A Letter from A.T. Robertson to E.J. Goodspeed about "Russellite Propaganda"

In my answer to the question, "Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?" ("Upon the Lampstand," December 17, 2009), on page 8 and on the related note on page 14 (for note 38 on page 8), I wrote  the following in part concerning a possible reason for why renowned Southern Baptist Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) failed to properly identify the Greek idiom used in John 8:58, namely, because in my view Robertson was "at times overly motivated by loyalty to Trinitarianism." 

Here is what I wrote from my pages 8 and 14 on this point in a larger context:

Though several Greek and New Testament scholars before K.L. McKay accurately wrote about the meaning of John 8:58, McKay has helped to further undo part of the damage done by Trinitarian scholars such as A.T. Robertson, whose theology appears to have overridden his grammatical skills when it comes to texts such as John 8:58. ... [A.T.] Robertson was at times overly motivated by loyalty to Trinitarianism in his treatment of certain grammatical issues, which can be seen in his handling of the use of eimi in John 8:58. Consider Robertson’s lamenting of “those who” believed various things during his time, including “those who accept the New Testament writings as adequate interpretations of Christ and Christianity, but who say that Trinitarianism is a misinterpretation of the New Testament” (A.T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1977], page 61).

The Elihu Books Topical Index now contains a copy of a handwritten letter from A.T. Robertson to Bible translator E.J. Goodspeed (1871-1962) dated May 19, 1931, which I believe further reveals a theological bias which may explain why at times in his writings Robertson cites or even discusses certain theologically charged texts (like John 8:58), only to then abandon a full and fair  grammatical assessment in favor of the assumption of Trinitarianism.  

This does not mean Robertson's works are not full of much that is useful, enlightening, and historically interesting. But I do believe this letter from Robertson to Goodspeed further reveals the importance of keeping Robertson's knowledge, in particular his written expression of that knowledge, in its proper and full context, especially given the wide and longstanding circulation that Robertson's writings have been given, which writings should be accepted or rejected based on the good reasons provided or not provided or considered thoroughly or even at all by Robertson, as with anyone else's writings.

In this letter (a transcription of which I provide below) Robertson expresses his receipt and appreciation for Goodspeed's (then) newly released, "Strange New Gospels," in which Goodspeed reviews various documents and texts related to the New Testament, as understood during that early part of the twentieth century (in the mid to late 1920s). In writing to Goodspeed about this new work, Robertson brings up the English "Concordant N.T.," which Robertson calls "Russellite propaganda," referring to the founder and first president of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (later Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), C.T. Russell (1852-1916).

Here is my transcription of the letter below the handwritten date:

My dear Dr. Goodspeed: I have
only this morning, after my re-
covery from the influenza,
read your useful and timely
"Strange Gospels."

I get frequent inquires about
some of that stuff and I am
glad to be able to tell of your
careful presentation of the facts.

Only this morning I have a
letter from California (sent
by way

from New Zealand) about the

[Page 2]
Concordant N.T.; a Russellite
propaganda which is de-
ceiving many innocent people.
I denounce it on occasion.
I wish you would take one chapter (or one N.T. book)
in it and expose its fal-
lacies and hallucinations.

It is doing much more
harm than the "Strange Gospels."
I have marked in the circular
the "New Short Grammar"
(Richard R. Smith, Inc.) which
you may stumble on.

Cordially yours,
A.T. Robertson

Clearly, despite being a learned and accomplished Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson was heavily influenced by his theology, so much so that he considered other groups' views (such as those of the "Russellites" and those expressed in the "Concordant N.T.") to be "propaganda which is deceiving many innocent people," and whose "hallucinations" Robertson 'denounced on occasion.'

Yet, it is A.T. Robertson whom we also find characterizing  another well-regarded Greek grammarians before him, G.B. Winer, as having "exerted a pernicious influence" over those scholars who differed with Robertson (including Winer) over texts such as Titus 2:13. But this very text is one Robertson himself interprets according to later (that is, post-biblical) theological constructs, specifically, those having to do with the Trinity and its concepts of "God" as positively referring not only to the Trinity (though only "one God" is claimed) but also applying positively to the "persons" of the Trinity, none of whom are individual beings themselves, but all of whom share equally in the one being of the Trinity. This equal sharing is what it is that allows Robertson to use "God" or "Deity" for Jesus in New Testament texts such as Titus 2:13.—See Robertson's, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," The Expositor, 8th Series, volume 21 (1921), pages 182-188.

See page 275 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, note 103, for the reference to Robertson's characterization of Winer (which is on page 187 of "The Greek Article" article by Robertson, cited above). See Chapter 2 of my Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended for a discussion of how Trinitarian writers and scholars have for centuries (for over 1,500 years, in fact) misinterpreted the use of "G-god" nearly everywhere if not, in fact, everywhere the original words for "G-god" appear in the Old and in the New Testaments, as well as in many if not in all Dead Sea Scroll and Jewish Pseudepigraphal literature available to date.—See Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, Chapter 2.

Of course, Trinitarians' view and uses of "G-god" would not necessarily keep them from using the same terms for "G-god" of idols or for non-Judeo-Christian "gods," accurately. Yet, because the words informing Trinitarianism are either biblical words (for examples, "God," "Father," and "Son") or they seem like and may in some sense be biblical words, but the biblical meaning and what we read about the meaning of the same words in the writings of Trinitarians are nothing alike. This includes the word "person," which is used by Trinitarians in a theological, metaphysical sense for members of the Trinity, though "person" is never used in this same way in the Bible in relation to the Trinity, or for the Trinity itself, leaving Trinitarians such as Dr. James White to refer to the Trinity as a "what" as opposed to the three "persons" of the Trinity who are "who's."—See James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany, 1998), page 27, and my review and response to the same in my Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, pages 134-154.

Still, unless people require the Trinitarian to explain the basis for his or her use of every single use of the words for "G-god," then it will be that much more difficult for you and for them to see the meanings given to the words for "G-god" and for related, descriptive words and phrases such as "Son" or "sons of God" in the biblical writings and in other, related literature written or available during the biblical periods.

Correction and Prefatory Note to "Origin of Life" Blog Series

In my third part of the "Origin of Life" series, in my post dated April 5, 2010, "Intentional Intelligence in Non-Human Life: The Division of Human Language," I have added the following corrective, clarifying note at the end of that article:

[*AUTHOR'S NOTE: On Monday, May 3, 2010, I removed "biological, evolutionary view of life" from the second-to-last paragraph in this article and in its place I am using "non-biological, evolutionary view of the origin of life." By this I intend to correct and to make clearer that I believe Hawking's (and others') view of life ultimately involves acceptance of something other than "life" or of what or of who is already alive as the origin of life itself. I believe such a "non-biological" view of life's origin is not only unscientific (because it does not build from even one single, observable, repeatable example) but it also contradicts what science otherwise, everywhere, and always to this day has shown us: Life only comes from something or from someone already alive.]

This correction was necessary and important enough to also cite here in a separate Blog, both to highlight the correction itself and so also to then set the stage properly for my next Blog in this series, which will further discuss some of Professor Hawking's views of life, of its origin, and of its evolution, specifically, its intentional or unintentional evolution. In this case, the above error was one of expression on my part, in that the point I am making or that I was trying to express prior to the correction noted above is, in part, that many evolutionists (such as Hawking) ultimately are not consistent with science when it comes to their view of life, that is, from its origin to its evolution. 

I believe and I intend to further show and support with what I believe will be considered good if not the best available reasons, that a large part of the failure to connect life with life and, ultimately, to show that scientifically life should be considered eternal (since life is, in fact, here), involves the misunderstanding and/or a failure for some reason by many to actually use what science shows us more clearly than nearly anything else, namely, that life only comes from something or from someone already alive. Therefore, I will attempt to further this discussion with additional, testable reasons in my next Blog in this series.

Until then, I want to make sure I correctly express my understanding of Professor Hawking's view of the origin of life as "non-biological," ultimately, though his related view of the evolution of already existing life may and is likely in many ways "biological," though after the fact, that is, since I can and will show further that for Hawking life does not evolve from life. Rather, only after life is already existing would its evolution then also be potentially considered as having to do with "life," at least for those who would consider anything but life or something or someone already alive as the scientifically demonstrable, eternal source of all other forms and types of life.

Recent "Earthquakes" and the Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

The earth moves and it shakes, in different ways (because of different types of earthquakes), at different times, and in different places, affecting many different people according to our activities, our location, and our surroundings when the earthquake or its aftershocks hit. Recent evidence of this comes from the effects of quakes in Haiti, in Chili, in Central and South America, and now another large quake hit a populated area in the Solomon Islands. It is at times like these when some  religious persons consider the relationship between earthquakes and various "prophecies," such as those we find expressed in certain parts of the Bible.

The most popular or frequently referenced biblical accounts involving "earthquakes" come from the best historical records of the teachings of the founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth. Without making any special claims, and following my pattern on Twitter, "DAY TEXT" translations based on my experience studying biblical and related texts, below I present what I believe accurately represents the meaning of Jesus' words about "earthquakes," according to the three New Testament accounts referenced.

In what follows I will present only those parts of the accounts which I believe are needed to have a reasonable appreciation for the context of Jesus' reference to "earthquakes" in each account, in his response to questions (Matthew 24:3) about dramatic events which were to occur in connection with the temple in Jerusalem and the "conclusion of the age" (with my underlining):

Matthew 24:6, 7

[Jesus said] "Make sure you are not afraid." ... "Because ... there will be ... earthquakes in different locations."

Mark 13:5-8

[Jesus said] "Look out so no one misleads you. Many will come in my name ... and they will mislead many. But whenever you hear of wars or reports of conflicts, do not be afraid. It is necessary for these things to take place, however, the end is not yet. Because a nation will rise up against a nation and a kingdom against a kingdom, there will be earthquakes in different locations, there will be famines. These things are just the start of the sufferings."

Luke 21:9, 11

[Jesus said] "Whenever you hear about wars or insurrections do not be frightened. It is necessary for these things to come first. But the end is not immediately after [these things]. ... There will be great earthquakes and famines and plagues in various places ..."

When you compare what Jesus taught above with what those who have proclaimed, "The end has drawn near!" (Luke 21:8) have also taught about the significance of "earthquakes" over the past 100 years, or since 1914, it is clear that there is good reason for concern about the message which some have attached to "earthquakes" and to Jesus' name, for example:

This is another part of the sign that [Jesus] gave: ‘There will be earthquakes in one place after another.’ Do you know what an earthquake is? It makes the ground shake under your feet. Houses fall down and people often get killed. Since the year 1914 there have been many more earthquakes every year than there were before.—“Jesus Gives a Sign,” The Watchtower, July 1, 1971, page 406.

The “time of the end” has come. The sign of the “last days” is visible evidence. Never before in history, prior to 1914, have all these things occurred at once upon one generation: ["Signs" and "Scripture Proof" are then listed, including:] Unusual number of earthquakes ... Matthew 24:7.—“Time of the End,” The Watchtower, December 1, 1954, page 712.

Jesus also mentioned famines, pestilences, and earthquakes. (Matthew 24:3, 7, 8; Luke 21:6, 7, 10, 11) In many respects, such calamities have increased in scope and severity.—“Our Watchfulness Takes On Greater Urgency,” The Watchtower, December 15, 2003, page 14.

The effect of continuous presentations like these which associate "earthquakes" and other "signs" with "one generation" or with a date such as "1914" is revealed in part by the following:

[O]ur reviewing from time to time the Scriptural proof that we are living close to the end of this system will help us not to lose sight of the important truths regarding that coming end. It is also good to take note of unfolding world events that fulfill Bible prophecy. One brother in Germany wrote: “Every time I watch the news—the wars, the earthquakes, the violence, and the contamination of our planet—it drives home to me the nearness of the end.”—“‘Keep on the Watch’!” The Watchtower, January 1, 2003, par. 5, pages 18-19.

Christians do not need "earthquakes" to 'drive home the nearness of the end,' that is, if we are balanced in our outlook, in part, by not looking to such things for any kind of 'reminder.' For why should we or anyone else depend on an "earthquake" for our belief, that is, if our belief is both based on good reasons and if those good reasons make clear to us otherwise that each day we should be alert to the times in which we live, for no matter what "time" it is it is our time, at least for now.—Ecclesiastes 12:13-14; Romans 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2, 15; Revelation 3:2-3.

Other than general, regular safety reminders and related good counsel, Christians should not be afraid of anything which occurs on this earth, or in the heavens, and we must try never to misuse such occurrences by, for example, proclaiming, "The end has drawn near!" in association with signs such as "earthquakes" or anything else, for Jesus of Nazareth warned us against those who would do these very things (Luke 21:8). Instead we should help others and do good in Jah's image, like Jesus of Nazareth, whether there are "great earthquakes," small ones,  or none at all.

Intentional Intelligence in Non-Human Life: The Division of Human Language

Humans are not that old. By “that old” I write, of course, comparatively, that is, where it involves the apparent periods of life for various other life forms or other bio- or ecosystems which we find through searching the layers of earth’s history (fossils), though there are even here questions about sedimentation and dating which I will consider separately, specifically, as it relates to dating the great variety of life which has come upon the earth.

Viewing the existence of man comparatively with what may be prehistoric forms of life which appear to have lived on the earth for long periods of time, measured by hundreds of thousands or perhaps even by millions of years, when it comes to humankind (men and women) the best available evidence today suggests our existence is from 6,000 to perhaps as old as 10,000 years. True, there are findings and claims by some relative to what is considered early “human” activity in Australia based on what are thought to be pieces of “flint” and “tiny sharp stones that were used as knives,” dating as far back as 35,000 years ago (see, “Ancient Tools Found in Australia,” AP [April 8, 2008]), as well as what some believe to be “footprints” in the same area from about 20,000 years ago (see Sean Markey, “20,000-Year-Old Human Footprints Found in Australia,” National Geographic News [August 3, 2006]). But whether such findings and their present dating are accurate (and some appear questionable on several grounds [see my pending, separate Blog article]), other than what is considered a “paleolithic bone flute” found in Europe (which I will also discuss as part of my separate, pending Blog on dating methods), these and similar findings are limited to things which do not necessarily indicate human existence or intelligence.

Below I will provide several examples of what we would accept as early, incontrovertibly clear human activity like (and even greater than) we see in our modern age. Indeed, though there is evidence to show the existence of various other human-like creatures on the earth (the most popular of which is “Neanderthal,” who was similar to but also very different from humans today), “humans” are now thought by some to have caused the disappearance of these other, similar but different creatures (see, “How Neanderthals met a grisly fate: devoured by humans,” by Robin McKie, science editor for “The Observer” [May 17, 2009]).

Though there are many ways in which we might define our present-day humanity or our identity as “humans,” the following are five (5) clear indicators of the presence of what I believe we would without hesitation consider a present-day “human”:

1.     Metallurgy:

This involves the study and mixture of metals which is ultimately, and which was originally, for the making of tools and weapons. However, according to Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Ralph Millard, “there is a lack of evidence for metal tools because metal was extensively recycled, because tools were rarely placed in graves, and because much research has focused on public buildings” (Dictionary of the Ancient Near East [Philadelphia: University Press of Pennsylvania, 2000], page 294). Bienkowski and Millard go on to reveal that as far as metal tools are concerned, these are only as early as “Old Babylonian date” (from the 20th century BCE to the late 18th or early 17th centuries BCE), and that a “group of tenth-century BC iron tools from Tell Taanach in Palestine shows a similar range of implements” (Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, page 294). Even if we accept that “the Hongshan” (early Chinese culture from 4500 to 2250 BCE) had “knowledge of metallurgy and employed the use of copper (possible iron) metal tools to work their Jade masterpieces,” this puts the manipulation of metal for use as tools and/or for weapons by humans resembling our use of the same (metal) today, to as far back as between 3,800 and 6,500 years ago.

Again, for a planet that is said to be billions of years old, with life forms which have existed in spectacular completeness and variety for millions of years, 3,800 to 6,500 years is “not that long”! Of interest and in further support of a similar time for when humans began to intentionally and with what we consider “intelligence” manipulate and then use metals and their mixtures (alloys), the historical record in the Bible names the one who began the manipulation of metal within the first 130 to the reported 930 years of the biblical Adam’s life, “Tubalcain.” In Genesis 4:22 Tubalcain is said to have been “the one shaping any kind of bronze or iron.” Compare this with Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (Book I, Chap. 2.2), “But Tubal/Jubel, ... first of all invented the art of making brass” (Whiston/Loeb translations).

The Bible has been consistently shown to contain reliable historical information confirmed by numerous archaeological findings. For example, in addition to findings such as the Moabite Stone (840-830 BCE) and tiny silver scrolls (7th century BCE), both of which provide ancient validation for portions of the Bible (including 2 Kings Chapter 3 and Numbers 6:24-26, respectively), there is evidence from other nations and kingdoms about events or people from the Bible. These include the Stele of Merneptah (13th century BCE) and the Tel-Dan Stele of the mid-9th century BCE, which records the victory of the Syrians over the “King of Israel” and the “King of the House of David,” the latter of which is consistent also with 2 Kings 6:24, 8:28, and 9:15-16.—See also “Beliefs Based on the Best Available Reasons” (Elihu Books, 2009 [2011]), inside column labeled, “The Bible,” note 8.

It should, therefore, be no great surprise to find that the Bible also records the approximate time and the name of the one who invented metallurgy, or that the time the Bible gives for the rise of metal-working is consistent with the best archaeological evidence concerning the same. The rise and development of metallurgy allows us to trace our modern human history back to between 3,800 and 6,500 years.

2.     Buildings and Civilizations:

Humans today and throughout our recorded past have built buildings, structures, and cities or civilizations in or around them and in which to live. While there have been some findings of structures believed to date back approximately 8,000 years (see, “Prehistoric building found in Tel Aviv,” AP January 11, 2010), these are far different from the kinds of building or structures described as having had their “top in the heavens” (compare Genesis 11:2). Indeed, the oldest of such buildings or cities which have come to light through archeological discovery include the Egyptian pyramids (3809 to 2853 BCE) and Stonehenge (2400-2200 BCE), neither of which exceed 6,000 years in age.

This approximate but good-reason based view is consistent with what is recorded as having occurred within the first 130 or the entire 930 years of the biblical Adam’s life, namely, the birth of “Lamech,” who is described as the first “of those who dwell in tents” (Genesis 4:20). Subsequently, the Bible records that humans like us “migrated from the east” and “came upon a plain in the land of Shinar,” or Babylon (in modern-day Iraq), where they decided to build “a city and a tower with its top in the heavens” (Genesis 11:2-4). This “tower” or “ziggurat” (Hebrew: migdal [likely a loan-word from the Akkadian ziqqurat or zaqaru, meaning, “to be high up”]) of “Shinar”/Babylon may be consistent with archaeological findings of other, similar structures in the region of ancient Mesopotamia, such as the Ziggurat of Ur, which is dated to around 2100 BCE.

3.     Writing:

The oldest evidence of any form of written (and, hence, likely spoken) language is believed to be on pottery from Harappa, in southern Egypt, which contain “primitive words” at the tomb of the “Scorpion king” dated to between 3300 and 3200 BCE, as well as the writing of the Sumerians from “the Mesopotamian civilization around 3100 BCE.” The earliest of these Sumerian writings are believed to date between 3500 and 3000 BCE. This is also around the time (early 40th to around the 22nd centuries BCE) when the Tower of Babel (see 2., above) and other, similar structures were likely built. Further, this is the precise area where the division of human language is said to have occurred, at least according to the historical record of the Bible (Genesis 11:7-9), which is supported by the best available evidence here and in 4. and 5., below.

The engravings found on what are alleged to be 60,000 year old egg shells or on “75,000-year-old engraved ochre chunks from the Blombos cave in South Africa,” which “have mostly been one-offs and difficult to tell apart from meaningless doodles,” are not “writing” in the sense which communication is conveyed through the images and markings found in the above-cited evidence (see Kate Ravilious, “Oldest ‘writing’ found on 60,000-year-old eggshells,” New Scientist 2750 [March 3, 2010]). Another form of “writing” or human expression may be in the form of cave drawings and from “semicircles, lines and zigzags also marked on the walls,” which some claim represent a “highly symbolic” “written ‘code’” believed to have been “familiar to all of the prehistoric tribes around France and possibly beyond,” approximately 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.—See Kate Ravilious, “The writing on the cave wall,” New Scientist 2748 (February 17, 2010).

I will consider these and other potential expressions of “humans” whom we might associate with our modern-to-6,000-year-old-or-so “humanity” further in a separate Blog on the subject of the use and the accuracy of various dating methods, including a review of newer technology for dating rock paintings, which is also carbon-based.

4.     Marking of "Time" and Season:

I believe for the good reasons that I provided in my prior Blog article on this subject that intentional intelligence within and outside of humankind can be seen in our use of “time,” in as much as our use of “time” points each one of us to the intelligence in life and in objects which exist all around us, life and objects which move and exist in predictably reliable ways and which we accept and which show us (by our measure) our own existence in relation to these other objects and to other life forms. These objects which exist and which we accept and which we routinely use in our measurement (our “time”) of events, actions, or even our thoughts include the rotation and the axis of the earth, our location on it relative to others who also live on it, as well as the earth’s orbit and its position relative to the moon, to the sun, and even to other stars.

When it comes to humankind’s use of “time,” or our measurement of our existence or that of other life forms, objects, or to our measurement of anything involving our earth, to our location on it relative to others, or concerning our evaluation of the earth’s orbit and position relative to the moon, to the sun, and even to other stars, the best available reasons from our history indicate that we have only kept “time” in these ways since between as late as 5,000 or as early as 7,000 years ago.

For example, the Goseck Circle is presently dated to between 5000 and 4600 BC. Yet, it is considered to be “the earliest sun observatory currently known in the world,” measuring “the heavens far earlier and more accurately than historians have thought.” After this, we find other similar objects being used by humans for measuring or marking time and season, such as the Nebra Disk, which was found 25 kilometers (about 15.5 miles) away from the Goseck Circle, and which is believed to be “the oldest concrete representation of the cosmos” (“Archaeologists Unearth German Stonehenge,” August 8, 2003). Dated to around 2600 BCE (2,400 years younger than the Goseck Circle), the Nebra Sky Disk was found near Goseck and it appears to have an image of very similar if not the same astronomical positions that are believed to exist as part of the Goseck Circle. Therefore, the Goseck Circle and the Nebra Sky Disk likely mark an event of historical significance.

Note what is said in one of the best published understandings and conclusions concerning the Nebra Sky Disk that I have seen to date:

Our revised interpretation of the Nebra Sky Disk concludes that the Nebra Sky Disk records the solar eclipse of April 16, 1699 BC for posterity. That solar eclipse took place next to the Pleiades at sunrise near the point of the Vernal Equinox, together with a near conjunction of the planets Mercury, Mars and Venus as “bridesmaids” for the “wedding” of the Sun and the Moon - a total solar eclipse - a rare and spectacular event for the ancients. This interpretation allows not only for a partial explanation of the Nebra Sky Disk but in fact explains all of the elements found on the disk in an integrated astronomical context which abides by the rules of the burden of proof. This interpretation fulfills the requirements of the preponderance of the evidence. The prevailing balance of probabilities is clearly in favor of our interpretation as opposed to the partial interpretation which has thus far been advanced [Andis Kaulins, “The Sky Disk of Nebra: Evidence and Interpretation,” page 13].

The dates for both the Goseck Circle and the Nebra Sky Disk are also consistent with the date ranges for other types of cosmic representations intelligently designed and built by humans. For example, the dates for the building of the three Egyptian pyramids of Khufu (also called the Pyramid of Cheops and the Great Pyramid of Giza), Khafra, and Menkaura are not older than 3000 to 2500 BCE. Yet, together these three pyramids represented the constellation known as the Belt of Orion. The Khufu/Giza Pyramid has to this day defied the best of human engineers to satisfactorily account for how it was even built (compare this overview article from the Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association).

The Goseck Circle, the Nebra Sky Disk, and the Giza Pyramid and other pyramids of Egypt represent incredible human understanding of cosmic objects and of their position relative to the earth and to each other in ways which are not only consistent with our modern human understanding and use of many of these same objects, but in many ways the earlier human uses comparatively exceed or go beyond what humans today can admittedly accomplish! Yet, before the earliest date of these three (the Goseck Circle: around 5000 BCE), there is nothing comparable which would suggest the existence of humans in our modern image, that is, humans who could mark “time” and season by means of the position of the earth, or by the location of the people then on it, and in relation to the sun, to the moon, and to the stars.

The use of structures (the pyramids and the Goseck Circle) to mark or to indicate time, season, or which depict or indicate solar or other cosmological significance, is consistent also with the dates for humankind’s earliest buildings, towers, and civilizations, as noted in 2., above. Further, as noted in my prior article in this series, human use of "time" is consistent with the biblical book of Genesis, which accurately records the intent behind our use of the sun, the moon, and the stars (with my underlining):

Genesis 1:14-15, New Revised Standard Version (1989):

And [Jah] God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

5.     The Division of Human Language:

The fifth good reason I will here present for the age of that which we define today as “human/mankind,” as opposed to any other, similar but more primitive types of creatures (or concurrently existing creatures, such as Neanderthal or those whom the Bible refers to as “Nephilim” [Genesis 6:4]), will also take us into the expressed subject of this article. That is, to show how the division of human language indicates an intentional, intelligent involvement by some living thing or person, but not solely due to any previously living man or woman, for we are the subjects of what I believe for good reasons to be an intentional act of non-human intelligence which divided our human language.

This is also around the time (between 3500 and 2400) when the Tower of Babel may have been built (see 2., above), which is also where the division of languages is said to have occurred and, more importantly, why it is believed to have occurred, which will be considered (but not merely accepted without testing) according to the following biblical account (with my underlining):

Genesis 11:1-8, New Living Translation:

At one time the whole world spoke a single language and used the same words. As the people migrated eastward, they found a plain in the land of Babylonia and settled there. They began to talk about construction projects. “Come,” they said, “let’s make great piles of burnt brick and collect natural asphalt to use as mortar. Let’s build a great city with a tower that reaches to the skies—a monument to our greatness! This will bring us together and keep us from scattering all over the world.”

But [Jah] came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. “Look!” [Jah] said. “If they can accomplish this when they have just begun to take advantage of their common language and political unity, just think of what they will do later. Nothing will be impossible for them!  Come, let’s go down and give them different languages. Then they won’t be able to understand each other.” In that way, [Jah] scattered them all over the earth; and that ended the building of the city.  That is why the city was called Babel, because it was there that [Jah] confused the people by giving them many languages, thus scattering them across the earth.

The division of human language is not merely a dialectical one, or due solely to differing accents within one language which we all share. In our history and in our present human societies and cultures, there are a myriad of different human languages. If the best available evidence today suggests that humankind seeks to break down communication barriers with each other, and to unite in furthering our knowledge and our understanding, then why did we ever develop entirely different, separate language systems dividing people, nation, and tribe by our “tongue,” or by our language, in the first place?

There are, therefore, good reasons to accept the timing and the actual events described in Genesis Chapter 11, and also for accepting the reasons given therein for why human language was intentionally divided, namely:

• The division of our language (as per 3., above) is traceable to the same time frame wherein we find evidence for what humans would today also consider intentionally intelligent “metallurgy,” or metal working (4500 to 2250 for the dating of tools potentially used by the early Chinese Hongshan culture [see 1., above], or to possibly as late as the 20th or even late 18th or early 17th centuries BCE for other metal tools).

• The division of human language is also consistent with what we would for good reasons consider to be the dates for the first human buildings and associated civilizations (namely, 3809 to 2853 BCE for the Egyptian pyramids, or possibly as early as 8,000 years old according to some recent findings [see 2., above]).

• The best available evidence for the division of human language comes from our dating of human writing (from 3500 to 2400 BCE according to Sumerian tomb writing and early cuneiform tablets [see 3., above]).

• All three of the above are consistent with the earliest dates for our use of the sun, the moon, the stars and the earth, and of our position on the earth, that is, for measuring or for marking our “time” and our seasons (that is, from 5000 to 2600 BCE, based on dates for the Goseck Circle and the Nebra Sky Disk, respectively [see 4., above]).

Therefore, it is clear from the best available evidence from our human history, which includes our actual separation into different people, distinguishable by race, nationality, and tribe, that  each group retained a highly effective, intentional intelligence capable of using a particular language system complete with words and with understandings of objects including buildings and civilizations and which language, in fact, defined each civilization and its people’s culture. Since then, humans continue to do the same things, also using language as a means of uniting and dividing people. 

Related to the significance of the development of human language Professor Stephen Hawking writes the following from the perspective of the biological (that is, non-intentionally-intelligent) evolution of life:

The process of biological evolution was very slow at first. It took two and a half billion years, to evolve from the earliest cells to multi-cell animals, and another billion years to evolve through fish and reptiles, to mammals. But then evolution seemed to have speeded up. ... with the human race, evolution reached a critical stage, comparable in importance with the development of DNA. This was the development of language, and particularly written language. It meant that information can be passed on, from generation to generation, other than genetically, through DNA. There has been no detectable change in human DNA, brought about by biological evolution, in the ten thousand years of recorded history. But the amount of knowledge handed on from generation to generation has grown enormously [Hawking, “Life in the Universe” (underlining added)].

Now consider what may have occurred, that is, if after seeing what we have seen or what we see and knowing what we have good reasons to believe about humanity today, the “good” and the “bad,” in particular, the really bad or worst of what we can do or have done, though we may have survived if we had always kept “one language and one speech” (compare Genesis 11:1), that is unlikely. It is even less likely that early humans like us would have been able to or would have committed themselves to diversifying their shared language on their own, so fast, with similar if not equally expressive capacities though using entirely different language systems, which neither could understand when speaking to the other except for special learning or circumstance (such as the number of languages spoken in a given region when growing up as a child).

When it comes to the subject of this Blog, namely, language(s), or what the division of human language may constitute as far as a good reason indicative of intentional intelligence in non-human (but human-involved) life, just think how “enormously” the “amount of knowledge handed on” would have been had it not been for what for what appears to have been done intentionally by an intelligent, living, non-human, but for good reasons, namely, divide human language in order to:

1) Protect humanity from the consequences of our own self-glorification at an early age when it is unlikely (as I am sure Professor Hawking would agree) we would have been able “to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction” (Hawking, “Life in the Universe”), even if we spoke only one “language” and used the same words; and

2) ‘Scatter’ humankind across the surface of the earth, exactly as we see happening throughout our history and since the time when mankind’s language was first divided several thousand years ago, and which remains divided even to this day.—Compare Genesis 1:28.

Professor Hawking’s concerns about our human potential are not at all unfounded. Indeed, while in my next Blog article on in this series I intend to show that Hawking’s non-biological, evolutionary view of the origin of life is not well-founded, Hawking appears right to me when he speaks about how “with the exponential rate of growth of knowledge that we have had in the last three hundred years,” impulses humans had thousands of years ago could now “destroy the entire human race, and much of the rest of life on Earth” (Hawking, “Life in the Universe”). Of course, that depends a good deal if not entirely on your view of the origin of life.

Thankfully, it appears that for good reasons we were intentionally diverted away from our own self-destruction, and then ‘scattered across the earth’ into peoples, nations, and tribes, separated by our “tongues,” so that only rather recently, or perhaps not even yet, have we truly ‘filled the earth’ as was also the expressed intent of the biblical God, “Jah,” even as is our use of the earth and of the heavenly objects for keeping “time,” and the separation of our human language.—Genesis 1:28; 9:1; 11:1-9; compare Revelation 7:9; 21:24, 26.

[*AUTHOR'S NOTE: On Monday, May 3, 2010, I removed "biological, evolutionary view of life" from the second-to-last paragraph in this article and in its place I am using "non-biological, evolutionary view of the origin of life." By this I intend to correct and to make clearer that I believe Hawking's (and others') view of life ultimately involves acceptance of something other than "life" or of what or of who is already alive as the origin of life itself. I believe such a "non-biological" view of life's origin is not only unscientific (because it does not build from even one single, observable, repeatable example) but it also contradicts what science otherwise, everywhere, and always to this day has shown us: Life only comes from something or from someone already alive.]

Day Texts from the Bible - Twitter

Take a look at the right-hand side of this Blog, which shows updates from our Twitter account. 

In addition to using Twitter for various updates for recent or for important information, I have been using Twitter to send out "Day Texts," or translations from the Bible based on my nearly twenty-five years of experience in researching, evaluating, and handling biblical texts. 

I make no special claims for my translations, or for myself. As always, what I offer is what I consider to be based on the best available reasons. For these Day Text translations, I have put forth what I consider an accurate expression of each text according to each document's idiom and context, historically and textually. I offer you what I consider the best meaning of the text according to my fairly casual reading each morning, or in researching a particular text.

From Elihu Books' “Chat” Re: Blood, the Bible, and the Watchtower

The Elihu Books online Chat is a more interactive feature of the site which allows me to “chat” more regularly with others in (hopefully) briefer segments for which the particular Chat we use is limited by design. At times in the history of the Elihu Chat I have approved and posted material that spans several Chat “posts.” Though more extensive responses can be more informative, they are not so easy to follow in the currently defined Chat format.

While I still use the Chat for briefer and sometimes for longer interactive discussions, I am more inclined to keep the Chat as brief as possible and then take issues or points from it which may require or deserve further discussion and put them “Upon the Lampstand,” or here on this Blog. Recently, I posted a question submitted by “John” on January 24, 2010, which can be read in its original post on the Chat in message #124. Here I am going to resubmit John’s question in what I hope will be viewed as an accurate expression of what John asked me in the Chat. I will also then present my response, which after writing I believed was too long for the Elihu Chat, but which I believe is important enough to post here in response to John and also to help others who may have similar questions about these often difficult subjects.

Here is John’s question, re-worded for this Blog:

QUESTION FROM ELIHU CHAT MSG #124, JANUARY 24, 2010:

Mr. Stafford, I recently saw your blog about the Watchtower Society Blood Policy and the prohibition of transfusions and felt compelled to write you this question.

My question is does it really matter how our bodies use the blood? That is, whether blood is used as food or as blood, can we not use the prohibition of blood in Acts in principle to apply to either blood used as food or blood used as blood?

Here's an example of what I mean, though it is not intended as a precise parallel:

In 2 Timothy 3:16 we are told, “All Scripture is inspired of God.” Yet, at the time Paul wrote to Timothy the “Scripture” he wrote about as “inspired” was the Hebrew Scriptures. Similarly, could we not use 2 Timothy to cover all of the books of the Bible, though Paul only had in mind the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament?

If such a broader application is possible, why would it be unacceptable to use the prohibition against “blood” in Acts 15 and 21 to cover blood transfusions in principle?

I'm not sure if I made myself clear. I apologize if I didn't.

Best Regards,
John

Hello, John:

Thank you for your post to the Elihu Books Chat. I think you were clear in expressing what you wanted to say, and why, but I do believe there are some things in your reasoning on these points that you might want to reconsider. Specifically, here is what I mean, in further answer to your question:

No one can credibly use 2 Timothy 3:16 to prove, or even argue as likely, that any books of the Bible are “inspired.” It is merely a comment, important for Christians, but one which itself does not provide a good reason for belief that any particular books of the Bible are inspired. It simply shows Paul’s belief, and so also that of the early Christians, but his conclusion is not itself a good reason for our use in showing the ‘inspiration’ of the books of the Bible. No one can credibly use 2 Timothy 3:16 as a “cover” for 66 unspecified books of the Bible, let alone for any New Testament books (like Revelation), many of which were not even written by the time of 2 Timothy 3:16.

Further, 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot be used as a good reason to support the conclusion that the Bible is inspired, because Paul’s words themselves are a conclusion (“all scripture is inspired”) Therefore, as with any other conclusion (which is never to be used as a good reason to support itself, or else the argument would be circular, using its conclusion as a premise in the same argument), we must look at the best available, supporting good reasons just as we would look at the good reasons put forth for any other belief, particularly one which claims to be about, from, or otherwise motivated by God.

Based on Paul’s words to Timothy, I can say Paul had good reasons for belief (= he had faith) that the writings passed down to him in association with Jah God were “inspired,” or put forth or motivated by God, though given to men and kept among us for our use and preservation for others to use, similarly. However, from Paul’s own writings we can gain a better understanding of how he and the early Christians understood the limitations of written books (even biblical books) given among men, even if they were directed by or from God. That is why Paul wrote in ways which show he understood that the writing process involved with ‘inspiration’ included, at times at least, the tendencies and even the ‘opinions’ of individuals, writing as he did “according to [his] opinion,” noting that at times he and others of his day “see in a hazy outline,” knowing things only “partially.” Yet, at all times (even when giving his “opinion”) Paul professed to have “God’s spirit.”—1 Corinthians 7:40; 13:12.

So I would say a proper understanding and resulting perspective on the books of the Bible and what it means to be “inspired” is important. Indeed, a definition or understanding of “inspired” which fits with and, thus, derives from each Bible book’s presentation of history and doctrine must be made plain in each case under consideration. The reason for this was given by another of the earliest Christians, one after whom you are named (“John”), “For many false prophets have gone forth into the world.”—1 John 4:1.

Since not one of the copies of the Bible that we have today is original, then based on the best available reasons (which we can and should, and I will argue we already always try to or actually do use in determining what is true or most likely true), I can credibly argue or show that Jah permitted tampering with his “inspired” Word. This can be seen plainly in the treatment of the divine name in Greek biblical texts since the second century CE and following. However, I believe it can be reasonably shown that allowing what Jah inspires to exist among men, and to be transmitted and copied by humankind, provides Jah with a basis for further evaluation and judgment of those who copy and who share his written history and laws, even as does the “law” that is within each one of us.—Ecclesiastes 12:14; Romans 1:13-16; 2:6; Revelation 2:23; 20:13.

Further on this point, based on the manuscripts we have available for our study and use today, the early canon of biblical books included far more than what we regularly use, because there was less concern about a collection of specific books at that time, I believe, than there was about using the books and texts which were accurate or reliable, in large part, historically or doctrinally, or both. I think you would have a hard time excluding, for example, First Clement from any catalog of early Christian writings which can be tested and shown to be reliably useful. Indeed, this book (First Clement) was even included in some of the earliest collections of biblical books (part of Codex Alexandrinus, along with Second Clement; Vaticanus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermes). All of these books, including the accepted biblical books today, can and should be ‘tested’ by those who would look to them for guidance and for confirmation of what we can see in the world around us, and in ourselves. This can be done effectively, since any writings claiming to be from the God who made us and who made our world, and the universe, would have to be consistent  in any book he inspires with “the things made.”—Romans 1:20.

But Christians do not assume our beliefs. We do not, or try not, to believe or to practice anything but that which the best available reasons expressly support. This helps keep us and those to whom we speak from falling victim to any “inspired expressions” (1 John 4:1). That is why the Watchtower Society must be rejected at this time, because they do not permit the kind of ‘testing’ Christians are required to give to “inspired expressions” and to those who make special claims of representation, like they make (compare Revelation 2:2). Only if we actually do such testing, to a reasonable degree, can we credibly say we believe “x” books are reliable history and teachings from the past about Jah and about Jesus, and then use them to teach others. Or, as I would put it to a non-Christian, “I believe ‘x’ number of books are reliable history and teachings concerning the eternal, intentionally intelligent life who gave life to other life,” that is, in association with my recent Blogs on the “origin of life” and on the “intelligence” in life. (More on the intentional intelligence of the eternal life who gave life to life will be published here, soon.)

So it’s not about an exact number of “books,” but about the message of truth that is from Jah, through Jesus, to us, a message which we already know in large part due to the knowledge we obtained from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:22; Isaiah 7:16), but because of sin and this world we too quickly forget (James 1:22-25). However, the creation and the history of our race can remind us, if we take the time to consider the best available reasons for belief. When it comes to uses of blood, it most certainly does matter how blood is used in the body since understanding its use(s) is helpful, if not essential, to better understanding the biblical prohibitions concerning any prohibited use(s) of blood, over which people continue to make life-changing decisions, publicly, in the names of Jah and Jesus.

This is a very serious matter, John, as I am sure you would agree (hence, your question). But it gets even more serious the farther you go into the Society’s policy about fractions of blood (such as gamma globulin, or hemoglobin) and about the Society’s teaching on the use of blood’s four major components (platelets, red cells, white cells, and plasma, none of which are “blood” individually). This brings us back to your question, “[W]hether blood is used as food or as blood, can we not use the prohibition of blood in Acts in principle to apply to either blood used as food or blood used as blood?”

Just how would you do that, John, that is, without understanding what are uses of blood as blood and what are the uses of blood as a food, so that you properly understand the differences between the two and then can make an informed decision about a very complex subject? A proper understanding of this subject (uses of blood) is necessary in order to interpret and then apply ancient texts having to do solely, at least explicitly and contextually, with eating blood as a food, but without anything expressly to do with modern medical uses of blood as a non-food.

Further, why would you want to apply a text about eating blood to uses of blood as a non-food (transfusion) in the first place, when the two are demonstrably not the same? Since there is nothing in the biblical text or in its history which suggests a prohibition against using blood as blood (or as a non-food), then it would seem the only reason the question of non-food, transfusion uses of blood as blood comes up is because of the Watchtower Society, not because of what the Bible expressly teaches. Would not this knowledge of their evident differences be important to you, to make the right decision? Why, then, is the entity (the Society) most concerned about blood and the Bible also not the leading voice and authority on the actual, prohibited uses of blood according to the Bible? Instead, they can’t seem to adopt even a single, consistent policy.

The Bible does not anywhere equate using blood as blood with using blood as a food. In fact, it can be shown easily that the two are not the same, and that they are so different that to equate the two is disingenuous. No one can simply apply the prohibition about not eating blood to uses of blood as blood without providing very clear, indeed, nearly incontrovertible evidence that such should be done. Otherwise, why not let each person decide what he or she will do when it comes to uses of blood, and then let that person stand before Jah and Jesus, which is where we will all "stand" someday, anyway,  not in front of you, or in front of me, nor will any of us stand before the Watchtower Society in the Judgment. Yet, the Society judges people now anyway for using blood as blood, but not as a food:

God’s law definitely says that the soul of man is in his blood [see Lev 17:11]. Hence the receiver of the blood transfusion is feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood vehicle of a fellow man or of fellow men. This is a violation of God’s commands to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon. [“Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, January 15, 1961, page 64 (underlining added).]

On the same page as the above judgment is given the Society directs that if a Witness does take a blood transfusion because of weakness or immaturity, but then “begs divine forgiveness and forgiveness of God’s congregation on earth,” mercy should be “extended to him and he need not be disfellowshipped.” But the “mercy” to be “extended” to such a one involved (or may still involve) the person being “put under surveillance”! I do not have good reasons to believe the Society has been faithful or discreet, or even truly ‘merciful’ to those who want to serve Jah and Jesus and to follow what the Bible expressly teaches, but who in doing so do not believe Jah or Jesus forbids the use of blood as blood, rather than as a food.

If the Watchtower Society spent as much time and money on “the form of worship which is pure and undefiled from the standpoint of our God,” namely, “to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation” (James 1:27), as they do when instructing people how not to use blood as blood, Jah’s and Jesus’ names would be looked upon with greater respect than they are today because of the Society’s blood policy. But the Society cannot even quote one text from the Bible or one medical textbook today in support of its position, that is, once it has been properly defined and fully disclosed. So, again, why would we follow after them when they are speaking what we cannot attribute for good reasons to Jah or to Jesus, and where they cannot even accurately quote a human textbook which they claim supports their understanding of blood and of its components, whereas the Bible does not?

Other than an individual’s choice about what is or what is not a safe medical treatment, there are no good reasons supporting the Society’s positions on blood, and there are plenty of good biblical and medical reasons to reject their teachings on this subject almost entirely. Their position of not using blood as blood has no biblical foundation; it stems only from the misinterpretations by the Society which took root about half a century ago, the entire chronology of which, leading up to their 1961 position (quoted above), can be reviewed here.

The Watchtower Society and certainly most of its members often do not even realize they do permit uses blood other than as a food every single time they use blood for withdrawal, storage, and for subsequent testing or even for fractionating, rather than 'pouring out' the blood on the ground (Leviticus 17:13). Every way you consider it, there are errors and possibly even deception within the Society over the blood issue, and there is certainly nothing discreet or faithful in the Society’s contradictory teaching about whether withdrawn blood should be ‘poured out.’ Not immediately ‘pouring out’ any withdrawn “blood” would be a violation of the Society’s own use and interpretation of texts like Leviticus 17:13, but which texts actually refer to the proper bleeding of animals (if possible) prior to consuming them as food. This text (Leviticus 17:13) and the rest of the biblical prohibitions concerning the use of blood, including Acts 15 and 21, all have to do with eating animals with their blood or with eating or with drinking blood itself, as a food.

You also asked, “Why would it be unacceptable to use the prohibition of blood in Acts, to cover blood transfusions, in principle?”

Because you must have good reasons supporting your view, not simply use a negative question (“Why would it be unacceptable ...”) to justify or try and support an interpretation after the fact. Again, the biblical prohibitions can only clearly apply to eating blood as a food. A particular “use” is in view here, just as ‘abstaining from ... things strangled’ (Acts 15:29) involves a particular, prohibited use of the ‘strangled animal’; we could not, for example, use the prohibition in Acts 15 and 21 to “cover [‘strangled animals’] in principle,” to follow through with your argument using another prohibited use for a named subject (again, ‘strangled animals’). Such a prohibition, for example, would not on its face mean (based on the context) that you cannot use the bones, skin, or other parts of a ‘strangled animal.’

We can see easily that the prohibitions in Acts 15 and 21 apply to eating blood, based on the accounts’ contexts and reliance on existing understandings from “Moses” who at the time of Acts was “read aloud in the synagogues every sabbath” (Acts 15:21). That is precisely how we know which “use” of “things strangled” is prohibited (see above paragraph). As I explain in my recent Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, pages 590-591, the other prohibited items (“fornication” and “things sacrificed to idols” [Acts 15:29; 21:25]) are prohibited without further defining any use since “fornication” is an act- or (sexual) use-word on its own, and something “sacrificed to an idol” openly as such is not Christian to use as part of anything we practice, though even here such a thing is at all times between the individual Christian and “his own Master,” ultimately.—Compare Romans 14:1-18 and 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 with Mark 7:18-19.

There is nothing to use in the biblical text or in the history of the biblical periods to show that using blood as blood (the very purpose for which Jah created it) was expressly prohibited, or that people should be refusing to use blood as blood today and instead give their life for no good biblical or other reasons, except for the chance there might be tainted blood. But this is a risk that is outside of what the Bible expressly prohibits regarding the eating of blood as food. Therefore, in large part, Watchtower followers refuse to use blood as blood in transfusions (though, again, they “use” blood for withdrawing, and for testing, and for fractionating) because the Society has misled people so badly about what the Bible actually teaches about uses of blood. Further, the Society has failed to make clear the differences between eating blood and using blood as blood, and they have also misquoted medical texts to support their position rather than using such texts and the good reasons they contain, if any, to correct their own mistaken views. Rather, people are left to “wait on Jehovah,” when what is really happening is they are waiting on men.

In the process the Society has made it harder for people to see these differences so that each person can make a fully informed decision about which uses of blood are actually prohibited by the Bible. Transfused blood, usable as blood, has not been shown to be the same as eaten blood. Yet, millions are taught regularly by the Watchtower Society that these two “uses” of blood are the same, involving the same subject (“blood”), when only one use (eating/drinking blood as a food) is expressly prohibited while the other is not. Further, “blood” as an object apart from any “use” of blood is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible, either. That is why many Watchtower followers do not object to ‘using’ “blood” for storage and for subsequent testing, rather than “pour it out on the ground.”—Leviticus 17:13.

The Society and those who follow it have had nearly half a century (at least since 1961) to get their position on the use of blood correct according to the Bible and according to what “blood” is according to science and medicine. However, as with chronology and with prophecy, the Watchtower Society has chosen to speak forth with great authority (in the names of God and Jesus of Nazareth) and to cling to its traditions. I do not see enough good reasons to show that Jah God sent them forth to speak any of their misinterpretations of prophecy or in defining and then redefining again and again what are proper uses of blood, and even what is “blood” in relation to its component parts.—See Deuteronomy 18:20-22; Jeremiah 28:15.

The Society has forged its blood policy on its own, and it has demanded that its policies be followed each time they are given, even when they contradict what they previously taught. It simply takes longer for each person to fully realize all that is involved with their blood policy(ies) and related issues. But once you have good reasons to believe or to act, you should do so, according to your circumstances. Jah will assist you just as he assisted his Son who stood up for what he learned to be true from his Father, rather than attempt to justify his own will apart from Jah God (compare John 7:14-18; 8:26 with Luke 10:21 and John 2:15; 18:20). If you do this, too, then along with me or one other human person you will constitute at least the “two or three” or more needed to proceed.—Matthew 18:20; 28:19, 20.

In closing, unfortunately it has become apparent that the Society will not come forth to defend itself by presenting good reasons for its belief in various doctrines, including interpretations of chronology, prophecy, and uses of blood, all of which it requires its followers to accept or face expulsion from their organization and shunning from its members. That’s not Christianity. It’s vanity. But aside from this vanity, we can serve Jah God happily, which will add life to our soul.—Ecclesiastes 11:5; 12:8-14

Best regards,
Greg Stafford

The Intelligence in Life: Intent and "Time"

Christian Witnesses of Jah do not define what we choose to believe by what we assume is true. We define our beliefs based on what we believe we can show or demonstrate is true or most likely true according to the best available reasons.

In other words, just because we call ourselves “Christian” does not mean we start with the assumption that the Bible is true, or even reliable. We come to these conclusions (or to ones like them) after we evaluate the beliefs according to their supporting good reasons which is the standard each one of us uses every day, in one way or another, as we consider books, religions, and ways of life.

It is just as incorrect to assume the Bible is inspired as it is to assume that God exists, or to assume he or some personal being or “life” does not exist. If it’s an assumption, then it is not a decision reached after considering the best available reasons. This does not mean every belief with supporting good reasons is the right one, only that beliefs with good reasons supporting them are better than are those beliefs without good reasons, or beliefs which are based purely on one or more assumptions.

Consider the life that we are, each one of us, and then look at the life existing all around us, on land, in the air, and in the sea. Living things exist all over the earth, and they and various objects move on, over, and even through it. Since our existence or our life here on the earth is demonstrably true and so accepted by all living beings, from here we can use the best available reasons to show that the life who/which gave life to other life is, ultimately, eternal. Here again is my argument for the eternal existence of the life who/which gave life to life:

1)    Life exists.

2)    Based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living.

3)    Therefore, since based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, the origin of life must be life, or something or someone already alive.

4)    Further, and based on the above (namely, that all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information which shows without exception that life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living), life is eternal because life is, in fact, here.

Having reached this point, any one of us can credibly (or for good reasons) ask whether this eternal life is intelligent, or “unintelligent”? Using the same reasoning we use every day in a variety of ways, even according to principles of science based on observation (as per my above argument for the origin of life), we can credibly answer this question and do so convincingly, as reasonably as we might answer any other, similar question for which good reasons exist and can be presented.

Apart from the existence of so much varied, complete, and demonstrably systemic forms of life, including the many ‘moving’ processes of the earth (weather systems, plate tectonics, and the rotation of the earth itself, among others), consider something which is not “alive,” or even moving the way trees move because of the wind, or the way the moon moves across the night sky as it orbits around the earth. Consider our use of “time.”

Elsewhere I have written about our use of “time” and how it relates to our human evaluation of beliefs, that is, whether we accept or reject beliefs about events in the world around us, beliefs about “time,” even where it concerns believing “any ‘truth’ in a religious sense.” My conclusion is we believe and often act according to what we have accepted as the best available reasons (see my, “The People of God, Part Two: ‘On the Side of the Truth,’” IN MEDIO 2.4 [April, 2007 (rev. April, 2008)], pages 1-16). In this same online article, I presented reasoning which I will here quote from extendedly in order to help establish my position and argument concerning the intelligence of the eternal life whose existence has already been demonstrated, according to the best available reasons.

Since I believe the intelligence in life can be seen and easily accepted by how we measure our existence and the events and the affairs of this world by “time,” I therefore ask the reader to consider each of these four full paragraphs, and my comments which follow them, in this light:

How do you determine something is true every day of your life? For example, when it comes to your decision about what time you will get out of bed, on what basis do you accept the truth of a particular clock’s “time” so that you structure your activities around it in order to get dressed, eat breakfast, and then go to work, school, or elsewhere? How is that you have the confidence that the world around you (your family, your employer, your teacher, etc.) will receive your decisions about time in a way that will fit with, not run contrary to, the way they have structured their life, work, or school? What about decisions you make when you drive a vehicle on public roads? If you drive a car and you live in the United States, on what basis do you accept as true the color of the stop lights so that you stop and go according whether the light is red, yellow, or green?

Let’s take a closer look at “time.” We view and treat time as a discernable measurement of events, actions, or periods. The “measurement” is in relation to accepted sequences that progress from event to event, from act to act, or from one point in a period to another point (such as in a period of “life,” that is, the period [of time] in which a person is alive). For example, we may start work at 8:00 AM and end at 5:00 PM. The measured sequences between these points are usually hours, minutes, and seconds. The “time” of this period, lunches and breaks aside, is nine hours. This is the “measurement,” or “time,” from one point to another, from the start to the end. So it is with an “act.” I may clench my fist (thereby beginning the act), hold it clenched for one minute, and then release it (ending the act). The “time” of this act is one minute, or sixty seconds. A “period,” then, is an extent of “time” in which something occurs in one sense or another, usually (with an exception admitted for certain periods that may have had no beginning or ending, such as God’s eternal existence) with a start and a finish.

The period of our human life outside of our mother’s womb begins when we are born, and it ends when we die. The “time” of this period is the length of years, months, days, and however many other accepted life sequences can be measured. Again, as we use it, “time” is a discernable measurement of events, actions, or periods, or other similarly measurable things, that occur. Anything that is measurable in this way is “in time,” by being measured by time, at least in terms of how we actually view time and use time in our lives. Thus, “time” is as old as the first act, or as eternal as the acts, or even the thoughts (if sequential, as are our thoughts), of Jehovah God himself.

Philosophically, speculatively, people can say whatever they want about “time.” But we actually have good reasons to define time the way I have done. These good reasons include the very treatment and use of time that we accept, whether we realize it or not, in our everyday lives. Unless someone is going to argue for some other [view of] time than that which we know and use in our everyday lives, then “time” must be defined in relation to what we know, or what we believe, which belief is shown by our actions relative to it. Our actions relative to “time” (our planning, our expectations for others, etc.) show that we accept as reliable the sequential measurements with which we act in harmony. Thus, for the truth about the time of day we have as good reasons such things as the time when the sun will rise, the time when the sun will set, and the fact that such things occur with predictable regularity absent any reasons for doubting that they will continue as they always have in our relatable and historical human experience.

Of course, not all human clocks are exactly the same. Some run slow and others run fast, but such clocks are considered to be “slow” or “fast” in relation to the most widely accepted clock or time which is set in relation to the time of day or night relative to our position on earth and in relation to the position of the earth relative to the sun, moon, and stars. Thus, if our watch is set according to the measurements of time accepted in accordance with our position and the position of our earth relative to these heavenly bodies and if someone then asks us, “What time is it?” we can give the time with a reasonable degree of confidence and expect that there will be no good reason that can be given as a legitimate contradiction to the “time” we give relative to such settings. So, if we are asked by the same person, “Is what you just gave me the true time?” we can answer “yes” because we know that the time of our watch is based on the accepted standards for which time can be given on this earth, according to such positions, without any reason to believe otherwise. We recognize such time because of its recurrence without contradiction. We are “on the side of time,” so to speak, when we accept the time that we have good reasons to believe. When the accepted time tells us it’s 8:00 AM, if that is when we are supposed to be at work then we do not show up at 9:00 AM and act as if there is something wrong with anyone who thinks that we should have been there at 8:00 AM. [“The People of God, Part Two: ‘On the Side of the Truth,’” IN MEDIO 2.4 (April, 2007 [rev. April, 2008], pages 2-3. Note: A hyperlink was added to the main text in the quote above from this article due to its relationship to the expressed point.]

Our acceptance and even daily use of such beliefs, indeed, our reliance on them for the structure and planning of our days and throughout our lives, links our view of intelligence with a defined intent that can be isolated and expressed according to the moving objects and living things on or outside of and within the earth. Otherwise, it is not consistent with how we otherwise form beliefs and make decisions, that is, we already make regular (daily and nightly) use of the tested predictability of (as described in quoted par. 4, above) “the time of day or night relative to our position on earth and in relation to the position of the earth relative to the sun, moon, and stars.”

So much so is this the case, that if we set our watches or clocks “according to the measurements of time accepted in accordance with our position and the position of our earth relative to these heavenly bodies and if someone then asks us, ‘What time is it?’ we can give the time with a reasonable degree of confidence and expect that there will be no good reason that can be given as a legitimate contradiction to the ‘time’ we give relative to such settings” (“The People of God,” quote from above, par. 4).

Consider further the question of intent. When we evaluate a person’s intelligence we do not simply look at the person’s test score, ultimately, because a person might guess at the answers and in guessing accidentally receive a passing or even a high grade but without knowing why, as opposed to a student who answers correctly because of knowing the good reasons which help him or her answer with understanding. Clearly more than just guessing correctly is needed before we would say there is real intelligence behind the intent of the answer. This again shows the necessity of demonstrating our intended intelligence through the presentation of good reasons (the best available) so the reasons can inform the answer (thus, rightly, preceding the conclusion) and, ultimately, the good reasons may validate the answer (or the conclusion) to others. Consider another example.

Today my eldest son Jared asked me a two-part question, the first of which was a “yes or no” answer and in the second part I was asked to give the specific reasons informing my answer. (I did not put him up to this; but it complemented what I was already in the process of writing here, so I am using it now.) The question had to do with whether certain dinosaurs were grouped similarly and, if so, what were the similarities used to establish their common grouping. I had no specific reasons behind my answer to the first part of the question, but I answered “yes” anyway. When he asked about the second part, I admitted I had guessed with my first answer, and so I did not have any good reason for giving my first answer, even though I was accidentally correct.

We then discussed how my answer to the first part of the question was a guess, that is, I answered “yes” without any specific reasons (I had a 50/50 chance). That I was correct was accidental, a random chance among two existing options by an “intelligent” being, by a human. But the answer to the second part could not be so described because it required what could only (by any standard humans actually use) be considered a response showing actual understanding of the subject, a response showing that the answer to the first part of the question was intentional.

The type of response required for the second part of the question, when provided, can be used to validate whether the answer to the first part of the question was correct by intent. This shows the importance and the difference between ‘just guessing’ and answering with an understanding that is (to the person’s available knowledge [= what we have each learned through to this point in our lives]) based on the best available reasons. As illustrated above, ultimately it is this process which defines (and in the process validates or invalidates) our own beliefs about ourselves, about our history, and about the world in which we presently live, or that is all around us, or directly available to us (unlike much or our history), and so testable in ways beyond our own unique, personal experience or feelings, though these, too, are often important; they are simply not so easily testable by others.—Compare Revelation 2:2, 10; 3:10; 1 John 4:1.

I believe for the good reasons given in this Blog and in the material referenced within it that our use of “time” points each one of us to the intelligence in the life and in objects that exist all around us, life and objects which move and by which we measure our existence in predictably reliable ways, indeed, without which we would not have a basis for measuring “time,” at least not as we use it (which is often different from how people explain it). Otherwise, why are we placing so much trust (faith) in “time”? We did not make it. But we believe in it; we accept it; we define our very existence each day according to it. We do so for good reasons, the best available, in fact.

Separately I intend to show this further, specifically where the intentional intelligence in life can be seen, again, according to how we already view and evaluate whether something or someone is intelligent by intent. After I have considered this question of the eternal life who/which gave life to the life which exists further, I intend to move the discussion about this scientifically demonstrable eternal life further and consider where this life’s intentional intelligence may be seen in the history and in the present affairs of the earth and of that which fills it (Psalm 24:1). But every day we move and exist and use “time” we do so, in my belief (which I will show further, later in this Blog series), because of the eternal life who gave life to life’s intent to use the sun, the moon, and the earth for reasons which have been captioned this way in at least one historical source attributed to an intelligent, intentional Life Giver named Jah God:

New Revised Standard Version (1989), Genesis 1:14-18

And [Jah] God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. [Underlining added.]

Whether we believe the above as historically accurate, in general or in specifics, the early attribution of purpose or intent for these heavenly lights, not just to “be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth” (though that is an existing condition which is itself marvelous), but for the sun, the moon, and for “the stars” to serve as “signs and for seasons and for days and years,” is something we use, and will continue to use, each and every single day of our lives on the earth just as Genesis says they were to be used.

As I wrote when I started this article, Christians do not assume things are true before we have good reasons to believe them. We will apply this test to Genesis further as this series continues. As of now, however, I believe I have given a reasonable response scientifically and socially testable by all of the highest living creatures on the earth, in ways we can individually consider before we believe anything about the origin of life or about any intentional intelligence found in it, in us, and in the things which move and exist around us.