1Timothy3:16 demystified.

 

1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh")As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”


Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he” (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt),“who,” or “which.”Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?


Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes: “A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts – though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved the true reading.” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse: 
“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or ΘC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ[“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸςarose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641. 

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC(“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other. What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!
Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse! 
Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:





“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς[‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.
Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study paper). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF study papers.

Darwinist are just following the science?

 Does Darwinism Meet the Tests of a True Theory?

Eric Hedin

Commenting on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, physicist Richard Feynman said, “It is not true that we can pursue science completely by using only those concepts which are directly subject to experiment….The basis of a science is its ability to predict.” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, pp. 2-9)

We can appreciate this statement by contrasting it with the popular view, where science is a matter of measuring and experimenting with observable reality. Feynman points out that with the advent of quantum mechanics, the scientific reality of nature is no longer directly observable, even in principle. Probabilistic predictions are actually all that quantum theory allows. 

However, while predictive accuracy is a necessary attribute of a scientific theory, it is by no means a sufficient indicator of the theory’s truth. A theory may predict well enough, but we need to ascertain if its assumptions are true. In other words, do the assumptions of the theory correspond to reality? The concept of reality means an accurate description of nature that is consistent with experimental observations and established laws of physics. Such tests can tell us if an idea counts as a true scientific theory.

Let’s illustrate these requirements by considering several cases from the history of science — including Darwinian theory. But first, let us look further back to attempts to develop a theory that explained the motions of the celestial sphere — the astronomical realm thought to contain the stars and planets visible from Earth. 

The Geocentric Model

Readers will be familiar with the geocentric model of the solar system, most often associated with Ptolemy (second century CE). This model, embellished with planetary epicycles, gave reasonable predictions of the trajectories of the five visible planets, including their periodic episodes of retrograde motion. It also comported with the prevailing Aristotelean philosophy of the cosmos and agreed with everyday observations, in which all heavenly bodies appear to revolve around a stationary Earth. Nonetheless, the geocentric model was completely wrong.

Clues supporting the correct heliocentric model remained below the level of observational resolution until the advent of the telescope. 

Galileo was the first to use a crude telescope to obtain observational data that proved inconsistent with the geocentric model. His observations showed sunspots, which disappointed those who held to celestial perfection….Galileo also detected a full set of phases of the planet Venus, which was inconsistent with geocentricism. In sum, Galileo’s more accurate observations showed that this long-standing theory of how the solar system worked was incompatible with several aspects of physical reality. 

CANCELED SCIENCE, P. 178

The heliocentric model, first published by Copernicus in 1543 (21 years before Galileo’s birth), although conceptually simpler and cleaner than the Ptolemaic model, initially failed to make better predictions. That was because Copernicus assumed perfect circles for the planetary orbits. In the early 1600s, Kepler analyzed detailed naked-eye observations of the planets to deduce the correct elliptical shape of their orbits around the sun, allowing for more accurate predictions. 

The point is that successful predictions of a theory do not prove its correctness. With technological developments in observational astronomy, evidence unequivocally demonstrated the foundational errors in the assumptions of the geocentric model. Ptolemy’s Earth-centered model is now taught only as an interesting phase in the history of astronomy. 

Spontaneous Generation

Another example of a now-discarded theory is that of spontaneous generation, a hypothetical process of living organisms developing from nonliving matter. The theory made accurate predictions, such as “maggots will appear in rotting meat,” but Pasteur’s experiments proved that the underlying assumption of the theory was false. We might ponder the significance of the timing of this example. Pasteur’s experiments, disproving the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life, coincided with the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859.

Darwinian evolution as a theory of the development of life on Earth makes predictions that overlap with various lines of observational evidence, such as shared genetic and morphological traits among numerous species, both living and extinct. Given some predictive successes, along with observations of the mechanism of natural selection, extended assumptions of the theory have been presumed true. However, many shortcomings remain, both with the predictions and assumptions of Darwinian evolution. In a classic article, Casey Luskin details numerous failed predictions of Darwinism.

In Darwin’s day, the deep and interconnected functional biocomplexity of every living cell lay beneath the observational resolution available to science. Even so, as Robert Shedinger remarks in Darwin’s Bluff, Darwin “base[d] his continued confidence in his theory on the grounds that it, ‘explains so many facts.’” However, Shedinger adds, as we have already discussed, “this does not prove that a particular theory is correct.” (p. 57)

In Need of Restraint

The Bohr model of the hydrogen atom yielded a stunningly precise prediction of the wavelengths of the spectral lines of hydrogen. Yet a closer look involving quantum theory showed that fundamental assumptions of the Bohr model were incorrect. It is very tempting, especially for the inventor of a theory, to believe that the theory must be correct if it produces predictions that overlap with reality. But utmost restraint needs to be employed not to conflate successful predictions of a theory with the truth of the theory’s assumptions.

An assumption of evolution is that natural processes suffice to have produced the vast information required for cellular reproduction and function. This represents an increase in information by natural processes over the passage of time, in disagreement with established laws of theoretical physics.

Meanwhile it has turned out that the predictions of the theory of Darwinian evolution have an overall accuracy that is arguably worse than that of the long-entrenched geocentric theory of the solar system. With ongoing scientific advances, the assumptions of Darwinism, both those on which it is based, and other assumptions extrapolated from the theory’s presumptive truth, have come under increasingly critical scrutiny. Darwin’s original theory and modern syntheses of it thus fail to satisfy the requirements of a valid scientific theory: Several of its predictions don’t adequately match reality, while its fundamental assumption, of life in all its forms arising without a designer, conflicts with established laws of physics. 

The influence of evolutionary thought arises as an outgrowth of uncritical acceptance of its assumptions, but the theory deflates like a punctured balloon when those assumptions are exposed as falsehoods. Rather than its continuing to dominate scientific thought, the curtain has been pulled back on Darwinian evolution. As evidence continues to accumulate contrary to the predictions and assumptions of evolution, its place on the shelf of discarded theories in the history of science is already being prepared.

The watchtower society's memorial campaign

 JW.org

MEMORIAL CAMPAIGN

Jesus Will End War

 While on earth, Jesus showed great love for people, even to the point of sacrificing his life for them. (Matthew 20:28; John 15:13) Soon, he will again prove his love for people by using his authority as King of God’s Kingdom to bring “an end to wars throughout the earth.”—Psalm 46:9.

 Notice how the Bible describes what Jesus will do:

 “He will rescue the poor who cry for help, also the lowly one and whoever has no helper. He will have pity on the lowly and the poor, and the lives of the poor he will save. From oppression and from violence he will rescue them.”—Psalm 72:12-14.

 How can we show appreciation for all that Jesus has done and will yet do for us? At Luke 22:19, Jesus told his followers to remember his death. That is why each year, on the anniversary of his death, Jehovah’s Witnesses gather together. We invite you to join us in observing the Memorial of Jesus’ death on Sunday, March 24, 2024.

Find one near you

John5:23 demystified.

John 5:23 - "That all may honor the Son JUST AS [kathos] they honor the Father." - NIV

Jn 5:23 - "That all may honor the Son JUST AS [kathos] they honor the Father."  - NIV
     Some trinitarians insist that if we honor the Son just as we honor the only true God (in the person of the Father), then we are honoring him as God!  However, kathos simply does not have to mean "exactly equal" as these trinitarians want us to believe.  Therefore John 5:23 does not have to mean that the honor given to the Son has to be exactly equal in quantity and quality as that given to the Father. 

     For example,  

"just as [kathos] Moses lifted up the [copper] serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" - John 3:14, NRSV.  

     These two events are hardly exactly equal.  There is a degree of similarity only.  Just as there was  a "lifting up" in one part of the comparison, there was also  a "lifting up" (of a different kind and to a different degree) in the other part.  We know Moses didn't lift up a timber as large and heavy as the one Jesus died on.  We know he didn't swing it up and anchor one end in a hole in the ground until the copper serpent died a horrible death.  We know that the one act was much more important than the other in all respects.  It was a similar act only in a certain respect and to a certain degree. 

     And examine Luke 11:30, 

"Just as [kathos] Jonah became a sign to the people of Ninevah, so the Son of man will be to this generation," - NRSV
     
     This does not mean the two signs are equal either literally or figuratively.  The details of the sign to the Ninevites were very different from the sign of Jesus' death and resurrection.  The degree of importance of the sign of Jonah was much less than that of Jesus! 

     And John 17:16, 

"[Jesus followers] are not of the world, just as [kathos] I am not of the world." -  NKJV

     It would be foolish to insist that, in every aspect of the phrase, Jesus' followers were not of the world precisely as he was not.  We could, in such a case, end up `proving' that Jesus' followers had been created in heaven as spirit persons before all the rest of creation, just as he had been.  (Or for trinitarians, that they had always existed as God Himself from all eternity.)

     It seems evident from context alone that kathos, as used by Jesus in all the above examples at least, merely means that one event or circumstance is just as certain as the other event:

     (1) "Just as certainly as Moses lifted up the copper serpent in the desert, so must the 
             Son of man be lifted up."

     (2) "Just as surely as Jonah became a sign ..., so the Son of man will be to this 
             generation."

     (3) "[Jesus' followers] are not of the world, just as surely as I am not of the world."

     (4) "That all may honor the Son just as surely as they also honor the Father."

     There are many such examples (e.g., Jn 13:15; 17:18; 1 Jn 4:17 ["like" in NIV]).  They also illustrate the fact that the honor of the Son may be of a lesser degree and/or kind than that of the Father in spite of "just as" [kathos] at John 5:23. 

(There is another word that can mean "as," "just as," "equal to," etc.  That is ὡς - see Thayer, # 5613, [2. c.].   At Matt. 5:48 we read: "You  [true worshipers of God] must therefore be perfect, just as (ὡς)  your heavenly father is perfect." - NJB.  But  God (and only God) is absolutely perfect.  So what happens when you apply the same type of trinitarian reasoning as above to this scripture?  - -  The same thing happens if you insist on interpreting kathos at John 17:18 with the "exactly equal" understanding:  Jesus' followers, in that case, were spirit creatures in heaven before the creation of the earth [and equally God, trinitarians would be forced to say], and Jesus sent them to earth to assume fleshly bodies and to die sacrificial deaths to ransom all of mankind!  Surely such an interpretation of kathos in this scripture is unacceptable to Christians!)

     Another interpretation for Jn 5:23 for those who will not acknowledge the truth of the above grammatical and contextual evidence, but insist on an "absolute equality of honor" interpretation:  

     Just as an official representative or ambassador sent from a king was to be treated by the king's subjects with the same honor as the king himself (when the ambassador was acting in his official capacity) in those times, so Jesus (sent by God himself) was to be given the same honor in his capacity as God's appointed judge as God himself would expect.  Although the honor actually due the individual ambassador in his own right may have been very little (if any), when he was representing the king, the honor given to him was considered to be actually given through this representative to the king himself!  Honoring Jesus' judgments would be honoring the one who sent him.  "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." - Jn 5:23.

Posted by Elijah Daniels

Revelation ch.21:4: The watchtower society's condensed commentary

He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.​—Rev. 21:4.

Who will benefit from these wonderful provisions? First of all, the great crowd of Armageddon survivors, along with any children who may be born in the new world. But Revelation chapter 20 also promises that the dead will be resurrected. (Rev. 20:11-13) Faithful “righteous” ones who died in the past along with “unrighteous” ones​—who did not receive an adequate opportunity to learn about Jehovah—​will all come back to life here on the earth. (Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29) Does this mean that everyone will be resurrected during the Thousand Year Reign? No. Those who wickedly rejected the opportunity to serve Jehovah before their death will not be raised to life. They had their chance and proved that they were not worthy of life on the Paradise earth.​—Matt. 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 17:8; 20:15. w22.05 18 ¶16-17

Question from readers re: funeral for suicide victim.

 Questions From Readers

If someone commits suicide, would it be advisable for a Christian minister to give the funeral talk?

Each Christian minister would have to decide for himself whether he in good conscience could conduct a funeral for someone who seems to have committed suicide. When making the decision, he should consider the following questions: How does Jehovah view suicide? Was the death really a self-inflicted murder? Did a mental or emotional disorder trigger the suicide? How is suicide viewed in the locality?

As Christians, we are interested in how Jehovah views suicide. To Jehovah human life is precious and sacred. (Genesis 9:5; Psalm 36:9) The intentional killing of oneself is self-murder, and it is therefore displeasing in God’s eyes. (Exodus 20:13; 1 John 3:15) Does that fact preclude the giving of a funeral talk for a suicide victim?

Consider the case of King Saul of Israel. When he realized that he would not survive his final battle against the Philistines, rather than letting his enemy treat him abusively, “Saul took the sword and fell upon it.” When the Philistines found his corpse, they fastened it on the wall of the city of Beth-shan. Upon finding out what the Philistines had done, the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead removed the corpse and burned it. Then they took his bones and buried them. They even fasted for seven days, a traditional mourning rite among the Israelites. (1 Samuel 31:4, 8-13; Genesis 50:10) When David, the anointed of Jehovah, found out what the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead had done, he said: “Blessed may you be of Jehovah, because you exercised this loving-kindness toward your lord, toward Saul, in that you buried him. And now may Jehovah exercise toward you loving-kindness and trustworthiness.” (2 Samuel 2:5, 6) The divine record does not indicate that the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead were condemned for performing what may be considered a funeral rite for King Saul. Compare that with the case of those who were deprived of burial because of their wrongdoing. (Jeremiah 25:32, 33) A Christian minister may consider the account about Saul in deciding whether he can give a funeral talk for a suicide victim.

The minister may also want to consider the purpose of a funeral service. Unlike people who believe in the immortality of the soul, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not perform funerals with the erroneous idea of sending the deceased off to another world. Rather than to benefit the deceased, the main purpose of having a memorial service is to comfort the bereaved and to give a witness concerning the condition of the dead to those who attend. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; 2 Corinthians 1:3-5) Another important reason for having a funeral is to help all in attendance to reflect on the transitoriness of life. (Ecclesiastes 7:2) Will these purposes be served by performing the memorial service for the suicide victim?

Granted, some may feel that the person took his life intentionally, fully aware that he was sinning against Jehovah. But is there always a way to substantiate such a feeling? Could it have been a spur-of-the-moment act? Some who attempt suicide feel regret and do not go through with it. A person cannot after death repent for what he has done.

Another important factor is that of mental and emotional disorders that are involved in many suicides. These can really be called suicide victims. According to some statistics, 90 percent of those who commit suicide have some kind of mental, emotional, or addictive problem. Will Jehovah forgive the self-murder committed by people in such a mental state? We are not in a position to judge whether the deceased committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of Jehovah. A Christian minister may take into account the circumstances and medical history of the deceased when he considers whether to perform a funeral service for the suicide victim.

There is one more aspect to consider: How do people in the community view suicide and the death of the person? This is especially of concern to the elders, who are interested in the reputation of the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Depending on the general attitude toward suicide in the locality, and particularly toward the case involved, the elders may prefer not to sponsor such a funeral publicly or to have it in the Kingdom Hall.

Still, if a Christian minister is asked to preside at the funeral, he may feel that on a private basis, he can do so. If he decides to do so, he should be discreet in not making any firm statements about whether a resurrection might be possible. Any future prospect for the dead is in the hands of Jehovah, and no one is in a position to say whether the deceased will be resurrected or not. The minister can concentrate on the Bible truths about death and offer comfort for the bereaved.

In search of the ultimate rube Goldberg.

 

In search of planet IX

 

The first step in becoming a spacefaring civilization?

 

The war to liberate the agrora rages on?

 

A theory of everything re:design detection? V

 Orgelian Specified Complexity

William Dembski

As I noted at the start of this series on “specified complexity,” which I’m concluding today, Leslie Orgel introduced that term in his 1973 book The Origins of Life. Although specified complexity as developed by Winston Ewert, Robert Marks, and me attempts to get at the same informational reality that Orgel was trying to grasp, our formulations differ in important ways. 

For a fuller understanding of specified complexity, as an appendix to the series, it will therefore help to review what Orgel originally had in mind and to see where our formulation of the concept improves on his. Strictly speaking, this subject is mainly of historical interest. Because The Origins of Life is out of print and hard to get, I will quote from it extensively, offering exegetical commentary. I will focus on the three pages of his book where Orgel introduces and then discusses specified complexity (pages 189–191). 

"Terrestrial Biology”

Orgel introduces the term “specified complexity” in a section titled “Terrestrial Biology.” Elsewhere in his book, Orgel also considers non-terrestrial biology, which is why the title of his book refers to the origins (plural) of life — radically different forms of life might arise in different parts of the universe. To set the stage for introducing specified complexity, Orgel discusses the various commonly cited defining features of life, such reproduction or metabolism. Thinking these don’t get at the essence of life, he introduces the term that is the focus of this series:

It is possible to make a more fundamental distinction between living and nonliving things by examining their molecular structure and molecular behavior. In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. (p. 189)

So far, so good. Everything Orgel writes here makes good intuitive sense. It matches up with the three types of order discussed at the start of this series: repetitive order, random order, complex specified order. Wanting to put specified complexity on a firmer theoretical basis, Orgel next connects it to information theory:

These vague ideas can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. On the other hand, a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. Complex but random structures, by definition. need hardly be specified at all. (p. 190)

Orgel’s elaboration here of specified complexity calls for further clarification. His use of the term “information content” is ill-defined. He unpacks it in terms of “minimum number of instructions needed to specify a structure.” This suggests a Kolmogorov information measure. Yet complex specified structures, according to him, require lots of instructions, and so suggest high Kolmogorov information. By contrast, specified complexity as developed in this series requires low Kolmogorov information. 

At the same time, for Orgel to write that “complex but random structures … need hardly be specified at all” suggests low Kolmogorov complexity for random structures, which is exactly the opposite of how Kolmogorov information characterizes randomness. For Kolmogorov, the random structures are those that are incompressible, and thus, in Orgel’s usage, require many instructions to specify (not “need hardly be specified at all”). 

Perhaps Orgel had something else in mind — I am trying to read him charitably — but from the vantage of information theory, his options are limited. Shannon and Kolmogorov are, for Orgel, the only games in town. And yet, Shannon information, focused as it is on probability rather than instruction sets, doesn’t clarify Orgel’s last remarks. Fortunately, Orgel elaborates on them with three examples:

These differences are made clear by the following example. Suppose a chemist agreed to synthesize anything that could be described accurately to him. How many instructions would he need to make a crystal, a mixture of random DNA-like polymers or the DNA of the bacterium E. coli? (p. 190)

This passage seems promising for understanding what Orgel is getting at with specified complexity. Nonetheless, it also suggests that Orgel is understanding information entirely in terms of instruction sets for building chemical systems, which then weds him entirely to a Kolmogorov rather than Shannon view of information. In particular, nothing here suggests that he will bring both views of information together under a coherent umbrella. 

The Language of Short Descriptions

Here’s is how Orgel elaborates the first example, which is replete with the language of short descriptions (as in the account of specified complexity given in this series):

To describe the crystal we had in mind, we would need to specify which substance we wanted and the way in which the molecules were to be packed together in the crystal. The first requirement could be conveyed in a short sentence. The second would be almost as brief, because we could describe how we wanted the first few molecules packed together, and then say “and keep on doing the same.” Structural information has to be given only once because the crystal is regular. (p. 190)

This example has very much the feel of our earlier example in which Kolmogorov information was illustrated in a sequence of 100 identical coin tosses (0 for tails) described very simply by “repeat ‘0’ 100 times.” For specified complexity as developed in this series, an example like this one by Orgel yields a low degree of specified complexity. It combines both low Shannon information (the crystal forms reliably and repeatedly with high probability and thus low complexity) and low Kolmogorov information (the crystal requires a short description of instruction set). It exhibits specified non-complexity, or what could be called specified simplicity.

A Fatal Difficulty

Orgel’s next example, focused on randomness, is more revealing, and indicates a fatal difficulty with his approach to specified complexity:

It would be almost as easy to tell the chemist how to make a mixture of random DNA-like polymers. We would first specify the proportion of each of the four nucleotides in the mixture. Then, we would say, “Mix the nucleotides in the required proportions, choose nucleotide molecules at random from the mixture, and join them together in the order you find them.” In this way the chemist would be sure to make polymers with the specified composition, but the sequences would be random. (p. 190)

Orgel’s account of forming random polymers here betrays information-theoretic confusion. Previously, he was using the terms “specify” and “specified” in the sense of giving a full instruction set to bring about a given structure — in this case, a given nucleotide polymer. But that’s not what he is doing here. Instead, he is giving a recipe for forming random nucleotide polymers in general. Granted, the recipe is short (i.e., bring together the right separate ingredients and mix), suggesting a short description length since it would be “easy” to tell a chemist how to produce it. 

But the synthetic chemist here is producing not just one random polymer but a whole bunch of them. And even if the chemist produced a single such polymer, it would not be precisely identified. Rather, it would belong to a class of random polymers. To identify and actually build a given random polymer would require a large instructional set, and would thus indicate high, not low Kolmogorov information, contrary to what Orgel is saying here about random polymers.

Finally, let’s turn to the example that for Orgel motivates his introduction of the term “specified complexity” in the first place:

It is quite impossible to produce a corresponding simple set of instructions that would enable the chemist to synthesize the DNA of E. coli. In this case, the sequence matters: only by specifying the sequence letter-by-letter (about 4,000,000 instructions) could we tell the chemist what we wanted him to make. The synthetic chemist would need a book of instructions rather than a few short sentences. (p. 190)

Orgel’s Takeaway

Given this last example, it becomes clear that for Orgel, specified complexity is all about requiring a long instructional set to generate a structure. Orgel’s takeaway, then, is this:

It is important to notice that each polymer molecule on a random mixture has a sequence just as definite as that of E. coli DNA. However, in a random mixture the sequences are not specified. Whereas in E. coli, the DNA sequence is crucial. Two random mixtures contain quite different polymer sequences, but the DNA sequences in two E. coli cells are identical because they are specified. The polymer sequences are complex but random: although E. coli DNA is also complex, it is specified In a unique way. (pp. 190–191)

This is confused. The reason it’s confused is that Orgel’s account of specified complexity commits a category mistake. He admits that a random sequence requires just as long an instruction set to generate as E. coli DNA because both are, as he puts it, “definite.” Yet with random sequences, he looks at an entire class or range of random sequences whereas with E. coli DNA, he is looking at one particular sequence. 

Orgel is correct, as far as he goes, that from an instruction set point of view, it’s easy to generate elements from such a class of random sequences. And yet, from an instruction set point of view, it is no easier to generate a particular random sequence than a particular non-random sequence, such as E. coli DNA. That’s the category mistake. Orgel is applying instruction sets in two very different ways, one to a class of sequences, the other to particular sequences. But he fails to note the difference. 

A Different Tack

The approach to specified complexity that Winston Ewert and I take, as characterized in this series, takes a different tack. Repetitive order yields high probability and specification, and therefore combines low Shannon and low Kolmogorov information, yielding, as we’ve seen, what can be called specified simplicity. This is consistent with Orgel. But note that our approach yields a specified complexity value (albeit a low one in this case). Specified complexity, as a difference between Shannon and Kolmogorov complexity, takes continuous values and thus comes in degrees. For repetitive order, specified complexity, as characterized in this series, will thus take on low values.

That said, Orgel’s application of specified complexity to distinguish a random nucleotide polymer from E. coli DNA diverges sharply from how specified complexity as outlined in this series applies to these same polymers. A random sequence, within the scheme outlined in the series, will have large Shannon information but also, because it has no short description, will have large Kolmogorov information, so the two will cancel each other, and the specified complexity of such a sequence will be low or indeterminate.

On the other hand, for E. coli DNA, within the scheme outlined in this series, there will be work to do in showing that it actually exhibits specified complexity. The problem is that the particular sequence in question will have low probability and thus high Shannon information. At the same time, that particular sequence will be unlikely to have a short exact description. Rather, what will be needed to characterize the E. coli DNA as exhibiting specified complexity within the scheme of this series is a short description to which the sequence answers but which also describes an event of small probability, thus combining high Shannon information with low Kolmogorov information. 

Specified complexity as characterized in this series and applied to this example will thus mean that the description will include not just the particular sequence in question but a range of sequences that answer to the description. Note that there is no category mistake here as there was with Orgel. The point of specified complexity as developed in this series is always with matching events and descriptions of those events, where any particular event is described provided it answers to the description. For instance, a die rolls exhibiting a 6 answers to the description “an even die roll.”

So, is there a simple description of the E. coli DNA that shows this sequence to exhibit specified complexity in the sense outlined in this series? That’s in fact not an easy question to answer. The truth of Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design hinges on the answer. Orgel realized this when he wrote the following immediately after introducing the concept of specified complexity, though his reference to miracles is a red herring (at issue is whether life is the result of intelligence, and there’s no reason to think that intelligence as operating in nature need act miraculously):

Since, as scientists, we must not postulate miracles we must suppose that the appearance of “life” is necessarily preceded by a period of evolution. At first, replicating structures are formed that have low but non-zero information content. Natural selection leads to the development of a series of structures of increasing complexity and information content, until one is formed which we are prepared to call “living.” (p. 192)

Orgel is here proposing the life evolves to increasing levels of complexity, where at each stage nothing radically improbable is happening. Natural selection is thus seen as a probability amplifier that renders probable what otherwise would be improbable. Is there a simple description to which the E. coli DNA answers and which is highly improbable, not just when the isolated nucleotides making up the E. coli DNA are viewed as a purely random mixture but rather by factoring in their evolvability via Darwinian evolution?

A Tough Question

That’s a tough question to answer precisely because evaluating the probability of forming E. coli DNA with or without natural selection is far from clear. Given Orgel’s account of specified complexity, he would have to say that the E. coli DNA exhibits specified complexity. But within the account of specified complexity given in this series, ascribing specified complexity always requires doing some work, finding a description to which an observed event answers, showing the description to be short, and showing the event precisely identified by the description has small probability, implying high Shannon information and low Kolmogorov information. 

For intelligent design in biology, the challenge in demonstrating specified complexity is always to find a biological system that can be briefly described (yielding low Kolmogorov complexity) and whose evolvability, even by Darwinian means, has small probability (yielding high Shannon information). Orgel’s understanding of specified complexity is quite different. In my view, it is not only conceptually incoherent but also stacks the deck unduly in favor of Darwinian evolution. 

To sum up, I have presented Orgel’s account of specified complexity at length so that readers can decide for themselves which account of specified complexity they prefer, Orgel’s or the one presented in this series.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at BillDembski.com

On false prophets and false accusers.

       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taken Out of Context

We have not the gift of prophecy 

Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Claim of Inspiration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double Standards and Bigotry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prophecy and Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes and References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[23] Ibid, p. 201.

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

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

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

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

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

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