Thanks for your typically astute comments, Leolaia!
One of your comments got me to thinking about something that has rather irked me for some time. Job 26:7 is rendered in the NWT: "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." In the NWT Genesis 1:2 is rendered: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste . . ." The Hebrew word translated in Job 26:7 as "empty place" (tohu) is translated in Gen. 1:2 as "formless". The Hebrew words translated in Job 26:7 as "nothing" mean "not what", according to The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, and this is apparently the only place in the OT where this construction of "not something" occurs (the Watchtower Society seems to concur on this).
Given all this, and the way Hebrew writers often use parallel constructions in poetry such as in Job, it seems to me that the notions of "stretching out the north over the empty place" and "hanging the earth upon nothing" are parallel constructions in Hebrew poetry, and as such, must mean essentially the same thing, namely, that this "empty place" and "nothing" are essentially the same thing. And since we're talking about reality here, as opposed to ethereal theological stuff, Job 26:7 basically means that God's "hanging the earth upon nothing" means nothing more than God "hung the earth upon the essentially vague notion of the Hebrew tohu," which means, in conjunction with Genesis 1:2, that God hung the earth upon something "formless".Which means that the whole notion of consistency in the Pentateuch is false.
Narkissos, perhaps you can make some helpful comments here.
The wanderer said:
: I think if you could cut down on the information regarding your subject material the article would get a better response.
Perhaps, but I try to write for an audience a bit above the level of Austrian Emperor Joseph II, who upon hearing one of Mozart's operas famously observed, "Too many notes, my dear Mozart". To which Mozart replied (at least, in the play Amadeus), "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?"
So there, Wanderer, if you have trouble dealing with too much information, I suggest you quit reading here and proceed to something a bit more up your alley, or offer helpful suggestions as to just what words ought to be cut out and just what words ought to be put in place..
Arthur, your observations about the Society are all too correct. Its leaders are intellectually dishonest because they hold a different standard for themselves than for everyone else.
Tophat said:
: Look how far Man has come in 100 years....I can only imagine a Powerful Entity creating the heavens and Earth in 6 days. I believe it's possible.
I think you've completely missed the point of my post, which was that the JWs disagree with the Bible. I agree that the Bible teaches what you said. I don't agree with the Bible.
But your comment is thought provoking. How much Man has come in 100 years indeed! But how far has the Bible's view of, say, women come along in that time period? Nada. Remember that the Bible's view of women is that they are the property of men -- a special kind of property, but still property. A girl was her father's property until she married, after which she was her husband's property. Whose property are you?
In another post you said:
: Proof of God! Just look around you at the abundance of life so well put-together and in harmony. Not just the Earth is in harmony but the whole Universe.
I agree! That women are men's property is perfectly in harmony both with God's explicit laws and with the way in which he created men and women, where women are in subjection to men, both by nature and by common assent.
Undercover wrote:
: I've always been aggravated that the WTS claims that the earthrock has been in existence for billions of years yet all the life on it is less than 50,000 years old.
Exactly. Last night I spoke to a friend who used to be in Bethel and knew many of the Writing Staff members. One of these Bethel Heavies, one Karl Adams who was in charge of writing the Proclaimers book, more or less issued an edict that the lesser writers would not comment any more on things like the age of life. That this edict, or perhaps guiding policy, is still in effect is shown by the ridiculously waffling articles in the September, 2006 Awake! It perfectly illustrates your point. Yet, these same writers have no problem agreeing with the scientifically established 4.5 billion year figure for the age of the earth. How can these people be so transparently stupid?
: What's happened in the last century is that the physical evidence has crushed the myth of a literal creation as described in the Bible. Creationists refuse to let go of the old mythology, but the WTS knowing that they can't defend that style of creation, attempt to merge real science and Bible mythology to come up with a plausible scenerio. Of course, all JWs are expected to accept this notion as pure Bible "truth" and believe it as much as they once believed that the generation of 1914 would not die off.
You hit the nail on the head again. But I think that in the long run, more and more stupid doctrines like these will fall by the wayside. The JWs as an organization have come along far enough in their evolution that now their main focus is on survival as an organization. The specifics of their teachings are largely irrelevant to their survival, and so almost all teachings are subject to drastic change as needed to maintain membership.
You nailed this Mad poster pretty good.
To Doug Mason:
I understand your points. However, the JWs are biblical literalists for the most part -- except, of course, when for some odd reason they aren't. Such literalists do not accept your view.
To ringo5:
Thank you for pointing out the Society's comments here. You're right -- and that was part of my complaint -- that this really doesn't amount to actual argumentation. Their comment that the "heaven" of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 "evidently" refers to the creation of "the heavens and the earth" is a tacit admission that they have no real argument. We all know that the Society's use of "evidently" means "we believe this but have nothing to back it up". Buried as it is in an article about heaven, and with no explicit connection with Genesis 1:1, it raises far more questions than it answers. And that's why the Society carefully avoids trying to reconcile Exodus and Genesis in a single piece of argumentation.
To AlmostAtheist:
I agree with your comments. See mine addressing Narkissos' comments below.
Narkissos wrote:
: I guess a JW apologist (a better one than Mad, that is) would crawl his/her way out of this one by pulling on the formal difference between br' ("to create") in Genesis 1:1 and `sh ("to make") in Exodus. As they do in Genesis 1:1,14 which (contrary to Mad's explanation) they interpret as (1) "creation" of heaven, including the sun and stars and (2) "making" of their present appearance as visible from the earth... (by whom?).
Ah, but this good JW apologist would be as inconsistent and guilty of specious argumentation as the Society itself. The fact is, those two Hebrew words (br' and `sh) can be synonyms, as shown in Genesis 1 itself when it describes happenings on the 5th and 6th creative days:
And God proceeded to create (br') the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about . . . (Gen. 1:21)
And God proceeded to make (`sh) the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. (Gen. 1:25)
Assuming only that the descriptions are logically consistent in their use of the two terms of interest, we must conclude that br' and `sh are used here as synonyms. If they can be synonymous within Genesis, then they can equally be synonymous when used in Genesis and Exodus to describe the creation/making of the heavens, earth, sea and all that is in them. How, then, can one decide whether br' used in Genesis 1:1 means the same thing as `sh used in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17?
These matters have been discussed long and hard by various Bible scholars -- but certainly not by Watchtower writers, who are no more scholars than they are astronauts -- and there are many opinions. One set of opinions can be lumped into "the gap theory", which is essentially what the Watchtower Society subscribes to, even though nothing is ever mentioned directly about it in Watchtower literature. This basically says that there is some sort of gap in time between what Genesis 1:1 refers to and what the rest of Genesis 1 refers to. This notion is strongly argued against by Young-Earth Creationists, who insist that there is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of Genesis 1, based on many considerations including the language of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. Note some comments by the Creationist Bible scholar John C. Whitcomb (in The Early Earth: An Introduction to Biblical Creationism, Revised Edition, Baker Book House, 1986, pp. 151-3):
The fourth major supporting argument for the Gap Theory is built upoon a supposed distinction between the verbs "created" (bara') and "made" (`asah). If this distinction is not clearly maintained, then the Gap Theory must collapse, for Exodus 20:11 states, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them." Obviously, if God "made" everything within six days, there would be no room for a long time interval between the creating of the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1) and the creating of all the other things (Gen. 1:2-31). Therefore the Gap Theory requires that "made" (`asah) in Exodus 20:11 should be understood as referring only to the "refashioning" of the heavens and the earth in six days after the supposed judgment of Genesis 1:2.
Whitcomb then takes the New Scofield Reference Bible to task for supporting the "Gap Theory" and writes:
With regard to Genesis 1:3 ("Then God said, `Let there be light;' and there was light"), the New Scofield Reference Bible states that "neither here nor in vv. 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is made to appear, made visible. The sun and moon were created `in the beginning.' The light came from the sun, of course, but the vapor diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky" (p. 1, note #6).
But this interpretation raises serious questions. In the first place, if God had intended to convey to us the idea that the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars) were already in existence on the first day, but only "appeared" on the fourth day (by a removal of clouds) the verb to appear could easily have been used, as in Genesis 1:9 ("and let the dry land appear"). Furthermore, if the creation of the sun occurred as part of the creative activity supposedly covered by Genesis 1:1, how could the earth have been shrouded in total darkness in 1:2? No cloud canopy could have excluded the sun's light, for water vapors were not elevated above the firmament until the second day of creation.
Whitcomb then argues for a consistent interpretation of Genesis 1:21 and 1:25:
Surely we are not to think that sea creatures were directly "created" on the fifth day, but land animals were merely "appointed" or "made to appear" on the sixth day! All those who hold that bara' and `asah cannot be used of the same kind of divine activity are faced with a serious difficulty here. In fact, the difficulty is so severe that the New Scofield Reference Bible, in support of this distinction, suggests that the beasts which were "made" on the sixth day (vs. 25) were actually already "created" on the fifth day (p. 2, note #2). But such an interpretation is impossible since the beasts were obviously brought into existence for the first time on the sixth day ("let the earth bring forth," vs. 24). This bringing into existence is described as a work wherein God "made the beasts of the earth" (vs. 25).
Whitcomb engages in more argumentation and concludes:
These examples should suffice to show the absurdities to which one is driven by making distinctions which God never intended to make. For the sake of variety and fullness of expression (a basic and extremely helpful characteristic of Hebrew literature), different verbs are used to convey the concept of supernatural creation. It is particularly clear that whatever shade of meaning the rather flexible verb made (`asah) may bear in other contexts of the Old Testament, in the context of Genesis 1 it stands as a synonym for created (bara'). Thus, not only animal life and human life, but also plant life and the astronomic bodies were directly created by God in their appropriate days; and this fact, in the light of Exodus 20:11, is utterly devastating to the Gap Theory.
I completely agree with Whitcomb's conclusion.
Another consideration is, what could the ancient writers and readers of Genesis and Exodus have made of arguments that the JWs and other "gap theorists" set forth? These arguments would obviously be unintelligible. After all, the Hebrew concept of the earth was of a pizza pie shaped earth sitting in the midst of the waters around and below the dry land, and the waters above the "firmament" or "expanse". Any ancient Jew reading Exodus would ineluctably conclude that the entire heavens, earth, sea and all that is in them were created/made in six literal days. Arguments against this come from people who have regard for some of the solid findings of modern science but who still need to maintain some sort of faith in the Bible.
As usual, Leolaia's comments are further proof of my contention.
In your 2nd post, you made some comments about understanding Genesis that I agree with, ending with: "provided you don't mistake it as 'what really happened'."
Mad wrote:
: 4 points to go in one of your ears- and out the other:
Ignoring your obvious difficulties with writing in the English language, let's examine your four points and see if they hold up, especially given what I posted and you completely ignored.
: Note 1 (Day 1) : Genesis 1: 1- In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2-And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
: ...The Earth ALREADY existed when the Creative "Days" began..
I'm perfectly well aware of the Watchtower Society's views on this. My point was that these views contradict biblical views. In view of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, the earth was part of the creation that commenced with the first creative day.
Exodus clearly states that God created/made the entire cosmos, the heavens and the earth and the sea and the things in them, in the very same six literal 24-hour days that were the basis for the injunction that all ancient Jews observe the 7th day, the sabbath.
: Note 2 (Day 1): Gen 1:3-And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4-And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
: 5-And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Ok, and? Oh, I see. I'm supposed to read on. So be it.
...the Creative "Day" was a period of time when he used the Light. Was it the Sun giving Earth a 24- hour Day as we know it???
You tell me. Keep in mind the various arguments and scriptures presented above.
: Note 3 (4th Day): Gen 1:14nd God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night . . .
Mad continues with the sort of gobbledegoop we've come to expect from JWs:
: ....the FIRST Light (making day/ morning & evening/night) was from another source, since He didn't make the sun & moon til the 4th day.
What "another source"?
: Note 4 . . . the ENTIRE PERIOD of 6 Creative Days is referred to as ONE Day.
Yeah. And?
: Thus the BIBLE shows the Earth was Older than the NON-24 hour Days in which He made the Earth.
This is complete gobble-de-goop. What do you really mean?
: The Church Fairy Tale of the 6 Periods of time being 72 hours
I suspect that you mean 24 hours each. Note that 72 hours entails exactly 3 days. Apparently you're an order of magnitude more braindead than the typical JW we've seen in these parts.
: is one of the reasons many smart, educated people don't give credit to the Bible- when the fault was not with it- but the Brainless Clergy- and people like YOU!
LOL! I think that your comments are extremely useful in showing why intelligent people should not become JWs -- they lose virtually all ability to reason in the normal human manner.
AlanF
