Awake!, November 8, 1971

Download: PDF — Awake!, November 8, 1971

Awake! — November 8, 1971

Source: jw.org

Contents

Why Try to Be an Exception?

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

A Visit Inside the Earth

A Jewish Cantor Learns to Sing Jehovah’s Praises

Earth’s Waters—an Answer to Food Shortage?

Living Lamps Without Heat

A Friendly Dog—Is It Safe?

The Happy Graduates of Gilead School

The Role of God’s Spirit in Bible Writing

Watching the World

Safe Alternatives to Blood Transfusion

Grand Blessings from God Near at Hand

Why Try to Be an Exception?

Why Try to Be an Exception?

THE thief who makes picking pockets his career is a highly trained specialist. He has taken great pains to become skilled in the use of his fingers, in observing human nature and in not arousing suspicions. Invariably he likes to think that he is more adept than all others in his profession. Should he be apprehended, he is not only embarrassed but often struck by disbelief: “How could it be that I should have been detected?” He well illustrates the human weakness of thinking that one is an exception to the rule.

Today picking pockets is being outstripped by crimes involving violence. But the conceit that marks the pickpocket is more prevalent than ever before. More and more persons engage in lawless, foolish, reckless or loose conduct, confident that they can get away with it, that they will not get caught or have to pay the price for their folly.

Among ancient Biblical examples that might be mentioned of those who thought that they could get away with it is that of Achan. When God’s time came for the Israelites to capture the city of Jericho, and they were warned not to take any spoil, Achan secretly seized valuable spoil and hid it in his tent. He thought that he would be an exception, that he could get away with it. But did he? No; Jehovah God was watching and saw to it that Achan was exposed and suffered the penalty, death by stoning.​—Josh. 7:1-26.

Today, among those who think they are exceptions to the rule are gamblers. Plain reasoning should tell them that the gambler cannot win, that gambling houses make fortunes off gamblers. That is why some of them in Reno, Nevada, will charter planes and offer free rides to those who wish to come to gamble, knowing that the gamblers will lose far more than the cost of the plane ticket. Hostesses on these planes say that such passengers are more difficult to handle than the general run of passengers and that this is especially so on the return flights. And no wonder, for then they are frustrated because of having lost their money, having learned the hard way that they were not exceptions to the rule, that gambling does not pay. Learned? No, merely experienced, for they keep going back again and again to lose more and more money!

Among others who are equally foolish are those who drink alcoholic beverages before driving an auto. Only a shot or two of whiskey may put enough alcohol in their bloodstream to make them injudicious, reckless or careless drivers. Although car drivers are warned of this hazard time and again, what do we find? Ever so many think that they are an exception to the rule and, as a result, well over half of the 55,000 fatalities that occurred in 1970 in the United States as a result of auto accidents were due to the driver’s having had too much alcohol.

Then again, there are those who keep on smoking tobacco. Medical authorities in many lands are agreed that great harm results from smoking cigarettes, and more and more evidence along this line is accumulating all the time. As one of them put it, ‘Cigarettes are more deadly than germs, bullets or viruses.’

Recently Science magazine (May 14, 1971, pages 741-743) reported on tests made with young people who smoked cigarettes. As compared with nonsmokers, youths who smoked even less than a year made a poor showing as to the condition of their lungs. Bad effects were especially noticeable in those who smoked more than five cigarettes a day, and girls were harmed more by the habit than were the boys. And yet, in the United States, in spite of no more cigarette advertising on TV and radio, the first quarter of 1971 showed a 6-percent increase in cigarette consumption over the first quarter of 1970, for a total of 131.5 thousand million cigarettes.​—Business Week, May 29, 1971.

Among others who might be said to be even more foolish in thinking that they are an exception are those who toy with sexual immorality and think that they can get away with it. They engage in flirting, petting or necking, and before long they find themselves involved in fornication or adultery; and more than that, may have contracted VD or be faced with an illegitimate pregnancy. Today both of the latter are increasing by leaps and bounds.

The Bible gives wise counsel to help you to counteract the tendency of imperfect human nature to try to be an exception to the rule. It tells us, “More than all else that is to be guarded, safeguard your heart.” Why should you do so? Among the reasons is that because of inherited sin ‘the heart is more treacherous than anything else.’ It will flatter you with the notion that you can get away with lawlessness or folly of one kind or another.​—Prov. 4:23; Jer. 17:9.

Wisely and justly God’s Word warns: “Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.” (Gal. 6:7) “The wages sin pays is death.” (Rom. 6:23) “Your sin will catch up with you.” (Num. 32:23) “The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men their sins also become manifest later.”​—1 Tim. 5:24.

What will aid you to take these warnings seriously so that you will not be tempted into trying to be an exception to the rule? One thing is the fear of God, for it is the beginning of wisdom and means the hating of what is bad. Certainly if you have the fear of displeasing God you will never deceive yourself into thinking that you can get away with something. It will help you to be careful and to exercise that fruit of the spirit, self-control.​—Prov. 8:13; 9:10; Gal. 5:22, 23.

Also a great aid is setting the mind on the things that are virtuous, lovable, well spoken of and praiseworthy and being content with these rather than craving the thrills and excitement that go with questionable pastimes. As the Bible says: ‘Godly devotion along with self-sufficiency is great gain.’​—1 Tim. 6:6; Phil. 4:8.

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

IF YOU are an adult, how would you answer the above question? No doubt you would reply, as would nearly all adults: “My body belongs to me.”

What, then, if someone recommended that you eat a certain kind of food he thought was good for you, but you did not want to? How would you feel if he seized you and forced that food down your throat?

What if a surgeon recommended an operation to remove your arm, leg, eye, or some internal organ because he thought it would be good for your health, and you refused? How would you feel if he used force and did it anyway?

What if a doctor recommended a medicine he thought was good for you, but you did not want it? What if you rejected it because, while it may have benefited some, it had caused thousands of illnesses and deaths and also was against your religious beliefs? How would you feel if the doctor had you seized and forced you to take the medicine?

As an adult, likely you would be outraged at such treatment. Whatever the risks involved, you surely want to have the final say as to what happens to your body. Someone’s forcing you to do things like that against your will would make you feel like a slave, a prisoner. It would remind one of the “Dark Ages,” or of Nazi concentration camp tactics.

In many countries the rights of the individual over his own body are protected by law. In the United States, the Federal Constitution’s fourth amendment declares that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

The thirteenth amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.” And the first and fourteenth amendments guarantee a person the freedom of his religious beliefs.

Will Not “Play God”

Generally speaking, officials recognize this basic right of a person to have control over his body. Thus, when a Cincinnati hospital and physicians appealed to an Ohio court to authorize them to cut off a sixteen-year-old girl’s cancerous leg, the court refused.

Yet, the doctors claimed that she would have a much smaller chance of surviving without the operation. Then why did the court refuse? Because both the girl and her mother had denied doctors the permission to perform the operation.

Judge Benjamin Schwartz, who presided in the case, declared: “The girl testified in court that she would rather take her chances without the operation. She said if her leg was removed she would be a charity case the rest of her life. She said she wouldn’t be able to enjoy life, get married or even afford an artificial leg, and her mother agreed with her.”

Judge Schwartz added: “I said this court would not superimpose its will on unwilling people, . . . I would not grant the order. The question of the operation is up to the mother and the girl. I am not going to play God.”​—Evening Independent, Massillon, Ohio, July 9, 1971.

Similarly, a circuit court judge in Miami, Florida, ruled that a seventy-two-year-old woman who had been receiving painful medical treatment had “the right to die in peace.” The woman suffered from a fatal blood disorder and had been taking blood transfusions. The procedure involved painful surgery on her veins, so she pleaded with the doctors to stop, even if she died. She said she did not want to be “tortured any more.”

The judge, David Popper, stated: “A person has the right not to suffer pain. . . . I cannot decide whether she will live or die. That is up to God.” He ruled that she had the right to refuse medical treatment, and forced the doctors to stop.

Refusing Blood

In that case, the woman did not object to the blood transfusions. What she objected to was the painful procedure.

Yet, what if other persons object to the blood transfusion itself? Should they not, as adults, have the right to refuse this medical treatment and accept one of their choosing?

One of the reasons why some would refuse blood was noted by Winfield Miller, associate editor of Medical Economics. He said: “No biologic product has a greater potential for fatal mistakes in medical practice than blood. More than one doctor has learned to his sorrow that every bottle of blood in the blood banks is a potential bottle of nitroglycerin.”

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal of June 14, 1971, observed: “An estimated 180,000 Americans each year develop serum hepatitis from blood transfusions alone. Of these, 3,000 die and 30,000 others are bedridden for weeks.”

This tragic toll comes from just one complication of blood transfusions​—serum hepatitis. However, there are others. In the book Complications in Surgery Management, under the heading “Cumulative Mortality from Complications of Blood Transfusions,” we read:

“The annual mortality from only 3 complications of blood transfusion (hemolytic reactions, overload and serum hepatitis) is computed to be 16,500. Although some assumptions used in arriving at this figure may be challenged, one cannot dispute the fact that there is a tremendous loss of life and induced illness from this procedure, . . . In terms of disability and loss of life . . . blood transfusions rival some of our major health problems.”

Thus, early in 1971, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that hospitals may be liable for damages when a patient contracts hepatitis from a blood transfusion.

In view of all this, should an adult be forced to take blood if he does not want to? Reasonable persons will acknowledge that an adult ought to have the right of choice regarding a product that has such a potential for danger, especially if it is also against his religious beliefs.

Respecting Patients’ Requests

Many physicians agree and give their patients this right of choice. For instance, in 1970 Dr. Charles W. Pearce, a cardiologist, successfully performed open-heart surgery on one of Jehovah’s witnesses without using blood, since that was the patient’s request. Observers were amazed at the patient’s speedy recovery. The Sentry News of Slidell, Louisiana, reported:

“The surgeon said he believes the method used has proven a boon not only to Jehovah’s witnesses but to most patients undergoing open heart surgery. ‘We recently used this technique in 100 consecutive open heart operations for congenital heart defects,’ he explained, ‘and there was only one mortality.’”

Dr. Pearce said that not using blood virtually eliminated the possibility of infectious hepatitis and the risk of allergic reaction. In addition, he noted that when blood is used the functions of the heart, lungs and kidneys sometimes become impaired during the early period following surgery. He stated: “But with the [bloodless] technique, the function of these organs is nearly always satisfactory.”

This is similar to what the widely known heart surgeon Dr. Denton Cooley and his team of Texas doctors have been doing. The Arizona Republic of December 6, 1970, tells about it:

“Of all the things that can go wrong during heart surgery, one of the major problems always has been the complications of blood transfusions. A patient risks hepatitis, reactions leading to shock and the possibility of the transfused blood being incompatible with his own. Now this problem seems to have been solved by a group of Houston doctors. They simply eliminate the transfusions.

“This radical step was taken by the famed team of surgeons headed by Dr. Denton Cooley . . .

“The procedure worked successfully on [Jehovah’s] Witnesses and now is used by the team on all heart patients, with a resulting decrease in postoperative complications.

“‘We have a contract with the Jehovah’s Witnesses not to give a transfusion under any circumstances,’ Cooley says. ‘The patients bear the risk then, because we don’t even keep blood on hand for them.’ . . .

“‘We became so impressed with the results on the Jehovah’s Witnesses,’ Cooley says, ‘that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients. We’ve had surprisingly good success and used it in our [heart] transplants as well.’”

Such doctors listen to the requests of their patients. They understand that this is the only right thing to do. Also, they have reaped benefits, since they have learned things they did not know before. And if there is any risk because of refusing some medical treatment, it is taken by the patient. He bears the responsibility, which is as it should be.

“Dark Ages” Decision

In the face of all this, a completely opposite action was taken in July 1971 by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It upheld a lower court’s order that forced a blood transfusion upon an adult of sound mind, twenty-two-year-old Delores Heston, who had been in an accident.

Repeatedly, Miss Heston told her doctor and others that she did not want blood under any circumstances. She even carried a card that said the same thing in case she was unconscious. But her wishes were completely ignored. The lower court ruled for the forced transfusion. An eyewitness, Thomas Keeney, gives this notarized account of what happened as she was forcibly taken to the operating room:

“During the process of moving her onto the bed she kept yelling, ‘Leave me alone leave me alone.’

“When they wheeled Delores down the hall, she was hollering all the way down the hall, ‘Leave me alone.’

“She also hollered for someone to help her, to make them stop. She said repeatedly that they should leave her alone. She saw Bob DiNardo [a friend] standing in the hall when they wheeled her past him and she said to him, ‘Bob, help me.’ She hollered all the way into the operating room.”

Another eyewitness testified that she could be heard resisting even after the operating room doors were closed. But no help was possible, as the court order could be enforced by physical violence, even with police help, if necessary.

Thus, Miss Heston’s body was seized and she was forced to take a medical treatment she absolutely did not want. The law calls a person who seizes and violates a woman a criminal, a rapist. What, then, of doctors and officials who did the same, seizing and violating the body of this woman against her will? The account surely sounds like something out of the “Dark Ages” or a Nazi concentration camp.

True, Miss Heston had been in an accident. Doctors felt she would die without a blood transfusion. But ever so many persons have been told that by doctors. And most of these persons who refused blood survived. Even if they did not, it was still their decision to make.

Surely there are risks​—both ways, as is obvious from the horrible toll of 180,000 injured and dead from hepatitis alone. But the point at issue here is that the individual should have the right to decide which risk he will take, and then bear the consequences.

Inconsistencies

The opinion of the Supreme Court of New Jersey was written by the presiding judge, Joseph Weintraub. It is of interest, then, to read the following item that appeared in the Easton, Pennsylvania, Express about three years ago, on December 3, 1968:

“The Chief Justice of New Jersey strongly criticized hospitals and commercial blood banks Monday for ‘using dirty sources’ of blood for transfusions.

“The criticism from Chief Justice Joseph Weintraub came as he heard arguments in the case of Mrs. Fanny Lou Jackson of Plainfield.

“Mrs. Jackson, who claimed she suffered hepatitis as a result of blood transfusions, is suing Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield and the Eastern Blood Bank in Newark. . . .

“‘You are taking blood from drunkards and derelicts in skid row areas who would not hesitate to lie about their past medical history to get their hands on a few dollars,’ the chief justice said to lawyers for the hospital and blood bank. . . .

“The chief justice said he was especially concerned about the use of blood from narcotics addicts who expose themselves to hepatitis by using needles on themselves.”

But then, in 1971, in the case of Miss Heston, the same judge called blood transfusion “a simple, established procedure”! He should have known better, especially in view of his own testimony three years previously, and in view of what has been written so extensively in medical journals by more competent authorities.

In the opinion, Judge Weintraub also pointed out that ‘attempted suicide is a common-law crime and is now considered a disorderly persons’ offense under New Jersey law.’ But where was there any evidence of attempted suicide? None at all. Miss Heston did not want to die. She did not try to take her own life. She wanted medical attention, even surgery if necessary. She was willing to take medication she approved, including any of several alternatives to blood.

But speaking of taking life, what about the thousands who die from taking blood each year? If the risk of dying by not taking blood is called an offense against the law, and a court order is issued, why not issue court orders seizing the doctors whose patients have been killed by blood transfusions? After all, such doctors have been responsible for taking lives and causing injury to thousands of people each year. Is refusing a blood transfusion to be considered against the law, but maiming and killing thousands of people each year to be considered lawful? Is it reasonable to regard one who refuses blood as a criminal, but not those who are manslayers?

Motives Not Always Pure

Most doctors, including those who believe in blood transfusions, are sincere in their point of view. But they can be mistaken, and are. Then there are doctors who are simply unaware of the latest findings in the field of medicine, especially in connection with what can be done without blood. Others are too proud to admit they are not infallible, and still others simply do not care about their patients’ rights.

In the case of some doctors their motives, their sincerity, has to be questioned. Why? Because while they say they give blood in their desire to save life, they turn right around and perform or approve abortions, which take life​—165,000 in New York city alone in one year! Imagine the outcry and court orders if 165,000 babies had died because the mothers had refused blood transfusions! But, especially since those killed in abortions are not big enough to protest, this legalized murder is performed by many doctors.

Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer and kills thousands of people. Alcoholism shortens the lives of thousands more. But do doctors get court orders seizing smokers and alcoholics and forcing medical treatment on them? No, even such obviously harmful practices are left up to the individual although they kill thousands of times more people than may die because of having refused a blood transfusion. Has anyone seriously suggested getting a court order forbidding people to drive automobiles because more than a thousand are killed and forty times as many are injured on the average each week in accidents?

So there are many practices, for good or bad, that involve risks. The individual is given the right to decide if he will take them. Why, then, single out a person who refuses blood to force her to take a treatment she does not want, particularly when the treatment itself involves a risk, is against her religious beliefs and she is willing to take alternative medical treatment?

The mentality of some in the medical profession toward their patients’ rights was noted recently by an article in Newsweek of August 9, 1971. It reported the following after Dr. Christiaan Barnard of South Africa transplanted a heart and two lungs from one person into another:

“Later the same day Rosaline Gunya, wife of the dead donor, Jackson Gunya, tearfully told reporters that Groote Schuur [hospital] authorities had not even told her of her husband’s death before his organs were removed, much less asked her permission for the transplant. ‘I would never have given permission for his heart to be taken from his body,’ she sobbed. ‘This is a terrible thing that has happened.’”

Although hospital authorities claimed they did not know Mr. Gunya was married, it was learned that Mrs. Gunya had visited her husband the night before he died. And reporters took no more than thirty minutes to discover the dead man’s relatives. Could not the doctors also have done that, had they been so inclined? Said South Africa’s Cape Times editorially: “It is regrettable that [Professor Barnard] should have gone on record as saying: ‘We thought he was a bachelor.’ Even African bachelors have brothers and sisters.”

So while many doctors and officials have proper motives and respect their patients’ requests and rights, there are those who do not, and who trample on them instead. That such an attitude could exist today is sobering food for thought. It shows that the thinking of some is not far from the mentality of the “Dark Ages” and Nazi concentration camps.

But those who deny the patient his Godgiven right of choice, especially when it does involve his relationship to God, will one day have to answer for what they have done. And they will have to answer to God himself. At that time none will be able to run for a court order, because such will be without power. Instead, they will collide, head on, with the Supreme Judge of the universe, to their shame and eternal loss.​—Deut. 32:35, 41.

A Visit Inside the Earth

A Visit Inside the Earth

By “Awake!” correspondent in Lebanon

NO EARTHLY sculptor could carve the beauty that unfolds inside the earth. Here is a breathtaking wonderland; a phenomenon of fantastic formations of colorful stalactites and stalagmites, exquisite chambers, and crystal-clear waters.

Underground caverns are found in many parts of the world. In Lebanon we have a truly remarkable example of their beauty​—the gorgeous Jeita caves. They are located in the Lebanon Mountains not far from the blue Mediterranean.

On the Way

We decided to visit them recently. Leaving Beirut, we drove for just thirty minutes along the Mediterranean Sea until we arrived at the Dog River, or Nahr El Kalb as the Arabs call it. The source of this river is found in the caves of Jeita.

This place was the crossroads of the ancient world. Here Pharaohs marched against the Hittites. Syrian kings traveled this route to conquer the cities of Sidon and Tyre. And Roman legions under General Vespasian passed this way to suppress revolt in Jerusalem. All were unaware of the marvelous realm that lay inside the earth so nearby!

Discovery and Exploration

The Jeita caves were discovered only a little more than a hundred years ago. An American named Thomson, while on a hunting trip, sought shelter in a mountain cave. He heard gurgling water, and curiously, but cautiously, followed the sound. To his amazement he came upon the shores of an underground lake. Wondering where it might lead, he fired his gun into the darkness. The answer came back​—a reverberating echo through a maze of caverns. Thus Jeita was discovered in the year 1836.

Thirty-seven years later, in 1873, two engineers of the Beirut Water Company, Maxwell and Bliss, made further explorations, discovering the source of the Dog River. They were the first to set eyes on the colorful stalagmite and stalactite formations. Additional expeditions were made by others, locating more wonders. Finally the farthest parts of the caves were reached​—over four miles!

In one place, in which only the most daring cave explorers would venture, the roof of the cavern is some 200 feet high! This gaily decorated cave was opened to the public in 1955. In 1958 an upper chamber was discovered over 160 feet above the river. This, too, has thousands of formations. It was officially opened to the public in August 1967.

Beginning the Tour

We reach the inside of the caves, and notice that the air is much cooler than outside. Here at Jeita the caverns remain at a constant 59 degrees Fahrenheit the year around. Coming to a body of water, we get into a gondola-type flat boat. With keen anticipation we continue our journey inside the earth.

Our boatman stands in the bow with a long steering pole that he uses deftly to guide our boat through the dark waters. The channel is wide, but quickly narrows. The huge rock on the right was called “The Cork” by early explorers, since it had blocked their efforts to explore the Caverns further. As we pass it, we get our first glimpse of the colorful stalactites.

These exquisite wonders hang from the ceiling like huge icicles, canopies, chandeliers, and draperies. And in what a gorgeous cascade of colors​—tans, reds and whites! Also, on all sides stalagmites in a variety of sizes, shapes and colors jut from the cave floor. Some are like huge pillars and trees; one looks like the leaning tower of Pisa. Others resemble demijohns, jellyfish and even figures of humans and animals. In places stalagmites rise to meet the hanging stalactites to form one solid column.

Breathtaking Formations

Surprisingly, the Great Sculptor used very simple tools to chisel out these masterpieces of art. Limestone and water are the basic ingredients. In fact, the word stalactite means “oozing of drops.”

Water seeps into the caves from above-ground, carrying minute particles of calcium carbonate dissolved from the limestone. The water hangs from the ceiling in drops that very slowly evaporate. The calcium carbonate that remains forms a small ring on the ceiling and crystallizes. The object grows as drops of water continue to evaporate slowly and leave their deposits.

Sometimes the water does not completely evaporate but falls, depositing the beginnings of an inverted stalactite, or stalagmite. These formations grow at a slow rate. We look in amazement at an immense column. What a marvel! It must be fifty feet high!

Jeita is by no means the largest cave in the world. Mammoth Cave in Kentucky has more than 150 miles of explored tunnels! However, Jeita provides the comfort of viewing its wonders as one glides noiselessly through crystal-clear waters.

The Upper Galleries

After our twenty-five minute ride on this calm subterranean lake, we still have ahead of us another forty minutes in the breathtaking upper galleries. We find these no less a wonder.

Here, too, the stalactite and stalagmite formations grow in all shapes​—some sparkling like precious gems in reddish and greenish hues. Others appear to be a forest of pine trees. The most beautiful of all the stalactite formations are the rare white stalactites called calcite, formed from pure calcium carbonate.

But most formations are in color combinations. Carbonic acid picks up minerals in the soil, and these give the formations their color. Iron turns formations yellow, orange-brown and red. Manganese makes them black, while copper gives them a greenish or bluish tint. That is why our realm inside the earth is so lovely.

The calm and quietness here move us to whisper. Only the sound of dripping water from the stalactite feeding her sister the stalagmite breaks the silence. The upper galleries give one the impression of a huge concert hall, and, indeed, it is used for that very purpose! How grand it must be to listen to music in such an inspiring setting!

Truly the Great Sculptor has carved an underground realm that delights the eyes. No wonder it calls forth from us visitors to Jeita expressions of praise to the Creator.

A Jewish Cantor Learns to Sing Jehovah’s Praises

A Jewish Cantor Learns to Sing Jehovah’s Praises

As told to “Awake!” correspondent in Israel

AT THE age of seventeen I was studying at a college for rabbinical students in Istanbul. This is a seminary for the preparation and instruction of rabbis for the whole of Turkey. Due to my progress in my Torah and Talmud studies, I had been appointed as the cantor (an official who sings or chants religious music and leads the congregation in prayer) at a well-known synagogue. I was also appointed as instructor over two classes of younger students of the Torah. Both these assignments carried with them a steady salary.

Although my parents were not so enamored with the idea, I had planned to terminate my local studies there in Turkey and to transfer to a Yeshiva (a school for advanced Talmudic study) in order to complete my education there.

A Bible Discussion with Aftereffects

But at this stage came the turning point. One day two sisters of a friend of mine asked me to visit a certain family with them. “There’s someone calling there every week who argues against the teachings of Judaism,” they said. “But we are sure that if you would come along, you’d be able to win the argument.” I agreed to go along, and we fixed a time.

Equipped with my Bible in Hebrew, and wearing my traditional kippa or skullcap, I set out for the appointed place at 9 o’clock in the evening. The house was full of people, many of them curious onlookers. And there among them sat a young man from a Moslem family who took out a Bible in the Turkish language. I was quite taken aback at seeing someone from a Moslem family with a Bible, it being the Holy Book that I viewed as originating with the Jews, but I quickly got over my astonishment. Our discussion of various Biblical themes soon got under way.

I felt confident, in view of having a good knowledge of the Bible. But it became clear to me later that it is not enough to know what is written in the Scriptures, but one must also understand them. Besides this, many teachings that I had believed were based on the Bible proved, to my surprise, not to have any connection with the Bible at all, being instead traditions added later by various rabbis.

I have to admit that I had quite a tough time trying to defend my beliefs Biblically, the discussion continuing until 3 o’clock in the morning! However, I was sure that the points that I was not able to answer myself, the rabbi teachers would know. So I determined to ask one of them the following day.

One of the basic tenets of the Jewish faith, for example, is a belief in the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. But according to this Turkish man, the Bible itself does not indicate any need for building a material temple to God. In proof he quoted the words of Isaiah 66:1: “This is what Jehovah has said: ‘The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where, then, is the house that you people can build for me, and where, then, is the place as a resting-place for me?’”

The next day I raised a question on this matter with the rabbi during a class lesson. I asked him: “On what basis do we believe that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, when God is not interested in such buildings, according to Isaiah 66:1?”

The rabbi glared at me suspiciously, and raised his voice as he asked me: “Are you going to the ‘Jehovists’ [Jehovah’s Christian witnesses]? Don’t you dare!” From the way that he spoke, it sounded as though I must indeed have committed some terrible sin, so I fervently denied it, “No! No!” But then he just went right on with the set lesson, leaving me without any answer to my question.

It really puzzled me how the rabbi could possibly have known that I had met with Jehovah’s Christian witnesses just by my asking this one question. Later I realized that the Jewish rabbis and the clergy of Christendom in the city simply could not tolerate the Witnesses, being alarmed at the growing number of people that were leaving their flocks and associating with Jehovah’s witnesses.

Study Convinces Me of Bible Truth

About two weeks later, while on my way to give a private lesson to one of my students, I heard someone calling me by name. I recognized him as the house owner where I had had that long discussion two weeks previously. “Well, what did you think about him?” he wanted to know.

“I wasn’t so greatly impressed,” I replied, not wanting to lose my self-respect.

“Would you like to meet one of Jehovah’s witnesses who is Jewish-born?” he inquired.

“I wouldn’t mind,” I said, but hastened to add, “but I’ll never leave my Jewish faith.”

We fixed a date for our meeting. This appointment proved to be the first in a series of weekly discussions, all held secretly for fear of the reactions that would inevitably come from my teachers, my parents and from the whole Jewish community. For all that, I decided to continue these discussions so as to be able to make a full and thorough comparison between my traditionalist Jewish studies at the seminary and the Bible teachings of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.

The more that I associated with the Witnesses and came to know them well, the more I became convinced that they have the Bible’s truth. So in due course came the time when I could not hold it in any longer, nor did I want to do so. I decided to discuss the Bible truths that I had learned, both with others in my own class at the college and with the students that I was currently teaching. Immediately came objections and opposition from every quarter. At the school I was summoned to the headmaster’s room. His language was unmistakable and, in fact, threatening​—if I would not cease all association with Jehovah’s witnesses, he would dismiss me from the school. He also pressed me to give the names and addresses of the Witnesses that I knew, so that he could pass the information on to the police. Needless to say, I did not reveal anything to him.

The news of my becoming a Christian witness of Jehovah spread rapidly throughout the entire Jewish community in Istanbul. The members of the school began to avoid me, for fear of being influenced to become “converted” also. Often I had to contend with ridicule. Although this was not a pleasant experience it did not worry me unduly.

Incident Regarding Isaiah 9:6, 7

I well remember an experience that occurred in school one day. Due to the fact that the higher classes were small in size, three classes were joined together for Bible study. The ages of the students varied from seventeen to twenty-one. During a lesson with Rabbi M​——​——— from a Jerusalem Yeshiva, we were studying the ninth chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy. Regarding Isa 9 verse six of that chapter, the interpretation was given that the promised “child” that was born was none other than King Hezekiah of Judah. The rest of the students simply accepted this explanation without question. But I interrupted the teacher to ask how it was possible to attribute the fulfillment of this prophecy to Hezekiah when he certainly did not prove to be a “Mighty God,” an “Eternal Father,” or a “Prince of Peace,” nor did he establish the “throne of David” firmly or sit thereon forever.

He replied by asking me what I myself thought about the passage. I expressed my belief that it must surely refer to the Messiah, the one who would sit on David’s throne to time indefinite and who would establish eternal peace. Such an application of these words seemed to come as a complete surprise to the rabbi, he apparently not being used to opinions like these being expressed.

It was interesting to see how the whole class awoke from their lethargy and waited expectantly for the rabbi’s response. I could hear them whispering one to another: “He hasn’t changed his ideas.” “It seems that he’s still going to the ‘Jehovists.’” And even the rabbi’s response was to ask me: “Are you the one named David?” It was obvious that he had been warned about me, but did not know me personally. “I will deal with your question after the lesson,” he said.

The bell rang to terminate the class, but no one wanted to leave the classroom​—they all waited to hear the rabbi’s answer to my question about the remarkable prophecy of Isaiah chapter nine, verses six and seven. But he announced that he would wait until the classroom was cleared before dealing with the matter, so they had to leave. However, all the students gathered outside the open window so as to listen to the discussion. The rabbi rose, scolded them and firmly closed the window before turning to me. “Is it you that I heard has got mixed up with the ‘Jehovists’? I advise you to stay away from them, and to accept the interpretations given by the rabbis.” That was the only answer that he gave to my question. With that he left the room.

After a while I was called before the local Jewish community committee for the area in which I lived, in order to clarify my position. I took the opportunity to present a full explanation of my outlook and beliefs. The committee’s decision regarding my case was made public the following sabbath when the committee chairman addressed the central synagogue and expressed their regrets about my “conversion” to Christianity. He announced my dismissal from my offices as cantor and teacher, and warned all, especially my friends, not to maintain any association with me, in view of my being no longer a member of the Jewish community.

Results of Meetings with Rabbis

I had, of course, been expecting that such steps would be taken in due course, so this was no surprise. However, this public announcement brought on bitter opposition from my parents. They even turned me out of the family home for a time. When they later allowed me back, they concentrated every effort on persuading me that my course was wrong. I told them that I was ready to meet any rabbi who could present to me convincing arguments. One rabbi expressed his readiness to reason with me and fixed an appointment for a discussion to take place at our local synagogue.

Present at this discussion were a number of my friends who had stopped speaking to me ever since my expulsion. The discussion centered around the subject of God’s name, Jehovah. In response to his claims that the divine name must never be mentioned or used and that it is not important in Jewish worship, I quoted a number of verses from the Bible that specifically state man’s obligation to call on God’s name, to teach his name to others and to use God’s name in prayer. At this he became enraged and started to shout at me. He even cursed the very name of Jehovah God! I could not refrain from asking him how he could possibly claim to be a spiritual leader of the nation and at the same time curse the name of Jehovah God his Creator. I reminded him of the case of Pharaoh of Egypt who refused to recognize Jehovah but who despised him and whose end was a bitter one. Apparently he realized the extreme seriousness of what he had done, for he began to deny the whole thing, swearing that he had not cursed the name of Jehovah.

As I left the synagogue that night and made my way home, I was conscious of someone following me along the road. It was one of my friends who had sat in at the discussion. He caught up with me and said: “Now I know that you have the truth. I myself heard how the rabbi lied, when he denied cursing the name of Jehovah.” In due course he began to study the Bible with one of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses and started to attend meetings of the Christian congregation.

One final effort was made to ‘straighten out’ my thinking when an uncle of mine fixed an appointment for me to meet the Chief Rabbi for all of Turkey. At this meeting were also present two other leading members of the Jewish community. It was held at the rabbi’s country summer residence, where he was staying at the time. Right from the start he derided the Witnesses as being no more than simple, ignorant people, using the term am ha-ʹarets (literally ‘people of the earth’). But then, when he eventually gave me an opportunity to state my views and I requested that he bring out his Bible, he replied that he did not have one in the house. I could not hide my utter amazement that in the home of the Chief Rabbi of the whole land there was not one copy of the Bible, despite the Scriptural injunction: “This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an undertone read in it day and night.” (Josh. 1:8) Then he quickly tried to save face in front of the others present by saying that he had forgotten to transfer his Bible from his winter home in the city.

At the close of this meeting, those present advised me that my best course would be to move to Israel, for there I would be certain to be restored to the right path. Sometime later, in fact, I did move to Israel as an immigrant, but instead of their expectations being realized, I am still serving Jehovah as one of his witnesses, sharing regularly in the Christian ministry.

Instead of singing set portions of the Torah on sabbath days as a cantor in the synagogue, I am happy to be singing Jehovah’s praises daily, by proclaiming his name and kingdom in the homes of interested persons. This is my response to the Scriptural call: “Sing to Jehovah, bless his name.”​—Ps. 96:2, 3.

Earth’s Waters—an Answer to Food Shortage?

Earth’s Waters​—an Answer to Food Shortage?

EARTH’S soaring population means tens of millions of new mouths to feed each year. Yet even now many people are starving, and others are hungry. Where can the food to feed everyone be obtained?

It is commonly believed that earth’s waters are an adequate source. One writer asserted: “There is no need for anyone on earth to go hungry when there is a vast, practically untapped and possibly unlimited supply of food in the sea.” But is this true? Do the seas have a sufficient food supply?

Food Potential of the Seas

The amount of food taken from earth’s waters has increased dramatically. From less than 19 million metric tons in 1950, the annual harvest has increased to over 60 million metric tons. That may seem like a lot. However, it is estimated that this amounts to only a little more than 3 percent of the total human food produced. Can the sea yield much more?

Some persons noting the vastness of the sea​—it covers nearly three-quarters of the earth—​have assumed that it can. But there is a fact that some fail to consider. And that is that most of the sea is virtually unproductive of food, even as is most of the land.

The new book Environment​—Resources, Pollution & Society, edited by W. W. Murdoch, observes: “The open sea—​an estimated 90 percent of the ocean​—is considered a biological desert, contributing almost nothing to current world fishing and offering little potential for the future.” The majority of sea creatures live and are caught in the relatively shallow coastal waters. In fact, fish are concentrated in certain nearshore areas. Why?

Areas abundant with fish have a right combination of wind, current and slope of continental shelf that brings from the ocean depths water laden with nutrients from decomposed sea life. On reaching the levels of the ocean where sunlight penetrates, the “upwelling” nutrients result in the rapid proliferation of tiny floating plants and animals upon which fish feed. Thus the above-quoted source notes: “Upwelling areas form only about 0.1 percent of the ocean, but produce half of the world’s fish supply.”

Of what significance is the concentration of fish in small areas of the ocean and their scarcity elsewhere? It is as Fisheries Biologist William Ricker warned: The sea is not “a limitless reservoir of food energy.” And underseas explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau warned, on returning from a world underseas exploration, that life in the oceans had decreased by 40 percent since 1950 due to overfishing and pollution.

So apparently man cannot count on conventional fishing methods to increase greatly his food supply. In fact, based on such reports as that of Cousteau, there is danger that less food will be available from the seas in the future.

Another Method

Yet some still feel that earth’s waters hold an answer to food shortage. They note that fishing fleets roam about looking for their prey, even as it was once common on land for men to hunt animals. But greater food productivity was realized when the emphasis shifted to raising land animals instead of hunting them. It is felt that a similar shift of emphasis could increase the productivity of the sea. The method of raising water creatures in captivity is called aquiculture (water farming), or mariculture (sea farming).

Aquiculture has recently caught the public fancy. But what are its prospects? Can creatures that live in the water be raised for food, even as cattle, swine and other land animals are? What has been done in this field? Is aquiculture an answer to relieving world food shortage?

An Old yet Productive Practice

Aquiculture is actually an old practice. As far back as 475 B.C.E. a treatise on raising fish was written in China by a Fan Li. Other peoples, including the ancient Greeks and Romans, also practiced the art.

In China aquiculture has been developed so that it is an important food source. Some 1.5 million metric tons [3,306,000,000 pounds] of carp and carplike fishes are produced there a year. That represents the major part of aquiculture’s annual world production of over 2 million metric tons.

The countryside of China is dotted with freshwater ponds in which carp are raised. The carp has been selectively bred to produce a fast-growing, fleshy fish with a minimum of scales. And the Chinese exercise care to prevent its reversion to the wild type. That this can quickly occur is shown by what happened when the carp was introduced to America in 1877, and was allowed to escape into rivers and lakes. It reverted to the bony, scaly, wild variety often found in waters used for game fishing.

Aquiculture is also practiced on a large scale in Indonesia, the Philippines and Taiwan, and quite extensively in northern Italy. Near the coasts of these countries hundreds of thousands of acres of brackish water ponds are maintained. Here milkfish (a tropical fish resembling a large herring) and gray mullets are raised. Since breeding of these fish in captivity is in the experimental stage, the young must still be collected along the shores and transferred to ponds to mature.

The productivity of these ponds makes the effort worth while. In the Philippines, for instance, the annual milkfish harvest yields some 42 million pounds, an average of about 500 pounds per acre. In Indonesia, where sewage is diverted into the ponds, the annual production sometimes exceeds 4,000 pounds per acre. These fish, however, need to be well cooked before they are eaten.

Catfish, Trout and Salmon

In the United States significant strides have been made in raising fish for food. Within the last decade catfish aquiculture has progressed from just a few farmers learning the art by trial and error to a booming industry. By 1970 there were 58,000 acres in ponds, principally in the Mississippi delta area. These ponds produced some 78 million pounds of catfish! That represents a yield of over 1,300 pounds per acre, far above the 300 to 500 pounds of beef an acre produced from good grazing land.

Trout and salmon are also important in aquiculture, especially rainbow trout. In Idaho’s Snake River valley a vast underground lake makes possible a rapid flow of water of the right temperature (58° F.) through fish ponds, which is ideal for trout raising. And by feeding the rainbows a special diet, fantastic annual yields of 400,000 pounds of fish per acre are obtained! Similar yields per acre have been achieved in Indonesia by confining carp in bamboo cages in a rapidly flowing stream that is rich in sewage.

Raising salmon involves more a “ranching” technique, rather than “farming.” Salmon hatch in rivers, migrate to the sea to mature, and, driven by instinct, return to their birthplace years later to spawn. By selective breeding and special feeding, very fast-growing, hearty salmon have been developed. Thus, instead of spending the usual four years in the ocean to mature, some of the new breed return to their birthplace in only a year. It is envisioned that large artificial runs of salmon will be produced that can be harvested on their return home after a year or so of pasturing at sea.

Raising Shellfish

The majority of shellfish, between 4 and 5 million metric tons a year, are taken from the sea by conventional fishing methods. But the farming of oysters, shrimp and other shellfish has also become common, with the Japanese taking a lead in the advances. For example, they pioneered the use of suspension cultures in oyster farming, a practice that is now spreading to the rest of the world.

After they hatch, the tiny oyster larvae swim about briefly in search of a suitable hard object on which to settle permanently to transform into adult form. In Japan was developed the practice of suspending wires from bamboo rafts into water up to nearly fifty feet in depth. Strung on these wires are clamshells that are spaced apart. Oyster larvae that attach themselves to the clamshells by the thousands of millions are, after a few weeks, culled by workers to the proper density. As the oysters grow, floats are added to the rafts to keep them from sinking under the increasing weight.

This suspension method has a number of advantages. It protects oysters from predators and silting on the sea bottom. And it also allows the oysters to feed on suspended food in the entire water column. Using this method the annual harvest in Japan’s Hiroshima Bay yields up to 50,000 pounds of oyster meat per acre!

Shellfish that move about, such as shrimp, are more difficult to raise. For centuries young shrimp in Far Eastern coastal waters have been captured and taken to brackish water ponds to mature to market size. However, in Japan true shrimp mariculture is practiced successfully on a commercial scale. There the shrimp are now grown under control from egg to market.

Egg-carrying females are caught and kept in carefully controlled tanks of seawater, where they release their eggs. Before reaching maturity the young undergo several larval stages during which they are kept in indoor heated water tanks. Later they are moved outside to ponds with arrangements for aeration and circulation to mature for market. There are a number of shrimp farms in Japan now, but most of these obtain the shrimp when they are young since they do not have the technical equipment to raise them from the egg.

True Mariculture in Infancy

As can be seen, aquiculture’s food production comes principally from fresh and brackish water ponds. Actual farming of the sea​—true mariculture—​has produced little. Most sea-farming efforts have been experimental, or they are only in the talking stage. The island-bound Japanese, who depend on the sea for 60 percent of their protein intake, are especially active in this research.

Enclosing sections of the sea to hold in fish is understandably no small project. However, in the Seto Inland Sea of Japan it has been done​—sea farms are in operation. In one farm 180 acres are enclosed by wire fencing or netting at high water and fifteen acres at low water. The yellowtail fish, which grows to marketable size in about eight or nine months, are raised at high density in these enclosed farms.

Closing off a section of the sea is a real challenge. It has been envisioned that areas might be fenced off by laying a plastic hose on the sea floor, pierced with tiny holes and connected to an air supply. The rising air bubbles would serve as a curtain to keep unwanted sea life out, and the farm animals in.

It has also been noted that in the Pacific Ocean there are coral atolls, where rings of coral reef surround shallow lagoons. Japanese scientists have proposed raising tuna​—a fish that may reach several hundred pounds—​in such closed-off atolls.

Another avenue of investigation has been the fertilizing of water to sustain fish. In one experiment a 3-1/2-inch plastic pipe was extended nearly a mile deep off St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. The cold, nutrient-rich water pumped into pools on shore soon teemed with tiny plant life, becoming ideal for raising fish. One scientist proposed a seagoing dredge that would bring up nutrients from the depths and distribute them near the surface. Then the fish that might thrive in the area due to the artificial “upwelling” could be harvested.

In Scotland experimental success in mariculture has been achieved in using the warm water discharge of an atomic power plant. By raising the water temperature of a closed-off section of the sea both the metabolism rate and appetite of the fish​—in this case, sole and plaice—​were increased, greatly speeding their growth. However, in commenting on this successful experiment Sea Frontiers magazine interestingly observed:

“‘Farming the sea’ is a phrase often seen, as if this were an easy extension of farming the land. In fact at the present time problems are more common than produce, and the commercial rearing of even a single species represents a tremendous effort.” Thus one is reminded that mariculture is yet in its infancy.

An Answer to Food Shortage?

However, the need for more food is immediate, since already many of mankind are starving. Can farming the seas be developed to fill that need?

Indications are that it cannot. As Bio-Science magazine observed: “It is urgent to say at this point that the immediate return from mariculture will probably contribute very little to relief from hunger of the undernourished peoples of the world. It is unlikely that the caloric requirements of the hungry peoples can ever be met from the sea. The contribution to the immediate alleviation of protein hunger will at best be small.”

The best prospects for water farming appear to be inland, where at present it is most productive. This is especially true in view of the threat that pollution may ruin the sea as a safe source of food.

No doubt, in the future much more will be done to develop the art of aquiculture, and many persons will be benefited. But it cannot be depended on to solve man’s critical food shortage.

Living Lamps Without Heat

Living Lamps Without Heat

WHO would ever think that the lowly beetle would provide the model for a lighting engineer’s dream? Yes, certain beetles called fireflies are living lamps, their light being without heat. The light of the firefly is not even slightly warm to the touch. Man’s electric light bulbs lose much of their power in heat, but the Creator’s living lamps turn 100 percent of their energy into light.

But why do these living lamps, such as the firefly, turn on their glowing lights? What purpose is served? True, the glowing insects intrigue man, but the real purpose is to find the opposite sex of their own species in the dark, enabling them to mate.

The male firefly of a common species in North America flies about during the warmer part of the night, flashing its light, usually as it is about to take an up-and-down course. The color of the firefly light is mostly yellowish; but with some species it is rather greenish, bluish or of an orange hue.

The firefly’s lamp is fueled by a compound called luciferin. When this comes in contact with oxygen, a catalyst known as luciferase sparks the process that produces light without heat.

Each species of firefly​—there are about 2,000—​has its own distinctive flashing pattern. This is as characteristic as the songs of various birds. When the female firefly sees the gleam she is looking for, she sends out an answering blink. A female firefly rarely responds to the light of a species different from her own. At times, however, a female may respond once to a male’s flash that is similar to her own, but if the length of the next flash is not just right, she is not “turned on” and no longer lights up.

When the female firefly sees the flash she is looking for, she keeps her lamp turned on at the proper intervals, until the male reaches her and mating takes place.

Not always, however, does the firefly’s beacon result in the propagation of the species. There is a female of one species that is a carnivorous seductress. She is able to mimic the flash responses of many females of other species and lure the males to her, whereupon they are seized and eaten.

Unlike the individually flashing firefly of North America are the glowing insects of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. These fireflies can alter their flash pattern so that they blink in unison. This enables them to light up whole trees with the regularity of neon lights.

This is the way a visitor to Mindanao, in the Philippines, described what he saw: “There were two trees about the size of apple trees and perhaps 100 feet apart, and every evening these were filled with fireflies which flashed in synchronism, first one tree lighting up, and then the other. There must have been several thousand insects in each tree, yet, the synchronism was so perfect that rarely or never did a single firefly flash at the wrong time. . . . It seemed so strange and produced so beautiful an effect that I thought it one of the most remarkable things in the Philippines.”

It is believed that the male fireflies pool their luminosity to give females spectacular notice of their whereabouts. It is not known how each firefly is able to harmonize his flash with that of the neighboring males, but most of them blink together, as if turned on by a single switch.

Another mystery presented by these living lamps concerns the so-called “railroad worm” of South America. This caterpillar of a beetle is about three inches long and has unusual lighting equipment. On its head is a big red light​—one of the few insects known to give off red light. Along its body are eleven pairs of greenish-white lights. When all the lights are turned on, the worm looks like a fully lighted railroad train. The red headlight of the railroad worm is independent, and so may light up when the others are glowing, or it may glow red when the other lights are off.

What is the railroad worm’s secret? It is the same kind of secret that the firefly has. But the red light is different. How so? Is there some filter over the light that makes it look red? No, the light itself is a rich red color. How this is produced is one of those things that science does not fully understand.

Scientists hope that someday they can put to widespread use the efficient cold-light principles of the Creator’s living lamps.

…