Another thing that should be noted is that the watch tower society cannot be a literist organization because there central doctrine, that being 1914, is made up from a non-literal perspective.
steve
Why the Watchtower Society Interprets Genesis Non-Literally
by AlanF 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AlanF
Good points, Leolaia.
Good points as well, Hellrider. You reminded me that a lot of Christians since at least as far back as the 2nd century have subscribed to the view that history consists of six 1,000-year "days" of suffering, which are to be followed by another 1,000-year day of peace. This concept can be found in the 2nd-century apocryphal work called The Epistle of Barnabas. The basic concept of "1,000-year" magical "days" can be traced back to early 1st millennium B.C. Zoroastrian writings (Zoroastrianism was the religion of the Persians and their ancestors). It's clear to me that the ancient Jews incorporated some of these Zoroastrian concepts into their tradition during the Persian period, which, along with Jewish apocalypticism, infiltrated its way into general Christian tradition. Interestingly, back in the 1880s, Charles Taze Russell specifically stated that his concept of 7,000-year creative days was an "ancient tradition". So some of today's Watchtower Society teachings about creation can be traced back to ancient pagan concepts. Amusingly enough now, but not some years ago, is that I pointed this out to GB member Albert Schroeder in 1993. He was a bit taken aback, and promised to examine the source references I sent him. He never did. No surprise.
AlanF
-
Arthur
AlanF,
Once again, you've posted a very good thread. Thanks for this additional information, as it always provides some good side notes for my personal research.
-
Satanus
Ecxcellent work on this subject, alan.
S
-
Torpid
The bible is very earth-centric. If it were god-inspired, it would have been a heck of a lot more scientifically correct. I mean, come on, if god were directing the writing of it, it would have been obscenely valuable to the scientific community and saved us years of research. Instead, years of scientific research have shown many embarrassing errors in the bible.
Very well done, I enjoyed reading this very much. I wish I could write things as eloquently as you.
-
thecarpenter
Welcome to the board torpid, make yourself at home.
-
Leolaia
AlanF...The passage in question in the anonymous homily of Barnabas is as follows:
"He speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of creation: 'And God made the works of his hands in six days, and finished on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it' [cf. Genesis 2:2-3]. Observe, children, what 'he finished in six days' means. It means this: That in six thousand years the Lord will bring everything to an end, for with him a day signifies a thousand years. And he himself bears me witness when he says, 'Behold, a day of the Lord will be as a thousand years'. Therefore, children, in six days -- that is, in six thousand years -- everything will be brought to an end. 'And he rested on the seventh day.' This means: When his Son comes, he will destroy the time of the lawless one and will judge the ungodly... On the Sabbath, after I have set everything at rest, I will create the beginning of an eighth day, which is the beginning of another world. This is why we spend the eighth day [i.e. Sunday] in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the head, and then ascended to heaven after appearing again" (Barnabas 15:3-9).
What is interesting is that the early Christian church used the LXX version of the OT, which puts the creation of man in the sixth millennium BC (dates range from 5586-5509 BC depending on how the data from the LXX is interpreted). The LXX was translated in Egypt and the earlier date likely reflects an intention to accommodate ancient Egyptian history. But this also meant that the end of six thousand years of human existence would arrive by AD 400, if not sooner. Interpreting the 400 years as a sojourn in Egypt (contra the LXX) would alone reduce the length by 215 years. Looking at the work of the early Jewish and Christian chronographers (cf. Demetrius, Fr. 2.18, who reckons 3,624 years from Adam to the Egyptian sojourn, compare the 2,172 years for the same period in Jubilees 45:1), the LXX figures were used to construct chronologies for biblical history (cf. the date of the world's creation in the Eastern Orthodox calendar as 1 September 5509 BC).
There was an antecedent of the "six thousand years" notion in the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch, which interestingly is quoted in Barnabas 16:6. This apocalyptic survey of history, written about 200 BC, foresees human history as a series of 10 weeks. It starts with creation (such that Enoch was "born the seventh in the first week"), then in the second week the Flood occurs, the law is given at Sinai in the fourth week, the First Temple is built in the fifth week, the Divided Kingdom occurs in the sixth week and the Temple is burned at the end of the week, then the seventh week relates to the exile and post-exilic period ending with the events that occurred around 200 BC, i.e. the time when the oracle was written. Then the next two weeks are a period of righteousness and messianic blessings, with "all humankind looking to the path of eternal righteousness," and then finally the tenth week would bring eternal judgment and the passing away of the present heavens and the appearance of a new heavens. And at the end of the tenth week will be weeks without number forever for the righteous. It is generally thought that each week = 490 years (70 weeks of years), with the seventh week corresponding roughly to the period in Daniel 9 and the period of the 70 shepherds in the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. This is then followed by two weeks or roughly 1,000 years of righteous rule, followed by Judgment Day. This is a scenario similar to the one later given in Revelation.
-
Khufu
The first chapter of Genesis can't of course be taken for what it claims to be: a factual, historical account of the creation in six days of 24 hours. On the other hand, reading it the non-litteral way is a twisting of scriptures. I'm forced to conclude that the unknown writer of that passage simply wrote what he thought was a reasonable account of the creation.
That man is often ridiculed for having written that light preceded its source, the sun. Yet I don't think he was so stupid to fail to see that light emanates from the sun. This makes his account even more intriguing.
He also had some good, valid, points. For instance, mankind is only one family, and life is more than organized dust. I personaly add the fact that we have been created by a caring God.
Why not simply take the human factor into consideration when reading the Bible? For example, I've always been amazed to see how so many Christians take every verse in Paul's letters to first century Christians as a sacred pronouncement of God, while Paul himself insisted so much that he wasn't God and could err.
I personaly believe that the Bible is an authentic account of God's dealings with mankind, but as men wrote it, it naturaly contains human errors. Why are many Christians so much uncomfortable with that fact?
-
Leolaia
Khufu....Note that Genesis 1:16 states that the sun was created to "govern the day" (l-mmshlt h-ywm), i.e. the divisions between day and night have already existed since the first day but now the sun and moon are created to "govern" the day and night and take over the job of dividing day from night (cf. Psalm 136:7-9), and setting the rhythm of time. The idea is that "day" and "night" are the respective temporal abodes of light and darkness as Job 38:19-20 also implies. So the light that came into the existence is a heavenly light independent of the sun and moon, and the cycles of day and night preceded the formation of these heavenly bodies (contrary to how we understand the cycles of day and night today). The creation account in Psalm 104 which possibly was a source for the Priestly narrative in Genesis 1 suggests that God himself is the source of the light ("He wraps himself in light as with a garment," 104:2). Possibly the idea of a heavenly light independent of the sun is suggested by the brightness of the blue sky which seemingly shines in the daytime independent of the sun which shines within it.
The idea that the rhythm of time in the marking of day and night preceded the creation of the luminaries also has interesting consequences in the priestly solar calendar which begins the calendar (New Year's Day) on a Wednesday. This was because the Sabbath, which falls on Saturday, corresponds to the seventh creative day and thus the first creative day would have occurred on a Sunday (cf. Jubilees 2:13 which dates the creation of Adam to the third day after the creation of the sun but day 6 of the creation week). Since the calendar itself is set by the rhythm and cycles of the sun, and since the sun was created on the fourth day, the calendar could only begin on a Wednesday. This dramatically pictures the idea that the rhythm of time set by the alternation of day and night was in existence for several days before the sun itself was created.
-
Khufu
Your comments are very much interesting Leolaia, as usual. Thank you so much. You're absolutely amazing. I've been asking myself how I should take the Genesis account of creation, and this thread is a great help.