Sunday 24 June 2018
Scriptural designations for"The earth":The Watchtower society's commentary.
EARTH
The fifth-largest planet of the solar system and the third in order of position from the sun. It is an oblate spheroid, being slightly flattened at the poles. Satellite observations have indicated other slight irregularities in the shape of the earth. Its mass is approximately 5.98 × 1024 kg (13.18 × 1024 lb). Its area is about 510,000,000 sq km (197,000,000 sq mi). Earth’s measurements are (approximately): circumference at the equator, just over 40,000 km (24,900 mi); diameter at the equator, 12,750 km (7,920 mi). Oceans and seas cover approximately 71 percent of its surface, leaving about 149,000,000 sq km (57,500,000 sq mi) of land surface.
The earth rotates on its axis, bringing about day and night. (Ge 1:4, 5) A solar day or an apparent day is a period of 24 hours, the time taken for an observer at any one point on the earth to be again in the same position relative to the sun. The tropical year, which concerns the return of the seasons, the interval between two consecutive returns of the sun to the vernal equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, on the average. This figure is the one used in solar-year calendar reckoning, and its fractional nature has caused much difficulty in accurate calendar making.
The axis of the earth tilts 23° 27ʹ away from a perpendicular to the earth’s orbit. The gyroscopic effect of rotation holds the earth’s axis in basically the same direction relative to the stars regardless of its location in its orbit around the sun. This tilt of the axis brings about the seasons.
The earth’s atmosphere, composed principally of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and other gases, extends over 960 km (600 mi) above the earth’s surface. Beyond this is what is termed “outer space.”
Bible Terms and Significance. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is ʼeʹrets. ʼEʹrets refers to (1) earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky (Ge 1:2); (2) land, country, territory (Ge 10:10); (3) ground, surface of the ground (Ge 1:26); (4) people of all the globe (Ge 18:25).
The word ʼadha·mahʹ is translated “ground,” “soil,” or “land.” ʼAdha·mahʹ refers to (1) ground as tilled, yielding sustenance (Ge 3:23); (2) piece of ground, landed property (Ge 47:18); (3) earth as material substance, soil, dirt (Jer 14:4; 1Sa 4:12); (4) ground as earth’s visible surface (Ge 1:25); (5) land, territory, country (Le 20:24); (6) whole earth, inhabited earth (Ge 12:3). ʼAdha·mahʹ seems to be related etymologically to the word ʼa·dhamʹ, the first man Adam having been made from the dust of the ground.—Ge 2:7.
In the Greek Scriptures, ge denotes earth as arable land or soil. (Mt 13:5, 8) It is used to designate the material from which Adam was made, the earth (1Co 15:47); the earthly globe (Mt 5:18, 35; 6:19); earth as a habitation for human creatures and animals (Lu 21:35; Ac 1:8; 8:33; 10:12; 11:6; 17:26); land, country, territory (Lu 4:25; Joh 3:22); ground (Mt 10:29; Mr 4:26); land, shore, as contrasted with seas or waters. (Joh 21:8, 9, 11; Mr 4:1).
Oi·kou·meʹne, translated “world” in the King James Version, denotes “inhabited earth.”—Mt 24:14; Lu 2:1; Ac 17:6; Re 12:9.
In each case of all the above senses in which these words are used, the form of the word in the original language, and more particularly the setting or context, determine which sense is meant.
The Hebrews divided the earth into four quarters or regions corresponding to the four points of the compass. In the Hebrew Scriptures the words “before” and “in front of” designate and are translated “east” (Ge 12:8); “behind” may mean “west” (Isa 9:12); “the right side” may denote “south” (1Sa 23:24); and “the left” may be translated “north” (Job 23:8, 9; compare Ro). East was also (in Heb.) sometimes called the sunrising, as for example, at Joshua 4:19. West (in Heb.) was the setting of the sun. (2Ch 32:30) Also, physical characteristics were used. Being almost the total western boundary of Palestine, the “Sea” (the Mediterranean) was sometimes used for west.—Nu 34:6.
Creation. The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Just how long ago the starry heavens and the earth were created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. Scientists estimate the age of some rocks as being three and a half billion years, and the earth itself as being about four to four and a half billion or more years.
As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material, but with the arranging and preparing of it for man’s habitation.
The Bible does not reveal whether God created life on any of the other planets in the universe. However, astronomers today have not found proof that life exists on any of these planets and, in fact, know of no planet besides the earth that is at present capable of supporting the life of fleshly creatures.
Purpose. Like all other created things, the earth was brought into existence because of Jehovah’s will (“pleasure,” KJ). (Re 4:11) It was created to remain forever. (Ps 78:69; 104:5; 119:90; Ec 1:4) God speaks of himself as a God of purpose and declares that his purposes are certain to come to fruition. (Isa 46:10; 55:11) He made his purpose for the earth very clear when he said to the first human pair: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28) There were no flaws in earth or the things on it. Having created all necessary things, Jehovah saw that they were “very good” and “proceeded to rest” or desist from other earthly creative works.—Ge 1:31–2:2.
Man’s habitation on earth is also permanent. When God gave man the law regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, he implied that man could live on earth forever. (Ge 2:17) We are assured by Jehovah’s own words that “all the days the earth continues, seed sowing and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, will never cease” (Ge 8:22) and that he will never destroy all flesh again by a flood. (Ge 9:12-16) Jehovah says that he did not make the earth for nothing but, rather, that he has given it to men as a home and that death will eventually be done away with. God’s purpose, therefore, is for the earth to be the habitation of man in perfection and happiness with eternal life.—Ps 37:11; 115:16; Isa 45:18; Re 21:3, 4.
That this is the purpose of Jehovah God, sacred to him and not to be thwarted, is indicated when the Bible says: “And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made . . . And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” (Ge 2:2, 3) The seventh, or rest, day is not shown in the Genesis account as ending, as in the case of the other six days. The apostle Paul explained that the rest day of God had been continuous right through Israelite history down to his own time and had not yet ended. (Heb 3:7-11; 4:3-9) God says the seventh day was set aside as sacred to him. He would carry out his purpose toward the earth; it would be fully accomplished during that day, with no necessity of further creative works toward the earth during that time.
The Bible’s Harmony With Scientific Facts. The Bible, at Job 26:7, speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing.” Science says that the earth remains in its orbit in space primarily because of the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force. These forces, of course, are invisible. Therefore the earth, like other heavenly bodies, is suspended in space as if hanging on nothing. Speaking from Jehovah’s viewpoint, the prophet Isaiah wrote under inspiration: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa 40:22) The Bible says: “He [God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters.” (Job 26:10) The waters are limited by his decree to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11) From the viewpoint of Jehovah, the earth’s face, or the surface of the waters, would, of course, have a circular form, just as the edge of the moon presents a circular appearance to us. Before land surfaces appeared, the surface of the entire globe was one circular (spherical) mass of surging waters.—Ge 1:2.
Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today. For example, the Bible mentions “the sunrising.” (Nu 2:3; 34:15) Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it. But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief. These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs. It is common to hear someone say, ‘it is sunrise,’ or ‘the sun has set,’ or ‘the sun traveled across the sky.’ The Bible also speaks of “the extremity of the earth” (Ps 46:9), “the ends of the earth” (Ps 22:27), “the four extremities of the earth” (Isa 11:12), “the four corners of the earth,” and “the four winds of the earth” (Re 7:1). These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions “to the ends of the earth,” “to the four corners of the earth,” in the sense of embracing all the earth.—Compare Eze 1:15-17; Lu 13:29.
Figurative and Symbolic Expressions. The earth is spoken of figuratively in several instances. It is likened to a building, at Job 38:4-6, when Jehovah asks Job questions concerning earth’s creation and Jehovah’s management of it that Job obviously cannot answer. Jehovah also uses a figurative expression describing the result of earth’s rotation. He says: “[The earth] transforms itself like clay under a seal.” (Job 38:14) In Bible times some seals for “signing” documents were in the form of a roller engraved with the writer’s emblem. It was rolled over the soft clay document or clay envelope, leaving behind it an impression in the clay. In similar manner, at the arrival of dawn, the portion of the earth coming from the blackness of night begins to show itself to have form and color as the sunlight moves progressively across its face. The heavens, the location of Jehovah’s throne, being higher than the earth, the earth is, figuratively, his footstool. (Ps 103:11; Isa 55:9; 66:1; Mt 5:35; Ac 7:49) Those who are in Sheol, or Hades, the common grave of mankind, are regarded as being under the earth.—Re 5:3.
The apostle Peter compares the literal heavens and earth (2Pe 3:5) with the symbolic heavens and earth (2Pe 3:7). “The heavens” of verse 7 do not mean Jehovah’s own dwelling place, the place of his throne in the heavens. Jehovah’s heavens cannot be shaken. Neither is “the earth” in the same verse the literal planet earth, for Jehovah says that he has established the earth firmly. (Ps 78:69; 119:90) Yet, God says that he will shake both the heavens and the earth (Hag 2:21; Heb 12:26), that the heavens and earth will flee away before him, and that new heavens and a new earth will be established. (2Pe 3:13; Re 20:11; 21:1) It is evident that “heavens” is symbolic and that “earth” here has symbolic reference to a society of people living on the earth, just as at Psalm 96:1.—See HEAVEN (New heavens and new earth).
Earth is also symbolically used to denote the firmer, more stable elements of mankind. The restless, unstable elements of mankind are illustrated by the characteristic restlessness of the sea.—Isa 57:20; Jas 1:6; Jude 13; compare Re 12:16; 20:11; 21:1.
John 3:31 contrasts one that comes from above as being higher than one who comes from the earth (ge). The Greek word e·piʹgei·os, “earthly,” is used to denote earthly, physical things, especially as contrasted with heavenly things, and as being lower and of coarser material. Man is made of earth’s material. (2Co 5:1; compare 1Co 15:46-49.) Nevertheless, he can please God by living a “spiritual” life, a life directed by God’s Word and spirit. (1Co 2:12, 15, 16; Heb 12:9) Because of mankind’s fall into sin and their tendency toward material things to the neglect or exclusion of spiritual things (Ge 8:21; 1Co 2:14), “earthly” can have an undesirable connotation, meaning “corrupt,” or “in opposition to the spirit.”—Php 3:19; Jas 3:15.
The fifth-largest planet of the solar system and the third in order of position from the sun. It is an oblate spheroid, being slightly flattened at the poles. Satellite observations have indicated other slight irregularities in the shape of the earth. Its mass is approximately 5.98 × 1024 kg (13.18 × 1024 lb). Its area is about 510,000,000 sq km (197,000,000 sq mi). Earth’s measurements are (approximately): circumference at the equator, just over 40,000 km (24,900 mi); diameter at the equator, 12,750 km (7,920 mi). Oceans and seas cover approximately 71 percent of its surface, leaving about 149,000,000 sq km (57,500,000 sq mi) of land surface.
The earth rotates on its axis, bringing about day and night. (Ge 1:4, 5) A solar day or an apparent day is a period of 24 hours, the time taken for an observer at any one point on the earth to be again in the same position relative to the sun. The tropical year, which concerns the return of the seasons, the interval between two consecutive returns of the sun to the vernal equinox, is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, on the average. This figure is the one used in solar-year calendar reckoning, and its fractional nature has caused much difficulty in accurate calendar making.
The axis of the earth tilts 23° 27ʹ away from a perpendicular to the earth’s orbit. The gyroscopic effect of rotation holds the earth’s axis in basically the same direction relative to the stars regardless of its location in its orbit around the sun. This tilt of the axis brings about the seasons.
The earth’s atmosphere, composed principally of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, and other gases, extends over 960 km (600 mi) above the earth’s surface. Beyond this is what is termed “outer space.”
Bible Terms and Significance. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is ʼeʹrets. ʼEʹrets refers to (1) earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky (Ge 1:2); (2) land, country, territory (Ge 10:10); (3) ground, surface of the ground (Ge 1:26); (4) people of all the globe (Ge 18:25).
The word ʼadha·mahʹ is translated “ground,” “soil,” or “land.” ʼAdha·mahʹ refers to (1) ground as tilled, yielding sustenance (Ge 3:23); (2) piece of ground, landed property (Ge 47:18); (3) earth as material substance, soil, dirt (Jer 14:4; 1Sa 4:12); (4) ground as earth’s visible surface (Ge 1:25); (5) land, territory, country (Le 20:24); (6) whole earth, inhabited earth (Ge 12:3). ʼAdha·mahʹ seems to be related etymologically to the word ʼa·dhamʹ, the first man Adam having been made from the dust of the ground.—Ge 2:7.
In the Greek Scriptures, ge denotes earth as arable land or soil. (Mt 13:5, 8) It is used to designate the material from which Adam was made, the earth (1Co 15:47); the earthly globe (Mt 5:18, 35; 6:19); earth as a habitation for human creatures and animals (Lu 21:35; Ac 1:8; 8:33; 10:12; 11:6; 17:26); land, country, territory (Lu 4:25; Joh 3:22); ground (Mt 10:29; Mr 4:26); land, shore, as contrasted with seas or waters. (Joh 21:8, 9, 11; Mr 4:1).
Oi·kou·meʹne, translated “world” in the King James Version, denotes “inhabited earth.”—Mt 24:14; Lu 2:1; Ac 17:6; Re 12:9.
In each case of all the above senses in which these words are used, the form of the word in the original language, and more particularly the setting or context, determine which sense is meant.
The Hebrews divided the earth into four quarters or regions corresponding to the four points of the compass. In the Hebrew Scriptures the words “before” and “in front of” designate and are translated “east” (Ge 12:8); “behind” may mean “west” (Isa 9:12); “the right side” may denote “south” (1Sa 23:24); and “the left” may be translated “north” (Job 23:8, 9; compare Ro). East was also (in Heb.) sometimes called the sunrising, as for example, at Joshua 4:19. West (in Heb.) was the setting of the sun. (2Ch 32:30) Also, physical characteristics were used. Being almost the total western boundary of Palestine, the “Sea” (the Mediterranean) was sometimes used for west.—Nu 34:6.
Creation. The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Just how long ago the starry heavens and the earth were created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. Scientists estimate the age of some rocks as being three and a half billion years, and the earth itself as being about four to four and a half billion or more years.
As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material, but with the arranging and preparing of it for man’s habitation.
The Bible does not reveal whether God created life on any of the other planets in the universe. However, astronomers today have not found proof that life exists on any of these planets and, in fact, know of no planet besides the earth that is at present capable of supporting the life of fleshly creatures.
Purpose. Like all other created things, the earth was brought into existence because of Jehovah’s will (“pleasure,” KJ). (Re 4:11) It was created to remain forever. (Ps 78:69; 104:5; 119:90; Ec 1:4) God speaks of himself as a God of purpose and declares that his purposes are certain to come to fruition. (Isa 46:10; 55:11) He made his purpose for the earth very clear when he said to the first human pair: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28) There were no flaws in earth or the things on it. Having created all necessary things, Jehovah saw that they were “very good” and “proceeded to rest” or desist from other earthly creative works.—Ge 1:31–2:2.
Man’s habitation on earth is also permanent. When God gave man the law regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, he implied that man could live on earth forever. (Ge 2:17) We are assured by Jehovah’s own words that “all the days the earth continues, seed sowing and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, will never cease” (Ge 8:22) and that he will never destroy all flesh again by a flood. (Ge 9:12-16) Jehovah says that he did not make the earth for nothing but, rather, that he has given it to men as a home and that death will eventually be done away with. God’s purpose, therefore, is for the earth to be the habitation of man in perfection and happiness with eternal life.—Ps 37:11; 115:16; Isa 45:18; Re 21:3, 4.
That this is the purpose of Jehovah God, sacred to him and not to be thwarted, is indicated when the Bible says: “And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made . . . And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” (Ge 2:2, 3) The seventh, or rest, day is not shown in the Genesis account as ending, as in the case of the other six days. The apostle Paul explained that the rest day of God had been continuous right through Israelite history down to his own time and had not yet ended. (Heb 3:7-11; 4:3-9) God says the seventh day was set aside as sacred to him. He would carry out his purpose toward the earth; it would be fully accomplished during that day, with no necessity of further creative works toward the earth during that time.
The Bible’s Harmony With Scientific Facts. The Bible, at Job 26:7, speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing.” Science says that the earth remains in its orbit in space primarily because of the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force. These forces, of course, are invisible. Therefore the earth, like other heavenly bodies, is suspended in space as if hanging on nothing. Speaking from Jehovah’s viewpoint, the prophet Isaiah wrote under inspiration: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa 40:22) The Bible says: “He [God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters.” (Job 26:10) The waters are limited by his decree to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11) From the viewpoint of Jehovah, the earth’s face, or the surface of the waters, would, of course, have a circular form, just as the edge of the moon presents a circular appearance to us. Before land surfaces appeared, the surface of the entire globe was one circular (spherical) mass of surging waters.—Ge 1:2.
Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today. For example, the Bible mentions “the sunrising.” (Nu 2:3; 34:15) Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it. But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief. These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs. It is common to hear someone say, ‘it is sunrise,’ or ‘the sun has set,’ or ‘the sun traveled across the sky.’ The Bible also speaks of “the extremity of the earth” (Ps 46:9), “the ends of the earth” (Ps 22:27), “the four extremities of the earth” (Isa 11:12), “the four corners of the earth,” and “the four winds of the earth” (Re 7:1). These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square. The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions “to the ends of the earth,” “to the four corners of the earth,” in the sense of embracing all the earth.—Compare Eze 1:15-17; Lu 13:29.
Figurative and Symbolic Expressions. The earth is spoken of figuratively in several instances. It is likened to a building, at Job 38:4-6, when Jehovah asks Job questions concerning earth’s creation and Jehovah’s management of it that Job obviously cannot answer. Jehovah also uses a figurative expression describing the result of earth’s rotation. He says: “[The earth] transforms itself like clay under a seal.” (Job 38:14) In Bible times some seals for “signing” documents were in the form of a roller engraved with the writer’s emblem. It was rolled over the soft clay document or clay envelope, leaving behind it an impression in the clay. In similar manner, at the arrival of dawn, the portion of the earth coming from the blackness of night begins to show itself to have form and color as the sunlight moves progressively across its face. The heavens, the location of Jehovah’s throne, being higher than the earth, the earth is, figuratively, his footstool. (Ps 103:11; Isa 55:9; 66:1; Mt 5:35; Ac 7:49) Those who are in Sheol, or Hades, the common grave of mankind, are regarded as being under the earth.—Re 5:3.
The apostle Peter compares the literal heavens and earth (2Pe 3:5) with the symbolic heavens and earth (2Pe 3:7). “The heavens” of verse 7 do not mean Jehovah’s own dwelling place, the place of his throne in the heavens. Jehovah’s heavens cannot be shaken. Neither is “the earth” in the same verse the literal planet earth, for Jehovah says that he has established the earth firmly. (Ps 78:69; 119:90) Yet, God says that he will shake both the heavens and the earth (Hag 2:21; Heb 12:26), that the heavens and earth will flee away before him, and that new heavens and a new earth will be established. (2Pe 3:13; Re 20:11; 21:1) It is evident that “heavens” is symbolic and that “earth” here has symbolic reference to a society of people living on the earth, just as at Psalm 96:1.—See HEAVEN (New heavens and new earth).
Earth is also symbolically used to denote the firmer, more stable elements of mankind. The restless, unstable elements of mankind are illustrated by the characteristic restlessness of the sea.—Isa 57:20; Jas 1:6; Jude 13; compare Re 12:16; 20:11; 21:1.
John 3:31 contrasts one that comes from above as being higher than one who comes from the earth (ge). The Greek word e·piʹgei·os, “earthly,” is used to denote earthly, physical things, especially as contrasted with heavenly things, and as being lower and of coarser material. Man is made of earth’s material. (2Co 5:1; compare 1Co 15:46-49.) Nevertheless, he can please God by living a “spiritual” life, a life directed by God’s Word and spirit. (1Co 2:12, 15, 16; Heb 12:9) Because of mankind’s fall into sin and their tendency toward material things to the neglect or exclusion of spiritual things (Ge 8:21; 1Co 2:14), “earthly” can have an undesirable connotation, meaning “corrupt,” or “in opposition to the spirit.”—Php 3:19; Jas 3:15.
Saturday 23 June 2018
Settling for brass?
New Study Claims People Who've Had More Sexual Partners Report Unhappier Marriages
The Huffington Post | By Taryn Hillin
The Huffington Post | By Taryn Hillin
A widely reported new study claims that people -- especially women -- who have multiple sexual parters before tying the knot, report unhappier marriages down the line.
The study comes to us from The National Marriage Project, based off research from two University of Denver professors, Galena K. Rhoades and Scott M. Stanley, who looked at relationship data collected from 2007 to 2008 of 1,000 unmarried Americans ages 18 to 34. During the following five years, 418 of the participants got married.
Rhoades and Stanley took a closer look at those marriages to see if factors, including participants' sexual past, played a role in current marital quality.
Couples' relationship quality was measured using a four-item version of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, focusing on relationship happiness, thoughts about separation, frequency of confiding in one another, and a general item about how well things are going (the full scale, however, contains 32 items).
According to researchers, the 23 percent of participants who only had sex with their spouse prior to getting hitched reported higher quality marriages versus those who had other past sexual partners as well.
They claim this finding is especially true for women, writing in the report, "We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be."
On top of that, researchers say that participants who lived with an S.O. -- who did not become their future spouse -- also reported unhappier marriages So why would more sexual or relationship experience be associated with worse outcomes later on?
Rhoades and Stanley hypothesize in the report that "more experience may increase one’s awareness of alternative partners." In other words, people who have a number of prior relationships may become dissatisfied more easily.
But isn't that another way to say they might be more aware of a bad relationship? Isn't that a good thing?
Indeed, while the data presented in The Marriage Project's 418-person study is legitimate, experts say that the conclusions drawn from it -- especially those which cast judgement on one's sexual history and incite sentiments of slut-shaming -- may not be entirely accurate.
Researchers in this field, who were not involved with this particular study, told The Huffington Post that these findings should be taken with a grain of salt.
"There are a wide variety of reasons that may lead people to have multiple partners before marriage and, independent of how many partners they have, also be less satisfied in marriage," Dr. Jim McNulty, a social psychology professor from Florida State University who has published a plethora of research on the topic, wrote in an email.
"For example, people who tend to avoid commitment in general may have more sexual partners and be less happy when they settle down. It’s not the fact that they have more sexual partners that leads them to be less happy, it’s the fact that they don’t really like commitment. I would be very surprised if having multiple sexual partners before marriage, independent of any other factor, has a direct causal influence."
In other words, correlation should never be confused with causation.
"We cannot make any conclusions about cause-and-effect," says Justin Lehmiller, PhD, sex educator and researcher at Purdue University, adding, "Could it be that multiple premarital partners impacts marital happiness? Maybe. But it could also be that people who have more partners have different personalities or different attitudes toward marriage or relationships."
Beyond that, Lehmiller says there may be flaws in the way data was analyzed -- the way in which good marriages were separated from bad marriages was "rather odd" he says. "Even the authors admit that they were 'arbitrary' in their report. They defined 'higher quality marriages' as those in which individuals scored in the top 40 percent ... Why the top 40 percent?"
McNulty also points out that though the authors are respected researchers, the study was not reported by an academic journal nor was it peer-reviewed.
What do you think: could having more relationship experience prior to meeting "the one" actually result in unhappier marriages down the line? Sound off below!
A child shall lead them(With apologies to the prophet Isaiah)
A Child’s Intuition of Purpose in Nature Is No Accident
Jonathan Wells
Jonathan Wells
Young children perceive intuitively that the world is designed.
In 1929, child psychologist Jean Piaget called children “artificialists” who tend to regard everything as “the product of human creation.”1 Piaget’s claim that young children’s minds are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between human and nonhuman causes was controversial, and subsequent studies have shown that he was wrong.2 Yet he was right in saying that children start out with the intuition that the natural world was made for a purpose. In 2004, child psychologist Deborah Kelemen suggested that young children are thus “intuitive theists” who are “disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman design.”3
Intervention for Indoctrination
By the time they are adolescents, many children have suppressed their intuition of design. This suppression is largely due to influences from the community, especially from parents and teachers striving to acculturate children to a secular society, often in the name of “scientific literacy.” Kelemen and her colleagues have proposed to facilitate this process with “theory-driven interventions using picture storybooks.” They wrote in 2014:
Repeated, spaced instruction on gradually scaled-up versions of the logic of natural selection could ultimately place students in a better position to suppress competing intuitive theoretical explanations such that they could elaborate a richer, more abstract, and broadly applicable knowledge of this process. Storybook interventions such as the ones reported here seem a promising start from which to promote scientific literacy in the longer term.4
“Intervention” usually refers to an action taken to help someone give up an abnormal addiction. For these psychologists, however, it means convincing children to give up a normal intuition. And it is not enough for them to teach “the logic of natural selection.” That logic is quite simple: If organisms vary in certain heritable features, and some variations are more likely to survive in a given environment, then those variations will be more common in the next generation. But natural selection can only operate on variations that already exist; it has no creative power. So in addition to being taught the logic of natural selection, children must also be taught the Darwinian dogma that selection has the creative power to produce the illusion of design — a power that has never been observed. Only then might children be persuaded to suppress their natural intuition.
“Scientific literacy” usually refers to learning about current hypotheses and how to evaluate them critically by comparing them with evidence. For Kelemen and her colleagues, however, it requires believing uncritically in unguided evolution. Thus education becomes indoctrination.
A Gaping Hole
But the intuition of design never completely goes away. Even highly trained biologists retain it, though most consciously resist it. As Richard Dawkins wrote in 1986, “Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”5 In 1988, Nobel laureate Francis Crick wrote: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”6 Why must they do so? Because (we are told) evolution is the “scientific consensus” of the experts, and who is qualified to challenge that?
Well, Douglas Axe, for one. He is a molecular biologist who earned a PhD at Caltech and subsequently did research at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, England. Axe now directs the Biologic Institute near Seattle, where he is engaged in laboratory research and computer simulations that examine limitations on protein evolution.7 In 2016, he published a book titled Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed.8
In 2014, Bill Nye (television’s “science guy”) published a book titled Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, defending (you guessed it) evolutionary theory. Doug Axe’s book, however, dismantles the widespread belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution is indisputably true, and shows instead that there is a gaping hole at its center. The gaping hole is that evolutionary theory ascribes inventive power to natural selection, when invention actually requires intelligence.
According to Axe, the “universal design intuition” is: “Tasks that we would need knowledge to accomplish can be accomplished only by someone who has that knowledge.”9 Axe then highlights two facts. First, we all validate our design intuition through firsthand experience. Second, we all make mental notes of our experience and build conceptual models to make sense of it, and we then compare those models to subsequent experiences and correct them if necessary. This is exactly how science works, so we are all scientists. Axe calls this “common science,” to emphasize its connection to common sense. “People who lack formal scientific credentials,” Axe writes, “are nonetheless qualified to speak with authority on matters of common science.”10
Too Sophisticated to Be Accidental
Axe himself has impeccable scientific credentials. He has published articles in the prestigious Journal of Molecular Biology on the extreme improbability of getting functional proteins by chance.11 In one experiment (discussed in the book), Axe took a weakly functional penicillin-inactivating enzyme, made lots of variants of it, and then tested the variants to determine whether any of them were as good at inactivating penicillin as the original. The results were striking: the odds of finding a functional protein were comparable to the odds of successfully targeting a single hydrogen atom at the edge of the universe. Axe concluded, “That’s a target we can safely write off as lost in space!”12 In other words, it is irrational to believe that a protein could realistically be produced by “accidental invention,” as Darwinian theory requires.
Yet a protein is just one molecule. Axe defines “functional coherence” as “the hierarchical arrangement of parts needed for anything to produce a high-level function — each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole.” (This is reminiscent of the notion of “irreducible complexity” that Michael Behe laid out in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box.13) For example, the photosynthetic apparatus in relatively simple single-celled organisms called cyanobacteria has hundreds of molecular parts that are precisely positioned to enable the apparatus to gather photons from the sun and convert their energy into the chemical energy in sugar. The photosystem’s overall function depends on an extensive hierarchy of subfunctions, all “contributing in a coordinated way to the whole.” Axe concludes that such “functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible.” Instead, functional coherence “can only come from deliberate, intelligent action.”14
Photosynthesis is only one of the many hierarchical systems that cyanobacteria need to survive and reproduce. Axe compares these organisms to a solar-powered underwater vehicle called Tavros 2, a human invention that required considerable knowledge to build. Even so, the vehicle is not nearly as sophisticated as cyanobacteria, so Axe argues that the invention of these tiny organisms — though non-human — required far more knowledge than the invention of Tavros 2. In other words, the origin of cyanobacteria required design.
Could variations in cyanobacteria be naturally selected to produce higher forms of life, as evolutionary theory claims? Not really. Natural selection has never been observed to produce anything more than minor changes within existing species, but higher forms of life contain many more inventions than we find in cyanobacteria. And accidental mutations don’t help, any more than the variants Axe made at the level of a single protein helped him produce functional enzymes. So Axe concludes: “Because each new life form amounts to a new high-level invention, the origin of the thousandth new life form is no more explicable in Darwinian terms than the origin of the first.”15
So our intuition was right all along.
Why this town isn't big enough for both Darwin and Jehovah.
Two Views of Evolution, and Why They Don’t Mix
Douglas Axe | @DougAxe
For a year now, I’ve been discussing my book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed with my friend Hans Vodder, who thinks I got it wrong. Although Hans agrees that life came from God, he thinks natural evolutionary processes could have been the means by which God did his creative work.
As is often the case, it has taken some time to pinpoint the root of our disagreement. Hans and I are now getting to the root, and there’s no doubt in my mind that mutual respect is what has enabled us to make it this far. If our dialogue does nothing beyond exemplifying that principle, it will have been worth the effort, I think.
In my previous response to Hans, I tried to show why all attempts to explain life as something accidental require unreasonable appeals to coincidence. Biologists have been charmed into thinking that natural selection demystifies would-be miracles by performing them a bit at a time, but brilliant invention is actually no less miraculous in slow motion.
Hans has responded with these points:
First, as God can “make” things in a variety of ways, including ways that involve natural processes, I don’t quite understand the distinction between “designing” and “making” here. Is the idea that God could not have ordered natural processes to result in the evolution of life and that He had to intervene with a de novo act of creation?
Theologically, I am comfortable either way — God can do as He pleases! But I don’t see how probability calculations can settle the matter. If God is sovereign over nature, He can just as easily ordain the occurrence of a fantastically improbable event as create by divine fiat.
Second, even granting (for the sake of argument) that the previous post’s analysis is basically correct, it doesn’t seem to me “that Darwin’s explanation of life has indeed been disproved” (Axe, 5/2/18). Perhaps this seems odd, but I offer three reasons for thinking so.
Historically, “Darwin’s explanation of life” has little to do with the naturalistic origins of the first living cell. In fact, the conclusion of the Origin seems to countenance the possibility that the first form(s) of life had a supernatural origin.
More importantly, as a matter of logic, if Darwinism and design are indeed compatible, then demonstrating design doesn’t ipso facto disprove Darwinism. Such a demonstration, if correct, would disprove “Darwinism without design” (no mean feat!), but it wouldn’t necessarily prove “design without Darwinism.” Awkward as it may seem, “design with Darwinism” would remain a viable (if counterintuitive) option.
For instance, one can imagine a possible case in which God fine-tunes conditions on the early earth so that the emergence of life from non-life is within the reach of natural processes, with Darwinian processes taking over after that. While this would constitute a clear case of design, Darwinism would remain intact.
A third issue, which I will only mention here, is to what extent a counterexample “disproves” an otherwise comprehensive theory. Assuming for a moment that Darwinism does nicely account for various data from paleontology, genetics, biogeography, etc., would such a counterexample necessarily dissipate Darwinism’s explanatory power? It’s not clear to me that it would.
Thank you, Hans. I think your first question gets to the heart of the matter: “Is the idea that God could not have ordered natural processes to result in the evolution of life and that He had to intervene with a de novo act of creation?”
The answer depends on your understanding of “natural.” I agree that God could have orchestrated immediate causes that would ordinarily be considered natural (wind, cosmic rays, molecular collisions, etc.) in the uncanny ways needed for bacteria to be converted into, say, humming birds. The point, however, is that the surgical skill and atomic precision with which these physical phenomena would have to be wielded to achieve such an outcome would make the overall process profoundly unnatural.
Think of it this way. If he chose to, could God use a sandstorm to turn a block of marble into a representation of the human form that would put Michelangelo’s David to shame? Certainly! And if we were to witness this, would any of us think it demonstrated the creative power of sandstorms — as though we should expect all sandstorms to produce stunning works of art? Certainly not!
There’s much equivocation among advocates of theistic evolution on this point, Hans, so I’m eager to clarify it with you. On the one hand you rightly say that God can ordain the occurrence of events that would otherwise be fantastically improbable, but on the other hand you seem to overlook the implications of this fantastic improbability — namely, that it refutes the idea that outcomes like this can be chalked up to chance or nature.
I understand why you, as a theist, are okay with God having created life either by divine fiat or by wielding natural forces the way a sculptor wields a chisel. So am I! The problem is that neither of those options is on the table in the biology departments of the major research universities. There, chance and nature (both completely blind) are the only options on offer.
As understood by their main proponents, Darwinism and design are most emphatically not compatible, Hans: proponents of design hold that living things cannot have arisen by ordinary natural processes, whereas Darwinists hold the opposite view. I understand the appeal to giving a nod in both directions, but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction. Evolution is either unguided (in which case it doesn’t work) or overwhelmingly dependent on guidance (in which case it isn’t natural). It can’t be both!
Keep in mind that the improbabilities I’m referring to are not at all restricted to the origin of the first bacterial cell. For example, humming birds exhibit high-level functional coherence that is entirely absent from bacteria. According to the argument I put forward in Undeniable, the probabilistic implications of this simple observation make it impossible for accidental processes acting on bacteria to have produced anything comparable to humming birds, whether on Earth or on any other planet.
To your point about counterexamples, Darwin offered first and foremost a mechanism which he thought explained the origin of all modern life from some simple first life. I’m saying he was comprehensively wrong about that — not by way of counterexample but by way of argument. Specifically, I’m saying we can be very confident that the blind natural mechanism he appealed to can’t possibly be the inventor of new forms of life.
His other big contribution was the idea of all life being related by common descent — Darwin’s tree of life. That idea is separable from the question of mechanism, and I’m very willing to consider its merits (in fact, this is one focus of my current work). Undeniable takes no position on common descent.
Douglas Axe | @DougAxe
For a year now, I’ve been discussing my book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed with my friend Hans Vodder, who thinks I got it wrong. Although Hans agrees that life came from God, he thinks natural evolutionary processes could have been the means by which God did his creative work.
As is often the case, it has taken some time to pinpoint the root of our disagreement. Hans and I are now getting to the root, and there’s no doubt in my mind that mutual respect is what has enabled us to make it this far. If our dialogue does nothing beyond exemplifying that principle, it will have been worth the effort, I think.
In my previous response to Hans, I tried to show why all attempts to explain life as something accidental require unreasonable appeals to coincidence. Biologists have been charmed into thinking that natural selection demystifies would-be miracles by performing them a bit at a time, but brilliant invention is actually no less miraculous in slow motion.
Hans has responded with these points:
First, as God can “make” things in a variety of ways, including ways that involve natural processes, I don’t quite understand the distinction between “designing” and “making” here. Is the idea that God could not have ordered natural processes to result in the evolution of life and that He had to intervene with a de novo act of creation?
Theologically, I am comfortable either way — God can do as He pleases! But I don’t see how probability calculations can settle the matter. If God is sovereign over nature, He can just as easily ordain the occurrence of a fantastically improbable event as create by divine fiat.
Second, even granting (for the sake of argument) that the previous post’s analysis is basically correct, it doesn’t seem to me “that Darwin’s explanation of life has indeed been disproved” (Axe, 5/2/18). Perhaps this seems odd, but I offer three reasons for thinking so.
Historically, “Darwin’s explanation of life” has little to do with the naturalistic origins of the first living cell. In fact, the conclusion of the Origin seems to countenance the possibility that the first form(s) of life had a supernatural origin.
More importantly, as a matter of logic, if Darwinism and design are indeed compatible, then demonstrating design doesn’t ipso facto disprove Darwinism. Such a demonstration, if correct, would disprove “Darwinism without design” (no mean feat!), but it wouldn’t necessarily prove “design without Darwinism.” Awkward as it may seem, “design with Darwinism” would remain a viable (if counterintuitive) option.
For instance, one can imagine a possible case in which God fine-tunes conditions on the early earth so that the emergence of life from non-life is within the reach of natural processes, with Darwinian processes taking over after that. While this would constitute a clear case of design, Darwinism would remain intact.
A third issue, which I will only mention here, is to what extent a counterexample “disproves” an otherwise comprehensive theory. Assuming for a moment that Darwinism does nicely account for various data from paleontology, genetics, biogeography, etc., would such a counterexample necessarily dissipate Darwinism’s explanatory power? It’s not clear to me that it would.
Thank you, Hans. I think your first question gets to the heart of the matter: “Is the idea that God could not have ordered natural processes to result in the evolution of life and that He had to intervene with a de novo act of creation?”
The answer depends on your understanding of “natural.” I agree that God could have orchestrated immediate causes that would ordinarily be considered natural (wind, cosmic rays, molecular collisions, etc.) in the uncanny ways needed for bacteria to be converted into, say, humming birds. The point, however, is that the surgical skill and atomic precision with which these physical phenomena would have to be wielded to achieve such an outcome would make the overall process profoundly unnatural.
Think of it this way. If he chose to, could God use a sandstorm to turn a block of marble into a representation of the human form that would put Michelangelo’s David to shame? Certainly! And if we were to witness this, would any of us think it demonstrated the creative power of sandstorms — as though we should expect all sandstorms to produce stunning works of art? Certainly not!
There’s much equivocation among advocates of theistic evolution on this point, Hans, so I’m eager to clarify it with you. On the one hand you rightly say that God can ordain the occurrence of events that would otherwise be fantastically improbable, but on the other hand you seem to overlook the implications of this fantastic improbability — namely, that it refutes the idea that outcomes like this can be chalked up to chance or nature.
I understand why you, as a theist, are okay with God having created life either by divine fiat or by wielding natural forces the way a sculptor wields a chisel. So am I! The problem is that neither of those options is on the table in the biology departments of the major research universities. There, chance and nature (both completely blind) are the only options on offer.
As understood by their main proponents, Darwinism and design are most emphatically not compatible, Hans: proponents of design hold that living things cannot have arisen by ordinary natural processes, whereas Darwinists hold the opposite view. I understand the appeal to giving a nod in both directions, but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction. Evolution is either unguided (in which case it doesn’t work) or overwhelmingly dependent on guidance (in which case it isn’t natural). It can’t be both!
Keep in mind that the improbabilities I’m referring to are not at all restricted to the origin of the first bacterial cell. For example, humming birds exhibit high-level functional coherence that is entirely absent from bacteria. According to the argument I put forward in Undeniable, the probabilistic implications of this simple observation make it impossible for accidental processes acting on bacteria to have produced anything comparable to humming birds, whether on Earth or on any other planet.
To your point about counterexamples, Darwin offered first and foremost a mechanism which he thought explained the origin of all modern life from some simple first life. I’m saying he was comprehensively wrong about that — not by way of counterexample but by way of argument. Specifically, I’m saying we can be very confident that the blind natural mechanism he appealed to can’t possibly be the inventor of new forms of life.
His other big contribution was the idea of all life being related by common descent — Darwin’s tree of life. That idea is separable from the question of mechanism, and I’m very willing to consider its merits (in fact, this is one focus of my current work). Undeniable takes no position on common descent.
I and II Kings The Watchtower society's commentary.
KINGS, BOOKS OF
Books of the Holy Scriptures relating the history of Israel from the last days of King David until the release of King Jehoiachin from prison in Babylon.
Originally the two books of Kings comprised one roll called Kings (Heb., Mela·khimʹ), and in the Hebrew Bible today they are still counted as one book, the fourth in the section known as the Former Prophets. In the Greek Septuagint the Books of the Kings were called Third and Fourth Kingdoms, the Books of Samuel having been designated First and Second Kingdoms. In the Latin Vulgate these books were together known as the four books of Kings because Jerome preferred the name Regum (Kings), in harmony with the Hebrew title, to the literal translation of the Septuagint title Regnorum (Kingdoms). Division into two books in the Septuagint became expedient because the Greek translation with vowels required almost twice as much space as did Hebrew, in which no vowels were used until the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era. The division between Second Samuel and First Kings has not always been at the same place in the Greek versions. Lucian, for one, in his recension of the Septuagint, made the division so that First Kings commenced with what is 1 Kings 2:12 in our present-day Bibles.
Writing of the Books. Although the name of the writer of the books of Kings is not given in the two accounts, Scriptural indications and Jewish tradition point to Jeremiah. Many Hebrew words and expressions found in these two books appear elsewhere in the Bible only in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The books of Kings and the book of Jeremiah complement each other; events, as a rule, are briefly covered in one if they are fully described in the other. Absence of any mention of Jeremiah in the books of Kings, although he was a very prominent prophet, could be expected if Jeremiah was the writer, because his activities were detailed in the book bearing his name. The books of Kings tell of conditions in Jerusalem after the exile had begun, indicating that the writer had not been taken to Babylon, even as Jeremiah was not.—Jer 40:5, 6.
Some scholars see in the books of Kings what they consider to be evidence of the work of more than one writer or compiler. However, except for variation because of the sources used, it must be observed that the language, style, vocabulary, and grammar are uniform throughout.
First Kings covers a period of about 129 years, commencing with the final days of King David, about 1040 B.C.E., and running through to the death of Judean King Jehoshaphat in about 911 B.C.E. (1Ki 22:50) Second Kings begins with Ahaziah’s reign (c. 920 B.C.E.) and carries through to the end of the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile, 580 B.C.E., a period of about 340 years. (2Ki 1:1, 2; 25:27-30) Hence the combined accounts of the books of Kings cover about four and a half centuries of Hebrew history. As the events recorded therein include those up to 580 B.C.E., these books could not have been completed before this date, and because there is no mention of the termination of the Babylonian exile, they, as one roll, were undoubtedly finished before that time.
The place of writing for both books appears to have been, for the most part, Judah, because most of the source material would be available there. However, Second Kings was logically completed in Egypt, where Jeremiah was taken after the assassination of Gedaliah at Mizpah.—Jer 41:1-3; 43:5-8.
The books of Kings have always had a place in the Jewish canon and are accepted as canonical. There is good reason for this, because these books carry forward the development of the foremost Bible theme, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed. Moreover, three leading prophets, Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah, are given prominence, and their prophecies are shown to have had unerring fulfillments. Events recorded in the books of Kings are referred to and elucidated elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus refers to what is written in these books three times—regarding Solomon (Mt 6:29), the queen of the south (Mt 12:42; compare 1Ki 10:1-9), and the widow of Zarephath and Naaman (Lu 4:25-27; compare 1Ki 17:8-10; 2Ki 5:8-14). Paul mentions the account concerning Elijah and the 7,000 men who did not bend the knee to Baal. (Ro 11:2-4; compare 1Ki 19:14, 18.) James speaks of Elijah’s prayers for drought and rain. (Jas 5:17, 18; compare 1Ki 17:1; 18:45.) These references to the actions of individuals described in the books of Kings vouch for the canonicity of these writings.
The books of Kings were largely compiled from written sources, and the writer shows clearly that he referred to these outside sources for some of his information. He refers to “the book of the affairs of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41), “the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Judah” (1Ki 15:7, 23), and “the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Israel” (1Ki 14:19; 16:14).
One of the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts containing the books of Kings in full is dated 1008 C.E. The Vatican No. 1209 and the Alexandrine Manuscript contain the books of Kings (in Greek), but the Sinaitic Manuscript does not. Fragments of the books of Kings evidently dating from the B.C.E. period have been found in the Qumran caves.
The framework of these books shows that the writer or compiler gave pertinent facts about each king for the purpose of chronology and to reveal God’s estimate, favorable or unfavorable, of each king. The relationship of their reigns to the worship of Jehovah stands out as the most important factor. After considering the reign of Solomon, there is, with some exceptions, a general set pattern for describing each reign, as two parallel lines of history are interwoven. For the kings of Judah there is usually given first an introductory synchronism with the contemporaneous king of Israel, then the age of the king, the length of his reign, the place of rule, and the name and home of his mother, the latter being an item of interest and importance because at least some of the kings of Judah were polygamous. In concluding the account for each king, the source of the information, the burial of the king, and the name of his successor are given. Some of the same details are provided for each king of Israel, but the king’s age at the time of his accession and the name and home of his mother are not given. Information supplied in First and Second Kings has been very useful in the study of Bible chronology.—See CHRONOLOGY.
The books of Kings are more than just annals or a recital of events as in a chronicle. They report the facts of history with an explanation of their significance. Eliminated from the account, it seems, is anything that does not have direct bearing on the developing purpose of God and that does not illustrate the principles by which Jehovah deals with his people. The faults of Solomon and the other kings of Judah and Israel are not disguised but are related with the utmost candor.
Archaeological Evidence. The discovery of numerous artifacts has furnished certain confirmation that the books of Kings are historically and geographically accurate. Archaeology, as well as living proof today, confirms the existence of the cedar forests of Lebanon, from which Solomon obtained timbers for his building projects in Jerusalem. (1Ki 5:6; 7:2) Evidence of industrial activity has been found in the basin of the Jordan, where Succoth and Zarethan once stood.—1Ki 7:45, 46.
Shishak’s invasion of Judah in Rehoboam’s time (1Ki 14:25, 26) is confirmed by the Pharaoh’s own record on the walls of the temple of Karnak in Egypt. A black limestone obelisk of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III found at Nimrud in 1846 depicts perhaps an emissary of Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser, an incident that, though not mentioned in the books of Kings, adds testimony to the historicity of Israel’s King Jehu. The extensive building works of Ahab, including “the house of ivory that he built” (1Ki 22:39), are well attested by the ruins found at Samaria.
The Moabite Stone relates some of the events involved in King Mesha’s revolt against Israel, giving the Moabite monarch’s version of what took place. (2Ki 3:4, 5) This alphabetic inscription also contains the Tetragrammaton.
The name Pekah is found in an annalistic text credited to Tiglath-pileser III. (2Ki 15:27) The campaign of Tiglath-pileser III against Israel is mentioned in his royal annals and in an Assyrian building inscription. (2Ki 15:29) The name Hoshea has also been deciphered from inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign.—2Ki 15:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 282-284.
While some of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s engagements are mentioned in his annals, the angelic destruction of his army of 185,000 when it threatened Jerusalem is not mentioned (2Ki 19:35), and we would not expect to find in his boastful records an account of this overwhelming setback. Notable archaeological confirmation of the last statement in the books of Kings has been found in cuneiform tablets excavated at Babylon. These indicate that Jaʼukinu (Jehoiachin) was imprisoned in Babylon and mention that he was provided with rations from the royal treasury.—2Ki 25:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 308.
Fulfillments of Prophecy. The books of Kings contain various prophecies and point to striking fulfillments. For example, 1 Kings 2:27 shows the fulfillment of Jehovah’s word against the house of Eli. (1Sa 2:31-36; 3:11-14) Prophecies regarding Ahab and his house were fulfilled. (Compare 1Ki 21:19-21 with 1Ki 22:38 and 2Ki 10:17.) What was foretold concerning Jezebel and her remains came true. (Compare 1Ki 21:23 with 2Ki 9:30-36.) And the facts of history confirm the veracity of the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem.—2Ki 21:13.
Among the many points highlighted in the books of Kings is the importance of adherence to Jehovah’s requirements and the dire consequences of ignoring his just laws. The two books of Kings forcefully verify the predicted consequences of both obedience and disobedience to Jehovah God.
[Box on page 171]
HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST KINGS
A concise summary of the history of both the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel from the last days of David until the death of Jehoshaphat
Originally the first book of Kings was part of one scroll with Second Kings
Solomon is known for outstanding wisdom at the start of his rule, but he ends up in apostasy
Nathan, by decisive action, blocks Adonijah’s attempt to be king in Israel; Solomon is enthroned (1:5–2:12)
Asked by Jehovah what he desires, Solomon requests wisdom; he is additionally granted riches and glory (3:5-15)
Divinely given wisdom is evident in Solomon’s handling of the case of two prostitutes, each claiming to be the mother of the same baby boy (3:16-28)
King Solomon and Israel under his rule prosper; the king’s unparalleled wisdom is world famous (4:1-34; 10:14-29)
Solomon builds Jehovah’s temple and later a palace complex; then all the older men of Israel gather for the inauguration (5:1–8:66)
Jehovah sanctifies the temple, assures Solomon of permanence of the royal line, but warns against unfaithfulness (9:1-9)
The queen of Sheba comes to see Solomon’s wisdom and prosperity for herself (10:1-13)
In old age, Solomon is influenced by his many foreign wives and goes after foreign gods (11:1-8)
The nation is split in two; calf worship is instituted to prevent those in the northern kingdom from going up to Jerusalem
Because of Solomon’s apostasy, Jehovah foretells division of the nation (11:11-13)
After Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam threatens to impose a heavier yoke on the people; ten tribes revolt and make Jeroboam king (12:1-20)
Jeroboam establishes worship of golden calves in the northern kingdom to prevent his subjects from going to Jerusalem for worship and possibly wanting to reunite the kingdom (12:26-33)
The southern kingdom, Judah, has both good kings and bad ones
Rehoboam and Abijam after him allow detestable false worship (14:21-24; 15:1-3)
Abijam’s son Asa and his son Jehoshaphat actively promote true worship (15:9-15; 22:41-43)
The northern kingdom, Israel, is marred by power struggles, assassinations, and idolatry
Jeroboam’s son Nadab becomes king; Baasha assassinates him and seizes the throne (15:25-30)
Baasha’s son Elah succeeds to the throne and is assassinated by Zimri; Zimri commits suicide when facing defeat by Omri (16:6-20)
Omri’s victory leads to civil war; Omri finally triumphs, becomes king, and later builds Samaria; his sins are even worse than those of earlier kings (16:21-28)
Ahab becomes king and marries the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; he introduces Baal worship into Israel (16:29-33)
Wars between Judah and Israel end with an alliance
Wars take place between Jeroboam and both Rehoboam and Abijam; Baasha fights against Asa (15:6, 7, 16-22)
Jehoshaphat makes an alliance with Ahab (22:1-4, 44)
Jehoshaphat and Ahab battle together against Ramoth-gilead; Ahab is killed (22:29-40)
Prophetic activity in Israel and Judah
Ahijah foretells ripping of ten tribes away from David’s house; later he proclaims Jehovah’s judgment against Jeroboam (11:29-39; 14:7-16)
Shemaiah conveys Jehovah’s word that Rehoboam and his subjects should not fight against the rebellious ten tribes (12:22-24)
A man of God announces Jehovah’s judgment against the altar for calf worship at Bethel (13:1-3)
Jehu the son of Hanani pronounces Jehovah’s judgment against Baasha (16:1-4)
Elijah foretells a prolonged drought in Israel; during the drought, he miraculously extends the food supply of a widow and resurrects her son (17:1-24)
Elijah proposes a test on Mount Carmel to determine who is the true God; when Jehovah is proved true, the Baal prophets are killed; Elijah flees for his life from Ahab’s wife Jezebel, but Jehovah sends Elijah to anoint Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha (18:17–19:21)
Micaiah foretells Ahab’s defeat in battle (22:13-28)
[Box on page 172]
HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND KINGS
Continuation of the history of Judah and of Israel begun in First Kings; it reaches to the destruction of Samaria and then of Jerusalem, due to unfaithfulness
The writing of it was likely completed in Egypt about 27 years after Jerusalem’s destruction by Babylon
After Elijah, Elisha serves as Jehovah’s prophet
Elijah predicts Ahaziah’s death; he also calls down fire upon two disrespectful military chiefs and their companies of 50 sent to get the prophet (1:2-17)
Elijah is taken away in a windstorm; Elisha receives his official garment (2:1-13)
Elisha divides the Jordan and heals water in Jericho; his inspired advice saves the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom from perishing for lack of water and results in defeat of Moabites; he increases a widow’s oil supply, resurrects a Shunammite woman’s son, renders poisonous stew harmless, multiplies a gift of bread and grain, heals Naaman of leprosy, announces that Naaman’s leprosy would come upon greedy Gehazi and his offspring, and causes a borrowed axhead to float (2:14–6:7)
Elisha warns the king of Israel in advance of surprise attacks by the Syrians; a Syrian force comes to seize him but is stricken with temporary mental blindness; the Syrians besiege Samaria, and Elisha is blamed for the resulting famine; he foretells the end of the famine (6:8–7:2)
The commission given to Elijah is completed when Elisha tells Hazael that he will become king of Syria and sends a messenger to anoint Jehu as king over Israel (8:7-13; 9:1-13)
Jehu acts against Ahab’s house, eradicating Baal worship from Israel (9:14–10:28)
Elisha, on his deathbed, is visited by Jehu’s grandson King Jehoash; he foretells three victories over Syria (13:14-19)
Israel’s disrespect for Jehovah leads to exile in Assyria
The calf worship started by Jeroboam continues during the reigns of Jehu and his offspring—Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah (10:29, 31; 13:6, 10, 11; 14:23, 24; 15:8, 9)
During Israel’s final days, King Zechariah is assassinated by Shallum, Shallum by Menahem, Menahem’s son Pekahiah by Pekah, and Pekah by Hoshea (15:8-30)
During Pekah’s reign, Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, exiles many Israelites; in the ninth year of Hoshea, Samaria is destroyed and Israel is taken into exile because of disrespecting Jehovah; Israel’s territory is populated by other peoples (15:29; 17:1-41)
Religious reforms in Judah bring no lasting change; Babylon destroys Jerusalem and takes God’s people into exile
Jehoram of Judah marries Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel; Jehoram apostatizes, as does his son Ahaziah after him (8:16-27)
When Ahaziah dies, Athaliah tries to kill off the seed of David so that she herself can rule; Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, is rescued by his aunt and eventually made king; Athaliah is killed (11:1-16)
As long as High Priest Jehoiada lives and advises him, Jehoash restores true worship, but ‘sacrificing on the high places’ persists during his reign and that of his successors—Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), and Jotham (12:1-16; 14:1-4; 15:1-4, 32-35)
Jotham’s son Ahaz practices idolatry; Ahaz’ son Hezekiah makes good reforms, but these are undone by the subsequent bad reigns of Manasseh and Amon (16:1-4; 18:1-6; 21:1-22)
Amon’s son Josiah undertakes firm measures to rid the land of idolatry; he is killed in a battle with Pharaoh Nechoh (22:1–23:30)
Judah’s last four kings are unfaithful: Josiah’s son Jehoahaz dies in captivity in Egypt; Jehoahaz’ brother Jehoiakim reigns after him; Jehoiakim’s son and successor Jehoiachin is carried into Babylonian exile; Jehoiakim’s brother Zedekiah reigns until Jerusalem is conquered by the Babylonians and most survivors of the conquest are taken into exile (23:31–25:21)
Saturday 16 June 2018
It's still design all the way down II
Seeing the Nucleus in 4-D
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
We know about genes and genomes, and how over six feet of DNA is crammed into a tiny nucleus within a cell. Decades of detailed research have given us the static, 3-D view of the nucleus. What’s new is the frenetic activity going on inside the nucleus as chromosomes move into position and genes switch on and off. The addition of the time dimension is turning our snapshots of the genome into a movie, and it’s a blockbuster.
Two groundbreaking papers in Cell explain how Caltech scientists have peered into the moment-by-moment transcription of genes, watching portions of the genome light up as they become active. What they are finding reveals new levels of design. Who could think of chance after seeing what these scientists witnessed?
Nuclear Organization
The first paper by Quinodoz et al., “Higher-Order Inter-chromosomal Hubs Shape 3D Genome Organization in the Nucleus,” reports on work done in the lab of Mitchell Guttman. The results are summarized in the news from Caltech,“The Cartography of the Nucleus.” Notice the design implications in the opening sentences:
Nestled deep in each of your cells is what seems like a magic trick: Six feet of DNA is packaged into a tiny space 50 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Like a long, thin string of genetic spaghetti, this DNA blueprint for your whole body is folded, twisted, and compacted to fit into the nucleus of each cell.
Now, Caltech researchers have shown how cells organize the seemingly immense genome in a clever manner so that they can conveniently find and access important genes.
Nuclear bodies are regions where genes associate with the protein machines that will transcribe and edit them. Next to a rotating 3-D image of chromosomes associating with the nucleolus and other nuclear bodies, the news item describes how the team developed a new imaging tool called SPRITE to watch how genes switch on differently in different types of cells.
Though the vast majority of cells in every human body contain identical genomes, different types of cells are able to have diverse functions because genes can be expressed at varying levels — in other words, they can be turned on or off. For example, when a stem cell is developing into a neuron, a flurry of activity happens in the nucleus to dial up and down levels of gene expression. These levels would be different, for example, if the stem cell was turning into a muscle cell or if the cell were making the decision to self-destruct.
Next we learn about nuclear bodies. Notice the machine language and the efficiency: this is rapid, precision work!
In addition to the genome, the nucleus also contains structures called nuclear bodies, which are like miniature factories in the nucleus that contain a high concentration of cellular machinery all working to accomplish similar tasks, such as turning on specific sets of genes or modifying RNA molecules to produce proteins in the cell. This cellular machinery needs to be able to efficiently search through six feet of DNA — approximately 20,000 total genes, in mammals — in order to precisely find and control its targets. This is made possible because DNA is organized into three-dimensional structures that make certain genes more or less accessible
Figures in the paper show a high degree of organization, indeed. SPRITE places barcode tags on genes that allow scientists to follow chromosome strands as they organize around nuclear bodies. Some nuclear bodies, called nuclear speckles, are where genomic DNA is organized, and where RNA Polymerase II, spliceosomes and lncRNAs transcribe and edit them. Inactive parts of the chromosome associate with the nucleolus, which contains repressive proteins on DNA that keep genes turned off. “Moreover,” they say, “our results suggest that multiple actively transcribed DNA regions can arrange simultaneously around nuclear speckles to form higher-order inter-chromosomal interactions.”
Together, these results suggest an integrated and global picture of genome organization where individual genomic regions across chromosomes organize around nuclear bodies to shape the overall packaging of genomic DNA in a highly regulated and dynamic manner (Figure 7).
Quinodoz explains what is significant about this advancement:
“With SPRITE, we were able to see thousands of molecules — DNAs and RNAs — coming together at various ‘hubs’ around the nucleus in single cells,” says Quinodoz, the study’s first author. “Previously, researchers theorized that each chromosome is kind of on its own, occupying its own ‘territory’ in the nucleus. But now we see that multiple genes on different chromosomes are clustering together around these bodies of cellular machinery. We think these ‘hubs’ may help the cell keep DNA that are all turned on or turned off neatly organized in different parts of the nucleus to allow cellular machinery to easily access specific genes within the nucleus.”
Nuclear Dynamics
The second paper, by Shah et al., is summarized in this from Caltech, “Ten Thousand Bursting Genes.” This team improved on an existing imaging tool called seqFISH that allowed them to watch not just four or five genes, as before, but 10,421 genes at once within individual cells by tagging them with fluorescent barcodes. The news item shows thousands of colored dots in a map of the nucleus where nascent transcription was seen to be occurring.
Previous methods followed the messenger RNAs, which have a longer lifetime. By following short-lived introns in the genes with their tags, this team found a purpose behind those mysterious non-coding regions:
In order for genetic instructions to be turned into an actual functioning protein, a process called transcription must first occur. This process often occurs in pulses, or “bursts.” First, a gene will be read and copied into a precursor messenger RNA, or pre-mRNA, like jotting a quick, rough draft. This molecule then matures into a messenger RNA, or mRNA, akin to editing the rough draft. During the “editing” process, certain regions called introns are cut out of the pre-mRNA.
The team chose to focus on labeling introns because they are produced so early in the transcription process, giving a picture of what a cell is doing at the precise moment of gene expression.
Following the introns led to a discovery that
the transcription of genes oscillates globally across many genes on what Cai calls a “surprisingly short” timescale — only about two hours — compared to the time it takes for a cell to divide and replicate itself, which takes from 12 to 24 hours. This means that over the course of a two-hour period, many genes within a cell will burst on and off.
It was like watching a miniature fireworks show in color. The tags reveal what the “nascent transcriptome” is doing, providing more dynamical resolution of nuclear activity. With this improved seqFISH tagging technique, scientists will be able to watch how transcription activity differs between different types of cells.
The team also learned things about nuclear organization. They were “surprised to discover that most active, protein-encoding genes are located on the surface of the chromosome, not buried inside of it.” Additionally, “Transcriptionally active loci are positioned at the surface of chromosome territories.” This is not “spaghetti code” inside a basketball! (“Spaghetti code” was a term of derision for computer programs tangled up with “go-to” signals all over the place, making it hard to follow. Today’s modular programming is better organized. The cell had it first!)
The work by Shah et al. could lead to other exciting discoveries. In conclusion, they look ahead:
Using pulsatile and oscillatory dynamics, cells can achieve states not accessible with amplitude-based regulation schemes (Letsou and Cai, 2016). For example, cells can use fluctuations in global transcriptional activity to coordinate the stoichiometry of many transcripts in a mechanisms [sic] akin to the frequency-modulated signaling observed in yeast and mammalian pathways (Cai et al., 2008; Yissachar et al., 2013).
Finally, an exciting recent work showed that intron-to-exon ratios across the transcriptome can be used to determine the direction of of [sic] cells on the developmental trajectory (La Manno et al., 2017). As we showed, the nascent transcriptome profiles can not only distinguish cell types and cell states, but also detect fast dynamics in single cells. Applications of intron seqFISH with signal amplification (Shah et al., 2016a), along with mRNA seq- FISH (Shah et al., 2016b, Lignell et al., 2017), can enable simultaneous profiling of nascent and mature RNAs in tissues, with spatial information preserved. It will be fascinating to explore the nascent transcriptome in single cells in many tissue settings and developmental contexts.
In short, cells could take advantage of the observed two-hour oscillation for additional levels of coordination and regulation. They can use it like signals superimposed on an FM radio carrier wave!
Conclusion
The really exciting work in genetics is being done with an eye to design. These researchers did not need to explicitly endorse intelligent design to show why this is the case. The message of design comes through loud and clear in the questions they ask, and in the findings that result. The absence of evolutionary speculation improves the signal-to-noise ratio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)