The Bibles Authenticity : Beginning with the Hebrew Scriptures

This is a full copy of the article I am placing for your immediate perusal @Vanessa.
I will be removing it in 5 days so as not to have any copyright issues in the future.
I expect you to and ask you to Please examine all the information with the scrutiny you apply to your own belief system, and raise any questions via the comments section.
To begin:

*** gm chap. 4 pp. 37-54 How Believable Is the “Old Testament”? ***
Chapter 4

How Believable Is the “Old Testament”?

In the next few chapters, we will discuss some of the charges leveled against the Bible by modern critics. Some charge that the Bible contradicts itself and is “unscientific,” and these accjavascript:void(0)usations will be taken up later. But first, consider the often-made charge that the Bible is no more than a collection of myths and legends. Do the Bible’s opponents have solid grounds for such a criticism? To begin with, let us look at the Hebrew Scriptures, the so-called Old Testament.
AN ANCIENT city is under siege. Its attackers have swarmed across the Jordan River and are now encamped before the city’s high walls. But what strange battle tactics! Each day for six days, the invading army has marched around the city, silent except for an accompanying group of priests blowing on horns. Now, on the seventh day, the army silently marches around the city seven times. Suddenly, the priests blow their horns with all their might. The army breaks its silence with a mighty battle cry, and the towering city walls collapse in a cloud of dust, leaving the city defenseless.—Joshua 6:1-21.

2 This is how the book of Joshua, the sixth book of the Hebrew Scriptures, describes the fall of Jericho that occurred almost 3,500 years ago. But did it really happen? Many higher critics would confidently answer no. They claim that the book of Joshua, along with the previous five books of the Bible, is made up of legends written up many centuries after the alleged events took place. Many archaeologists would also answer no. According to them, when the Israelites came into the land of Canaan, Jericho may not even have existed.

3 These are serious charges. As you read through the Bible, you will notice that its teachings are solidly linked to history. God deals with real men, women, families, and nations, and his commands are given to a historical people. Modern scholars who cast doubt on the historicity of the Bible cast doubt also on the importance and reliability of its message. If the Bible really is God’s Word, then its history must be trustworthy and not contain mere legends and myths. Do these critics have grounds for challenging its historical truthfulness?

Higher Criticism—How Reliable?

4 Higher criticism of the Bible got started in earnest during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the latter half of the 19th century, the German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen popularized the theory that the first six books of the Bible, including Joshua, were written in the fifth century B.C.E.—about a thousand years after the events described. He did say, though, that they contained material that had been written down earlier.1 This theory was printed in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1911, which explained: “Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint.”

5 Wellhausen and his followers viewed all the history recorded in the earlier part of the Hebrew Scriptures as “not literal history, but popular traditions of the past.”2 The earlier accounts were considered to be merely a reflection of the later history of Israel. For example, it was stated that the enmity between Jacob and Esau did not really happen, but it reflected the enmity between the nations of Israel and Edom in later times.

6 In harmony with this, these critics felt that Moses never received any commandment to make the ark of the covenant and that the tabernacle, center of Israelite worship in the wilderness, never existed. They also believed that the authority of the Aaronic priesthood was fully established only a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, which the critics believed happened at the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E.3

7 What “proof” did they have for these ideas? Higher critics claim to be able to divide the text of the early books of the Bible into a number of different documents. A basic principle they use is to assume that, generally speaking, any Bible verse using the Hebrew word for God (’Elo‧him′) on its own was written by one writer, while any verse referring to God by his name, Jehovah, must have been written by another—as if one writer could not use both terms.4

8 Similarly, anytime an event is recorded more than once in a book, it is taken as proof of more than one writer at work, even though ancient Semitic literature has other similar examples of repetition. Additionally, it is assumed that any change of style means a change of writer. Yet, even modern-language writers often write in different styles at different stages in their careers, or when they are dealing with different subject matter.

9 Is there any real proof for these theories? Not at all. One commentator noted: “Criticism, even at its best, is speculative and tentative, something always liable to be modified or proved wrong and having to be replaced by something else. It is an intellectual exercise, subject to all the doubts and guesses which are inseparable from such exercises.”5 Biblical higher criticism, especially, is “speculative and tentative” in the extreme.

10 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., shows another flaw in the reasoning of higher criticism. The problem, he says, is that “the Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption (which they have hardly bothered to demonstrate) that Israel’s religion was of merely human origin like any other, and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution.”6 In other words, Wellhausen and his followers started with the assumption that the Bible was merely the word of man, and then they reasoned from there.

11 Back in 1909, The Jewish Encyclopedia noted two more weaknesses in the Wellhausian theory: “The arguments by which Wellhausen has almost entirely captured the whole body of contemporary Biblical critics are based on two assumptions: first, that ritual becomes more elaborate in the development of religion; secondly, that older sources necessarily deal with the earlier stages of ritual development. The former assumption is against the evidence of primitive cultures, and the latter finds no support in the evidence of ritual codes like those of India.”

12 Is there any way of testing higher criticism to see whether its theories are correct or not? The Jewish Encyclopedia went on to say: “Wellhausen’s views are based almost exclusively on literal analysis, and will need to be supplemented by an examination from the point of view of institutional archeology.” As the years went by, did archaeology tend to confirm Wellhausen’s theories? The New Encyclopædia Britannica answers: “Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts [the historical records in the earliest books of the Bible] are merely the reflection of a much later period.”

13 In view of its weakness, why is higher criticism so popular among intellectuals today? Because it tells them things that they want to hear. One 19th-century scholar explained: “Personally, I welcomed this book of Wellhausen’s more than almost any other; for the pressing problem of the history of the Old Testament appeared to me to be at last solved in a manner consonant to the principle of human evolution which I am compelled to apply to the history of all religion.”7 Evidently, higher criticism agreed with his prejudices as an evolutionist. And, indeed, the two theories serve a similar end. Just as evolution would remove the need to believe in a Creator, so Wellhausen’s higher criticism would mean that one does not have to believe that the Bible was inspired by God.

14 In this rationalistic 20th century, the assumption that the Bible is not God’s word but man’s looks plausible to intellectuals. It is much easier for them to believe that prophecies were written after their fulfillment than to accept them as genuine. They prefer to explain away the Bible accounts of miracles as myths, legends, or folk tales, rather than consider the possibility that they really happened. But such a viewpoint is prejudiced and gives no solid reason to reject the Bible as true. Higher criticism is seriously flawed, and its assault on the Bible has failed to demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God.

Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

15 Archaeology is a much more solidly based field of study than higher criticism. Archaeologists, by digging among the remains of past civilizations, have in many ways increased our understanding of the way things were in ancient times. Hence, it is not surprising that the archaeological record repeatedly harmonizes with what we read in the Bible. Sometimes, archaeology has even vindicated the Bible against its critics.

16 For example, according to the book of Daniel, the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since there appeared to be no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. But during the 19th century, several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. They were found to include a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The name of this son? Belshazzar.

17 So there was a Belshazzar! Was he a king, though, when Babylon fell? Most documents subsequently found referred to him as the son of the king, the crown prince. But a cuneiform document described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” shed more light on Belshazzar’s true position. It reported: “He [Nabonidus] entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him.”8 So Belshazzar was entrusted with the kingship. Surely, to all intents and purposes that made him a king! This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon.

Other Supporting Evidence

18 Indeed, many archaeological discoveries have demonstrated the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, the Bible reports that after King Solomon had taken over the kingship from his father, David, Israel enjoyed great prosperity. We read: “Judah and Israel were many, like the grains of sand that are by the sea for multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing.” (1 Kings 4:20) In support of this statement, we read: “Archaeological evidence reveals that there was a population explosion in Judah during and after the tenth century B.C. when the peace and prosperity David brought made it possible to build many new towns.”10
19 Later on, Israel and Judah became two nations, and Israel conquered the neighboring land of Moab. At one time Moab, under King Mesha, revolted, and Israel formed an alliance with Judah and the neighboring kingdom of Edom to war against Moab. (2 Kings 3:4-27) Remarkably, in 1868 in Jordan, a stela (a carved stone slab) was discovered that was inscribed in the Moabite language with Mesha’s own account of this conflict.

20 Then, in the year 740 B.C.E., God allowed the rebellious northern kingdom of Israel to be destroyed by the Assyrians. (2 Kings 17:6-18) Speaking of the Bible account of this event, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon comments: “One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole.” But is it? She adds: “The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record. . . . The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the [Bible] writer was not exaggerating.”11

21 Later still, the Bible tells us that Jerusalem under King Jehoiachin was besieged by the Babylonians and was defeated. This event is recorded on the Babylonian Chronicle, a cuneiform tablet discovered by archaeologists. On this, we read: “The king of Akkad [Babylon] . . . laid siege to the city of Judah (iahudu) and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru.”12 Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon and imprisoned. But later, according to the Bible, he was released from prison and given an allowance of food. (2 Kings 24:8-15; 25:27-30) This is supported by administrative documents found in Babylon, which list the rations given to “Yaukîn, king of Judah.”13

22 Regarding the relationship between archaeology and the Bible’s historical accounts, Professor David Noel Freedman commented: “In general, however, archaeology has tended to support the historical validity of the biblical narrative. The broad chronological outline from the patriarchs to N[ew] T[estament] times correlates with archaeological data. . . . Future discoveries are likely to sustain the present moderate position that the biblical tradition is historically rooted, and faithfully transmitted, though it is not history in the critical or scientific sense.”
23 Then, regarding the efforts of higher critics to discredit the Bible, he says: “Attempted reconstructions of biblical history by modern scholars—e.g., Wellhausen’s view that the patriarchal age was a reflex of the divided monarchy; or the rejection of the historicity of Moses and the exodus and consequent restructuring of Israelite history by Noth and his followers—have not survived the archaeological data as well as the biblical narrative.”14

The Fall of Jericho

24 Does this mean that archaeology agrees with the Bible in every case? No, there are a number of disagreements. One is the dramatic conquest of Jericho described in the beginning of this chapter. According to the Bible, Jericho was the first city conquered by Joshua as he led the Israelites into the land of Canaan. Bible chronology indicates that the city fell in the first half of the 15th century B.C.E. After the conquest, Jericho was completely burned with fire and was then left uninhabited for hundreds of years.—Joshua 6:1-26; 1 Kings 16:34.

25 Before the second world war, the site believed to be Jericho was excavated by Professor John Garstang. He discovered that the city was very ancient and had been destroyed and rebuilt many times. Garstang found that during one of these destructions, the walls fell as if by earthquake, and the city was completely burned with fire. Garstang believed that this took place in about 1400 B.C.E., not too distant from the Biblically indicated date for the destruction of Jericho by Joshua.15

26 After the war, another archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, did further excavations at Jericho. She came to the conclusion that the collapsed walls Garstang had identified dated from hundreds of years earlier than he thought. She did identify a major destruction of Jericho in the 16th century B.C.E. but said that there was no city on the site of Jericho during the 15th century—when the Bible says Joshua was invading the land. She goes on to report possible indications of another destruction that might have taken place on the site in 1325 B.C.E. and suggests: “If the destruction of Jericho is to be associated with an invasion under Joshua, this [latter] is the date that archaeology suggests.”16

27 Does this mean that the Bible is wrong? Not at all. We have to remember that while archaeology gives us a window to the past, it is not always a clear window. Sometimes it is decidedly murky. As one commentator noted: “Archaeological evidence is, unfortunately, fragmentary, and therefore limited.”17 Especially is this true of the earlier periods of Israelite history, when archaeological evidence is not clear. Indeed, the evidence is even less clear at Jericho, since the site has been badly eroded.

The Limitations of Archaeology

28 Archaeologists themselves admit the limitations of their science. Yohanan Aharoni, for example, explains: “When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture.”18 Regarding the dates assigned to various discoveries, he adds: “We must always remember, therefore, that not all dates are absolute and are in varying degrees suspect,” although he feels that today’s archaeologists can be more confident of their dating than was the case in the past.19

29 The World of the Old Testament asks the question: “How objective or truly scientific is the archaeological method?” It answers: “Archaeologists are more objective when unearthing the facts than when interpreting them. But their human preoccupations will affect the methods they use in making the ‘dig,’ too. They cannot help destroying their evidence as they dig down through the layers of earth, so they can never test their ‘experiment’ by repeating it. This makes archaeology unique among the sciences. Moreover, it makes archaeological reporting a most demanding and pitfall-ridden task.”20

30 So archaeology can be very helpful, but like any human endeavor, it is fallible. While we consider archaeological theories with interest, we should never view them as incontrovertible truth. If archaeologists interpret their findings in a way that contradicts the Bible, it should not automatically be assumed that the Bible is wrong and the archaeologists are right. Their interpretations have been known to change.

31 It is interesting to note that in 1981 Professor John J. Bimson looked again at the destruction of Jericho. He studied closely the fiery destruction of Jericho that took place—according to Kathleen Kenyon—in the middle of the 16th century B.C.E. According to him, not only did that destruction fit the Bible’s account of Joshua’s destruction of the city but the archaeological picture of Canaan as a whole fit perfectly with the Bible’s description of Canaan when the Israelites invaded. Hence, he suggests that the archaeological dating is wrong and proposes that this destruction really took place in the middle of the 15th century B.C.E., during Joshua’s lifetime.21

The Bible Is Genuine History

32 This illustrates the fact that archaeologists often differ among themselves. It is not, then, surprising that some disagree with the Bible while others agree with it. Nevertheless, some scholars are coming to respect the historicity of the Bible in general, if not in every detail. William Foxwell Albright represented one school of thought when he wrote: “There has been a general return to appreciation of the accuracy, both in general sweep and in factual detail, of the religious history of Israel. . . . To sum up, we can now again treat the Bible from beginning to end as an authentic document of religious history.”22

33 In fact, the Bible in itself bears the stamp of accurate history. Events are linked to specific times and dates, unlike those of most ancient myths and legends. Many events recorded in the Bible are supported by inscriptions dating from those times. Where there is a difference between the Bible and some ancient inscription, the discrepancy can often be attributed to the ancient rulers’ distaste for recording their own defeats and their desire to magnify their successes.

34 Indeed, many of those ancient inscriptions are not history as much as they are official propaganda. In contrast, the Bible writers display a rare frankness. Major ancestral figures such as Moses and Aaron are revealed with all their weaknesses and strengths. Even the failings of the great king David are honestly revealed. The shortcomings of the nation as a whole are repeatedly exposed. This candor recommends the Hebrew Scriptures as truthful and reliable and lends weight to the words of Jesus, who, when praying to God, said: “Your word is truth.”—John 17:17.

35 Albright went on to say: “In any case the Bible towers in content above all earlier religious literature; and it towers just as impressively over all subsequent literature in the direct simplicity of its message and the catholicity [comprehensive range] of its appeal to men of all lands and times.”23 It is this ‘towering message,’ rather than the testimony of scholars, that proves the inspiration of the Bible, as we will see in later chapters. But let us note here that modern rationalistic thinkers have failed to prove that the Hebrew Scriptures are not true history, while these writings themselves give every evidence of being accurate. Can the same be said for the Christian Greek Scriptures, the “New Testament”? We will consider this in the next chapter.

[Footnotes]
“Higher criticism” (or “the historical-critical method”) is a term used to describe the study of the Bible with a view to finding out details such as the authorship, source material, and time of composition of each book.
For example, the English poet John Milton wrote his lofty epic poem “Paradise Lost” in quite a different style from his poem “L’Allegro.” And his political tracts were written in still another style.

Most intellectuals today tend to be rationalistic. According to the dictionary, rationalism means “reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth.” Rationalists try to explain everything in human terms rather than take into account the possibility of divine action.

Interestingly, a statue of an ancient ruler found in northern Syria in the 1970’s showed that it was not unknown for a ruler to be called king when, strictly speaking, he had a lesser title. The statue was of a ruler of Gozan and was inscribed in Assyrian and Aramaic. The Assyrian inscription called the man governor of Gozan, but the parallel Aramaic inscription called him king.9 So it would not be unprecedented for Belshazzar to be called crown prince in the official Babylonian inscriptions while in the Aramaic writing of Daniel he is called king.

[Box on page 44]
The Value of Archaeology

“Archaeology provides a sampling of ancient tools and vessels, walls and buildings, weapons and adornments. Most of these can be chronologically arranged and securely identified with appropriate terms and contexts contained in the Bible. In this sense the Bible accurately preserves in written form its ancient cultural milieu. The details of biblical stories are not the fanciful products of an author’s imagination but rather are authentic reflections of the world in which the recorded events, from the mundane to the miraculous, took place.”—The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land.

[Box on page 50]
What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do

“Archaeology neither proves nor disproves the Bible in conclusive terms, but it has other functions, of considerable importance. It recovers in some degree the material world presupposed by the Bible. To know, say, the material of which a house was built, or what a ‘high place’ looked like, much enhances our understanding of the text. Secondly, it fills out the historical record. The Moabite Stone, for example, gives the other side of the story treated in 2 Kings 3:4ff. . . . Thirdly, it reveals the life and thought of the neighbours of ancient Israel—which is of interest in itself, and which illuminates the world of ideas within which the thought of ancient Israel developed.”—Ebla—A Revelation in Archaeology.

[Picture on page 41]
Milton wrote in different styles, not just one. Do higher critics believe his work to be the product of a number of different writers?

[Picture on page 45]
The “Verse Account of Nabonidus” reports that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to his firstborn

[Picture on page 46]
The Moabite Stone gives King Mesha’s version of the conflict between Moab and Israel

[Picture on page 47]
Official Babylonian records support the Bible account of the fall of Jerusalem

The Benefits of Making Peace

*** w05 3/1 pp. 4-7 The Benefits of Making Peace ***

ED WAS dying, and Bill hated him. Two decades earlier, Ed had made a decision that cost Bill his job, and that tore these once close friends apart. Now Ed tried to apologize so that he could die in peace. Bill, however, refused to hear him out.
Almost 30 years later as Bill approached death, he explained why he did not extend forgiveness. “Ed didn’t have to do what he did to his best friend. I just didn’t want to make up after twenty years. . . . I may have been wrong, but that’s the way I felt.”

Personal differences do not usually have such a tragic outcome, but they frequently leave people feeling hurt or bitter. Consider someone who feels as Ed did. Realizing that his decision caused damage, such an individual might live with a guilty conscience and an overwhelming sense of loss. Yet, he feels hurt when he thinks of how his offended comrade discarded their friendship like so much trash.

Someone who shares Bill’s view, however, sees himself as an unsuspecting victim and might be deeply bitter and resentful. To him, his erstwhile friend knew better and might have caused harm on purpose. Often, when there is a difference between two people, each one is convinced that he is in the right and that the other bears all the blame. Hence, two former friends find themselves at war, as it were.

They carry on a fight with silent weapons—one turns away when the other walks by, and they ignore each other when they meet in a group. From a distance, they watch each other with furtive glances or lock their eyes in cold, hateful stares. When they do speak, they clip their words or offer insults that cut like knives.

Yet, while they seem completely opposed to each other, they likely agree on some matters. They may acknowledge that they have serious problems and that breaking with a close friend is sad. Each one likely feels the pain of the festering wound, and both know that something should be done to heal it. But who will take the first step to fix the damaged relationship and make peace? Neither is willing.

Two thousand years ago, the apostles of Jesus Christ sometimes got into angry arguments. (Mark 10:35-41; Luke 9:46; 22:24) After one of their altercations, Jesus asked: “What were you arguing over on the road?” Silenced by shame, not one of them replied. (Mark 9:33, 34) Jesus’ teachings helped them to get back on good terms. His counsel, and that of some of his disciples, continues to help people solve conflicts and repair broken friendships. Let us see how.

Strive to Make Peace

“I do not want to talk to that person. If I ever see her again, it will be too soon.” If you have spoken such words about someone, you need to take action, as the following Bible passages show.

Jesus taught: “If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar and you there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar, and go away; first make your peace with your brother.” (Matthew 5:23, 24) He also said: “If your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone.” (Matthew 18:15) Whether you have offended someone or someone has offended you, Jesus’ words emphasize the need for you to talk the matter out promptly with the other person. You should do this “in a spirit of mildness.” (Galatians 6:1) The goal of that conversation is, not to preserve your image by making excuses or to pummel your adversary into apologizing, but to make peace. Does this Bible counsel work?

Ernest is a supervisor in a large office. For many years, his work has required him to handle sensitive matters with all kinds of people and to maintain good working relationships with them. He has seen how easily personal conflicts can develop. He says: “I have had differences with others at times. But when this happens, I sit down with the person and discuss the problem. Go to them directly. Face them, with the goal of making peace. It never fails to work.”

Alicia has friends from many different cultures, and she says this: “Sometimes I say something, and then I sense that I may have offended someone. I go and apologize to that person. It may be that I apologize more often than I have to because even if the other person was not offended, I feel better for it. Then I know that there is no misunderstanding.”

Overcoming Obstacles

The way to peace in personal disputes, however, is often blocked by obstacles. Have you ever said: “Why must I be the first one to make peace? He caused the problem.” Or have you ever gone to someone to clear up a problem only to hear that person say: “I have nothing to say to you”? Some people respond in those ways because of the emotional hurt they have suffered. Proverbs 18:19 says: “A brother who is transgressed against is more than a strong town; and there are contentions that are like the bar of a dwelling tower.” So take the other person’s feelings into account. If he rebuffs you, wait a short time and try again. Then the “strong town” may be open and the “bar” may be removed from the door to reconciliation.

Another obstacle to peace may involve a person’s self-respect. To some people, apologizing or even speaking to an adversary is a humiliation. Concern for self-respect is proper, but does refusing to make peace enhance a person’s self-respect or diminish it? Could this concern for self-respect cover up pride?

The Bible writer James shows that there is a connection between a contentious spirit and pride. After exposing the “wars” and “fights” that some Christians wage among themselves, he goes on to say: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.” (James 4:1-3, 6) How does haughtiness, or pride, hinder peacemaking?

Pride deludes people, making them believe they are better than others. Haughty ones feel that they have the authority to judge the moral value of their fellowman. In what way? When disagreements arise, they often view their antagonists as lost causes, beyond hope of improvement. Pride moves some people to judge those who differ with them as undeserving of attention, let alone a sincere apology. Hence, those driven by personal pride often allow conflicts to continue rather than resolve them properly.

Like a barricade that halts traffic on a highway, pride often halts the steps leading to peace. So if you find yourself resisting efforts to make peace with someone, you may be struggling with pride. How can you overcome pride? By developing its opposite—humility.

Do Just the Opposite

The Bible highly recommends humility. “The result of humility and the fear of Jehovah is riches and glory and life.” (Proverbs 22:4) At Psalm 138:6, we read God’s view of humble individuals and of proud ones: “Jehovah is high, and yet the humble one he sees; but the lofty one he knows only from a distance.”

Many people equate humility with humiliation. World rulers seem to feel this way. Although entire nations submit to their will, political leaders shrink from the challenge of humbly admitting their errors. Hearing a ruler say, “I am sorry” is newsworthy. When a former government official recently apologized for his failure in a fatal disaster, his words made headlines.

Note how one dictionary defines humility: “The quality of being humble or having a lowly opinion of oneself . . . the opposite of pride or haughtiness.” So humility describes the view that a person has of himself, not the opinion that others have of him. Humbly admitting his mistakes and sincerely asking for forgiveness does not humiliate a man; rather, it enhances his reputation. The Bible states: “Before a crash the heart of a man is lofty, and before glory there is humility.”—Proverbs 18:12.

Regarding politicians who do not apologize for their errors, one observer said: “Unfortunately they seem to think that such an admission is a sign of weakness. Weak and insecure people hardly ever say, ‘Sorry.’ It is large-hearted and courageous people who are not diminished by saying, ‘I made a mistake.’” The same is true for those without political power. If you put forth the effort to replace pride with humility, your prospects for peace in a personal dispute are greatly improved. Note how one family discovered this truth.

A misunderstanding caused tensions between Julie and her brother William. William became so angry with Julie and her husband, Joseph, that he broke off all contact with them. He even returned all the gifts that Julie and Joseph had given him over the years. As the months went by, bitterness replaced the closeness that this brother and sister once enjoyed.

Joseph, however, decided to apply Matthew 5:23, 24. He tried approaching his brother-in-law in a spirit of mildness and sent him personal letters in which he apologized for offending him. Joseph encouraged his wife to forgive her brother. In time, William saw that Julie and Joseph sincerely wished to make peace, and his attitude softened. William and his wife met with Julie and Joseph; they all apologized, embraced, and restored their friendship.

If you long to resolve a personal conflict with someone, patiently apply Bible teachings and strive to make peace with that person. Jehovah will help you. What God said to ancient Israel will prove true in your case: “O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river.”—Isaiah 48:18.

Alternative Life-Styles—Does God Approve?

*** g03 10/8 pp. 13-15 Alternative Life-Styles—Does God Approve? ***
The Bible’s Viewpoint


“WHEN will I know my sexual preference?” So wrote a 13-year-old girl to a teenage advice column. Her question echoes the attitude of many who feel that people are free to pursue any sexual life-style they choose.

Some people may genuinely struggle with confusion regarding their sexual feelings. Others openly embrace alternative life-styles such as homosexuality. Still others boldly act and dress as one of the opposite sex. Some undergo sex-change operations. There are even individuals who argue that adults should be allowed to have carnal relations with children.

Are sexual practices and gender really a matter of personal choice? What does God’s Word have to say on these issues?

“Male and Female He Created Them”

According to the Bible book of Genesis, God himself created the differences between males and females. The record states: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . Male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it.’—Genesis 1:27, 28.

God created humans with free will and provided opportunities for them to enjoy their freedom. (Psalm 115:16) Entrusted with the responsibility of caring for all other living things on earth, man was even allowed to choose appropriate names for them. (Genesis 2:19) However, when it came to issues of sexuality, God gave specific guidelines.—Genesis 2:24.

Because of Adam’s disobedience, we have all inherited imperfection. We must therefore battle fleshly weaknesses and strong desires that are out of harmony with God’s original purpose. Thus, in the laws given through Moses, God specified sexual practices that were abhorrent to him—namely, adultery, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. (Leviticus 18:6-23) God also specifically forbade portraying oneself as a member of the opposite sex for immoral purposes. (Deuteronomy 22:5) The Bible consistently teaches that the only sexual relations approved by God are with a member of the opposite sex within the marriage arrangement. (Genesis 20:1-5, 14; 39:7-9; Proverbs 5:15-19; Hebrews 13:4) Are such standards reasonable?

Who Chooses?

The Bible likens man’s position before his Creator to clay in the hands of a potter. It says: “O man, who, then, really are you to be answering back to God? Shall the thing molded say to him that molded it, ‘Why did you make me this way?’” (Romans 9:20) It is obvious from the way God made men and women that it is natural for them to be sexually attracted to one another. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex, to an animal, or to a child is therefore unnatural.—Romans 1:26, 27, 32.
For this reason, people who pursue such unnatural sexual inclinations find themselves contending with God. The Bible contains this warning: “Woe to the one that has contended with his Former, as an earthenware fragment with the other earthenware fragments of the ground! Should the clay say to its former: ‘What do you make?’” (Isaiah 45:9) Surely it is reasonable for the Maker of humans to give direction on sexual matters. Is it not also reasonable that humans should follow such direction?

Getting Possession of One’s Own Vessel

The Bible writer Paul used a similar illustration when giving guidance to Christians on sexual behavior. He said: “Each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in covetous sexual appetite.” (1 Thessalonians 4:4, 5) Paul compares a person’s body to a vessel. Getting possession of that vessel means bringing one’s thoughts and desires into harmony with God’s moral laws.

Admittedly, this may not be easy. One who has experienced childhood sexual abuse, one who had parents or other caretakers who provided a distorted example of masculinity or femininity, or one who had exposure to pornography at an early age may understandably have difficulties. Genetic, hormonal, and psychological factors may also play a role in distorting sexual feelings. It is comforting to know, however, that our Creator can provide help and support to those who need it.—Psalm 33:20; Hebrews 4:16.

Allow the Great Potter to Mold You

A piece of clay has to be centered on the potter’s wheel before the potter can begin to mold and shape it. Then, as the wheel rotates, the potter skillfully applies gentle pressure with his fingers to work the clay into a desirable shape. Before we can be molded into a desirable person in God’s eyes, we need to be centered on the timeless principles and laws of God. Once we start making the effort, God lovingly applies gentle pressure through the Bible, his holy spirit, and the Christian brotherhood. A person then begins to feel and experience God’s personal care in his life.

Of course, we must develop confidence in the Creator’s wisdom, trusting that he knows what is best for us. This trust is developed through prayer and an earnest study of the Bible. A person who approaches the issue of improper sexual feelings with that frame of mind becomes moldable in the hands of the Creator. First Peter 5:6, 7 says: “Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time; while you throw all your anxiety upon him, because he cares for you.”
Regularly reading the Bible acquaints us with a long line of faithful servants of God who contended with fleshly desires but never gave up. How encouraging these examples are! We can sense the frustration the apostle Paul felt with himself at times when he exclaimed: “Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death?” Yet, he also directed us to the main source of help when he answered his own question: “Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”—Romans 7:24, 25.

A Force for Change

We can also avail ourselves of God’s holy spirit. This is a powerful force for change. Holy spirit helps us to “put away the old personality” and “put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.” (Ephesians 4:22-24) Our loving heavenly Father never fails to respond when sincere requests are made for holy spirit to assist with making this change. Jesus assures us that the Father will “give holy spirit to those asking him.” (Luke 11:13) Persistence in prayer is necessary, though, as indicated by his words: “Keep on asking, and it will be given you.” (Matthew 7:7) This would be especially true when bringing powerful sexual desires under control.

God also helps us by means of the true Christian brotherhood, which is made up of people from all backgrounds. Some Christians in the first-century congregation at Corinth were previously in the category of “men kept for unnatural purposes” and “men who lie with men.” Yet, they changed. The blood of Christ cleansed them, and they became acceptable in God’s sight. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Some today need to make similar changes. And such ones can receive support in their fight against wrong desires from the Christian congregation.

Does this mean that becoming a Christian will automatically cure a person of all deviant desires or confusion over gender? Not necessarily. Persistent application of Bible principles has enabled some to live normal lives. Even so, these Christians often have had to wage a day-to-day struggle against wrong desires. Such ones thus serve God despite having a figurative “thorn in the flesh.” (2 Corinthians 12:7) As long as they continue to battle wrong inclinations and maintain righteous conduct, God views them as faithful servants and as clean in his eyes. They can look forward to the time in the future when all mankind “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—Romans 8:21.

In the meantime, all those who wish to please God must adhere to his righteous standards. True Christians choose to serve God—not follow their own selfish inclinations. Those who humbly submit to God’s will in all areas of life will be rewarded with eternal joy and happiness.—Psalm 128:1; John 17:3.

[Picture on page 15]
Studying the Bible helps one to cultivate high moral standards

God's Holy Spirit, Personified, but not a Person

The Encyclopedia published by Jehovah's Witnesses entitled:
Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2. Under the heading spirit:
*** it-2 pp. 1019-1023 Spirit ***

SPIRIT

The Greek pneu′ma (spirit) comes from pne′o, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ru′ach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ru′ach and pneu′ma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

Another Hebrew word, nesha‧mah′ (Ge 2:7), also means “breath,” but it is more limited in range of meaning than ru′ach. The Greek pno‧e′ seems to have a similar limited sense (Ac 17:25) and was used by the Septuagint translators to render nesha‧mah′.

Wind. Consider first the sense that is perhaps easiest to grasp. The context in many cases shows ru′ach to mean “wind,” as the “east wind” (Ex 10:13), “the four winds.” (Zec 2:6) The mention of such things as clouds, storm, the blowing of chaff or things of similar nature appearing in the context often makes evident this sense. (Nu 11:31; 1Ki 18:45; 19:11; Job 21:18) Because the four winds are used to mean the four directions—east, west, north, and south—ru′ach at times may be rendered as ‘direction’ or ‘side.’—1Ch 9:24; Jer 49:36; 52:23; Eze 42:16-20.

Job 41:15, 16 says of Leviathan’s closely fitting scales that “not even air [weru′ach] can come in between them.” Here again ru′ach represents air in motion, not merely air in a quiescent or motionless state. Thus the thought of an invisible force is present, the basic characteristic of the Hebrew ru′ach.
Evidently the only case in the Christian Greek Scriptures in which pneu′ma is used in
the sense of “wind” is at John 3:8.

Man cannot exercise control over the wind; he cannot guide, direct, restrain, or possess it. Because of this, “wind [ru′ach]” frequently stands for that which is uncontrollable or unattainable by man—elusive, transitory, in vain, of no genuine benefit. (Compare Job 6:26; 7:7; 8:2; 16:3; Pr 11:29; 27:15, 16; 30:4; Ec 1:14, 17; 2:11; Isa 26:18; 41:29.) For a full discussion of this aspect, see WIND.

Spirit Persons. God is invisible to human eyes (Ex 33:20; Joh 1:18; 1Ti 1:17), and he is alive and exercises unsurpassed force throughout the universe. (2Co 3:3; Isa 40:25-31) Christ Jesus states: “God is a Spirit [Pneu′ma].” The apostle writes: “Now Jehovah is the Spirit.” (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17, 18) The temple built on Christ as foundation cornerstone is “a place for God to inhabit by spirit.”—Eph 2:22.

This does not mean that God is an impersonal, bodiless force like the wind. The Scriptures unmistakably testify to his personality; he also has location so that Christ could speak of ‘going to his Father,’ this in order that he might “appear before the person of God [literally, “face of God”] for us.”—Joh 16:28; Heb 9:24; compare 1Ki 8:43; Ps 11:4; 113:5, 6; see JEHOVAH (The Person Identified by the Name).
The expression “my spirit” (ru‧chi′) used by God at Genesis 6:3 may mean “I the Spirit,” even as his use of “my soul” (naph‧shi′) has the sense of “I the person,” or “my person.” (Isa 1:14; see SOUL [God as Having Soul].) He thereby contrasts his heavenly spiritual position with that of earthly, fleshly man.

God’s Son. God’s “only-begotten son,” the Word, was a spirit person like his Father, hence “existing in God’s form” (Php 2:5-8), but later “became flesh,” residing among mankind as the man Jesus. (Joh 1:1, 14) Completing his earthly course, he was “put to death in the flesh, but [was] made alive in the spirit.” (1Pe 3:18) His Father resurrected him, granted his Son’s request to be glorified alongside the Father with the glory he had had in his prehuman state (Joh 17:4, 5), and God made him “a life-giving spirit.” (1Co 15:45) The Son thus became again invisible to human sight, dwelling “in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.”—1Ti 6:14-16.

Other spirit creatures. Angels are designated by the terms ru′ach and pneu′ma in a number of texts. (1Ki 22:21, 22; Eze 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5; Ac 23:8, 9; 1Pe 3:19, 20) In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the majority of such references are to wicked spirit creatures, demons.—Mt 8:16; 10:1; 12:43-45; Mr 1:23-27; 3:11, 12, 30.
Psalm 104:4 states that God makes “his angels spirits, his ministers a devouring fire.” Some translations would render this: “Who makest the winds thy messengers, fire and flame thy ministers,” or similarly. (RS, JP, AT, JB) Such translation of the Hebrew text is not inadmissible (compare Ps 148:8); however, the apostle Paul’s quotation of the text (Heb 1:7) coincides with that of the Greek Septuagint and harmonizes with the rendering first given. (In the Greek text of Hebrews 1:7, the definite article [tous] is used before “angels,” not before “spirits [pneu′ma‧ta],” making the angels the proper subject of the clause.) Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) says: “It is to be presumed that [Paul], who had been trained in the knowledge of the Hebrew language, would have had a better opportunity of knowing its [referring to Psalm 104:4] fair construction than we can; and it is morally certain, that he would employ the passage in an argument as it was commonly understood by those to whom he wrote—that is, to those who were familiar with the Hebrew language and literature.”—Compare Heb 1:14.

God’s angels, though capable of materializing human form and appearing to men, are not by nature material or fleshly, hence are invisible. They are actively alive and able to exert great force, and the terms ru′ach and pneu′ma therefore aptly describe them.

Ephesians 6:12 speaks of Christians wrestling, “not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.” The latter part of the text in Greek literally reads: “Toward the spiritual (things) [Gr., pneu‧ma‧ti‧ka′] of the wickedness in the heavenly [places].” Most modern translations recognize that the reference here is not simply to something abstract, “spiritual wickedness” (KJ), but refers to wickedness carried out by spirit persons. Thus, we have such renderings as: “the spirit-forces of evil on high” (AT), “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (RS), “the spiritual army of evil in the heavens” (JB), “the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens” (NE).

Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa‧ra′kle‧tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu′ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu′ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa‧ra′kle‧tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.

Lacks personal identification. Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—Compare Ac 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52; 19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, Int and other interlinear translations.

How baptized in its “name.” At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” A “name” can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, “in the name of the law,” or “in the name of common sense,” we have no reference to a person as such. By “name” in these expressions we mean ‘what the law stands for or its authority’ and ‘what common sense represents or calls for.’ The Greek term for “name” (o′no‧ma) also can have this sense. Thus, while some translations (KJ, AS) follow the Greek text at Matthew 10:41 literally and say that the one that “receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward,” more modern translations say, “receives a prophet because he is a prophet” and “receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man,” or similar. (RS, AT, JB, NW) Thus, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” Hence baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ implies recognition of that spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.

Other evidence of its impersonal nature. Further evidence against the idea of personality as regards the holy spirit is the way it is used in association with other impersonal things, such as water and fire (Mt 3:11; Mr 1:8); and Christians are spoken of as being baptized “in holy spirit.” (Ac 1:5; 11:16) Persons are urged to become “filled with spirit” instead of with wine. (Eph 5:18) So, too, persons are spoken of as being ‘filled’ with it along with such qualities as wisdom and faith (Ac 6:3, 5; 11:24) or joy (Ac 13:52); and holy spirit is inserted, or sandwiched in, with a number of such qualities at 2 Corinthians 6:6. It is most unlikely that such expressions would be made if the holy spirit were a divine person. As to the spirit’s ‘bearing witness’ (Ac 5:32; 20:23), it may be noted that the same thing is said of the water and the blood at 1 John 5:6-8. While some texts refer to the spirit as ‘witnessing,’ ‘speaking,’ or ‘saying’ things, other texts make clear that it spoke through persons, having no personal voice of its own. (Compare Heb 3:7; 10:15-17; Ps 95:7; Jer 31:33, 34; Ac 19:2-6; 21:4; 28:25.) It may thus be compared to radio waves that can transmit a message from a person speaking into a microphone and cause his voice to be heard by persons a distance away, in effect, ‘speaking’ the message by a radio loudspeaker. God, by his spirit, transmits his messages and communicates his will to the minds and hearts of his servants on earth, who, in turn, may convey that message to yet others.

Distinguished from “power.” Ru′ach and pneu′ma, therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., ko′ach; Gr., dy′na‧mis). Ru′ach and pneu′ma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35; Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exerted on persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

Its Use in Creation. Jehovah God accomplished the creation of the material universe by means of his spirit, or active force. Regarding the planet Earth in its early formative stages, the record states that “God’s active force [or “spirit” (ru′ach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” (Ge 1:2) Psalm 33:6 says: “By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, and by the spirit of his mouth all their army.” Like a powerful breath, God’s spirit can be sent forth to exert power even though there is no bodily contact with that which is acted upon. (Compare Ex 15:8, 10.) Where a human craftsman would use the force of his hands and fingers to produce things, God uses his spirit. Hence that spirit is also spoken of as God’s “hand” or “fingers.”—Compare Ps 8:3; 19:1; Mt 12:28 with Lu 11:20.

Modern science speaks of matter as organized energy, like bundles of energy, and recognizes that “matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter.” (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 13, p. 246) The immensity of the universe that man has thus far been able to discern with his telescopes gives some slight concept of the inexhaustible source of energy to be found in Jehovah God. As the prophet wrote: “Who has taken the proportions of the spirit of Jehovah?”—Isa 40:12, 13, 25, 26.

Source of animate life, reproductive powers. Not only inanimate creation but also all animate creation owes its existence and life to the operation of Jehovah’s spirit that produced the original living creatures through whom all living creatures today have come to exist. (Compare Job 33:4; see section of this article under “Breath; Breath of Life; Life-Force.”) Jehovah used his holy spirit to revive the reproductive powers of Abraham and Sarah, and therefore Isaac could be spoken of as “born in the manner of spirit.” (Ga 4:28, 29) By his spirit God also transferred his Son’s life from heaven to earth, causing conception in the womb of the virgin Jewess Mary.—Mt 1:18, 20; Lu 1:35.

Spirit Used on Behalf of God’s Servants. A principal operation of God’s spirit involves its ability to inform, to illuminate, to reveal things. Therefore David could pray: “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” (Ps 143:10) Much earlier, Joseph had given the interpretation of Pharaoh’s prophetic dreams, being enabled to do so by God’s help. The Egyptian ruler recognized the operation of God’s spirit in him. (Ge 41:16, 25-39) This illuminating power of the spirit is particularly notable in prophecy. Prophecy, as the apostle shows, did not spring from human interpretation of circumstances and events; it was not the result of some innate ability of the prophets to explain the meaning and significance of these or to forecast the shape of coming events. Rather, such men were “borne along by holy spirit”—conveyed, moved, and guided by God’s active force. (2Pe 1:20, 21; 2Sa 23:2; Zec 7:12; Lu 1:67; 2:25-35; Ac 1:16; 28:25; see PROPHECY; PROPHET.) So, too, all the inspired Scriptures were “inspired of God,” which translates the Greek the‧o′pneu‧stos, meaning, literally, “God-breathed.” (2Ti 3:16) The spirit operated in various manners in communicating with such men and guiding them, in some cases causing them to see visions or dreams (Eze 37:1; Joe 2:28, 29; Re 4:1, 2; 17:3; 21:10), but in all cases operating on their minds and hearts to motivate and guide them according to God’s purpose.—Da 7:1; Ac 16:9, 10; Re 1:10, 11; see INSPIRATION.

God’s spirit, then, not only brings revelation and understanding of God’s will but also energizes his servants to accomplish things in accord with that will. That spirit acts as a driving force that moves and impels them, even as Mark says the spirit “impelled” Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. (Mr 1:12; compare Lu 4:1.) It can be like a “fire” within them, causing them to be “aglow” with that force (1Th 5:19; Ac 18:25; Ro 12:11), in a sense ‘building up steam’ or pressure in them to do certain work. (Compare Job 32:8, 18-20; 2Ti 1:6, 7.) They receive the “power of the spirit,” or “power through his spirit.” (Lu 2:27; Eph 3:16; compare Mic 3:8.) Yet it is not merely some unconscious, blind impulse, for their minds and hearts are affected as well so that they can intelligently cooperate with the active force given them. Thus the apostle could say of those who had received the gift of prophecy in the Christian congregation that the “gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets,” so that good order might be maintained.—1Co 14:31-33.

Variety of operations. Even as an electric current can be used to accomplish a tremendous variety of things, so God’s spirit is used to commission and enable persons to do a wide variety of things. (Isa 48:16; 61:1-3) As Paul wrote of the miraculous gifts of the spirit in his day: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons. But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose.”—1Co 12:4-7.
The spirit has qualifying force or capacity; it can qualify persons for a work or for an office. Though Bezalel and Oholiab may have had knowledge of crafts before their appointment in connection with the making of the tabernacle equipment and priestly garments, God’s spirit ‘filled them with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge’ so that the work could be done in the way purposed. It heightened whatever natural abilities and acquired knowledge they already had, and it enabled them to teach others. (Ex 31:1-11; 35:30-35) The architectural plans for the later temple were given to David by inspiration, that is, through the operation of God’s spirit, thus enabling David to undertake extensive preparatory work for the project.—1Ch 28:12.

God’s spirit acted on and through Moses in prophesying and performing miraculous acts, as well as in leading the nation and acting as judge for it, thereby foreshadowing the future role of Christ Jesus. (Isa 63:11-13; Ac 3:20-23) However, Moses as an imperfect human found the load of responsibility heavy, and God ‘took away some of the spirit that was on Moses and placed it upon 70 older men’ so that they might help in carrying the load. (Nu 11:11-17, 24-30) The spirit also became operative on David from the time of his anointing by Samuel onward, guiding and preparing him for his future kingship.—1Sa 16:13.
Joshua became “full of the spirit of wisdom” as Moses’ successor. But the spirit did not produce in him the ability to prophesy and perform miraculous works to the extent that it had in Moses. (De 34:9-12) However, it enabled Joshua to lead Israel in the military campaign that brought about the conquest of Canaan. Similarly, Jehovah’s spirit “enveloped” other men, ‘impelling’ them as fighters on behalf of God’s people, fighters such as Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson.—Jg 3:9, 10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:24, 25; 14:5, 6, 19; 15:14.

The spirit of God energized men to speak his message of truth boldly and courageously before opposers and at the risk of their lives.—Mic 3:8.

Its being ‘poured out’ on his people is evidence of his favor, and it results in blessings and makes them prosper.—Eze 39:29; Isa 44:3, 4.

Judging and executing judgment. By his spirit God exercises judgment on men and nations; he also carries out his judgment decrees—punishing or destroying. (Isa 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19) In such cases, ru′ach may be fittingly rendered “blast,” as when Jehovah speaks of causing “a blast [ru′ach] of windstorms to burst forth” in his rage. (Eze 13:11, 13; compare Isa 25:4; 27:8.) God’s spirit can reach everywhere, acting for or against those who receive his attention.—Ps 139:7-12.
At Revelation 1:4 “the seven spirits” of God are mentioned as before his throne, and thereafter seven messages are given, each concluding with an admonition to “hear what the spirit says to the congregations.” (Re 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22) These messages contain heart-searching pronouncements of judgment and promises of reward for faithfulness. God’s Son is shown as having these “seven spirits of God” (Re 3:1); and they are spoken of as being “seven lamps of fire” (Re 4:5), and also as seven eyes of the lamb that is slaughtered, “which eyes mean the seven spirits of God that have been sent forth into the whole earth.” (Re 5:6) Seven being used as representative of completeness in other prophetic texts (see NUMBER, NUMERAL), it appears that these seven spirits symbolize the full active capacity of observation, discernment, or detection of the glorified Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, enabling him to inspect all the earth.

God’s Word is the spirit’s “sword” (Eph 6:17), revealing what a person really is, exposing hidden qualities or heart attitudes and causing him either to soften his heart and conform to God’s will expressed by that Word or to harden his heart in rebellion. (Compare Heb 4:11-13; Isa 6:9, 10; 66:2, 5.) God’s Word therefore plays a forceful part in predicting adverse judgment, and since God’s word or message must be carried out, the fulfillment of that word produces an action like that of fire on straw and like that of a forge hammer in smashing the crag. (Jer 23:28, 29) Christ Jesus, as God’s principal Spokesman, as “The Word of God,” declares the divine judgment messages and is authorized to order the execution of such judgments upon those judged. This is doubtless what is meant by references to his doing away with God’s enemies “by the spirit [activating force] of his mouth.”—Compare 2Th 2:8; Isa 11:3, 4; Re 19:13-16, 21.

God’s spirit acts as “helper” for congregation. As he promised, Jesus upon ascending to heaven requested of his Father the holy spirit, or active force of God, and was granted the authority to employ this spirit. He ‘poured it out’ on his faithful disciples on the day of Pentecost, continuing to do so thereafter for those turning to God through his Son. (Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7; Ac 1:4, 5; 2:1-4, 14-18, 32, 33, 38) As they had been baptized in water, now they were all “baptized into one body” by that one spirit, immersed in it, as it were, somewhat like a piece of iron can be immersed in a magnetic field and thereby be imbued with magnetic force. (1Co 12:12, 13; compare Mr 1:8; Ac 1:5.) Though God’s spirit had operated on the disciples before, as evidenced by their being able to cast out demons (compare Mt 12:28; Mr 3:14, 15), it now operated on them in a heightened and more extensive manner and in new ways not previously experienced.—Compare Joh 7:39.

As the Messianic King, Christ Jesus has the “spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah.” (Isa 11:1, 2; 42:1-4; Mt 12:18-21) This force for righteousness is manifest in his use of God’s active force, or spirit, in directing the Christian congregation on earth, Jesus being, by God’s appointment, its Head, Owner, and Lord. (Col 1:18; Jude 4) As a “helper,” that spirit now gave them increased understanding of God’s will and purpose and opened up God’s prophetic Word to them. (1Co 2:10-16; Col 1:9, 10; Heb 9:8-10) They were energized to serve as witnesses in all the earth (Lu 24:49; Ac 1:8; Eph 3:5, 6); they were granted miraculous ‘gifts of the spirit,’ enabling them to speak in foreign languages, prophesy, heal, and perform other activities that would both facilitate their proclamation of the good news and serve as evidence of their divine commission and backing.—Ro 15:18, 19; 1Co 12:4-11; 14:1, 2, 12-16; compare Isa 59:21; see GIFTS FROM GOD (Gifts of the Spirit).

As the congregation’s Overseer, Jesus used the spirit in a governmental way—guiding in the selection of men for special missions and for serving in the oversight, teaching, and “readjustment” of the congregation. (Ac 13:2-4; 20:28; Eph 4:11, 12) He moved them, as well as restricted them, indicating where to concentrate their ministerial efforts (Ac 16:6-10; 20:22), and made them effective as writers of ‘letters of Christ, inscribed with the spirit of God on fleshly tablets, human hearts.’ (2Co 3:2, 3; 1Th 1:5) As promised, the spirit refreshed their memories, stimulated their mental powers, and emboldened them in bearing witness even before rulers.—Compare Mt 10:18-20; Joh 14:26; Ac 4:5-8, 13, 31; 6:8-10.

As “living stones,” they were being formed into a spiritual temple based on Christ, one through which “spiritual sacrifices” would be made (1Pe 2:4-6; Ro 15:15, 16) and spiritual songs sung (Eph 5:18, 19) and in which God would reside by spirit. (1Co 3:16; 6:19, 20; Eph 2:20-22; compare Hag 2:5.) God’s spirit is a unifying force of enormous strength, and as long as such Christians allowed it free course among them, it joined them peacefully together in bonds of love and devotion to God, his Son, and one another. (Eph 4:3-6; 1Jo 3:23, 24; 4:12, 13; compare 1Ch 12:18.) The gift of the spirit did not equip them for mechanical types of activity, as it had Bezalel and others who manufactured and produced material structures and equipment, but it fitted them for spiritual works of teaching, guiding, shepherding, and counseling. The spiritual temple they formed was to be adorned with the beautiful fruits of God’s spirit, and that fruitage of “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,” and similar qualities was proof positive that God’s spirit was operating in and among them. (Ga 5:22, 23; compare Lu 10:21; Ro 14:17.) This was the basic and primary factor producing good order and effective guidance among them. (Ga 5:24-26; 6:1; Ac 6:1-7; compare Eze 36:26, 27.) They submitted themselves to the ‘law of the spirit,’ an effective force for righteousness working to keep out the practices of the innately sinful flesh. (Ro 8:2; Ga 5:16-21; Jude 19-21) Their confidence was in God’s spirit operating on them, not in fleshly abilities or background.—1Co 2:1-5; Eph 3:14-17; Php 3:1-8.

When questions arose, the holy spirit was a helper in arriving at a decision, as in the question of circumcision, decided by the body, or council, of apostles and older men at Jerusalem. Peter told of the spirit’s being granted to uncircumcised people of the nations; Paul and Barnabas related the spirit’s operations in their ministry among such persons; and James, his memory of the Scriptures doubtless aided by holy spirit, called attention to the inspired prophecy of Amos foretelling that God’s name would be called on people of the nations. Thus all the thrust or drive of God’s holy spirit pointed in one direction, and hence, in recognition of this, when writing the letter conveying their decision, this body or council said: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things.”—Ac 15:1-29.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

A Luxuriant Olive Tree in the House of God

*** w00 5/15 pp. 25-29 A Luxuriant Olive Tree in the House of God ***


IN THE land of Israel, there grows a tree that is practically indestructible. Even when chopped down, its rootstock soon sends up new shoots. And when its fruit is harvested, it rewards its owner with abundant oil that can be used for cooking, lighting, hygiene, and cosmetics.

According to an ancient parable recorded in the Bible book of Judges, “once upon a time the trees went to anoint a king over them.” Which tree of the forest was their first choice? None other than the hardy, bountiful olive tree.—Judges 9:8.
Over 3,500 years ago, the prophet Moses described Israel as ‘a good land, a land of olives.’ (Deuteronomy 8:7, 8) Even today, olive groves dot the landscape from the foot of Mount Hermon in the north to the outskirts of Beersheba in the south. They still grace the coastal Plain of Sharon, the rocky hillsides of Samaria, and the fertile valleys of Galilee.

Bible writers often used the olive tree in a figurative sense. Features of this tree served to illustrate God’s mercy, the resurrection promise, and happy family life. A closer look at the olive will help us to understand these Scriptural references and will deepen our appreciation for this unique tree that joins the rest of creation in praising its Maker.—Psalm 148:7, 9.

The Rugged Olive Tree

An olive tree is not particularly impressive at first sight. It does not reach to the heavens like some stately cedars of Lebanon. Its timber is not so prized as the juniper, and its blossoms do not delight the eye like those of the almond tree. (Song of Solomon 1:17; Amos 2:9) The most important part of the olive tree lies unseen—under the ground. Its extensive roots, which may reach 20 feet [6 m] beneath the surface and much farther horizontally, are the key to the tree’s bounty and survival.
Such roots allow olive trees on stony hillsides to survive a drought when trees in the valley below have already died of thirst. The roots enable it to continue producing olives for centuries, even though the gnarled trunk may look fit only for firewood. All this rugged tree demands is room to grow and aerated soil so that it can breathe, free from weeds or other vegetation that might harbor harmful pests. If these simple demands are met, one tree will supply up to 15 gallons [57 liters] of oil a year.

Undoubtedly the olive was beloved by the Israelites for its precious oil. Lamps with wicks drawing up olive oil illuminated their homes. (Leviticus 24:2) Olive oil was essential in cooking. It protected the skin against the sun, and it provided the Israelites with soap for washing. Grain, wine, and olives were the main crops of the land. Failure of the olive harvest would thus be a disaster for an Israelite family.—Deuteronomy 7:13; Habakkuk 3:17.
Usually, however, olive oil was abundant. Moses referred to the Promised Land as ‘a land of olives’ likely because the olive was the most commonly cultivated tree in the area. Nineteenth-century naturalist H. B. Tristram described the olive as “the one characteristic tree of the country.” Because of its value and abundance, olive oil even served as useful international currency throughout the Mediterranean region. Jesus Christ himself referred to a debt that was calculated to be “a hundred bath measures of olive oil.”—Luke 16:5, 6.
“Like Slips of Olive Trees”
The useful olive tree aptly illustrates divine blessings. How would a God-fearing man be rewarded? “Your wife will be like a fruit-bearing vine in the innermost parts of your house,” sang the psalmist. “Your sons will be like slips of olive trees all around your table.” (Psalm 128:3) What are these “slips of olive trees,” and why does the psalmist compare them to sons?

The olive tree is unusual in that new shoots constantly sprout from the base of its trunk. When, because of old age, the main trunk no longer bears the fruit it once did, cultivators may allow several slips, or new shoots, to grow until they become an integral part of the tree. After a time, the original tree will have three or four young, vigorous trunks surrounding it, like sons around a table. These slips have the same rootstock, and they share in producing a good crop of olives.
This characteristic of the olive tree aptly illustrates how sons and daughters can grow firm in faith, thanks to the strong spiritual roots of their parents. As offspring grow older, they also have a share in bearing fruit and supporting their parents, who rejoice to see their children serving Jehovah alongside them.—Proverbs 15:20.
“There Exists Hope for Even a Tree”
An elderly father who serves Jehovah delights in his godly children. But these same children mourn when their father eventually ‘goes in the way of all the earth.’ (1 Kings 2:2) To help us cope with such a family tragedy, the Bible assures us that there will be a resurrection.—John 5:28, 29; 11:25.

Job, the father of many children, was keenly aware of man’s short life span. He compared it to a blossom that quickly withers. (Job 1:2; 14:1, 2) Job longed for death as a way to escape from his agony, viewing the grave as a place of concealment from which he could return. “If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?” Job asked. Then he confidently answered: “All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait, until my relief comes. You [Jehovah] will call, and I myself shall answer you. For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.”—Job 14:13-15.

How did Job illustrate his conviction that God would call him forth from the grave? By means of a tree, the description of which makes it likely that he was referring to the olive. “There exists hope for even a tree,” Job said. “If it gets cut down, it will even sprout again.” (Job 14:7) An olive tree may be chopped down, but that will not destroy it. Only if the tree is uprooted will it die. If the roots remain intact, the tree will sprout again with renewed vigor.
Even if a prolonged drought severely withers an old olive tree, the shriveled stump can come back to life. “If its root grows old in the earth and in the dust its stump dies, at the scent of water it will sprout and it will certainly produce a bough like a new plant.” (Job 14:8, 9) Job lived in a dry, dusty land where he had probably observed many an old olive stump that looked dried up and lifeless. When the rains came, however, such a “dead” tree returned to life and a new trunk emerged from its roots as if it were “a new plant.” This remarkable resilience led one Tunisian horticulturist to observe: “You can say that olive trees are immortal.”
Just as a farmer longs to see his withered olive trees sprout again, so Jehovah yearns to resurrect his faithful servants. He looks forward to the time when faithful individuals like Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and many others will be restored to life. (Matthew 22:31, 32) How wonderful it will be to welcome back the dead and see them living full and fruitful lives once more!

The Symbolic Olive Tree

God’s mercy is manifest in his impartiality as well as in his provision for a resurrection. The apostle Paul used the olive tree to illustrate how Jehovah’s mercy extends to people regardless of their race or background. For centuries the Jews had prided themselves on being God’s chosen people, ‘the offspring of Abraham.’—John 8:33; Luke 3:8.

Being born into the Jewish nation was not in itself a requirement for obtaining divine favor. Jesus’ earliest disciples, however, were all Jews, and they had the privilege of being the first humans selected by God to make up the promised seed of Abraham. (Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:29) Paul likened these Jewish disciples to branches of a symbolic olive tree.

The majority of the natural Jews rejected Jesus, disqualifying themselves as future members of the “little flock,” or “the Israel of God.” (Luke 12:32; Galatians 6:16) Thus, they became like symbolic olive branches that had been lopped off. Who would take their place? In the year 36 C.E., Gentiles were chosen to become part of Abraham’s seed. It was as if Jehovah had grafted wild olive branches onto the garden olive tree. Those who would make up the promised seed of Abraham would include people of the nations. Gentile Christians could now become ‘sharers of the olive’s root of fatness.’—Romans 11:17.
For a farmer, grafting a wild olive branch onto a garden olive tree would be unthinkable and “contrary to nature.” (Romans 11:24) “Graft the good upon the wild, and, as the Arabs say, it will conquer the wild,” explains the work The Land and the Book, “but you cannot reverse the process with success.” Jewish Christians were likewise amazed when Jehovah “for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 10:44-48; 15:14) This was a clear sign, however, that the outworking of God’s purpose did not depend on any one nation. No, for “in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”—Acts 10:35.

Paul indicated that since unfaithful Jewish “branches” of the olive tree had been lopped off, the same could happen to anyone else who through pride and disobedience did not remain in Jehovah’s favor. (Romans 11:19, 20) This surely illustrates that God’s undeserved kindness should never be taken for granted.—2 Corinthians 6:1.

Greasing With Oil

The Scriptures make both literal and figurative references to the use of olive oil. In ancient times, wounds and bruises were ‘softened with oil’ to promote the healing process. (Isaiah 1:6) According to one of Jesus’ illustrations, the neighborly Samaritan poured olive oil and wine on the wounds of the man he encountered on the road to Jericho.—Luke 10:34.
Applying olive oil to one’s head is refreshing and soothing. (Psalm 141:5) And in handling cases of spiritual sickness, Christian elders may ‘grease a member of the congregation with oil in the name of Jehovah.’ (James 5:14) The elders’ loving Scriptural counsel and heartfelt prayers in behalf of their spiritually sick fellow believer are compared to soothing olive oil. Interestingly, in idiomatic Hebrew a good man is sometimes described as “pure olive oil.”
“A Luxuriant Olive Tree in God’s House”
In view of the foregoing points, it is not surprising that servants of God can be likened to olive trees. David desired to be like “a luxuriant olive tree in God’s house.” (Psalm 52:8) Just as Israelite families often had olive trees surrounding their houses, so David wished to be close to Jehovah and to produce fruit to God’s praise.—Psalm 52:9.

While faithful to Jehovah, the two-tribe kingdom of Judah was like “a luxuriant olive tree, pretty with fruit and in form.” (Jeremiah 11:15, 16) But the people of Judah lost that privileged position when ‘they refused to obey Jehovah’s words and walked after other gods.’—Jeremiah 11:10.

To become a luxuriant olive tree in God’s house, we must obey Jehovah and be willing to accept the discipline by which he “prunes” us so that we can bear more Christian fruitage. (Hebrews 12:5, 6) Moreover, just as a natural olive tree needs extensive roots to survive a period of drought, we need to fortify our spiritual roots in order to endure trials and persecution.—Matthew 13:21; Colossians 2:6, 7.

The olive tree well symbolizes the faithful Christian, who may be unknown to the world but is recognized by God. If such a person should die in this system, he will live again in the new world to come.—2 Corinthians 6:9; 2 Peter 3:13.
The practically indestructible olive tree that keeps on bearing fruit year after year reminds us of God’s promise: “Like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full.” (Isaiah 65:22) That prophetic promise will be fulfilled in God’s new world.—2 Peter 3:13.

[Footnote]

Usually these new shoots are pruned every year so that they do not sap strength from the main tree.

Design in Nature

*** g00 1/22 pp. 4-9 Learning From Designs in Nature ***

Learning From Designs in Nature

“Many of our best inventions are copied from, or already in use by, other living things.”—Phil Gates, Wild Technology.

AS MENTIONED in the preceding article, the aim of the science of biomimetics is to produce more complex materials and machines by imitating nature. Nature manufactures its products without causing pollution, and they tend to be resilient and light, yet incredibly strong.

For example, ounce for ounce, bone is stronger than steel. What is its secret? Part of the answer lies in its well-engineered shape, but the key reasons lie deeper—at the molecular level. “The success of living organisms lies in the design and assembly of their smallest components,” explains Gates. As a result of peering into these smallest components, scientists have isolated the substances that give natural products from bone to silk their envied strength and light weight. These substances, they have discovered, are various forms of natural composites.

The Miracle of Composites

Composites are solid materials that result when two or more substances are combined to form a new substance containing properties that are superior to those of the original ingredients. This can be illustrated by the synthetic composite fiberglass, which is commonly used in boat hulls, fishing rods, bows, arrows, and other sporting goods. Fiberglass is made by setting fine fibers of glass in a liquid or jellylike matrix of plastic (called a polymer). When the polymer hardens, or sets, the end result is a composite that is lightweight, strong, and flexible. If the kinds of fibers and the matrix are varied, an enormously broad range of products can be made. Of course, man-made composites are still crude compared with those found naturally in humans, animals, and plants.

In humans and animals, instead of fibers of glass or carbon, a fibrous protein called collagen forms the basis of the composites that give strength to skin, intestines, cartilage, tendons, bones, and teeth (except for the enamel). One reference work describes collagen-based composites as being “among the most advanced structural composite materials known.”

For example, consider tendons, which tie muscle to bone. Tendons are remarkable, not just because of the toughness of their collagen-based fibers but also because of the brilliant way these fibers are woven together. In her book Biomimicry, Janine Benyus writes that the unraveled tendon “is almost unbelievable in its multileveled precision. The tendon in your forearm is a twisted bundle of cables, like the cables used in a suspension bridge. Each individual cable is itself a twisted bundle of thinner cables. Each of these thinner cables is itself a twisted bundle of molecules, which are, of course, twisted, helical bundles of atoms. Again and again a mathematical beauty unfolds.” It is, she says, “engineering brilliance.” Is it any surprise that scientists speak of being inspired by nature’s designs?—Compare Job 40:15, 17.

As mentioned, man-made composites pale when compared with those of nature. Still, synthetics are remarkable products. In fact, they are listed among the ten most outstanding engineering achievements of the past 25 years. For example, composites based on graphite or carbon fibers have led to new generations of aircraft and spacecraft parts, sporting goods, Formula One race cars, yachts, and lightweight artificial limbs—to mention just a few items in a rapidly growing inventory.

Multifunctional, Miraculous Blubber

Whales and dolphins don’t know it, but their bodies are wrapped in a miracle tissue—blubber, a form of fat. “Whale blubber is perhaps the most multifunctional material we know,” says the book Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials. Explaining why, it adds that blubber is a marvelous flotation device and so helps whales surface for air. It provides these warm-blooded mammals with excellent insulation against the cold of the ocean. And it is also the best possible food reserve during nonfeeding migrations over thousands of miles. Indeed, ounce for ounce, fat yields between two and three times as much energy as protein and sugar.

“Blubber is also a very bouncy rubberlike material,” according to the above-mentioned book. “Our best estimate now is that acceleration caused by the elastic recoil of blubber that is compressed and stretched with each tail stroke may save up to 20% of the cost of locomotion during extended periods of continuous swimming.”
Blubber has been harvested for centuries, yet only recently has it come to light that about half the volume of blubber consists of a complex mesh of collagen fibers wrapped around each animal. Although scientists are still trying to fathom the workings of this fat-composite mix, they believe that they have discovered yet another miracle product that would have many useful applications if produced synthetically.

An Eight-Legged Engineering Genius

In recent years scientists have also been looking very closely at the spider. They are keen to understand how it manufactures spider silk, which is also a composite. True, a broad range of insects produce silk, yet spider silk is special. One of the strongest materials on earth, it “is the stuff that dreams are made of,” said one science writer. Spider silk is so outstanding that a list of its amazing properties would seem unbelievable.

Why do scientists use superlatives when describing spider silk? Besides being five times stronger than steel, it is also highly elastic—a rare combination in materials. Spider silk stretches 30 percent farther than the most elastic nylon. Yet, it does not bounce like a trampoline and so throw the spider’s meal into the air. “On the human scale,” says Science News, “a web resembling a fishing net could catch a passenger plane.”

If we could copy the spider’s chemical wizardry—two species even produce seven varieties of silk—imagine how it could be put to use! In vastly improved seat belts as well as in sutures, artificial ligaments, lightweight lines and cables, and bulletproof fabrics, to name just a few possibilities. Scientists are also trying to understand how the spider makes silk so efficiently—and without the use of toxic chemicals.

Nature’s Gearboxes and Jet Engines

Gearboxes and jet engines keep today’s world on the move. But did you know that nature also beat us to these designs? Take the gearbox, for example. Gearboxes allow you to change gears in your vehicle so as to get the most efficient use out of the motor. Nature’s gearbox does the same, but it does not link engine to wheels. Rather, it links wings to wings! And where can it be found? In the common fly. The fly has a three-speed gearshift connected to its wings, allowing it to change gears while in the air!

The squid, the octopus, and the nautilus all have a form of jet propulsion that drives them through the water. Scientists view these jets with envy. Why? Because they are composed of soft parts that cannot break, that can withstand great depths, and that run silently and efficiently. In fact, a squid can jet along at up to 20 miles [32 km] an hour when fleeing predators, “sometimes even leaping out of the water and onto the decks of ships,” says the book Wild Technology.

Yes, taking just a few moments to reflect on the natural world can fill us with awe and appreciation. Nature truly is a living puzzle that prompts one question after another: What chemical marvels ignite the brilliant, cold light in fireflies and certain algae? How do various arctic fish and frogs, after being frozen solid for the winter, become active again when they thaw out? How do whales and seals stay under the water for long periods without a breathing apparatus? And how do they repeatedly dive to great depths without getting decompression sickness, commonly called the bends? How do chameleons and cuttlefish change color to blend with their surroundings? How do hummingbirds cross the Gulf of Mexico on less than one tenth of an ounce [3 gm] of fuel? It seems that the list of questions could go on endlessly.
Truly, humans can only look on and wonder. Scientists develop an awe “bordering on reverence” when they study nature, says the book Biomimicry.

Behind the Design—A Designer!

Associate professor of biochemistry Michael Behe stated that one result of recent discoveries within the living cell “is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’” He added that this result of efforts to study the cell “is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.”

Understandably, evidence of a Designer creates problems for those who adhere to the theory of evolution, for evolution cannot account for the sophisticated design within living things, especially at the cellular and molecular levels. “There are compelling reasons,” says Behe, “to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.”

In Darwin’s time the living cell—the foundation of life—was thought to be simple, and the theory of evolution was conceived in that era of relative ignorance. But now science has gone past that. Molecular biology and biomimetics have proved beyond all doubt that the cell is an extraordinarily complex system packed with exquisite, perfect designs that make the inner workings of our most sophisticated gadgets and machines look like child’s play by comparison.

Brilliant design leads us to the logical conclusion, says Behe, “that life was designed by an intelligent agent.” Is it not reasonable, therefore, that this Agent also has a purpose, one that includes humans? If so, what is that purpose? And can we learn more about our Designer himself? The following article will examine those important questions.

[Footnotes]
Strictly speaking, fiberglass refers to the glass fibers in the composite. However, in common usage the term refers to the composite itself, which is made of plastic and fiberglass.

Vegetable composites are based on cellulose rather than collagen. Cellulose gives wood many of its coveted qualities as a building material. Cellulose has been described as a “tensile material without peer.”
[Box on page 5]

An Extinct Fly Helps to Improve Solar Panels

While visiting a museum, a scientist saw pictures of an extinct fly preserved in amber, says a report in New Scientist magazine. He noticed a series of gratings on the insect’s eyes and suspected that these might have helped the fly’s eyes to capture more light, especially at very oblique angles. He and other researchers began conducting experiments and confirmed their hunch.

Scientists soon made plans to try to etch the same pattern of gratings onto the glass of solar panels. This, they hope, will increase the energy generated by solar panels. It might also eliminate the need for the costly tracking systems presently required to keep solar panels pointed at the sun. Better solar panels may mean less fossil fuel use and, thus, less pollution—a worthy goal. Clearly, discoveries like this one help us to appreciate that nature is a veritable mother lode of brilliant designs just waiting to be found, understood and, where possible, copied in useful ways.

[Box on page 6]
Giving Credit Where It Is Due
In 1957, Swiss engineer George de Mestral noticed that the small, tenacious burs clinging to his clothes were covered with tiny hooks. He studied these burs and their hooks, and soon his creative mind caught fire. He spent the next eight years developing a synthetic equivalent of the bur. His invention took the world by storm and is now a household name—Velcro.
Imagine how de Mestral would have felt had the world been told that no one designed Velcro, that it just happened as the result of a string of thousands of accidents in a workshop. Clearly, fairness and justice demand that credit be given where it is due. Human inventors obtain patents to ensure that it is. Yes, it seems that humans deserve credit, financial rewards, and even praise for their creations, which are often inferior imitations of things in the natural world. Should not our wise Creator receive acknowledgment for his perfect originals?

[Picture on page 5]
Ounce for ounce, bone is stronger than steel
[Credit Line]
Anatomie du gladiateur combattant...., Paris, 1812, Jean-Galbert Salvage
[Picture on page 7]
Whale blubber provides flotation, heat insulation, and food reserves
[Credit Line]
© Dave B. Fleetham/Visuals Unlimited
[Picture on page 7]
Crocodile and alligator hides can deflect spears, arrows, and even bullets
[Picture on page 7]
Spider silk is five times stronger than steel, yet highly elastic
[Picture on page 8]
A woodpecker’s brain is protected by very dense bone that acts as a shock absorber
[Picture on page 8]
Chameleons change color to blend with their surroundings
[Picture on page 8]
The nautilus has special chambers that enable it to regulate its buoyancy
[Picture on page 9]
The ruby-throated hummingbird makes a 600-mile [1,000 km] journey on less than one tenth of an ounce [3 g] of fuel
[Picture on page 9]
The squid uses a form of jet propulsion
[Picture on page 9]
Chemical marvels ignite the brilliant, cold light in fireflies
[Credit Line]
© Jeff J. Daly/Visuals Unlimited

Secular historians and 607 B.C.E.

Answering the debate between secular historians and bible chronology on the date:

607 B.C.E

*** kc pp. 186-189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Let Your Kingdom Come

Appendix to Chapter 14

Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus’ army in October 539 B.C.E. Nabonidus was then king, but his son Belshazzar was coruler of Babylon. Some scholars have worked out a list of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns, from the last year of Nabonidus back to Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.
According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first regnal year began the following spring (604 B.C.E.).

The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included). (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6 B.C.E. But on what is this secular chronology based and how does it compare with the chronology of the Bible?
Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:

Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns (though Ptolemy does omit the reign of Labashi-Marduk). Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. It thus is not surprising that Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.
Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.

VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet is admittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its historical information is simply that which was accepted in the Seleucid period.

Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its words stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and reliable. They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be used as a measuring rod in evaluating secular history and views. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) For instance, though the Bible spoke of Belshazzar as ruler of Babylon, for centuries scholars were confused about him because no secular documents were available as to his existence, identity or position. Finally, however, archaeologists discovered secular records that confirmed the Bible. Yes, the Bible’s internal harmony and the care exercised by its writers, even in matters of chronology, recommends it so strongly to the Christian that he places its authority above that of the ever-changing opinions of secular historians.
But how does the Bible help us to determine when Jerusalem was destroyed, and how does this compare to secular chronology?

The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) He added: “And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:11) The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (2 Chronicles 36:17-23) We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate.—Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27; 36:29-31.

Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology of that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let the Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters, they claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E. Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a period of servitude to Babylon beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 B.C.E.

But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:
Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this. More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year. Also, Jewish historian Josephus states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.
Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years.” (Antiquities of the Jews X, ix, 7) He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus.” (Against Apion I, 19) This agrees with 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 that the foretold 70 years were 70 years of full desolation for the land. Second-century (C.E.) writer Theophilus of Antioch also shows that the 70 years commenced with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years.—See also 2 Kings 24:18–25:21.

But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the claim that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70 years would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23) Historians accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus’ decree came late in his first regnal year, the Jews could easily be back in their homeland by the seventh month (Tishri) as Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537 B.C.E.

However, there is no reasonable way of stretching Cyrus’ first year from 538 down to 535 B.C.E. Some who have tried to explain away the problem have in a strained manner claimed that in speaking of “the first year of Cyrus” Ezra and Daniel were using some peculiar Jewish viewpoint that differed from the official count of Cyrus’ reign. But that cannot be sustained, for both a non-Jewish governor and a document from the Persian archives agree that the decree occurred in Cyrus’ first year, even as the Bible writers carefully and specifically reported.—Ezra 5:6, 13; 6:1-3; Daniel 1:21; 9:1-3.

Jehovah’s “good word” is bound up with the foretold 70-year period, for God said:
“This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’” (Jeremiah 29:10)

Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on. (Daniel 9:1, 2) And that proved to be so.

Similarly, we are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word rather than by a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or that disagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed. (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence, counting back 70 years from when the Jews returned to their homeland in 537 B.C.E., we arrive at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchadnezzar, in his 18th regnal year, destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah from the throne and brought to an end the Judean line of kings on a throne in earthly Jerusalem.—Ezekiel 21:19-27.