Anthony Staus

Before moving on to the next section, I’d like to point out a few differences between my views and the generally accepted views of the pre-wrath community.

* I believe that the “new Jerusalem” (see Revelation 21:2) descends from heaven after the millennium of Revelation 20:6, not before.

* Most, if not all who hold to pre-wrath, believe that the “restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the archangel Michael. I am undecided on this topic. However, I believe it is likely that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit.

* A large number of pre-millennialists believe that the Antichrist is described from Daniel 11:36 to Daniel 11:45. Adherents of pre-wrath believe that the events of Daniel 12:1-3 occur in direct succession to Daniel 11:45 (they believe that the events of Daniel 12:1-3 take place shortly after Daniel 11:45). They do not believe that the events of Daniel 12:1-3 elaborate on prior circumstances, nor do they believe that the Antichrist comes to his final end in Daniel 11:45.

As mentioned, adherents of pre-wrath believe that the archangel Michael is the “restrainer.” They believe that the anticipated withdrawing of the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 corresponds with Michael “arising” in Daniel 12:1. Therefore, they believe that after the Antichrist comes to his end in Daniel 11:45, he returns and is revealed at some point during Daniel 12:1.

NOTE: It is believed that the resurrection of the Antichrist is referenced in Revelation 13:3, Revelation 13:12, Revelation 13:14, and Revelation 17:8. Some people believe that the Antichrist will die and come back to life in a literal sense. Others believe that the Antichrist’s resurrection will be an illusion. Given the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11, some people think that God Himself will resurrect the Antichrist.

Outside the typical pre-wrath perspective, there are those who believe that the Daniel 11 account of the Antichrist starts further back in Daniel 11:21—they believe that the story of the eschatological Antichrist runs from Daniel 11:21 to Daniel 11:45. They do not believe that the events of Daniel 12:1-3 are successive to Daniel 11:45. Instead, they believe that Daniel 12:1-3, Daniel 12:7, and Daniel 12:10-12, elaborate on circumstances found within the Daniel 11:21-45 narrative, similar to how Matthew 24:15-28 elaborates on Matthew 24:9-14. They believe that the Antichrist comes to his final end in Daniel 11:45, and that he does not return afterwards—they believe that the Antichrist’s “resurrection” takes place at some point prior to Daniel 11:45.

When it comes to Daniel 11-12, I’m not completely sure which of the two interpretations is correct. I will have to spend more time on this topic before I can reach a decisive conclusion.

* Proponents of pre-wrath believe that there is only one, individual Temple being discussed throughout Ezekiel 40-48. They believe that the Temple of Ezekiel 40-48 is the Millennial Temple.

I believe that there are two Temples referenced in Ezekiel 40-48. I believe that the Temple described in Ezekiel 40-46 is the Second Temple, and that the Temple described in Ezekiel 47-48 is the Millennial Temple.

I believe that animal sacrifice is one of the most challenging questions for pre-millennial eschatology. Would animal sacrifice, during a future millennial/Messianic age, contradict the letter to the Hebrews?

NOTE: From this point forward, all references to the millennial reign of Christ are from a pre-millennial standpoint. When the terms “millennial age” or “millennial kingdom” are applied, they are in reference to the millennial reign of Revelation 20:6, and they are in a future context.

(2.6a) PROPOSITION OF TWO TEMPLES

(2.6b) ANIMAL SACRIFICE

ESCHATOLOGICAL WATERCOURSE

First and foremost, we need to address a potential misconception.

It is assumed by many that the Temple described in Ezekiel 40-46 and the Temple described in Ezekiel 47-48 are one and the same. If this were true, then the Temple described in Ezekiel 47-48 would be the site of Old Covenant expiatory animal sacrifices.

“On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering.” (Ezekiel 45:22, ESV)

This would present a contradiction, because the Temple in Ezekiel 47-48 is a yet to be realized structure—it will physically exist during the millennial age. There cannot be expiatory animal sacrifices during the millennial age, because Jesus Christ has already rendered expiatory animal sacrifice obsolete.

“He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” (Hebrews 7:27, ESV)

“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,’ then he adds, ‘I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.’ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” (Hebrews 10:14-18, ESV)

Prophetic transitions occur throughout the Bible—I’ve posted some examples in the “(2.1) Introduction/Definition” section. I believe that there’s a prophetic transition at Ezekiel 47:1. Such a transition might suggest that there are two separate Temples within the Ezekiel 40-48 prophecy.

“Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar.” (Ezekiel 47:1, ESV)

  • Expiatory animal sacrifice corresponds to the Second Temple. The Second Temple might be the Temple that Ezekiel 40-46 is referring to.
  • An eschatological watercourse corresponds to the Millennial Temple. The Millennial Temple is the Temple that Ezekiel 47-48 is referring to.

“And he said to me, ‘This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh.” (Ezekiel 47:8, ESV)

At no time in history did water issue forth from the First or Second Temple, into the “sea,” causing the water to become fresh.

I believe that the Temple in Ezekiel 40-46 is the Second Temple. I believe that Ezekiel 47:1 shifts from the near-future context of the Second Temple to a distant-future Millennial Temple. I believe that the Second Temple in Ezekiel 40-46 typifies and foreshadows the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 47-48.

In Ezekiel 47:1, after arriving back at the door of the Temple, the first feature mentioned is the eschatological waterflow. This seems to be a way in which the proposed prophetic transition is marked.

The eschatological watercourse of Ezekiel 47:1 seems to be mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, as a feature of the millennial age. It is thought that Ezekiel 47:8 and Joel 3:18 refer to the same millennial watercourse, which flows from the Millennial Temple into the Dead Sea. Below is a comparison.

“And he said to me, ‘This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh.” (Ezekiel 47:8, ESV)

It is generally accepted that the “sea” in Ezekiel 47:8 is the Dead Sea.

“‘And in that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the streambeds of Judah shall flow with water; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the LORD and water the Valley of Shittim.” (Joel 3:18, ESV)

“Abundant waters extend even to the arid-dwelling acacia trees (Shittim). The location of this ‘fountain’ may be Wadi en-Nar, extending from the Kidron Valley to the Dead Sea.” – The ESV Study Bible. Crossway, 2008. pp. 1653-54

Some people believe that the millennial watercourse mentioned in Ezekiel 47:8 and Joel 3:18 is among the watercourses mentioned in Zechariah 14:8.

“On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.” (Zechariah 14:8, ESV)

NOTE: In Ezekiel 43:7, God says “forever.” Given the instructions that follow “forever” in Ezekiel 43:7-9, the context of “forever” seems to be conditional. With regard to the First Temple, God said “forever” (see 1 Kings 9:3 and 2 Chronicles 7:16), and the context was conditional (see 1 Kings 9:6-9 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22). Therefore, I don’t think the use of “forever,” in Ezekiel 43:7, rules out the Second Temple from Ezekiel 40-46.

INTERPRETATIONS OF MEASUREMENT

There are several reasons why people believe there is only one, individual, future Temple being described in Ezekiel 40-48. One of the primary reasons is based on an interpretation of measurement.

In Ezekiel 42:15-19, the Temple complex perimeter is measured using “reeds.” In regard to this particular passage, people dispute the length of a reed. Those who think the reed is substantially larger (approx. 10.5 feet), necessarily believe that the Temple complex is enormous and thus, an unprecedented circumstance in history (they believe that the Temple in Ezekiel 40-46 is future). If the reed is smaller (approx. 18-21 inches), then the size of the Temple complex is compatible with a historical context.

Cubit: The cubit was a unit of measurement in the ancient world. There were different types of cubits. As it relates to this topic, we’ll be focusing on to two types of cubits.

1 Standard Cubit = approximately 18 inches

(A standard cubit is usually referred to as a “cubit.” I will refer to a standard cubit as a “standard cubit” for identification purposes)

1 Hebrew Long Cubit = approximately 21 inches

(I will refer to a Hebrew long cubit as a “HL cubit” for ease of reading)

If the cubit type isn’t specified, it will be referred to simply as a “cubit.”

1st Interpretation of Measurement: 1 Reed = 6 Hebrew Long Cubits

Some people believe that a reed in Ezekiel 42:16-19 is equal to 6 HL cubits, which is approximately 10.5 feet. They believe this because they think that the definition of a reed’s length in Ezekiel 40:5 and Ezekiel 41:8 carries over into Ezekiel 42:16-19. When a reed with a length of 6 HL cubits is applied to Ezekiel 42:16-19, the result is a Temple complex with a perimeter of 3000 HL cubits on each side (approx. 5250 feet x 5250 feet OR approx. 1 mile x 1 mile).

2nd Interpretation of Measurement: 1 Reed = 1 Hebrew Long Cubit

Throughout Ezekiel 40-43, statements are made to specify the cubit type (see Ezekiel 40:5, Ezekiel 41:8, and Ezekiel 43:13). In all three instances, the Hebrew long cubit (HL cubit) is specified. Because of this, it is assumed that all cubits mentioned throughout Ezekiel 40-42 are HL cubits.

In this interpretation, people believe that a reed in Ezekiel 42:16-19 is equal to 1 HL cubit, which is approximately 21 inches. Typically, this conclusion is drawn from an assessment of compatibility. I will explain this assessment in the following paragraphs.

Ezekiel 42:15-19 is not the only source of information regarding the Temple complex perimeter. Earlier, in Ezekiel 40-41, it is possible to determine the Temple complex perimeter by adding up measurements found within Ezekiel 40:15-41:13.

NOTE: Unless there are two separate Temple complexes described within Ezekiel 40-42 (which I doubt), Ezekiel 40:15-41:13 and Ezekiel 42:15-19 provide dimensions for the same perimeter.

When you calculate the measurements in Ezekiel 40:15-41:13, the perimeter of the Temple complex is 500 cubits on each side (approx. 875 feet x 875 feet in HL cubits). Naturally, it is assumed that the same Temple complex perimeter should equal the same dimensions in both locations of Scripture— Ezekiel 40:15-41:13 and Ezekiel 42:16-19. However, if you apply the reed length from the 1st interpretation (1 reed = 6 HL cubits) to Ezekiel 42:16-19, the Temple complex perimeter is radically larger (approx. 5250 feet x 5250 feet) than it is in Ezekiel 40:15-41:13.

Because the perimeter sizes in Ezekiel 40:15-41:13 and Ezekiel 42:16-19 don’t match if you apply the reed length from the 1st interpretation (1 reed = 6 HL cubits) to Ezekiel 42:16-19, people have concluded that the reed length in Ezekiel 42:16-19 must be 1 cubit. If the reed length in Ezekiel 42:16-19 is 1 cubit, then the Temple complex perimeter is the same size in both Ezekiel 40:15-41:13 and Ezekiel 42:16-19 (approx. 875 feet x 875 feet in HL cubits).

NOTE: As stated previously, people who adhere to this interpretation assume that all cubits mentioned in Ezekiel 40-42 are HL cubits. Thus, they believe that the Temple complex perimeter is 500 HL cubits x 500 HL cubits in both Ezekiel 40:15-41:13 and Ezekiel 42:16-19.

3rd Interpretation of Measurement: 1 Reed = 1 Standard Cubit

This interpretation is almost identical to the 2nd interpretation—there’s only one difference. In certain places where the HL cubit is used, the standard cubit is used instead.

People who adhere to this interpretation don’t believe that Ezekiel 40:5, Ezekiel 41:8, and Ezekiel 43:13 standardize the HL cubit as the default cubit of measurement throughout Ezekiel 40-42. They believe that the Temple complex perimeter, derived from Ezekiel 40:15-41:13, is 500 standard cubits on each side (approx. 750 feet x 750 feet). They believe that the Temple complex perimeter, in Ezekiel 42:16-19, is 500 standard cubits on each side (approx. 750 feet x 750 feet).

The Septuagint Supports the 2nd or 3rd Interpretation of Measurement

In the Septuagint, the length of a reed, in context to Ezekiel 42:16-19, is specified through Ezekiel 42:17 and Ezekiel 42:20.

“And the measuring of the house from the inside was completed. And he brought me out by way of the gate that looks to the east, and he measured the plan of the house all around in its arrangement. And he stood behind the gate that looks to the east and measured five hundred by the measuring reed, and he turned toward the north and measured the part facing the north, five hundred cubits with the measuring reed. And he turned toward the sea and measured the part facing the sea, five hundred by the measuring reed, and he turned toward the south and measured opposite the south, five hundred by the measuring reed. The four were parts of the same reed. And he laid it out in order, even an enclosing wall for it all around of five hundred to the east and a width of five hundred cubits to separate between the holies and between the outer wall, which is in the design of the house.” (Iezekiel 42:15–20, NETS)

Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, editors. “Iezekiel.” A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), translated by J. Noel Hubler, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. Eze 42:15–20.

NOTE (4): I’ve made a few statements about the Septuagint in the notes section—ADDITIONAL NOTES (4).

Interpretations of Measurement—Conclusion

Based on all the information above, it seems that either the 2nd or 3rd interpretation of measurement is correct. Thus, the dimensions described in Ezekiel 40-46 are compatible with a historical context.

TEMPLE DIMENSIONS

Ezekiel 40-46 Temple Dimensions

Based on what’s said in Ezekiel 40:48-41:13, the Temple itself is 100 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. If you include the width of the raised platform’s free space (see Ezekiel 41:8-11), the Temple is 100 cubits long and 60 cubits wide.

The Ezekiel 40-46 Temple

100 cubits long, 50 cubits wide.

Standard Cubits (approx. 18 inches) = approx. 150 feet x 75 feet

HL Cubits (approx. 21 inches) = approx. 175 feet x 87.5 feet

The Ezekiel 40-46 Temple, Including the Width of the Raised Platform’s Free Space

100 cubits long, 60 cubits wide.

Standard Cubits (approx. 18 inches) = approx. 150 feet x 90 feet

HL Cubits (approx. 21 inches) = approx. 175 feet x 105 feet

Zerubbabel’s Temple (Second Temple)

Zerubbabel’s Temple (Second Temple) is somewhat of a mystery. Not much is known, in an official capacity, about its original dimensions. Aside from the potentiality of Ezekiel 40-46, Ezra 6:3 seems to be the only biblical record that provides specific dimensions for Zerubbabel’s Temple.

“In the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king issued a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be rebuilt, the place where sacrifices were offered, and let its foundations be retained. Its height shall be sixty cubits and its breadth sixty cubits,” (Ezra 6:3, ESV)

Comparing Zerubbabel’s Temple to the Temple of Ezekiel 40-46

In Ezekiel 40-46, the height of the Temple is not mentioned. In Ezra 6:3, the proposed length of Zerubbabel’s Temple is not mentioned. However, in both cases, dimensions for width are provided.

NOTE: The width of Solomon’s Temple (First Temple) was 20 cubits (see 1 Kings 6:2).

Proposed Width Dimension for Zerubbabel’s Temple in Ezra 6:3

60 cubits

Temple Width Dimensions in Ezekiel 40-46

Not including the width of the raised platform’s free space: 50 cubits

Including the width of the raised platform’s free space: 60 cubits

Final Considerations

The width dimensions from both sources are comparable. They might even be the same given two considerations:

1. Ezekiel 40-46 Temple: The inclusion or rejection of the raised platform’s free space in the width dimensions.

2. Ezra 6:3 Zerubbabel’s Temple: Ezra 6:3 might be referring to a Porch.

Temple Dimensions—Conclusion

With all things considered, I think it’s fair to say that the Temple in Ezekiel 40-46 is a likely candidate for Zerubbabel’s Temple (Second Temple).

PROPOSITION OF TWO TEMPLES—CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe that the Temple in Ezekiel 40-46 and the Temple in Ezekiel 47-48 are two distinct, separate Temples. I believe that the Temple in Ezekiel 40-46 is the Second Temple, and that the Temple in Ezekiel 47-48 is the Millennial Temple.

REMAINING SACRIFICES (NOTE: EDITING PROCESS STILL IN EFFECT – FINAL DRAFT NOT YET COMPLETED)

According to the interpretation in “(2.6a) Proposition of Two Temples,” Ezekiel 40-46 is removed from the eschatological framework of pre-millennialism. I believe that the remaining passages describing animal sacrifice, during the millennial age, contain neither sin offerings (chatat) nor guilt offerings (asham).

The eschatological passages I’m referring to are the following:

  • Isaiah 56:7 (olah, zebach)
  • Isaiah 66:20 (minchah)
  • Jeremiah 33:18 (olah, minchah, zebach)
  • Zechariah 14:16-21 ([Sukkot-Lev. 23:33-43 ('ishshâh, olah, minchah, zebach, nesekh)], zâbach)
  • Malachi 3:3-4 (minchah)

In the above verses, the following sacrificial terms are used or implied:

  • Olah
  • Zebach
  • Minchah
  • Nesekh
  • 'Ishshâh
  • Zâbach

NOTE: Zechariah 14:16-19 does not say whether or not Sukkot will include animal sacrifice during the millennial age. Some people think it will, others do not. To the interpretation that does involve animal sacrifice, I’ve included the sacrificial terms from Leviticus 23:33-43—I will explain why I didn’t include sacrificial terms from Numbers 29 in the sub-section below.

Of the remaining sacrificial terms listed, only some of them can be associated with expiatory roles. However, none of them are restricted to expiatory roles. Take the olah (burnt offering) for example. The following is a quote from Jacob Milgrom.

“The burnt offering then is a gift, with any number of goals in mind, one of which—the one singled out in this chapter—is expiation.” – Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale University Press, 2009. p. 176.

It seems that, according to Milgrom, the burnt offering can vary in its purpose—I believe Leviticus 22:18-19 attests to this. If I understand correctly, the burnt offering does not have to be expiatory—it can be carried out strictly as a reverential function.

NOTE: The olah (burnt offering) predates Mosaic law (e.g., Genesis 8:20).

Zebach, minchah, nesekh, 'ishshâh, and zâbach all have non-expiatory roles as well. They can all be carried out in the context of reverence, distinct from any expiatory role.

I believe that the context of animal sacrifice in the letter to the Hebrews is Mosaic law and expiation (e.g., Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 8:4, Hebrews 10:8, etc.).

“When he said above, ‘You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings’ (these are offered according to the law),” (Hebrews 10:8, ESV)

From a pre-millennial standpoint, sacrifices during the millennial age will not be expiatory, nor will they feature as elements of Mosaic law. Thus, I do not believe there is any contradiction between pre-millennial eschatology and the letter to the Hebrews.

SUKKOT DURING THE MILLENNIAL AGE

According to Zechariah 14:16-19, Sukkot will be practiced in the millennial age.

“Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain; there shall be the plague with which the Lord afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.” (Zechariah 14:16-19, ESV)

References to Sukkot

The feast of Sukkot translates to the feast of “Booths” or the feast of “Tabernacles.” Throughout the Bible, there are many different references to Sukkot...

“Feast of Harvest” (see Exodus 23:16)

“Feast of Ingathering” (see Exodus 34:22)

“feast of the Lord” (see Leviticus 23:39)

“feast to the Lord” (see Numbers 29:12)

“Sukkot”/”Booths”/”Tabernacles” (see Deuteronomy 16:13, Leviticus 23:34, Ezra 3:4, and Zechariah 14:16-19)

“the feast of the seventh month” (see Nehemiah 8:14)

“the feast” (see 1 Kings 8:2, 2 Chronicles 7:8, and John 3:37)

Instructions for Sukkot are found in the following passages: Exodus 23:16, Exodus 34:22-23, Leviticus 23:33-43, Numbers 29:12-39, Deuteronomy 16:13-17, Deuteronomy 31:10-11, Nehemiah 8:15, and Zechariah 14:16-19 (future).

No Expiatory Animal Sacrifice

Because of what’s prescribed in Numbers 29:12-39, some people believe that Sukkot will include expiatory animal sacrifice during the millennial age. Given my conclusions above, it should be obvious that I disagree with such a belief. In support of my conclusions, there’s an interpretation to consider.

In Daniel 9:24, a summary is provided.

“‘Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.” (Daniel 9:24, ESV)

In the summary, there’s a reference to atonement. I believe that this particular reference corresponds with Isaiah 53:5-6 and Isaiah 53:10-12. At some point during Daniel’s 70 weeks, the Messiah atones for the iniquities of the people, and as a result, expiatory animal sacrifice is obsolete. Given that the millennial age takes place after Daniel’s 70 weeks, there will be no expiatory animal sacrifice during the millennial age.

As a result of Messiah, instructions for food are different (see Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, and Romans 14:2-3). As a result of Messiah, Sukkot is different—there will be no expiatory animal sacrifices.

Christians believe that when the Jewish Messiah reigns on earth, there will be no expiatory animal sacrifice. Other religious communities have reached the same conclusion. Notice what’s said in Vayikra Rabbah 9:7.

https://www.sefaria.org/Vayikra_Rabbah.9.7?lang=bi

Elements of the New Covenant

As a result of Messiah, instructions for food are different, however, they’re not non-existent. Under the New Covenant, instructions for food are issued (see Acts 15:29) and observed. Christian Salvation is not dependent on these instructions, however, Christians are expected to follow them nonetheless.

The instructions in Acts 15:29 are not Mosaic law…

The instructions in Acts 15:29 are similar, or identical, to instructions found in the Torah (e.g., Leviticus 17). However, instructions in Acts 15:29 are not elements of Mosaic law, because they are instituted as elements of the New Covenant by the apostles. I believe that a similar circumstance is applicable to Sukkot in the millennial age—a format or practice, identical, or similar to something found in the Torah, is instituted as an element of the New Covenant.

In the millennial age, Sukkot features as an element of Jesus Christ’s New Covenant, not as an element of Mosaic law—Christians are not under Mosaic law, and are warned never to go back to Mosaic law – see Galatians 5:4…

“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4, ESV)

Christians will be expected to observe Sukkot AFTER the second coming of Christ, NOT BEFORE.

INITIAL SKEPTICISM

In 2016, I had become fairly skeptical of Darwinian claims. The following discussion is one of the first presentations I encountered, which featured a secular scholar, criticizing Darwinian Theory.

RANDOM INFORMATION AND JUNK DNA

Members of the scientific community once assumed that a substantial portion of the human genome was “junk DNA.” Many believed that junk DNA was evidence of evolution. However, throughout the years, there have been several developments in this field of research.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

It is thought that in contrast to microevolution, macroevolution requires a major increase in genetic information. Assuming that higher genomes are mostly functional and integrated (as ENCODE seems to suggest regarding the human genome), how might additional random information affect a higher genome’s overall performance?

If random information were added to a computer program’s code, would the program continue to function without impairment? If random information were added to a higher genome’s code, would the genome be more likely to improve or decline in functionality? Consider the following statement…

“Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact.” – Thornton, Joseph W., and Rob DeSalle. “Gene Family Evolution and Homology: Genomics Meets Phylogenetics.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, vol. 1, no. 1, September 2000, p. 64.

Notice some of the circumstances which might accompany random additions to the human genome.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38317

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_eye_syndrome

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/mecp2-duplication-syndrome/#causes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8p23.1_duplication_syndrome

If it’s true that macroevolution requires major additions to a genome, what is the likelihood of macroevolution occurring in nature? Alternatively, what would happen to an advanced organism if you were to remove some of its integrated components? How can there be earlier, radically diverse (evolutionary) stages of an advanced organism, if the organism requires a full roster of specific, integrated genetic architecture to function?

THE FREQUENCY OF DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS

Another issue to consider is the frequency of deleterious mutations and their impact on the human genome. This is a topic I first encountered when reading Dr. John Sanford’s book “Genetic Entropy.” Below is a video of Dr. Sanford presenting this topic to National Institutes of Health.

I do not agree with everything Dr. Sanford has said or concluded. However, I do believe he is correct about a number of issues.

At one point in time, it was assumed that a large number of deleterious mutations were in fact neutral because they occurred in areas thought to be junk DNA (and thus had no impact on fitness). However, as ENCODE has revealed, areas once thought to be junk are in fact functional and, with the discovery of poly-functional DNA, it appears that the human genome is even more integrated than previously thought.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the likelihood of a neutral mutation decreases as the functionality and integration of a genome increases. Additionally, it is widely recognized that the majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious. Taken in tandem, I think it’s fair to conclude that the vast majority of human mutations are deleterious. With that said, it is estimated that the human mutation rate is 100 or more mutations per person per generation.

https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html

If human mutations are predominantly deleterious, and are accumulating at the rate indicated above, then I believe the corrective ability of natural selection is decisively outpaced.

In the past, long before ENCODE, it was believed that human mutation rates would have to stay below very small numbers, such as 1 or 0.5, just to maintain equilibrium.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716299/pdf/ajhg00429-0003.pdf (see final paragraph on page 155)

As previously stated, scientists now estimate that the human mutation rate is 100 or more mutations per person, per generation, which is immensely higher than the aforementioned limit. Therefore, I do not believe humans are evolving, nor do I believe that humans evolved from lesser/lower genomes in the past.

Notice how origins-of-life research isn’t yielding the results that many people were anticipating.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/130905-mars-origin-of-life-earth-panspermia-astrobiology

DINOSAURS AND THE FOSSIL RECORD

Dinosaur soft tissue is another topic I've looked into.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper

As discussed in the link above, scientists have found collagen in dinosaur remains. They suggest that these remains are 80 million years old. Information in the link below seems to suggest that collagen shouldn’t be expected to persist beyond 3 million years when stored at 0°C.

http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf (refer to blue table at the bottom of the second page)

(I’ve heard the iron preservation claim and I don’t believe it. Notice the skepticism of Matthew Collins in the seventh paragraph of “Scientists retrieve 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein in ‘milestone’ paper”)

Below are some other articles I’ve read through.

https://phys.org/news/2009-11-ancient-muscle-tissue-million-year.html

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/cretaceous-collagen-can-molecular-paleontology-glean-soft-tissue-dinosaurs/

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-dinosaur-bone-collagen-20170131-story.html

I’m not sure about the geological age of the earth, however, I do believe the biosphere is only thousands of years old.

Back when I used to contemplate the fossil record, I would consider the opinions and statements of previous generations…

“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” – Kitts, David B. “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory.” Evolution, vol. 28, no. 3, September 1974, p. 467. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2407167.

“We have no idea why most structures in extinct organisms look the way they do. And, as I have already noted, different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated.” – Raup, David M. “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, no. 1, January 1979, p. 24. Biodiversity Heritage Library, www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/21020.

Some believe that punctuated equilibrium succeeds in harmonizing the fossil record with Darwinian thought.

I think theories, such as punctuated equilibrium, are full of problems (e.g., punctuated equilibrium does not seem to offer an explanation for the genesis of new body plans). In my opinion, such theories are desperate attempts to try and salvage or prolong a false paradigm.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

When one compiles various claims and theories espoused by considerable segments of modern-day society…

…one might notice a narrative, which seems to suggest, that people are apes from the planet Mars, possibly trapped inside a computer simulation—I totally disagree with this narrative.

Among other things, I’ve looked into panspermia hypotheses.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html/

One might wonder why, after examining the structure of DNA, Francis Crick considered the possibility of directed panspermia. Could it be that he noticed intelligent design in the genetic code?

I will mention that although I study content from the intelligent design community (namely Discovery Institute), I do so in a strictly secular, non-political context. My religious/theological/political beliefs are not represented by Discovery Institute or the intelligent design community.

In closing are some additional statements to consider…

“Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre- molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan.” – Davidson, Eric H. “Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology.” Developmental Biology, vol. 357, no. 1, September 2011, pp. 35-40.

“Contrary to widespread belief, there is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection.” – Lynch, Michael. “The Evolution of Genetic Networks by Non-Adaptive Processes.” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 8, no. 10, October 2007, p. 810.

“In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” – Grassé, Pierre-P. Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation, Kindle Edition, Elsevier Science, 1977, p. 87.

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” – Grassé, Pierre-P. Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation, Kindle Edition, Elsevier Science, 1977, p. 88.

1. The following quote is from an article about post-millennialism.

“…but Calvin, and later Charles Spurgeon, were remarkably inconsistent on eschatological matters. Spurgeon delivered a sermon on Psalm 72 explicitly defending the form of absolute postmillennialism held by the minority camp today, but on other occasions he defended premillennialism.” – “Postmillennialism.” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postmillennialism&oldid=1178934366. Accessed 9 Oct. 2023.

Post-millennialism can vary, in a major way, from one definition to the next—different people have different ideas as to what post-millennialism is.

2. With regard to a 360-day year and a 7-year week, there are more passages which should be considered.

Specific timeframes are mentioned, throughout the Bible, that pertain to the final week of Daniel (70th week).

It should be noted that the phrase “time, and times, and half a time” or “time, times, and half a time” is thought to denote a value of 3.5.

time = 1, times = 2, and half a time = ½

1 + 2 + ½ = 3.5

Consider the following passages:

* According to Matthew 24:15-16, the flight into the wilderness takes place when the abomination of desolation appears. According to Daniel 9:27, the abomination of desolation will appear at the midpoint of Daniel’s final week (70th week).

The flight into the wilderness is discussed in Revelation 12. Revelation 12:7-18 is an elaboration on Revelation 12:6. From this chapter we can see that a “time, and times, and half a time” is “1,260 days.”

(Revelation 12:6) —> 1,260 days

(Revelation 12:14) —> time, and times, and half a time

* If Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 11:3 are referring to the same time, then “forty-two months” is “1,260 days.”

(Revelation 11:2) —> forty-two months

(Revelation 11:3) —> 1,260 days

* If Daniel 7:25 is referring to the same time as Revelation 13:5, then a “time, times, and half a time” is “forty-two months.”

(Daniel 7:25) —> time, times, and half a time

(Revelation 13:5) —> forty-two months

NOTE: Matthew 24:22 should be taken into consideration when assessing Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:5.

The following calculations are based on the aforementioned assumptions. They also assume that the above instances of “forty-two months” and “1,260 days” are literal renderings of time.

time, and times, and half a time = forty-two months = 1,260 days

forty-two months divided by 12 = 3.5 years

time, and times, and half a time = 1 year + 2 years + ½ year = 3.5 years

time, and times, and half a time = 1,260 days = 3.5 years

1,260 divided by 360 = 3.5

Based on the assumptions and calculations above, half of Daniel’s final week (70th week) is 3.5 years long, the entire week is 7 years long, and each year consists of 360 days.

3. In a previous edit, I said “Premillennialists believe that the 69th week was marked by the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in 70 CE.”

The date/time of the order to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in Daniel 9:25 is disputed by various parties. The identity of the “anointing” or “anointed one” in Daniel 9:26 is disputed by various parties. What is generally not disputed, however, is the identity of the “sanctuary” in Daniel 9:26. The sanctuary in Daniel 9:26 is most certainly the Second Temple. Assuming that it is destroyed after the 69th week, but before the 70th week, the Second Temple’s destruction can be used as a chronological indicator; it can be used in determining the general timeframe of the 69th week.

4. Above I mentioned my use of the Septuagint. I believe the Septuagint is the best source for Old Testament Scripture, however, I do not believe the apocrypha is part of the biblical canon. I believe that originally, the apocryphal writings were bound together with the canonical Scriptures for convenience’s sake. I think that over time, people started mistaking the apocrypha for canon because of its close physical proximity to the canonical Scriptures.