The Jehovah's Witnesses Ask "Is The Bible Really From God?"

Warning:  This post is a self-indugent trip into one of my special interests.

 

Yesterday I accepted the Jehovah's Witness offer of a publication.  "Awake!"  It asks the question, "Is the Bible Really From God?"

 

If you happen to want to read it you can find it here.  I link to it because otherwise commenting about it as I have below would not be fair.  The magazine contents do not reflect my own opinions.

I believe the article to be almost hilarious in the points it makes.  They are points that really ought not to be made in any serious study of any ancient text, religious or secular.

The article begins by claiming the Bible (which incidentally says the sun was created after life on Earth) is scientifically accurate and therefore should be believed. As if it's meant to be science.  The writer asks the reader to "Consider examples from the fields of meteorology and genetics."  Okay, I'm game.  I'll consider them.  I'm absolutely shattered this afternoon and my head's not up to much more than playing with its continuing obsession with all things God!

Meteorology - Formation of Rain

 

The writer of the article claims that the writer of Job shows a creator who "does understand the rain cycle and saw to it that a human writer would include the facts accurately in the Bible."

 

It makes the claim based on Job 36:27-28.  My English Standard Version renders this as

 

For he draws up the drops of water;

    they distill his mist in rain,

which the skies pour down

     and drop on mankind abundantly.

 

The writer of the publication claims this shows a perfect picture of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation such as we all learn in school.  That could be an impressive thing to find in an ancient text although by the time Job was written, probably in the sixth century BCE, scholars were speculating and often understanding that rain originates from the water below being drawn up.  How could this information be included in the Bible?  It doesn't need to be some kind of prescience of science.  It can just be an idea that the writer had already encountered.

It becomes even less impressive when we realise that the words commonly translated "draws up" don't mean that at all.  Not at all.  They actually mean "draw away".  The picture here probably isn't of a properly understood water cycle at all.  In reality it probably mirrors an idea that the clouds and the rain are drawn away from a great mass of water above.

 

So it's probably not scientifically accurate.  And even if is broadly accurate it could just be reflecting a known idea.

 

It might also be fun to respond to the Witness that the words in the Bible were put into the mouth of Elihu, one of Job's friends.  God's response to his words begins, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"  Or that God's response in chapter 38 mentions "the springs of the sea" - echoing that idea commonly held then and for many centuries afterwards that the water on earth was also replenished by percolation.

And yet it doesn't matter.  The whole conversation is poetry not science.  As poetry it's very beautiful and the imagery is stupendous.  As science it stinks.  It's okay that it stinks.  Poetry books tend to stink as science and science books make for awful poetry.

I'd recommend reading Job.  Considering the story and playing with the concepts.  Delving into the images and ideas and being amazed at this ancient work of literature.  I say that as someone who no longer believes in the personal God the writer inspires us to follow and trust.

Genetics - Development of the Human Embryo

It quotes a verse which my Bible reads as "Your eyes saw my unformed substance," translates it as "embryo" and tries to prove from that single verse that the psalmist was well schooled in genetics! Accurate science.  The article writer admits it's poetic language but then tries to say King David, to whom the psalm is traditionally attributed, was being accurate about the human genetic code.

I think that's crazy but the Jehovah's Witness who talked to me about it yesterday until I had to rush for my bus took it totally seriously.  I used to take similar things just as serious.  When you're stuck in a dogmatic religion and believe it is the only way to truth and salvation then it's almost impossible to see through things like this.  People can gaze on open mouthed and apply reason and you won't be able to see it.  I look back at some things I used to believe and wonder how on earth I - with an IQ above 150 - ever managed to believe such unreasonable things wholeheartedly and call them reasonable.

For some reason the article writer doesn't quote the previous verse: "When I was being ... intricately woven in the depths of the earth."  I'm not sure they could claim that one as being scientifically accurate.  No geneticist says that we humans are woven in the depths of the earth.

 

It's not scientifically accurate.  Of course it isn't.  Again, it doesn't matter.  Not one bit.  Because it's poetry.  And poetry written by someone living thousands of years ago with a very different view of the world and the universe than the one we have now.

 

Part of that poetry was very important to me when I came out as transgender.  It's a part that's been important to many LGBT christians.  Verse 14 is a wonderful thing to hold onto when you've been hurt by churches for being who you are.

 

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works;

      My soul knows it very well.

 

It was very reassuring to me at the time.  I'm transgender.  God made me this way.  And that's just as wonderful as if he/she/they had made me cisgender.   I held that verse close to my heart and mind and wrote about it too.

Less important to me though were later verses in the psalm:

Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!

   O men of blood depart from me!

They speak against you with malicious intent:

   your enemies take your name in vain.

Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?

   And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?

I hate them with complete hatred;

   I count them as my enemies.

Those verses are rarely quoted.  They're not in hymns.  When the psalm was read in my old church (Metropolitan Community Church) we missed those verses out.  They are persona non grata.  We don't follow those ones.  It's just as well we don't or we might set out to be like King David and conquer and kill all the neighbouring nations who don't follow our God.  It was a different time.  If we raised up those verses we'd quickly become a Christian version of ISIS - who raise up such verses from the Qu'ran.

Those hate verses are followed by a final verse.  We read that one.  Everyone does.  It's in hymns and choruses.  We like it.

Search me, O God, and know my heart!

   Try me and know my thoughts!

And see if there be any grievous way in me,

   And lead me in the way everlasting.

 

Nowadays of course we'd say "Yes, there's a grievous way in you David.  You hate people with a different religion to you."  But let's ignore that for today.   Let's also ignore that the Hebrew word and idea could sometimes mean something very different to the word in English translation and usage - and that Jesus didn't really tell us to hate our parents even though our English Bibles tell us he did.

The poetry of the Psalms can be amazing.  With or without faith it's an amazing body of literature.  Yes, it's got those hate verses but every single ancient work has things that we would now refuse to make a part of our life.  Ancient writers, the wisest of their day, say cultural things we would now reject.  That's okay.  They are from another culture and age and there's no need to rip up the books.

The mistake made in this Jehovah's Witness publication - as in many conservative Christian or Bible-based publications - is to attempt to turn an ancient book of faith into something that it was never meant to be:  Science.

In doing so they've turned something that's often stunningly beautiful into something that deserves only to be laughed at, ridiculed and rejected.  Yes, they turn their God into a laughing stock.

I'm going to stop at that point.  I'm not going to examine the article's claim that the Bible accurately predicts the future.  I'm not going to examine the claim that the Bible answers life's big questions.  It does.  That's a given.  The scriptures of all religions answer life's big questions.  They just disagree in places on what the answer is.

I'm also not going to answer the question that's been on your lips for your entire life.  "The Sea Otter's Fur:  Was It Designed?"  The magazine doesn't answer the question either.  Disappointing!

 

You've probably been very bored reading what I've just written.  I had fun with it.  That's the nature of my obsession, my special interest.

My sadness is that some people will encounter the ludicrous scientific claims about meteorology and genetics, be amazed by them, and be one step along the way to becoming a Jehovah's Witness.  A group that wouldn't agree with what I said about LGBT Christians.  Not in the slightest.  A group that is monolithic, dogmatic and exclusivist.  Much as they smile at me in the street as they hold out their publications I would not be safe in their midst.  Not for long.  A 2014 survey showed that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the most homophobic of all major religious groups in the USA.  The best article I've found about it online is this one, simply because it quotes so many primary sources.  They've told me in the street that I'm fine, that I'd be welcome, that God loves me, that I'd be safe there.  It's a lie.  Their own writings demonstrate it to be so.

My gladness is that the Jehovah's Witnesses were not the only people offering something on the street of central Newcastle yesterday.  I took the plunge and joined a group with an offering that condemned nobody, welcomed everyone, and truly spread some love totally free from dogma and judgement.

We offered hugs.  Free hugs.  And for those who didn't want a hug a smile or a kind word.

Someone tried to offer me money.  Because they found it hard to believe people would just stand there offering something and expecting nothing, preaching nothing, embracing everyone.

That's what we did and it was an excellent time.  I say that as someone, autistic, who happens to have problems hugging people.  I'm usually a non-hugger.  But I went out hugging and it brought smiles to people and reassurance to people too the day after another terrorist attack.

I still have hug issues.  But I'd join those people and give out free hugs again in an instant.  It was like a perfect expression of love.  A piece of Biblical excellence because "perfect love casts out all fear."  Others gave a perfect expression later in the day.  I rushed for my bus to get to a community festival.  500 people attended and received something beautiful in the west end of Newcastle.  This time I was on the receiving end.

It was a fabulous day.  I saw lots of saints.  They might have a religious faith.  They might not.  It doesn't matter.  To me they are saints.

Why Counting To An Infinite God Is An Unreasonable Quest

Note: I am amazed. A month after writing it, this post now has more views than any other on my blog. In many ways it's a rant! Why this post? I'd recommend other posts far more than this one. There is a vast amount of positivity in what I've posted this year and my camera skills are improving, even though I'm just using the camera on a reasonably cheap mobile phone. Take a look at those posts instead. Or if you want something with guaranteed smiles in the pictures, try blobthing.blogspot.co.uk for something lighter than me moaning about someone's poor apologetics skills.

It's Pretty. And it's taken from this site.

This afternoon hasn't gone to plan.  I had decided to edit some photos and get ready a couple of blog posts with lots of pictures of some of the places I've been visiting recently thanks to the freedom a bus pass brings.

Instead, I've been looking at a website:  Counting To God.

Okay, so this site is meant to convert atheists by saying the universe and life developed so there must be God - intelligent design and all that jazz because watchmakers can't be blind. It's the teleological argument for the existence of God, an argument that's been stated in different ways since Plato wrote it down 2400 years ago, through Aquinas and others, and down to today.  Others have argued against the argument and even as a strongly conservative Christian I was on the side of those who argued against all the classical arguments for the existence of God.  Because, in my humble opinion, none of them prove anything!  I might have hated writing that essay on David Hume and miracles at college but even I had to admit he said sensible things about the teleological argument.

The site asks us seven science questions.  We are given two options for each.  After working through the questions and finding the right answers we are led to a conclusion:  There must be a creating God behind the universe.  We have been counting our way to God, from one to seven, and now we must believe.  That's the idea.

Why was I looking at the site at all? A fair question that I have been asking myself. No, I don't believe that it's all in the plan of an omnipotent creator who is calling me back to His side through evangelical websites.

A church of which I used to be a member posted a link to an article. Sometimes they post some really interesting things, often about some of the radicals in church history who sought uncompromising ways to develop communities and/or serve and help disadvantaged people and the groups that other churches sometimes don't help.  So I quite often click and look at the things they post.

Even though the article is one from Premier Christianity I read it.  I was sad, but not surprised to see that the current most popular article on the site is this one:  Why your church shouldn't sign Steve Chalke's charter for gay marriage.  Chalke is a strong evangelical Christian who has been moving more and more to the idea of an inclusive church - yes, including gay people.  Married gay people.  Who can get married.  To each other.  Steve Chalke is not alone in this but in evangelical circles in the UK he's a big name so for him to say these things - and organise conferences where people like Ruth Hunt, the head of Stonewall UK, can come and speak and be accepted - is no small matter for churches here.

The article was about a scientist who used science to turn from atheism to Christianity. It's not a unique story, just as stories about Christians who use science to turn to atheism are not unique.  His personal story is interesting and I'm glad he has found extra peace in his faith.  It's not a cause for anyone to convert to Christianity though.  He's written a book about it and the website is about his book.  He's a clever man, that's certain.  And it was the Head of Physics at MIT who encouraged him to write the book.

This is a man who has more science qualifications than I do.  I just about passed my A levels, that's the extent of my scientific academic prowess.  I apologise for errors I make - please feel free to correct me so I can eradicate them from this post.  On the other hand I have more theology qualifications than he does - I have two degrees to his zero and the site is called Counting to God, not Counting to Physics.  I don't think that's crucially relevant though - this post is more about keeping one's brain switched on rather than anything else.

I got as far as question one before beginning to find problems with the questioning. It asks:

According to the Big Bang Theory:

• Our universe was created; all matter/energy that ever has existed and ever will exist was created in a single instant.
• Matter and energy are eternal and have always existed, but life has evolved over time.

Which of two options is correct. Isn't the answer neither?

Look at the second option.  This is the wrong choice.  The quiz says.

Of course matter hasn't always existed according to the theory.  People know that.  The theory doesn't state that elementary particles existed before the big bang - if there was any "before" but that's another question.  If you've read the novel Tau Zero, which is an experience I recommend, you might go along with the ideas there and say that there was a before and subsequent to the end of the 
universe there will be an after.  Spoilers!

Then there is that word "but."  Why?  The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the evolution of life - life could have suddenly appeared with a diversity of species on 100 billion planets and that would not negate a big bang.  I don't believe it did appear that way, but the theory doesn't rule it out.  Evolution of life just isn't relevant to the question.

I wonder about the word "evolved" being in that option too - it places the concept of evolution into the context of an answer that we know to be false.  Thus if we don't think about it, by choosing the other answer as correct - which you have to do to progress through the site as you'll be told why your answer is wrong if you choose incorrectly - we have subconsciously already biased ourselves against believing in evolution.

Yes, option two is wrong.  At least in part.  So let's look at option one.

Our universe was created.  Hmm.  Created.  So if two was wrong and one option is the right one we already have to answer with this word "created" that implies that there is some kind of creator.  No, the big bang theory does not say the universe was created.  But we've said the other option is wrong - and the website has told us about it being wrong if we clicked on it.  So we have to click and say it was created and that the theory believed by most cosmologists says that it was.

All matter/energy that ever has existed and ever will exist was created in a single instant.  Is that right?  No.  It's not.  The theory does not say this.  What is matter?  This article gives the answer in simple terms. Given that an "instant" is zero time, take a look at this timeline of the big bang.  So no, all matter in the universe was not "created" in an instant.  It took time - even if the time period was so short that we cannot imagine it with our minds without the aid of simulations to show us a little of what was probably happening.  Even then we can't really imagine it because the imagining takes trillions times trillions times trillions as long as the actual event.  Just as we may believe there are billions of stars in our galaxy but we can't begin to imagine them all or form a picture of the planets round them in our minds.

That's question one.  Two options.  Both false.  But it has already become a game in which we are forced towards a conclusion that favours strong theism by virtue of the conclusion being right there in the questions.

Head on to question six and scream at the options - and at which one is the 'right' one too. It asks if the Earth is special and whether there might be other planets suitable for humans to live on. The site producer obviously follows the Rare Earth Theory rather than the estimates from the Carnegie Institution of Science or NASA.

I really dislike the question. The options are that our planet is special and maybe unique or that it isn't special. I would argue that there are probably lots of Earth like planets in the galaxy but that doesn't mean our planet isn't special. It is special. Life is special wherever it's found. And we are special, each one of us, every single human being - special even though there are billions like us on this planet.

The Earth is special.  How can anything that contains this kind of thing not be special.  These photos are from a random walk I went on a couple of days ago - they'll appear again with others in a future post if I ever manage to catch up with posting about walks and the pleasing places not too far from our home.

How could we ever think that this world is not special?  And that's just one tiny part of it, a short bus ride away.  In a straight line, that water is less than three miles away from home.

The site gives two options to each of questions. One option is clearly wrong. The other is closer to the current majority scientific view but is phrased in such a way to imply that God must have done it.

As teleological arguments go, this website is very shoddy. When theism is written into the fabric of the premises it's not really an argument at all.  When the correct answers are as much scientific error as the incorrect answers then it is propaganda rather than anything resembling what Jesus would have called "the truth that sets you free."

I don't have nice simple answers to matters of faith.  I am not trying to sell you a spiritual view of the universe.  What I have is good, health, honest doubt.  What I also have is a view that rejects certainty, exclusivity, holding onto faith when its shown to be false, and putting forth the case for ones faith with false arguments.  I believe all of those things I reject are dangerous - and they are all things I used to embrace to some degree.

I used to have the simple answers.  I had a big slice of certainty, a bigger slice of exclusivity and held onto dogmas including those which an unbiased observer would find ridiculous.  Now I find that the bigger spiritual quest is found in the questions rather than in thinking we have answered any of them.

So.  Is there a God such as that posited by theists including orthodox Christians?

Yes.  No.  Maybe.  I'm not going to begin to try answering the question for you.

One thing is perfectly clear to me:  The website Counting to God does not have the answer.

Look for answers elsewhere.  Or better yet, look for questions.  It's a much more exciting path.