Sunday, 16 March 2025
More on our privileged homeworld.
The Growing Evidence of Earth’s Privilege
On a classic episode of ID the Future, astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet, begins a two-part conversation with host Casey Luskin by providing a rapid survey of some of the growing evidence that Earth is finely tuned in numerous ways to allow for life. He draws a helpful distinction between local fine-tuning and universal fine-tuning. And he tells us about the many extra-solar planets astronomers have discovered in recent years and how all that new data continues to undermine the misguided assumption (encouraged by the misnamed “Copernican principle”) that Earth is just a humdrum planet. Far from it, Gonzalez argues.
The conversation highlights Gonzalez’s essay in the open-access anthology Science and Faith in Dialogue. The book presents a cogent, compelling case for concordance between science and theism. In addition to chapters from Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Luskin, the book also contains entries from other scientists and scholars in the intelligent design research community, including philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin, historian of science Michael Keas, and physicist Brian Miller. The book is available as a free PDF download.
Download the podcast or listen to it here. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation.
File under "well said" CXIV
"A conservative is a statesman who is enamoured of present evils as distinct from a liberal who wishes to replace present evils with novel ones"
Ambrose Bierce
Saturday, 15 March 2025
Could one man(not God-man) really save humanity from sin.
1Corinthians15:21ASV"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. "
The first human sinner did not inherit his sinful state he chose it. Unlike his descendants he had a choice in the matter.
1Timothy2:14KJV"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Now what if humanity's founding father had made the moral choice. Would it not be the case that he would be our savior? So then that is all that is required to save mankind. A father who choses aright.
The Johanine comma demystified.
1 John 5:7 (RDB File)
The King James Version (A. D. 1611) says at 1 Jn 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for "one" here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean "one God" since "God" is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as "one") applied to it must also be masculine (heis, masculine form).
NT Greek words meaning "one":
- hen is the neuter form for "one."
- heis is the masculine form for "one."
- mia is the feminine form for "one."
When the neuter "one" (hen) is applied to persons, it means "one thing." In other words they have become united in some thing such as "purpose," "will," etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father "that they [Jesus¡¦ followers] may be one [hen, neuter] just as we are one [hen - neuter]." - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus' followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father's will and purpose! - see the study paper ONE.
Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father's alone. ("Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)
There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be one "just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one" if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become "equally God" with him and the Father!
But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.
The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the discredited Received Text.
Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.
The New Life Version, however, claims to put an asterisk (*) to mark words or passages which are "missing in some of the early writings." And it does so in such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, but it does not do so at 1 Jn 5:7.
Since Greek was the "universal language" at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.
Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:
Note on 1 John 5:7
"In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay's NT translation]. It reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
"The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.
"The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
"How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity [and since there was no good scriptural evidence for this new doctrine introduced by the Roman church in 325 A. D.], through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered. [More likely it was written in the margin of an existing manuscript with the intention that future trinitarian copyists actually add it to all new copies. - RDB.]
"But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians [trinitarians, of course] were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
"The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it [if the trinity were really true as trinitarians like Barclay himself want!]; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it." - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]
Trinitarian NT Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace agrees.https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3
Highly respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:
"For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century [1520 A.D.] in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it [in his next edition of 1522] if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 [1520 A.D.] was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition." - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows]:
"After marturountes "bearing witness"] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: en to ourano, o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisi. (8) kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
"(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
"(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
"(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
"The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....
"(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
"(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense." - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:
It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV): "A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version [NKJV] this book says:
"In the original printing of the NKJV, the famous Trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7-8a had the only textual footnote - one that advised the reader that these words "Are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. [manuscripts] from the fifteenth century and later also contain them" (the note has since been revised to read "four or five very late Greek manuscripts...."). It is well known that the first and second editions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament lacked this passage because he did not find it in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He was so certain that it was a recent addition to the text that when he was criticized for not including it he promised to insert it in his next edition if anyone could produce a single [Greek] manuscript that contained it. Such a manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, #61 of the sixteenth century) was finally shown him in England, and he kept his promise in his third edition of 1522 [the early sixteenth century]. But this passage clearly had no place in the autograph [actual writings by John] of John's first epistle." - pp. 293-294.
So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!
The trinitarian authors of So Many Versions? (who were very biased in favor of trinitarian interpretations in other parts of their book) were so upset by this modern Bible's use of clearly spurious passages such as this that they continued:
"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.
We find that the more recent copy of the NKJV does not even contain the note that So Many Versions? mentioned above. There is no indication whatsoever in the New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, #412B that 1 John 5:7 is anything but the original inspired writing! And, yet, the publishers and editors found room for many other notes and references in this same copy (see Hosea 1:6, 9, for example.) They also found room to furnish an explanation of the symbol they used on the title page:
"Title page logo:The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning 'three-cornered') is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God." - p. ii.
We also see that in the trinitarian-edited and published King James Version, Collins Press, 1955 (with center column of notes and references) also gives no indication whatsoever of the clear, spurious nature of 1 John 5:7! This is in spite of the fact that the original translators of 1611, themselves, and all the many revisers for the last 380 years have known that this verse was not added to the scriptures until many hundred years after John wrote this letter. Even the earlier English Bibles on which the KJV was based (and from which much was copied) did not include this spurious passage.
Trinitarian scholar Robert Young [Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his Concise Critical Commentary:
"These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475" - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.
Noted Lutheran scholar and Bible translator, William F. Beck (trinitarian, of course) states in a footnote for 1 John 5:7 in his The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 printing:
"Our oldest manuscripts do not have vv. 7b-8a: "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three testifying on earth." Early in the 16th century an editor translated these words from Latin manuscripts and inserted them in his Greek New Testament. Erasmus took them from this Greek New Testament and inserted them in the third edition (1522) of his Greek New Testament. Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words "on account of the truth." In 1574 [about 30 years after Luther's death] Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 [in spite of the fact that scholars knew it was spurious] they appeared in the Wittenberg copies. They were not in Tyndale's or Coverdale's Bible or in the Great Bible [which were used by the KJV translators, and often copied nearly verbatim by them]."
The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
[[Added from information found on an internet site:
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), "one of the greatest historians who ever lived" explains the reason for the removal of 1 Jn 5:7 (as found in KJV) from most modern Bibles:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." - Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, IV, Edward Gibbon, p. 418.
Gibbon was defended in his findings by his noted contemporary, British scholar Richard Porson who also published conclusive proofs that the verse of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV was only first inserted by the Church into a few Latin texts around 400 C.E. - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's clear proof, Gibbon later said:
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."
To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), still unhesitatingly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God (often without so much as a note to inform the reader that nearly all respected scholars of Christendom acknowledge it as a non-scriptural late addition by uninspired trinitarian copyists).
also tells us:
Peake's Commentary on the Bible:"[v]8. The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." - p. 1038,
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, editors M. Black and H. H. Rowley, reprint of 1964.
Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for "one" here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean "one God" since "God" is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as "one") applied to it must also be masculine (heis, masculine form).
NT Greek words meaning "one":
- hen is the neuter form for "one."
- heis is the masculine form for "one."
- mia is the feminine form for "one."
When the neuter "one" (hen) is applied to persons, it means "one thing." In other words they have become united in some thing such as "purpose," "will," etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father "that they [Jesus¡¦ followers] may be one [hen, neuter] just as we are one [hen - neuter]." - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus' followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father's will and purpose! - see the study paper ONE.
Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father's alone. ("Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)
There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be one "just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one" if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become "equally God" with him and the Father!
But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.
The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the discredited Received Text.
Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.
The New Life Version, however, claims to put an asterisk (*) to mark words or passages which are "missing in some of the early writings." And it does so in such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, but it does not do so at 1 Jn 5:7.
Since Greek was the "universal language" at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.
Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:
Note on 1 John 5:7
"In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay's NT translation]. It reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
"The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.
"The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
"How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity [and since there was no good scriptural evidence for this new doctrine introduced by the Roman church in 325 A. D.], through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered. [More likely it was written in the margin of an existing manuscript with the intention that future trinitarian copyists actually add it to all new copies. - RDB.]
"But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians [trinitarians, of course] were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
"The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it [if the trinity were really true as trinitarians like Barclay himself want!]; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it." - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]
Trinitarian NT Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace agrees.https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3
Highly respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:
"For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century [1520 A.D.] in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it [in his next edition of 1522] if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 [1520 A.D.] was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition." - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows]:
"After marturountes "bearing witness"] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: en to ourano, o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisi. (8) kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
"(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
"(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
"(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
"The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....
"(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
"(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense." - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:
It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV): "A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version [NKJV] this book says:
"In the original printing of the NKJV, the famous Trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7-8a had the only textual footnote - one that advised the reader that these words "Are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. [manuscripts] from the fifteenth century and later also contain them" (the note has since been revised to read "four or five very late Greek manuscripts...."). It is well known that the first and second editions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament lacked this passage because he did not find it in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He was so certain that it was a recent addition to the text that when he was criticized for not including it he promised to insert it in his next edition if anyone could produce a single [Greek] manuscript that contained it. Such a manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, #61 of the sixteenth century) was finally shown him in England, and he kept his promise in his third edition of 1522 [the early sixteenth century]. But this passage clearly had no place in the autograph [actual writings by John] of John's first epistle." - pp. 293-294.
So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!
The trinitarian authors of So Many Versions? (who were very biased in favor of trinitarian interpretations in other parts of their book) were so upset by this modern Bible's use of clearly spurious passages such as this that they continued:
"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.
We find that the more recent copy of the NKJV does not even contain the note that So Many Versions? mentioned above. There is no indication whatsoever in the New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, #412B that 1 John 5:7 is anything but the original inspired writing! And, yet, the publishers and editors found room for many other notes and references in this same copy (see Hosea 1:6, 9, for example.) They also found room to furnish an explanation of the symbol they used on the title page:
"Title page logo:The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning 'three-cornered') is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God." - p. ii.
We also see that in the trinitarian-edited and published King James Version, Collins Press, 1955 (with center column of notes and references) also gives no indication whatsoever of the clear, spurious nature of 1 John 5:7! This is in spite of the fact that the original translators of 1611, themselves, and all the many revisers for the last 380 years have known that this verse was not added to the scriptures until many hundred years after John wrote this letter. Even the earlier English Bibles on which the KJV was based (and from which much was copied) did not include this spurious passage.
Trinitarian scholar Robert Young [Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his Concise Critical Commentary:
"These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475" - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.
Noted Lutheran scholar and Bible translator, William F. Beck (trinitarian, of course) states in a footnote for 1 John 5:7 in his The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 printing:
"Our oldest manuscripts do not have vv. 7b-8a: "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three testifying on earth." Early in the 16th century an editor translated these words from Latin manuscripts and inserted them in his Greek New Testament. Erasmus took them from this Greek New Testament and inserted them in the third edition (1522) of his Greek New Testament. Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words "on account of the truth." In 1574 [about 30 years after Luther's death] Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 [in spite of the fact that scholars knew it was spurious] they appeared in the Wittenberg copies. They were not in Tyndale's or Coverdale's Bible or in the Great Bible [which were used by the KJV translators, and often copied nearly verbatim by them]."
The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
[[Added from information found on an internet site:
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), "one of the greatest historians who ever lived" explains the reason for the removal of 1 Jn 5:7 (as found in KJV) from most modern Bibles:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." - Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, IV, Edward Gibbon, p. 418.
Gibbon was defended in his findings by his noted contemporary, British scholar Richard Porson who also published conclusive proofs that the verse of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV was only first inserted by the Church into a few Latin texts around 400 C.E. - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's clear proof, Gibbon later said:
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."
To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), still unhesitatingly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God (often without so much as a note to inform the reader that nearly all respected scholars of Christendom acknowledge it as a non-scriptural late addition by uninspired trinitarian copyists).
also tells us:
Peake's Commentary on the Bible:"[v]8. The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." - p. 1038,
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, editors M. Black and H. H. Rowley, reprint of 1964.
"JOHANNINE COMMA (also known as the 'Three Witnesses'). An interpolation in the text of 1 John 5. 7 f., viz. the words in italics in the following passage from the AV: 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.' They occur in Latin MSS. from about A.D. onwards and so became established in the official Latin text of the Bible, but they are certainly not part of the original Epistle and are omitted from the RV and other scholarly modern translations. The origin of the interpolation is obscure. Traces of a mystical interpretation of the phrase about the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, applying it to the Trinity, are to be found in Cyprian and Augustine; but the earliest evidence for the insertion of a gloss in the text of the Epistle comes from a MS. of Priscillianist provenance discovered by G. Schepss at Wurzburg in 1885. Later the insertion is found in quotations in African authors. It would thus seem to have originated in N. Africa or Spain and to have found its way into the Latin Bibles used in those districts (both Old Latin and Vulgate), possibly under the stress of Arian persecution." - p. 741, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Edited by F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, reprint of 1990. ]]
WHY
did trinitarian copyists and scholars think it necessary to construct this "scripture" and actually add it to the Holy Scriptures? What, then, does this tell us about the evaluation of the rest of the "evidence" for a trinity by these very same trinitarians? Isn't this most terrible, blasphemous action by them actually an admission that the rest of the "evidence" for a 3-in-one God is completely inadequate? Why else would they do such a desperate, terrible thing?
WHAT
does this tell us about those men who first constructed the "trinity doctrine" and forced it on an unwilling Roman Church in 325 A. D. at the Nicene Council? (See HIST and CREEDS study papers.)
WHY
WHY
did trinitarian copyists and scholars think it necessary to construct this "scripture" and actually add it to the Holy Scriptures? What, then, does this tell us about the evaluation of the rest of the "evidence" for a trinity by these very same trinitarians? Isn't this most terrible, blasphemous action by them actually an admission that the rest of the "evidence" for a 3-in-one God is completely inadequate? Why else would they do such a desperate, terrible thing?
WHAT
does this tell us about those men who first constructed the "trinity doctrine" and forced it on an unwilling Roman Church in 325 A. D. at the Nicene Council? (See HIST and CREEDS study papers.)
WHY
do so many trinitarians feel it necessary to "preserve" this clearly dishonest King James Version tradition in not only the most-used King James Version itself (which has been revised many times with thousands of changes in its 400-year history while still leaving this spurious verse), but even in at least three modern translations (NKJV, KJIIV, NLV)? - an RDB File.
Friday, 14 March 2025
Conditional immortality :a recent history.
During the Reformation, Luther, "Tyndale", and Wycliffe supported the view of conditional immortality. In 1520 in response to Bull of Pope Leo X Luther rejected the doctrine of natural immortality.
The British Evangelical Alliance ACUTE report states the doctrine is a "significant minority evangelical view" that has "grown within evangelicalism in recent years". In the 20th century, conditional immortality was considered by certain theologians in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Proponents of conditional immortality ("conditionalists") point to Genesis 2 and Revelation 22, where the Tree of Life is mentioned. It is argued that these passages, along with Genesis 3:22–24 teach that human beings will naturally die without continued access to God's life-giving power.
As a general rule, conditionalism goes hand in hand with annihilationism; that is, the belief that the souls of the wicked will be destroyed in Gehenna (often translated "hell", especially by non-conditionalists and non-universalists) fire rather than suffering eternal torment. The two ideas are not exactly equivalent, however, because in principle God may annihilate a soul which was previously created immortal. While annihilationism places emphasis on the active destruction of a person, conditionalism places emphasis on a person's dependence upon God for life; the extinction of the person is thus a passive consequence of separation from God, much like natural death is a consequence of prolonged separation from food, water, and air.
In secular historical analysis, the doctrine of conditional immortality reconciles the ancient Hebrew view that humans are mortal with the Christian view that the saved will live forever.
Belief in forms of conditionalism became a current in Protestantism beginning with the Reformation, but it was only adopted as a formal doctrinal tenet by denominations such as early Unitarians, the churches of the English Dissenting Academies, then Seventh-day Adventists, Christadelphians, the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Mortalist writers, such as Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, have often argued that the doctrine of natural (or innate) immortality stems not from Hebrew thought as presented in the Bible, but rather from pagan influence, particularly Greek philosophy and the teachings of Plato, or Christian tradition. Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright noted that 1 Timothy 6:15–16 teaches "God… alone is immortal," while in 2 Timothy 1:10 it says that immortality only comes to human beings as a gift through the gospel. Immortality is something to be sought after (Romans 2:7) therefore it is not inherent to all humanity.
These groups may claim that the doctrine of conditional immortality reconciles two seemingly conflicting traditions in the Bible: the ancient Hebrew concept that the human being is mortal with no meaningful existence after death (see שאול, Sheol and the Book of Ecclesiastes), and the later Jewish and Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead and personal immortality after Judgment Day.
There are no simple beginnings anywhere in biology.
Directed Evolution”: The Tiniest Brain Is Not Simple
The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans has the smallest brain in a free-living animal. There are two forms of C. elegans, male and hermaphrodite. The hermaphrodite brain contains only 302 neurons and the male 385 neurons. The physical characteristics and brain design are different, but there is much in common. The entire body contains approximately 900 cells and is only one millimeter long. Because of its small size, scientists have conducted a significant amount of research on the brain, in the hope of discovering how brains in general function. A few years ago, researchers were able to determine the entire map of the brain, called a connectome, and published the results in the journal Nature.1 C. elegans is the first animal where this was accomplished.
Even a cursory examination of the connectome shows the complexity of the brain, despite its tiny size. Additional complexity is exhibited by the diversity of the types of neurons and the variety of connections. There are three basic types of neurons — sensory neurons, motor neurons, and interneurons. Sensory neurons respond to various stimuli (chemical, physical, etc.). Motor neurons connect to muscles to control movement. Interneurons are generally intermediate between sensory and motor neurons.
C. elegans Behaviors
C.elegans exhibits a number of behaviors, some that are complex. That is surprising considering it is a simple organism with such a small brain. The basic behaviors include feeding, fasting, mating, egg laying, and several forms of movement. These include swimming when in liquid media and “crawling” on solid surfaces. They also exhibit a non-movement behavior called quiescence. Research has found that the behaviors are controlled by various neural networks as well as being regulated by neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine and neuropeptide signaling.2 These forms of neural signaling exist in all animal brains. The conclusion of the same research regarding these behaviors is that, “Episodic regulation of C. elegans behavior is complex because episode incidence and timing are regulated by the interplay between multiple circuit systems.”
In addition to basic behaviors, C. elegans is also capable of learning, including associative and non-associative learning. A paper published in the Journal of Neurochemistry documented the learning behaviors, including attraction and aversion to salt, temperature, and other substances.3 What might be surprising to many is that this learning involves both short-term and long-term memory mechanisms, which include regulation of neurotransmitters. The conclusion of the same paper was the expectation that the findings “Will provide critical insights in the context of learning and memory disorders in higher organisms, including humans.”
General Characteristics of the Brain
elegans exhibits a number of behaviors, some that are complex. That is surprising considering it is a simple organism with such a small brain. The basic behaviors include feeding, fasting, mating, egg laying, and several forms of movement. These include swimming when in liquid media and “crawling” on solid surfaces. They also exhibit a non-movement behavior called quiescence. Research has found that the behaviors are controlled by various neural networks as well as being regulated by neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine and neuropeptide signaling.2 These forms of neural signaling exist in all animal brains. The conclusion of the same research regarding these behaviors is that, “Episodic regulation of C. elegans behavior is complex because episode incidence and timing are regulated by the interplay between multiple circuit systems.”
In addition to basic behaviors, C. elegans is also capable of learning, including associative and non-associative learning. A paper published in the Journal of Neurochemistry documented the learning behaviors, including attraction and aversion to salt, temperature, and other substances.3 What might be surprising to many is that this learning involves both short-term and long-term memory mechanisms, which include regulation of neurotransmitters. The conclusion of the same paper was the expectation that the findings “Will provide critical insights in the context of learning and memory disorders in higher organisms, including humans.”
General Characteristics of the Brain
Arecent study led by scientists at Hebrew University analyzed the structure of neural networks in C. elegans. One of the findings is that, “The positions of the chemical synapses along the neurites are not randomly distributed nor can they be explained by anatomical constraints. Instead, synapses tend to form clusters, an organization that supports local compartmentalized computations.”4 On the other hand the study shows that, “The vast majority of the 302 neurons in C. elegans nematodes lack elaborate tree-like structures. In fact, many of these neurons consist of a single (unipolar) neurite extension, on which input and output synaptic sites are intermittently positioned.” That contrasts with larger brains of advanced animals which do have complex neuron structures. There is a total of 83 sensory neurons and 108 motor neurons. There are approximately 100 classes of neurons that have been identified. There are approximately 5,000 chemical synapses and 1,500-1,700 electrical synapses (gap) junctions.
In the paper that describes the connectome, some of the complexity is summarized as follows, “The major motor neurons as well as their primary pre-motor interneurons are highly interconnected and receive some input from most of the remaining neurons, defying simple interpretation of motor output. The complex circuitry must underlie both the many known behaviours in C. elegans, and the underpinnings for less well understood or novel behaviours, such as learning and memory, inter-animal communication, social behaviour and the complexities of mating.”5 Another important finding concerning the connectome is, “The notable similarity in the placement of the nodes to the neuroanatomy of the worm reflects economical wiring, a property commonly found for nervous systems, including in C. elegans.”
Examination of Neuron Triplets
One notable aspect of the neural networks is that there are a number of triplets, meaning a cluster of three neurons. The paper by the Hebrew University scientists observes, “The clustered organization of synapses is found predominantly in specific types of tri-neuron circuits, further underscoring the high prevalence for evolved, rather than for random, synaptic organization that may fulfill functional role.” One simple instance of a three-neuron cluster is a “feed forward” loop. For example, neuron A is a sensory neuron, neuron B is an interneuron, and neuron C is a motor neuron. Feed forward networks are common in both biological and artificial neural networks. The significance of this is likely that, “The ubiquitous appearance of these circuits in biological networks suggests that they may carry key computational roles, including noise filtering and coincidence detection.” Other research has found that the number of feed forward connections increases as the worm matures.6
Additional detailed examination of three neuron clusters found that, “For three different layouts, where each of the three neurons can be either sensory, inter, or motor neuron, there are 63 possible circuit combinations. Of these 63 combinations, few circuits emerged as forming clustered synaptic connections, significantly more than randomly expected.”7 The two combinations that are the most common are: (1) two sensory neurons form a postsynaptic contact with an interneuron; and, (2) an interneuron that is presynaptic with two motor neurons. The researchers theorize that combination (1) may function as a signal integrator, and combination (2) may function by synchronizing activation. It seems logical that these would be common circuits as these two functions are likely common in controlling animal behavior.
The Touch Response Neural Network
An interesting example of one neural network in C. elegans that has been elucidated is the “tap withdrawal circuit,” also called the touch response, which controls how the worm responds to being physically touched. The behavior is interesting for a number of reasons, one being that the response exhibits habituation. The neural network is illustrated in Figure 2 here. The network consists of four sensory neurons (red triangles), five interneurons (circles), and two motor neurons (blue triangles). There is a total of seven excitatory chemical synapses (green lines with arrows) and 15 inhibitory chemical synapses (red lines with circles). There are also six electrical (gap junction) synapses (blue lines with squares). The response is activated when the sensory neurons detect a tap. The stimulus is then transferred via the interneurons (PVC and AVD), which then pass it to the command neurons (AVA and AVB). The two output states are either “move forward” (FWD motor neuron) or “move in reverse” (REV motor neuron). The response is modulated through competition between the two command neurons. The competition between commands for moving forward or reverse is evident based on the number of inhibitory synapses. It is obvious that even for such a simple behavior the neural circuit is relatively complex.
Tiny But Not Simple
There are several observations that can be drawn from research into the brain of C. elegans. One is that even though the brain is tiny, it does not have a simple structure. One might expect the smallest known brain to have a structure that is either relatively uniform or random. An example of a uniform structure is that found in crystals, which form a symmetrical lattice. A random structure would be expected if the positions of the neurons were not specified, but rather develop through a random process. Contrary to being either uniform or random, the brain does have a complex structure that is specified and repeatable.
A second observation is that the brain contains a large number (approximately 100) of different types of neurons, both in terms of design and function. They are not all identical. That also would not be expected for the smallest brain. A third observation is that small neural networks within the brain control various behaviors, such as the touch response network. It is possible that some of these neural networks are irreducibly complex.
The fourth observation concerns the origin of the C. elegans brain. The usual Darwinian evolution explanation is given in the paper that documented the organization of the synapses, “The mere existence of such structures may actually further underscore the directed evolution to form such clusters, which presumably carry fine functional roles along the neurites. Taken together, local compartmentalized activities, facilitated by the clustered synaptic organizations revealed herein, can enhance computational and memory capacities of a neural network. Such enhancement may be particularly relevant for animals with a compact neural network and with limited computational powers, thereby explaining the evolutionary forces for the emergence of these synaptic organizations.”8 The key phrases are “evolutionary forces” and “directed evolution.” Such terms have never been generally accepted as valid scientific explanations, particularly regarding the origin of novel biological structures.
In contrast, the design of the brain of C. elegans exhibits a number of characteristics associated with intelligent design. They include the specified complexity of the overall design and small neural networks. It also includes engineering design, including the efficient wiring. Also apparent is that a significant amount of information is needed to specify the design and function of the brain.
Notes
1.Cook, et al., “Whole-animal connectomes of both Caenorhabditis elegans sexes,” Nature, Vol. 571, 4 July 2019.
2.McCloskey, et al., “Food responsiveness regulates episodic behavioral states in Caenorhabditis elegans,” J Neurophysiol117: 1911-1934, 2017.
3.Aelon Rahmani and Yee Lian Chew, “Investigating the molecular mechanisms of learning and memory using Caenorhabditis elegans,” Journal of Neurochemistry, 2021; 159.
3.Ruach, et al., “The synaptic organization in the Caenorhabditis elegans neural network suggests significant local compartmentalized computations,” PNAS, 2023, Vol. 120, No. 3.
4.Cook, et al.
Witvliet, et al., “Connectomes across development reveal principles of brain maturation,” Nature, Vol. 596, 12 August 2021.
5.Ruach, et al.
6.Ruach, et
The gold standard(not my say so) II
Bloodless surgeries show cost and care advantages over traditional surgeries
By Diane Anderson, RN
Clinical Consulting Specialist
HCC Life Insurance Company
During my 20-year career as a nurse and clinical consultant, I have witnessed numerous cutting-edge medical techniques that help plans receive improved patient results while saving money. Bloodless surgery and medicine, however, has been around for almost five decades, yet it is just now receiving the recognition it warrants. New studies and research have shown that bloodless surgery and medicine is not only cost-effective, but quickly becoming a standard of care because it typically results in fewer complications and post-surgery procedures.
In my current position as a clinical consultant with HCC Life Solutions, HCC Life's Healthcare Risk Management (HCRM) medical management program, I often receive inquiries from our clients about bloodless surgery and how it can lead to both clinical and financial outcomes. To help our clients better understand this proven medical practice, I have developed a set of frequently asked questions and their answers.
Bloodless Surgery and Medicine � What is it?
The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut defines bloodless surgery as, �� surgical and/or medical treatment without the administration of blood or blood related products.�
Bloodless surgery has been called the "Gold Standard" because of its known advantages over traditional surgery.
When is it done?
The practice has been incorporated into many areas of care including surgeries for general, cancer, neuro, oral/maxillofacial, orthopedic, pediatric, trauma, organ transplants and vascular. It is also being utilized for services in the areas of HIV/AIDs, cardiology, hematology and neonatology, to name a few.
For example, an Allegheny General Hospital gynecologic surgeon developed a bloodless surgical technique for removing large uterine fibroids, which spares the uterus. This surgical approach even allows for the possibility of future child bearing. Typically the removal of the tumors (myomectomy) results in large amounts of blood loss requiring multiple transfusions, often leading to removal of the uterus (hysterectomy). The bloodless surgical technique involves isolating and clamping off all blood vessels to the reproductive organs to temporarily shut off blood flow to that area. The fibroids are removed and the uterus is then reconstructed using tissue from the abdominal wall to reduce the formation of adhesions that could later cause infection and/or bleeding. Lastly the clamps are removed and the incision is closed.
Why is it done?
Bloodless medicine and surgery is an approach to health care that began in the 1960�s as a simple avoidance of the use of transfused blood or blood-related products. A variety of infectious agents have been found in the nation�s blood supply including; hepatitis A, B and C, malaria, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, Epstien-Barr virus, Creutzfeldt-Jacob virus (which causes the human form of �mad cow� disease), West Nile Virus, HIV/AIDS and other viral infections. The practice reduces the risk of blood product diseases. Of equal importance, bloodless medical and surgery reduce the potential risk for negative outcomes due to administration errors and adverse reactions.
New research is constantly proving the complexity of blood. Because it is a liquid organ, it does not transplant well. A 2007 news release from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine stated that one expert in the area, �likens the weeks-old blood often used for transfusions to �water like a dirty fish tank�. Depleted of most of its oxygen carrying capacity, the stored blood is not maximally beneficial to any patient.�
Donated blood for transfusions is stored and administered on a first-in, first-out basis so the oldest blood is always administered. Current blood bank policies allow blood stored up to 42 days to be used for transfusions. As donor blood ages, it looses critical amounts of the nitric oxide that helps deliver oxygen to the body, therefore potentially causing major harm to the patient. Beginning in the second week of storage, serious hemorrhagic disorders develop, including the decrease of blood cell deformability secondary to shape abnormalities, acidosis and the decrease in blood clotting. Most blood substitutes are experimental and are rarely used, although they can be approved under the compassionate use protocol.
Cost savings can be significant
According to noblood.org, the average cost of a bloodless heart surgery is only $16,345 while the average cost of a heart surgery using blood transfusions is $23,415. Dr. Patricia A. Ford, medical director of The Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia said in a Feb. 22, 2007 Bottom Line's Daily Health News article, �many hospitals have a $2 million or $3 million budget for blood�even a 10% reduction in blood use can really have a significant impact.�
Where is it done?
About one year ago, HCC Life Solutions, a department of the HCRM division of HCC Life, received a request for bloodless transplant accommodation. At that time, we could only locate two bloodless transplant facilities. That number has grown by leaps and bounds to more than 200 bloodless surgery centers worldwide, including 100 facilities in the US alone. Even Australia began supporting bloodless surgeries, as �the Department of Health of the Government of Western Australia recently acknowledged patient blood management as an evidenced-based patient-focused medical and surgical concept, being in full compliance with the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, and decided to implement it as a standard of care statewide between 2008 and 2012.� (Anesthesiology, 2008).
Who performs it?
Bloodless surgery techniques involve meticulous study and skill. While a cooperative surgeon, a surgeon who is agreeable to avoid the use of blood products, will practice blood-conserving techniques, that does not mean he/she is qualified to do a bloodless surgery. Even though more than 100,000 surgeons worldwide, including military surgeons, have been trained in this particular area, more bloodless surgery health practitioners are needed to meet the high demand. Training for surgeons, anesthesiologists, perfusionists and nurses are provided by bloodless surgery and medicine centers and some medical device companies.
How is the practice applied?
Preparation
To ensure optimal success of a bloodless surgery, care begins prior to the surgery. Recommendations given to patients before surgery could include:
Female hormone therapy, especially estrogen which protects cells from damage by allowing them to hold their healthy shape.
A diet high in iron or supplements with ferrous sulphate or ferrous gluconate, vitamin C or folic acid, which help boost oxygenation.
Medications
Medications that raise red or white blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels, such as Erythropoietin, which stimulates production of red blood cells, or oxygen carriers such as perflurocarbons or hemoglobin substitutes.
Aprotinin, amiocaproic acid, desmopressin, vasopressin or vitamin K.
Coconut water, the sterile liquid from young green coconuts/endosperm, can substitute for plasma because it has the same electrolyte balance of blood. Historically it was used during World War ll when the nation�s blood supply was low.
Anesthesia
Anesthesia techniques may include volume expanders such as crystalloids/colloids, hypotensive anesthesia, hypothermia or normovolemic hemodilution and hyperoxic ventilation.
Surgical Methods
A surgical method often used in bloodless surgeries is intraoperative autotransfusion, where the patient's own blood is suctioned directly from the operative site, then washed and replaced directly back into the patient.
A variety of surgical devices, such as ultrasonic scalpels, microwave coagulating scalpels, argon beam coagulators, laser surgery, selective embolization and the new harmonic scalpel, a vibrating laser that cauterizes as it cuts, are common with bloodless surgeries.
Techniques such as platelet gel, fibrin glue, and use of pediatric tubes for limited micro blood sampling are also popular blood conservation techniques.
In Conclusion
The cries about blood shortages are real. The nation's donated blood supply is 100% dependant upon a steady core of altruistic donors, whose numbers are fast declining. Studies show that patients have fewer infections and shorter hospital stays, therefore making bloodless surgery and medicine an excellent approach to address blood shortages. Additionally, there are no barriers to the bloodless medicine, as all of its techniques are FDA-approved and non-experimental.
Bloodless surgery and medicine is not a fad. It’s healthcare of the future that's been around for decades.
If you have any additional questions about bloodless medicine, or would like to learn about how HCC Life Solutions can help plans maximize effective management of claim dollars and clinical opportunities, contact Diane Anderson at (877) 843-5743.
References:
About the Center for Bloodless Medicine & Surgery. Hartford Hospital. Web
default.aspx?cHT=bloodless surgery>.
Ford, Patricia A. "Bloodless Surgery: Safer, Smarter Surgery Goes Mainstream." Bottom Line's Daily Health News 22 Feb. 2007.
Landis, Lee-Ann. "New Choices for Patients: Transfusion-Free Medicine for Jehovah's Witnesses and Transfusion-Wary." December 5, 2007. Web
NoBlood, Inc., www.noblood.org.
Society for the Advancement of Blood Management, www.sabm.org.
Spahn, Donat R., Holger Moch, Axel Hofmann, James P. Isbister. "Patient Blood Management: The Pragmatic Solution for the Problems with Blood Transfusions." Anesthesiology 109 (2008): 951-953.
Total structural collapse.
Non-Adaptive Order: An Existential Challenge to Darwinian Evolution
Michael Denton February 15, 2016 12:07 AMEditor's note: In his new book Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton not only updates the argument from his groundbreaking Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) but also presents a powerful new critique of Darwinian evolution. This article is one in a series in which Dr. Denton summarizes some of the most important points of the new book. For the full story,get your copy of Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. For a limited time, you'll enjoy a 30 percent discount at CreateSpace by using the discount code QBDHMYJH.
At London's famous Natural History Museum in South Kensington, a statue of Richard Owen had been prominently placed for many decades at the head of the main staircase. But in a curiously symbolic event on May 23, 2008, the statue was moved to one of the adjacent balconies to make room for a statue of Charles Darwin, which now sits in pride of place.
The reason for this gesture? The Natural History Museum is a grand temple to Darwinian evolution, and Owen was a staunch defender of the alternative structuralist conception of nature -- a conception that, if true, would relegate Darwinian selectionism to a very trivial role in the evolution of life.Owen founded the museum and served as its first curator and director. He made huge contributions to comparative anatomy and paleontology in the 19th century, including coining the term "dinosaur" and defining the term "homology." Owen believed that there was a substantial degree of order inherent in living systems, manifest in what he termed "primal patterns," the grand taxa-defining homologs or ground plans that underlie the adaptive diversity of life.
Because of his vigorous opposition to the functional conception of nature, Owen was vilified by Huxley and other supporters of Darwin. After the publication of the Origin, Owen's contribution to biology was increasingly downplayed by the Darwin camp, and his rejection of the conception that all biological order was to "serve some utilitarian end" was dismissed as archaic and treated as based on failed metaphysical assumptions. Little wonder they moved his statue!
While many of the taxa-defining homologs -- including, among others, the feather, the poison claw of the centipede, the retractable claw of cats, the mammalian diaphragm, and mammary glands -- are clearly adaptive, a great many others, such as the odd number of segments in centipedes, the concentric whorls of the flower, the insect body plan, and the pentadactyl limb, convey the powerful impression of being basically non-adaptive Bauplans. The fact that many exhibit curious geometric and numeric features reinforces the impression that they are indeed abstract non-adaptive patterns, quite beyond the explanatory reach of any adaptationist or selectionist narrative.
In all those cases Darwinian explanations are simply ruled out of court. The difficulty of accounting for arbitrary geometric and numerical patterns in terms of bit-by-bit selection was one of the basic thrusts of William Bateson's vigorous attack on Darwinian orthodoxy, where he argued that such stories descend into "endless absurdity."1
If indeed a significant proportion of the taxa-defining primal patterns serve no specific adaptive function and never did, as common sense dictates and as Owen thought to be true of the Bauplan of the tetrapod limb, then I think a fair assessment has to bethatDarwinism(more specifically, cumulative selection) cannot supply an explanation for the origin of a significant fraction of the defining homologs of the Types and hence for the natural system itself.
References:
(1) Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation, 410.
Thursday, 13 March 2025
The fifth element?
Life as a Habitability Requirement
Astrobiologists often speak of a planet’s requirements for life, but can we turn that around? Is life a requirement for a planet’s habitability? A team of geographers from the UK, with help from an ecologist at Montana State University, decided to calculate the energy output of animals. The resulting calculation is astonishing.
Animals, considered as a dynamic factor of the biosphere, contribute a huge amount of energy to landscape changes on the earth — more than some geological processes. The research paper in PNAS by Harvey et al. explains the significance of their results, with some surprising numbers. This paragraph needs a “wow” emoticon next to it:
Animals profoundly influence Earth surface processes and landforms, but their collective significance has not been quantified. Integrating data across freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, we uncovered over 600 animals with reported geomorphic effects, including five livestock taxa. Many more are doubtless overlooked due to inherent geographical and taxonomic biases in published research. We conservatively estimate that wild animal species collectively contribute ≈76,000 GJ energy or more to geomorphic processes annually, equivalent to the energy expended by hundreds of thousands of extreme floods. Livestock acting as geomorphic agents are estimated to exceed this contribution by three orders of magnitude. Our results reveal that the energy of animal geomorphic agents is a significant and overlooked driver of landscape change at the global level.
Their results are most likely underestimated by orders of magnitude. The title, “Global diversity and energy of animals shaping the Earth’s surface,” leads us to think of the many ways that “ecosystem engineers” large and small are at work in this essential role.
Animals cause landform change both directly, by mixing soils and sediments (bioturbation) and via the displacement of Earth materials (bioerosion and bioconstruction), and indirectly, by conditioning rock, soil, and sediment particles to be more or less susceptible to erosion and transport by geophysical processes. For example, riverbed gravels can become less mobile when bound by caddisfly silk or more mobile when disturbed by benthivorous feeding fish.
Even a lowly ant mound, termite pillar, gopher hole, or tortoise burrow contribute to the sum total of gigajoules of energy expended by animals in shaping the world. Here are some of the “zoogeomorphic species” of animals mentioned: salmon, burrowing scorpions, crayfish, beaver, worms, spiders, reptiles, frogs, fish, crustaceans, nesting birds, bivalves, gastropods, shrimp, kangaroos, boar, aardvarks… In short, almost every living thing is at work shaping the globe: “It has been suggested that all ecosystems on Earth are engineered by organisms to some degree,” they say. Watching elephants transform African landscapes makes us wonder what ecosystem roles were played by the mighty sauropods in times past.
We humans, of course, play a dominant role in altering the environment. But even in pre-industrial times, the vast herds of livestock managed by people groups around the world have contributed a thousand times the energy of undomesticated species. And consider that the UK scientists did not even attempt to calculate all the ecosystem engineering that occurs in the oceans. (Read here about the roles of salps and plankton in their diel migration activities that transfer carbon to the ocean floor, and read here about the cable bacteria that transfer protons from the seafloor.) These authors only focused on land animals and freshwater creatures. So yes, their calculation of 76,000 gigajoules is likely very low.
Life as a Requirement for Habitability
As the authors of this fascinating paper say in their conclusion, “Our analysis has revealed that the energy of zoogeomorphic species represents a significant and overlooked driver of geomorphic change at the global level.”
But now let’s ask if a planet needs living things to function as a habitat for life. That’s a different question. It could extend the long list of requirements adduced by scientists such as Michael Denton who argue that a planet suitable for complex life requires the fine-tuning of multiple physical factors. What if a planet also needs an active, energy-expending biosphere to be habitable?
That question was put forth by four scientists from Colombia on the arXiv preprint server, led by Jorge I. Zuluaga. They submitted their paper for publication to the journal Biogeosciences in 2014, but I could not find out whether it was ever published. We should only consider it, therefore, an interesting speculation. Nevertheless, it was seriously considered by The Planetary Society, and Zuluaga et al. did offer several empirical evidences in support of constraining “The Habitable Zone of Inhabited Planets.”
In the Planetary Society article, Jaime Green thinks that Zuluaga et al. are only answering the question, “Does inhabitation affect habitability” rather than “Is inhabitation a requirement for habitability?” He can accept that life might enhance a planet’s habitability but leaves it open whether the presence of life is a requirement. Recognizing that we have no data for an answer till we “touch down on alien soil” and make observations on another planet, he states in his conclusion,
In looking for Earth-like planets that might be home to life, we should be careful to keep our minds open to all possibilities, including that a planet might be habitable because life is there.
A Bolder Claim
The argument of Zuluaga et al. seems bolder than a mere claim that life affects habitability. In a PDF from the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, they asked, “Is it possible to neglect the effects of life when calculating the boundaries of habitability?” Interested readers may find their arguments and diagrams worth considering. If a sterile planet has all the abiotic factors in place, will it be habitable, or at least less habitable than an inhabited planet in the habitable zone? For example, “an inhabited planet maintains habitable temperatures under a wider range of insolation conditions” than a lifeless planet, even if it orbits within the continuously habitable zone where water can exist in liquid form. Would Mars sprout organisms if it were moved into our sun’s CHZ, the ice melted, and water became abundant?
In a statement that might be of interest to design advocates, Zuluaga et al. point out that
Orderliness in life (which is incomparably higher than that of the surrounding environment) is supported in a way unprecedented in the inanimate world: via competitive interaction.
Here are three “bottom line” considerations from their presentation:
Biota-environment feedbacks are likely to (substantially) alter the environment of an inhabited planet.
The equilibrium state of a complex system cannot be predicted while neglecting one of its (major) components.
Living phenomena have (unique) properties able to drive the environment to (otherwise) unstable physical states.
A Bridge Too Far for Materialists
To a materialist or a naturalist, such talk can bleed over into the Gaia hypothesis, which many scientists find bordering on vitalism. Hungarian scientist Eörs Szathmáry commented on this borderland in PNAS, worrying about the hypothesis that the “biosphere has a decisive role in keeping the Earth habitable — in other words, the biosphere looks after itself, somewhat similarly to organisms that also look after themselves.” This sounds mystical to a materialist. Pointing to a recent paper by Boyle et al. in PNAS, Szathmáry offered hope that natural selection can be incorporated as a mechanism that maintains biogeochemical cycles in a non-vitalistic way.
Yet materialists are often surprised, if not shocked, by the early appearance of life on the Earth. Michael Marshall wrote in New Scientist,
When did life begin on Earth? New evidence reveals a shocking story. Fossils and genetics are starting to point to life emerging surprisingly soon after Earth formed, when the planet was hellishly hot and seemingly uninhabitable.
“The Song, Not the Singer
Is it shocking because the Earth needed life to be habitable? Szathmáry and Boyle each considered the views of W. Ford Doolittle who extends natural selection to everything, even the biosphere. “It’s the song, not the singer,” Doolittle famously proposes; any replicator, biotic or not, can be acted on by natural selection. This may be a bridge too far for materialists. Szathmáry says,
But then, what is the status of biogeochemical cycles if we think in terms of replicators, vehicles/interactors, and the levels of selection? In other words, do biogeochemical cycles evolve by natural selection after all? This issue is hotly debated. Doolittle offers the solution that biogeochemical cycles are interactors: “This works as long as there are replicators…that cause the differential formation of the interactors that favor their differential replication, reproduction, or persistence.” (ref. 4, p. 173). According to this view, multispecies communities, ecosystems, and even Gaia can undergo evolution by natural selection for persistence. Effects of genes can percolate upward to a Gaian level, as kind of extended phenotype sensu Dawkins. Gaia can be seen as the most inclusive clade, and clade selection for persistence could contribute to the survival of the biota. Time will tellwhat such an extended concept of evolution by natural selection is worth.
To ID advocates, though, neither Gaia nor vitalism are necessary to argue for a biosphere as a requirement for habitability. An intelligent and wise designer would have the foresight to understand all the requirements and supply them simultaneously. We can debate the hypothesis of biology as a prerequisite for habitability, while agreeing on the wisdom of a designer engineering a world that can sustain and extend habitability through the presence of a dynamic biosphere. As Zuluaga et al. argue, “Life alters the environment by taking and excreting energy and waste products giving rise to (powerful) feedbacks on the environment.” These feedbacks, in turn, work to optimize the habitability of an inhabited planet, they argue. And think about that; optimization is a key concept in intelligent design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)