by undercover 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 122)
This guy offers $250,000 for anyone that can disprove the Genisis account.
From the site:
"How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented."
No wonder no one's met the challenge, he's set an impossibly high standard. I'm sure he doesn't set that high of a standard for the authenticity of the Bible, or even the existence of his god. There's no way to provide proof that would satisfy him, since any looking into the past is conjecture. No matter what we think we know, there's always the possibility that God did it and faked all the evidence. (Or purple gnomes from Betelgeuse, for that matter)
Dave
It gets better! The guy goes on to further explain the terms: (from http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67)
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
I think his $250,000 is safe...
Dave
From that same site, in the section about what happened to the dinosaurs:
Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.
(insert a slap your knee, so funny it makes you cry smiley here)
Do JWs take Genesis literally?
Yes. And like almost every other part of of the Bible, they ALSO believe it is figurative. Jesus was Noah, Abraham was Jehovah, Isaac was Jesus, Sarah was literal Israel's mother, Hagaar was the mother of the Jerusalem above...
AuldSoul
Ok, Got to say something here....What was Adam and supposed to be like? What was so wrong with wanting to be like God? Ever think the serpent might have been put there to HELP them become like God? Or were they meant to be scared, unquestioning, obedient, slaves, robots? Or children of God? Was the serpent wanting them to be equal to him, or under Him? (Like religous leaders want today). That is the question....Did he want to be over them, rule them, or did he want to feed them ASAP to become up to his level. Does Jehovah want us to obey, out of fear, or by an informed choice? Genesis, holds a great deal of insight into how our Father does things. Just ask Jesus.......
Your Little Brother,
David
all these reply's...
Yes they do take it literally
welcome to the board kw13,
all these reply's...
this is a discussion board. so things get "discussed" here.
TS
I read an awake about science recently that said that the creation of the universe could have even taken "millions of years". They got beyond thousands but just couldn't bring themselves to say billions. Of course it was loaded with the usual, "some scientist say" and all, you know, the wording that would get you a D or an F on a college paper.
Interpretation of Genesis isn't just a JW problem, but one for all Biblical literalists. The Old Earth Creationism position, which JWs share, or at least did when I was involved, is probably the most ludicrous from a scientific point of view. To accept the age of the Earth, but then to insist that the faunal succession is not evidence for evolution (bearing in mind that faunal succession is a key evidentiary link between evolution and geology) or in fact to reject such a notion entire demonstrates just how much cognitive dissonance there is in the Creationist camp, irregardless of membership in any particular sect.
The claim made by JWs, and many other Creationist sects besides, that Genesis 1 is a scientific account is ludicrous on its face. The creative order is not at all what scientific discovery has shown. Beyond Genesis 1, the whole book is suspect. There is no evidence for a global flood, and, in fact, serious physical problems with even trying to formulate how one could happen. Noah's Ark is an impossible structure which could not be built out of any wood and still be expected to remain seaworthy and structurally sound for a few hours, let alone several weeks.
Actual analysis of the creation stories in Genesis indicates two such stories, and also demonstrate that the ancient Hebrews (like all such tribes in ancient Palestine), had adopted the Sumerian cosmology, with a circular, flat earth and a crystal dome above it. Re-read Genesis 1 with that cosmological model in mind, and it actually makes sense. It is a mythological story based upon a cosmological model common in ancient times among peoples from the eastern Mediterranean through to Mesopotomia.
