Another hole in the JW's version of inherited sin

by logansrun 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • logansrun
    logansrun

    The WT has often alluded that there is a genetic defect in humankind ever since Adam and Eve ate of the "forbidden fruit." We've all heard the "dent in a pan = dent in the cakes" illustration countless times over by the Society and, for that matter, by a number of fundamentalist Christians. But, there is an enormous problem with this line of reasoning.

    Sex cells (gametes) of males are constantly produced from the time of puberty practically till the day men die. The production of gametes in females, however, is not constant. In fact, females have all the gametes they will ever produce already in their bodies at birth. There is absolutely no production of sex cells -- which is 1/2 of all the genetic material available to their offspring -- during adulthood.

    Eve -- a mythical character in my book, but a real flesh-and-blood woman for the JWs -- would have had all her gametes in her body before she ever sinned and ate the curiously unknown fruit. This would mean that her genetic contribution to her offspring would have been sinless and perfect. Since the JWs believe (unbelievably!) that a perfect genetic contribution "overpowers" imperfect genetic contribution (think Mary the mother of Jesus) all of Adam and Eve's offspring would have been perfect, thus the idea of a genetic basis for sin is demolished.

    Oh, I guess a clever JW will work their way around this obvious problem (probably no JW would link the above into a question, though) by saying that there was a "special condition" in Eve's case -- that either God didn't give her gametes till after she sinned or that God "zapped" her gametes and genetically altered them to be imperfect. Such reasoning just illustrates the absolute lunacy of the original doctrine and the great lengths one must go to to make the Eden myth fit the modern world.

    It was so much simpler for Christianity before the scientific method!

    Bradley

  • czarofmischief
    czarofmischief

    This is not an argument:

    You are presupposing special creation - and are insisting that perfect women who are specially created are created so with all of their eggs already in place. How do you know what "perfect" women do? They were meant to live forever, after all, perhaps their production of eggs continued for all eternity?

    Remember also the clearly stated Bible principle, "A little leaven ferments the whole lump." So even a trace of imperfection would create imperfect children - according to the Bible, which if you are going to admit as evidence, you have to admit the whole thing. You can't give us the Garden of Eden and then demand that we accept the evidence that we see in the world around us today.

    And, Genesis does indicate that some kind of change in the female reproductive process would occur, one that would make it harder for women to bear children. Therefore, Biblically, some kind of limitation on female reproduction is to be expected.

    Your assertion, which I hesitate to dignify with the title "argument" is invalid, because it lays down rules that are impossible to verify, either Biblically or through the scientific method.

    So, really, its just more pseudo-intellectual claptrap by our uber-cool nihilist Marxist Euro-trash wannabe. Sip another latte, try again after your social check clears.

    CZAR

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    In relation to this, wt believes that jesus' 'life force' (whatever that was) was transfered to marry. Somehow, marry's sinful genetics did not penetrate it. This is strange, since the egg destroys the male mitachondrial dna contained in the sperm, thus the female mitachondrial dna is passed on intact. This would bolster you hole assertion, as eve's still perfect mitachondria would have wiped out adam's imperfect one. 'Course there was still some 'imperfection' passed on. This is all hypothetical fantasy, of course.

    SS

  • dustyb
    dustyb

    how do we know that Almighty Jah just didn't come in one night when Adam was sleeping and stuck it to Eve like a gentleman =D

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan
    So, really, its just more pseudo-intellectual claptrap by our uber-cool nihilist Marxist Euro-trash wannabe. Sip another latte, try again after your social check clears.

    uh, wipe the foam from away from the sides of your mouth there Czar, it's unnattractive.

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    double

  • skiz
    skiz
    Sex cells (gametes) of males are constantly produced from the time of puberty practically till the day men die. The production of gametes in females, however, is not constant. In fact, females have all the gametes they will ever produce already in their bodies at birth. There is absolutely no production of sex cells -- which is 1/2 of all the genetic material available to their offspring -- during adulthood.

    Brad,
    I think you just proved that men were created to live forever but women created to die
    And that makes sense, if you think about it
    If women lived forever there would be no end to their nagging
    Then we would all WANT to die

    So, really, its just more pseudo-intellectual claptrap by our uber-cool nihilist Marxist Euro-trash wannabe. Sip another latte, try again after your social check clears.

    I see you've made another friend, Brad

    David

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    It was Adam who sinned, so it's more likely the sperms were irradiated

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    As a probable "nihilist Marxist Euro-trash"(TM) myself, and from a definitely literary, not scientific, standpoint, I'd just like to say the following:

    A modern "scientific" mind may be quite misleading in the approach of ancient texts. For instance, interpreting the Genesis 2--3 story in genetic terms is totally missing the point of the text. Reading implies understanding a lot of tacit information, especially about literary genre. Genesis 2--3 belongs to a specific category of "primeval stories" (including myths, tales, legends and so on). Primeval stories may appear (to very candid or scientific minds, which often make the same mistakes as far as literature is concerned) to be history, but they are not. Their point is not to relate something that has really happened somewhere or sometime, instead to describe the one and only reality as the result of a fictional story. It is not even etiology inasmuch as the story was never meant to be "historical". So the real starting point of Genesis 2--3 is the end of the story: mankind has knowledge, yet is mortal; man needs to work for a living; man dominates woman; woman suffers at childbirth; etc. All this is reality as it was experienced when the text was written. The same goes for a number of other stories, such as Genesis 11, starting from the fact that people do speak several languages... Have a look at Claus Westermann's commentary of Genesis in the Augsburg collection someday.

    On the question of "perfection", as a non-biblical concept, I'll refer again to http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66196/1.ashx

  • Guest 77
    Guest 77

    LR, I'm glad to you said, "Eve... a mythical charcater in MY (italics mine) book..."

    Isn't it great for us to express our personal opinions on this forum?

    Guest 77

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit