by adamah 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Adamah,
You aren't asking for my interpretation. You are asking for my interpretation based on and conforming to MANY assumptions. I'm staring at your post like this: O_O
I don't mean that to be offensive, but the questions you are asking based on conclusions you have drawn based on assumptions that others and you have made... its really hard to sort through. I'll try later.
(I have never said the days were 24 hour cycles, btw... so it can't be called back-peddling)
Peace,
tammy
Ah, hell, here's what I'm trying to get at:
LOL... really? Why not just get to the point from the start? Because I can sort through that ; )
1) If Bible literalists claim that Psalms 90:3-4 is a literal conversion factor (1,000 human yrs is a day to God, needed to justify God's threat that Adam would die "the very day he ate of the fruit", and likely introduced into Psalms to cover the claim in Genesis 5:5 that says Adam died at the age of 930 years), it creates a problem from the Priestly author's introduction of the concept of Sabbath, since God's Sabbath day occurred BEFORE the Fall of Adam occurred (presumably on day Eight of God's "week").
It means that Adam would have to be AT LEAST 1,000 yrs old, since Adam was aging over the Sabbath day, and BEFORE he ate the fruit on day AFTER the Sabbath (day Eight). So there goes Adam's age being 930, blowing Genesis 5:5 into question.
First someone would have to assume that a day IS a 1000 years. (rather than LIKE a thousand years, a metaphor)
Second someone would have to believe that dying in that day means that Adam had to die within a thousand years... and I don't know who has stated something like that. Doesn't seem like anyone on this thread believes that.
Therefore, the sabbath question you are asking, doesn't mean anything without the above two assumptions being true.
Which they are not true.
So... thanks for making that clear ; )
Peace,
tammy
TEC said-
You aren't asking for my interpretation. You are asking for my interpretation based on and conforming to MANY assumptions. I'm staring at your post like this: O_O
So explain the discrepancies, then.
I'm asking you, and any other believers, point-blank:
HOW DO YOU explain/interpret Genesis Chapter One and Two, when it comes to time-lines?
(If you were a JW, you'd simply toss the issues under the rug as just one of inexplicable mysteries that will finally be revealed in the New System, if you're lucky...)
Adam
It was explained on page one, by more than one person. Genesis two is simply going into more detail regarding the creation and fall of man.
Genesis one is like reading a summary of 7 chapters.
Genesis two goes into providing more details of chapter six.
Peace,
tammy
TEC said-
First someone would have to assume that a day IS a 1000 years. (rather than LIKE a thousand years, a metaphor)
LOL! There it is, the fall-back position of Xians everywhere: "it's metaphorical".
So I ask: it's a metaphor for WHAT, exactly?
I'll save you the brain glucose of thinking: it's a metaphor for "I give the Bible free-license to defy the linear nature of time, even though it's not stated in the account; I give the Bible permission to overcome illogical inconsistencies wherever it's needed, since I WANT to God to exist, and give him carte' blanche permission to violate logic".
TEC, you're not even bothering to offer any pretense of an explanation that relies on rationality to convince others, but only are driven by emotions (namely, faith).
Adam
Non-metaphor: A day IS a thousand years
Metaphor: A day is LIKE a thousand years
It is a metaphor for how what seems like a VERY long time to us, is not a VERY long time to God... who has no beginning and no end. Different perspectives.
Kinda simple. As most things are... except for all the complications that man adds into simple truth.
Peace,
tammy
TEC said-
It was explained on page one, by more than one person. Genesis two is simply going into more detail regarding the creation and fall of man.
Genesis one is like reading a summary of 7 chapters. Genesis two goes into providing more details of chapter six.
Holy SIMOLY, TEC! R u 4 realz? Is that "TEC, only" or does Jesus take the hit for bit of absurdity?
You really need to review the two parallel creation narrative accounts, since NO ONE (OT scholar or knowledgeable layperson alike) who has bothered to actually read on the subject claims that Genesis One is a summary of the FIRST SEVEN CHAPTERS of Genesis. That's just shockingly embarrassing for any believer to say, as it's first-year theology, as even the strictest apologetics don't claim that!
The two parallel creation accounts are found in:
1) Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 (which concludes with the Sabbath, the day of rest, day 7)
2) Genesis 2:4- 2:24
Don't take my word for it: here's a mainstream Xian answer site:
http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html
Literary critical analysts have looked into the ancient Hebrew word use, the theological drives, etc, and virtually all OT scholars for over 150 years now have accepted the 'Documentary Hypothesis'.
Here's a Xian site (which I posted on the prior page as an intto to the documentary hypothesis):
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html
Info on the Genesis creation narrative from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
Adam
*sigh*
Please read my post 12481 again. Take note of the word *like*.
Peace,
tammy
TEC said-
*sigh* Please read my post 12481 again. Take note of the word *like*.
TEC, thanks for the lesson on wat a metaphor are: I dint no wat it were, b4 u tuld me.
And for the record, I still wouldn't (and anyone else who reads what you wrote above won't either), since you're completely bassackwards wrong on that bit, too.
Psalms 90:4 is not a metaphor, but a simile (since the sentence contains the word 'like' (or 'as'), so the comparison is explicitly stated, rather than just assumed).
It would be a metaphor if the Psalmist said, 'a day is a thousand years' (which you incorrectly identified as non-metaphorical usage), but even there, it fails one of the criteria for such figures of speech, reserved for comparing dissimilar items; since it's comparing similar items (eg units of time, i.e. days, years, etc), the usage don't really fit the definition of anything, BUT, strictly speaking, a conversion factor.
Still, you'll see Psalms 90:4 mentioned as a simile, but that's largely due to the actual simile that follows the temporal comparison ('like a watch in the night').
HERE'S an example of dissimilar items being compared:
1) 'he's become a shell of a man' is a metaphor, and,
2) 'he's become LIKE a shell of a man' is a simile.
But again, since units of time are similar, it's neither a metaphor or a simile or analogy, but just Bible goofiness in trying to cover up a boo-booh made in Genesis, when the author tried to get into specific numbers.
The author of Genesis 1, the Psalmist and 2nd Peter all went off the reservation by contradicting other Bible scriptures which claim that God is eternal and timeless, since that would be more consistent with the idea of God not being hemmed into the timeframes of mortals. But that's what happens when an eternal God says things like, "the day you eat of it, you shall surely die": God becomes hemmed into OUR timeframe, and the authors create more problems for themselves by inserting patch hobs to continuity errors in order to not make God out to be a fibber.
Adam
Lol... you can win the great metaphor/simili debate.
The point remains the same though. You just refuse to see it.
Peace,
tammy
