haha, knew it didn't look right
Creationism emails from a JW
by TheStumbler 42 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Apognophos
Being a grammar Nazi doesn't make me any friends either
-
redvip2000
@stumbler
You did a really good job in your reply. No reasonable person could be immune to your logic. You know, sometimes people will be reluctant to admit they are wrong in front of you, but will reflect on it and come to that conclusion later on, so give it time.
I went through the same thing recently with an active JW who subscribes to the chemtrail conspiracy theory which also uses obfuscation, half truths, and other techniques to seem more legitimate, and i refuted every single point he brought up. He would send me youtube videos and i would reply with scientific evidence from reliable sources.
These folks are lazy and just choose to take everything at face value instead of checking and dissecting their sources, which is why they are JWs in the first place.
-
TheStumbler
@redvip,
you know, in my experience, Jehovah's Witnesses are quite prone to conspiracy theories.
I think conspurscy theorists use very similar reasoning to the Watchtower. The same lack of critical thinking that can lead one to 'The Truth' can lead one other erroneous beliefs.
And, I suppose when you think about it, 'The Truth' is one great big conspiracy any way (satan secretly controlling the world, coded messages in the bible only a select few can decipher etc...).
I hope you are right about the facts sinking in at done level. I know I'm never going to the response 'my God, you're right, I've been mislead about evolution all these years'. I hope at least I'm planting seeds of doubt deep down but Im not sure.
-
ozbrad
It never ceases to amaze me that christians have no problem with talking snakes or losing your superpowers getting a haircut or living inside fish or worldwide floods but that evolution is crazy talk.
-
TheStumbler
Some of you may have read on the previous page I drew a parralell between Christian apologists who claim scientific foreknowledge in the Bible and Muslims who do the exact same thing in the Koran abd explained why the practice was essentially just confirmation bias.
Ive written a second part which applies the same criticisms to the Ppsimmins video directly
-
TheStumbler
Here it is:
The PPsimmons video you sent to me uses exactly the same strategy to find scientific foreknowledge in Genesis.
Ppsimmons claims Genesis 1:1 describes the theory of relativity - but does Genesis actually say this? I don't think it does. Genesis simply says that 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'. How exactly does this describe the theory of relativity and the relationship between space and time?
The PPsimmons video is reading meaning into the Bible that clearly isn't there (this is called; eisegisis - when one projects their own meaning onto the text). For a start, Genesis 1:1 says 'in the beginning, God created....'. It doesn't say God created the beginning (time), it presupposes the existence of time. Other than the word 'beginning' being mentioned in the same verse, there is absolutely no indication the author knew the relative relationship between space and time.
Further to this, PPsimons is interpreting an English translation of an ancient hebrew text. Does this translation fit historical context? No. Genesis 1:1 doesn't actually say 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', as It is rendered in modern English translations. The word for 'beginning' used is not a noun intended to stand alone but rather to modify a verb, like 'create'. A better translation is found in Young's Literal: 'In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth...'. Genesis 1:1 is describing the beginning of an act, not the creation of the universe itself.
The idea that God created matter and the fabric of space and time itself (a concept called creation ex nihilo) would have been utterly foreign to the Hebrews and revolutionary in ancient thought and philosophy. Other creation myths at the time involved God creating order out pre-existing chaos not creating the universe itself. If creation ex nhilo was the intended meaning then we would expect the Genesis account to very explicitly describe the concept (which would have been totally new to people at the time) and not just (maybe) vaguely imply it in language almost indistinguishable from other creation myths at the time.
Not only is the PPsimmons video engaging in eisegisis and ignoring historical context, just like Muslim apologists, it completely ignores the many scientific innacuracies found in Genesis such as; birds being created before land animals; marine life being created before terrestrial life; oceans being created before dry land; Earth being created before the sun and the stars; and cattle being created before humans (or after humans depending whether you are reading Genesis Chapter 1 or 2 which give different orders of creation). Genesis even describes the sky as a solid firmament upon which the sun and stars are fixed and above which sits an ocean in the sky. This is not even mentioning the fact that Genesis describes humans being created descretrely (when science has proven humans evolved from primates) and claims the entire world flooded 4,000 years ago.
Genesis is not scientifically accurate. It contains no scientific knowledge beyond what was generally known by the Hewbrews at the time and it reflect many of the mistaken assumptions and beliefs about the natural world that were prevelant at the time (such as the sky being a solid dome). Why would God vaguely refer to space time relativity in the opening verse of Genesis and then get all the other key details almost entirely wrong? It makes no sense
-
TheStumbler
Apog, you'll noticed I borrowed your research and wording from the first page (regarding the accurate translation of Genesis 1:1 and the concept of creation ex nhilo not being in the Genesis account like is assumed by moder readers.
I learned a lot reading your linked post and reading up some more on the subjects
-
Apognophos
Yep, it's an interesting subject. I actually find the Chapter 1 creation story more attractive in a romantic sort of way when it's read correctly -- it starts off with darkness and water sloshing everywhere and then God puts it in order, exposes dry land, seals off the heavenly ocean, etc. Then there's the second, much less abstract creation account where God is just a potter working with clay, and going for walks in his Garden.
Ultimately though I think it requires an open mind as a pre-requisite to see these accounts for what they are. But once you see it, it's quite eye-opening and you realize you're peering into ancient cosmology and theology that no one actually believes anymore.
-
TheStumbler
You can kind of respect it as a document of its time and an early attempt by humans to make sense of the world around them. It's a charming story.
I had two elders call on my door earlier in the year with a copy of some magazine (untold story of creation, I think).
They tried telling me that science and Genesis are in harmony and in the same article it had a chronology of creation which showed birds being created before land animals! They try to weasel out of it but really only demonstrated their ignorance further. Their knowledge really only went as far as the Watchtower's treatment of the subject which is shallow and superficial even by creationists' standards.
Do you think my email would be more effective if I left the second part out? the second part is a bit if an attack on the Bible so JWs will probably just switch off, but talking more neutrally about Muslims they might acknowledge the flaws the reasoning and reflect on their own. Or is the parallel I'm making too subtle? Will they make the connection?