The October Awake on Creation/Evolution!

by Gill 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Gill
    Gill

    I don't know if parts of this mag have been discussed. I've been reading it slowly, and though evolution/creation is not an argument I want to get in to (each to his own) there are a few points that I'm going to bring out in the next week or so that 'irritated me'.

    DOES SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE GENESIS ACCOUNT?

    Page 19 subheading 'Creations Appear Gradually'

    Moses wrote his account in Hebre, and he wrote it from the persepctive 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 perios, or 'days' help to diffuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

    A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one 'day' continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative 'day' started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth's surface, possibly by thick clouds. During the first 'day' this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.

    On the second 'day' the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth ' day', the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and moon were made to appear ' in the expanse of the heavens.' In other words, from the persepectove of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened. gradually.'

    The problem with this, as we are probably all aware, is the way that the WTBTS tries to explain this annomaly of there being light and yet the sun and moon not actually being made until several days after the actual 'light appeared.'

    Since there were NO people on the earth to actually see this as they had not been created yet, Moses probably obtained his version of events from the myths of the people of Sumer.

    They try to explain away the sun and moon becoming visible by saying that all the clouds had cleared away. That being the case then, where did all the rain come from that apparantly God sent to flood the Earth in Noah's day? Where did this mythical blanket of cloud appear from 'again' later on when it was time to flood an earth that had never had rain, and never had direct rays of the sun shine on it?

    Also, the NWT, their own Bible clearly says in verse 14 of chapter 1 of Genesis:

    And God went on to say: 'Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth. And it came to be so. 16. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night and the stars. 17. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth...'

    Their saying that the 'story' was written in the viewpoint of a man standing on earth holds no ground because, the story is supposedly inspired by the God, who supposedly made these things. The Bible clearly states that the sun and moon and stars were not MADE by God until the fourth day.

    The WTBTS tries in this article to make itself appear MORE scientific and more 'grounded' than Christian Fundamentalist which it mocks throughout this magazine. 'Fundamentalists' is bandied about like a dirty word. And yet, their own teaching is nothing different to the Fundmentalist they seek to mock.

    I'll show these quotes in a later post.

  • vitty
    vitty

    How come the WT are allowed to "speculate" and ramble on with "theories" and the poor R&F have GOT to accept it as gospel. No speculating for everyone else, whether they agree with the latest BS, they have to swallow the latest crap, with awesome admiration on how clever the WT are to figure out such complicated stuff.

  • VM44
    VM44

    Does the Awake article also explain exactly where is the location of the waters that are "above the firmament"?

    Or does the article just choose to skip over that part of the creation account?

    --VM44

  • Gill
    Gill

    VM44 - That is the only mention of the 'firmament problem'.

    Certainly seems, that they can't have it both ways. Either the there was thick cloud which came down as rain during the flood and so didn't allow sight of the sun etc. Or, these apparant clouds disappeared and then allowed sight of the sun etc in the early creation. and then there was NO thick heavy rain clouds to flood the earth.

    Could be they have tried to explain one problem, ie creation being in the incorrect order and then caused themselves another problem, ie where's all the rain meant to now come from to wipe out the world of Noah's day.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    What annoys me the most about that article, is this:

    Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the persepctive of a person standing on the surface of the earth.

    ...because it`s true, but why do they fail to see the implications of it!? Why can`s they see that the same goes for the rest of the Bible too?

  • Gill
    Gill

    Exactly, Hellrider, but it is only written from a 'human's' point of view when it suits them. The rest of the time it's supposed to be totally inspired and fault free. These two faults, the firmament problem, and the luminaries only created after light are right at the beginning of the Bible. They will not admit to those contradictions and cannot even begin to see the others.

    Always trying to wangle a ridiculous excuse for this man written book.

  • uninformed
    uninformed

    I have always had a little problem myself with the "swaddling band" theory.

    The Genesis account says:

    (Genesis 1:14-19) 14

    And God went on to say: "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.

    If this was accomplished before humans were here as indicated, when they did get here they would have been able to see the stars, moon and sun. But if there were a thick band of moisture that covered the earth and gave it a green house effect, I don't know how they could have seen the stars.

    However, if the band were more like Saturn's ring, possibly it could still work.

    Anyone else ever think about it?

    Brant

  • Gill
    Gill

    If it were a ring like Saturns' you would have been able to see the stars, sun etc yes. But, if you're talking about a constant rain, global flood, of the amount that would have been needed, I doubt that would have been anywhere near sufficient.

    Whichever ways you twist it, Moses got his ideas from the ancients of Sumer and not from God.

  • KW13
    KW13

    Mum was trying to get me to discuss it, so i said although at the moment i believe in God i have to admit, the arguements used in this Awake! magazine are pretty poor.

    For example, animals being in certain ways obviously shows a designer, but then i said that Athiests on the door will simply say, that animals adapt and change in their environments.

    Then we discussed if there is a loving God, how we will answer a persons request for £20 but at the same time, let a family die at gun point. She said that he doesn't get involved in this world fully, but looking at it, he does but picks and chooses what he does.

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    I read through this magazine also. The biggest irritation to me was how they dogmatically insist that the 'days' weren't literal 24hr days but figurative days lasting unspecified aeons. The fact that the writer meant exactly what he said by including 'morning' and 'evening' is ignored. It can't be the word of god if you constantly have to re-explain what it is 'supposed' to mean every time reality proves the old explanation wrong. When the "TRUTH" has to constantly undergo revision, it isn't really truth, is it? But, to admit the nature of such "Truth" is to deny themselves authority, and that is something they never want to do.
    Dave

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit