The phrase Spirit CREATURES...

by Confucious 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Confucious

  Just musing this morning, but...
  
  I've often heard the WT refer to Angels as Jehovah's Spirit Creatures.
  
  I can't think of a specific WT, so am I imagining this???
  
  I was thinking, does other religions use this phrase CREATURES, in describit Angels, etc.???
  
  Now that I think about it, it just sounds a little demeaning, in my opinion.
  
  Normally we don't even refer to humans as CREATURES, but it more reserved for creepy crawly things, etc. And Angels ARE a higher life form that us.
  
  Just a thought. Any opinions???
• 

  NeonMadman

  Merriam-Webster's online dictionary offers the following:

  Main Entry: crea·ture
  Pronunciation: 'krE-ch&r
  Function: noun
  Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin creatura, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare
  1 : something created either animate or inanimate: as a : a lower animal; especially : a farm animal b : a human being c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature <creatures of fantasy>
  2 : one that is the servile dependent or tool of another :

  I'm assuming that they are going with the most fundamental definition of the word, i.e., a creature is anything that has been created. Since angels have been created and are spirits, they are "spirit creatures". It stretches the common usage of the word and sounds a bit odd to us because of the way the word "creature" is usually used of lower animals. However, I believe they are technically correct in their usage.
• 

  LittleToe

  It's a religious phrase, yes, and is used of anything created. After all, create is the root of the word creature.

  For example, this doxology from 1674, and still used today:

  Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
  Praise Him, all creatures here below;
  Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
  Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
• 

  Confucious

  I remember specifically in the WT, that it was written (paraphrasing)...
  
  "One brother used an illustration comparing the relationship of Jesus to his 144,000 to that of an owner to a loving dog. That the dog follows the owner wherever he goes."
  
  Then the WT went on to comment (paraphrasing...)
  
  "That is NOT a good illustration to compare the 144,000 to a dog."
  
  And that's true, but at the same time, the word CREATURE - though technically correct - is just a wierd word.
• 

  Elsewhere

  A lot of Christians believe that all souls exist before conception and that the soul is imparted into the baby. They also believe that upon death the soul exits the body. This implies that angles and souls are eternal and immortal.

  The WTS uses the phrase "Spirit Creatures" to emphasize their belief that angles and souls are not eternal.
• 

  VM44

  Years ago, the Witnesses insisted on using the phrase "Human Creature" instead of "Human Being".

  Here is a quote from Barbara Grizzuti Harrison's book, "Visions of Glory":

  Jim Peck and Ralph diGia, pacifists who are on the staff of the War Resisters League, were imprisoned conscientious objectors in Danbury Federal Penitentiary, where the Witnesses represented one-third to one-half the draft violators, from 1942 to 1945. They express no small amazement (and irritation) at the Witnesses' homogeneity and their determined aloofness from other prisoners, their lack of spontaneity, warmth and passion:

  ...

  DIGIA: You couldn't have a real conversation with them. No hope. I never could understand their language. One of the Witnesses tried to convert me, and I said, "Look, we're all human beings." And he said, "No, only God is a Being; we're human creatures." How can you talk to somebody who makes distinctions like that? What does that even mean? . . . The Witnesses all spouted the same things.

  http://www.exjws.net/vg7.htm

  This distinction between "creature" and "being" sounds like a kooky idea of Rutherford's.

  --VM44
• 

  Elsewhere

  And that is why they are described as a cult!
• 

  Nosferatu

  Oops, wrong thread
• 

  Valis

  *** Watchtower 1957 May 15 pp.313-5 Appreciating Basic Christian Publications ***

  8 Do you dig out older publications to expand and deepen your knowledge on subjects about which questions arise? Have you really studied these earlier publications? When a brother gives a talk, can you, to impress the information upon your mind further, identify the particular publication from which his points were taken? If he discusses Jesus' earthly family, do you remember that the "Questions from Readers" section of the December 15, 1950, Watchtower told how we know that Jesus did have other brothers and sisters? When he points out that the Christian should not use profanity, do you remember that this was discussed in the article "Progress Toward Taming the Tongue," February 15, 1951? When he tells about the different kinds of spirit creatures, namely, angels, cherubim, seraphim and the archangel, and describes their various positions, do you remember that this was considered on pages 50 to 53 of the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free"?
• 

  blondie

  Yes, I remember when the WTS used to quibble over "being" and "creature."

  gnatgnatgnatgnat

  ***

  w58 12/15 p. 764 Questions from Readers

  ?

  I have been told that it is improper to speak of a human being. Yet being is defined in this way in the dictionary. What is the proper viewpoint on this matter??J. P., United States.

  According to modern dictionaries every human creature is a human being because he has being or exists. Dr. Joseph B. Rotherham in the foreword of The Emphasised Bible discusses the meaning of God?s name, Jehovah. Because this name means, according to Dr. Rotherham, that Jehovah God manifests himself as always alive in one capacity or the other, Rotherham, too, argues that Jehovah is the only being and that all other intelligent existing things are merely creatures. For some years now the Watch Tower publications have ascribed the quality of being only to Jehovah God, in view of the basic significance of his name. So it has reserved the word "being" as a sort of title of Jehovah out of respect for the significance of his name and has referred to humans as mere creatures. So the Watch Tower publications have refrained from applying the term "being" to humans in order to enhance the inherent quality of self-perpetuating existence that persists in Jehovah God. However, as you say, according to the definition of modern dictionaries human creatures are human beings. If anyone wants to use the modern dictionary meaning he is free to do so, but in the light of what is above said we trust you will understand why our publications have restricted the expression to Jehovah God.