The Watchtower and Creation

by AlanF 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

JosephMalik

It's not likely that God would curse the ground on the very same day that he had already blessed and made sacred. Thus, any reference to "God's rest day" in places like Hebrews 4:3 must refer to some other kind of rest.
AlanF,
The scriptures are not saying that God ceased to function simply because of Man's indiscretion. After all the Word was assigned to deal with human affairs and would continue to do so in God’s behalf. The creation of this world on this planet is all that is being discussed in the texts anyway. Hebrews therefore is not talking about some other kind of rest but simply discusses our place in this same rest in which we now live, as not everyone will qualify to continue to be a part of it and we have been warned.

Joseph
Blueblades

With all do respect to AlanF, Narkissos, Leo, Malik and others. This Topic is based on material taken from and written in many books. One of which is considered inspired and from God. A book that is missing many other letters and books that have been excluded from what is now considered to be THE HOLY BIBILE.
If the Holy Bible is truly from God then it shoud not be so ambiguous, shouldn't it be clear and understandable? The arguments used in quoting Bible and other texts have been going on and on back and forth, it means this, no it don't, it means that, and so forth etc. This language or that language says the word means this. What purpose does God have in causing a book to be written that is so ambiguous and interpreted in so many different ways and then your life everlasting is suppose to depend on accepting it or else.
After having read and re-read the scriptures in many versions and having read such books as: Who Wrote The Bible? Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible Unearthed, archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of it's Sacred Texts; Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, and Misquoting Jesus, the story behind who changed the Bible and why. Bart D. Ehrman. And other books relating to this subject on whether or not the Bible we have at present is from God or written by men in a historical era, after having written to Ray Franz and asking his thoughts on this question, his conclusion to me was, " It's a Leap of Faith".
Now I understand that many believe the Bible to be from God, and that is their personal belief and belief system which I don't have any right to argue with. I am writng this for those of us who can't accept the Bible as being a product of God's own doings.
As to this topic started by AlanF about The Watchtower and Creation and it's many fine comments that followed, it is very educational and useful for those of us looking at all sides of the Genesis, Exodus accounts.
Blueblades
theMadChristian

True, but the word used in genesis is referenced ordinally, e.g. "first day", "second day", etc. To my knowledge, there are no examples in the scriptures of this sort of ordinal reference applying to anything but a literal day.
Morninn' Dave! It's a real pleasure reading your posting- you are thinking rather than being dogmatic! Consider this: Gen 2:4-These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the DAY that Jehovah God made the earth and the heavens,

~wy from an unused root meaning to be hot
Definition: day, time, year,day (as opposed to night),day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1, as a division of time
a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime, time period (general)
>>To take that statement as 'proof' of God creating Heaven & Earth in a 24-hour day- even tho He could have if He wanted to- is absurd
Well, remember the book we're talking about here. The sun is portrayed as stopping in the sky long enough for [what's-his-name] to slaughter [whoever it was]. Balaam is depicted as having a conversation with a talking donkey. And the entire earth's population of animals is said to be descended from single pairs of various "kinds". You don't wanna go around labelling things "absurd" in this context, I don't think.
HOWEVER, while I think there's a good argument for the Bible writer having meant a literal 24-hour day, that isn't the point. The point is that in order for the earth to be billions of years old, and the days of creation to NOT encompass billions of years, you've got to pull the creation of the earth itself out of those creative days. This is the teaching of the Watchtower, and I believe, your view as well. "In the beginning..." was a starting point, where the earth and heavens were created. THEN the creative days kick off. Am I right so far?
The problem with the scriptures in Exodus is that they lump the creation of the earth and heavens INTO the creative days. So in order to believe the earth is billions of years old, you either have to find some way to explain how those Exodus scriptures don't really mean that, or you have to let the creative days themselves be billions of years old. Or you have to do some third thing I haven't thought of. :-)
Mad replies: The setting is the deciding factor! Whining, Complaining Israelites with little education (recently slaves), and he wanted them to understand the concept of a Day of Rest (Sabbath), and even encourage them to make it a DEFINITE practice by using God Himself as an example; wether 24-hours or 24 milennium (beyond their concept; that kind of math was not common knowledge)- the point was TAKING THE TIME TO FOCUS ON THEIR GOD- AND THE LIFE HE GAVE THEM. It WASN'T a discourse on Creation...as they are making it HERE! It reminds me of a Christian teenager who's offered drugs- and his mind is racing to find ways to justify taking them!
BTW - Why'd you change your login name? Just curious...
Mad reples: I think someone banned me; I couldn't log on anymore... I have no problem accepting the Days being 24 hours....EXCEPT there is nothing but the passionate reasonings of others to support it! ( In MY tiny little mind! ) Agape, the Mad JW
JosephMalik

What purpose does God have in causing a book to be written that is so ambiguous and interpreted in so many different ways and then your life everlasting is suppose to depend on accepting it or else.
Blueblade,
The Bible as we now know it had a struggle just to get here without serious alteration from among the many things written like it. And it had to function properly even if it was tampered with to provide us a usable guide to life. The very thing you complain about is what has protected it all this time. Its complexity made it's adulteration difficult and exposed such attempts when they did creep in. It may be explained like this: Da 12:10 "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."
Joseph
theMadChristian

THANK you, JM, for such a wonderful insight! The REAL problem in understanding it is the fact that we tend to try and read what we WANT to believe into it- and that just doesn't work too well! For example- all religions (2/3 exceptions) have taught the Immortal Soul for milennium. Believing that, and reading how "the soul that sinneth will die", causes INSTANT confusion! That was the amazing thing about the Truth as we call it; EVERYTHING in the Bible became clear- like when a person with poor eyesight puts on his glasses! Agape, the Mad JW
JosephMalik

The point is that in order for the earth to be billions of years old, and the days of creation to NOT encompass billions of years, you've got to pull the creation of the earth itself out of those creative days. This is the teaching of the Watchtower, and I believe, your view as well.
TheMadChristian,
Well it is not mine. But then I see words differently and am not bound by traditional views. And I do not see the context in the same way many here do. Where so many think that words like "all things" in John 1:3 mean everything, I do not and provided evidence for this view. In Genesis we find: 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Now we have a clear identity for the now orderly atmosphere called Heaven in this context and it is not the entire universe. So when this specific account of creation was being introduced and the word heaven was used: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. How did the disorderly atmosphere that surrounded this planet at the time suddenly become the universe in this introduction? Was it not simply a disorderly Heavens that were not yet clarified and officially named? This is after all nothing more than a simple introduction to the events that would now be described in more detail? And if we accept the plural translations of the word and expand it out to include the entire universe we still are only are describing the earth, a very small portion of a continuing process in Genesis and not the whole evening and morning of it all. Thus Young's translates it this way: 1 In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth— If we decide to be less picky and simply take it as a simplified description of how we came to have life on this planet, a process that took both time and effort an investment on God's part then maybe we would be better off?
Joseph
PrimateDave

Hi Mad,

Just for fun, and because better minds than mine have already spoken, I want to answer your take on Gen 2:4.

For what it is worth, I believe that the book of Genesis contains two distinct creation accounts, and, for that matter, two distinct though intertwined flood narratives which is further discussed in my post here.

As I was saying, Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is the first creation account written by an unknown Aaronid priest before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 B.C. A redactor, quite probably Ezra, added the verse we know as 2:4a, probably for continuity's sake. Genesis 2:4b - 25 was likely written by a Judean sometime between 848 and 722 B.C. See Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman. Our chapter and verse divisions were not known to the original writers. But you already knew that.

It is also interesting to note that while the NWT runs all the verses together, my JPS Tanakh divides verse four in two:

2 The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. 2 On the seventh day God finished the work that He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work that He had done. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that He had done. 4 Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.

When the Lord God made earth and heaven-- 5 when no shrub of the field was yet sprouted, because the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, 6 but a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the earth -- 7 the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.
Not only is verse four divided in two, the translators of the JPS Tanakh recognize that the two accounts of the creation do not run together and so made a line break, not just a paragraph break as can be seen within each narrative. Note that verses five and six are inserted into the sentence that would otherwise read: "When the Lord God made earth and heaven, the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth." The NWT creates a paragraph out of this digression and in my opinion spoils the natural flow of the account which is all about the creation of man:
2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making. 4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
5 Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.
7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.
The translators of the NWT changed the meaning of this account in a subtle way just by formating it the way that they did. Still, the first creation account took a week, including God's sacred day of rest. The second account specifies no exact time period. Each account stands on its own as it was originally written for its intended audience.

Dave
Narkissos

Good points PD,
No reader can miss that Genesis 2:4b--3 is not the narrative continuation of 1:1--2:4a. But it is not a mere "flashback" either (as many fundamentalists explain, and translations like the NWT or even the NIV, go far out of their way to suggest): the second creative story is largely incompatible with the first one, e.g. as to the order of creation (plants / animals / man and woman vs. man / animals / plants / woman).
The simple juxtaposition of such obviously diverging stories right from the start of the Hebrew Bible (just as the four Gospels in the Christian NT) is, in itself, an indication of how those texts should be read -- precisely not in a flatly historical way. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/86007/1.ashx
AlanF

TopHat wrote:
: It is my understanding that God ceased creating on the 7th day....cursing the ground on Adam's account, is not in line with creating anything new....
You've completely missed the point. The point was it would be inconsistent for God to both bless a sacred day and on that same day curse the creation he had just blessed. If he cursed it, then the blessing of it would have been annulled. Thus, logic indicates that the 7th day ended, and some time later the ground was cursed.
JosephMalik wrote:
: The scriptures are not saying that God ceased to function simply because of Man's indiscretion. . .
You haven't dealt with the point I made. See my response to TopHat.
BlueBlades wrote:
: If the Holy Bible is truly from God then it shoud not be so ambiguous, shouldn't it be clear and understandable? . . .
And JosephMalik responded:
: The Bible as we now know it had a struggle just to get here without serious alteration from among the many things written like it. And it had to function properly even if it was tampered with to provide us a usable guide to life. The very thing you complain about is what has protected it all this time. Its complexity made it's adulteration difficult and exposed such attempts when they did creep in. It may be explained like this: Da 12:10 "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."
This is an all-too-convenient "explanation". We know that the Bible has gone through many changes to get to its present form, and we know that it's very complex. But a powerful, intelligent God would surely figure out a way to protect it from adulteration! After all, based on sincere judgment of the evidence they have available, many might rightly come to the conclusion that the difficulties, contradictions and so forth prove that the Bible is not God's Word. And if they sincerely come to a right conclusion, surely a just God would not judge them wicked. Obviously then, answers like yours actually answer nothing, but merely try to deflect the question.
Very good points, PrimateDave.
As usual, Mad answers nothing.
AlanF
JosephMalik

AlanF,
I saw your response to TopHat and disagreed with both of you. There was no further need to bother with such error. You have not addressed my point which any simply look up will verify. And I saw was your ridicule of others making the same observation. Regarding your further response to TopHat you also said:
! But how far has the Bible's view of, say, women come along in that time period? Nada. Remember that the Bible's view of women is that they are the property of men -- a special kind of property, but still property. A girl was her father's property until she married, after which she was her husband's property. Whose property are you?
What nonsense. Paul made it a point that women were all equal in the faith and staunchly apposed those that disagreed. He even had overseers appointed to oppose such men and sent others like Timothy out to identify and oppose them. I know that many do not understand what he was teaching and take his comments the wrong way. But I expect more from those doing a critical analysis of the texts.
Joseph

The Watchtower and Creation

Share this