Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Feinstein's nicely timed 'turnabout'
Sen. Diane Feinstein, the head of the Senate intelligence committee, is calling for a "full review" of NSA activities after the Snowden leaks disclosed that the NSA has been tapping phones of leaders of allied countries, including Germany's Angela Merkel.
Feinstein, in denouncing such spying, defends President Obama, saying that he had never been told of such surveillance. Obama has refused to discuss this matter, citing secrecy requirements. Had Obama in fact never seen transcripts of the phone chatter of Merkel and others before important international gatherings, it would imply that the intelligence system had made a decision to keep a weak president in the dark.
The California Democrat's outrage is understandable. Feinstein very likely identifies strongly with Merkel. However, when it comes to ordinary Americans, we see no such sense of indignation.
The most important point about Feinstein's purported turnaround is that it might give her cosmetic bill for "reforming" the NSA a shred of credibility. She and other friends of spook central are are trying to fend off a much tougher NSA reform measure to be offered jointly by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Republican, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat.
Feinstein raps NSA spying on Merkel, others
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillance-dianne-feinstein-opposed-allies
Sen. Diane Feinstein, the head of the Senate intelligence committee, is calling for a "full review" of NSA activities after the Snowden leaks disclosed that the NSA has been tapping phones of leaders of allied countries, including Germany's Angela Merkel.
Feinstein, in denouncing such spying, defends President Obama, saying that he had never been told of such surveillance. Obama has refused to discuss this matter, citing secrecy requirements. Had Obama in fact never seen transcripts of the phone chatter of Merkel and others before important international gatherings, it would imply that the intelligence system had made a decision to keep a weak president in the dark.
The California Democrat's outrage is understandable. Feinstein very likely identifies strongly with Merkel. However, when it comes to ordinary Americans, we see no such sense of indignation.
The most important point about Feinstein's purported turnaround is that it might give her cosmetic bill for "reforming" the NSA a shred of credibility. She and other friends of spook central are are trying to fend off a much tougher NSA reform measure to be offered jointly by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Republican, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat.
Feinstein raps NSA spying on Merkel, others
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillance-dianne-feinstein-opposed-allies
Monday, October 28, 2013
Obama's war on media
NSA chief urging crackdown
on press coverage of leaks
In an almost surrealistic video posted by the Pentagon, the head of the NSA calls for restrictions on the press's First Amendment right to publish information obtained from leaked documents.
"I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000 – whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these – you know it just doesn't make sense," Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director, says in an interview with the Pentagon's Armed With Science blog.
"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it," Alexander says. "I don't know how to do that. That's more for the courts and the policy-makers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on."
The general says he knows of no better way to counter terrorists than via his agency's surveillance measures. However, he thinks there ought to be a better way of dealing with the press than in permitting it to publish whatever it wishes under the full protection of the First Amendment.
As eery but lulling background music plays, Alexander argues that on the one hand the press is getting its facts wrong but that on the other hand the accuracy of the reporting is helping terrorists.
At one point the general ridicules accounts of the metadata monitoring of 70 million French phone calls, but omits any reference to his agency's wiretap of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's cell phones.
Pentagon blog with video
http://science.dodlive.mil/
Politico's story
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/10/nsa-chief-stop-reporters-selling-spy-documents-175896.html
Greenwald's followup
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/europe-erupts-nsa-spying-chief-government
Cameron jousts as embarrassing trial looms
British Prime Minister David Cameron threatened government action against the Guardian if it does not stop publishing embarrassing leaks that he says compromise national security. Cameron's carefully stage-managed parliamentary attack on the Guardian comes as he and his Conservative Party face highly embarrassing testimony in the phone hacking trial of Rebekah Brooks, former editor of the News of the World who had been an intimate friend of Cameron. Rupert Murdoch's media organization has been a strong supporter of Cameron and the Tories. The Guardian is sharply critical of Tory policies.
NSA chief urging crackdown
on press coverage of leaks
In an almost surrealistic video posted by the Pentagon, the head of the NSA calls for restrictions on the press's First Amendment right to publish information obtained from leaked documents.
"I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000 – whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these – you know it just doesn't make sense," Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director, says in an interview with the Pentagon's Armed With Science blog.
"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it," Alexander says. "I don't know how to do that. That's more for the courts and the policy-makers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on."
The general says he knows of no better way to counter terrorists than via his agency's surveillance measures. However, he thinks there ought to be a better way of dealing with the press than in permitting it to publish whatever it wishes under the full protection of the First Amendment.
As eery but lulling background music plays, Alexander argues that on the one hand the press is getting its facts wrong but that on the other hand the accuracy of the reporting is helping terrorists.
At one point the general ridicules accounts of the metadata monitoring of 70 million French phone calls, but omits any reference to his agency's wiretap of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's cell phones.
Pentagon blog with video
http://science.dodlive.mil/
Politico's story
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/10/nsa-chief-stop-reporters-selling-spy-documents-175896.html
Greenwald's followup
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/europe-erupts-nsa-spying-chief-government
Cameron jousts as embarrassing trial looms
British Prime Minister David Cameron threatened government action against the Guardian if it does not stop publishing embarrassing leaks that he says compromise national security. Cameron's carefully stage-managed parliamentary attack on the Guardian comes as he and his Conservative Party face highly embarrassing testimony in the phone hacking trial of Rebekah Brooks, former editor of the News of the World who had been an intimate friend of Cameron. Rupert Murdoch's media organization has been a strong supporter of Cameron and the Tories. The Guardian is sharply critical of Tory policies.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Termed Guardian reports 'treason'
Peer's dark role as 'press handler'
exposed by Snowden documents
A British peer who favors placing British citizens on "controlee" status without trial is a covert "press handler" for a British spy agency, documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal.
Guardian report
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden
Baron Alex Carlile is among those quietly designated by top British intelligence officials for the task of "press handling," the Guardian is reporting. Carlile was recently featured in the Telegraph condemning the Guardian's publication of Snowden documents as "treason."
Carlile is the official "independent" reviewer of British intelligence laws, Carlile sparked intense controversy when he endorsed depriving United Kingdom citizens and others of basic liberties without trial if the authorities make a claim of terrorist connections.
The Government Communications Headquarters -- which is Britain's version of the NSA -- coordinates "press handling" on intelligence-related issues on behalf of the Home Office, the Snowden documents reveal.
Carlile asserted there was nothing to be done but to place people he terms "controlees" under house arrest if they are deemed to present a public danger, even though evidence against such persons must be secretly held. In other words, he endorses the old Star Chamber system of secret jurisprudence.
Carlile's parents, Jewish refugees from Poland, both converted to Christianity and the peer describes himself as a "pragmatic utilitarian," but he is proud of his "100 per cent Jewish ancestry" and is a strong supporter of Israel, according to Britain's Jewish Chronicle. Israel has a severe system of controls on persons said to have terrorism connections.
Carlile interview with Jewish Chronicle
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/38280/interview-lord-carlile
Carlile, who was rewarded for his public activities as a Liberal Democrat with a title of the sort that cannot be passed to heirs, is a lawyer who has prospered in the financial services sector. He represents Qatar Holdings, which is an arm of the Qatar government involved in takeovers of European businesses.
Peer's dark role as 'press handler'
exposed by Snowden documents
A British peer who favors placing British citizens on "controlee" status without trial is a covert "press handler" for a British spy agency, documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal.
Guardian report
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden
Baron Alex Carlile is among those quietly designated by top British intelligence officials for the task of "press handling," the Guardian is reporting. Carlile was recently featured in the Telegraph condemning the Guardian's publication of Snowden documents as "treason."
Carlile is the official "independent" reviewer of British intelligence laws, Carlile sparked intense controversy when he endorsed depriving United Kingdom citizens and others of basic liberties without trial if the authorities make a claim of terrorist connections.
The Government Communications Headquarters -- which is Britain's version of the NSA -- coordinates "press handling" on intelligence-related issues on behalf of the Home Office, the Snowden documents reveal.
Carlile asserted there was nothing to be done but to place people he terms "controlees" under house arrest if they are deemed to present a public danger, even though evidence against such persons must be secretly held. In other words, he endorses the old Star Chamber system of secret jurisprudence.
Carlile's parents, Jewish refugees from Poland, both converted to Christianity and the peer describes himself as a "pragmatic utilitarian," but he is proud of his "100 per cent Jewish ancestry" and is a strong supporter of Israel, according to Britain's Jewish Chronicle. Israel has a severe system of controls on persons said to have terrorism connections.
Carlile interview with Jewish Chronicle
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/38280/interview-lord-carlile
Carlile, who was rewarded for his public activities as a Liberal Democrat with a title of the sort that cannot be passed to heirs, is a lawyer who has prospered in the financial services sector. He represents Qatar Holdings, which is an arm of the Qatar government involved in takeovers of European businesses.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Entered residence on unrelated matter
Fed raiders seized reporter's notes
after expose of Homeland Security
A Washington newspaper vowed to file a lawsuit over the seizure by police and federal agents of a reporter's notes concerning a Homeland Security expose.
The Washington Times reports that the team raided the reporter's residence on what was said to be a mission to search for firearms linked to her husband.
Maryland state police and federal agents carted off journalistic records belonging to Audrey Hudson, a former investigative reporter for the Washington Times, the newspaper said. The award-winning newswoman had exposed problems in the Homeland Security Department’s Federal Air Marshal Service, the Times said.
Hudson told the Times that the raiders -- including an agent for Homeland’s Coast Guard service -- took her notes and government documents she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act during a predawn raid of her residence on Aug. 6.
The files, some of which chronicled her sources and her work at the Times about problems inside the Homeland Security Department, were seized under a warrant to search for unregistered firearms and a “potato gun” suspected of belonging to her husband, Paul Flanagan, a Coast Guard employee, the newspaper said. Flanagan had not been charged with any wrongdoing since the raid, the Times said.
“While we appreciate law enforcement’s right to investigate legitimate concerns, there is no reason for agents to use an unrelated gun case to seize the First Amendment protected materials of a reporter,” Times Editor John Solomon said. “This violates the very premise of a free press, and it raises additional concerns when one of the seizing agencies was a frequent target of the reporter’s work."
Solomon added, “Homeland’s conduct in seizing privileged reporter's notes and Freedom of Information Act documents raises serious Fourth Amendment issues, and our lawyers are preparing an appropriate legal response.”
The seizure of Hudson's files comes in an atmosphere of heavy-handed measures against the press that have been a regular feature of the Obama administration.
Washington Times report
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/
Fed raiders seized reporter's notes
after expose of Homeland Security
A Washington newspaper vowed to file a lawsuit over the seizure by police and federal agents of a reporter's notes concerning a Homeland Security expose.
The Washington Times reports that the team raided the reporter's residence on what was said to be a mission to search for firearms linked to her husband.
Maryland state police and federal agents carted off journalistic records belonging to Audrey Hudson, a former investigative reporter for the Washington Times, the newspaper said. The award-winning newswoman had exposed problems in the Homeland Security Department’s Federal Air Marshal Service, the Times said.
Hudson told the Times that the raiders -- including an agent for Homeland’s Coast Guard service -- took her notes and government documents she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act during a predawn raid of her residence on Aug. 6.
The files, some of which chronicled her sources and her work at the Times about problems inside the Homeland Security Department, were seized under a warrant to search for unregistered firearms and a “potato gun” suspected of belonging to her husband, Paul Flanagan, a Coast Guard employee, the newspaper said. Flanagan had not been charged with any wrongdoing since the raid, the Times said.
“While we appreciate law enforcement’s right to investigate legitimate concerns, there is no reason for agents to use an unrelated gun case to seize the First Amendment protected materials of a reporter,” Times Editor John Solomon said. “This violates the very premise of a free press, and it raises additional concerns when one of the seizing agencies was a frequent target of the reporter’s work."
Solomon added, “Homeland’s conduct in seizing privileged reporter's notes and Freedom of Information Act documents raises serious Fourth Amendment issues, and our lawyers are preparing an appropriate legal response.”
The seizure of Hudson's files comes in an atmosphere of heavy-handed measures against the press that have been a regular feature of the Obama administration.
Washington Times report
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Tough review of Silver book
filtered out of Google search
In the past, Google has routinely listed Newz from Limbo posts. However, a review of Nate Silver's book on the successes and failures of prediction appears to have been blocked altogether from Google's search engine.
The post, headlined Amazing blunder drowns 'Signal,' takes Silver to task for a logical flaw in his probabilistic reasoning concerning the events of 9/11. As a result, Silver passively endorses the government's specious tale. This is significant because Silver writes for the New York Times, which has been complicit in the coverup of that tragedy, declining to publish any real investigative reports on 9/11 contradictions other than for a few strong stories targeting government credibility in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
Amazing blunder drowns 'Signal'
http://conantcensorshipissue.blogspot.com/2013/04/amazing-blunder-drowns-out-signal-on.html
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Now that I have posted my essay The Knowledge Delusion below, a very few readers may wish to know more about my theological outlook. The following essay doesn't altogether achieve that end, but it does at least give a glimpse of some of my views on theological and quasi-theological issues.
Essay first published ca. 2005
Where is Zion?
By Paul Conant
Many wonder about the emergence of the modern state of Israel. What is the divine purpose? Is this reconstituted Jewish state a sign of the end times? How should Christians deal with this situation?
The believer is admonished by scripture to beware false prophets, perhaps appearing as born again 'angels of light,' teaching demonic theories intended to hinder the work of the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ [2 Cor 11.13]. Peter also warns that unspiritual people can falsely interpret the word of God. [2 Pet 1.20] Therefore, it is important that the believer, with the aid of the Spirit, examine the basis for various apocalyptic theories and timetables that are popular these days, rightly and diligently dividing scripture [2Tim 2.15]
An appendix (scroll down or use control f) contains interpretations of scriptures that contain the word 'Zion.'
Because many of those who adhere to such theories are known as Christian Zionists, it seems appropriate to examine the concept of Zionism from the point of view of gospel-centered, born-again Christianity, in accord with Christian precepts that anything can be tested against the Bible.
As Paul wrote: 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.' [2 Tim 3.16,17]. However, when the flesh interprets scripture, the result is dead wrong, as we know from Satan's temptation of Jesus. Peter, in his struggle against false prophets, said that 'no prophecy of scripture is a matter of personal opinion,' not being an act of human will but rather of the Holy Spirit motivating the speaker [2 Pet 1.20,21].
EARLY IDEAS OF 'ZION'
The first biblical mention of 'Zion' is Deut. 4.48 and is another name for Mount Hermon in Lebanon. This 'Zion' derives from 'Sirion,' a name given to the mountain by the Sidonians. This Zion is referred to again in Psalm 133.3 when the poet compares brotherly love to 'the dew of Hermon coming down on the mountains of Zion.'
'Zion' is next cited in 2Sam 5.7, where it is reported that 'David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David).' This was a fortified enclave held by the Jebusites on a site later known as Jerusalem. David built his palaces in this fort and laid the groundwork for the first temple, which was built by his son Solomon, on a nearby hill. The term 'Zion' then came to refer to the entire palace and temple compound. It was often used specifically for the temple or the temple and its hill. Scholars think 'zion' was originally a word for 'hill.' 'Zion' was often extended in the Bible to mean the entire city of Jerusalem, where the general populace lived adjacent to the palace-temple compound. In fact, sometimes the Old Testament Bible extends the definition of 'Zion' to include the people of Israel or a remnant of that people.
THE CONCEPT OF TIME
Some Bible commentators seem to unconsciously believe that, when it comes to time, God is not as subtle as he is in other matters. They would have the anticipated fulfillments of prophecies fit nicely onto a 'railroad timetable.'
However, this illusion is refuted directly and indirectly by scripture. Josh 10.13, describing the halting of the sun and moon, may be read literally or figuratively. The author may have meant that the victory was so astonishing that it was tantamount to the sun and moon standing still (and this may have been a jibe against a monarch whose authority supposedly included the sun and the moon).
Or, he may have been recounting that the sun, along with a pale daylight moon, stood still during the battle. If literally interpreted, then we see that God may extend a day's duration at will. If figuratively interpreted, then the author says that God is so powerful he could, if he wished, make the sun stand still, meaning in God's hands time is truly flexible, a point made by the prophet Daniel, who lauded God as one who 'changes times and the seasons' [Dan 2.21].
God's control of time is demonstrated in Is 38.8, when God told Hezekiah that the sun's shadow would go back ten steps on the stairway of Ahaz, which is what then happened. God showed that he erased a period of history that led up to the point in time of Hezekiah's death. He gave Hezekiah a new lease on life by bypassing a sin-laden time in this man's life.
The disciples found that their concepts of space gave way to the power of God when they were with Jesus in a boat in the middle of the Sea of Gallilee and suddenly found themselves at the shore. The time it takes to cross that space was voided. So, we can accept that God can and does compress time. Likewise, he can expand it, as we know from Hezekiah's experience.
Of a prophecy given to Habbakkuk, God said, 'For the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal and will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay'[Hab 2.3]. Note that the appointed time may seem, to human observers, to be close at hand or even overdue. So we can see that if the prophecy isn't fulfilled at an expected time, then it must be fulfilled in an unexpected way. This point is driven home by the chronologically inconsistent narratives found in Genesis and elsewhere. For example, ages of Abraham and his family at key points don't jibe -- if we use modern western definitions. The number for age represented a benchmark, such as '40' representing the period of mature manhood, rather than a specific year.
But even if we 'solve' this difficulty, others remain: for example, when were the people of earth who married into the family of Adam and Eve born?
What happened to the giants (the nephilim or 'fallen') when the flood hit? These demon-people appear again after the flood. Could it be that time is not really representable as a real number line? Should we accept that perhaps the Bible contains serious errors (we certainly know that different versions contain minor errors that Bible scholars are continually attempting to correct), or might we conclude that there is simply much that we don't fully understand?
So then, if the Bible itself demonstrates the impossibility of drawing up a superficially logically consistent timeline of events of old, what makes us think we can use biblical references to map a 'logically consistent' history of the future?
Often in scripture, a time is said to arrive when the measure of something (such as sin or wrath) is full. The Greeks had two words for time: 'kronos' and 'kairos.' Kronos is the time of clocks and astronomical cycles. Kairos implies the propitous time. It is more spiritual in nature. A kairos time may be thought of as a balloon that fills up, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly, with a gas until the point of bursting. That is when the consummation of the kairos time has arrived. We might consider the second coming as a the consummation of a kairos time.
Even atheists who seek the truth in modern physics have found that time is supple and relative, and not at all like the typical person's view of it. At extremely short intervals, time can be said not to exist. On larger scales, as Einstein proved, time is relative to the observer. Here's an idea of what that means: If you left earth on a starship traveling near the speed of light and traveled deep into space and then back, you would find that your twin brother was substantially older than you upon your return. In fact, you could conceivably return to an earth where centuries had elapsed, though for you only months had elapsed.
When Martha was grieving for Lazarus, dead for four days, she told Jesus she believed Jesus could get any favor from God. Jesus then told her that her brother would rise again. 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the Last Day,' she answered. 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never perish. Do you believe this?'
You see, Martha had the traditional Jewish understanding of the Old Testament prophecies, but she was hoping Jesus would find a way to revive her brother anyway! Her faith was honored when Jesus said, in effect: Don't stand on tradition! Just BELIEVE! This is GOD talking! [John 11.22-26]
The great and awesome day of the Lord had arrived for Lazarus and was witnessed by Martha. It wasn't the sidereal day that counted, but rather belief when the word came. The awesome day of the Lord is on a spiritual (which does not mean 'unreal') plane: 'SEE IT NOW! ETERNAL LIFE!'
In general, we may say that the launch of Jesus' salvation mission was indeed the dawn of the great day. The malleability of time and the physical world is indicated in the variant accounts of the resurrection. Some skeptics see these seemingly irreconcilable versions as proof of biblical error. And, it is conceivable that God permits minor structural or form errors on the basis that it's the spirit that counts, just as when one hears a spirit-filled person give the word, even though he makes some grammatical or even factual slips. The slips are not important; it's the spirit, the word, that counts.
Even so, there is a serious school of thought among physicists known as the 'many worlds theory' -- reflecting Jesus' word, 'In my father's house are many mansions [possibilities]' [Jn 14.2] -- in which alternate realities can coexist. In some related areas of scientific conjecture, such alternate realities are thought to interact strongly rather than weakly.
Mathematicians are accustomed to dealing with 'projection,' in which a more complex form is projected as a set of simpler forms. For example, if you shine a flashlight above a globe, you will see an elliptical or circular shadow below.
Suppose we think of a unified event occurring in a purely spiritual dimension, such as heaven or hell, as being projected into the earthly dimension where man lives. It is quite reasonable to suppose that its projections, or reflections, will be fragmentary, meaning that, from a human perspective, the one 'higher dimension' event is seen in various ways at different times and places on the earthly plane.
You needn't believe that this idea is correct to see the point that the commonplace idea of linear time may not suffice for prophecy.
Earthbound people can be misled by a spirit of deception that puts falsehoods into the mouths of wicked prophets [1 Kings 22.22] and thus blinded by a 'strong delusion' [2 Thes 2.11]. While it is true that the born-again believer is fit to understand scripture, as illuminated by God's Spirit, it is still possible for the believer to be influenced by the delusive nature of this world.
DEAD LITERALISM
As Christians, we are strongly advised to study scripture [2 Tim 2.15]. We cannot however understand what we read without the help of the Holy Spirit. Though scripture is written in Hebrew and Greek, its origin is divine, and divine language is beyond human ken [Rom 8.26]. Scripture means what God says it means. Who has plumbed the mind of God? Who has exhausted the deep well of the wisdom of God? [Rom 11.33,34]
God's thoughts are far above our thoughts [Is 55.9]. We must beware assuming that we can know the full meaning of a scriptural passage or group of scriptural passages.
Dead literalism is effectively refuted by Jesus in a number of places, such as when he healed on the sabbath day and when he upbraided the scribes and pharisees for focusing on technicalities rather than on the point of God's teachings: love of God and one another.
Jesus, obeying the Spirit, told his hearers that a scripture from Isaiah that he had just read had been 'fulfilled in your hearing.' [Luke 4.21] Jesus halted his reading at 'to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord,' leaving unread the other part of the couplet 'and the day of vengeance of our God.' [Is 61.1-2]
Does this mean the unquoted prophecy is untrue? No, but we can assume that the fulfillment of the entire passage from Isaiah does not necessarily follow a simple human schedule.
After the long-lost Book of the Law was recovered, it was read to the people and interpreted for them by the Levite priests [Neh 8.7]. Language and custom had evolved, so that strict literalism would have left the hearers perplexed. The Bible here shows that, without inspired interpretation, we have the dead letter of the law.
The word of God is 'alive and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart,' says the writer of Hebrews [Heb 4.12], after quoting several Old Testament passages. So if a man is to understand the word, he cannot rely on human wisdom [1 Cor 1-9]. Just as the spirit within a man knows his thoughts, the Spirit of God knows God's thoughts [1 Cor 2.11]. In fact, the Spirit reveals scriptural meaning to believers 'for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.' [1 Cor 2.10]
Or, as Paul wrote elsewhere, the new arrangement for Christians is 'not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.' [2 Cor 3.6]. So the assertion that 'the Bible is literally true' should perhaps be changed to read that 'the Bible contains no error.' Since God 'makes all things work together for the good' for his chosen [Rom 8.28], he is able to make human missteps into truth. We know this from Caiaphas, who, as high priest, spoke a truth, though he had no idea of the divine profoundness of his words [Jn 18.14].
An example of literalness is the Mosaic command for Jews to put symbols of God's word on their foreheads and hands [Deut 6.8]. Some Jews to this day observe this custom. But, isn't it plain that the real point of this thought is that the Jews were to think about God's word and practice it? Why would God want people to honor this custom but not honor God's will in the more important area of behaving on the square with one's neighbors?
People who want to be excessively literal may not be aware that Jewish and Christian editors have over the centuries sifted ancient writings in efforts to obtain God's word at its purest. The fact that the Bible is such an authoritative source of truth and wisdom shows that many of these editors were, like Paul who rightly divided the word of truth [2 Tim 2.15], divinely inspired.
Many modern Bible texts identify words attributed to Jesus with red type or quotation marks. However, the Greek texts have no such graphical devices. This means that there are some passages sometimes attributed directly to Jesus that might actually be divinely inspired editorial comments. Also, there are variant literal versions of some of the words attributed to Jesus, though they are close in substance. With the aid of the Spirit, it is possible for the contemporary mind to understand the meaning of these words.
And the sayings of Jesus clearly were compiled early on and later woven into the synoptic gospel accounts. Does this make the gospel accounts wrong? Only if one insists on literally precise chronological narratives. Otherwise, they are rather like the modern newspaper report that lays out the relevant details in a way that 'tells a story.'
If a newspaper reporter extracts a couple of relevant sentences from some document and includes a one-sentence paraphrase in his story, he could not fairly be accused of improperly quoting the document. We should give Bible writers the same leeway. To wit, Paul, whose eyesight was poor and who probably relied on memory, in several places conflates scriptural passages in order to make a point. For example, Rom 9.33 apparently splices Is 28.16 and Is 8.14. This splice is easily defended as summarizing later prophetic fulfillments. So Paul is not in error, but we would be foolish to be excessively literal: there is no single such passage in the Septuagint (the Greek-language Bible in use at the time).
In Rom 11.26, Paul quotes scripture thus: 'The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.' The quotation is more a paraphrase than an exact quote. In fact, some might argue that the paraphrase misquotes Is 59.20,21 to give it a meaning it does not have. However, the import of the paraphrase is justified elsewhere, such as Psalm 14.7 and Psalm 15.
I sympathize with the apostle. I had in my mind that Jesus had, in assuring believers of his steadfastness, asked rhetorically whether a mother could forsake her child. It turns out that the relevant verse is Is 49.14, where I hear the voice of the Messiah.
Consider Mt. 21.5, which tells of Jesus' triumphal donkey ride into Jerusalem. Two old testament scriptures, Is 62.11 and Zech 9.9, are spliced together here, illustrating that different prophetic utterances can be fulfilled in one action.
Or consider John 12.15 which quotes Zech 9.9 but omits 'shout, O daughter of Jerusalem.' Yet, the omission is inconsequential. The meaning of Zech 9.9 is faithfully preserved. Writers of the period did not follow rules of quotation used today. So we cannot easily ascribe error here.
When we are told that 'the scripture cannot be broken' [Jn 10.35], the Old Testament was meant (specifically, Ps 82.6). So then, what do we make of Jude's citation from the Book of Enoch, which is regarded by Jewish and Christian scholars as largely a group of entertaining tall tales that on the whole lack divine inspiration?
Accepting that the Book of Jude is scripture, then is the scripture broken if Jude cites a non-scriptural source? [Jude 1.9]
Firstly, Jude was using an example from a book familiar to his contemporaries in order to make the moral point: If even Michael, in his dispute with Satan over Moses' body, wouldn't revile the devil himself, who are we to revile anyone at all? Now, regardless of the scriptural accuracy of this story, the moral point is substantiated by the words of Jesus, who occasionally alluded to the Book of Enoch.
And, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Book of Enoch contains fragments of real scripture and that Jude cites such a fragment.
New Testament writers cite numerous passages from the Old Testament in order to make their case about Jesus. However, if one were to apply the railroad timetable technique to the Old Testament writings, one would doubtless be able to argue that the writers were taking scripture out of context in order to justify their pet theories. But, the reality is the reverse: the Spirit illuminated the authors' minds as to how the written word was being fulfilled in their day. But the human wisdom -- railroad timetable analysis -- was to be scorned. As Paul said to the Corinthians, he decided to put Jesus first and then see what the Spirit revealed.
He always respected scripture, but insisted that the Spirit should lead in its interpretation. So it is that sometimes a person apprehends a spiritual reality to such an extent that, for him, prophecy is being fulfilled. One wakes up to a truth, which was there all along, previously unnoticed. It's like suddenly seeing the solution to a math problem. The solution always existed, independently of the observer, but now that solution has become a potent part of the observer's reality.
Paul, when caught up to the third heaven, could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body [2 Cor 12.2-4]. That is, the spirit world was so intense that the material world faded out, a non-issue. In paradise, Paul heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. That is, the language of heaven far exceeds the capacity of the earthly vessels. So we should be careful about trying to interpret spirit reality according to earthly standards.
Now Paul's experience here is echoed elsewhere in scripture: Sky (heaven) and earth had passed away! The sky was torn asunder and rolled up like a scroll! The stars fell from their places and sun and moon became nothing in comparison with God's glory [Is 34.4]! He was in paradise and his world was gone in the blink of an eye! Yet, we can expect that such scriptures will be fulfilled again in other ways.
Consider the believer content in Christ and filled with the Spirit not even noticing supposed bodily hardships. Sky and earth have begun to pass away, as with Stephen during his martyrdom. Or think of Jesus in the desert being comforted by angels following his victory over Satan. That desert was no desert! It was gushing with refreshing streams and blooming with beautiful flowers!
So we can see that fulfillment of scripture is not naively chronological but comes in surprising ways. Often a prophecy had already been in part fulfilled in the shadowy pre-gospel sense but awaited complete fulfillment in Jesus. Also, even when a prophecy is being fulfilled at the dawn of the Christian era, that does not mean there isn't more to come. For example, take Acts 2.17,18 when the spirit-filled Peter quotes Joel's prophecy that in the last days God will pour out his spirit on all flesh (1).
And indeed, since that time that prophecy has been fulfilled by God granting his Spirit to people of every race and background. And its fulfillment is not yet complete.
As Paul said, human wisdom is insufficient for understanding God. So we can appreciate that when God speaks to man through prophetic scripture, he is infusing man's tribal viewpoint and his local legends with the Spirit in order to lift the hearer into an expanded consciousness. He is using man's language and man's way of thinking to reflect God's thoughts.
Because of this, the word of God may seem to some to be ambiguous or inconsistent. Also, linear history seems to matter to modern humans far more than it does to God, who is focused on spiritual growth.
Our ability, even with the Spirit, to comprehend prophecy 'through a glass darkly' [1 Cor 13.12] (as a dim reflection) has a counterpart in modern astronomy. Before powerful telescopes made most of the physical cosmos observable, one could only make educated guesses as to most of what was out there, even though scientists had Einstein's highly accurate general theory of relativity as their 'bible.'
Though the theory's general predictions are repeatedly verified as astronomy progresses, no one in the early years of the 20th century anticipated the fantastic view of the cosmos that eventually unfolded. Previously, scientists had the physical truth, and yet they still perceived the cosmos 'through a glass darkly' before having their consciousness expanded to a much bigger reality (and this reality is nothing in comparison to what God has in store).
The Book of Revelation can be thought of as the Big Picture of spiritual reality. It gives a panoramic sweep that includes events of the past and of the future. We can think of it as a completed picture of a jigsaw puzzle. But, try as we might, our human mental strength does not suffice to perfectly match puzzle pieces found elsewhere in scripture and in contemporary events to that Big Picture.
However, that does not mean we should ignore various 'end times' events unfolding about us. We should indeed use these events to toughen up in our Christian walk. Why are we being so worldly? Can't we see the Bible is right?
THE TRUE ZION
The issue of Judaism's primacy was addressed by Jesus and the apostles with such sayings as 'Salvation comes through the Jews' [Jn 4.22] 'to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile' [Rom 2.9,10], 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first' [Mt 20.16].
The Samaritan woman was puzzled by religious differences. 'Our fathers worshiped in this mountain,' she said, 'and your people say that in Jerusalem [on Mount Zion] is the place where men ought to worship.' Jesus replied, 'Woman, believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.' [John 4.20-23].
In other words, God was creating a new world, or covenant, where the heart of the believer was the issue, as opposed to a particular geographic location. In that same chapter, Jesus -- who was breaking the Middle Eastern taboo of conversing with a woman without her male folk present -- tells her that he would be happy to fill her up with 'living water' from a spring that won't run dry. 'Living water' (what in English is called 'running water') is a poetic description of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was bringing salvation to a hapless, roughly handled Palestinian woman.
The Lord was not terribly interested in geography or property rights [Luke 12.14]. His aim was and is to confer the gift of salvation and eternal life. Recall his assertions that 'the kingdom of heaven is within you' [Luke 17.21] and 'my kingdom is not of this world' [Jn 18.36].
The writer of Hebrews says that Jewish religious customs are a 'copy and a shadow of heavenly things.' [Heb 8.5]. Likewise, Paul wrote that the Jewish law, including the ten commandments, was intended to school the Jews as to the meaning of right and wrong so that they would become aware of how much they needed the unmerited favor of salvation [Gal 3.24].
A new order replaces the old order, as Heb. 8.8-13 says, quoting prophecy [Jer 31.31]:
'"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God. And they shall be my people..." When he said, "a new covenant," he has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.'
And when does the new covenant appear? It is made evident at the Feast of Pentecost, when, as Peter said, quoting from Zechariah, Jerusalem became 'the city of truth.' That passage [Zech 8.2-17] also says that the Lord is 'exceedingly jealous for Zion.' The covenant dawned at Pentecost and is still in process of fulfillment. Or, as Heb 12.22-24 points out, the terrifying experience of Mount Sinai is no more, but rather, 'you have come to Mount Zion and the City of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant...' Plainly, Zion here is a spiritual place, the realm of salvation. The old world of the old covenant will be shaken and only what is unshakable will remain, but 'we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken' [Heb 12.27,28].
Paul says that eventually 'all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob." "This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins" [Rom 11.26,27]. Paul adds, 'From the standpoint of the gospel, they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable' [Rom 11.28,29].
He is explaining that the Jews have been partially hardened in order to permit the 'fulness of the Gentiles to be gathered into the body of Christ' (indicating that many who perished without seeing Jesus must still arise to meet him as their Savior).
A recurrent theme of Paul is the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. In God's eyes, there is no distinction. 'For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks [Gentiles], whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit.' [1 Cor 12.13].
So then the new Zion is filled with the new Israel, the redeemed Jews and Gentiles. Under the new covenant, 'the virgin daughter of Zion' [2 Kings 19.21] has become the bride of Christ [2 Cor 11.2, Rev 21.9,24]. 'For out of Jerusalem will go forth a remnant, and out of Mount Zion, survivors' [2 Kings 19.31]. This prophecy was fulfilled by the fact that the Jewish identity survived Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, but that prophecy is fulfilled in an expanded sense by the fact that born-gain Jewish Christians, the ultimate survivors, fanned out from Jerusalem.
A MAJOR SIGN
Though interpretation of end-times prophecies requires a special gift, there is one prophecy that stands out as a beacon in our time. Luke 21.24 quotes Jesus thus: 'and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.'
After the Romans led the Jews away captive, Jerusalem remained under Gentile domination for nearly 2,000 years. Upon Israel's founding in 1948, Jerusalem became the Jewish state's capital, though this status has long been a diplomatic sore point. After a fight, Jordan occupied east Jerusalem, but then lost that sector during the 1967 war.
So then, it is fair to say that the times of the Gentiles are about over. However, we might also note that Arabs predominate in East Jerusalem, possibly indicating that the Gentile era is not quite over. Certainly, the Israeli government cannot end the Gentile era by trying to complete this prophecy.
For one thing, the Gentile era is the period when the message of salvation is going out to the Gentiles. Once the full complement of Gentiles destined for salvation has been reached, then the Gentile era ends, according to Paul, writing in Romans 11.11-32 -- in particular Rom 11.25. Once this occurs, Paul says, Jews who had been unable to receive the gospel will be saved.
Of course, that implies that a powerful evangelical campaign must come in Israel, accompanied by great pressure to thwart the gospel.
Further light on the Gentile era is shed in the Book of Revelation (Rev 11.2) where John is told not to measure the outer court of the temple, which is given over to the Gentiles, who will tread Jerusalem underfoot for 42 months (three-and-a-half years).
Two witnesses will prophecy for 1,260 days (three-and-half years), clothed in sackcloth. They have tremendous power, and can kill with the fire of their mouths. (Rev 11.3-6)
In Rev 12.14, we are told that the woman flies from the serpent's presence to the wilderness to be nourished for three-and-a-half times.
This echoes Daniel 12.7, where it is prophesied that wonders would cease -- the world would end -- after three-and-a-half times. A general resurrection occurs after the holy ones are overcome, a theme found in Rev 11 and in Jesus' end-times discourse.
In scripture, a 'time' can be taken to be a solar year. And it is interesting that the Roman-Jewish war lasted about three-and-a-half years, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.
However, if we keep in mind the Greek idea of kairos, we might think of 'a time' as meaning a period in which certain trends accumulate until reaching the critical point, which ends that period. So then, we might interpret the three-and-a-half years of Revelation as three-and-a-half kairos times, meaning that the era of the Gentiles ends amidst some other era -- perhaps the age of grace, which must still be extended to the Jews.
Here we have another argument against eschatological timetables, since kairos eras can overlap. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that some accept that Jeremiah's prophecy -- that Jerusalem would be resettled by the Jews after 70 years of desolations by Gentiles -- was fulfilled after about 70 solar years (Jer 25.11,12, Jer 29.10). However, Daniel, in Babylon, seems to have been perplexed that the 70 years was up and the prophecy in need of fulfillment, if solar years were meant. The angel Gabriel responded by giving Daniel a vision of the Messianic era to come, and explained that this era would begin after '70 weeks.' Interpreting a week as seven years, the kronos time of 490 years seems to accord with the Jewish resettlement of Jerusalem in 538 BCE and the ascension of Jesus around 34 CE (about 496 years), though the Messiah was also supposed to be cut off after 62 weeks -- in kronos time, 434 years, which does not jibe.]
Realizing that the Spirit can cause believers to see a scripture or set of scriptures as being fulfilled in many ways, we offer this scenario as a possibility:
In Rev 11.2, the Gentiles are in the outer court of the temple. That is, these are the Gentiles being brought to salvation; meanwhile, the Gentiles are walking all over the holy city. Now, the 'holy city' may signify the kingdom of God -- which they, like the prostitutes, are storming into -- and-or it may signify earthly Jerusalem, which seems likely, since Jesus in Luke 21.24 certainly was talking about earthly Jerusalem. So then, we would assert that once earthly Jerusalem came under Jewish rule, the times of the Gentiles begin drawing to a close. Now which times are meant? One time evidently is the era for the gospel to the Gentiles; another time apparently is the era of Gentile rule over earthly affairs.
Now the two witnesses of Rev 11 may mean the Jewish Christian and the Gentile Christian components of the body of Christ. True Christians have tremendous power, as the gospel accounts and the Acts of the Apostles, show. But they are at their best when they are humble, eschewing earthly wealth. They are 'in sackcloth' during the age of witness, but eventually they will wear divine apparel. However, I am aware that such an interpretation might constitute a partial fulfillment of prophecy, with a complete fulfillment to come.
We are now in a position to suspect that the three-and-a-half times of Daniel may correspond with the three-and-a-half years of Rev 11. Similarly, we can interpret the woman of Rev 12 as the church -- the body of born-again believers -- who, harshly persecuted in Judea, escaped to the 'wilderness' of Gentile lands, where she has been nourished for three-and-a-half times.
However, I am uncertain as to what three eras are meant, though I would guess that the 'half-era' refers to the age of grace.
At various points, the Bible says that the coming of the last days is accompanied by birth pangs. Severe stress presages the birth of a new world era.
I suggest that the closing days of the age of the Gentiles mean great suffering on the part of the Gentiles. The plague of AIDS appears poised to sharply reduce the earth's population, possibly by 2028 (2). Poor nations are ill equipped to combat this disease, which has already devastated sub-Saharan Africa -- leaving 11 million AIDS orphans -- and which is on the verge of bringing about a similar catastophe across Eastern Europe, Russia and Asia. In addition, the rapid increase in global warming is likely to have numerous calamitous effects, including triggering devastating malarial and ebola epidemics.
We also cannot rule out the possibility that weapons of mass destruction may yet be unleashed on a genocidal scale. But, even if such arms are contained, pandemics and related famines are likely to promote civil disorder and war. The developed nations can no more escape the judgment than the Titanic could escape sinking. The great distress will cross borders, despite all efforts, and then spiral out of control in the supposedly safe areas.
We cannot say that the state of Israel will be unaffected. However, a remnant of Jews will remain, perhaps still in control of Jerusalem. Yet, the scepter of world rule will not be passed to earthly Israel. If so, why would the Bible repeatedly point to a Messianic era as the culmination of Jewish aspirations? My guess is that, while the distress of nations is under way, Israel will undergo a harsh internal fight as Christian Jews begin to make headway.
At some point, the Christian Jews will be eradicated. BUT, we cannot assume that this will occur at any particular time.
The scenario I have outlined is plausible, but I do not claim that I am correct in every jot and tittle.
A NOTE ON THE ABRAHAMIC BLESSING
An important topic of end-times discussions is the blessing given to Abraham, which was routed through the Jews.
'And I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you: and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed' [Gen 12.3].
Abraham's real descendents are those who heed God, not merely people with certain DNA characteristics who have been circumsized [Jn 8.39]. Obviously, the blessing points to Jesus, who blesses all the nations of the earth. Those who bless Abraham will be blessed and those who curse him will be cursed. This certainly applies to Abraham's spiritual progeny, the born-again Christian.
But supposing that God's pledge also applies to Abraham's descendents in the flesh, a question must be posed: does the pledge apply to the state of Israel, the Israeli government, Jewish residents of Israel, or Jews in general, wherever they live? I raise that question because some seem to equate any criticism of Israeli government policies as tantamount to invoking a curse against onself. I don't wish to attempt to neutralize the potency of that scripture, but I am concerned that some are deploying it for propaganda purposes.
THOUGHTS ON 'ELOHIM'
A verse in the Song of Moses, Deut. 32:8, reads:
'When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.'
The phrase 'sons of God' was rendered 'sons of Israel' in the traditional Jewish Bible, but a fragment from the Dead Sea scrolls attests to the former.
Who were these sons of God? Were they related to the sons of God who intermarried with earth women and spawned demonic offspring? What is known is that various non-canonical writings, along with some clues in the Bible, indicate that these were the 70 (probably a symbolic number) angels who led the nations surrounding ancient Israel. The highest of these divine beings, who came to be known as Elohim and also YHWH (roughly: 'Yahweh'), chose the nation of Israel for himself.
Scholars have found that, though 'Elohim' is used in the singular in the Hebrew scripture that we have now, the word itself is a plural form of 'El,' which was the name of the Canaanite's chief god. So 'Elohim' simply means 'the gods.'
But the Hebrews were forbidden to worship any God but Elohim -- which evolved into a a generic name for God -- who eventually revealed his special name to them as YHWH, just as he has revealed to Christians his special name of his son Jesus. Elohim brooked no competition from his 'sons.'
So it is apparent that the Hebrews knew of the Canaanite pantheon -- which is similar to other pantheons, in which one god is chief of the others.
However, as Hebrew religion and language evolved, we find that the Canaanite 'sons of El' -- which is equivalent to 'the gods' -- becomes 'sons of Elohim,' which is later rendered as 'angels,' which are directly created divine beings (note that this makes Jesus a hybrid of son of man -- because born of a woman -- and angel, or son of God, because directly created, which is also what born-again believers are). Angels could have god-like power but were not to be worshiped. The theological issue bothered the Pharisees, who took 'son of God' to mean a god who must not be worshiped.
Elsewhere we learn that Michael is Israel's special protecting angel (whose name means 'Who is like God?'). So then he is, possibly, identified as a projection (message) of Elohim. In addition, we learn in Daniel and Revelation (and in extra-biblical texts) that Michael is waging war with the devil and his angels. In particular, we find that the prince of Persia is a demonic angel. So we can guess that the angels that lead the nations are demonic, or at any rate inferior, angels, perhaps those who intermarried with earth girls.
We might think of the pantheon of the gods as a muddled (reprobate) intuition of a situation in which the human soul is a projection of a particular angel. So all those who are a projection of a particular angel are in the 'nation' ruled by this angel. But Jesus taught that those who are not ruled by the Father must be ruled by Satan, implying that the unregenerate are either reflections of fallen angels, or, are tares that have been planted by an enemy.
Be this as it may, clearly some will suspect that the Jewish religion is simply a variant of the older Canaanite religion with which it clearly has similarities. Scholars would add that as Jewish theology evolved, it took on some of the imagery and concepts of Zoroastrianism, a Persian religion of great antiquity. (A number of Zoroastrian concepts make sense in terms of Judaeo-Christian traditions. Take, for example, 'the Lie,' which can be thought of as a place where many are headed. It is also the pull to proceed into such a place. The Lie is the door opening to one of the 'many mansions' in God's universe, as well as the pull toward that door. The Lie is the pull toward Death, death itself being a lie.)
So my thinking is that God was using the imagery with which the Hebrew tribesmen were familiar in order to gradually unveil the higher things of God. Recall Paul on Mars Hill, when he preached to the Athenians on the 'unknown God.' The monument to which he referred was put there in the event that the polite and cosmopolitan Athenians had neglected to honor some visitor's god. Yet Paul used the concept of 'unknown God' as a jumping off point to preach the good news that the way to know God was via Jesus Christ. Similarly, we can see that God could have used old stories, imbuing them with his spirit, in order to reveal some of the depth and magnitude of the true God.
Think of the transfiguration:
Jesus had previously quoted a scripture that said 'you are gods' (or possibly 'you are as gods') and had held that if God IS the God of Abraham and Isaac, then God is the God of the living.
On the mountain, his disciples saw him with Moses and Elijah, all blazing with unearthly light, and then, after closing their eyes in fear, saw only Jesus.
That is, these divine beings were united by a single Spirit.
As Paul says, born-again believers are heirs with Jesus of the kingdom [Eph 3.6], sons of God that is. In fact, they are as gods, indeed they are gods. Nevertheless, they, who are junior partners of Christ, are certainly not to be worshiped.
The promise to the believer is that, as he becomes more Christ-like, he will become one with God -- though he actually is already one with God, just as Jesus is one with the Father. In any event, we can see that the Hebrew word 'Elohim,' though it stemmed from a pagan theory, fits well with God's revelation to the Jews, who he did indeed choose as his special people, though their heory of God is past its prime.
APPENDIX: 'Zion' prophecies interpreted
Following are my interpretations of a number of scriptures concerning Zion:
Ps 9.11
'Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion.'
Under the old covenant, the invisible God dwelt in the ark of the covenant. Within that ark were the stone tablets on which God had personally inscribed the 10 commandments. The two stones can be viewed as a token of God's covenant with the children of Israel. But also we see that the Lord himself was the true covenant -- the word and the guarantor of that word.
Under the new covenant, the invisible God -- the Spirit of God -- dwells in the mind of the believer, making the believer's body, 'the temple of the Holy Spirit' [1 Cor 6.19]. So then, would God go back to the old covenant in order to take up residence in another stone temple?
Ps. 14.7
'O that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion, when the Lord restores his captive people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad.'
Jesus rose to heaven out of Jerusalem, where he could then send the Spirit to the Jews -- and Gentiles -- who were to be set free. 'Whom the son sets free is free in deed'[John 8.36].
Ps. 65.1
'silence before you and praise in Zion'
Or, 'be still and know I AM' [Ps 46.10]. This intimacy with God requires the presence of Jesus in the believer, who then can enjoy God.
Ps. 69.35,36
'For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, that they may dwell there and possess it. The descendants of his servants will inherit it, and those who love his name will dwell in it.'
Zion and the cities of Judah are reserved for the descendants of his servants and those who love God's name. A true descendant of God's servant is also God's servant. Otherwise the devil is his father [Jn 8.44]. So is earthly Jerusalem filled with such people?
The 'cities of Judah' needn't refer to old Middle Eastern towns; instead what is indicated is a land where the redeemed, who love the name Jesus, can enjoy life.
Ps. 78.67,68,70
'He also rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved.'... 'He also chose David his servant and took him from the sheepfolds.'
Though this refers to the preservation of David's tribe, Judah, after the destruction of the other 11 tribes, these words are fulfilled by Jesus, the good shepherd descendant of David, who established spiritual Zion by his conquest of evil at the cross.
Ps. 84.5,7
'How blessed is the man whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways (to Zion)... every one of them appears before God in Zion.'
Those who love God are approaching Zion.
Ps. 87.2
'The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.' English-language translations of the Bible customarily italicize words not found in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures but that seemed necessary. In this case, if we omit 'other,' we can interpret this passage to say that 'Jacob' refers to the unregenerate Jew. He cannot enter Zion until he has been transformed, by the renewing of his mind [Rom 12.2] into 'Israel.' The name 'Israel' means 'wrestler with god' and the name 'Jacob' means 'he who grabs by the heel' or more generally 'trickster.'
Recall the encounter between Jesus and Nathanael, who knew salvation was to proceed from Jerusalem. Nathanael's question 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?' was followed by Jesus' retort: 'Look, a real Israeli, in whom there is no guile.' Or, that is: 'Look, a real contender with God, in whom there is no Jacob.'
Ps. 87.6
'The Lord will count when he registers the peoples, "This one was born there [in Zion]."
As Jesus said, the birth that counts is the spiritual birth. Those written in the Lamb's Book of Life [Rev 20.12] have been born of the Spirit, not of flesh and blood [Jn 3.5,6]. So there is no use having been born in Jerusalem if one hasn't been born again, saved by the intervention of Jesus Christ.
Ps. 97.7
'Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, who boast themselves of idols ... Zion heard this and was glad.'
The real Zionists are glad when God shames the money-worshipers and their type.
Ps. 99.2
'The Lord is great in Zion'
Or, Zion is a place where the Lord's glory shines brightly. And isn't that in the hearts of those who worship God 'in spirit and in truth'?
Ps. 102.21
'that men may tell the name of the Lord in Zion'
Utterance of that name -- as represented in scripture by the Hebrew letters YHWH -- came to be forbidden to Jews of old and such utterance is still considered impious for Jewish residents of modern Jerusalem, assuming anyone could be sure of the pronunciation.
The name of the Lord, under the old covenant, is not, under the new covenant, fully revealed since the name of 'Jesus' suffices as the name of the Lord.
It has become possible to tell the name of the Lord openly, even if with difficulty.
'Jesus' or 'Yah shua' means 'Yaweh saves.' Knowing this name suffices just as seeing Jesus sufficed for seeing the Father [Jn 14.8].
Ps 110.1,2
'The LORD says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. The LORD will stretch forth your strong scepter from Zion...'
Jesus cites this passage [Mt 22.44] to show that David calls his son, the messiah, his lord. So then we can be sure that Jesus is one with YHWH (the name of God using only consonants, as translated from Hebrew) whose great power over heaven and earth extends from the kingdom of God, which is Zion.
The fourth verse of this psalm says that God has determined that this savior is 'a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,' a passage that Heb. 7.21 says refers to Jesus, the consummate priest.
Ps. 129.5
'May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned backward.'
Those who love their sin more than the light remain under judgment and are continually injured by their own wilfulness [Jn 3.18], since they reap what they sow [Gal 6.7].
A specific instance of this scripture being fulfilled occurred when an armed troop came to arrest Jesus. Jesus asked whom they sought. When told, he replied, 'I am he.' On hearing 'I am,' which is a name for God, the men stumbled backward in confusion and were then only able to proceed with God's permission [Jn 18.4-6].
Ps 135.21
'Blessed be the LORD from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem.'
The writer was likely thinking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Yet, when Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the Temple was torn apart, indicating the departure of God's Spirit from the veiled ark of the covenant. Where does the Lord dwell today? Within those who put their trust in Jesus.
Is 1.27
'Zion will be redeemed with justice and her repentant ones with righteousness.'
Justice was served by the sacrifice of Jesus, the son of God, whose crucifixion paid in full the price of all sin. Those who humbly turn to him will be made right with God.
Is 8.18
'Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.'
Heb 2.13 takes this passage to refer to Jesus.
Is 24.23
'The LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem.'
We know that Mount Zion is a spiritual place and the Book of Revelation tells us to expect a new, heavenly Jerusalem [Rev 3.12].
Is 28.16,18
'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed [moved].'
'Your pact with Sheol will not stand.'
Paul in Rom 9.33 and Peter in 1 Pet 2.6 say Is 28.16 refers to Jesus. Now the old, earthly Zion was overthrown by the Romans in 70 A.D. So the new Zion is the kingdom of God that Jesus is yet bringing forth.
Jesus will cancel the sin-sick soul's contract with death.
Is 29.8
'It will be as when a hungry man dreams--and behold, he is eating; but when he awakens, his hunger is not satisfied, or when a thirsty man dreams--and behold, he is drinking, but when he awakens, behold, he is faint and his thirst is not quenched. Thus the multitude of all the nations will be who wage war against Mount Zion.'
Anybody who fights God is deluded. Any 'victory' over the LORD is hollow.
Though this passage specifically refers to Gentiles, certainly it also holds for Jews.
A nearby passage [Is 29.10] says that God 'has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep [or 'strong delusion']' blinding the prophets and the seers. Paul [Rom 11.8] says this scripture applies to the bulk of the Jews, who 'were hardened.'
That is, those who resist God, and his works, are turned away from his kingdom by a strong delusion, reminiscent of the angels guarding the gates of Eden.
Is 30.19-21
'O people in Zion, inhabitant in Jerusalem, you will weep no longer. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you. Although the Lord has given you bread of privation and water of oppression, your Teacher will no longer hide himself, but your eyes will behold your Teacher.
Your ears will hear a word behind you, "This is the way, walk in it," whenever you turn to the right or the left.'
God will comfort his people. Yet, who can see God? Yet his people will see the Teacher, who will guide their minds. Those who walk with Jesus recognize the Teacher's voice [Jn 10.27], which can only be heard via the Holy Spirit. He is the road and he makes sure that every follower will learn more and more about God.
Is 31.4,9
Like a lion with its prey unworried by the shepherds, so will 'the LORD of hosts come down to wage war on Mount Zion and on its hill.'
'whose fire is in Zion and whose furnace is in Jerusalem.'
Have you ever noticed that on occasion titanic contests occur with little recognition of what is going on -- hardly anyone is paying attention?
Jesus was sent by the Father to wage spiritual warfare against the devil and his hordes. A scene in that struggle occurred when he picked up a whip and drove the businessmen from the Temple.
Certainly Jesus could not be deterred from achieving his victory over hell.
That victory was exemplified when, during the feast of Pentecost, tongues of fire descended upon the apostles in Jerusalem to launch the true church.
Is 33.5
'He has filled Zion with justice and righteousness.'
Not much of that in wordly Jerusalem. However, Jesus embodies the phrase 'justice and righteousness.'
Is 33.20
'Look upon Zion... Your eyes shall see Jerusalem ... a tent which will not be folded; its stakes will never be pulled up. No oarboat or warship will pass on its great streams.'
What great streams? These must be streams flowing in the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 3.12, where commerce and war are no more.
Is 35.5,6,10
'Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will shout for joy.'
'And the ransomed of the LORD will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting joy upon their heads.'
When John the Baptist queried Jesus as to whether he was the Messiah, Jesus replied: 'Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the good news preached to them.'
All of Isaiah 35 foretells, in rhapsodic imagery, Zion's wonderful future. From Jesus' response, we can see that he was a sign of the true Zion. And a person who has truly received Jesus as Lord has entered that Zion, the land of eternal bliss, and, despite hardships, will shout for joy at the wonder of this event.
Is 37.32
'For out of Jerusalem will go forth a remnant and out of Mount Zion, survivors.' Those who have been born by the Spirit.
Is 40.9
'Get yourself up on a high mountain, O Zion, bearer of good news ... say to the cities of Judah "Here is your God."'
Jesus was lifted up on Mount Calvary with the inscription: 'King of the Jews.'
Is 49.14
'But Zion said, the LORD has forsaken me...'
Jesus cried out on the cross: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' [Mk 15.34]
Is 51.3
'Indeed, the LORD will comfort Zion...and her wilderness he will make like Eden.'
How sweet it is to follow Jesus.
Is 51.11
'So the ransomed of the LORD will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion.'
How wonderful to have your sins paid for by Jesus.
Is 52.3
Zion 'will be redeemed without money.'
Those destined for eternal life have had their sin paid for by the blood of Jesus.
Is 52.7
'How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"'
Jesus announced the good news of salvation, and so do his followers.
Is 52.8
'For they will see with their own eyes when the LORD restores Zion.'
Witnesses saw the works of Jesus, including his ascension into heaven. However, many of those suffering spiritual blindness were unable to see that Zion was being restored. Isaiah begins his description of the suffering servant with 'who has believed our report?' [Is 53.1]
Is 61.2,3
'...to comfort all who mourn, to grant all those who mourn in Zion...' Jesus tells us to fear not, to be cheerful, because he has overcome the world [Jn 16.33].
Jesus told his hearers that Is 61.1,2 had been fulfilled in their hearing.
Is 62.1,2
'For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not rest' until the 'nations [Gentiles] will see your righteousness...and you will be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will designate.'
The name of Jesus is lifted up among the Gentiles.
Is 66.8
'Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons.'
The new Zion was brought forth by the sacrifice of Jesus and began in power on the day of the feast of Pentecost, when immediately thousands turned to Jesus for salvation [Acts 2.41].
Jer 3.14
'...return O faithless sons...and I will take you one from a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.'
Many are called, but few are chosen for Christ's kingdom.
Joel 2.32
'And it will come about that whoever calls upon the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape.'
Paul in Rom 10.13 applies this scripture to anyone who calls on Jesus, who will then escape hellfire. Joel 2.28 -- 'I will pour out my spirit on all mankind' -- is cited by Peter during the Pentecost speech.
Had Jesus' warning been remembered [Lk 21.20], those in Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish war would have known it was time to flee when they saw the Temple profaned by Jewish rebels.
In the case of the prophecies of Joel and of Jesus, we can see that they may be specifically fulfilled and yet we cannot rule out their being fulfilled again. However, Paul is less interested in 'future history' than in getting people to see the main point: the salvation provided by Jesus more than fulfills scripture.
Obadiah 17
'...on Mount Zion will be those who escape...'
Those who escape the wrath to come [Mt 3.7] are those who put their trust in Jesus.
Mic 4.2
'Many nations will come and say, Come let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us about his ways and that we may walk in his paths. For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.'
Some may read this passage literally, but I see it as fulfilled by non-Jews who are able to get into the kingdom of God through the mercy of Jesus, who is the word of the LORD personified and who is the fulfillment of the law of the LORD. As Jesus taught at age 12, the House of God is the work of the Lord [Lk 2.49] and for humanity the greatest work is salvation.
Zeph 3.12-15
'But I will leave among you a humble and lowly people, and they will take refuge in the name of the LORD.
The remnant of Israel will do no wrong and tell no lies, nor will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouths; for they will feed and lie down with no one to make them tremble.
'Shout for joy, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O Israel!...The LORD has taken away his judgments against you, he has cleared away your enemies.'
Jesus told us to learn of him, who is humble and lowly [Mt 11.29]. Those who trust in Jesus, who paid for all crimes against God, no longer need fear anything at all, and as they are perfected, they become less and less prone to wrongdoing. And God does not look upon sin because the believer has been pardoned by Jesus. So those put right with God through Jesus have every reason to shout for joy.
Zec 9.9
'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion...Behold your king is coming to you; he is just and endowed with salvation, humble and mounted on a donkey...'
Fulfilled by Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he was greeted as the son of David -- the Messiah.
Zec 9.10
'I will cut off the [war] chariot from Ephraim and the [war] horse from Jerusalem; and the war bow will be cut off. And he will speak peace to the nations; and his dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.'
Jesus, who has been granted all power in heaven and earth, gives his followers the 'peace of God, that passes understanding'[Phlp 4.7]. Once his kingdom has spread everywhere, warfare will cease.
(1) Colin J. Humphreys, a Cambridge scientist and Bible investigator, has analyzed Peter's interpretation of the prophecy of Joel as related to historical events that can be corroborated. His keen mind is revealed in his book The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus (Cambridge University Press, 2011). He is also the author of The Miracles of Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying the Biblical Miracles (Harper Collins, 2003).
His web site: http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/colin-humphreys/
(2) When that was written, such a global catastrophe seemed plausible. However, education and distribution of anti-AIDS medicines seems to have blunted the threat, though we cannot be sure it won't return.
This article has had minor editing on several occasions between 2005 and Oct. 2013.
Essay first published ca. 2005
Where is Zion?
By Paul Conant
Many wonder about the emergence of the modern state of Israel. What is the divine purpose? Is this reconstituted Jewish state a sign of the end times? How should Christians deal with this situation?
The believer is admonished by scripture to beware false prophets, perhaps appearing as born again 'angels of light,' teaching demonic theories intended to hinder the work of the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ [2 Cor 11.13]. Peter also warns that unspiritual people can falsely interpret the word of God. [2 Pet 1.20] Therefore, it is important that the believer, with the aid of the Spirit, examine the basis for various apocalyptic theories and timetables that are popular these days, rightly and diligently dividing scripture [2Tim 2.15]
An appendix (scroll down or use control f) contains interpretations of scriptures that contain the word 'Zion.'
Because many of those who adhere to such theories are known as Christian Zionists, it seems appropriate to examine the concept of Zionism from the point of view of gospel-centered, born-again Christianity, in accord with Christian precepts that anything can be tested against the Bible.
As Paul wrote: 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.' [2 Tim 3.16,17]. However, when the flesh interprets scripture, the result is dead wrong, as we know from Satan's temptation of Jesus. Peter, in his struggle against false prophets, said that 'no prophecy of scripture is a matter of personal opinion,' not being an act of human will but rather of the Holy Spirit motivating the speaker [2 Pet 1.20,21].
EARLY IDEAS OF 'ZION'
The first biblical mention of 'Zion' is Deut. 4.48 and is another name for Mount Hermon in Lebanon. This 'Zion' derives from 'Sirion,' a name given to the mountain by the Sidonians. This Zion is referred to again in Psalm 133.3 when the poet compares brotherly love to 'the dew of Hermon coming down on the mountains of Zion.'
'Zion' is next cited in 2Sam 5.7, where it is reported that 'David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David).' This was a fortified enclave held by the Jebusites on a site later known as Jerusalem. David built his palaces in this fort and laid the groundwork for the first temple, which was built by his son Solomon, on a nearby hill. The term 'Zion' then came to refer to the entire palace and temple compound. It was often used specifically for the temple or the temple and its hill. Scholars think 'zion' was originally a word for 'hill.' 'Zion' was often extended in the Bible to mean the entire city of Jerusalem, where the general populace lived adjacent to the palace-temple compound. In fact, sometimes the Old Testament Bible extends the definition of 'Zion' to include the people of Israel or a remnant of that people.
THE CONCEPT OF TIME
Some Bible commentators seem to unconsciously believe that, when it comes to time, God is not as subtle as he is in other matters. They would have the anticipated fulfillments of prophecies fit nicely onto a 'railroad timetable.'
However, this illusion is refuted directly and indirectly by scripture. Josh 10.13, describing the halting of the sun and moon, may be read literally or figuratively. The author may have meant that the victory was so astonishing that it was tantamount to the sun and moon standing still (and this may have been a jibe against a monarch whose authority supposedly included the sun and the moon).
Or, he may have been recounting that the sun, along with a pale daylight moon, stood still during the battle. If literally interpreted, then we see that God may extend a day's duration at will. If figuratively interpreted, then the author says that God is so powerful he could, if he wished, make the sun stand still, meaning in God's hands time is truly flexible, a point made by the prophet Daniel, who lauded God as one who 'changes times and the seasons' [Dan 2.21].
God's control of time is demonstrated in Is 38.8, when God told Hezekiah that the sun's shadow would go back ten steps on the stairway of Ahaz, which is what then happened. God showed that he erased a period of history that led up to the point in time of Hezekiah's death. He gave Hezekiah a new lease on life by bypassing a sin-laden time in this man's life.
The disciples found that their concepts of space gave way to the power of God when they were with Jesus in a boat in the middle of the Sea of Gallilee and suddenly found themselves at the shore. The time it takes to cross that space was voided. So, we can accept that God can and does compress time. Likewise, he can expand it, as we know from Hezekiah's experience.
Of a prophecy given to Habbakkuk, God said, 'For the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal and will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay'[Hab 2.3]. Note that the appointed time may seem, to human observers, to be close at hand or even overdue. So we can see that if the prophecy isn't fulfilled at an expected time, then it must be fulfilled in an unexpected way. This point is driven home by the chronologically inconsistent narratives found in Genesis and elsewhere. For example, ages of Abraham and his family at key points don't jibe -- if we use modern western definitions. The number for age represented a benchmark, such as '40' representing the period of mature manhood, rather than a specific year.
But even if we 'solve' this difficulty, others remain: for example, when were the people of earth who married into the family of Adam and Eve born?
What happened to the giants (the nephilim or 'fallen') when the flood hit? These demon-people appear again after the flood. Could it be that time is not really representable as a real number line? Should we accept that perhaps the Bible contains serious errors (we certainly know that different versions contain minor errors that Bible scholars are continually attempting to correct), or might we conclude that there is simply much that we don't fully understand?
So then, if the Bible itself demonstrates the impossibility of drawing up a superficially logically consistent timeline of events of old, what makes us think we can use biblical references to map a 'logically consistent' history of the future?
Often in scripture, a time is said to arrive when the measure of something (such as sin or wrath) is full. The Greeks had two words for time: 'kronos' and 'kairos.' Kronos is the time of clocks and astronomical cycles. Kairos implies the propitous time. It is more spiritual in nature. A kairos time may be thought of as a balloon that fills up, perhaps quickly, perhaps slowly, with a gas until the point of bursting. That is when the consummation of the kairos time has arrived. We might consider the second coming as a the consummation of a kairos time.
Even atheists who seek the truth in modern physics have found that time is supple and relative, and not at all like the typical person's view of it. At extremely short intervals, time can be said not to exist. On larger scales, as Einstein proved, time is relative to the observer. Here's an idea of what that means: If you left earth on a starship traveling near the speed of light and traveled deep into space and then back, you would find that your twin brother was substantially older than you upon your return. In fact, you could conceivably return to an earth where centuries had elapsed, though for you only months had elapsed.
When Martha was grieving for Lazarus, dead for four days, she told Jesus she believed Jesus could get any favor from God. Jesus then told her that her brother would rise again. 'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the Last Day,' she answered. 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never perish. Do you believe this?'
You see, Martha had the traditional Jewish understanding of the Old Testament prophecies, but she was hoping Jesus would find a way to revive her brother anyway! Her faith was honored when Jesus said, in effect: Don't stand on tradition! Just BELIEVE! This is GOD talking! [John 11.22-26]
The great and awesome day of the Lord had arrived for Lazarus and was witnessed by Martha. It wasn't the sidereal day that counted, but rather belief when the word came. The awesome day of the Lord is on a spiritual (which does not mean 'unreal') plane: 'SEE IT NOW! ETERNAL LIFE!'
In general, we may say that the launch of Jesus' salvation mission was indeed the dawn of the great day. The malleability of time and the physical world is indicated in the variant accounts of the resurrection. Some skeptics see these seemingly irreconcilable versions as proof of biblical error. And, it is conceivable that God permits minor structural or form errors on the basis that it's the spirit that counts, just as when one hears a spirit-filled person give the word, even though he makes some grammatical or even factual slips. The slips are not important; it's the spirit, the word, that counts.
Even so, there is a serious school of thought among physicists known as the 'many worlds theory' -- reflecting Jesus' word, 'In my father's house are many mansions [possibilities]' [Jn 14.2] -- in which alternate realities can coexist. In some related areas of scientific conjecture, such alternate realities are thought to interact strongly rather than weakly.
Mathematicians are accustomed to dealing with 'projection,' in which a more complex form is projected as a set of simpler forms. For example, if you shine a flashlight above a globe, you will see an elliptical or circular shadow below.
Suppose we think of a unified event occurring in a purely spiritual dimension, such as heaven or hell, as being projected into the earthly dimension where man lives. It is quite reasonable to suppose that its projections, or reflections, will be fragmentary, meaning that, from a human perspective, the one 'higher dimension' event is seen in various ways at different times and places on the earthly plane.
You needn't believe that this idea is correct to see the point that the commonplace idea of linear time may not suffice for prophecy.
Earthbound people can be misled by a spirit of deception that puts falsehoods into the mouths of wicked prophets [1 Kings 22.22] and thus blinded by a 'strong delusion' [2 Thes 2.11]. While it is true that the born-again believer is fit to understand scripture, as illuminated by God's Spirit, it is still possible for the believer to be influenced by the delusive nature of this world.
DEAD LITERALISM
As Christians, we are strongly advised to study scripture [2 Tim 2.15]. We cannot however understand what we read without the help of the Holy Spirit. Though scripture is written in Hebrew and Greek, its origin is divine, and divine language is beyond human ken [Rom 8.26]. Scripture means what God says it means. Who has plumbed the mind of God? Who has exhausted the deep well of the wisdom of God? [Rom 11.33,34]
God's thoughts are far above our thoughts [Is 55.9]. We must beware assuming that we can know the full meaning of a scriptural passage or group of scriptural passages.
Dead literalism is effectively refuted by Jesus in a number of places, such as when he healed on the sabbath day and when he upbraided the scribes and pharisees for focusing on technicalities rather than on the point of God's teachings: love of God and one another.
Jesus, obeying the Spirit, told his hearers that a scripture from Isaiah that he had just read had been 'fulfilled in your hearing.' [Luke 4.21] Jesus halted his reading at 'to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord,' leaving unread the other part of the couplet 'and the day of vengeance of our God.' [Is 61.1-2]
Does this mean the unquoted prophecy is untrue? No, but we can assume that the fulfillment of the entire passage from Isaiah does not necessarily follow a simple human schedule.
After the long-lost Book of the Law was recovered, it was read to the people and interpreted for them by the Levite priests [Neh 8.7]. Language and custom had evolved, so that strict literalism would have left the hearers perplexed. The Bible here shows that, without inspired interpretation, we have the dead letter of the law.
The word of God is 'alive and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart,' says the writer of Hebrews [Heb 4.12], after quoting several Old Testament passages. So if a man is to understand the word, he cannot rely on human wisdom [1 Cor 1-9]. Just as the spirit within a man knows his thoughts, the Spirit of God knows God's thoughts [1 Cor 2.11]. In fact, the Spirit reveals scriptural meaning to believers 'for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.' [1 Cor 2.10]
Or, as Paul wrote elsewhere, the new arrangement for Christians is 'not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.' [2 Cor 3.6]. So the assertion that 'the Bible is literally true' should perhaps be changed to read that 'the Bible contains no error.' Since God 'makes all things work together for the good' for his chosen [Rom 8.28], he is able to make human missteps into truth. We know this from Caiaphas, who, as high priest, spoke a truth, though he had no idea of the divine profoundness of his words [Jn 18.14].
An example of literalness is the Mosaic command for Jews to put symbols of God's word on their foreheads and hands [Deut 6.8]. Some Jews to this day observe this custom. But, isn't it plain that the real point of this thought is that the Jews were to think about God's word and practice it? Why would God want people to honor this custom but not honor God's will in the more important area of behaving on the square with one's neighbors?
People who want to be excessively literal may not be aware that Jewish and Christian editors have over the centuries sifted ancient writings in efforts to obtain God's word at its purest. The fact that the Bible is such an authoritative source of truth and wisdom shows that many of these editors were, like Paul who rightly divided the word of truth [2 Tim 2.15], divinely inspired.
Many modern Bible texts identify words attributed to Jesus with red type or quotation marks. However, the Greek texts have no such graphical devices. This means that there are some passages sometimes attributed directly to Jesus that might actually be divinely inspired editorial comments. Also, there are variant literal versions of some of the words attributed to Jesus, though they are close in substance. With the aid of the Spirit, it is possible for the contemporary mind to understand the meaning of these words.
And the sayings of Jesus clearly were compiled early on and later woven into the synoptic gospel accounts. Does this make the gospel accounts wrong? Only if one insists on literally precise chronological narratives. Otherwise, they are rather like the modern newspaper report that lays out the relevant details in a way that 'tells a story.'
If a newspaper reporter extracts a couple of relevant sentences from some document and includes a one-sentence paraphrase in his story, he could not fairly be accused of improperly quoting the document. We should give Bible writers the same leeway. To wit, Paul, whose eyesight was poor and who probably relied on memory, in several places conflates scriptural passages in order to make a point. For example, Rom 9.33 apparently splices Is 28.16 and Is 8.14. This splice is easily defended as summarizing later prophetic fulfillments. So Paul is not in error, but we would be foolish to be excessively literal: there is no single such passage in the Septuagint (the Greek-language Bible in use at the time).
In Rom 11.26, Paul quotes scripture thus: 'The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.' The quotation is more a paraphrase than an exact quote. In fact, some might argue that the paraphrase misquotes Is 59.20,21 to give it a meaning it does not have. However, the import of the paraphrase is justified elsewhere, such as Psalm 14.7 and Psalm 15.
I sympathize with the apostle. I had in my mind that Jesus had, in assuring believers of his steadfastness, asked rhetorically whether a mother could forsake her child. It turns out that the relevant verse is Is 49.14, where I hear the voice of the Messiah.
Consider Mt. 21.5, which tells of Jesus' triumphal donkey ride into Jerusalem. Two old testament scriptures, Is 62.11 and Zech 9.9, are spliced together here, illustrating that different prophetic utterances can be fulfilled in one action.
Or consider John 12.15 which quotes Zech 9.9 but omits 'shout, O daughter of Jerusalem.' Yet, the omission is inconsequential. The meaning of Zech 9.9 is faithfully preserved. Writers of the period did not follow rules of quotation used today. So we cannot easily ascribe error here.
When we are told that 'the scripture cannot be broken' [Jn 10.35], the Old Testament was meant (specifically, Ps 82.6). So then, what do we make of Jude's citation from the Book of Enoch, which is regarded by Jewish and Christian scholars as largely a group of entertaining tall tales that on the whole lack divine inspiration?
Accepting that the Book of Jude is scripture, then is the scripture broken if Jude cites a non-scriptural source? [Jude 1.9]
Firstly, Jude was using an example from a book familiar to his contemporaries in order to make the moral point: If even Michael, in his dispute with Satan over Moses' body, wouldn't revile the devil himself, who are we to revile anyone at all? Now, regardless of the scriptural accuracy of this story, the moral point is substantiated by the words of Jesus, who occasionally alluded to the Book of Enoch.
And, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Book of Enoch contains fragments of real scripture and that Jude cites such a fragment.
New Testament writers cite numerous passages from the Old Testament in order to make their case about Jesus. However, if one were to apply the railroad timetable technique to the Old Testament writings, one would doubtless be able to argue that the writers were taking scripture out of context in order to justify their pet theories. But, the reality is the reverse: the Spirit illuminated the authors' minds as to how the written word was being fulfilled in their day. But the human wisdom -- railroad timetable analysis -- was to be scorned. As Paul said to the Corinthians, he decided to put Jesus first and then see what the Spirit revealed.
He always respected scripture, but insisted that the Spirit should lead in its interpretation. So it is that sometimes a person apprehends a spiritual reality to such an extent that, for him, prophecy is being fulfilled. One wakes up to a truth, which was there all along, previously unnoticed. It's like suddenly seeing the solution to a math problem. The solution always existed, independently of the observer, but now that solution has become a potent part of the observer's reality.
Paul, when caught up to the third heaven, could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body [2 Cor 12.2-4]. That is, the spirit world was so intense that the material world faded out, a non-issue. In paradise, Paul heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. That is, the language of heaven far exceeds the capacity of the earthly vessels. So we should be careful about trying to interpret spirit reality according to earthly standards.
Now Paul's experience here is echoed elsewhere in scripture: Sky (heaven) and earth had passed away! The sky was torn asunder and rolled up like a scroll! The stars fell from their places and sun and moon became nothing in comparison with God's glory [Is 34.4]! He was in paradise and his world was gone in the blink of an eye! Yet, we can expect that such scriptures will be fulfilled again in other ways.
Consider the believer content in Christ and filled with the Spirit not even noticing supposed bodily hardships. Sky and earth have begun to pass away, as with Stephen during his martyrdom. Or think of Jesus in the desert being comforted by angels following his victory over Satan. That desert was no desert! It was gushing with refreshing streams and blooming with beautiful flowers!
So we can see that fulfillment of scripture is not naively chronological but comes in surprising ways. Often a prophecy had already been in part fulfilled in the shadowy pre-gospel sense but awaited complete fulfillment in Jesus. Also, even when a prophecy is being fulfilled at the dawn of the Christian era, that does not mean there isn't more to come. For example, take Acts 2.17,18 when the spirit-filled Peter quotes Joel's prophecy that in the last days God will pour out his spirit on all flesh (1).
And indeed, since that time that prophecy has been fulfilled by God granting his Spirit to people of every race and background. And its fulfillment is not yet complete.
As Paul said, human wisdom is insufficient for understanding God. So we can appreciate that when God speaks to man through prophetic scripture, he is infusing man's tribal viewpoint and his local legends with the Spirit in order to lift the hearer into an expanded consciousness. He is using man's language and man's way of thinking to reflect God's thoughts.
Because of this, the word of God may seem to some to be ambiguous or inconsistent. Also, linear history seems to matter to modern humans far more than it does to God, who is focused on spiritual growth.
Our ability, even with the Spirit, to comprehend prophecy 'through a glass darkly' [1 Cor 13.12] (as a dim reflection) has a counterpart in modern astronomy. Before powerful telescopes made most of the physical cosmos observable, one could only make educated guesses as to most of what was out there, even though scientists had Einstein's highly accurate general theory of relativity as their 'bible.'
Though the theory's general predictions are repeatedly verified as astronomy progresses, no one in the early years of the 20th century anticipated the fantastic view of the cosmos that eventually unfolded. Previously, scientists had the physical truth, and yet they still perceived the cosmos 'through a glass darkly' before having their consciousness expanded to a much bigger reality (and this reality is nothing in comparison to what God has in store).
The Book of Revelation can be thought of as the Big Picture of spiritual reality. It gives a panoramic sweep that includes events of the past and of the future. We can think of it as a completed picture of a jigsaw puzzle. But, try as we might, our human mental strength does not suffice to perfectly match puzzle pieces found elsewhere in scripture and in contemporary events to that Big Picture.
However, that does not mean we should ignore various 'end times' events unfolding about us. We should indeed use these events to toughen up in our Christian walk. Why are we being so worldly? Can't we see the Bible is right?
THE TRUE ZION
The issue of Judaism's primacy was addressed by Jesus and the apostles with such sayings as 'Salvation comes through the Jews' [Jn 4.22] 'to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile' [Rom 2.9,10], 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first' [Mt 20.16].
The Samaritan woman was puzzled by religious differences. 'Our fathers worshiped in this mountain,' she said, 'and your people say that in Jerusalem [on Mount Zion] is the place where men ought to worship.' Jesus replied, 'Woman, believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.' [John 4.20-23].
In other words, God was creating a new world, or covenant, where the heart of the believer was the issue, as opposed to a particular geographic location. In that same chapter, Jesus -- who was breaking the Middle Eastern taboo of conversing with a woman without her male folk present -- tells her that he would be happy to fill her up with 'living water' from a spring that won't run dry. 'Living water' (what in English is called 'running water') is a poetic description of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was bringing salvation to a hapless, roughly handled Palestinian woman.
The Lord was not terribly interested in geography or property rights [Luke 12.14]. His aim was and is to confer the gift of salvation and eternal life. Recall his assertions that 'the kingdom of heaven is within you' [Luke 17.21] and 'my kingdom is not of this world' [Jn 18.36].
The writer of Hebrews says that Jewish religious customs are a 'copy and a shadow of heavenly things.' [Heb 8.5]. Likewise, Paul wrote that the Jewish law, including the ten commandments, was intended to school the Jews as to the meaning of right and wrong so that they would become aware of how much they needed the unmerited favor of salvation [Gal 3.24].
A new order replaces the old order, as Heb. 8.8-13 says, quoting prophecy [Jer 31.31]:
'"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God. And they shall be my people..." When he said, "a new covenant," he has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.'
And when does the new covenant appear? It is made evident at the Feast of Pentecost, when, as Peter said, quoting from Zechariah, Jerusalem became 'the city of truth.' That passage [Zech 8.2-17] also says that the Lord is 'exceedingly jealous for Zion.' The covenant dawned at Pentecost and is still in process of fulfillment. Or, as Heb 12.22-24 points out, the terrifying experience of Mount Sinai is no more, but rather, 'you have come to Mount Zion and the City of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant...' Plainly, Zion here is a spiritual place, the realm of salvation. The old world of the old covenant will be shaken and only what is unshakable will remain, but 'we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken' [Heb 12.27,28].
Paul says that eventually 'all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob." "This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins" [Rom 11.26,27]. Paul adds, 'From the standpoint of the gospel, they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable' [Rom 11.28,29].
He is explaining that the Jews have been partially hardened in order to permit the 'fulness of the Gentiles to be gathered into the body of Christ' (indicating that many who perished without seeing Jesus must still arise to meet him as their Savior).
A recurrent theme of Paul is the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. In God's eyes, there is no distinction. 'For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks [Gentiles], whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit.' [1 Cor 12.13].
So then the new Zion is filled with the new Israel, the redeemed Jews and Gentiles. Under the new covenant, 'the virgin daughter of Zion' [2 Kings 19.21] has become the bride of Christ [2 Cor 11.2, Rev 21.9,24]. 'For out of Jerusalem will go forth a remnant, and out of Mount Zion, survivors' [2 Kings 19.31]. This prophecy was fulfilled by the fact that the Jewish identity survived Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, but that prophecy is fulfilled in an expanded sense by the fact that born-gain Jewish Christians, the ultimate survivors, fanned out from Jerusalem.
A MAJOR SIGN
Though interpretation of end-times prophecies requires a special gift, there is one prophecy that stands out as a beacon in our time. Luke 21.24 quotes Jesus thus: 'and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.'
After the Romans led the Jews away captive, Jerusalem remained under Gentile domination for nearly 2,000 years. Upon Israel's founding in 1948, Jerusalem became the Jewish state's capital, though this status has long been a diplomatic sore point. After a fight, Jordan occupied east Jerusalem, but then lost that sector during the 1967 war.
So then, it is fair to say that the times of the Gentiles are about over. However, we might also note that Arabs predominate in East Jerusalem, possibly indicating that the Gentile era is not quite over. Certainly, the Israeli government cannot end the Gentile era by trying to complete this prophecy.
For one thing, the Gentile era is the period when the message of salvation is going out to the Gentiles. Once the full complement of Gentiles destined for salvation has been reached, then the Gentile era ends, according to Paul, writing in Romans 11.11-32 -- in particular Rom 11.25. Once this occurs, Paul says, Jews who had been unable to receive the gospel will be saved.
Of course, that implies that a powerful evangelical campaign must come in Israel, accompanied by great pressure to thwart the gospel.
Further light on the Gentile era is shed in the Book of Revelation (Rev 11.2) where John is told not to measure the outer court of the temple, which is given over to the Gentiles, who will tread Jerusalem underfoot for 42 months (three-and-a-half years).
Two witnesses will prophecy for 1,260 days (three-and-half years), clothed in sackcloth. They have tremendous power, and can kill with the fire of their mouths. (Rev 11.3-6)
In Rev 12.14, we are told that the woman flies from the serpent's presence to the wilderness to be nourished for three-and-a-half times.
This echoes Daniel 12.7, where it is prophesied that wonders would cease -- the world would end -- after three-and-a-half times. A general resurrection occurs after the holy ones are overcome, a theme found in Rev 11 and in Jesus' end-times discourse.
In scripture, a 'time' can be taken to be a solar year. And it is interesting that the Roman-Jewish war lasted about three-and-a-half years, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.
However, if we keep in mind the Greek idea of kairos, we might think of 'a time' as meaning a period in which certain trends accumulate until reaching the critical point, which ends that period. So then, we might interpret the three-and-a-half years of Revelation as three-and-a-half kairos times, meaning that the era of the Gentiles ends amidst some other era -- perhaps the age of grace, which must still be extended to the Jews.
Here we have another argument against eschatological timetables, since kairos eras can overlap. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that some accept that Jeremiah's prophecy -- that Jerusalem would be resettled by the Jews after 70 years of desolations by Gentiles -- was fulfilled after about 70 solar years (Jer 25.11,12, Jer 29.10). However, Daniel, in Babylon, seems to have been perplexed that the 70 years was up and the prophecy in need of fulfillment, if solar years were meant. The angel Gabriel responded by giving Daniel a vision of the Messianic era to come, and explained that this era would begin after '70 weeks.' Interpreting a week as seven years, the kronos time of 490 years seems to accord with the Jewish resettlement of Jerusalem in 538 BCE and the ascension of Jesus around 34 CE (about 496 years), though the Messiah was also supposed to be cut off after 62 weeks -- in kronos time, 434 years, which does not jibe.]
Realizing that the Spirit can cause believers to see a scripture or set of scriptures as being fulfilled in many ways, we offer this scenario as a possibility:
In Rev 11.2, the Gentiles are in the outer court of the temple. That is, these are the Gentiles being brought to salvation; meanwhile, the Gentiles are walking all over the holy city. Now, the 'holy city' may signify the kingdom of God -- which they, like the prostitutes, are storming into -- and-or it may signify earthly Jerusalem, which seems likely, since Jesus in Luke 21.24 certainly was talking about earthly Jerusalem. So then, we would assert that once earthly Jerusalem came under Jewish rule, the times of the Gentiles begin drawing to a close. Now which times are meant? One time evidently is the era for the gospel to the Gentiles; another time apparently is the era of Gentile rule over earthly affairs.
Now the two witnesses of Rev 11 may mean the Jewish Christian and the Gentile Christian components of the body of Christ. True Christians have tremendous power, as the gospel accounts and the Acts of the Apostles, show. But they are at their best when they are humble, eschewing earthly wealth. They are 'in sackcloth' during the age of witness, but eventually they will wear divine apparel. However, I am aware that such an interpretation might constitute a partial fulfillment of prophecy, with a complete fulfillment to come.
We are now in a position to suspect that the three-and-a-half times of Daniel may correspond with the three-and-a-half years of Rev 11. Similarly, we can interpret the woman of Rev 12 as the church -- the body of born-again believers -- who, harshly persecuted in Judea, escaped to the 'wilderness' of Gentile lands, where she has been nourished for three-and-a-half times.
However, I am uncertain as to what three eras are meant, though I would guess that the 'half-era' refers to the age of grace.
At various points, the Bible says that the coming of the last days is accompanied by birth pangs. Severe stress presages the birth of a new world era.
I suggest that the closing days of the age of the Gentiles mean great suffering on the part of the Gentiles. The plague of AIDS appears poised to sharply reduce the earth's population, possibly by 2028 (2). Poor nations are ill equipped to combat this disease, which has already devastated sub-Saharan Africa -- leaving 11 million AIDS orphans -- and which is on the verge of bringing about a similar catastophe across Eastern Europe, Russia and Asia. In addition, the rapid increase in global warming is likely to have numerous calamitous effects, including triggering devastating malarial and ebola epidemics.
We also cannot rule out the possibility that weapons of mass destruction may yet be unleashed on a genocidal scale. But, even if such arms are contained, pandemics and related famines are likely to promote civil disorder and war. The developed nations can no more escape the judgment than the Titanic could escape sinking. The great distress will cross borders, despite all efforts, and then spiral out of control in the supposedly safe areas.
We cannot say that the state of Israel will be unaffected. However, a remnant of Jews will remain, perhaps still in control of Jerusalem. Yet, the scepter of world rule will not be passed to earthly Israel. If so, why would the Bible repeatedly point to a Messianic era as the culmination of Jewish aspirations? My guess is that, while the distress of nations is under way, Israel will undergo a harsh internal fight as Christian Jews begin to make headway.
At some point, the Christian Jews will be eradicated. BUT, we cannot assume that this will occur at any particular time.
The scenario I have outlined is plausible, but I do not claim that I am correct in every jot and tittle.
A NOTE ON THE ABRAHAMIC BLESSING
An important topic of end-times discussions is the blessing given to Abraham, which was routed through the Jews.
'And I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you: and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed' [Gen 12.3].
Abraham's real descendents are those who heed God, not merely people with certain DNA characteristics who have been circumsized [Jn 8.39]. Obviously, the blessing points to Jesus, who blesses all the nations of the earth. Those who bless Abraham will be blessed and those who curse him will be cursed. This certainly applies to Abraham's spiritual progeny, the born-again Christian.
But supposing that God's pledge also applies to Abraham's descendents in the flesh, a question must be posed: does the pledge apply to the state of Israel, the Israeli government, Jewish residents of Israel, or Jews in general, wherever they live? I raise that question because some seem to equate any criticism of Israeli government policies as tantamount to invoking a curse against onself. I don't wish to attempt to neutralize the potency of that scripture, but I am concerned that some are deploying it for propaganda purposes.
THOUGHTS ON 'ELOHIM'
A verse in the Song of Moses, Deut. 32:8, reads:
'When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.'
The phrase 'sons of God' was rendered 'sons of Israel' in the traditional Jewish Bible, but a fragment from the Dead Sea scrolls attests to the former.
Who were these sons of God? Were they related to the sons of God who intermarried with earth women and spawned demonic offspring? What is known is that various non-canonical writings, along with some clues in the Bible, indicate that these were the 70 (probably a symbolic number) angels who led the nations surrounding ancient Israel. The highest of these divine beings, who came to be known as Elohim and also YHWH (roughly: 'Yahweh'), chose the nation of Israel for himself.
Scholars have found that, though 'Elohim' is used in the singular in the Hebrew scripture that we have now, the word itself is a plural form of 'El,' which was the name of the Canaanite's chief god. So 'Elohim' simply means 'the gods.'
But the Hebrews were forbidden to worship any God but Elohim -- which evolved into a a generic name for God -- who eventually revealed his special name to them as YHWH, just as he has revealed to Christians his special name of his son Jesus. Elohim brooked no competition from his 'sons.'
So it is apparent that the Hebrews knew of the Canaanite pantheon -- which is similar to other pantheons, in which one god is chief of the others.
However, as Hebrew religion and language evolved, we find that the Canaanite 'sons of El' -- which is equivalent to 'the gods' -- becomes 'sons of Elohim,' which is later rendered as 'angels,' which are directly created divine beings (note that this makes Jesus a hybrid of son of man -- because born of a woman -- and angel, or son of God, because directly created, which is also what born-again believers are). Angels could have god-like power but were not to be worshiped. The theological issue bothered the Pharisees, who took 'son of God' to mean a god who must not be worshiped.
Elsewhere we learn that Michael is Israel's special protecting angel (whose name means 'Who is like God?'). So then he is, possibly, identified as a projection (message) of Elohim. In addition, we learn in Daniel and Revelation (and in extra-biblical texts) that Michael is waging war with the devil and his angels. In particular, we find that the prince of Persia is a demonic angel. So we can guess that the angels that lead the nations are demonic, or at any rate inferior, angels, perhaps those who intermarried with earth girls.
We might think of the pantheon of the gods as a muddled (reprobate) intuition of a situation in which the human soul is a projection of a particular angel. So all those who are a projection of a particular angel are in the 'nation' ruled by this angel. But Jesus taught that those who are not ruled by the Father must be ruled by Satan, implying that the unregenerate are either reflections of fallen angels, or, are tares that have been planted by an enemy.
Be this as it may, clearly some will suspect that the Jewish religion is simply a variant of the older Canaanite religion with which it clearly has similarities. Scholars would add that as Jewish theology evolved, it took on some of the imagery and concepts of Zoroastrianism, a Persian religion of great antiquity. (A number of Zoroastrian concepts make sense in terms of Judaeo-Christian traditions. Take, for example, 'the Lie,' which can be thought of as a place where many are headed. It is also the pull to proceed into such a place. The Lie is the door opening to one of the 'many mansions' in God's universe, as well as the pull toward that door. The Lie is the pull toward Death, death itself being a lie.)
So my thinking is that God was using the imagery with which the Hebrew tribesmen were familiar in order to gradually unveil the higher things of God. Recall Paul on Mars Hill, when he preached to the Athenians on the 'unknown God.' The monument to which he referred was put there in the event that the polite and cosmopolitan Athenians had neglected to honor some visitor's god. Yet Paul used the concept of 'unknown God' as a jumping off point to preach the good news that the way to know God was via Jesus Christ. Similarly, we can see that God could have used old stories, imbuing them with his spirit, in order to reveal some of the depth and magnitude of the true God.
Think of the transfiguration:
Jesus had previously quoted a scripture that said 'you are gods' (or possibly 'you are as gods') and had held that if God IS the God of Abraham and Isaac, then God is the God of the living.
On the mountain, his disciples saw him with Moses and Elijah, all blazing with unearthly light, and then, after closing their eyes in fear, saw only Jesus.
That is, these divine beings were united by a single Spirit.
As Paul says, born-again believers are heirs with Jesus of the kingdom [Eph 3.6], sons of God that is. In fact, they are as gods, indeed they are gods. Nevertheless, they, who are junior partners of Christ, are certainly not to be worshiped.
The promise to the believer is that, as he becomes more Christ-like, he will become one with God -- though he actually is already one with God, just as Jesus is one with the Father. In any event, we can see that the Hebrew word 'Elohim,' though it stemmed from a pagan theory, fits well with God's revelation to the Jews, who he did indeed choose as his special people, though their heory of God is past its prime.
APPENDIX: 'Zion' prophecies interpreted
Following are my interpretations of a number of scriptures concerning Zion:
Ps 9.11
'Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion.'
Under the old covenant, the invisible God dwelt in the ark of the covenant. Within that ark were the stone tablets on which God had personally inscribed the 10 commandments. The two stones can be viewed as a token of God's covenant with the children of Israel. But also we see that the Lord himself was the true covenant -- the word and the guarantor of that word.
Under the new covenant, the invisible God -- the Spirit of God -- dwells in the mind of the believer, making the believer's body, 'the temple of the Holy Spirit' [1 Cor 6.19]. So then, would God go back to the old covenant in order to take up residence in another stone temple?
Ps. 14.7
'O that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion, when the Lord restores his captive people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad.'
Jesus rose to heaven out of Jerusalem, where he could then send the Spirit to the Jews -- and Gentiles -- who were to be set free. 'Whom the son sets free is free in deed'[John 8.36].
Ps. 65.1
'silence before you and praise in Zion'
Or, 'be still and know I AM' [Ps 46.10]. This intimacy with God requires the presence of Jesus in the believer, who then can enjoy God.
Ps. 69.35,36
'For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, that they may dwell there and possess it. The descendants of his servants will inherit it, and those who love his name will dwell in it.'
Zion and the cities of Judah are reserved for the descendants of his servants and those who love God's name. A true descendant of God's servant is also God's servant. Otherwise the devil is his father [Jn 8.44]. So is earthly Jerusalem filled with such people?
The 'cities of Judah' needn't refer to old Middle Eastern towns; instead what is indicated is a land where the redeemed, who love the name Jesus, can enjoy life.
Ps. 78.67,68,70
'He also rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved.'... 'He also chose David his servant and took him from the sheepfolds.'
Though this refers to the preservation of David's tribe, Judah, after the destruction of the other 11 tribes, these words are fulfilled by Jesus, the good shepherd descendant of David, who established spiritual Zion by his conquest of evil at the cross.
Ps. 84.5,7
'How blessed is the man whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways (to Zion)... every one of them appears before God in Zion.'
Those who love God are approaching Zion.
Ps. 87.2
'The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.' English-language translations of the Bible customarily italicize words not found in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures but that seemed necessary. In this case, if we omit 'other,' we can interpret this passage to say that 'Jacob' refers to the unregenerate Jew. He cannot enter Zion until he has been transformed, by the renewing of his mind [Rom 12.2] into 'Israel.' The name 'Israel' means 'wrestler with god' and the name 'Jacob' means 'he who grabs by the heel' or more generally 'trickster.'
Recall the encounter between Jesus and Nathanael, who knew salvation was to proceed from Jerusalem. Nathanael's question 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?' was followed by Jesus' retort: 'Look, a real Israeli, in whom there is no guile.' Or, that is: 'Look, a real contender with God, in whom there is no Jacob.'
Ps. 87.6
'The Lord will count when he registers the peoples, "This one was born there [in Zion]."
As Jesus said, the birth that counts is the spiritual birth. Those written in the Lamb's Book of Life [Rev 20.12] have been born of the Spirit, not of flesh and blood [Jn 3.5,6]. So there is no use having been born in Jerusalem if one hasn't been born again, saved by the intervention of Jesus Christ.
Ps. 97.7
'Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, who boast themselves of idols ... Zion heard this and was glad.'
The real Zionists are glad when God shames the money-worshipers and their type.
Ps. 99.2
'The Lord is great in Zion'
Or, Zion is a place where the Lord's glory shines brightly. And isn't that in the hearts of those who worship God 'in spirit and in truth'?
Ps. 102.21
'that men may tell the name of the Lord in Zion'
Utterance of that name -- as represented in scripture by the Hebrew letters YHWH -- came to be forbidden to Jews of old and such utterance is still considered impious for Jewish residents of modern Jerusalem, assuming anyone could be sure of the pronunciation.
The name of the Lord, under the old covenant, is not, under the new covenant, fully revealed since the name of 'Jesus' suffices as the name of the Lord.
It has become possible to tell the name of the Lord openly, even if with difficulty.
'Jesus' or 'Yah shua' means 'Yaweh saves.' Knowing this name suffices just as seeing Jesus sufficed for seeing the Father [Jn 14.8].
Ps 110.1,2
'The LORD says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. The LORD will stretch forth your strong scepter from Zion...'
Jesus cites this passage [Mt 22.44] to show that David calls his son, the messiah, his lord. So then we can be sure that Jesus is one with YHWH (the name of God using only consonants, as translated from Hebrew) whose great power over heaven and earth extends from the kingdom of God, which is Zion.
The fourth verse of this psalm says that God has determined that this savior is 'a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,' a passage that Heb. 7.21 says refers to Jesus, the consummate priest.
Ps. 129.5
'May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned backward.'
Those who love their sin more than the light remain under judgment and are continually injured by their own wilfulness [Jn 3.18], since they reap what they sow [Gal 6.7].
A specific instance of this scripture being fulfilled occurred when an armed troop came to arrest Jesus. Jesus asked whom they sought. When told, he replied, 'I am he.' On hearing 'I am,' which is a name for God, the men stumbled backward in confusion and were then only able to proceed with God's permission [Jn 18.4-6].
Ps 135.21
'Blessed be the LORD from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem.'
The writer was likely thinking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Yet, when Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the Temple was torn apart, indicating the departure of God's Spirit from the veiled ark of the covenant. Where does the Lord dwell today? Within those who put their trust in Jesus.
Is 1.27
'Zion will be redeemed with justice and her repentant ones with righteousness.'
Justice was served by the sacrifice of Jesus, the son of God, whose crucifixion paid in full the price of all sin. Those who humbly turn to him will be made right with God.
Is 8.18
'Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.'
Heb 2.13 takes this passage to refer to Jesus.
Is 24.23
'The LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem.'
We know that Mount Zion is a spiritual place and the Book of Revelation tells us to expect a new, heavenly Jerusalem [Rev 3.12].
Is 28.16,18
'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed [moved].'
'Your pact with Sheol will not stand.'
Paul in Rom 9.33 and Peter in 1 Pet 2.6 say Is 28.16 refers to Jesus. Now the old, earthly Zion was overthrown by the Romans in 70 A.D. So the new Zion is the kingdom of God that Jesus is yet bringing forth.
Jesus will cancel the sin-sick soul's contract with death.
Is 29.8
'It will be as when a hungry man dreams--and behold, he is eating; but when he awakens, his hunger is not satisfied, or when a thirsty man dreams--and behold, he is drinking, but when he awakens, behold, he is faint and his thirst is not quenched. Thus the multitude of all the nations will be who wage war against Mount Zion.'
Anybody who fights God is deluded. Any 'victory' over the LORD is hollow.
Though this passage specifically refers to Gentiles, certainly it also holds for Jews.
A nearby passage [Is 29.10] says that God 'has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep [or 'strong delusion']' blinding the prophets and the seers. Paul [Rom 11.8] says this scripture applies to the bulk of the Jews, who 'were hardened.'
That is, those who resist God, and his works, are turned away from his kingdom by a strong delusion, reminiscent of the angels guarding the gates of Eden.
Is 30.19-21
'O people in Zion, inhabitant in Jerusalem, you will weep no longer. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you. Although the Lord has given you bread of privation and water of oppression, your Teacher will no longer hide himself, but your eyes will behold your Teacher.
Your ears will hear a word behind you, "This is the way, walk in it," whenever you turn to the right or the left.'
God will comfort his people. Yet, who can see God? Yet his people will see the Teacher, who will guide their minds. Those who walk with Jesus recognize the Teacher's voice [Jn 10.27], which can only be heard via the Holy Spirit. He is the road and he makes sure that every follower will learn more and more about God.
Is 31.4,9
Like a lion with its prey unworried by the shepherds, so will 'the LORD of hosts come down to wage war on Mount Zion and on its hill.'
'whose fire is in Zion and whose furnace is in Jerusalem.'
Have you ever noticed that on occasion titanic contests occur with little recognition of what is going on -- hardly anyone is paying attention?
Jesus was sent by the Father to wage spiritual warfare against the devil and his hordes. A scene in that struggle occurred when he picked up a whip and drove the businessmen from the Temple.
Certainly Jesus could not be deterred from achieving his victory over hell.
That victory was exemplified when, during the feast of Pentecost, tongues of fire descended upon the apostles in Jerusalem to launch the true church.
Is 33.5
'He has filled Zion with justice and righteousness.'
Not much of that in wordly Jerusalem. However, Jesus embodies the phrase 'justice and righteousness.'
Is 33.20
'Look upon Zion... Your eyes shall see Jerusalem ... a tent which will not be folded; its stakes will never be pulled up. No oarboat or warship will pass on its great streams.'
What great streams? These must be streams flowing in the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 3.12, where commerce and war are no more.
Is 35.5,6,10
'Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will shout for joy.'
'And the ransomed of the LORD will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting joy upon their heads.'
When John the Baptist queried Jesus as to whether he was the Messiah, Jesus replied: 'Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the good news preached to them.'
All of Isaiah 35 foretells, in rhapsodic imagery, Zion's wonderful future. From Jesus' response, we can see that he was a sign of the true Zion. And a person who has truly received Jesus as Lord has entered that Zion, the land of eternal bliss, and, despite hardships, will shout for joy at the wonder of this event.
Is 37.32
'For out of Jerusalem will go forth a remnant and out of Mount Zion, survivors.' Those who have been born by the Spirit.
Is 40.9
'Get yourself up on a high mountain, O Zion, bearer of good news ... say to the cities of Judah "Here is your God."'
Jesus was lifted up on Mount Calvary with the inscription: 'King of the Jews.'
Is 49.14
'But Zion said, the LORD has forsaken me...'
Jesus cried out on the cross: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' [Mk 15.34]
Is 51.3
'Indeed, the LORD will comfort Zion...and her wilderness he will make like Eden.'
How sweet it is to follow Jesus.
Is 51.11
'So the ransomed of the LORD will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion.'
How wonderful to have your sins paid for by Jesus.
Is 52.3
Zion 'will be redeemed without money.'
Those destined for eternal life have had their sin paid for by the blood of Jesus.
Is 52.7
'How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, and says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"'
Jesus announced the good news of salvation, and so do his followers.
Is 52.8
'For they will see with their own eyes when the LORD restores Zion.'
Witnesses saw the works of Jesus, including his ascension into heaven. However, many of those suffering spiritual blindness were unable to see that Zion was being restored. Isaiah begins his description of the suffering servant with 'who has believed our report?' [Is 53.1]
Is 61.2,3
'...to comfort all who mourn, to grant all those who mourn in Zion...' Jesus tells us to fear not, to be cheerful, because he has overcome the world [Jn 16.33].
Jesus told his hearers that Is 61.1,2 had been fulfilled in their hearing.
Is 62.1,2
'For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not rest' until the 'nations [Gentiles] will see your righteousness...and you will be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will designate.'
The name of Jesus is lifted up among the Gentiles.
Is 66.8
'Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons.'
The new Zion was brought forth by the sacrifice of Jesus and began in power on the day of the feast of Pentecost, when immediately thousands turned to Jesus for salvation [Acts 2.41].
Jer 3.14
'...return O faithless sons...and I will take you one from a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.'
Many are called, but few are chosen for Christ's kingdom.
Joel 2.32
'And it will come about that whoever calls upon the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape.'
Paul in Rom 10.13 applies this scripture to anyone who calls on Jesus, who will then escape hellfire. Joel 2.28 -- 'I will pour out my spirit on all mankind' -- is cited by Peter during the Pentecost speech.
Had Jesus' warning been remembered [Lk 21.20], those in Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish war would have known it was time to flee when they saw the Temple profaned by Jewish rebels.
In the case of the prophecies of Joel and of Jesus, we can see that they may be specifically fulfilled and yet we cannot rule out their being fulfilled again. However, Paul is less interested in 'future history' than in getting people to see the main point: the salvation provided by Jesus more than fulfills scripture.
Obadiah 17
'...on Mount Zion will be those who escape...'
Those who escape the wrath to come [Mt 3.7] are those who put their trust in Jesus.
Mic 4.2
'Many nations will come and say, Come let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us about his ways and that we may walk in his paths. For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.'
Some may read this passage literally, but I see it as fulfilled by non-Jews who are able to get into the kingdom of God through the mercy of Jesus, who is the word of the LORD personified and who is the fulfillment of the law of the LORD. As Jesus taught at age 12, the House of God is the work of the Lord [Lk 2.49] and for humanity the greatest work is salvation.
Zeph 3.12-15
'But I will leave among you a humble and lowly people, and they will take refuge in the name of the LORD.
The remnant of Israel will do no wrong and tell no lies, nor will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouths; for they will feed and lie down with no one to make them tremble.
'Shout for joy, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O Israel!...The LORD has taken away his judgments against you, he has cleared away your enemies.'
Jesus told us to learn of him, who is humble and lowly [Mt 11.29]. Those who trust in Jesus, who paid for all crimes against God, no longer need fear anything at all, and as they are perfected, they become less and less prone to wrongdoing. And God does not look upon sin because the believer has been pardoned by Jesus. So those put right with God through Jesus have every reason to shout for joy.
Zec 9.9
'Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion...Behold your king is coming to you; he is just and endowed with salvation, humble and mounted on a donkey...'
Fulfilled by Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he was greeted as the son of David -- the Messiah.
Zec 9.10
'I will cut off the [war] chariot from Ephraim and the [war] horse from Jerusalem; and the war bow will be cut off. And he will speak peace to the nations; and his dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.'
Jesus, who has been granted all power in heaven and earth, gives his followers the 'peace of God, that passes understanding'[Phlp 4.7]. Once his kingdom has spread everywhere, warfare will cease.
(1) Colin J. Humphreys, a Cambridge scientist and Bible investigator, has analyzed Peter's interpretation of the prophecy of Joel as related to historical events that can be corroborated. His keen mind is revealed in his book The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus (Cambridge University Press, 2011). He is also the author of The Miracles of Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying the Biblical Miracles (Harper Collins, 2003).
His web site: http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/colin-humphreys/
(2) When that was written, such a global catastrophe seemed plausible. However, education and distribution of anti-AIDS medicines seems to have blunted the threat, though we cannot be sure it won't return.
This article has had minor editing on several occasions between 2005 and Oct. 2013.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Cultural and religious strife sorely trouble today's world. Atheism is becoming ever more fashionable, partly in reaction to the horrors carried out by religious zealots of all stripes. Drone warfare has highlighted the truth of Hannah Arendt's observation of the "banality" of evil, in which ordinary people, perhaps nominally or culturally religious, are able to overcome moral compunctions and carry out heinous acts, having been "authorized" by superiors. (See our previous post on Amnesty International's drone causalty report.)
And so, it seems relevant that the following essay -- which has been offline for a while -- be reprinted.
The knowledge delusion
by Paul Conant
Reflections on The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin 2006) by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
Preliminary remarks:
Our discussion focuses on the first four chapters of Dawkins' book, wherein he makes his case for the remoteness of the probability that a monolithic creator and controller god exists.
Alas, it is already November 2011, some five years after publication of Delusion. Such a lag is typical of me, as I prefer to discuss ideas at my leisure. This lag isn't quite as outrageous as the timing of my paper on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, which I posted about a quarter century after the book first appeared.
I find that I have been quite hard on Dawkins, or, actually, on his reasoning. Even so, I have nothing but high regard for him as a fellow sojourner on spaceship Earth. Doubtless I have been unfair in not highlighting positive passages in Delusion, of which there are some (1). Despite my desire for objectivity, it is clear that much of the disagreement is rooted in my personal beliefs (see the link Zion below).
[Apologies for the helter-skelter end note system. However, there should be little real difficulty.]
Summary:
Dawkins applies probabilistic reasoning to etiological foundations, without defining probability or randomness. He disdains Bayesian subjectivism without realizing that that must be the ground on which he is standing. In fact, nearly everything he writes on probability indicates a severe lack of rigor. This lack of rigor compromises his other points.
Relevant links listed at bottom of page.
By PAUL CONANT
Richard Dawkins argues that he is no proponent of simplistic "scientism" and yet there is no sign in Delusion's first four chapters that in fact he isn't a victim of what might be termed the "scientism delusion." But, as Dawkins does not define scientism, he has plenty of wiggle room.
From what I can gather, those under the spell of "scientism" hold the, often unstated, assumption that the universe and its components can be understood as an engineering problem, or set of engineering problems. Perhaps there is much left to learn, goes the thinking, but it's all a matter of filling in the engineering details. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism).
Though the notion of a Laplacian cosmos that requires no god to, every now and then, act to keep things stable is officially passe, nevertheless many scientists seem to be under the impression that the model basically holds, though needing a bit of tweaking to account for the effects of relativity and of quantum fluctuations.
Doubtless Dawkins is correct in his assertion that many American scientists and professionals are closet atheists, with quite a few espousing the "religion" of Einstein, who appreciated the elegance of the phenomenal universe but had no belief in a personal god(2).
Interestingly, Einstein had a severe difficulty with physical, phenomenal reality, objecting strenuously to the "probabilistic" requirement of quantum physics, famously asserting that "god" (i.e., the cosmos) "does not play dice." He agreed with Erwin Schroedinger that Schroedinger's imagined cat strongly implies the absurdity of "acausal" quantum behavior(3). It turns out that Einstein was wrong, with statistical experiments in the 1980s demonstrating that "acausality" -- within constraints -- is fundamental to quantum actions.
Many physicists have decided to avoid the quantum interpretation minefield, discretion being the better part of valor. Even so, Einstein was correct in his refusal to play down this problem, recognizing that modern science can't easily dispense with classical causality. We speak of energy in terms of vector sums of energy transfers (notice the circularity) but no one has a good handle on what the it is behind that abstraction.
A partly subjective reality at a fundamental level is anethema to someone like Einstein -- so disagreeable, in fact, that one can ponder whether the great scientist deep down suspected that such a possibility threatened his reasoning in denying a need for a personal god. Be that as it may, one can understand that a biologist might not be familiar with how nettlesome the quantum interpretation problem really is, but Dawkins has gone beyond his professional remit and taken on the roles of philosopher and etiologist. True, he rejects the label of philosopher, but his basic argument has been borrowed from the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell.
Dawkins recapitulates Russell thus: "The designer hypothesis immediately raises the question of who designed the designer."
Further: "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because a God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation... God presents an infinite regress from which we cannot escape."
Dawkins' a priori assumption is that "anything of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."
If there is a great designer, "the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in its own universe."
Dawkins has no truck with the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient (and seemingly paradoxical) god might not be explicable in engineering terms. Even if such a being can't be so described, why is he/she needed? Occam's razor and all that.
Dawkins does not bother with the results of Kurt Goedel and its implications for Hilbert's sixth problem: whether the laws of physics can ever be -- from a human standpoint -- both complete and consistent. Dawkins of course is rather typical of those scientists who pay little heed to that result or who have tried to minimize its importance in physics. A striking exception is the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose who saw that Goedel's result was profoundly important (though mathematicians have questioned Penrose's interpretation).
A way to intuitively think of Goedel's conundrum is via the Gestalt effect: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But few of the profound issues of phenomenology make their way into Dawkins' thesis. Had the biologist reflected more on Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics (Oxford 1989), perhaps he would not have plunged in where Penrose so carefully trod.
Penrose has referred to himself, according to a Wikipedia article, as an atheist. In the filmA Brief History of Time, the physicist said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along -- it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."
By contrast, we get no such ambiguity or subtlety from Dawkins. Yet, if one deploys one's prestige as a scientist to discuss the underpinnings of reality, more than superficialities are required. The unstated, a priori assumption is, essentially, a Laplacian billiard ball universe and that's it, Jack.
Dawkins embellishes the Russellian rejoinder with the language of probability: What is the probability of a superbeing, capable of listening to millions of prayers simultaneously, existing? This follows his scorning of Stephen D. Unwin's The Probability of God (Crown Forum 2003), which cites Bayesian methods to obtain a high probability of god's existence.
http://www.stephenunwin.com/
Dawkins is uninterested in Unwin's subjective prior probabilities, all the while being utterly unaware that his own probability assessment is altogether subjective. Heedless of the philosophical underpinnings of probability theory, he doesn't realize that by assigning a probability of "remote" at the extremes of etiology, he is engaging in a subtle form of circular reasoning.
The reader deserves more than an easy putdown of Unwin in any discussion of probabilities. Dawkins doesn't acknowledge that Bayesian statistics is a thriving school of research that seeks to find ways to as much as possible "objectify" the subjective assessments of knowledgeable persons. There has been strong controversy concerning Bayesian versus classical statistics, and there is a reason for that controversy: it gets at foundational matters of etiology. Nothing on this from Dawkins.
Without a Bayesian approach, Dawkins is left with a frequency interpretation of probability (law of large numbers and so forth). But we have very little -- in fact Dawkins would say zero -- information about the existence or non-existence of a sequence of all powerful gods or pre-cosmoses. Hence, there are no frequencies to analyze. Hence, use of a probability argument is in vain.
Dawkins elsewhere says (4) that he has read the great statistician Ronald Fisher, but one wonders whether he appreciates the meaning of statistical analysis. Fisher, who also opposed the use of Bayesian premises, is no solace when it comes to frequency-based probabilities. Take Fisher's combined probability test, a technique for data fusion or "meta-analysis" (analysis of analyses): What are the several different tests of probability that might be combined to assess the probability of god?
Dawkins is quick to brush off William A. Dembski, the intelligent design advocate who uses statistical methods to argue that the probability is cosmically remote that life originated in a random manner. And yet Dawkins himself seems to have little or no grasp of the basis of probabilities.
In fact, Dawkins makes no attempt to define randomness, a definition routinely brushed off in elementary statistics texts but which represents quite a lapse when getting at etiological foundations (5) and using probability as a conceptual, if not mathematical, tool.
But, to reiterate, the issue goes yet deeper. If, at the extremes, causation is not nearly so clear-cut as one might naively imagine, then at those extremes probabilistic estimates may well be inappropriate.
Curiously, Russell discovered Russell's paradox, which was ousted from set theory by fiat (axiom). Then along came Goedel who proved that axiomatic set theory (a successor to the theory of types propounded by Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica) could not be both complete and consistent. That is, Goedel jammed Russell's paradox right down the old master's throat, and it hurt. It hurt because Goedel's result makes a mockery of the fond Russellian illusion of the universe as giant computerized robot. How does a robot plan for and build itself? Algorithmically, it is impossible. Dawkins handles this conundrum, it seems, by confounding the "great explanatory power" of natural selection -- wherein lifeform robots are controlled by robotic DNA (selfish genes) -- with the origin of the cosmos.
But the biologist, so focused on this foundational issue of etiology, manages to avert his eyes from the Goedelian "frame problem." And yet even atheistic physicists sense that the cosmos isn't simplistically causal when they describe the overarching reality as a "spacetime block." In other words, we humans are faced with some higher or other reality -- a transcendent "force" -- in which we operate and which, using standard mathematical logic, is not fully describable. This point is important. Technically, perhaps, we might add an axiom so that we can "describe" this transcendent (topological?) entity, but that just pushes the problem back and we would then need another axiom to get at the next higher entity.
Otherwise, Dawkins' idea that this higher dimensional "force" or entity should be constructed faces the Goedelian problem that such construction would evidently imply a Turing algorithm, which, if we want completeness and consistency, requires an infinite regress of axioms. That is, Dawkins' argument doesn't work because of the limits on knowledge discovered by Goedel and Alan Turing. This entity is perforce beyond human ken.
One may say that it can hardly be expected that a biologist would be familiar with such arcana of logic and philosophy. But then said biologist should beware superficial approaches to foundational matters (6).
At this juncture, you may be thinking: "Well, that's all very well, but that doesn't prove the existence of god." But here is the issue: One may say that this higher reality or "power" or entity is dead something (if it's energy, it's some kind of unknown ultra-energy) or is a superbeing, a god of some sort. Because this transcendent entity is inherently unknowable in rationalistic terms, the best someone in Dawkins' shoes might say is that there is a 50/50 chance that the entity is intelligent. I hasten to add that probabilistic arguments as to the existence of god are not very convincing (7).
Please see Appendix on a priori probability for further discussion of the issue.
A probability estimate's job is to mask out variables on the assumption that with enough trials these unknowns tend to cancel out. Implicitly, then, one is assuming that a god has decided not to influence the outcome (8). At one time, in fact, men drew lots in order to let god decide an outcome. (One of the reasons that some see gambling as sinful is because it dishonors god and enthrones Lady Randomness.)
Curiously, Dawkins pans the "argument from incredulity" proffered by some anti-Darwinians but his clearly-its-absurdly-improbable case against a higher intelligence is in fact an argument from incredulity, being based on his subjective expert estimate.
Dawkins' underlying assumption is that mechanistic hypotheses of causality are valid at the extremes, an assumption common to modern naive rationalism.
Another important oversight concerns the biologist's Dawkins-centrism. "Your reality, if too different from mine, is quite likely to be delusional. My reality is obviously logically correct, as anyone can plainly see." This attitude is quite interesting in that he very effectively gives some important information about how the brain constructs reality and how easily people might suffer from delusions, such as being convinced that they are in regular communication with god.
True, Dawkins jokingly mentions one thinker who posits a Matrix-style virtual reality for humanity and notes that he can see no way to disprove such a scenario. But plainly Dawkins rejects the possibility that his perception and belief system, with its particular limits, might be delusional.
In Dawkins' defense, we must concede that the full ramifications of quantum puzzlements have yet to sink into the scientific establishment, which -- aside from a distaste for learning that, like Wile E. Coyote, they are standing on thin air -- has a legitimate fear of being overrun by New Agers, occultists and flying saucer buffs. Yet, by skirting this matter, Dawkins does not address the greatest etiological conundrum of the 20th century which, one would think, might well have major implications in the existence-of-god controversy.
Dawkins is also rather cavalier about probabilities concerning the origin of life, attacking the late Fred Hoyle's "jumbo jet" analogy without coming to grips with what was bothering Hoyle and without even mentioning that scientists of the caliber of Francis Crick and Joshua Lederberg were troubled by origin-of-life probabilities long before Michael J. Behe and Dembski touted the intelligent design hypothesis.
Astrophysicist Hoyle, whose steady state theory of the universe was eventually trumped by George Gamow's big bang theory, said on several occasions that the probability of life assembling itself from some primordial ooze was equivalent to the probability that a tornado churning through a junkyard would leave a fully functioning Boeing 747 in its wake. Hoyle's atheism was shaken by this and other improbabilities, spurring him toward various panspermia (terrestrial life began elsewhere) conjectures. In the scenarios outlined by Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, microbial life or proto-life wafted down through the atmosphere from outer space, perhaps coming from "organic" interstellar dust or from comets.
One scenario had viruses every now and again floating down from space and, besides setting off the occasional pandemic, enriching the genetic structure of life on earth in such a way as to account for increasing complexity. Hoyle was not specifically arguing against natural selection, but was concerned about what he saw as statistical troubles with the process. (He wasn't the only one worried about that; there is a long tradition of scientists trying to come up with ways to make mutation theory properly synthesize with Darwinism.)
Dawkins laughs off Hoyle's puzzlement about mutational probabilities without any discussion of the reasons for Hoyle's skepticism or the proposed solutions.
There are various ideas about why natural selection is robust enough to, thus far, prevent life from petering out (9). In my essay Do dice play God? (link above), I touch on some of the difficulties and propose a neo-Lamarckian mechanism as part of a possible solution, and at some point I hope to write more about the principles that drive natural selection. At any rate, I realize that Dawkins may have felt that he had dealt with this subject elsewhere, but his four-chapter thesis omits too much. A longer, more thoughtful book -- after the fashion of Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind -- is, I would say, called for when heading into such deep waters.
Hoyle's qualms, of course, were quite unwelcome in some quarters and may have resulted in the Nobel prize committee bypassing him. And yet, though the space virus idea isn't held in much esteem, panspermia is no longer considered a disrespectable notion, especially as more and more extrasolar planets are identified. Hoyle's use of panspermia conjectures was meant to account for the probability issues he saw associated with the origin andcontinuation of life. (Just because life originates does not imply that it is resilient enough not to peter out after X generations.)
Hoyle, in his own way, was deploying panspermia hypotheses in order to deal with a form of the anthropic principle. If life originated as a prebiotic substance found across wide swaths of space, probabilities might become reasonable. It was the Nobelist Joshua Lederberg who made the acute observation that interstellar dust particles were about the size of organic molecules. Though this correlation has not panned out, that doesn't make Hoyle a nitwit for following up.
In fact, Lederberg was converted to the panspermia hypothesis by yet another atheist (and Marxist), J.B.S. Haldane, a statistician who was one of the chief architects of the "modern synthesis" merging Mendelism with Darwinism.
No word on any of this from Dawkins, who dispatches Hoyle with a parting shot that Hoyle (one can hear the implied chortle) believed that archaeopteryx was a forgery, after the manner of Piltdown man. The biologist declines to tell his readers about the background of that controversy and the fact that Hoyle and a group of noted scientists reached this conclusion after careful examination of the fossil evidence. Whether or not Hoyle and his colleagues were correct, the fact remains that he undertook a serious scientific investigation of the matter.(9,0)
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html
Another committed atheist, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the doubly helical structure of DNA, was even wilder than Hoyle in proposing a panspermia idea in order to account for probability issues. He suggested in a 1970s paper and in his book Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (Simon & Schuster 1981) that an alien civilization had sent microbial life via rocketship to Earth in its long-ago past, perhaps as part of a program of seeding the galaxy. Why did the physicist-turned-biologist propose such a scenario? Because the amino acids found in all lifeforms are left-handed; somehow none of the mirror-image right-handed compounds survived, if they were ever incorporated at all. That discovery seemed staggeringly unlikely to Crick (9:1).
I don't bring this up to argue with Crick, but to underscore that Dawkins plays Quick-Draw McGraw with serious people without discussing the context. I.e., his book comes across as propagandistic, rather than fair-minded. It might be contrasted with John Allen Paulos' bookIrreligion (see Do dice play god? above), which tries to play fair and which doesn't make duffer logico-mathematical blunders (10).
Though Crick and Hoyle were outliers in modern panspermia conjecturing, the concept is respectable enough for NASA to take seriously.
The cheap shot method can be seen in how Dawkins deals with Carl Jung's claim of an inner knowledge of god's existence. Jung's assertion is derided with a snappy one-liner that Jung also believed that objects on his bookshelf could explode spontaneously. That takes care of Jung! -- irrespective of the many brilliant insights contained in his writings, however controversial. (Disclaimer: I am neither a Jungian nor a New Ager).
Granted that Jung was talking about what he took to be a paranormal event and granted that Jung is an easy target for statistically minded mechanists and granted that Jung seems to have made his share of missteps, we make three points:
1. There was always the possibility that the exploding object occurred as a result of some anomalous, but natural event.
2. A parade of distinguished British scientists have expressed strong interest in paranormal matters, among them officers of paranormal study societies. The American Brian Josephson, who received a Nobel prize for the quantum physics behind the Josephson junction, speaks up for the reality of mental telepathy (for which he has been ostracized by the "billiard ball" school of scientists).
3. If Dawkins is trying to debunk the supernatural using logical analysis, then it is not legitimate to use belief in the supernatural to discredit a claim favoring the supernatural.
Getting back to Dawkins' use of probabilities, the biologist contends with the origin-of-life issue by invoking the anthropic principle and the principle of mediocrity, along with a verbal variant of Drake's equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The mediocrity principle says that astronomical evidence shows that we live on a random speck of dust on a random dustball blowing around in a (random?) mega dust storm.
The anthropic principle says that, if there is nothing special about Earth, isn't it interesting how Earth travels about the sun in a "Goldilocks zone" ideally suited for carbon based life and how the planetary dynamics, such as tectonic shift, seem to be just what is needed for life to thrive (as discussed in the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee (Springer Verlag 2000))? Even further, isn't it amazing that the seemingly arbitrary constants of nature are so exactly calibrated as to permit life to exist, as a slight difference in the index of those constants known as the fine structure constant would forbid galaxies from ever forming? This all seems outrageously fortuitous.
Let us examine each of Dawkins' arguments.
Suppose, he says, that the probability of life originating on Earth is a billion to one or even a billion billion to one (10^-9 and 10^-18). If there are that many Earth-like planets in the cosmos, the probability is virtually one that life will arise spontaneously. We just happen to be the lucky winner of the cosmic lottery, which is perfectly logical thus far.
Crick, as far as I know, is the only scientist to point out that we can only include the older sectors of the cosmos, in which heavy metals have had time to coalesce from the gases left over from supernovae -- i.e., second generation stars and planets (by the way, Hoyle was the originator of this solution to the heavy metals problem). Yet still, we may concede that there may be enough para-Earths to answer the probabilities posed by Dawkins.
Though careful to say that he is no expert on the origin of life, Dawkins' probabilities, even if given for the sake of argument, are simply Bayesian "expert estimates." But, it is quite conceivable that those probabilities are far too high (though I candidly concede it is very difficult to assign any probability or probability distribution to this matter).
Consider that unicellular life, with the genes on the DNA (or RNA) acting as the "brain," exploits proteins as the cellular workhorses in a great many ways. We know that sometimes several different proteins can fill the same job, but that caveat doesn't much help what could be a mind-boggling probability issue.
Suppose that, in some primordial ooze or on some undersea volcanic slope, a prebiotic form has fallen together chemically and, in order to cross the threshold to lifeform, requires one more protein to activate. A protein is the molecule that takes on a specific shape, carrying specific electrochemical properties, after amino acids fold up. Protein molecules fit into each other and other constituents of life like lock and key (though on occasion more than one key fits the same lock).
The amino acids used by terrestrial life can, it turns out, be shuffled in many different ways to yield many different proteins. How many ways? About 10^60, which exceeds the number of stars in the observable universe by 24 orders of magnitude! And the probability of such a spark-of-life event might be in that ball park. If one considers the predecessor protein link-ups as independent events and multiplies those probabilities, we would come up with numbers even more absurd.
But, Dawkins has a way out, though he loses the thread here. His way out is that a number of physicists have posited, for various reasons, some immense -- even infinite -- number of "parallel" universes, which have no or very weak contact with this one and are hence undetectable. This could handily account for our universe having the Goldilocks fine structure constant and, though he doesn't specify this, might well provide enough suns in those universes that have galaxies to account for even immensely improbable events.
I say Dawkins loses the thread because he scoffs at religious people who see the anthropic probabilities as favoring their position concerning god's existence without, he says, realizing that the anthropic principle is meant to remove god from the picture. What Dawkins himself doesn't realize is that he mixes apples and oranges here. The anthropic issue raises a disturbing question, which some religious people see as in their favor. Some scientists then seize on the possibility of a "multiverse" to cope with that issue.
But now what about Occam's razor? Well, says Dawkins, that principle doesn't quite work here. To paraphrase Einstein, once one removes all reasonable explanations the remaining explanation, no matter how absurd it sounds, must be correct.
And yet what is Dawkins' basis for the proposition that a host of undetectable universes is more probable than some intelligent higher power? There's the rub. He is, no doubt unwittingly, making an a priori assumption that any "natural" explanation is more reasonable than a supernatural "explanation." Probabilities really have nothing to do with his assumption.
But perhaps we have labored in vain over the "multiverse" argument, for at one point we are told that a "God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values" of nature's constants would have to be "at least as improbable" as the finely tuned constants of nature, "and that's very improbable indeed." So at bottom, all we have is a Bayesian expert prior estimate.
Well, say you, perhaps a Wolfram-style algorithmic complexity argument can save the day. Such an argument might be applicable to biological natural selection, granted. But what selected natural selection? A general Turing machine can compute anything computable, including numerous "highly complex" outputs programed by easy-to-write inputs. But what probability does one assign to a general Turing machine spontaneously arising, say, in some electronic computer network? Wolfram found that "interesting" celullar automata were rare. Even rarer would be a complex cellular automaton that accidentally emerged from random inputs.
I don't say that such a scenario is impossible, but rather to assume that it just must be so is little more than hand-waving.
In fact, we must be very cautious about how we use probabilities concerning emergence of high-information systems. Here is why: A sufficiently rich mix of chemical compounds may well form a negative feedback dynamical system. It would then be tempting to apply a normal probability distribution to such a system, and that distribution very well may yield reasonable results for a while. BUT, if the dynamical system is non-linear -- which most are -- the system could reach a threshold, akin to a chaos point, at which it crosses over into a positive feedback system or into a substantially different negative feedback system.
The closer the system draws to that tipping point, the less the normal distribution applies. In the chaos zone, normal probabilities are generally worthless. Hence to say that thus and such an outcome is highly improbable based on the previous state of the system is to misunderstand how non-linearities can work. This point, it should be conceded, might be a bit too abstruse for Dawkins' readers.
Dawkins tackles the problem of the outrageously high information values associated with complex life forms by conceding that a species, disconnected from information about causality, has only a remote probability of occurrence by random chance. But, he counters, there is in fact a non-random process at work: natural selection.
I suppose he would regard it a quibble if one were to mention that mutations occur randomly, and perhaps so it is. However, it is not quibbling to question how the powerful process of natural selection first appeared on the scene. In other words, the information values associated with the simplest known form (least number of genes) of microbial life is many orders of magnitude greater than the information values associated with background chemicals -- which was Hoyle's point in making the jumbo jet analogy.
And then there is the probability of life thriving. Just because it emerges, there is no guarantee that it would be robust enough not to peter out in a few generations (9).Dawkins dispenses with proponents of intelligent design, such as biologist Michael J. Behe, author ofDarwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press 1996), by resort to the conjecture that a system may exist after its "scaffolding" has vanished. This conjecture is fair, but, at this point, the nature of the scaffolding, if any, is unknown. Dawkins can't give a hint of the scaffolding's constituents because, thus far, no widely accepted hypothesis has emerged. Natural selection is a consequence of an acutely complex mechanism. The "scaffolding" is indeed a "black box" (it's there, we are told, but no one can say what's inside).
Though it cannot be said that intelligent design advocate Behe has proved "irreducible complexity," the fact is that the magnitude of organic complexity has even prompted atheist scientists to look far afield for plausible explanations.
Biologists, Dawkins writes, have had their consciousnesses raised by natural selection's "power to tame improbability" and yet that power has very little to do with the issues of the origins of life or of the universe and hence does not bolster his case against god. I suppose that if one waxes mystical about natural selection -- making it a mysterious, ultra-abstract principle, then perhaps Dawkins makes sense. Otherwise, he's amazingly naive.
Note
It must be acknowledged that in microbiological matters, probabilities need not always follow a routine independence multiplication rule. In cases where random matching is important, we have the number 0.63 turning up quite often.
For example, if one has n addressed envelopes and n identically addressed letters are randomly shuffled and then put in the envelopes, what is the probability that at least one letter arrives at the correct destination? The surprising answer is that it is the sum 1 - 1/2! + 1/3! ... up to n. For n greater than 10 the probability converges near 63%.
That is, we don't calculate, say 11^-11 (3.5x10^-15), or some routine binomial combinatorial multiple, but we have that our series approximates very closely 1 - e^-1 = 0.63.
Similarly, suppose one has eight distinct pairs of socks randomly strewn in a drawer and thoughtlessly pulls out six one by one. What is the probability of at least one matching pair?
The first sock has no match. The probability the second will fail to match the first is 14/15. The probability for the third failing to match is 12/14 and so on until the sixth sock. Multiplying all these probabilities to get the probability of no match at all yields 32/143. Hence the probability of at least one match is 1 - 32/143 or about 78%.
These are minor points, perhaps, but they should be acknowledged when considering probabilities in an evolutionary context.
Appendix on a priori probability
Coming soon: Probability and reality: a 'nonlinear' approach. My views on probability in the following appendix should be regarded as provisional.
Let us digress a bit concerning the controversy over Bayesian inference (7a,7b), which is essentially about how one deploys an a priori probability.
If confronted with an urn about which we know only that it contains some black balls and some white ones and, for some reason, we are compelled to wager whether an initial draw yields a black ball, we might agree that our optimal strategy is to assign a probability of success of 1/2. In fact, we might well agree that -- barring resort to intuition or appeal to a higher power -- this is our only strategy. Of course, we might include the cost aspect in our calculation. A classic example is Pascal's wager on the nonexistence of god. Suppose, given a probability of say 1/2, one is wrong?
Now suppose we observe say 30 draws, with replacement, which we break down into three trials of 10 draws each. In each trial, the ratio is about 2/3 blacks to whites. Three trials isn't many, but is perhaps enough to convince us that the population proportion is close to 2 to 3. We have used frequency analysis to estimate that the independent probability of choosing a black ball is close to 2/3. That is, we have used experience to revise our probability estimate, using "frequentist" reasoning. What is the difference between three trials end-to-end and one trial? This question is central to the Bayesian controversy. Is there a difference in three simultaneous trials of 10 draws each and three run consecutively? These are slippery philosophical points that won't detain us here.
But we need be clear on what the goal is. Are we using an a priori initial probability that influences subsequent probabilities? Or, are we trying to detect bias (including neutral bias of 1/2) based on accumulated evidence?
For example, suppose we skip the direct proportions approach just cited and use, for the case of replacement, the Bayesian conditional probability formula, assigning an a priori probability of b to event B of a black ball withdrawal. That is, p(B | B) = p(B & B)/p(B). Or, that is, p(b | b) = p(b | b)p(b)/p(b) = b^2. For five black balls in succession, we get b^5.
Yes, quite true that we have the case in which the Bayesian formula collapses to the simple multiplication rule for independent events. But our point is that if we apply the Bayesian formula differently to essentially the same scenario, we get a different result, as the following example shows.
Suppose the urn has a finite number N of black and white balls in unknown proportion and suppose n black balls are drawn consecutively from the urn. What is the probability the next ball will be black? According to the Bayesian formula -- applied differently than as above -- the probability is (n+1)/(n+2) (8.0).
Let N = the total number of balls drawn and to be drawn and n = those that have been drawn, with replacement. S_n is the run of consecutive draws observed as black. S_N is the total number of black draws possible, those done and those yet to be done. What is the probability that all draws will yield black given a run of S_n black? That is
what is p[S_N = N | S_n = n]?
But this
= p[S_N = N and S_n = n]/p[S_n = n]
or (1/N+1)/(1/n+1) = (n+1)/(N+1). If N = n+1, we obtain (n+1)/(n+2).
C.D. Broad, in his derivation for the finite case, according to S.L. Zabell (8.0), reasoned that all ratios j/n are equally likely and discovered that the result is not dependent on N, the population size, but only on the sample size n. Bayes' formula is applied as a recursive summation of factorials, eventually leading to (n+1)/(n+2).
This result was also derived for the infinite case by Laplace and is known as the rule of succession.
Laplace's formula, as given by Zabell (8.0) , is
[S0,1 p^(r+1)(1-p)^(m-r) dp]/[S0,1 p^r(1-p)^(m-r) dp] = (r+1)/(m+1)
Laplace's rule of succession contrasts with that of Thomas Bayes, as reported by his intellectual executor Richard Price. Bayes had considered the case where nothing is known concerning a potential event prior to any relevant trials. Bayes' idea is that all probabilities would then be equally likely.
Given this assumption and told that a black ball has been pulled from an urn n times in unfailing succession, it can be seen that
P[a < p < b] = (n+1) Sa,b p^n dp = b^(n+1) - a^(n+1)
In Zabell (8.0), this is known as Price's rule of succession. We see that this rule of succession of course might (it's a stretch) be of some value in estimating the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow but is worthless in estimating the probability of god's existence.
To recapitulate: If we know there are N black and white balls within and draw, with replacement, n black balls consecutively, there are N-n possible proportions. So one may say that, absent other information, the probability that any particular ratio is correct is 1/(N-n). That is, the distribution of the potential frequencies is uniform on grounds that each frequency is equiprobable.
So this is like asking what is the probability of the probability, a stylization some dislike. So in the finite and infinite cases, a uniform probability distribution seems to be assumed, an assumption that can be controversial -- though in the case of the urn equiprobability has a justification. I am not quite certain that there necessarily is so little information available that equiprobability is the best strategy, as I touch on in "Caution A" below.
Another point is that, once enough evidence from sampling the urn is at hand, we should decide -- using some Bayesian method perhaps -- to test various probability distributions to see how well each fits the data.
Caution A: Consider four draws in succession, all black. If we assume a probability of 1/2, the result is 0.5^4 = 0.0625, which is above the usual 5% level of significance. So are we correct in conjecturing a bias? For low numbers, the effects of random influences would seem to preclude hazarding a probability of much in excess of 1/2. For 0.5^5 = 0.03152, we might be correct to suspect bias. For the range n=5 to n=19, I suggest that the correct proportion is likely to be found between 1/2 and 3/4 and that we might use the mean of 0.625 [a note on that topic will go online soon, which will include discussion of an estimation for n >.= 20 when we do not accept the notion that all ratios are equiprobable].
Caution B: Another issue is applying the rule of succession to a system in which perhaps too much is unknown. The challenge of Hume as to the probability of the sun rising tomorrow was answered by Laplace with a calculation based on the presumed number of days that the sun had already risen. The calculation generated much derision and did much to damage the Bayesian approach. (However, computer-enhanced Bayesian methods these days enjoy wide acceptance in certain disciplines.)
The issue that arises is the inherent stability of a particular system. An urn has one of a set of ratios of white to black balls. But, a nonlinear dynamic system is problematic for modeling by an urn. Probabilities apply well to uniform, which is to say, for practical purposes, periodic systems. However, quasi-periodic systems may well give a false sense of security, perhaps masking sudden jolts into atypical, possibly chaotic, behavior. Wasn't everyone marrying and giving in marriage and conducting life as usual when in 2004 a tsunami killed 230,000 people in 14 countries bordering the Indian Ocean? (Interestingly, however, Augustus De Morgan proposed a Bayesian-style formula for the probability of the sudden emergence of something utterly unknown, such as a new species (8a)).
That said, one can nevertheless imagine a group of experts, each of whom gives a probability estimate to some event, and taking the average (perhaps weighted via degree of expertise) and arriving at a fairly useful approximate probability. In fact, one can imagine an experiment in which such expert opinion is tested against a frequency model (the event would have to be subject to frequency analysis, of course).
We might go further and say that it is quite plausible that a person well informed about a particular topic might give a viable upper or lower bound probability for a particular set of events, though not knowledgeable about precise frequencies. For example, if I notice that the word "inexorable" has appeared at least once per volume in 16 of the last 20 books I have read, I can reason that, based on previous reading experience, the probability that that particular word would appear in a book is certainly less than 10%. Hence, I can say that the probability of randomness rather than tampering by some capricious entity is, using combinatorial methods, less than one in 5 billion. True, I do not have an exact input value. But my upper bound probability is good enough.
We consider the subjectivist vs. objectivist conceptions of probability as follows:
Probability Type I is about degree of belief or uncertainty.
Two pertinent questions about P1 are:
1. How much belief does a person have that an event will happen within some time interval?
2. How much belief does a person have that an event that has occurred did so under the conditions given?
Degree of belief may be given, for example, as an integer on a scale from 0 to 10, which, as it happens can be pictured as a pie cut into 10 wedges, or percentages given in tenths of 100. When a person is being fully subjective ("guesstimating," to use a convenient barbarism), one tends to focus on easily visualizable pie portions, such as tenths.
The fact that a subjective assessment can be numbered on a scale leads easily to ratios. That is, if one is "seven pie wedges" sure, it is easy enough to take the number 7 and make it a ratio versus the complement of three pie wedges. We then may speak as if there are 3 chances in 7 that our belief is wrong.
Of course, such ratios aren't really any better than choosing a number between 0 and 10 for one's degree of belief. This is one reason why such subjective ratios are often criticized as of no import.
Probability Type II then purports to demonstrate an objective method of assigning numbers to one's degree of belief. The argument is that a thoughtful person will agree that what one doesn't know is often modelable as a mixture which contains an amount q and an amount p of something or other -- that is, the urn model. If one assumes that the mixture stays constant for a specified time, then one is entitled to use statistical methods to arrive at some number close to the true ratio. Such ratios are construed to mirror objective reality and so give a plausible reason for one's degree of belief, which can be acutely quantified, permitting tiny values.
P2 requires a classical, essentially mechanist view of phenomenal reality, an assumption that is open to challenge, though there seems little doubt that stochastic studies are good predictors for everyday affairs (though this assertion also is open to question).
1. We don't claim that none of his criticisms are worth anything. Plenty of religious people, Martin Luther included, would heartily agree with some of his complaints, which, however, are only tangentially relevant to his main argument.Anyone can agree that vast amounts of cruelty have occurred in the name of god. Yet, it doesn't appear that Dawkins has squarely faced the fact of the genocidal rampages committed under the banner of godlessness (Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin).
What drives mass violence is of course an important question. As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins would say that such behavior is a consequence of natural selection, a point underscored by the ingrained propensity of certain simian troops to war on members of the same species. No doubt Dawkins would concede that the bellicosity of those primates had nothing to do with beliefs in some god.
So it seems that Dawkins may be placing too much emphasis on beliefs in god as a source of violent strife, though we should grant that it seems perplexing as to why a god would permit such strife.
Still, it appears that the author of Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton 1996) has confounded correlation with causation.
2. Properly this footnote, like the previous one, does not affect Dawkins' case against god's existence, which is the reason for the placement of these remarks.In a serious lapse, Dawkins has that "there is something to be said" for treating Buddhism and Confucianism not as religions but as ethical systems. In the case of Buddhism, it may be granted that Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying a personal, monolithic god. But, from the perspective of a materialist like Dawkins, Buddhism certainly purveys numerous supernaturalistic ideas, with followers espousing ethical beliefs rooted in a supernatural cosmic order -- which one would think qualifies Buddhism as a religion.
True, Dawkins' chief target is the all-powerful god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Zoroastrianism too), with little focus on pantheism, hentheism or supernatural atheism. Yet a scientist of his standing ought be held to an exacting standard.
3. As well as conclusively proving that quantum effects can be scaled up to the "macro world."4. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (W.W. Norton 1986).
5. The same might be said of Dembski.
6. A fine, but significant, point: Dawkins, along with many others, believes that Zeno's chief paradox has been resolved by the mathematics of bounded infinite series. However, quantum physics requires that potential energy be quantized. So height H above ground is measurable discontinuously in a finite number of lower heights. So a rock dropped from H to ground must first reach H', the next discrete height down. How does the rock in static state A at H reach static state B at H'? That question has no answer, other than to say something like "a quantum jump occurs." So Zeno makes a sly comeback.
This little point is significant because it gets down to the fundamentals of causality, something that Dawkins leaves unexamined.7. After the triumphs of his famous theorems, Goedel stirred up more trouble by a finding a solution to Eistein's general relativity field equations which, in Goedel's estimation, demonstrated that time (and hence naive causality) is an illusion. A rotating universe, he found, could contain closed time loops such that if a rocket traveled far enough into space it would eventually reach its own past, apparently looping through spacetime forever. Einstein dismissed his friend's solution as inconsistent with physical reality.
Before agreeing with Einstein that the solution is preposterous, consider the fact that many physicists believe that there is a huge number of "parallel," though undetectable, universes.
And we can leave the door ajar, ever so slightly, to Dawkins' thought of a higher power fashioning the universe being a result of an evolutionary process. Suppose that far in our future an advanced race builds a spaceship bearing a machine that resets the constants of nature as it travels, thus establishing the conditions for the upcoming big bang in our past such that galaxies, and we, are formed. Of course, we then are faced with the question: where did the information come from?
7a. An excellent discussion of this controversy is found in Interpreting Probability (Cambridge 2002) by David Howie.
7.b An entertaining popular discussion is found in The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy (Yale 2011) bySharon Bertsch McGrayne.
8.0 C.D. Broad and others are cited with respect to this result in Symmetry and Its Discontents (Cambridge 2005) by S.L. Zabell.
7a. An excellent discussion of this controversy is found in Interpreting Probability (Cambridge 2002) by David Howie.
7.b An entertaining popular discussion is found in The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy (Yale 2011) by Sharon Bertsch McGrayne.
8.0 C.D. Broad and others are cited with respect to this result in Symmetry and Its Discontents (Cambridge 2005) by S.L. Zabell.
8.a Zabell offers a proof of De Morgan's formula in Symmetry (above).
8. Unless one assumes another god who is exactly contrary to the first, or perhaps a group of gods whose influences tend to cancel.9. Consider a child born with super-potent intelligence and strength. What are the probabilities that the traits continue?
A. If the child matures and mates successfully, the positive selection pressure from one generation to the next is faced with a countervailing tendency toward dilution. It could take many, many generations before that trait (gene set) becomes dominant, and in the meantime, especially in the earlier generations, extinction of the trait is a distinct possibility.
B. In social animals, very powerful individual advantages come linked to a very powerful disadvantage: the tendency of the group to reject as alien anything too different. Think of the recent tendency of white mobs to lynch physically superior black males. Or of the early 19th century practice of Australian tribesmen to kill mixed race offspring born to their women.
9.0 In another example of Dawkins' dismissive attitude toward fellow scientists, Dawkins writes:
Paul Davies' The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism -- for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize (a very large sum of money given annually by the Templeton Foundation, usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion."
Dawkins goes on to upbraid scientists for taking Templeton money on grounds that they are in danger of introducing bias into their statements.
I have not read The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (Simon & Schuster 1992), so I cannot comment on its content. On the other hand, it would appear that Dawkins has not read Davies' The Fifth Miracle: the search for the origins and meaning of life (Simon & Schuster 1999), or he might have been a bit more prudent.
Fifth Miracle is, as is usual with Davies, a highly informed tour de force. I have read several books by Davies, a physicist, and have never caught him in duffer errors of the type found in Dawkins' books.
By the way, Robert Shapiro (see footnote 9.1 below) didn't find Hoyle's panspermia work to be first rate, but I have the sense that that assessment may have something to do with the strong conservativism of chemists versus the tradition of informed speculation by astrophysicists. Some of Shapiro's complaints could also be lodged against string theorists.
By the way Nobel laureate biologist Lynn Margolis also denounced Hoyle's panspermia speculations, but, again what may have been going on was science culture clash.
Some of the notions of H and his collaborator, N.C. Wickramasinghe,
which seemed so outlandish in the eighties, have gained credibility with new discoveries concerning extremophiles and the potential of space-borne microorganisms.
9.1 This draft corrects a serious misstatement of Crick's point, which occurred because of my faulty memory.
In Origins: a skeptic's guide to the creation of life on earth (Summit/Simon & Schuster 1986), biochemist Robert Shapiro notes that the probability of such a circumstance is in the vicinity of 10^20 to 1.
Shapiro's book gives an excellent survey of origin of life thinking up to the early 1980s.
Shapiro also gives Dawkins a jab over Dawkins' off-the-cuff probability estimate of a billion to one against life emerging.
10. I have also made more than my share of those.
Relevant links:
In search of a blind watchmaker
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/watch.html
Do dice play God?
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/dice.html
Toward a signal model of perception
http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/qball.html
On Hilbert's sixth problem
http://kryptograff.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-hilberts-sixth-problem.html
The world of null-H
http://kryptograff.blogspot.com/2007/06/world-of-null-h.html
The universe cannot be modeled as a Turing machine
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/turing.html
Biological observer-participation and Wheeler's 'law without law'
by Brian D. Josephsonhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4860
The mathematics of changing your mind (on Bayesian methods)
by John Allen Pauloshttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/books/review/the-theory-that-would-not-die-by-sharon-bertsch-mcgrayne-book-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Where is Zion?
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/newzone/zion1.html
Other Conant pages
http://conantcensorshipissue.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-is-paul-conant-paul-conants-erdos.htmlA Dawkins link
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/Draft 08 [Digression on a priori probability added]
Draft 09 [Correction of bad numbers plugged into a probability example in the digression]Draft 10 [Digression amplified]
Draft 11 [Digression revised and again amplified]
Draft 12 [Digression example clarified]
Draft 13 [Correction in digression due to comment by Josh Mitteldorf]
Draft 14 [Digression amplified]
Draft 15 [Digression amplified and made into an appendix]
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment