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.

The Watchtower's Prohibition Against Non-Food Uses of Blood

In my section “Uses of Blood” in my Chapter 9 of the Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, on pages 574-575 I show when and why the Watchtower Society transformed its blood policy in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It has changed in more ways since then, but the fundamental flaw in the Watchtower’s view on uses of blood and the Bible remains: Blood transfusions = eating blood or being nourished by blood. The result is, in part, some people loyal to the Watchtower Society may die without understanding what is truly involved with the Society’s policy.

For example, in “Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, September 15, 1958, on page 575, we find one important place where the Watchtower’s unfortunate, blood transfusion = blood eating error appears to have taken root. Here the Society responds to a question about whether the injection of serums and blood fractions (such as gamma globulin) for the purpose of building up resistance to disease is the same as drinking or transfusing blood or blood plasma. Consider the Society’s answer (with my underlining added):

No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category, although we have done so in times past. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden. ... The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or [the use of] blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s expressed will forbidding blood as food. It would [now, late in 1958,] therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not.

Then in 1961 the Watchtower Society radically changed its blood policy to the following position but which still relied on the false equation of eating blood as a food with transfusing blood as blood and not as a food or nutrient (underling and other emphasis added):

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.]

Here it has become a question of "feeding up a God-given soul" contained "in the blood," rather than the blood itself. Yet, this a metaphysical view of the "soul" in the blood in a way that allows it to serve as a physical food of sorts by providing life, versus anything physical about the blood that may require prohibition. In other words, the concern here is not about what is sacred to God (the blood containing the soul) but what effect the soul-containing blood has on another person, specifically, when a person receives such blood as a "transfusion," not as or part of a food.

However, the fact is transfused blood is not usable as food or as nourishment but only as blood which may then “carry nourishment … to the tissues” (Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Clayton L. Thomas, ed., 16th edition [Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, 1989], page 223, under Blood). The transfused blood itself is not consumed as a “food,” the way it would be if it were eaten or drank through the mouth and then broken down like other foods through the digestion process. This could be, to use the Society's 1964 words quoted above, "feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood." But when a person is starving to death a transfusion of blood does not provide nourishment for the body, that is, unless actual “food” or nourishment is next added to the body and then the transfused blood carries it “to the tissues” (Taber's, page 223). 

That the "soul" is in the transfused blood according to the Bible does not change this in any way, that is, the "soul" part of the blood still does not provide nourishment or "life" to any person on its own when transfused with blood. Further, there is no evidence of the "soul" in the blood being consumed (= "feeding upon") in any way during a medical transfusion of blood: Transfused blood is used as blood by the recipient's body, not as a food or as nourishment of any kind. It is similar with organ transplants, which is what a blood transfusion is since the organs are not ‘eaten’ by the body once they have been transplanted, and neither do the transplanted organs serve as “food” or as “nourishment,” as I explained. Organs, including blood, have specific purposes and functions created and designed by God. Transfusing blood is one way for blood to continue to function according to its designed purpose, while eating blood or organs as "food" does not permit any of them to continue working in the body according to their intended purpose(s).

Here is another look at how the Watchtower Society blurs this distinction between eaten blood and transfused blood, and how in the process I believe it further misapplies the biblical prohibition concerning uses of blood:

Q. Why did Octávio Corrêa refuse the blood transfusion?

A. Basically because of the Bible’s prohibition as to the use of blood for nourishment or to prolong life. The Great Encyclopedia Delta Larousse (Portuguese) says: “Blood is living tissue that runs in the circulatory system and whose main functions are: 1) to carry needed nutritive substances and oxygen to all tissues in the body; 2) to collect and take residues, useless or dangerous to the cellular activity, to the excretory organs (kidneys, lungs, skin, etc.).” (P. 6079) Thus, blood nourishes and cleans the body. Jehovah God, who knows more about blood than anyone else, prohibited the eating of blood. His Word, the Bible, states: “Only do not eat flesh with its life in it, that is, the blood.”—Gen. 9:4, Pontifical Bible Institute, Rome, Paulinas Editions, Brazil. [“Freedom of Worship Triumphant,” Awake! August 8, 1977, page 7 (underlining added).]

The Watchtower publication Awake! here quotes a source which speaks of blood as ‘carrying needed nutritive substances.’ But the Society then equates “the eating of blood” with transfusing blood. The Society does not here present the obvious differences between eaten blood and transfused blood even when it quotes a publication which makes the differences plain! In this same light, consider these more recent claims from The Watchtower:

Decades ago Jehovah’s Witnesses made their stand clear. For example, they supplied an article to The Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1981; reprinted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? pages 27-9). That article quoted from [1] Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts. It said: “While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [white blood cell] and platelet administration.” [2] The 2001 textbook Emergency Care, under “Composition of the Blood,” stated: “The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets.” [3] Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components. [“Be Guided by the Living God,” The Watchtower, June 15, 2004, pages 21-22, par. 11 (underlined and bracketed numbers have been added).]

I have added the underlined and bracketed numbers, similar to what I presented in my “Uses of Blood” section. These numbers correspond to the following comments concerning the subject statements in the above quoted Watchtower:

[1]: Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts … [rule] out transfusion[s] of whole blood, packed [red blood cells], and plasma, as well as [white blood cells] and platelet administration.

Comment: Not one text in any of the three biblical books referenced by The Watchtower says or even implies anything about using blood for medical transfusions and where the blood continues to serve as blood, not as food or “nourishment,” in the human body. Further, not one of the three biblical books cited explicitly teaches or implies anything about uses of blood’s major “components” (red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma), as if they should under any circumstance be viewed differently from uses of blood’s “fractions.”

[2]: The 2001 textbook Emergency Care, under “Composition of the Blood,” stated: “The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets.”

Comment: The Society here quotes a textbook definition for “blood” which makes it plain that blood is “made up of several components,” namely, “plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets.” After noting this textbook’s definition, The Watchtower concludes:

[3]: Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components.

Comment: The only ‘fact’ from The Watchtower’s quote from Emergency Care is that blood is “made up of several components.” In stating this, the medical textbook is not claiming that any one of these four components of blood is blood or should be considered as blood. Indeed, the textbook’s definition shows all four are necessary for “blood.” None of the components of blood are “blood” individually or apart from all four being together as blood. So there is no ‘medical fact’ with which the Society is here “in line with” as it relates to its policy of refusing “transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components.” Yet, this is the stated reason for why the Society quotes Emergency Care’s definition of “blood” in the first place.

The definition of “blood” from Emergency Care and which is quoted with approval in The Watchtower, actually supports the position of those who reject the Society’s view that these four components of blood should be viewed individually as “blood.” Simply quoting a medical textbook’s definition for “blood” which shows that blood has four primary components (from which components blood fractions are then derived) does not provide any “medical facts” which support the Society’s view that these components should be rejected as blood. This is a logical fallacy committed by The Watchtower, as shown in note 53 on page 586 of my “Uses of Blood” section.

In citing the 2001 textbook Emergency Care, the Watchtower Society has not only misapplied the textbook’s own expressed definition as support for its own unique view of blood’s components, but the Society does this using a definition which contradicts the Society’s own expressed view of blood’s four primary components. The definition for blood in Emergency Care clearly shows the components of blood are not blood, individually since, again, blood is “made up of” all four primary components, together.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and its followers have not put forth any medical, scientific, or biblical good reasons for claiming that eating blood as a food is the same thing as transfusing blood to serve as blood (but not as a food) in the human body during a life-threatening emergency. The Society also has not shown the "soul" in the blood, according to the Bible, is in any way 'fed upon' by the recipient of a blood transfusion for the purpose of using the transfused blood as blood, not as a food or nutrient. Further, the Society has no basis in medical science or in biblical teaching to claim blood’s components are or should be considered the same as blood where it concerns the Bible’s prohibition. The only clear effort the Watchtower Society has expended to try and document its unique view of blood’s components from accepted medical science is to misquote a medical textbook’s definition which, in fact, contradicts the Society’s own expressed understanding and use of that very same 2001 medical textbook.

The Watchtower Society has consistently misapplied biblical texts which prohibit the use of blood as a “food” to medical transfusions of blood which do not ‘feed’ the body nor provide a "soul" for the recipient's body to 'feed upon,' but which transfused blood might save a person’s life by provide more of the organ (blood) lost or needed to carry nourishment to other organs and to remove toxins. For these and for other reasons, I no longer support the work of the Watchtower Society or its views and teachings on the subject of uses of blood.

"See That You Are Not Terrified" (Matthew 24:6)

Jesus of Nazareth told his earliest followers the words forming the title of this Blog, as recorded in Matthew 24:6. Just moments earlier, Jesus taught that many would come in his name to mislead others, in part (as the complementing account in Luke's historical record states) by stirring up people's fears about the time of the end. Note:

Then [Jesus] said to [his disciples], "You must see to it that you are not misled. For many will come using my name and saying, 'I am [the Christ/Messiah],' and, 'The defined/appointed time has drawn near.' Do not go after them."

For a further discussion of Luke 21:8 and how those whom Jesus warned his followers about clearly applies to the activities and proclamations of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, see my Blog, "'Do Not Go After Them' (Unless . . .)."

Apart from Jesus' warning about false teachers who would come in his name and proclaim, "The appointed time is near," in the opening part of Matthew 24 Jesus also warned that his people would "hear of wars and reports of wars." Yet, right after this Jesus tells them, "See that you are not terrified." Why? Because according to Jesus these wars "must take place, but the end is not yet" (verse 6). Then come verses 7-8:

For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.

It is clear that the first part of the above quoted texts is a re-statement of the end of verse 6. "Nation" rising against "nation" and "kingdom" rising against "kingdom" has nothing specifically or explicitly to do with an entire world at war,  as in 1914. Of course, the events of World War I are consistent with Jesus' words, as would be true of any other 'rising against' which takes place between "kingdoms" and "nations." But Christians (those who trust in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth) are not to be "terrified" of these things, even though "wars and reports of wars" are an unfortunate part of the reality many of us face.--Matthew 24:6.

Then it is said that there will be "food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another." These, too, while frightening for anyone, should not 'terrify' anyone putting his or her faith in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. We are not scared or worried about the "end," whether it is our own personal end or the one we hope for in connection with the Christ, that is, the end of "Wickedness" (compare  Zechariah 5:8). For we  believe for good reasons that Jesus will "come as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:1), and that he and his Father Jah, the Eternal Life who who gave life to life, will judge each of us according to what we do (Revelation 2:23; 20:11-13). It is right, therefore, that those who gave us life, those who know us best, are the ones who will deal with us.--Compare Isaiah 11:1-9; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Before that time, and until that time, "earthquakes" are something we will hear more and more about. Regardless of how these or any other "signs" given by Jesus may be fulfilled now or in years to come, whether all these things take place while we're alive or after we're dead, we should set an example now for others by helping those in need,  by teaching them the good news about Jah God and about Jesus of Nazareth, showing them the history of their dealings according to the Bible, and by remaining strong, by 'straightening up and raising your heads,' whether your "redemption is drawing near," or not.--Luke 21:28.

Do not "weaken in [your] faith" (Romans 4:19). Rather, "strengthen the things remaining that were ready to die" (Revelation 3:2). Give people hope and help them build their faith on the best available reasons, some of which can be found here, but not on the promises or false teachings of men (Galatians 1:6, 10-12). Do not "yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour" to "the false brothers brought in quietly," this so "the truth of the good news might continue with you."--Galatians 2:4-5.

Where it concerns the events and affairs of men which Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 and elsewhere in the Bible, specifically, in verses which discuss or which predict real concerns involving the affairs of the world, its nations and its peoples, and where it concerns the earth itself, "see that you are not terrified."--Matthew 24:6.

The Origin of Life Is Life (or Something or Someone Already Alive)

Life exists. It is all around us. We are alive, or living beings, creatures, either intentionally (intelligently) made/designed or the product of time, a lot of time and chance, and unintentional in design and in purpose or function. But we're alive! Even the most ardent skeptic must accept this. So how does that help us, or answer the question, What is the origin of life?

Here is an argument which I believe demonstrates sufficiently the origin of life is life, and therefore life must ultimately be eternal, since we are alive now. According to how we generally consider a matter to be "scientific," that is, by having sufficiently demonstrable results according to a repeated and testable process, I believe this argument fits the requirements for being accepted as the best available means of reliably explaining the origin of 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, all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information shows us without exception life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, life must be considered eternal (without any beginning or start from non-life) because life is here now.

I also believe the above argument sufficiently responds to any argument which claims not to be able to account for the origin of life as life itself, or as something or someone already alive or living. This also means it is scientific to say life is eternal. This provides a basis for claiming it is scientific to believe "God" or some other superhuman being or alien is also eternal.

Whether this demonstrably and logically eternal origin of life is personal and intelligent, or impersonal or simply unintelligent, I will consider separately.

New World Translation Footnotes to John 8:58

In the New Testament (NT) Jesus of Nazareth is presented to us as a preexistent Son of God who “stepped out of heaven” to do only the God Jah’s will (John 3:13; 7:16-18; 8:47, 54: 12:49). Jesus’ real, personal preexistence can be seen in his identity as “the Word” and “Wisdom” of God according to the Bible (Proverbs 8:22-31; Micah 5:1-2; John 1:1; Revelation 19:3; see also my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics [Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009], Chapter 4, pages 308-316, and Chapter 5, pages 406-418). This teaching is also consistent with what Jesus is recorded as having said in John 8:58 (see Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, Chapter 3, pages 223-225).

As for whether Jesus claimed to have eternally preexisted or to have preexisted “before Abraham was born,” or whether Jesus used “I AM” as a divine name in John 8:58 and also for an extended discussion about how John 8:58 should be translated into English, see pages 274-296 of my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended. See also my recent answer to the question, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?” published December 17, 2009, online through Elihu Books’ “Upon the Lampstand.”

The question and the answer in the above referenced “Lampstand” article indicates that since its first edition of the New World Translation (NWT) New Testament (NT) in 1950 to its latest 1984 Reference Bible and 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT), the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the publisher of the NWT and the KIT) has had more than one footnote in its English translation of John 8:58. In my recent “Lampstand” Q&A I provide an extended evaluation of these different NWT/KIT footnotes to John 8:58, in response to many harsh and unfounded criticisms made over the past 50+ years by scholars and critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed, scholars and critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses through to this past year 2009 have published what is demonstrably false and which contradicts readily available information, including the originally misunderstood and misused 1950 John 8:58 (NWT) footnote’s use of the incontrovertibly clear English expression “rendered in.”

First, consider how Ron Rhodes captioned the 1950 NWT’s use of “perfect indefinite tense” in his 1993 book Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993), page 116:

Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification for translating ego eimi in John 8:58 as “I have been.”

The above has been removed from Rhodes’ 2009 edition of his Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), which is a positive indication. Indeed, Rhodes must now realize that many scholars not only agree with the NWT translation of John 8:58, but it has been sufficiently demonstrated that Rhodes’ preferred “I am/AM” translation of John 8:58 is unacceptable for many good reasons. For example, after categorizing the Greek idiom correctly as an “Extension from Past” (also known as a “Present of Past Action Still in Progress”) in which the present verb eimi (“I am”) is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications” (as in “before Abraham was born”), K.L. McKay gives an English rendering that is almost identical to the NWT’s, namely, “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” (Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek [SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], pages 41-42).

As I attempted to make plain in my online Q&A, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?” page 11, note 9, while addressing some of the claims made by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.:

As I have shown on pages 283-284 of my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Bowman misquotes every single one of the Greek grammars he cites in connection with his claim, “most grammars specifically state that accompanying the present tense verb is some adverbial expression indicating the extent of the duration of the time indicated by the verb” (Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, page 105 [underlining added]). Each one of Bowman’s referenced grammars makes it clear that a past expression and a present verb together denote duration from the past point of reference (“before Abraham was born”) to the present (“I am”). Yet, not one of the grammars cited by Bowman on this point says anything about “the extent of the duration of the time” being indicated by the adverbial, past-referring expression. Shifting the focus (as Bowman does) from a past expression modifying a present verb to “a clause beginning with prin” ignores the role of the present verb in relation to the adverbial clause. By doing this, Bowman can disconnect “‘duration’ up to the present” from the past expression. But the adverbial “prin clause” is not considered in isolation from the present verb! It is, in fact, the present verb which denotes duration (though not always the extent of the duration) from the time indicated by the past-referring adverbial clause.

You may review for yourself the what I recently referenced again in my new “Upon the Lampstand” Q&A regarding NWT footnotes to John 8:58 (see page 7), and in my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (see Chapter 3, pages 277-294), namely, the following writers who describe or who classify the Greek idiom of John 8:58 just as the Watchtower Society now does:

1) J.A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1858), page 370.

2) A. Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1859), page 243.

3) H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of John, trans. William Urwick (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), page 293.

4) G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, trans. J. Henry Thayer (Andover: Warren Draper, 1897), page 267.

5) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), page 168, sec. 322. (Note: John 8:58 is cited erroneously in the grammar’s text, in the referenced section, as John 5:58.)

6) N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), page 62, sec. 1(c).

7) J.N. Sanders and B.A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), page 236.

8) Kenneth L. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” NovT 34 (1992), page 212.

— A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), pages 41-42.

— “‘I am’ in John’s Gospel,” ExpT 107.10 (1996), page 302.

Rhodes neglected to consider each and every single one of the above in connection with this issue in his 1993 edition (which means Rhodes would not have had available to him only the last two cited sources) and Rhodes does not consider or reference any of them in his 2009 edition of Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, in 1993 Rhodes wrote that “scholars agree” there is “no justification” for the NWT rendering! Then sixteen (16) years later in 2009 Rhodes still hides available references which clearly support the NWT rendering and/or the Greek idiom cited explicitly by the Watchtower Society since its 1984 NWT Reference Edition was published.

In so doing, Rhodes makes it nearly impossible for his readers to completely and accurately understand these issues. Therefore, I believe for the above and for other reasons stated elsewhere in documents referenced in this Bog that Ron Rhodes and those who support his work against Jehovah’s Witnesses are misleading people by what Rhodes writes about the NWT and about John 8:58.

Further concerning John 8:58 and the NWT, consider the following from Rhodes’ 1993 edition of his Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 116 (with my underlining added):

It is highly revealing that at one time, the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempted to classify the Greek word eimi as a perfect indefinite tense rather than a present tense.

The above words are gone from Rhodes’ 2009 edition. Indeed, at no time have Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Watchtower Society attempted to “classify the Greek word eimi as a perfect indefinite tense rather than a present tense”!

Rhodes’ claim is a fabrication, one easily contradicted by the expressed use of “rendered in” in the very same 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58 which is the source of the issue Rhodes’ writes about above concerning the “perfect indefinite tense”! The original fabrication begun by Dr. Walter Martin on this issue has been carried forward by many of Martin’s disciples since at least 1957, and possibly as early as 1953 (see notes 1, 2, 24, and 25 in my “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?”). Unless Martin was intending to deceive people by his treatment of John 8:58 in the NWT, his false claims could have been avoided had Martin and his research staff understood the simple English expression, “rendered in,” which expression plainly reveals that “perfect indefinite tense” in the 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58 has to do with the English translation, not with “the Greek word eimi as a perfect indefinite tense.”

Even more outrageous is the following 1993 description of the alleged reaction by Jehovah’s Witnesses to Martin’s false claims concerning the 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58, which alleged reaction is portrayed by Rhodes as follows:

However, this claim proved to be very embarrassing when Greek scholars pointed out to the Jehovah’s Witnesses that there is no such thing as a perfect indefinite tense in Greek grammar. [Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1993), page 116].

The above has now been eliminated from Rhodes’ 2009 edition, not because it no longer fit with the text and overall scope and subject of Rhodes’ work on Jehovah’s Witnesses (obviously). Rather, it seems clear that the change was made because Rhodes’ claim “proved to be very embarrassing when” English-speaking persons pointed out to Rhodes and to the Christian Research Institute which Martin founded that the NWT’s use of “perfect indefinite tense” had nothing to do with “Greek grammar”! 

Many of these same and other Trinitarian apologists and scholars still seem unable or unwilling to try and further unwind Walter Martin’s mishandling of NWT footnotes to John 8:58. The result is the NWT is continuously tainted unfairly over this issue when, in true and unfortunate irony, the NWT’s footnotes to John 8:58 should continue to serve as an embarrassing reminder of the false and misleading claims made by many Trinitarian scholars and critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Rhodes has a note at the end of the above quotation (note 63) which refers to Robert M. Bowman, Jr.’s 1989 publication Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), pages 90-98. Yet, Bowman’s publication reveals the truth of the matter (in part) involving the 1950 NWT’s use of “perfect indefinite tense” in its footnote to John 8:58. Note Bowman’s weak but revealing admission on his page 94, “it may be ... that the expression ‘rendered in’ in [the 1950 NWTNT] footnote should be understood to refer to the tense of the English rendering.”

It not only “may be,” it is clearly true (based on the 1950 NWT footnote’s use of “rendered in”) that “the expression should be understood to refer to the tense of the English rendering.” Further ‘embarrassment’ for many Evangelicals, such as those who support the claims made by Martin, Rhodes, Bowman, Morey, Ankerberg, Weldon, and others who followed Dr. Martin down this path in varying degrees, can be seen in Martin’s book, The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised Edition (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, 1977 [1965]), page 78. Here Martin alleges “the term ‘perfect indefinite tense’ is an invention of the author of the note.” 

Yet, twenty (20) years after the publication of Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults in 1965, in Martin’s 1985 Revised edition, his strong allegation has been significantly changed. In fact, the change made in the 1985 edition of The Kingdom of the Cults still remains in editions of Martin’s work published almost forty (40) years after the book was first published according to the Revised, Updated, and Expanded Edition of Martin’s book edited by Ravi Zacharias (Grand Rapids: Bethany, 2003). Consider the following comparison of these editions of Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults (with underlining added):

1977 (1965) Kingdom of the Cults, pages 77-78:

It is difficult to know what the author of the note [on page 312 of the 1950 NWT] means since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does not form a clause. It is the adverb Prin which is significant here, so that the construction should be called [a] Prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is an invention of the author of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.

1985 Kingdom of the Cults, page 88:

It is difficult to know what the author of the note [on page 312 of the 1950 NWT] means since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does not form a clause. It is the adverb Prin which is significant here, so that the construction should be called a Prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is not a standard grammatical term and its use here has been invented by the authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.

2003 Kingdom of the Cults, page 111:

It is difficult to know what the translator means, since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does not form a clause. It is the adverb prin that is significant here, so that the construction should be called a prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is not a standard grammatical term, and its use here has been invented by the authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.

Note that in the later edition of Martin’s work it is not said the NWT translators ‘invented’ “the term ‘perfect indefinite tense.’” Rather, in the 1985 edition of Kingdom of the Cults Martin’s charge is that the NWT footnote authors “invented” the perfect indefinite’s “use here” in John 8:58! As I wrote in my recent Q&A on NWT footnotes to John 8:58:

It is unclear how those responsible for the 1985 and later 2003 editions of Martin’s work (quoted above) could have made such a change (but without any retraction for Martin’s false claim that the NWT authors invented “the term ‘perfect indefinite tense’”), but at the same time fail in their research (all the way up to at least 2003) to note the explanation of the NWT authors’ “use” of “perfect indefinite” given by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in its 1978 letter to Firpo Carr. In fact, this 1978 letter (which I discuss in the main body of this article) is referenced and considered in part by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., in his 1989 book Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), pages 93-94, and 100. So it was not “impossible to know what” was meant in 2003, that is, had those responsible for editing Martin’s work bothered to fully research the matter according to the published explanation given by the Society over thirty (30) years ago, and subsequently critiqued by Bowman twenty (20) years ago! [Greg Stafford, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?,” note 1 continued on page 9.]

I have attempted to fairly consider issues pertaining to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the NWT, and John 8:58 in my three editions of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (1998, 2000, and 2009), in my answer to the December 17, 2009, “Upon the Lampstand” question, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?” and now here in this Blog. I plan on continuing to engage all demonstrably false teachers over this or concerning any other important biblical text or issue, in order to try and help those who are truly attempting to learn about the best available reasons for beliefs concerning Jah God, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Bible.

In closing, I will here again produce a listing of several English translations which are similar to NWT’s rendering of John 8:58 in that they, too, attempt to express Jesus’ preexistence rather than an identity as “I AM” or an explicit claim to have existed eternally. Neither of these latter conclusions have any place in John 8:58, for neither of them come from the grammar or from any of the clear teachings of this text in its context, as I have repeatedly and expressly shown:

“From before Abraham was, I have been”

George R. Noyes, The New Testament (Boston: A. Williams and Company, 1871).

“Before Abraham was born I was already what I am” and (in the 1904 edition) “I was”

The Twentieth Century New Testament (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1904).

“I have existed before Abraham was born”

James Moffatt, The Bible: A New Translation (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935).

“I am here – and I was before Abraham!”

J.A. Kleist and J.L. Lilly, The New Testament (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956).

“I was before Abraham”

William F. Beck, The New Testament in the Language of Today (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963).

“I was in existence before Abraham was ever born”

Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 1979).

“I am from before Abraham was born!”

Richard Lattimore, The Four Gospels and the Revelation (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1979).

“I existed before Abraham was born”

C.B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1986).

“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born”

Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), page 42.

For more on the history and meaning of John 8:58, and on the use of ego eimi by Jesus and by others in the New Testament and in related literature, see my Chapter 3, “Jesus of Nazareth: The Christ from Heaven,” in the Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009), and also my online Q&A, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?”