If I take Genesis 1--2:4 at face value (why shouldn't I?) I see no reason whatsoever to interpret the term "day" as meaning anything but a solar day (see the other uses of the same word in v. 5, 14, 16, 18). Of course Genesis 1 is an old priestly cosmogenetic tale (culminating with the institution of the sabbath day) and I don't expect to find in it a modern scientific explanation for the origin of the world. IMO the author(s) and editor(s) were not as naive about it as we (fundies, concordists or critics) sometimes are, since this tale is immediately followed by a very different etiological story (2:4--3).
Length of creative days.
by dothemath 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
Excellent post Narkissos. It is unfortunate that both apologists and critics of these tales generally debate the impossibilities psed in the stories. The authors' motives have in this way become lost. Etiological tales (origin legends offered as mythical rooting for tradtional cult and culture) were never intended to be viewed as taking place in physical space and time. So much, in fact nearly all the major Patriachal tales served this function. To package and reinforce tradition in myth, not to recount history. To be fare to the critics tho, many do understand this but in order to demonstrate the illogic of a literalist interpretation they must refute the stories from a literalist perspective. The 7 days myth in Gen 1, like you said, was composed to ground the recently adopted Babylonian Weekly Sabbath tradition in a Jewish mythic past.
-
Dawn
and........how do you explain:
1. day and night BEFORE creation of the sun and moon
2. Earth being created BEFORE the sun and moon (and it revolved around what?? and had gravity because of what??? and the earth tides....now they must have really been screwed up!!!)
.........just a few of the many many problems I see with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Personally...I think that it is an ancient people's attempt to explain their universe. Kind of how we give simple explanations to our children that do not really explain the WHOLE concept because they're not yet able to understand.
But I don't think Genesis is complete hogwash either......I believe there are lessons and messages to each of us if we're willing to look for them in the stories told.
For example...have you ever wonder what exactly the "knowledge of good and bad" is? I have an idea but would be interested in hearing your thoughts first.
-
garybuss
HEBREW UNIVERSE From page 542 Twentieth Century Bible Commentary
Edited by G. Henton Davies, Alan Richardson, Charles L. Wallis
1932, 1955 Harper & Brothers New York, NY -
drwtsn32
2. Earth being created BEFORE the sun and moon (and it revolved around what?? and had gravity because of what??? and the earth tides....now they must have really been screwed up!!!)
Good one!! I never thought of that!
-
JCanon
For some years I've attempted to get various JWs I've come in contact with to give me a straight answer about the 7000-year creative day notion. A few, who I already knew were way out in left field JW-wise, admitted that the notion is in limbo. Several rank-&-file JWs promised to get back to me with an answer but never did. Several Watchtower officials absolutely refused to give a straight answer, simply dancing around it. So it's obvious to me that the Society has in place an explicit policy -- given, of course, only to WTS officials -- to avoid answering that question. The reason they do this is obvious: they want to avoid unanswerable criticism from knowledgeable "worldlings" and they want to avoid alienating long-time JWs who still believe in the 7000-year notion.
Hi Alan. I'm surprised you're not up on this. Well here, FINALLY, is a JW who can give you the answer. And of note, it's not that JW-unique either. I was surprised to discover that Venerable Bede figured out that the concept of the two festivals during the THIRD WEEK (i.e. Passover 15-21 and Festival of Booths 15-22) represented a 2,000-year period during which Christ would appear twice, the third week of 2000 years suggesting two weeks of 4000 years from the time of creation, generally, and the 4th week composed of the sabbath millennium followed by another sabbath millennium of the 50th (jubilee) 1000-day of creation.
Anyway, the 7000 years is Biblically fundamental based upon Hebrews where Paul speaks of God not letting the rebellious post-Exodus Jews into his "rest". Paul goes on to explain that God rested from his creative activity shortly after Eve was created thus this additional "rest" was something yet to come. With the concept that the millennium is a sabbath of rest from mankind and Satan's rule, occupying the 7th day of God's Creative Rest, the deduction is that each creative day was 7000 years long and that the millennium was the 7th day of this last Creative Day of rest.
Just so you don't get confused about the reference of the Jews of the Exodus not entering into God's rest, the WTS thinks it means they won't be resurrected, but in fact the Bible provides only the earlier resurrection of the 144,000 prior to the millennium and it is that special group that these Jews would be excluded from. Per Revelation a resurrection of both the "righteous and unrightous" would take place AFTER Satan is released and destroyed. This period following Satan's last temptation of post-millenium mankind during which the dead would be judged is the period called elsewhere in the Bible as JUDGMENT DAY.
But not to get off topic, the 1000-year long millennium which can be defined as a sabbath, especially in connection with creative days as Paul discusses in Hebrews is the basis for Biblically presuming that each creative day was 7000 years long. In that case, as noted above, again, being the 7th day of 7 days, the millennium would be the 49th 1000-year period, a sabbath in Jewish doctrine. The following year would be a special JUBILEE as well, the 50th "day" of creation.
Finally, since Revelation represents God "making all things new" only after Judgment Day and Satan's last temptation of mankind, it appears the sabbath is moved up just a bit in the precisely chronology of the 7000 years to allow for Satan's testing and Judgment to take place before the official SECOND CREATIVE DAY (at 50,000 years) begins. This works out symbolically since the usual sabbath begins earlier than the regular Jewish day anyway, beginning at sunset rather than at twilight. Thus "preparation day" is an evening shorter than the other days and the sabbath day is an evening longer, not that that's a criteria.
Well, there's your answer AF (feel fulfilled?). The millennium regarded as a "sabbath" suggests the 7th day within a longer day which would be 7000 years long. So it's BIBLICAL, not JW.
JCanon
-
Faraon
Garybuss,
HEBREW UNIVERSE
From page 542 Twentieth Century Bible Commentary
Edited by G. Henton Davies, Alan Richardson, Charles L. Wallis
1932, 1955 Harper & Brothers New York, NYI have previously seen in a bible, which I cannot remember at the moment, a drawing similar to the one you posted. but, if I remember correctly, the atmosphere was not round, and it had four corners.
-
LittleToe
JCAnon:
The millennium regarded as a "sabbath" suggests the 7th day within a longer day which would be 7000 years long. So it's BIBLICAL, not JW.
That would be entirely a matter of interpretation, hence there are folks who are premillenial, postmillenial, and amillenial.
Even taking a creative day as 7000 years is still a form of "Young Earth Creationism", that flies in the face of established facts.
-
JCanon
LittleJoe:
I agree with you...
That would be entirely a matter of interpretation, hence there are folks who are premillenial, postmillenial, and amillenial.
But most things are a matter of interpretation. For me it was just establishing for AF where JWs got the specific 7000-year interpretation, along with others based upon regarding the millennium as a "sabbath" or the 7th day out of a week. I'm not claiming it's correct, just noting it's dubious origin.
Even taking a creative day as 7000 years is still a form of "Young Earth Creationism", that flies in the face of established facts.
As far as this 7000-year theory flying in the face of "established facts" based upon what science is telling us, I agree as well. But, God is a tricky personality. Once you introduce a creator with the ability to whatever, especially "catch the wise in their own cunning" then it's a moot point whether what the Bible says flies in the face of "established fact" or not since God can change creation if wants to. For instance, just for fun, he coul make it so that at a certain time under certain conditions radiocarbon degeneration goes haywire and speeds up for a period then slows down, then this and that. But if science can't OBSERVE this "phenomenon" then they don't find reason to believe it would have occurred and would base their "interpretation" on what they feel is a STABLE and CONSISTENT factor they are observing. But who is to say they know everything and every exception? So even what is known to be "established fact" by reproducible methology in a lab might establish one thing, it doesn't cover the invisible "exceptions" which can't be traced scientifically. So even "established fact" is a qualified position which is, as you know, constantly changing every year as science refines it's methods and theories. I personally don't think science has a strong handle based upon what is left to examine on the history of the world and this planet, especially when the Bible apparently claims God miraculously caused certain things to happen. For all we know creation itself may have DISTORTED some geological or atomic factors we are observing and thus false readings are being presumed by science. So if the Bible's chronology (as perceived) and the current theories of science happen to diaagree then that's fine, science doesn't know everything or every detail and as they say: "It ain't over until the fat lady sings, right?
Regards,
JC
-
JCanon
Hi Dawn, just for your future referecen regarding gravity....
and had gravity because of what???
Science fiction films suggest rotation creates "gravity" which it might similate gravity by some factor of centrifugal force, but gravity is based upon the theory that an object of mass attracts another object of mass. So whether or not the earth was spinning, it would have gravity. In fact, the faster it spends the less the gravity factor;if it were spinning too fast I suppose, theoretically, all things not tied down would be thrown off the surface.
But your point is well taken. I'm wondering if, somehow, there is some ROTATION IN HEAVEN that measures time and days. In that case the rotation would be, for a day, every 7000 years. I don't see the immediate logic in that, especially if you divide the 7 into two, even though the half week often is done precisely that way with "time, times and half time". That presumption being, therefore, that perhaps the celestial bodies around the creator are not stationary but rotate around him which is an interesting concept, suggesting that every 7000 years the throne completes a circle which faces everything.
Even so the phrase "and there was evening and thre was morning" suggests to me a reference to simply the last day of that long day.
I'll have to look at this further..
JC