Creation Stories

by JosephAlward 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Faraon

  The more I read about the creation, the more I am convinced about it.

  I like the JW version even better. Each day is actually 1000 years old.

  See it was completely possible for plants to be created, grow and reproduce for 1000 years with no sunlight.

  It is also possible that plants reproduced for 3000 years without animals without pollination from bees. Ok, you got me. Since bees and pollinating insects are technically flying animals, they were created on the fifth rather than the sixth day, so flowering plants only had to wait 2000 years to reproduce.

  Why do I believe this?

  Because nothing is impossible for the Elohim, that's why.

  How do I know this?

  Because the bible says so.

  And why do I believe what the bible says?

  Because the bible is the word of God.

  How do I know the bible is the word of God?

  Because the bible says so.

  Gee, you unbelievers are so dumb. You can't even think on your own.
• 

  donkey

  Faron,

  Ok...that was so convincing that I will have to go and re-read Genesis all over again. Now where did Eve put the talking snake again?
• 

  Faraon

  If you look up "parable of the eagle" on the net, you'll find variations to the story - you could argue that the historical basis for it can't be proven, and the account appears shoddy because there may not be the one account, and careful investigation may reveal similar stories from 'other' cultures.

  Yes, but those accounts are not in different cultures or books. They are paragraphs away!
• 

  Faraon

  Donkey,

  Now where did Eve put the talking snake again?

  I don't know maybe it's eating some dust now, as all snakes do, even the sea snakes. Yah cut its wings or feet so that it would have to slither. There was no fear from Eve, since as you know snakes and all animals were vegetarians at the time. They used their fangs to poison the fruit or would crush to death their food.

  You need creationism in all schools. Science perverts the word of god.
• 

  A Paduan

  So, who gets to say what the right non-literal interpretation is? You? Calvanists? Branch Davidians? Jehovah's WItnesses? You are basically implying that despite the fact many of the writings are neither demonstrably true or accurate, that they are 'true' anyway (as distinct from 'false'), but that those who don't understand this hidden special meaning ('those who never understood in the first place') shouldn't 'discourage' others.

  There were two boys listening to a man tell a story about an emporer and some clothes - one boy went away and pondered things about the story - the other insisted that there was no such place, and told the other boy that the story was false and the man was only been lying - and he shouldn't listen to that sort of thing.
• 

  funkyderek

  There were two boys listening to a man tell a story about an emporer and some clothes - one boy went away and pondered things about the story - the other insisted that there was no such place, and told the other boy that the story was false and the man was only been lying - and he shouldn't listen to that sort of thing.

  A Paduan, do you think that all the parts of the Bible that we now know are not historically accurate accounts were intended as allegory?
• 

  A Paduan

  No, I think that much is based on actualities - no doubt there was a flood somewhere sometime, or perhaps people may not know what a flood even was. No doubt that most characters depicted actually existed, and the more recent the stories the better the description.

  I think that insisting the bible is "false" and "not to be believed" because it doesn't stand up to an historical scrutiny of detail, is just not on the wavelength - like a strawman argument.
• 

  funkyderek

  I think that insisting the bible is "false" and "not to be believed" because it doesn't stand up to an historical scrutiny of detail, is just not on the wavelength - like a strawman argument.

  I would agree, were it not for people insisting that the events happened exactly as described in the Bible, creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago, a global flood etc. It's not a strawman argument because that is exactly the claim that is made.

  Saying that it's all meant to be taken in some vague, allegorical manner makes it indistinguishable from any other collection of myths or fairy tales (which doesn't mean that it's without value).
• 

  Satanus

  Fairy tails. Good point. Apaduan would put parts of the bible on the level of grimm's fairy tails. I'm sure that someplace, sometime somebody built a house out of ginger bread. Those germans try all kinds of things.

  SS
• 

  A Paduan

  I would agree, were it not for people insisting that the events happened exactly as described in the Bible, creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago, a global flood etc. It's not a strawman argument because that is exactly the claim that is made.

  But it's a claim made by 'some people' . As a "bible believer" I find it to be a strawman argument because that doesn't mean much for me, in deliberation that is.

  It's seems that there's one group saying it's literally true and beating people with it, and another group who, having discovered it's not, are beating the "believers" with their knowledge - neither seems to make any sense except as an expression of carnality, or fear.

  Personally, I think the writing is readily distinguishable from common myths and fairytales, especially in that there is a supernatural type of detail in the expressions.