And still yet more primeval tech v. Darwin.

 Hierarchical Systems in Biology — DNA Packaging

Walter Myers III

Late last year Discovery Institute Research Coordinator Brian Miller asked me about hierarchical systems in biological organisms and how they relate to computer systems. I hadn’t thought much about it previously. However, that question has gnawed at me over the past few months and there are a couple of interesting cases I have been pondering where I believe there is hierarchical structure in nature that intersects with programmatic constructs. 

The first is the overall organization of biological organisms: how they appear to have a layered approach where structures not only build on top of lower ones, but also within those layers there is composition of various parts that work in concert with other parts. For example, in any complex multicellular animal, cells comprise the smallest unit, then you have groupings of cells into structures such as organs, and then these organs are composed to give rise to the full, working organism. Beyond that, there is the thinking part of an organism that seems to defy being reduced to its physical constituents. I will stop there, but that is grist for a future post.

Hierarchical Nature of DNA

The second case I have been thinking about for some time, which is my subject here, is the hierarchical nature of the helical DNA molecule within the cell that carries the genetic instructions to build proteins that perform the work of the cell. It is truly remarkable to see 1) how such a large volume of information can be packed into so little space with its “supercoiled” architecture, 2) the degree to which this information is compressed and packaged within the nucleus of the cell, and 3) how it can be precisely unpackaged where needed to access the instructions for any new protein the cell needs for continued operation. As we will see, it is the chromosome that represents the highest order of DNA compression and organization, containing an organism’s entire genetic content, counted in the number of chromosome pairs. For example, humans have 23 chromosome pairs with one of each of the 23 pairs contributed by the parents, totaling 46 chromosomes.

Advanced life forms, such as humans, dogs, and whales, have what are called eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells, unlike prokaryotic cells such as bacteria, contain a nucleus that stores and protects the genetic material, DNA, which is “condensed” (i.e., packaged) into chromosomes. To get an idea of just how condensed DNA is, inside each and every one of the 30 to 40 trillion cells (excluding bacteria and reproductive cells) that make up a human, if you were to stretch the 3 billion base pairs of DNA end to end, its length would be about two meters. Yet when fully packaged inside the nucleus of a cell (generally during cell division), the 3 billion base pairs in each cell fit into a space just 6 microns (.000006 meters) across. The nucleus itself is about 10 microns (.00001 meters) in diameter, providing ample room for DNA to be unpackaged as needed, as in between cell division chromosomes generally exist in a more diffused state in essential regions to enable faster access for replication or transcription. This is somewhat like the concept of memory caching in computer systems to speed up programs by avoiding slower disk reads for frequently used data. Generally, if a gene is completely packed away, then it will most likely not be expressed (i.e., transcribed and translated into a protein). This makes sense because each of the different cell types in an organism (e.g., muscle, skin, endothelial, nerve, etc.) requires only a small subset of the full set of available proteins coded in the genome.

Carefully and Ingeniously

So how do you package one meter of information content into a space 1/100,000 that size? Very carefully and quite ingeniously. The storage of DNA is very much like hierarchical file systems on Windows and Linux desktop computers compressed into a .zip file. In the same manner that there are folders within folders within folders in a desktop computer, with the actual files at the terminal level, individual genes within a DNA molecule are equivalent to “files” that in this case specify the building of a protein needed for the cell to function. DNA packaging is far more complex, however, with several levels of packaging into a highly compressed and compact structure called chromatin. Essentially, there are three orders of DNA packaging: the first order is the nucleosome, the second order is the solenoid fiber, and the third order is the scaffold loop chromatids chromosome. The diagram below demonstrates the levels of packaging.

Image credit: EreborMountain/Shutterstock.com.

The first level of packaging of DNA is where the double-stranded DNA is wrapped around spools of histone, a family of positively charged proteins that function primarily in packaging DNA, to form nucleosomes, creating the appearance of “beads” on a string. The nucleosomes themselves are then coiled into a 10 nm (10 billionths of a meter) fiber. Each nucleosome “core” consists of eight histone molecules. The nucleosomes are then further folded into the second order supercoiled solenoid fiber, which is 30 nm in width. The third order is the forming of looped domains of solenoid fibers that average 300 nm in width which are then further compressed down to 250 nm to form chromatin fiber. The chromatin fibers are further folded into 700 nm chromatids, and finally we have the highest order of structure that forms the characteristic shape of a chromosome which is 1400 nm in width as seen above. Thus, the general order of packaging is:

DNA → nucleosome → solenoid → chromatin fiber → chromatid → chromosome

A “Chicken and Egg” Problem

It is hard to fathom that such a highly complex, hierarchical mechanism of information storage on a microscopic scale could come about purely by chance, which more importantly demonstrates a clear case of the classic “chicken and egg” problem. This complex, highly orchestrated packaging model, coordinated by the machinery of enzymes (topoisomerases) and various types of histones that are proteins themselves coded in DNA, must have come prior to DNA and prior to the random variation mechanism of evolution itself. The DNA packaging model is programmed with the knowledge of what regions of the chromosome to keep tightly supercoiled and what regions to keep more loosely packed to aid in DNA transcription. Moreover, if a region needed for transcription is supercoiled, it will unwind that region and compensate for the unwinding with a compensating supercoil in a prior region. Thus, there is an astounding process of coordination taking place within the process of transcribing DNA.

Interestingly, there are companies that recognize the genius of DNA and its packaging model who are investigating using DNA molecules as a means of creating molecular-level archival data storage to solve the problem of an ever-increasing amount of digital data that is surpassing the amount of physical storage available using modern magnetic and optical media. For example, tech giant Microsoft is currently engaged in this research, noting the following on their website: “Using DNA to archive data is an attractive possibility because it is extremely dense (up to about 1 exabyte per cubic millimeter) and durable (half-life of over 500 years).” When one considers the fact that the world’s finest software engineers look to the DNA packaging topology to dramatically increase storage capability by orders of magnitude, it is reasonable to conclude that the packaging and processing of DNA is the product of a purposeful designer with a degree of engineering knowledge simply unmatched by humans.

Who then is this God and Father who is above all?

  Ephesians4:6 NASB "one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

One of the main reasons nontrintarian Christians feel compelled to reject the doctrine of the holy trinity is that it involves the same oft repeated seductions to a free lunch common to all poorly conceived philosophies.To give an example if the trinity doctrine as commonly explained by mainstream churches is true then manifestly no member of the trinity can be "over all" since not only would there be at least two others who are equal in divinity but there would be one (i.e the totality of the Godhead) who/which? would be greater than any single member.The trinity itself/himself? would alone be over all,The God,The most high,the only true God etc.

 Yet the scriptures repeatedly speak of the father alone as the most high,Ho theos i.e the God,the only true God,and as being over all including Christ.

The other purported members of the trinity are spoken of as being of God i.e subject to God so that Jesus is Son of The God(not merely the father) and never God the son,The spirit is the spirit of God(not merely the father or the son) and never as God the spirit. The Father by contrast is always the God the father and never the Father of the God clearly then the Father is the God who owns, sustains and controls the son and the spirit. The father's name alone in scripture is ever referred to as the sacred/holy name hence our lord prayed that YOUR (second person singular possessive),not our name be hallowed/sanctified.

 According to the words of our Lord and saviour Jesus the messiah the time is at hand for all seeking the approval of the one true God to reject this particular seduction to a free lunch and turn to the father i.e Jehovah/yahweh God as the one true God.

John4:23NASB "“But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the FATHER in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers"

Seeking a straight answer from Darwinists.

 Can someone outline for me a stepwise Darwinian style  model of the emergence of sexual reproduction. Bearing in mind that any trial that does not succeed on its first attempt effectively resets the experiment to zero.

Lee Kuan Yew: an overview.

 Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew; 16 September 1923 – 23 March 2015), often referred to by his initials LKY, was a Singaporean statesman and lawyer who served as Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, and is recognised as the nation's founding father. He was one of the founders of the People's Action Party, which has ruled the country continuously since independence.

Lee was born in Singapore during British colonial rule, which was part of the Straits Settlements. He attained top grades in his early education, gaining a scholarship and admission to Raffles College. During the Japanese occupation, Lee worked in private enterprises and as an administration service officer for the propaganda office. After the war, Lee initially attended the London School of Economics, but transferred to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, graduating with starred-first-class honours in law in 1947. He became a barrister of the Middle Temple in 1950 and returned to Singapore, and began campaigning for Britain to relinquish its colonial rule.

Lee co-founded the People's Action Party in 1954 and won his first seat in the Tanjong Pagar division in the 1955 election. He became the de facto opposition leader in the legislature to chief ministers David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock. Lee led his party to its first electoral victory in the 1959 election, and was appointed as the state's first prime minister. To attain complete self-rule from Britain, Lee campaigned for a merger with other former British territories in a national referendum to form Malaysia in 1963. Racial strife and ideological differences led to Singapore's separation from the federation to become a sovereign city-state in 1965.

With overwhelming parliamentary control at every election, Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within a single generation. In the process, he forged a system of meritocratic, highly effective and anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning. He championed meritocracy and multiracialism as governing principles, making English the lingua franca to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve students' mother tongue and ethnic identity. Lee stepped down as prime minister in 1990, but remained in the Cabinet under his successors, holding the appointments of senior minister until 2004, then minister mentor until 2011. He died of pneumonia on 23 March 2015, aged 91. In a week of national mourning, about 1.7 million Singaporean residents as well as world leaders paid tribute to him at his lying-in-state at Parliament House and community tribute sites.

Lee has often been considered as a highly oppressive dictator and a stalwart supporter of the so-called Asian values, which espouses constant obedience to the government or face severe consequences such as caning and even the death penalty. Lee's rule was often criticised by observers from the liberal democracies of the West in response. Critics had also accused him of severely curtailing press freedoms, limits on public protests, restricting labour movements from strike action, and bringing defamation lawsuits any political opponents in his way.

The Multiverse: a brief history.

 Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, music, and all kinds of literature, particularly in science fiction, comic books and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel universes", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "parallel realities", "quantum realities", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", "alternate dimensions" and "dimensional planes".

The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.

In 2007, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggested that if the multiverse existed, "the hope of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses and other constants of the standard model that we observe in our Big Bang is doomed, for their values would be an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live."

File under "well said" LXXVII.

 

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

George Orwell

Storytelling masquerading as science (again).

Evolutionary Imagination and Belief Drive False Claims of a “Four-Legged Whale”

Casey Luskin 

The media are currently abuzz with claims of a newly discovered fossil from Egypt: a “four-legged whale.” Here are some prominent headlines:

• NPR: “Scientists Discover Fossil Of A 4-Legged Whale With A Raptor-Like Eating Style”
• Newsweek: “Scientists have found the fossil of a deadly 4-legged whale that had a jackal-like head and lived both on land and in the sea”
• New York Post: “Fossil of previously unknown four-legged whale found in Egypt”
• BBC: “New species of ancient four-legged whale discovered in Egypt”

And so on. The headlines are accompanied by an artist’s depiction of what was supposedly found. See above. The image is attributed to one of the co-authors of the technical paper, geologist Robert W. Boessenecker. 

“That’s Right, Folks”

The NPR story warns:

We regret to inform you that your nightmares are about to get worse. 

A team led by Egyptian scientists have dug up a 43 million-year-old fossil in the Sahara Desert in Egypt of a now-extinct amphibious four-legged whale.

That’s right, folks — a whale with legs.

The problem with these claims? That’s right folks — they didn’t find any of the fossil’s legs. Everything you just read about this fossil is the product of imagination. In fact, if you check the technical paper you’ll learn that they found very little of the fossil at all. Figure 1 from the paper, which can be seen online here, shows the bones that were discovered shaded in red. Zoom in and look at the drawing in the middle. You may notice, as I said, a curious absence of red-shaded leg bones. 

Also absent: the pelvis, the vast majority of ribs and vertebrae, and the front portion of the snout. Undoubtedly the organism had these bones, but to call this a “whale with legs,” or to unequivocally depict it as some species transitional between terrestrial mammals and whales (as seen above), is to impose a huge amount of evolutionary imagination on the situation. 

Was It a Whale?

Consistent with all of this, the paper notes in the abstract that what they did find was “a partial skeleton,” later stating, “The new species is based on a partial skeleton.” A complete description of the bones is provided later in the paper as follows:

an associated partial skeleton of a single individual including the cranium, the right mandible, incomplete left mandible, isolated teeth, the fifth cervical, and the sixth thoracic vertebrae and ribs. The holotype is the only known specimen.

Perhaps this organism had four legs. Perhaps it had flippers. Perhaps it was closely related to whales. Perhaps it has nothing to do with whales. No one really knows. The simple fact of the matter is that we know hardly anything about this creature because, again, so very little of it was found. Forcing this species into an evolutionary paradigm to fit preconceived ideas about cetacean evolution, and promulgating headlines about a “four-legged whale,” is beyond belief. Actually, I take that back. Belief — belief in an evolutionary paradigm — is the thing that’s driving these headlines. 

Imagination. Belief. That’s putting it politely, which I insist upon doing. We all have imaginations, and we all have beliefs. So in that sense this is understandable. But if I weren’t so polite, a variety of other terms could be used to describe telling the public this fossil represents a “four-legged whale.”

Is it any wonder that people don’t trust overhyped evolutionary claims made by the media, or by some scientists?

So what you're saying is...

  Christendom's emissaries keep trying to persuade me that their conclusions are the orthodoxy,while mine are heretical but I can't help noticing the mental contortions necessary to hold on to this 'orthodoxy' of theirs. For instance during a debate that I was recently watching between a member of the Lds church and a pair of protestants (Calvinists to be specific), one of the protestants ( displaying an astounding lack of self-awareness) attempted to use psalm90:2 as a defeater to the lds claim that God was once a man. Every time I try to use the same verse to establish permanent divinity of Jehovah with Christendom's representatives it is casually brushed aside. They would recognise the incongruity of worshiping a god that emerged from his own creation when the ancient pagans do it. But of course when they in effect to the very same thing,well,that's different. They chide the Muslim and lds  for worshiping a deity that is like a man in outward appearance while inviting them to worship a god who is a man in actuality not merely appearance. The polytheist's pantheon of specialised interdependent deities is deemed a clear violation of occam's razor as an explanation of the origin of man and the universe, while a triad of self-existent interchangeable divine persons is not and on and on.

Why reductive spiritualism is as false as reductive materialism.

 If this supposed immortal soul spoken of by Christendom's theologians and philosophers truly exists, obviously no change  (positive or negative) to the body ought to affect consciousness one way or the other. If this soul can retain memories,full (even improved) awareness of its surroundings after the death of the body. Then logically nothing  less than death should be able to impair consciousness to any degree. Yet some are using the fact that mere injury or trauma to the body never produces a complete cessation of brain activity or awareness to argue that the soul is totally distinct from the body (if true this renders the body superfluous).

Do subhuman mammals have minds?

If so, does this not indicate that they are souls? 

Are these souls separate from their bodies?

 Can't the same argument from partial consciousness be used to argue that subhuman mammals possess immortal souls?

If brain and mind are independent of each other how can the brain's neural activity prove or disprove the existence of an immortal soul?

Some make much of that tiny minority of (so called)near death experiences where certain memories of the survivor have been apparently verified. If my only acquaintance with a certain city is having been on an airliner that  flew over said city (let's call it a near city experience) I would hardly qualify as a reliable informant re:this city, would I?

What I do find interesting about these accounts is their physicality. Ask yourself would an amorphous spirit possess stereoscopic vision complete with blindside,would its vision depend on light at all, would such concepts as up,above down,below,right,left be useful to such a being. These accounts bear the stamp of our cognitive limits as physical beings.

The extrapolation that full cessation of consciousness would proceed from the destruction of the body seems the more natural one.

On recurring themes in trinitarian apologetics.

  

In my discussions with trinitarians I've noticed certain frequently recurring themes in this post I would like to review four of the most popular ones:

1)"It's all an unfathomable mystery" Usually our protagonist would say something like:well of course you can't form a coherent concept of God if you could he wouldn't be God,he wouldn't be transcendent:This particular defense leaves me wondering why trinitarian apologists bother after all how could anyone possibly form any coherent argument in support of an incoherent idea.
If we can't evaluate your doctrine with the standard tools of scripture,logic and commonsense how can we separate truth from error to begin with.
  Given the scriptures' stern warning against Idolatry/false worship 1John5:21 it seems only fair that the creator should grant his intelligent creation the capacity to clearly identify him i.e the ability to form a coherent concept of his true self/nature.
 Jesus Christ suggested that the creator had in fact done so John4:22,8:54  Jesus Christ and his fellow 1st century Jews had both an accurate and coherent concept of the object of their devotion.

2)"Problem?What problem?" This time our protagonist would go in the other direction and insist that the trinity doctrine is not a morass of incoherence and self-contradiction and what's more he can prove it.Why should the worship of Christendom's trinity not be regarded as an exercise in polytheism when said trinity is said to be composed of three distinct persons each of whom is said to be "God"not to mention that the trinity itself is distinct from any of its constituents and is also called "God" by standard arithmetic that should add up to four Gods shouldn't it?Well you see,explain our trinitarian friends,When we say that each constituent of the trinity is "God" we are using that term as an adjective meaning something like  "divine""Godlike" not as a noun,which would be the case if we use the the word with regard to the trinity as a whole.This causes me to wonder about peter's statement at Matthew16:16"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” "The living God" is clearly a reference to the supreme divinity not the Father according to the aforementioned logic the Father though divine/Godlike is not the supreme God according to trinitarians (At least if they wish to take their reasoning to its logical end) So Jesus must according to trinitarian logic be the Son of the Trinity which is said to include himself Does this make Jesus one third of his  heavenly Father or one of his heavenly Fathers.
 Commonsense demands that we abandon this particular instance of trinitarian logic as impractical and the Holy Scriptures concur At John8:54 Jesus clearly identifies his God and Father as the God Of Israel("God"is definitely a count noun in this passage of Scripture) So,as tends to be the case,the Holy Scriptures refuse to play along with trinitarians and their special pleading.

3)A unipersonal God cannot be love per John4:8
The Word "Love" in this passage is a rendering of the Greek word "agape" Our protagonists may say something like "Agape" cannot be felt in regard or expressed to oneself only others as "agape" means principled and unselfish kindness.So from this they deduce that God must be three persons.Now if,as trinitarians claim,The trinity is in fact a single being or life wouldn't that mean that the three constitute a single self and we haven't solved our conundrum.
If we accept trinitarian reasoning as fact then the only way out is for God to share love with (a) distinct God(s)/Goddess(es)from eternity.
Again the scriptures rain on trinitarians parade at mark12:31 Jesus lists the Command to 'Agape' one's neighbor as oneself as the second greatest command in the law.So according to the Lord not only can one validly possess 'agape' for oneself one should possess 'agape' for oneself   'agape' of self is to be the model for agape of other.

4)Jesus has some of Jehovah's titles he must be Jehovah.The problem with this logic is of course that it is Jesus specific trinitarians are not prepared to consistently employ this principle  throughout the scriptures.or they would be faced with an ever expanding Godhead.The Prophet Moses for instance is declared to be God by Jehovah himself Exodus7:1
to name one of several instances where Jehovah's exalted servants heavenly and earthly are shown speaking and acting as if they're Jehovah himself and in turn being honored as if they're Jehovah himself See also Judges13:21,22,Exodus3:2-6,Acts7:53.

One can refer to these as zombie themes they have been debunked so many times in so many different fora and yet they keep walking like the undead.

It just goes to show,as has been said,that reason and logic are not universal keys,indeed they're useless if those with whom we engage are not at the time prepared pursue the evidence and logic where ever they lead even/especially if their path traverses the carcasses of treasured falsehhoods.

The second of George Storrs six sermons.

SERMON TWO "Ye shall not surely die." Gen. 3:4 OUR Saviour saith, the old serpent - "the devil, is a liar and the father of it." He commenced his attack on our race by saying they should "not surely die," if they did disobey God. He was successful in that game, and has played the same card, in some form, on men, ever since he first swept Paradise with it. He told Eve that the God of love could not give place to such feelings as to cut them off from life if they did disobey. He has never forgotten his success. True, he has turned his card since, but it is the same card still. It has still inscribed on it - "Ye shall not SURELY DIE." Now he makes use of it to insinuate that God does not love or pity man, seeing He has determined that man shall not DIE, but be kept alive in eternal and indescribable torments, for sins committed on earth, or hereafter to be committed in the theological hell, where it is impossible for the miserable ones to cease from sin!  ​ As the doctrine, "Ye shall not surely die," had its origin with the old serpent, I cannot divest myself of the conviction that the notion that wicked men will be kept eternally alive in torments, and never die, had its origin from the same source, as it appears to be a perfect fac-simile; and that it was invented to inspire hard thoughts of God and keep men from turning to Him by repentance and faith, or confidence, and acknowledging their sins against the God of love. And I solemnly believe, this doctrine has kept more away from God, and driven them into infidelity, than any other doctrine that was ever promulgated. I am solemnly convinced that it has done more to destroy men than all other errors put together.

For, if some minds have been temporarily affected by it, they are seldom found to be uniform Christians, and hardly pretend to live in obedience to God, unless under some strong excitement; multitudes of others, without any proper reflection upon the claims of God's law, have rejected eternal punishment, because of the nature of that which the "orthodox" say is to be inflicted; whilst others have lived and died in real infidelity, or what has been called so, because they could not believe that a Being whose word declares that He "is love" could inflict such a punishment on even the worst and most bitter of His enemies. 

But I will not detain you longer with an introduction. I shall attempt to show you, that the death God has threatened, as the wages of sin, is not immortality in misery, but an actual and total deprivation of life. I say, then, in opposition to the old serpent, if men do not come to Christ, that they may have life, they SHALL surely die - past hope, past recovery. 

Let me here briefly recall attention to the question at issue. It is not whether man can be immortal, nor whether the righteous will be immortal, but will the conscious being of the wicked be eternal? Is the punishment of the wicked interminable being in sin and suffering? or an eternal cessation from life? 

I use the term immortal, in these discourses, in its commonly received meaning, i.e. according to Grimshaw, "exempt from death;" and according to Walker, "never to die - never ending, perpetual." Strictly speaking, immortality is the development of life through an indestructible organization, so far as it relates to created beings. 
​
In my first sermon I had brought the subject down to the inquiry,
​

WHAT ARE THE TERMS EMPLOYED TO DENOTE THE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED?
​

Are they such as can, by any fair construction of language, be made to mean that the wicked are destined to a state of eternal sin and suffering? Let us keep in mind, that words are not to be so explained as to mean more than their primary signification, without an obvious necessity; though they may, and often do, signify less. 

The terms employed are - Perish - Utterly perish - Utterly consumed with terrors - Destroy - Destroyed – Destroyed forever - Destruction - To be burned - Burned UP with unquenchable fire - Burn them up, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch - Perdition - Die - Death - Second Death, &c. 

Let us now begin with the first of these terms, viz: "PERISH." Grimshaw, in his Etymology, says it signifies "to cease to have existence - to die - to decay." 

Which of these definitions is suited to convey the idea of eternal sin and suffering? Can that which is never to cease, be said to be decaying? Can that which has interminable life be said "to die?" Can that which is always to continue in being, be said "to cease to have existence?" I need not pursue that inquiry; it is a self-evident truth, that however the term perish may be used, in an accommodated sense, to signify something less than actual ceasing to be, it is even then borrowed from its primary signification, and must be restored to it when there is not a known necessity for departing from it. In the case under consideration, there can be no such necessity, unless it can first be proved that men are immortal. 

Paul, in 1Cor.15:18, says - "Then," (if Christ be not raised,) "they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. "What! in a state of eternal sin and suffering! The supposition is so absurd that my opponents admit that the term perish here means "to cease to be." By what fair interpretation of language can they ever make it mean any thing else, when spoken of the final state of the lost? Though the term is sometimes used to denote something less than an actual ceasing to be, it does not therefore follow that it is used to mean something far greater and more horrible. To apply this term to an eternal state of sin and misery, is to force a sense upon it which is most unwarrantable and unjustifiable, in my judgment. 

Let us keep constantly in mind that the whole family of man, by their natural birth, have no access to the tree of life, consequently were perishing, were destitute of immortality. Now look at the following texts: 

"God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, might not perish, but have everlasting life." Here everlasting life is the opposite of perishing. I pray, is everlasting sin and misery the opposite of everlasting life? The wicked, upon that view, have as really everlasting life as the righteous, though under different circumstances. 

"For we," saith an apostle, "are unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are the savor of death unto death, and to the other of life unto life." 

Here perishing and life are put in opposition, and the term perish is explained by the apostle himself, to mean death, and not life in misery. 
I need not quote all the passage where this term is employed to express the final doom of the wicked, in which it is evident we are to receive it in its primary meaning, and no other. Before I leave this term, however, I must call your attention to one fact, and that is - in the Acts of the Apostles, the very place where we should expect to find, if any where in the Bible, the doctrine of eternal torments, because the apostles were addressing sinners, there is not a particle of evidence to support the common theory. On the contrary, the views I maintain are most clearly set forth by Paul, in the 13th chapter, in a discourse to the "blaspheming" Jews, telling them that they judged themselves "unworthy of everlasting life," and saying - "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish." What an excellent occasion had the apostle to have aroused the Jews by the common theory, had he believed it. 

Look at that chapter, and you will see, if there ever was a time in which the apostle was called to deal plainly, it was then. I ask if any preacher in these days, who believes in the immortality of all men, in preaching to such hardened sinners as the apostle addressed, contents himself with such language as the apostles here used? No. They first describe the misery of the sinner in hell, and then, with the strongest figures they can produce, go on to give an idea of its duration, which, after all, they cannot find language to describe. The apostle did no such thing. There is not a particle of evidence of it in all his preaching and writings.
​

"DIE" AND "DEATH"
​

These terms primarily signify, "To perish - to come to nothing - the extinction of life." Hence, when these terms are applied to man, in regard to the final result of a course of sin, we ought to have good evidence that they are not to be understood in their primary meaning, before we depart from that interpretation; especially, before we fix upon them a sense so contrary to their proper signification as that of endless sin and suffering.
​
The apostle, in Rom.1:32, speaking of certain wicked characters, says - "Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they that commit such things are worthy of death," &c. In the 2d chapter, 5th verse and onwards, he speaks "of t he righteousjudgment of God," when "wrath" will be visited on the wicked; and the death spoken of is expressly called "perish"ing, as the result of the "indignation and wrath" with which the wicked will be visited "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." Death, then, as the apostle explains it, when applied to the punishment of wicked men, is to perish.

"The soul that sinneth it shall die," refers to its final doom. This will appear if we consider, men will die, i.e., leave this world, or state of being, whether they sin or not. Nor can it refer to a violent leaving this world, as some suppose, for all sinners do not die a violent death. I conclude, then, that it relates to the sinner's final doom.

"As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked, turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?" evidently looks to the same result, the final destiny of the wicked. Life and death are put in opposition: not life and conscious being in misery, but life and death, without any qualifying terms to lead any one to suspect that they are to be understood any other way than in their most obvious sense; and I cannot but think, if you were to put the Bible into the hands of a person who had never heard a word of explanation, he would so understand it.

Lest I should, in the present discourse, take up too much time in the examination of these terms, I will pass over the remainder of them for the present.

Having, as I judge, established the point that the wicked have not immortality, I might leave it to the believer in the opposite theory to prove his position from the Bible, and pursue the subject no further. I shall not, however, shrink from meeting the supposed objections to my view.
​

OBJECTIONS EXAMINED
​

The objections do not arise from any positive proof in the Bible that the wicked are immortal, but from circumstantial evidence, drawn from expressions used in reference to the punishment of the impenitent. The first objection I shall notice is founded on the language of our Lord, "Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." It is said this proves the soul immortal. I remark -

First. Whatever this punishment is, it is put in opposition to "life." "If thy hand" or "foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt" or "maimed into life, than having two hands" or "feet," &c., "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." Who does not see that here is the opposite of life, and therefore is death, or utter extinction of being without possibility of escape? In a parallel passage, our Saviour saith, "If thy right eye" or "hand offend thee, cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Here the "worm that dieth not, and the fire" that "is not quenched," we see, is another form of expression for perishing.

Again, I remark, this expression of our Lord is a quotation from Isaiah 66:24, and is applied to the "carcasses" of men, which I presume my opponents will not pretend were immortal. But if the language in one place proves immortality, why not in the other? Then we shall have immortal carcasses as well as immortal souls. But the prophecy is describing evidently the kind of doom inflicted by the Eastern nations on the vilest offenders, who were not only slain, but their bodies deprived of the rights of burial, and either burned to ashes (which among them was regarded as a great indignity,) or left to molder above ground and be devoured by worms. If the fire were quenched, they would not be utterly consumed, but something would remain - there would not be an entire destruction. It is manifest to every mind, if a fire is quenched or put out, the work of utter destruction is arrested, and something is left of the object upon which the fire kindled. The same may be said, if the worm die the carcass will not be consumed; but as the fire is not to be quenched, nor the worm die, therefore, they shall be utterly consumed, perish, cease to be found in the universe of God. The objector says, the idea of an unquenchable fire is, that it is never to go out. To show the fallacy of this, I will suppose my house is on fire. When my neighbors arrive to my help, I say, effort is useless - the fire is unquenchable. Pray, what do I mean? That the fire will burn eternally? Any school-boy knows I mean simply the house will be totally consumed "Yes," says the objector, "that is true when the expression is applied to that which is consumable, but man has a soul that cannot be consumed." To this, I reply, That is the very point to be proved. The objector says he has, and I affirm he has not.

If it is still maintained that "unquenchable fire" means "never to go out," I refer those persons to an examination of a few passages of God's word on that question. 2Chron.34:25, "Because they have forsaken me, and burned incense unto other gods, therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched." Is.34:9,10, "And the land of Idumea shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever." Jeremiah 7:20, "Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground, and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched." Also Jer.17:27, "Then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and shall not be quenched." Once more. See Ezekiel 20:47,48, "Say to the forests of the South, Hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched; and all flesh shall see that I, the Lord, have kindled it; it SHALL NOT BE QUENCHED."

Now, I wish to know if any man in his senses will pretend that all these fires that shall not be quenched are, "never to go out," in the strict sense of the term eternal? Does not any one see that so long as the things upon which the fire kindles are not proved to be immortal, the most extreme sense that can be fixed upon is, that there will be a total and irrecoverable destruction of them?

But as much stress is laid on the text under consideration, and on others where our Lord speaks of "hell fire" - -puros gehenna- - the fire of hell - we shall examine the subject more fully. Especially as by our Lord's using the expression "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," it is concluded that he teaches the immortality of all men, and the endless torment of the wicked. But, before we settle down on such a conclusion, it is better to examine the premises. I am disposed to think the conclusion is purely assumed. Let it be remembered the word in question "never occurs in the Septuagint Greek, nor in any classic author in the world." So says Dr. George Campbell, one of the most learned divines of the orthodox school of the last century. I remark, that it was never used by our Lord nor his apostles, when addressing Gentiles, whether by word or epistle. This fact speaks in thunder tones, as to its Jewish origin, and hence we are to look alone to Jews for an explanation of the term and its use.

The word is derived from "Ge," which signifies a "valley," and "Hinnom," a man's name. "The Valley of Hinnom, “south of Jerusalem, "once celebrated for the horrid worship of Moloch, and afterwards polluted with every species of filth, as well as the carcasses of animals, and dead bodies of malefactors, to consume which, in order to avert the pestilence which such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept burning." - Gr. Lex.

In the time of our Lord's personal ministry, a portion of the Jews used the phrase figuratively to denote the punishment of the wicked. As our Saviour adopted a figure of their own and used it only with Jews, it must be evident that he used it in harmony with facts. Now what were the facts in the case? They are these - Whatever was cast into the fire of gehenna, was cast there to be destroyed. If any flesh should fall outside of the fire, the worms devoured it, so that nothing there escaped utter destruction. No Jew was so stupid as ever to have conceived the thought that anything was thrown there to be preserved. The only idea that could have attached itself to this form of expression must have been that of a total and utter consumption, or destruction, without remedy, recovery, or escape. A Jew could understand it in no other sense; in any other sense the figure would have been both without meaning and without force.

This being the case, it is one of the strongest expressions in the Bible to disprove the common theory of the eternal preservation of the wicked in sin and suffering. The impenitent and incorrigible sinner, like the filth about Jerusalem, and the dead bodies of animals and men, if not utterly consumed and destroyed, would keep alive the plague in the universe; hence, they shall be "cast into the fire of Gehenna - hell fire;" or be utterly and totally destroyed, therefore "fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna - hell." Math.10:28. Just so certain as the filth about Jerusalem, and dead carcasses were utterly consumed in the burning fire of the Valley of Hinnom, so certainly will God destroy both soul and body - that is, the entire being of the incorrigible sinner, so that the universe shall be clear of these plague spots; then shall be fulfilled that which is written Rev.5:13, "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."

Not a creature shall be left in conscious existence but what shall join in ascriptions of praise to God and the Lamb. Glorious time - happy hour. May you and I be of that happy number. If we would be, let us seek holiness of heart and life. In Christ alone is life; know him - love him - obey him, and then we shall join the blessed company John heard praising in the strains just described, which may the Lord grant us through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

The advocates of the common theory of endless sin and misery bring forward our Lord's words –

"These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Matt.25:46.

This text is supposed by many to sustain the theory of the immortality of the human soul, and the endless misery of the wicked.

It is said - "If the everlasting misery of the wicked may come to an end, so may the everlasting bliss of the righteous, as the self same word is employed to express the duration of the misery of the one class as the happiness of the other."

I answer - The text saith not a word of the happiness of the one nor of the misery of the other. But if it did, it would avail nothing to the advocate of the common theory, unless he could prove the two classes equally undying, and immortal.

The term aionion - translated eternal and everlasting, in this text - does not, of itself, prove either the righteous or wicked would have a perpetual and unending existence, because it does not necessarily mean without end. This can easily be shown by its use, and the use of its corresponding word - oulom - in Hebrew; which latter word occurs, in some of its forms, more than three hundred times in the Old Testament, and in a large majority of cases will be found to express a period, longer or shorter, that will have an end. Thus the Aaronical ministry is called an everlasting priesthood;" the hills are called "everlasting hills."

Those who think, because the same term expressing duration is applied to both classes, in the text under consideration, it is made certain that the wicked will exist as long as the righteous may be taught that they reason both inconclusively and dangerously. Take the following text, "The everlasting God." Is.40:25; and compare it with Hab.3:6, "The everlasting mountains." Shall the mountains continue as long as God? How will the advocates of unending misery evade the conclusion on their premises, that the mountains will continue as long as God? Will they say, "We know the mountains will melt in the final conflagration?" True; and we know the wicked will be "burned up, and be left neither root nor branch," because, "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts;" Mal.4:1. But the Bible declares that God is "the King immortal:" not subject to be dissolved: while the everlasting mountains will be scattered and melted.

What is the argument, then, that the righteous are to continue in life while the wicked perish from life?

It is not alone in the expression everlasting or eternal, in the text; but in the fact that other texts assure us the righteous "put on immortality, incorruption," at the resurrection; 1Cor.15: and, saith Jesus, "Neither can they die any more:" Luke 20. Thus their perpetuity in life is settled by language that can have no other sense than that of unending life and being: while no such language occurs in relation to the wicked. On the contrary, they are to be "consumed, devoured, burned up, be destroyed, utterly destroyed, soul and body," &c. Such expressions, in the absence of any text affirming the immortality of wicked men, must settle the question, if testimony can settle any point.

The stumbling stone of our opposers is, in their assumption that protracted pain and punishment are necessarily identical. But this assumption is false in fact. What is the highest crime known in human law? It is murder. What is the punishment for that crime? Is it the most protracted pain? Or, is it the deprivation of life? It is the latter: and that is called the "capital punishment;" not because the criminal endures more pain, or as much as he might by some other; but because he is cut off from life.

If it be attempted to evade this point by saying - "The criminal feels horribly, while awaiting the day of execution," – I ask, if his feelings are any part of the penalty of the law? Certainly not. They may be a consequence of the crime; but the law does not say he shall feel bad, but that he shall die. But, say the advocates of the common idea of pain, as essential to punishment, "there is the dreadful hereafter to the criminal." I reply, whatever may be hereafter to him, that is no part of the penalty of the law under which he dies. So the Judge understands it, who pronounces the death sentence; for he concludes by saying, "May God have mercy on your soul:" i.e.,

"May you not be hurt hereafter." Thus, turn which way our opposers may, they meet a two edged sword that hews in pieces their notion of protracted pain and punishment being necessarily identical.

In the text under consideration, the Saviour expresses the idea of punishment, without any necessary idea of protracted pain. The word here translated punishment is kolasin: and it is never used, on any other occasion, in any of our Lord's discourses, as recorded in the Bible. When he speaks of torment, as he often does in the Gospels and in Revelation, he most uniformly uses the word basanois, but never, kolasin. Kolasin properly expresses punishment; and, strictly, the kind of punishment; as one meaning of the term is "cut off." The righteous enter into life eternal: the wicked are eternally cut off from life.

But we have an inspired Commentator on this declaration of our Lord; i.e., Paul, the apostle. Whatever scene is described Matt.25, and whatever time is spoken of, the same, in both respects, Paul speaks of 2Thess.1. They are both laid in one scene. Compare them together. "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him." Matt.25:31. "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." 2Thess.1:7. Is here any mistake? Is not the scene the same in both texts? Is it possible to separate them? Again, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." Matt.25:46. "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." 2Thess.1:9.

Here is no room to doubt but what Paul is speaking of the same punishment as Jesus; and the apostle declares the punishment is "destruction" not preservation under any circumstances; and the apostle tells us this destruction is "from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." This last expression may have the sense of "out of his presence," but I am inclined to believe it has reference to the consuming fire that sometimes came out from the presence of the Lord, under the law given by Moses. As for example, in Lev.10:1,2. - "Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, took either of them his censor, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not: and there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." Or, take the case of those who, in the rebellion of Korah (Num.16:25,) had taken their censors to appear before the Lord, "And there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." Here was no preservation, but a being consumed, devoured; so that they "died." To this, most likely, Paul refers. The presence of Christ in his glory, with his only angels, will so overpower and fill with terror the wicked, who behold him, that they will die - be destroyed - by the sight. If Daniel, Dan.10th, and John, the beloved disciple, Rev.I, both "fell as dead" at the sight of the glory manifested to them, and recovered not till a hand was laid on them, with a voice saying, fear not, how then shall Christ's enemies live when he shall appear in glory? They cannot: they have cultivated such a disregard for Christ, and contempt of him, in his absence, that when he appears in his glory his presence will fill them with such fear as to destroy them forever. No hand is to be laid on them, nor voice heard, to soothe their fears; and they are "utterly consumed with terror." Their punishment is "death - the wages of sin:" and it is irrevocable - it is eternal. Thus Paul gives us a sure interpretation of Jesus' words, and enables us to speak with certainty as to the kind of punishment that is to be the portion of wicked men.

How death, from which there is no recovery, can be an eternal punishment, we will further illustrate. The highest punishment known in the law of God or man is loss of life, or death. The privation of life may be attended with pain or it may not. If it is, it is not the punishment, it is merely an accident attending the punishment. This truth is self-evident to the reflecting mind; because, however much the murderer might suffer in dying, that would not meet the claim of the law, or answer its penalty, unless his life is extinguished: he must "be hung by the neck until he is dead," saith the law.

If this man, when dead, could be restored to life in one year after, with the right to live, his punishment would be of only one year's duration. If a thousand years after, then it would have been of a thousand years duration: not of pain, but loss of life. If he is never to be restored, but to remain eternally dead, then how long is his punishment? Is it not eternal, in the strictest sense? It is an eternal deprivation of life. Such is the Bible teaching on the punishment of wicked men. And if we would live eternally we must come to Christ for that life. God has given to us eternal life, but that life is in His Son, and not in ourselves: See 1John 5:11,12. It is the life-giving Spirit of God, bestowed on those, and those only, who come to Christ for it. This is that Spirit which raised up Christ from the dead, and by which, only, can any man be quickened to immortality and incorruptibility. Rom.8:11, with 1Cor.15:45,54; without it men perish - are destroyed -die, and "shall be no more." Psalm 104:35. "Be as though they had not been," Obadiah 16: "for the wages of sin is death;" Romans 6:23; and, "all the wicked will God destroy;" Psalms 145:20; yea, "They shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." Psalms 37:20.

Another text, on which much reliance is placed, to support the common theory, is Jude 7th. "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Let us compare Scripture with Scripture. Peter, in his second epistle, gives us an account of this same matter. - He says, "If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell - to be reserved unto the judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah - a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example to those who after should LIVE ungodly," &c.

Thus Peter throws light on Jude. Both together show most clearly what displeasures God has manifested against sinners. It is concerning what has been done in this world, we are here told, that God has made an example to those who should after live ungodly.

Those judgments inflicted on the old world, Sodom and Gomorrah, are a standing, and perpetual, or "eternal" admonition, warning, or "example" to all men to the end of the world, that live ungodly.

Those judgments prove the utter destruction of the wicked, when God shall visit them for their iniquities. For, if Sodom and Gomorrah are an "example," as Peter expressly affirms - then the wicked are to be "turned to ashes:" hence, are consumed, perish from being, and are no longer living conscious beings. Such, I am satisfied, is the scripture doctrine of the punishment of the wicked.
​

CONCLUDING REMARKS
​

In my own mind the conclusion is irresistible, that the final doom of all the impenitent and unbelieving, is that they shall utterly perish - shall be "destroyed forever" - their "end" is to be "burned up, root and branch," with "fire unquenchable" - they shall not have everlasting life, or being, but be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord," the universe of God will be purified not only from sin, but sinners - and "the works of the devil" will be destroyed, exterminated; but "blessed and holy is he who hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power." Then there will be a "new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away." "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying; neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things have passed away." 

The day when these tremendous scenes will transpire, I conceive, "is nigh, even at the doors." Yes, the time is at hand, when the wrath of God will be revealed from heaven - a day, described by the apostle, of "indignation and wrath; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." Then they that have "sinned without law shall alsoperish without law;" and a not less fearful doom awaits those that have sinned in the light of the law and gospel both. 

That awful day will soon overtake us; and who may abide the day of his coming? Behold, that day "shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, and all that do wickedly will be stubble;" as incapable of resisting the judgment that shall come upon them, as stubble is to resist the devouring flame. 
​

Let us be wise now, therefore, and prepare to meet God. "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little." "But blessed are all they that put their trust in him."