The Watchtower and Creation

by AlanF 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Observador,

  If I remember correctly, Portuguese allows for a variation between the singular o ceu and the plural os ceus (like French le ciel / les cieux) which many translations use similarly as the English difference between "sky" and "heaven(s)". This difference, however, doesn't exist in Hebrew (shamayim being always in the dual form) -- but it does exist in Greek (ouranos/ouranoi, cf. o "Pai nosso"). It is noteworthy, though, that the LXX does not resort to this formal difference (unlike many modern translations) in Genesis 1:1--2:4 (ouranos is always in the singular).
• 

  hillary_step

  Joseph,

  I already explained why. Then the suggestion that there was a lack of progress in the Bible and using words like property were not helpful. Much progress was made back then and especially in NT texts. Today children (women included) are responsible to their parents until they reach a certain age. Such parents are expected to deal with them as they grow up. Are they then property of such parents? Do not parents today have something to say about who such children associate with? Are things so different now? Hardly as we simply use different words to say the same things. Break the Law and you will soon find out that you are the property of the state. There are obligations imposed on all of us like them or not. It is simply a matter of how such responsibilities are stated. While things may have gone too far and dominance may have been carried to extremes in some cases this was corrected in NT times and would not be tolerated in the Faith any longer. We face similar problems today. Humanity not scripture is the real problem. Simply do a search of the word property in the AV or NIV bible. Will you find agreement with Alan's comments? No! Paul put down those that tried doing this in the Faith. But what did AlanF say about such progress? "That women are men's property is perfectly in harmony both with God's explicit laws and with the way in which he created men and women, where women are in subjection to men, both by nature and by common assent." This is inaccurate HS, just as his inability to accept other texts using the word "day" for an event or epoch of known or unknown length.

  You did not satisfactorily explain why. You have resisted discussion of the Old Testament in regard to this issue and as I read it, it was specifically the OT that AlanF was alluding to in his comments on 'ownership'.

  I am specifically asking about your attitude to the OT as outlined in my post above. I am wondering if you accept the OT as 'Gods Word'? If you do, and I am presupposing that you do given your defence of Scripture, how do you reconcile the comments made by AlanF regarding the ownership of women and the attitude of the Israelites to women as outlined in the Levitical, and other laws? Is Levitical Law God based, or man based?

  Though the word 'property' may substituted in the OT with others words, the principle of male ownership of women in ancient Hebrew Biblical times is not one that can be disputed.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  TopHat

  In the OT, It was a matter of protection for women as the weaker vessel to be under the rule of a man whether she be his wife, sister, daughter or servant. I don't imagine it was an absolute Law under the threat of punishment.

  In the NT, women have more freedom to come and go as she pleases...why? Because times have changed.....We change with the times. Today women are who they are.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Though the word 'property' may substituted in the OT with others words, the principle of male ownership of women in ancient Hebrew Biblical times is not one that can be disputed.

  HS,

  What? You admit an error has been made, a critical word misused but discount it? Not an error or an inaccurate statement according to you. Yet this is an admission that my observation was justified. And you are well aware that if NT texts are used this argument will fail. So you must keep them out. Yet Alanf agreed with such principles thus bringing them into modern times. What we can be sure of regarding such OT times is this: Mt 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. In other words this did not come from the way God created man and women since AlanF said: "I agree! That women are men's property is perfectly in harmony both with God's explicit laws and with the way in which he created men and women, where women are in subjection to men, both by nature and by common assent." This is wrong inaccurate and not supported by scripture as were other remarks made by him.

  Joseph
• 

  hillary_step

  Joseph,

  What? You admit an error has been made, a critical word misused but discount it?

  No, I just accept that other words and phrases may be used in translation other than the actual word 'property' to mean exactly the same thing - hence my repeated attempts to ask you a numer of pertinent questions which you do not seem willing, or perhaps are not able to answer. I will ask them again :

  1) Do you accept the OT as Gods Word?

  2) Do you accept that Levitical Law is a law given to the Israelites by God?

  3) If you accept the above, do you accept that this Law demeans females, ascribing to them an inferior status in numerous avenues of life than it does to males?

  Best regards - HS
• 

  zack

  AlanF:

  Thanks for your post. I was almost made to recant a a remamrk i casually made during one of my talks, when i mentioned that the Earth could possibly not be 49k years old,

  but was in fact many billions of years old and the creative days were long periods of time, possibly millions and billions of years in length. Well, I wasn;t going to let a couple uber elders do a Galileo on me, and challanged them to prove from Scripture that it could not have happened as I remarked. hey told me the "slave" this and the "slave that.

  I tild them (this was an elders meeting mind you) that unless the two "offended" brothers could prove from scripture that what I said was wrong, they need to keep quiet and drop the matter.

  And there it ended. The JW view is unsupportable not just in science but in scripture. They insisit on commenting on EVeRYTHING and yet they truly do not know ANYTHING.

  I am so damn happy to be free of that cult thinking.
• 

  JosephMalik

  3) If you accept the above, do you accept that this Law demeans females, ascribing to them an inferior status in numerous avenues of life than it does to males?

  HS,

  I have already responded to this. Our Lord's words qualified what was done and why. You did not live with them and see what kind of life they had. All you have is what you think the interpretation of such texts means putting the worse spin on it that you can. Did not females hold high station in Israel yielding great influence? Ex 15:20 Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. 2Ki 22:14 Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District. They were more advanced than we are today, and while there may have been bad apples in the Nation we have the same here and now. You have not disproved what I have said regarding the accuracy of Alanf's statements. In this you have failed.

  Joseph
• 

  zack

  One more thing while we are talking about creation: I think had I the power to design a human body, I would have ensured gravity proof breasts. I would also have eliminated the horrendous smell of bodily functions, perhaps designing an internal scrubber for those occasions when a smelly fart simply wouldn't do. It could really kill the mood with the sweety, you know? A much better fragance, perhaps laced with the proper pheromones could turn a mood killer into an aphrosiac. Of course, no one can improve on a "perfect" design, ehh?
• 

  Big Tex

  The more trolls/JW apologists change, the more they stay the same.

  So what is this for you now O Psychotic One? Three accounts? Four? I'm losing track.

  Get a clue, do us all a favor and switch to decaf, okay?

  theMadChristian	Re: Re: Re: The Watchtower and Creation
  Post 10 of 21 since 11-May-07	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
  IP: UJn0Dxxutxjke4lX

  Insane	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Watchtower and Creation
  Post 2 of 7 since 13-May-07	Hi Mad, or is it Insane now? I don't get why you are being locked out, if that is what is really happening. You seem to have a sense of humor, I think. I like that. As for your question, a Tanakh is a Jewish Bible consisting of what we call the Old Testament. Mine is published by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) and is a Hebrew-English "pocket" version. That is, it has modern Hebrew on one side of the page and a modern English translation on the other side of the page. Check it out on Amazon.com. Dave Insane writes: I think that Jgnat has some sort of vendetta against Mad- but I'm SURE he appreciates your patience with him! Regarding your Jewish Bible, it appears that they are as bad about twisting the translation as much as the churches- what with the Name of their OWN God; did you know they now don't even write the word "God"- but "G_d"? Genesis is probably the oldest account of Creation there IS that goes along with science, and doesn't have ridiculous characters as in EVERY other Creation account before the time of Christ. I don't think it was MEANT to be 'interpreted' as is being done here; it states things very simply for a simple people. To tell the ancient Jews that each "Day" was millions of years would be like telling them to e-mail someone! So "Day" being the Hebrew word for a Lifetime, an era- or a 24-hour period is left for one with a little discernment! To think that Yahweh NEEDED the sun for light is rather childish- and the account DOES say He created in in one of the next "Days". The account opens with a prelude, then tells us the Earth already existed, but had not been shaped into an eco-system! I take it from your words that you don't trust the accuracy of the Bible? Agape, The Insane One
  IP: UJn0Dxxutxjke4lX
• 

  AlanF

  Narkissos wrote:

  : (Btw I also meant to point out that Mad's WT apology actually diverges from the WT interpretation of Genesis 1, especially as to the relationship between Genesis 1:1, 3 and 14. Not sure whether this is to ascribe to incipient apostasy or customary laziness on his part.)

  I suspect it's partly the latter, and partly that most JWs don't actually understand JW doctrine.

  : The two lines in Job 26:7 are clearly a synonymic parallelism . . . So I would wonder if perhaps beli-mah (which in its present form suits the late concept of creatio ex nihilo) does not also cover (like tohu) an earlier representation of the primeval oceanic chaos (cf. yam and tiamat) which is not, strictly, "no-thing"

  That's more or less what I was trying to say, although I think I didn't say it very well. At any rate, my main point was that this concept blows away the claim of many fundamentalists that Job 26:7 proves the Bible's inspiration, since this primeval oceanic chaos, or "no-thing" has nothing whatsoever to do with outer space, quite in contrast with what these apologists claim.

  The wanderer said:

  : Personally, I think if you learn how to write for the web I might be interested in what you have to say.

  Do you actually think I care?

  TopHat, despite repeated calls for you to actually say something of value, all you can manage is your usual infantile ad-hominems. Is that diagnostic, or what?

  I continue to marvel that not a single biblical apologist has even attempted to directly challenge one of the main points of my original post, which is that Exodus lumps the creation of the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in them in with the six creative days. The definition of "yohm" is irrelevant to this.

  AlanF