Let the Sun shine in - March Awake

by jws 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • jws
    jws

    Has this been covered yet?

    I was looking to download the new NWT from jw.org and stumbled across an Awake on creation - March 2014 edition. And it always interests me to see the latest spins they'll try to make creation sound plausible.

    Seems now they are implying the sun, moon, and stars were created when god said "let there be light". And that they just weren't visible on earth yet because of all that vapor in the air.

    According to them, on the third day: "The atmosphere clears up to allow more sunlight to reach the ground". They have to put this in because if they're talking creation days thousands (or if they want to stretch them to fit reality, billions) of years long, you need sunlight. Note that it does say sunlight, not generic light.

    On day 4, "The sun and moon become discernable from the earth's surface".

    That is NOT what the bible they claim to follow says.

    In the second paragraph of the article, they state:

    Many people, however, are unaware of the fact that Christendom's leaders, including so-called creationists and fundamentalists, have spun the Bible account of creation into numerous tales that deviate from what the Bible really says.

    To quote their own bible (from the new, new world translation), Genesis 1:14-19:

    14 Then God said: "Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for days and years.

    15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth." And it was so.

    16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser lumary 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 was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

    Clearly the bible is saying that on the fourth day, god created the sun, moon, and stars. "Sunlight" could not have seeped through on day 3 because there was no sun yet. Who's spinning tales now?

    Not to mention the utter ridiculousness of the creation account. All this work to prep the earth and its inhabitants, then in one day, the billions of other stars in the universe? And the fact that the moon is NOT a luminary and only reflects light. But that's a seperate topic.

    Also mentioned in bullet points is that "In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years". And "The Bible account of creation does not conflict with scientific conclusions about the age fo the univese". If the bible and science don't conflict, you'd be talking "days" in the range of >2 billion years/day, not "thousands". That's billion with a B.

    Also stated is that "God had already created the universe, including a lifeless planet Earth, by the time the first creative day began". Which also flies in the face of the bible. Exodus 20:11 "For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and he began to rest on the seventh day". And Exodus 31:17 it says "for in six days Jehovah made the heaveans and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and refreshed himself".

    Hmmmm, side note. In the NNWT, "he rested" is a lower-case "he". Interesting. I thought all "he"s relating to god were capitalized by tradition. Out of respect.

    So they're clearly trying to spin the uncomfortable parts and appeal to people who are leaning towards the scientific and as a result, losing their faith. So they're trying to reconcile science and the bible. And dismissing the Bible in the process.

    I SO hope they stop at my door with this one or that I run into them somewhere. It might even be worth a trip to areas they street witness for some fun debate.

  • sir82
    sir82

    Yeah they always forget about that scripture in Exodus 20. Danged inconvenient, that one is!

  • zound
    zound

    Good points. I haven't had a knock on my door for years, but when I saw that Awake, like you I hope that they knock on my door ready to explain how the world began to me...

  • ThisFellowCheap
    ThisFellowCheap

    This is not the first time they've spun that yarn. When I a kid, I remember my dad at a Family Study telling us that the light became discernible from a human POV on the third day and more on the fourth day when the atmosphere clear up. I think we were discoursing the Creation book then. What I said that stumped my dad was that, "But Dad, there weren't any humans on the third or fourth day, why would they be reporting as eyewitnesses?!" He never was able to answer that one, and he was pretty good with answers back then!

  • Oubliette
    Oubliette

    You're trying to make sense out of nonsense. It'll never work.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    Gen. chapter 2 contradicts chap. 1 by explaining how Adam was created before there were any plants. Animals would have had to be created later since there would have been nothing for them to eat.

    Genesis is clearly a variety of legends that are very poorly pasted together.

  • jws
    jws

    I forgot to mention, they sort of mix in evolution, though not by name.

    • According to the Bible, Jehovah God created all the basic kinds of plant and animal life, as well as a perfect man and woman who were capable of self-awareness, love, wisdom, and justice.
    • The kinds of animals and plants created by God have obviously undergone changes and have produced variations within the kinds. In many cases, the resulting life-forms are remarkably different from one another.
    • The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.

    I guess I don't recall this when I was a JW, but I've heard this from apologists before. That the animal kingdom can be reduced to "kinds". That helps them also explain how fewer "kinds" can be on the ark.

    As I've always argued, either the ark was too small or you have to admit evolution occurred after the flood.

    They're apparently saying, for instance, that maybe a pair of lions was created (and on the ark) and from there came tigers, pumas, panthers, cheetas, house cats, etc. Different species, but all within the same "kind" - the cat family.

    Which to me sounds like an affirmation of evolution. Not all the way back to one-celled organisms, but evolution none-the-less.

    I remember them sort of saying this. Like for dogs that can be bred into different breeds. Or even for the races among humans. That it's supposed to be within everyone's blueprint to be able to have these differences. But I thought it was more specialized. Like to animals that could interbreed.

  • sir82
    sir82

    the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.

    This statement is so ludicrous that it is mind-boggling.

    Show me one - just one - statement anywhere in which scientists speak of "kinds".

    What is a "kind"? Is it a species? A genus? An order? What, precisely, in scientific terms, is a "kind"?

    Of course there is no such thing as a scientific "kind". Is it a term so vague as to be utterly useless. It is whatever the Watchtower article's author wants it to be.

    Idiots.

  • VOLO
    VOLO

    Wait a minute there...

    If, when a big summer storm is coming, the sky is charcoal gray, how can they say God 'created' the luminaries on whatever day it was, (because that's when they were first "visible") when there was, not an hour's summer storm brewing, but a water canopy thick enough hold the oceans in the atmosphere?

  • NAVYTOWN
    NAVYTOWN

    Folks, the entire Bible account of creation is total BS to begin with. Why even bother trying to talk sense to anyone who still even gives credence to such childish hokum??

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit