This post is particularly oriented towards the many JW lurkers on this forum, and for the self-styled JW defender thirdwitness.
In the thread "For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx ), our newest JW-defender, thirdwitness, has steadfastly refused to consider a number of problems with a literal interpretation of various Bible passages. While he admits that, in a vague, general way, some passages must be considered as figurative or symbolic (or any term you like that means "non-literal"), he refuses to get specific on any topic, and most importantly, refuses to discuss the reasons that some passages must be viewed as non-literal. In particular, he refuses to discuss why the Watchtower Society views many Bible statements as non-literal. In this essay, I will show exactly why the Society does this, which will in turn show why thirdwitness does not want to discuss it.
This problem of biblical literalness has plagued Bible believers for centuries. Most every believer would admit that a Bible passage declaring that the moon is made of manna could not be literal -- otherwise it would be contradicting a directly observed fact. The only choice, other than rejecting the Bible outright or claiming that the passage was not in the original text, would be to view such a passage as somehow non-literal. And of course, virtually all Bible believers do this regularly.
For example, the book of Joshua clearly states that the sun and moon stood still in the heavens:
(Joshua 10:12-14) 12 It was then that Joshua proceeded to speak to Jehovah on the day of Jehovah’s abandoning the Am´or·ites to the sons of Israel, and he went on to say before the eyes of Israel: "Sun, be motionless over Gib´e·on, And, moon, over the low plain of Ai´ja·lon." 13 Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies. Is it not written in the book of Ja´shar? And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day. 14 And no day has proved to be like that one, either before it or after it, in that Jehovah listened to the voice of a man, for Jehovah himself was fighting for Israel.
A literal interpretation of this passage shows that the author of the passage viewed the earth as the center of the universe, with the sun and moon going around it. Well of course, today we know with certainty that the earth is not the center of the universe, nor is the sun, but that the earth and moon revolve around a common center of gravity, which in turn revolves around the sun, which in turn revolves around the center of our galaxy, which in turn travels through empty space. So Bible believers have to understand Joshua to mean something other than that the sun and moon literally go around the earth.
There are various levels of Bible believers, of course. I'll plop them into three categories for purposes of this discussion.
Stage 1: The most literal are those who do things like take passages that suggest that the earth is flat and claim that the earth is flat. After all, does not God's Word say it? The idea that people have actually gone into space is just a fairy tale invented by Satanic governments to lead true believers astray.
Stage 2: The next level of believers, who view themselves as biblical literalists, are those who claim that Bible stories such as the creation and Flood stories in Genesis are literal: the universe was created in six literal days, and some six to ten thousand years ago all life on earth was wiped out in the global Flood of Noah. After all, does not God's Word say it? The idea that the universe is realy some 15 billion years old, and the earth is some 4.5 billion years old, and that life has existed for some 3.5 billion years, is just a Satanic notion designed to lead true believers astray.
Stage 3: The next level of believers cannot truly be called literalists, because they accept most of the findings of modern science and figure out ways to interpret problematic Bible passages non-literally. While I personally view many of these ways to be grasping at straws, at least these sincere folks don't outright reject solid facts, as do the literalists.
Jehovah's Witnesses sit on the fence between Stage 2 and Stage 3. They interpret the Bible literally in some parts but not in others.
The Sun and Moon Stand Still
For example, with regard to the account of the sun and moon standing still in the book of Joshua, JWs argue that the sun and moon most likely did not literally "stand still" in the heavens, as if the two luminaries actually revolved around the earth, but they only appeared to have stood still from the viewpoint of people on the earth:
Insight, Vol. 2, p. 662, Power, Powerful Works
Jehovah extended Israel’s onslaught against the besieging forces by causing the sun and moon to hold their positions in relation to the viewpoint of those at the battle scene, postponing sunset for almost a day’s time. (Jos 10:1-14) While this could mean a stopping of earth’s rotation, it could have been accomplished by other means, such as a refraction of solar and lunar light rays to produce the same effect.Awake!, 8-Jan-1974, p. 15, Our Mysterious Universe
God could, as Creator, if he wished, stop the motions of the whole solar system. Or, he could stop the motion of only the earth so that sun and moon appeared to remain in the same position as viewed from the earth. On the other hand, it is possible that the sun, moon and earth all continued on in their regular movements, but that the light from sun and moon ceaselessly shone by some form of refraction that we do not now understand.
Note that the above explanations implicitly contain the notion that the writer of Joshua did not view the sun and moon as literally revolving around the earth, but in line with other Watchtower views, that Bible writers had the modern view of the configuration of the solar system.
Amusingly, the Watchtower Society actually states that it is not for us to think too much about how God actually did the miracle described in Joshua:
The Watchtower, 12-Dec-1986, p. 23 "Jehovah Our God We Shall Serve"
Joshua is speaking to Jehovah, and what does he say "before the eyes of Israel"? This: "Sun, be motionless over Gibeon, and, moon, over the low plain of Aijalon." Another awesome miracle! "For about a whole day," the sun illuminates that battlefield, until God’s vengeance is completely executed. It is not for us to debate how Jehovah performed that miracle, any more than we question how he ‘made’ two great luminaries to shine through on his fourth creative "day."
The Watchtower Society has set forth some of its usual gibberish to "explain" why the Joshua account is not actually literal:
The Watchtower, 15-Oct-1967, p. 626, To the Rescue!
The ordinary day was not long enough for Joshua and his men to pursue and kill all the enemy. So Joshua called upon Jehovah God to perform a miracle and lengthen the daylight. With full faith in the Creator of the sun, moon and stars, Joshua said: "Sun, be motionless over Gibeon, and, moon, over the low plain of Aijalon." In that remarkable command Joshua was scientifically correct, for the moon as well as the sun was involved in this rare miracle. Joshua 10:12-14 says: . . .
Just why does the Watchtower Society view passages such as in Joshua 10:12-14 as not literal? Because solidly established science requires it. Watchtower writers understand this quite well, as shown by an article in Awake! magazine:
Awake!, April 22, 2003, pp. 13-14 Galileo’s Clash With the Church
Pope Urban VIII and the theologians of the Roman Inquisition did in fact condemn the Copernican theory, claiming that it was contrary to the Bible. Galileo’s adversaries referred to Joshua’s statement, "Sun, stand thou still," which, according to their reading, was to be understood literally. (Joshua 10:12, King James Version) But does the Bible really contradict the Copernican theory? Not at all.The contradiction lay between science and an obviously incorrect interpretation of Scripture. That was how Galileo saw the matter. He wrote to a pupil: "Even though Scripture cannot err, its interpreters and expositors can, in various ways. One of these, very serious and very frequent, would be when they always want to stop at the purely literal sense." Any serious student of the Bible would have to agree.
Galileo went further. He claimed that two books, the Bible and the book of nature, were written by the same Author and could not contradict each other. He added, though, that a person could not "with certainty assert that all interpreters speak under divine inspiration." This implicit criticism of the church’s official interpretation was likely considered a provocation, leading the Roman Inquisition to condemn the scientist. After all, how dare a mere layman interfere with ecclesiastical prerogatives?
So the Catholic Church's literal interpretation of Joshua was wrong. Why? Not because of anything written in the Bible, but because the scientific observations of Galileo confirmed Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Therefore, the sun and moon could not literally stop in the heavens, as Joshua stated that they literally did, but that some non-literal thing occurred. This is the main point of this essay.
The Creation Account in Genesis and Exodus
The Watchtower Society does not view the creation story in Genesis as literal. Rather, showing its stance between Stage 2 and Stage 3 of literal belief, it claims that Genesis allows for the universe and the earth to have been created billions of years ago, but that some 48,000 years ago (or some unspecified number of "millennia"; the Society has used this term to describe the length of the creative days since the last mention of "7,000 years" in The Watchtower, January 1, 1987, p. 30) God turned his attention to the already-existing earth and began doing various things to it, which culminated in his creating mankind some 6,000 years ago.
However, a literal reading of the Bible allows for no such equivocation. Founder of the Fundamentalist Institute for Creation Research, Henry Morris, writing in the Foreword to The Early Earth: An Introduction to Biblical Creationism (Revised Edition of 1986, John C. Whitcomb, Baker Book House, p. 11) said:
To interpret the Bible literally is simply to take God at His Word. This is the high road of biblical exposition which readers have learned to anticipate in anything written by John C. Whitcomb, and the studies in this book are outstanding examples of such God-honoring exposition.
John C. Whitcomb was professor of Old Testament and theology at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana, for many years (cf http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_whitcomb.asp ). He wrote extensively on many Bible subjects, including Young-Earth Creationism and Bible history. The Watchtower Society has called him a "historian" (cf. the book Daniel's Prophecy, p. 22).
What happens if one simply "takes God at His Word" with regard to the Genesis account? Consider the following passages:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them. Exodus 20:11
For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth. Exodus 31:17
There is no indication whatsoever that the "six days" referred to are not literal. There is no indication whatsoever that the "heavens and the earth" referred to are not the same heavens and earth in all three passages.
Thus, a literal interpretation of the basic passages bearing on the creation of the universe says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.
Christian Fundamentalists generally accept this literalism. In the above mentioned The Early Earth, John C. Whitcomb writes:
The creation of the astronomical universe was not only ex nihilo (i.e., from no previously existing matter, as stated in Hebrews 11:3), but was also, for this very reason instantaneous. . . The evolutionary concept of a gradual build-up of heavier and heavier elements throughout billions of years is clearly excluded by the pronouncements of Scripture. (p. 24)There is certainly no thought here of gradual development, or age-long, step-by-step fulfillment of God's command. In fact, it is quite impossible to imagine any time interval in the transition from absolute nonexistence to existence! (p. 25)The third major consideration is the fact that God's work of creation was completed in six literal days, thus demonstrating conclusively that His creative work during each of these days was both sudden and supernatural. (p. 28)
Whitcomb continues on for another dozen pages giving what he considers strong Scriptural arguments as to why Creation occurred in six literal days, and attempting to overcome objections from other biblical expositors on why the creative days should be understood figuratively. In particular, Whitcomb writes:
Although the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is used nearly two thousand times in the Old Testament, only in rare cases can it refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours, and then only if the context demands it (e.g., "day fo the Lord"). However, when a numerical adjective is attached to the word "day" (two hundred known cases in the OT) its meaning is always restricted to tweny-four hours (i.e., "first day," "second day," etc., with a precise parallel in Numbers 7:12-78). Over seven hundred times the plural form "days" (yamim) appears in the Old Testament, and it always refers to literal days (e.g., Exod. 20:11 -- "in six days"). . . Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., who reject the literal-day interpretation, nevertheless concede that "no clear counter-example [of yom with an ordinal number] can be cited with yom meaning a long period of time." (pp. 28-9)
The Watchtower Society strongly disagrees with such Biblical literalism. Indeed, in its most recent pronouncements on the question of Genesis' literalness, the Watchtower Society takes pains to distance itself from "so-called Christian Fundamentalists". The September, 2006 Awake! states (p. 18):
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?Many people claim that science disproves the Bible's account of creation. But the real contradiction is between science and, not the Bible, but the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago.The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with "Christian" Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.
So the fundamental reason that the Watchtower Society disagrees with "so-called Christian Fundamentalists" is that if Genesis' creative days were meant to be literal 24-hour days, "then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible."
The article continues to state clearly why the Society disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis and Exodus:
Geologists estimate that the earth is aproximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. (p. 19)
On page 19 there is a little sidebox containing the statement:
Genesis does not teach that the universe was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past
Exactly why is this claimed? The main text states:
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or "days," help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account.
Once again, the reason that the Society does not interpret Genesis as literal is because of "the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods", i.e., the scientific fact that the universe is "as much as 15 billion years old".
Summarizing its views, the article states:
Contrary to the claims of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries. (p. 20)
Obviously, then, the Watchtower Society recognizes the value of solid scientific conclusions in interpreting the Bible. Such solid conclusions are generally called "scientific facts" in the sense that, as Stephen Jay Gould once said, "'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' " Since the age of the universe is such a fact, the Watchtower Society's writers avoid being perverse, and accept it. They then use that fact to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis and Exodus -- even though many Bible scholars argue that such a literal interpretation "is simply to take God at His Word".
Now let's relate the above material to thirdwitness' exposition on the literalness of the statement in Ezekiel 29:12 that Egypt would become a desolate waste.
As was demonstrated clearly in the thread mentioned at the beginning of this essay, "For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/117647/1.ashx ), a good deal of solid historical evidence exists proving that Egypt was not desolate at any time during the period when thirdwitness claims that Egypt was completely "without an inhabitant" (588 through 548 B.C.). Such evidence includes contemporary Egyptian stelae containing the installation and death dates of the sacred Apis bulls, which stelae provide a remarkable and continuous record of Egyptian chronology during the entire 26th dynasty (672-525 B.C.). It includes testimony from ancient historians Herodotus and Josephus. It includes the simple fact that several million Egyptians who were forcibly transported out of Egypt to some other places could not possibly have returned to Egypt in 548 B.C. and then, only about a year later, formed a viable military alliance with the Babylonians against Persia. Such evidence establishes the continuity of Egypt as a historical fact, a fact "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
Having perversely rejected the historical facts, thirdwitness argues that Ezekiel 29:12 must be interpreted literally. Why so? For no reason better than the one given by "so-called Christian Fundamentalists" who "simply take God at His Word" with regard to Genesis.
But because the Watchtower Society itself recognizes that scientific facts must dictate a Bible believer's interpretation of the Bible, or risk "discrediting the Bible", there is no logical reason that Ezekiel's statement about Egypt's desolation cannot be interpreted just as symbolically as the Society does Genesis' creative days.
Obviously, thirdwitness cannot refute the above arguments, and not being anywhere near as intellectually stupid as his partner in crime, 'scholar', he knew this as soon as I brought it up early in the above mentioned thread. Hence, his refusal to deal with the facts.
Again, JW lurkers should take note of how this self-proclaimed JW-defender goes out of his way to avoid dealing with the facts.
AlanF