Adam Naming the Animals ... Did It Take THAT Long ???

by RubaDub 21 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • BurnTheShips

    There are two conflicting accounts. Some events before each other in both accounts. In chapter 2 god is to make a helper for adam but then creates the animals first, later the woman.

    This demonstrates that it is not a literal account. It is figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic.


  • TD
    This demonstrates that it is not a literal account. It is figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic.

    --Is that why the characters have names that could be construed as, "Man," "Mother," "Son," etc.? I always thought that was coincidence

  • bluecanary

    Adam spent the rest of the time figuring out how to shave his beard with rocks.

  • BurnTheShips
    --Is that why the characters have names that could be construed as, "Man," "Mother," "Son," etc.? I always thought that was coincicence

    Let me share words by Augustine of Hippo from 1600 years ago:

    It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

    St. Augustine's position is that one accepts a literal reading, unless and until reason or empirical science shows otherwise.

    I agree.

    By the way, Augustine was a very smart cookie, what he wrote can be described as a form of proto-evolution:

    Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions. He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

    As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

    Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself. God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.

    In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine's theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.' His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas simply quoted Augustine's teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.


  • OnTheWayOut

    Here's a problem about the naming.

    Research says that the Hebrew name for Lion means "in the sense of violence."
    The Hebrew name for Night Hawk means "from it's violence."
    The Hebrew name for Cormorant means "casting itself into the sea" for it's hunting method of diving into water in pursuit of prey.
    The hebrew name for Eagle means "to lacerate...large bird of prey."

    The problem with the JW story is that all the animals were wonderful and peaceful and didn't kill each other until Adam and Eve sinned and the nature of animals changed. That way, their paradise story following the book of Isaiah is supposed to be describing a return to the way the animals were created- peaceful. Lions eating straw and children playing with snakes.

    Even some others besides JW's say that there was no killing among the animals before sin came. Either Adam didn't give those names and they were changed later or the Bible story is just bunk. Guess which one I think it is?

  • CandleSurgeon

    I guess it depends, was Adam an indecisive person? If so he may have spent much time thinking of names for each individual species, if he was very decisive then it would have happened much quicker?.


  • cantleave

    I like the way Adam used aboriginal words like kukabura (sorry too drunk to spell it right!)

  • CandleSurgeon

    OnTheWayOut I guess that you think the names were changed later. Am I right, am I right?


  • Satanus

    The bible says that no suitable companion was found for adam. The wt suggests that it was more than having a dog buddy, or a kittie cat friend. The rammifications boggle the mind. It was, apparently, something that only a woman could fill. Just how much time did it take for this realization to hit adam? That may have taken more time than giving names.


  • oompa

    oh did me and daddy elder talk about that when it first came out............damm that was ages ago!!!!......why the fluck did i not bail after three years of animal naming????.............must have been 20 years ago..........shit..........oompa

Share this