’ ‘like wombats,’ ‘like sloths,’ or ‘like pandas.’ They share some parallels, some traits with these creatures, but they are not in any way ‘like’ them. Koalas are simply unlike anything else we know of” 

Photo: the koala’s hand in action grasping a twig, by W.-E. L.

Now, if one is free to break away from the prohibitions of materialistic philosophy, one could, for example, accept the following reasoning. According to Austrian cell physiologist Siegfried Strugger, professor of botany at the University of Münster: “In comparison to the cell, all automation of human technology is only a primitive beginning of man in principle to arrive at a biotechnology.” Well, if the first steps on the path to the ingenious level of cybernetic complexities of the cell, i.e., the “primitive beginning” in Strugger’s formulation, demands conscious action, imagination, perception, intelligence, wisdom, mental concepts, spirit and mind — all being absolutely necessary for the basic start — how much more so does this have to apply to the origin of the thousand times more complex cybernetic systems of the many complex life forms themselves. And those include the specified and irreducibly complex structures inescapably necessary for the koala and countless other organisms 

(see more here).

Physics' chickens coming home to roost?

 

With friendlies like these...

 

On light pollution

 

Young Titan vs.old Titan.

 

The civil war rages on in pope Francis's divided house?

 

Materialism of the gaps?

 

Lessons for aspiring Titans

 

The Titans' leader of the opposition returns to form?

 

Recognizing JEHOVAH'S Signature?

 Intelligent Design in Action: DNA Cryptography

David coppedge

Twelve years ago, in a series on Intelligent Design in Action, I discussed the science of cryptology as an example. A review of terms is in order; what is the difference between cryptology and cryptography? Basically, it’s theory vs application.

Merriam-Webster defines cryptology as “the scientific study of cryptography and cryptanalysis.” Cryptography is the process of writing or reading secret messages in code. Cryptanalysis involves the theory of solving cryptographic systems. There’s a Journal of Cryptology. There are professors of cryptology. Cryptology involves theories, data, experimentation, and testing. It has all the accouterments of science — and is entirely based on intelligent design principles. Which makes sense. It takes a mind to encode a message, and mind to decode it. 

If cryptology is an example of ID in action, how much more when it involves biologically coded information? Such is a new application of cryptology discussed in The Scientist. Dr. Danielle Gerhard explained why “DNA Cryptography” represents a cutting-edge technique to reduce biosecurity risks. 

Over the last two decades, synthesizing DNA has become faster and easier, but researchers worry that this will make it easier for people to access potentially dangerous products. While many experts call for more federal guidance and regulation over the production of synthetic nucleic acid sequences, others have drawn focus to biosecurity concerns that are a little closer to home: in research labs. Jean Peccoud, a synthetic biologist at Colorado State University, and Casey-Tyler Berezin, a molecular biologist on Peccoud’s team, discussed the biggest biosecurity issue facing research, approaches for encrypting messages into DNA sequences, and the importance of sequencing technologies for mitigating biosecurity risks. 

Sequencing: that word rings a bell. Doug Axe in his book Undeniable, and Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell, explained that the carrier of information in biomolecules is not the building blocks but the sequence in which they are arranged. In The Design Inference 2.0, Dembski and Ewert expanded their earlier concept of complex specified information, showing that “short description length” is sufficient to identify design. A sequence of ones and zeroes that looks random might only be describable by repeating the whole sequence, unless a pattern like “the series of prime numbers” were found in it. That would shorten the description and identify the product of a mind.

How does this relate to the new science of DNA Crytography? Similar to a series of numbers, DNA consists of building blocks or “letters” whose sequence can—and does—convey information. As we know from genetics, DNA conveysfunctional information when it codes for proteins. It can also, as discussed here, convey non-biological information in human language. Craig Venter’s team, for instance, embedded their own watermark in DNA when completing their “synthetic cell” project. A highly versatile molecule, DNA has also been used to encode music, art, and even movies

Biosecurity with DNA

Dr. Gerhard writes that “Hidden Messages in DNA Could Reduce Biosecurity Risks.” The reason is that DNA is a good substrate for digital information. The subtitle says, “To improve traceability and enable authentication of synthetic nucleic acid sequences, researchers are embedding digital signatures into DNA.” Her article includes a transcript of a recording between Jean Peccoud, a synthetic biologist at Colorado State University, and Casey-Tyler Berezin, a molecular biologist on Peccoud’s team.

Peccoud highlights a big risk that till recently was thought impractical: sending text messages across international borders that could be translated into DNA sequences for biological warfare. “How do we know that what we have in our labs is what we think it is?” Peccoud asks. Digital signatures — encoded strings difficult to crack — could provide needed assurance. Digital signatures have long been used in business and government to authenticate messages. If DNA is a form of text, it can be used in a similar way.

For example, every research sample, such as a tube with a DNA plasmid, has two facets: a computer record that contains information about the sequence or provides a plasmid map and then there’s the content of the tube. When the two don’t match, there are all sorts of potential problems that arise. This may not be a biosecurity problem in the regular sense because you’re not dealing with infectious agents, but people are spending millions of dollars on research that they cannot reproduce because they don’t know what they have in their flasks. It’s a security problem that comes from the fact that what you’re working with is not what you think it is.

This risk is not science fiction. “That’s something that is happening in every lab, every day, and we have very few tools to figure out what’s going on in our own lab,” he adds. Berezin shows why the time has come for DNA Cryptography.

I became interested in the topic when I joined Peccoud’s synthetic biology team. I realized that a lot of the methods that we’re using, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and bacterial transformations, are methods I had used before but never wondered where the DNA sequences came from or how I would know if something had changed in the sequences. This is the status quo — we work with DNA and take for granted that it’s going to be what we think it is. Once you are aware of the biosecurity issues, it’s something you can’t turn your back on. Now, I see those issues everywhere.

DNA Cryptography mirrors existing methods to authenticate digital messages in communication channels. When sequences of code transfer across the internet, how does a receiver know that the message has not been corrupted by noise or malware? A system at the receiving end, such as a router, can recalculate the digital signature, often reduced to a string by a hashing algorithm, to find out. If not validated, the receiver can ask for a retransmission. This way, a human or software system at the end of the line can have confidence in the message.

Similarly, digital signatures in DNA can authenticate a product from a sender or warn the receiver if mutations in the DNA have corrupted it. DNA Cryptography reduces uncertainty.

DNA is going to mutate. That’s what it likes to do. It likes to replicate and sometimes that doesn’t go perfectly. So even if you might have something safe in a tube in your lab, after you propagate it 100 times or 1,000 times, you might not have what you think you do. Whether that’s dangerous or not really depends on the specific scenario, but that uncertainty of not knowing what you have, is very prevalent across academic research labs.It takes a lot of work on the part of the user to ensure that they’re tracking all the sequences that they have and that they are sequencing their plasmids as they go on. 

DNA barcoding is already widespread, Berezin adds. What’s new is creating ciphers in DNA that are secret and difficult to break. 

We’re interested in encoding encrypted messages that provide the user with information about the authenticityof the materials they’re working with. For this, our group has been developing a digital signature approach called DNA Identification Number (DIN), which is a more complex cryptography approach that makes it even more difficult for the receiver to open unless they know what they’re looking for.

The national security ramifications of DIN are obvious. Berezin goes on to explain how DINs are created and hashed into standard string lengths, and how techniques are being developed to assist those wishing to use it. From this article, we see several points relevant to ID:

Information is conveyed by the sequence, not the building blocks.

Information can be translated from one medium into another.

Mutations or noise degrade information, contrary to the expectations of Darwinism.

DNA is now a tool in steganography, another example of ID in action (here, here ).

Intelligent design is an integral part of many sciences. Now we see new applications with the building blocks of biomolecules. But what about all those sequences in DNA that were not manipulated by humans? I wonder if some of the non-coding DNA might turn out to include natural hidden messages. Will we find compression algorithms, digital signatures, or steganography in things labeled pseudogenes or junk DNA? Given our experience in artificial cryptography, intelligent design advocates have reason to investigate.

Nuking climate change?

 

JEHOVAH'S Witnesses and religious liberty. II

 

Considering Darwinism on Darwin day.

 

JWs and religious liberty.

 

On entropy

 

Yet another clash of Titans: Freestyle Edition.

 

On Norway's crossover to the dark side re:religious liberty

 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway: Why the Oslo District Court Decision Is Wrong

It claims that the practice of shunning illegally prevents adults and minors from leaving the religious organization. This claim is false.

By Massimo Introvigne

On March 4, 2024, the Oslo District Court ruled against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and upheld the decisions of the government and the State Administrator of Oslo and Viken who denied the Jehovah’s Witnesses the state subsidies they had peacefully received for thirty years based on Section 16 of the Norwegian Constitution (“All religious and philosophical communities must be supported on an equal footing”). Registration as a religious organization of the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses under Law No. 31 of April 24, 2020, was also denied.

           The District Court is aware that this was a difficult decision with serious consequences. It observes that at least, under Law No. 31 the lack of registration would not prevent the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses to continue their activities and to teach what they teach everywhere in the world (except in a few totalitarian countries that have banned them, including Russia). The consequences of the non-registration are that they will not be eligible for state subsidies, nor will they be able to celebrate legally valid marriages.

             State subsidies in Norway are not a gift. Since the Church of Norway, a Lutheran denomination, is a state church supported by the government with transfers of money proportional to the number of its members, the Constitution mandates that to respect the principle of equality other religions should receive the same proportional subsidies. The judge himself acknowledges that not being able to celebrate legal marriages within one’s religious community may be perceived as discriminatory. He also agrees that the decision may have a broader “stigmatizing effect.”

           Yet, the judge believes that all these admittedly important factors “are not weighty enough” when compared to the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by practicing shunning, violate in his opinion their members’ freedom to change their religion. Shunning is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching recommending that members do not associate with those who have been disassociated as unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization (as opposed to simply becoming inactive). Cohabiting relatives are not shunned, although they are excluded from the family’s religious activities.

          Here, I find the decision slightly confusing. At times, it seems that the judge regards the shunning both of adult and minor ex-members as grounds for his decision. In other passages, however, he seems to acknowledge that Law no. 31 includes a note that “if adult members of their own free will follow rules that restrict their rights and freedoms, they cannot be considered violations… Essentially, this also applies even if the obligations can be considered harmful.” In its conclusion, the decision cautiously focuses on the alleged violation of the “right to opt out” of children.

                      The decision notes that the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to leave a religious organization. The judge is persuaded that Jehovah’s Witnesses in practice are prevented from leaving since they know that, if they leave, they will be shunned.

                       As mentioned earlier, it is at times unclear whether in the end the objection only concerns the shunning of minors or also extends to adults. In the second case, the decision is patently absurd and runs counter to dozens of decisions on shunning by jurisdictions in other countries, including supreme courts. They have noted that religious organizations have the right to self-organize themselves as they deem fit. Christian groups also have the right to interpret the Bible in their own way. The interpretation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this case is not even particularly original. Clearly, something similar to the shunning they practice today is taught in 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”), and 2 John 10–11 (“Do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work”). Others may suggest a non-literal interpretation of these passages, but it is not for secular courts of law to second-guess religious organizations on their interpretation of the Bible.

                            The main objection is, however, another. All human organizations have what sociologists call exit costs. By leaving a demanding but well-paid job I may gain more freedom but lose a good salary. The loss of the salary is my exit cost. Shunning is a typical exit cost. A spouse that decides unilaterally to divorce and to marry a different partner may be shunned by the abandoned ex-spouse, perhaps even by children. Members of a political party who quit and join a political organization with the opposite ideology may be shunned as traitors by their former comrades. Several religions, including Islam and branches of ultra-orthodox Judaism, treat “apostates” in a less charitable way than the Jehovah’s Witnesses

                     The Norwegian judge’s argument is that to avoid the exit costs we are compelled to remain in a religious organization we may no longer believe in and are thus denied our right to leave it that is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. But by applying the same argument, one can argue that marriage or political parties are also institutions that violate the rights of those who want to divorce or change political affiliation, since the exit costs may make them reluctant to leave.

            Sociologists know that eliminating exit costs is not possible. They are an unavoidable feature of organized social life. Sometimes, one has the impression that the enemies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are precisely asking courts of law to compel those who do not want to communicate with their former co-religionists to do it, which is not only unfair but impossible. More often, opponents argue that what they want is that judges would prevent the organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching shunning. But that would put the judges in the strange position of interpreting 1 Corinthians and 2 John and substitute their opinion to the one of a religious organization in determining what these venerable Biblical texts “really” mean.

             In the end, the Oslo judge found it safer to focus on minors who are first baptized and then, if they become unrepentant sinners, shunned. One can measure the cultural distance of the judge’s own feelings from those of any conservative religious group, not only the Jehovah’s Witnesses, when he wrote that he finds it “reasonable to expect” that most minors would engage in “sexual relations with their boyfriends or girlfriends.” Apart from the cultural problems of the judge in understanding conservative religion, he accepts the opinion of an “apostate” ex-member that minors are baptized and become Jehovah’s Witnesses when they are not mature enough to understand their obligations. But surely this is a drastic conclusion one cannot arrive at on the basis of one witness or a few anecdotical examples. What would be required is a quantitative study of those baptized as minors. Nothing similar is quoted in the decision. Although Norway has introduced a system of “youth punishment” with more lenient penalties for them, minors can be tried from criminal offenses from age 15. If they are mature enough in Norway to stand a trial before a criminal court, perhaps they are also mature enough to make informed religious decisions.

                    Once they have been baptized, minors run the risk of being shunned. Again, some opponents may have told the judge that this is not rare but among his numerous witnesses he found only one woman, now 40, who was disfellowshipped for a sexual offense and shunned as a minor, when she was 14, thus 26 years ago. She testifies that after a “short time” she was allowed to return to the fold by writing a “letter of regret” and attending a “short meeting.” There is simply no evidence that disfellowshipping minors, with the consequence that they are shunned (but not by cohabiting relatives), is more than a rare occurrence.

                      It may be objected that a rare injustice would be an injustice, nonetheless. The answer is that, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in cases about the dissolution of organizations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia in 2010 (Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia) and 2022 (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia), denial or cancellation of registration of a religious organization is a serious measure with dramatic consequences for its members that states can adopt only in case of frequent and obvious crimes or misdemeanors. Shunning minors is not frequent, and the “principle of proportionality” between the fact and the sanction mentioned by the ECHR in its decisions about Russia would not be respected even if this was a crime.

                    But is it a crime? The judge himself admits that Jehovah’s Witnesses, in good faith, perceive shunning as a “loving and meaningful arrangement,” a painful medicine (painful, it should be added, for those who shun and not only for those who are shunned) that in many cases helps restoring family harmony and morality, as those shunned end up understanding their mistakes and repenting.

                  According to the decision, the violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would be in the fact that to minors, just as to adults, would be denied the freedom to “opt out” of the organization. Afraid of being shunned, minors who would want to quit in the end are dissuaded from leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which the judge thinks violates their right to change their religious affiliations. However, if the minors are mature enough to understand their obligations when they are baptized—and no evidence has been offered that this is not the case—they are aware of the exit costs just as the adults are. It is also false that a young boy or girl does not have experience of exit costs: he may decide to break a relation with a boyfriend or a girlfriend, quit a group of friends, leave a sport club, in extreme cases even leave the family and go live elsewhere. All these experiences have painful exit costs.

             The decision argues that, because youth are especially fragile, the experience of shunning is more traumatic for them. This is possible, but youths also have greater flexibility in socialization than adults. Young Jehovah’s Witnesses attend public schools, where after disfellowshipping they can continue to attend or newly enter into circles of friends who are not part of their former religion. The judge insists on the pain of not being able to communicate with grandparents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, grandparents may cut ties with their children and grandchildren for a variety of reasons, none of which courts of law can really correct. And even outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, minors who do something that is perceived by their relatives as a betrayal of the family or an expression of moral corruption may find themselves, for all practical purposes, “shunned.”

                       It is difficult to disagree with professor of religious history, Dag Øistein Endsjø, who told the leading Norwegian Christian daily newspaper “Vårt Land” that the verdict is against numerous decisions rendered in other countries, as well as against the case law of the European Court of Human Rights where it would have limited chances to survive. It is also against simple logic. Perhaps a higher Norwegian court will acknowledge it even before the court in Strasbourg.

                

                            

                      

A historic clash of Titans.

 

On false prophets and false accusers.

        Suppose I had access to everything you had done or said since you were a little child, stored on a computer. It would be a simple matter for me to pick out a hundred or two hundred of the worst things you’d said and done over the course of your life, to write them up in a list with dates, times and places and then to proclaim, in the same way as a correspondent did in one of his emails to me: “The question is not what you have got wrong, but whether you got anything right.” On the other hand, by a similar process of selecting the 100-200 kindest, most generous, loving things you’d done, I could equally make you look like a saint. Both pictures would be true in a sense, but neither would be the whole truth. Why is this important?

The WatchtowerIn the last 125 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published literally millions of words in publications such as The Watchtower. This includes powerful arguments against atheism and the theory of evolution, eloquent defences of the Bible as the inspired word of God, articles upholding the Bible’s stance on moral issues such as abortion, fornication, adultery and homosexual lifestyles. Watchtower publications have long exhorted their readers to display Christian qualities and imitate Jesus. They have shown how applying the Bible’s counsel can benefit family life. Through The Watchtower, millions of people have been comforted by the Bible’s message of hope.

You might expect that evangelical Christian organizations would happily applaud most of the above. After all, evangelical Christians believe in God and reject evolution, consider the Bible to be God’s inspired word, oppose sexual sins and abortion. They, too, speak of the need to imitate Jesus and display Christlike qualities. You would expect, then, that evangelical Christian groups could find a lot of positive things to say about The Watchtower. You’d think they’d congratulate Jehovah’s Witnesses for energetically spreading the above-mentioned views throughout the world and in literally hundreds of languages. But you would be wildly wrong.

An analysis of quotations from The Watchtower and other Jehovah’s Witness publications made by evangelical Christian writers - particularly on the Internet, but also in print - reveals that, far from commending Witness literature for all the positive material they publish, these writers consistently attack Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively seek anything that could possibly be used to discredit them - including many things published more than 100 years ago!

You could compare their attitude with that of a man who visits one of the world’s most beautiful cities - say Vienna. Instead of touring the most attractive parts of the city, though, this man visits the Municipal Garbage Dump and photographs the rubbish there. Then he goes to the industrial area and photographs the factories. Everywhere he goes he looks for the ugliest, most sordid parts of the city. Making copious use of close-ups to highlight the least attractive parts and using the most unflattering camera angles, he ensures his pictures give the worst possible impression. Then, on his return home, he shows the photographs to his friends, to convince them that Vienna is the most awful city in the world.

In resorting to similar tactics, critics of Witness publications immediately reveal their bias. The Watchtower Society is their ideological opponent, to be defeated at all costs. They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years. They take whatever suits their purpose and ignore the rest. They rip quotes out of their context, attempting to make it look as though they say much more than they actually meant. Why do they do it? They do it because it is their job to do it! In short, they are far from being an objective source of information.

Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery. It is easy to detect an agenda behind this type of mudslinging. Just about anyone who wanted to believe it has already done so. And as for the rest of us, what hasn't killed us has made us stronger.

But we should not reject a person’s criticism simply because we feel it is wrongly motivated. Prejudiced and hate-filled people can sometimes be at least partially right. As Christians, we should be discerning, remembering the admonition of the proverb, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word.” (Proverbs 14:15) With that in mind, let us examine the assertions commonly made in anti-Witness literature concerning the Witnesses’ alleged “false prophecies”.

Taken Out of Context

We have not the gift of prophecy 

Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.

The standard technique of critics appears to be to present a list of alleged “false prophecies”, the longer the better. There are dozens of such lists on the Internet. These take the form of quotations from The Watchtower and other Witness publications.

Whereas the majority of the quotes themselves are accurate, the context in which they were presented - both the immediate context of the printed page and the historical context - is omitted. Selective quotations ensure that anything that gives the impression of certainty is usually included, whereas any cautionary statements are omitted.We are not for a moment denying that the publications - in particular the earlier ones - have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen. Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:[1]

With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction. 

With regard to 1914: : "We are not prqophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).[2]

With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."[3]

With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.[4]

Charles Taze RussellIt’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe. By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.

No Claim of Inspiration

Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications. Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect. Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case. (This is just a small selection of examples. Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)

1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."

1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”[5]

We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology.Zion's Watch Tower, 1908

1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.[6]1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.[7]

Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?[8]

1910s: However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.[9]

1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.[10]

1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended[11]

1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.[12]

1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances,nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.[13]

1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it[14]

Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)[15]

Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975

F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.

1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.[16]

1980s: It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.[17]

1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.[18]

2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.[19]

It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications. Thus, the critics' assertion that “the Watch Tower claims to be an inspired prophet” is manifestly false. 

Did Haydon Covington concede that the Watch Tower is a False Prophet?

Did Haydon Covington concede in the Walsh trial that the Watch Tower Society has promulgated false prophecy, as is stated by critics? Even if he had done so, what would that have proved? If Covington had said that the thought the Society was a false prophet, then he would have been mistaken, that is all. However, a look at the court record (even as it is quoted on anti-Witness web pages) shows that Covington did nothing of the sort. 

Critics' allegations that 'The Watchtower claims to be an inspired prophet' are manifestly false

The court records show that Covington said: “I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy ... there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.” When asked hypothetically if it would have been a false prophecy if the Society had authoritatively promulgated 1874 as the date for the return of Christ’s coming, Covington himself pointed out that this was only an assumption, and is then is recorded as having said the words “I agree that”. This is an incomplete sentence in English. Now it could very well be that he was interrupted and was not intending to agree that a false prophecy had been made. If we take the court to read “I agree to that”, he was simply agreeing hypothetically that the Society would have been guilty of false prophecy under a certain set of circumstances, namely if it had promulgated as authoritative that Christ returned in 1874. Now the records show that Covington had not studied the Society’s literature relating to 1874, saying “you are speaking of a matter that I know nothing of.” So, Covington’s comments, viewed in their proper context do not prove the point Witness critics are trying to make. Covington certainly did not mean that the Society was responsible for a false prophecy, as he had just a few moments earlier stated the very opposite. And as we have seen, the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves.

Of course, Witnesses do believe that God is using them - and their publications - to accomplish his work. But that is not the same as believing that God personally directs the writing of Watchtower Publications in the way that he inspired the Bible. The above quotations - and many others - show that at no time in the history of the organization has it claimed to be God’s prophet, inspired or infallible.[20]

It is evident here that critics are setting up a straw man argument. In other words, they are imputing to Watch Tower a position that it does not claim for itself and then refuting that position, instead of the Society’s actual position. This is really nothing but a dishonest debating trick.

Thus, the Watch Tower quotations, taken in context and stripped of all hyperbole and rhetoric, establish basically one thing only: that Watch Tower publications have on a number of occasions presented interpretations of Bible prophecies which later turned out to be incorrect. It is not possible to argue on the basis of the Watchtower literature that (1) the Society claims that its literature is inspired of God or infallible, (2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet.

Admittedly, it would certainly have been better for all concerned had the publications refrained from publishing such speculative interpretations, which doubtless led to disappointment for many. ‘The Watchtower’, far from covering over these facts, has admitted openly that this is the case, as is seen from the following extract from The Watchtower.

In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.[21]

Thus the Watch Tower Society has recognised that it was a mistake to speculate. But was it the only ever religious organization to make such a mistake?

Double Standards and Bigotry

If Jehovah’s Witnesses have had mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, they are far from alone. Many other students of the Bible - including some highly respected Catholic and Protestant writers - have made similar mistakes to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whole books have been written on the subject of predictions that failed to come true, but let’s look at just three examples from the world of Protestantism: Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham.

Protestant leader Martin Luther, believed that the end would come in his day. He believed theMartin Luther Turkish war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"?[22] and that "Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door"[23]

John WesleyMethodist founder John Wesley wrote: "1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan."[24]

In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in LosBilly GrahamAngeles: “I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.”[25]

If it had been Jehovah’s Witnesses who had said the things that Luther, Wesley and Graham proclaimed, these proclamations would have been added to the list of quotations supposedly proving McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185.that the Witnesses are false prophets. Unsurprisingly, however, the sources that attack the Witnesses for false prophecy do not generally take the same position when it comes to Protestant figures who have made very similar errors.

This should give all of us food for thought. If a newspaper editor were to publish in his paper all the crimes committed by members of just one ethnic group or race, dwelling on them in great detail, even repeatedly bringing up very old offences, but at the same time, ignoring all the crimes committed by members of another group (perhaps his own), then thinking people who looked at the facts would conclude that he was nothing but a bigot. What are we to think, then, when certain ones opposed to Jehovah’s Witnesses constantly harp on what they incorrectly and maliciously term “false prophecies” of the organization, reproducing ad nauseam the same quotations from Watch Tower literature, the majority of which were published almost 100 years ago, while remaining deadly silent about all similar errors by those who share their theological convictions? Is the word ‘bigoted’ any less appropriate? At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities.

Were Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham false prophets?

I do not think that the comments of Luther, Wesley or Graham make them false prophets, for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Watch Tower is a false prophet, namely, that interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.

Prophecy and Interpretation

It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are being guided by God. But, ‘guidance’ is a much broader concept than ‘inspiration’. True, inspiration is a form of guidance, but it is only one form. In this regard, Stafford makes a very telling point:

It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will which are then channelled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.[26]

“Prophecy” involves much more than simply predicting the future. It involves claiming to have a message directly from God. It is not the same as interpreting events or even interpreting the prophetic parts of the Bible. Russell understood this and that is why he said: “The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth”, adding “we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration”[27]

The Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. 

Similarly, when Wesley drew the conclusion that the end would come in 1836, he did so on the basis of his understanding of the Bible. Of course, this understanding turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, but that does not make him a false prophet. When Billy Graham stated in 1950 that the end would come within two years, he was not claiming that God had personally spoken to him through a dream or a vision. He was just stating what he believed after comparing world events with what he knew from the Bible. No charitable person would accuse Graham of being a false prophet because of that (although it is obvious that he did make an error of judgment). Likewise, when Luther stated that the Turkish war would lead to the end of the world, he was woefully mistaken, but that certainly does not make him a false prophet. Incidentally, Luther, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, also contradicted Copernicus and insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe! [28]

Thus, the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God, seen visions or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible. It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible, but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have some questions to answer:

(1) Do they think it is truthful and fair to focus on a minute selection of the Watch Tower’s published material - the most negative part - and ignore everything else?

(2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours). On what do they base that conclusion, and how do they explain the dozens of quotations I have presented from the Society’s literature - from all periods of its history - where the Society denies that?[29]

(3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations?

(4) Do they believe that others who have had mistaken expectations, including Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham, are false prophets, and if not, why not?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they should be above honest criticism and have not hidden the fact that they have made errors in their interpretations. But honest criticism implies respect for truth - the whole truth, not just extracts taken out of context and twisted to give an impression that they were never intended to give.

Beware of half truths. You might end up believing the wrong half!

Footnotes and References

[1] I am grateful to other Witness writers for bringing many of these citations to my attention. Additionally, the book Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition [JWD2] by Greg Stafford contains extensive research on this matter. Quotations from publications after 1950 are generally taken from the Watchtower Library 2003 CD-ROM. Almost all Russell’s writings are freely available on the Internet.

[2] Zion's Watch Tower, January 1, 1908 (reprint) page 4110

[3] The Watch Tower, January 1, 1925, page 3.

[4] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.

[5] Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1883, page 425.

[6] Zion 's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080 (emphasis added).

[7] "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 March 1904, reprint, 3327 (emphasis added).

[8] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.

[9] The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348 (emphasis added).

[10] Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), 61-62 (emphasis added).

[11] Light, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1930), 194 (emphasis added).

[12] The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, pp. 157-8.

[13] "Name and Purpose of the Watchtower," The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, 262-263 (emphasis added)

[14] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.

[15] The Watchtower, 15 August 1968, page 499.

[16] The Watchtower, 1 March 1979, page 23-24.

[17] Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 9. (Published 1988)

[18] Jehovah’s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 708 (Published 1993)

[19] The Watchtower, 1 December 2002, page 17.

[20] Occasionally, The Watchtower (for example 1 April 1972) has referred to true Christians (not specifically to the writers of Watch Tower publications) as “prophets”. However, the word is placed in inverted commas, which shows that it is not meant literally. The 1972 article is simply drawing parallels between experiences in the life of the prophet Ezekiel and those of Christians today as they fulfil Christ’s commission to preach to all the nations. This sense of the word ‘prophecy’ is recognised by many ‘mainstream’ Christians., Billy Graham’s biography is called “A prophet with Honor” . Pope John Paul II spoke of ‘the ‘prophetic office’ of the People of God - meaning their responsibility to give a Christian witness. (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264of.htm) In view of other comments (cited in the main article) in which the Society specifically repudiates prophet status, both before and after this article was published, attempts to use this article to demonstrate that the Watch Tower Society claims to be an inspired prophet are obviously misrepresenting the sense of the article.

[21] The Watchtower, 15 March 1980, page 17-18.

[22] John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken [Army Sermon Against the Turks],"Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.

[23] Ibid, p. 201.

[24]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxviii.xxiii.html

[25] McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)

[26] Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pp. 462-3.

[27] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506

[28] Luther is also quoted on certain websites as having said that Jesus would return 300 years from his time. (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther, trans. by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby [London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818], pp. 7,8.) I have not been able to verify this source, although I have no reason to doubt it.

[29] A computer search for the expression “inspired prophet” on the Watchtower 2003 CD-ROM (containing The Watchtower) since 1950 plus most other publications, revealed that the expression came up 44 times. Every single occurrence was referring to a Bible writer.

Settled science vs. Actual science.

Origins matter?

 

The human evolution narrative does not compute?

 Human Evolution by the Numbers: Chatbot Weighs In

Denyse O Leary

Over at Vox Popoli, writer Vox Day tried putting an evolution question to a chatbot. As we all know, chatbots are not much good with logic but they tend to be able to handle calculations. He writes,

                      Although AI has many limitations, including the more serious ideological restraints imposed by its highly-converged creators, the requirement for it to be capable of correctly crunching numbers puts it leagues ahead of the average scientist, particularly the average biologist, in grasping the obvious fact that there is absolutely no chance that evolution by natural selection can account for more than a very small and insignificant fraction of the genetic diversity that separates one species from another. 

“One Percent of Zero,” January 3, 2025

                   

After Some Chugging

He gave Google’s Gemini a go and after some chugging, got this result:

                  Given the vast difference between the maximum possible number of fixations through natural selection (225) and the estimated number of fixations required to account for the genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees (360,000), it is extremely unlikely that natural selection alone could account for all those fixations. Therefore, the probability that 360,000 fixation events could have occurred solely through natural selection is extremely low, essentially approaching zero for any practical purposes.

“One Percent of Zero”

           Day notes

Now, notice that despite arbitrarily reducing the size of the average fixation event to one percent of the observed 36,000,000 base pair differences between modern humans and modern chimpanzees on the basis of absolutely nothing, the AI still concluded that the probability that humans could have evolved from the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor as “essentially approaching zero for any practical purposes”. But the real probability is around one percent of approaching zero…

           He continues his dialogue with Gemini here.

For the True Believers

The probability calculations don’t matter much, though. The Darwinian story of human evolution from an ape-like creature is probably the most powerful modern secular myth. It’s a myth in the sense that it offers an account of human life in general, and can be applied to literally any topic.

Contrary evidence is irrelevant. What need not be proven true can’t be falsified either. For those who truly believe, Darwinism tends to organize their whole way of understanding life. It provides a justification for persecuting doubters as well. Those who would research life on Earth seriously must route around the edifice of faith erected around Darwinism

Against litigious XXV

Litigious:Your rejection of historical continuity in Christianity shows a misunderstanding of Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church. You dismiss historical Christianity as corrupted and claim Jehovah’s Witnesses are the true faith,

Myself:As I pointed our Lord and his apostles rejected the argument from antiquity yet you keep recycling this argument that our Lord rejected the Jews could point to similar promises in the scriptures that the law and the priesthood were to continue to olam,

Exodus ch.40:15NIV"Anoint them as you did their father, so they may also serve me as priests. With their anointing, Aaron’s descendants are set apart for the priesthood forever, from generation to generation.”"

Why do you keep recycling this tired old argument that our Lord and his apostles rejected. 

 Litigious:yet your movement did not exist until the 19th century. The early Church Fathers, who lived far closer to the apostles, taught doctrines that Jehovah’s Witnesses reject, including the deity of Christ and the Trinitarian nature of God (cf. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius). The Watchtower Society’s ever-changing doctrines undermine its claim to divine authority. Jesus did not establish an organization that would later need to be "restored"—He founded a Church that has endured since the time of the apostles.

Myself:the Jews would also have raised the same argument against the Christians and would point to extra biblical authority for their man made tradition again Jesus rejected man made tradition not rooted in scripture no matter how old. See Matthew ch.15:2-6 none of the foundation teachings of our movement were invented by the brothers you know about arius,there is also ancient authority for conditional immortality,and premillenialism,baptism by immersion,substitutionary atonement ,so individuals did preserve elements of the truth though these were in the minority just as the first century church was a tiny and hated minority and they were scattered,jesus prophecy at Matthew ch.13:24-30 indicated that it would be the case that apostates and their disciples would outnumber fruitbearing Christians 2thessalonians ch.2:1-12 points to those leading the rebellion they claim supernatural signs and gifts long after those have passed away. But the bloodstained fruit they bear exposes them as weeds sown by the enemy. 

Litigious:Your attempt to dismiss the documented changes in Jehovah’s Witness doctrine as “window dressing” ignores the serious theological inconsistencies within your organization. Doctrinal shifts such as the multiple post-hoc re-interpretations of the “generation” in Matthew 24:34 or failed prophetic predictions, such as the 1914 and 1975 end-times claims, show that your organization cannot claim to be God’s unerring voice. Contrast this with Catholic doctrine, which, despite human failings, has preserved the same core teachings on the Trinity, the sacraments, and salvation since the time of Christ.

Myself:We know that the apostles had wrong expectations and they were prophets see luke ch.24:20,21 John ch 21:23  before each of those expectations the brothers made it clear that they were cessationists and hence were  not literal prophets your continue lie boldfacedly like this about this issue is not recommending you as  good faith interlocutor https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/03/on-false-prophets-and-false-accusers.html

From the January 1908 watchtower"With regard to 1914: : "We are not prqophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" 

This years prior to 1914 so it is definitely not a post hoc rationalization as you lyingly implied. It is you who claim infallibility and boldfacedly admit to necromancy claiming to receive dreams and visions from dead saints a clear violation of Deuteronomy ch.18:9-11

Like the apostles wrong expectations none of those had any theological consequences JEHOVAH Still remained supreme,Christ still remained subordinate to his anointed,the dead continued to sleep until the resurrection the millennium continued to be hoped for ,baptism continued to be by immersion on those qualified to make a covenant with JEHOVAH,the atonement continued to be substitutionary ,the final end of the wicked continued to be annihilation,we continued to remain separate from politics and nationalism and war,we continued to hope for a restoration of human perfection,I observed you made no specific claims as to what aspect of our theology was changed by these misunderstandings  of recorded prophecy.

Litigious:You argue that “all of Christendom” is guilty of political and religious violence, yet you fail to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church has always condemned unjust violence, as seen in papal encyclicals like Pacem in Terris (1963) and Evangelium Vitae (1995). While historical conflicts occurred, they were often driven by political, not theological, motivations. More importantly, Christ’s teachings remain unchanged. The Church does not justify the past sins of its members but rather seeks repentance and reform, unlike the Watchtower Society, which rewrites its history to cover past errors.

Myself:it is astounding that you think that the fact that your mass fratricide is driven by political and ethnic contentions some how excuses it, that makes it worse does it not? The tolerance of those who unrepentantly slaughter fellow believers even urging them on in the slaughter is a clear violation of what the Bible indicates ought to be expected of true Christians see John ch.13;34,35

Isaiah ch 2:2-4ASV"And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.

4And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

 Like I stated already the notion that Satan could get his people to precisely fulfill these expectations while Christ will so spectacularly fail to get his people to fulfill these expectations is utterly irrational

Litigious:Your appeal to John 13:35, claiming that Jehovah’s Witnesses show true Christian love by refusing to participate in military service, is misleading. The Catholic Church upholds just war principles, as seen in Augustine and Aquinas,

Myself: killing fellow believers is never just let the unbelievers fight their own wars we have JEHOVAH'S War to fight we can't take time away from that truly just war to meddle in the unbelievers' wars.

2Corinthians ch.10:4NIV"he weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds."

 Litigious:which permit self-defense and the protection of the innocent. The rejection of military service does not automatically equate to moral superiority. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be neutral, yet the organization has engaged in questionable legal and political maneuvers, such as its association with the United Nations as an NGO while publicly condemning political involvement.

Myself :in practice christendom's churches have been willing tools for the nationalist ambitions of which ever nation they happen to be part of we pay taxes and obey the law therefore we are entitled to access whatever our taxes pay for their is nothing political about that so this insinuation is an attempt to divert attention from the bloodstained history of christendom's churches including their implication in the violent persecution of JEHOVAH'S Servants, christendom has never met a bloodstained tyrant she didn't like provided he was ready to do her bidding 

Litigious:You claim that Jehovah disciplines those in rebellion, but you fail to recognize that authority within the Church is meant to build up, not tear down. The Catholic Church does not reject discipline but implements it with mercy. Paul commands the Church to discipline the immoral brother in 1 Corinthians 5, yet in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, he urges the Church to forgive and restore the sinner, demonstrating that discipline must lead to reconciliation, not indefinite exclusion.

You fail to realize the difference between mercy and license,mercy is when the truly repentant are help to regain spiritual health your attempt to excuse your church's lax attitude toward those hardened in open rebellion against JEHOVAH'S Law and who clearly have no interest in(or may not even recognize the need for) repentance is not mercy. Proverbs ch.28:13NLT"People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy."

What about those who have no shame at all in part because their church allows those advocating moral compromise to teach their slackness from the pulpit. None of this is true mercy 

Litigious;In conclusion, your defense of Jehovah’s Witness practices relies on selective Scripture interpretation, theological inconsistencies, and a rejection of historical Christianity. Catholic doctrine maintains the balance between justice and mercy, acknowledging the necessity of repentance while preserving the dignity of individuals. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rigid disciplinary system, which often results in broken families and emotional harm, the Catholic Church follows the biblical model of correction ordered toward restoration. Your rejection of historical Christianity and your organization's doctrinal instability undermine your claim to be the true faith. The Catholic Church, built upon the foundation of Christ and the apostles, remains the pillar and foundation of truth, offering God’s grace to all who seek it.

Myself: the churches of christendom's failure to promote the bible's morals and her being a willing cheerleader for nationalists and militarists is what has resulted in mass harm to families and nations. As I pointed out, but your bad faith continues to ignore, the sanction does not apply to spouses and their minor children,or children living under their roof.those who take the vow of dedication do so with full awareness of the consequence for defection from the vow, the vow must not be taken frivolously, as the proverb says it is better to not vow, ecclesiastes ch.5:4-6NIV"When you make a vow to God, do not delay to fulfill it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. 5It is better not to make a vow than to make one and not fulfill it. 6Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, “My vow was a mistake.” Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands? "

Don't be a pretender you won't have anything to worry about ,those who are repentant will receive mercy for sure but those defiantly rebellious against JEHOVAH'S Law must be removed for the Church to remain in a sanctified state. 

The foundation of our doctrine has not changed just as an incomplete understanding of prophecy see 1Corinthians ch.13:9 did not affect the fundamental theology of the first century church,so too an incomplete understanding of messianic prophecy has not affected the essentials of our faith,the identity of the one true God ,the identity of his subordinate Messiah,the atonement ,premillenialism etc. All remained unaffected. Your church has also had some doctrinal changes ,I'm sure you have some ad hoc rationalization as to why your infallible pope ever needs to make such adjustments and why your claim that such adjustments are disqualifying don't apply in that instance,but it all seems like special pleading to me.