h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Given that "Bible is God's Word and is truth", which of the two contradictory and mutually exclusive accounts of the Creation do Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

Is it the one in Chapter 1 (heaven and earth, light, land, plants, animals and finally, at the end of it all, man)?

Or is it the completely different and totally contradictory story in Chapter 2 (heaven and earth, plants, man, and only then the animals)?

Only one can be the true account of the Creation, since they differ entirely in the order in which things were created.

Which of these do Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and which part of the Bible do they choose not to believe, and why?

H.

Jehovahs Witnesses beleive both accounts as they are not contradictory, here is a detailed explanation of the accounts:


Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 2, verse 3, after telling about the creation of the material heavens and earth (Ge 1:1, 2), provides an outline of further creative activities on the earth. Chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1. The inspired Record tells of six creative periods called “days,” and of a seventh period or “seventh day” in which time God desisted from earthly creative works and proceeded to rest. (Ge 2:1-3) While the Genesis account of creative activity relating to the earth does not set forth detailed botanical and zoological distinctions such as those current today, the terms employed therein adequately cover the major divisions of life and show that these were created and made so that they reproduce only according to their respective “kinds.”—Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; see KIND.
The following chart sets forth God’s creative activities during the six “days” outlined in Genesis.

EARTHLY CREATIVE WORKS OF JEHOVAH
Day No. Creative Works Texts
1 Light; division between day and night Ge 1:3-5
2 Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it Ge 1:6-8
3 Dry land; vegetation Ge 1:9-13
4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible
from earth Ge 1:14-19
5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures Ge 1:20-23
6 Land animals; man Ge 1:24-31



Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six “days” outlined above. When these “days” commenced, the sun, moon, and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six “days” of creative activity “the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.” (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface.
When God said on Day One, “Let light come to be,” diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.—Ge 1:3, 4.
On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur “between the waters and the waters.” Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens.—Ge 1:6-8; see EXPANSE.
On Day Three by God’s miracle-working power the waters on the earth were brought together and dry land appeared, God calling it Earth. It was also on this day that, through no chance factors or evolutionary processes, God acted to superimpose the life principle upon atoms of matter, so that grass, vegetation, and fruit trees were brought into existence. Each of these three general divisions was capable of reproducing according to its “kind.”—Ge 1:9-13.
The divine will concerning luminaries was accomplished on Day Four, it being stated: “God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.” (Ge 1:16-18) In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was quite apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon, though the sun and moon are not specifically named in the Bible until after its account of the Flood of Noah’s day.—Ge 15:12; 37:9.
Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ´ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma•´ohr', which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.
It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba•ra´', meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb `a•sah', meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.—Ge 1:14.
Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: “God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to “become many,” which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce “according to their kinds.”—Ge 1:20-23.
On Day Six “God proceeded to make 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,” such work being good, as were all of God’s previous creative works.—Ge 1:24, 25.
Toward the end of the sixth day of creative activity, God brought into existence an entirely new kind of creature, superior to the animals even though lower than the angels. This was man, created in God’s image and after his likeness. While Genesis 1:27 briefly states concerning humankind “male and female he [God] created them,” the parallel account at Genesis 2:7-9 shows that Jehovah God formed man out of the dust of the ground, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul, for whom a paradise home and food were provided. In this case Jehovah used the elements of the earth in creative work and then, having formed man, He created the female of humankind using one of Adam’s ribs as a base. (Ge 2:18-25) With the creation of the woman, man was complete as a “kind.”—Ge 5:1, 2.
God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28; compare Ps 8:4-8.) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them “all green vegetation for food.” Reporting on the results of such creative work, the inspired Record states: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Ge 1:29-31) The sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, “he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.”—Ge 2:1-3.

Thank you for your very long winded reply which completely fails to address the simple question I put to you.

Just saying "they are not contradictory" doesn't stop them being contradictory, you know.

Most of the blather above talks about the first Creation account, of Genesis Chapter 1. Fine. You want to believe that? Great.

However, as you clearly state in your verbose retread of those verses, Chapter 1 very specifically and clearly describes the creation of the plants first, then animals, then Man IN THAT ORDER, unambiguously. I'll repeat that - PLANTS - ANIMALS - MAN. Get it?

Now, look at Genesis chapter 2. PLANTS (v5)- MAN(v7) - FRUIT TREES(v9) - ANIMALS(v19)

So, once again I ask - which do you believe:

- God created animals first, then Man, as in Genesis Chapter 1?
- God created Man first, then animals, as in Genesis Chapter 2?

It appears, amidst all the waffle above, that you appear to favour the Chapter 1 account, which has the animals first. If that is the case, can you describe why it is you reject the order of events described in Chapter 2?

Another interesting point about one of those two directly contradictory stories is this: "the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night...In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was quite apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon". You said it yourself right there, and the Bible says it also - God created the moon for the express purpose of, and I quote you, "dominating the night". Why then does the moon spend half its time in the daytime sky? If its PURPOSE is to "dominate the night", why does it spend 50% of its life failing completely to dominate the day, and not even bothering *trying* to dominate the night? Odd...

On other subjects raised by your reply...

You say that certain verses can be interpreted to "indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun". But surely this contradicts 1 Chronicles 16:30, "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved". And Psalms 19:4-6 VERY clearly states that the sun goes round the earth - "In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,...his going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it"
Also Isaiah 13:10, and 13:13, seem to imply that the earth is firmly stationary (and also incidentally that the moon shines by its own light? What's that about?)

I assume you, as a Jehovah's Witness, fully support the execution all practicing homosexuals? (Leviticus 20:13)
No need to waffle on at length in reply to that one, a simple "YES, I believe all queers should be killed", OR "NO, I choose to ignore that particular very clearly stated Law of God". Which is it?

I'm also curious - have any of your family or friends ever tried to dissuade you from your religion, or convert you to another? And if so, how did you go about killing them? Did you stone them to death, as you are instructed to do in Deuteronomy 13:6-10, or did you use a more modern method of execution? Again, as I say, just curious...

For my information, just how often do you burn down synagogues, mosques, Sikh temples etc. as you are required to do by Deuteronomy 7:5? Is it a weekly, monthly, or annual event for Jehovahs Witnesses, this destruction of the places of worship of other religions?

I think those are enough questions to be going on with for now. I'll have more soon.

To summarise:
1. Animals then Man, OR Man then animals?
2. Why does the moon appear in the day since its God-given purpose is to dominate the night (YOUR words, not mine)?
3. Sun orbitting the earth (as in the Bible) or earth orbitting the sun (as in reality)?
4. Do you support the torture and execution of homosexuals?
5. Do you torture and kill anyone who tries to convert you away from your current religion?
6. Do you destroy, wherever possible, the places of worship of other faiths?

I look forward to your replies to these six questions.

H.

All I can say is that your agressive response to me indicates that you arent interested in being reasonable.

As to your indications of me or any other Jehovahs Witnesses killing people. It is not for us to Judge them but only god, we just follow the bible as we beleive is right, we do not force anyone to do anything, and do not expect anyone to do anything they do not wish to. We are not trying to "convert" everyone to gain numbers, our simple wish is to share what we beleive is the truth.

If you cant accept that, then I suggest you, either learn more about Jehovahs Witnesses, by having a bible discussion with one, or you can stick to what you beleive and think is right.

"All I can say is that your agressive response to me indicates that you arent interested in being reasonable."

First point - there are two "g"'s in "aggressive". Second point, what I wrote in the first posting was not aggressive. You chose to completely ignore the question posed. What is manifest in my second posting is not aggression, but irritation. I'm further irritated by your continued ignorance. Do you want to explain your beliefs (i before e, please note) or not? I'm asking you straightforward questions about them, and you're ignoring them. This is not polite behaviour.

Your refusal to answer any of my questions indicates to me that your commitment to witnessing your truth must be weak indeed.

"As to your indications of me or any other Jehovahs Witnesses killing people."

I did not indicate that you kill people. Please *read* my last posting again slowly and carefully.

I ASKED you if you kill people, specifically homosexuals and people who try to convert YOU, as your religious law requires you to. You don't seem to want to answer that, either. Why not?

"It is not for us to Judge them but only god, we just follow the bible as we beleive is right"

Does this mean you choose which bits to believe and which bits to ignore? And if so, on what basis do you choose which bits to ignore?

"we do not force anyone to do anything, and do not expect anyone to do anything they do not wish to. We are not trying to "convert" everyone to gain numbers, our simple wish is to share what we beleive is the truth."

Please, please, share what you believe (i before e) is the truth with me, here, in your next posting. I'm BEGGING you. Share your truth with me. Specifically, the truth of these things:

- Do you support the torture and execution of practicing homosexuals?
- Do you torture and kill anyone who tries to convert you away from your current religion?
- Do you destroy, wherever possible, the places of worship of other faiths?

These are crucial questions, about laws central to your religion. I cannot understand why you don't want to talk about this, especially in the light of the very long list of beliefs you've given in your entry.

"If you cant accept that, then I suggest you, either learn more about Jehovahs Witnesses, by having a bible discussion with one"

I know no Jehovah's Witnesses. If I am to discover their truth - YOUR truth - it must come to me from you. You have ignored my questions a second time. Is your commitment to share your truth so weak? Or have you judged me not worthy to hear it, based on two short postings on the internet?

H.

Mark 12:28-31
29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.


Matthew 5:43-47
43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; 45 that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. 46 For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if YOU greet YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing?


As Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses, Jesus’ ransom sacrifice placed us under law of love replacing the old law.

So obviously if we love our neighbor as our selves, we will not be judging him and killing him or destroying his property. We may hate what he does but we do not hate him.

E.g. Love your enemies as quoted above.

I think I see what you're saying here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What you're saying is - because of what's written in Mark and Matthew, it's OK to ignore God's Laws as recorded in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Divinely Inspired Word of God. Is that right?

It's like, God made a mistake with those Laws, changed His mind, and told you, through Jesus, that you should just ignore those bits of the Old Testament.

Given that you've been told, by God himself in the incarnation of His only Son, that the Old Testament is out of date and to be ignored, why does your faith persist in referring to it? (e.g. from your entry: "Earth will never be destroyed or depopulated Eccl. 1:4; Isa. 45:18; Ps. 78:69" - Old Testament references every one)

Given that you are, under direct instruction from God, required to ignore His laws as recorded in the Old Testament, doesn't that mean that the rest of the Old Testament is "up for grabs"? How do you choose which bits of it to take notice of, and which to ignore?

Come to that, after two thousand years since the incarnation of Jesus and no sign so far of the promised Second Coming, is it possible that the NEW Testament is out of date? (this is entirely my own speculation, I've no idea whether that's even possible, but the New Testament followed the Old after an interval of rather less than two whole millenia - I mean, just how long can you keep describing something as "new"???)

Thanks for your answer, most illuminating.

H.

PS - Animals then Man? OR Man then Animals? Simple question.

Erm...

Are you going to answer me? One of the things I've noticed about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they're supposed to be keen to tell people all about their beliefs.

You, by contrast, seem oddly reticent all of a sudden. Is there a problem?

To repeat my questions:

"it's OK to ignore God's Laws as recorded in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Divinely Inspired Word of God. Is that right?"

"How do you choose which bits of [the Bible] to take notice of, and which to ignore?"

"is it possible that the NEW Testament is out of date?"

"Animals then Man? OR Man then Animals?"

All simple questions. Do you have any answers?

H.

Hi - hope you don't mind me joining in,

Out of interest what is your background? You seem to be very convinced that the bible contradicts itself or is it Jehovah's Witnesses you have an issue with? Are you really interested in what JW's believe or are you more interested in having a go at them?

Anyhow...

I managed to dig this out of a 1963 Watchtower which goes someway to answering your creation question:

Genesis 2:19 reads: "Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name."

Some have construed this text to be a résumé of what was stated in chapter one of Genesis. However, it seems to refer to something in addition to the account there rather than to the same thing. From this text it appears that even after Jehovah God had created Adam, but before he created Eve, He kept on creating lower animals and bringing them to Adam to be named. Not only Adam but also Eve was formed before the end of the sixth creative day; therefore these animals were also created before the seventh day, God's rest from creation, began.

I think the key is to consider the whole context of the Bible. The problem with picking individual passages of scripture and comparing them with others is that out of context they can sound very contradictory. Before you say it I know that simply stating "it seems to refer to something in addition" doesn't mean it actually is, but if we come from the angle that the Bible is not contradictory and there must be another explanation as to why the scriptures would appear to do so then, in my personal opinion, the argument above is a logical explanation of how Genesis 2 could not be considered contradictory.

Personally, I couldn't give a monkeys (excuse the pun) what order it occurred in as I am more interested in what is required of God's people today and in the future. That said, your question did interest me enough to do a little research! Looks like I'm one big contradiction myself!!

I don't think this is the best forum to discuss biblical questions as they tend to be highly emotional and/or complicated. Also I tend to get bored with lots of typing/reading. If you are generally interested in finding out what JW's believe and why then if you provide either myself or the original writer your name and address then I'm sure one of us could arrange for an appropriate visit so that you can discuss your questions face to face.

"Hi - hope you don't mind me joining in,"

Hi Jon, not at all, there didn't seem to be much response forthcoming here. I'm glad *someone* is prepared to talk - you're very welcome!

"Out of interest what is your background?"

Pale blue.

"You seem to be very convinced that the bible contradicts itself"

Well, I've read it (most of it - I skimmed most of the begatting bits, they're dull as dust), and it contradicts itself. Not in enormous numbers of places - no more than a couple of dozen or so - but enough to be of concern if you come across someone determined to take it literally.

"or is it Jehovah's Witnesses you have an issue with?"

Not Jehovah's Witnesses. Their actions, possibly. Allowing a child to die when a simple blood transfusion can save them is, in my opinion, contemptible. JWs have done that. Love the sinner, hate the sin, isn't that the phrase? I'd prefer it if JWs believed stuff which conforms to reality. They'd be more likely to be useful members of society that way, I think. Superstition is, I think, almost invariably worse than rationalism. It breeds fear and distrust, from ignorance.

"Are you really interested in what JW's believe or are you more interested in having a go at them?"

I am *very* interested in what they believe. It was only after reading this entry that I found out how very fundamentalist JWs really are - believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible and all. I'm therefore extremely curious to know how this interpretation can be reconciled with living in a modern democratic state, when the Bible requires those who follow its teachings to torture and kill homosexuals and to destroy the places of worship of other faiths.

It seems that despite what this entry says, that the Bible is the true Word of God, that certain bits of it can be safely ignored. I'm therefore curious as to how one chooses which parts to ignore.

"I managed to dig this out of a 1963 Watchtower which goes someway to answering your creation question:"

Before we go further can I just say what a pleasure it is to encounter someone who is prepared to do some actual research, and to address a question straightforwardly? I shouldn't need to say this, but it's such a novelty!

"The problem with picking individual passages of scripture and comparing them with others is that out of context they can sound very contradictory."

Well, yes... that is kind of the point. Since this book is being held up as the divinely inspired Word of God, I for one would have expected an omnipotent, omniscient being to be able to get his story straight.

"if we come from the angle that the Bible is not contradictory and there must be another explanation"

This gets back to Occam's Razor, as usual. If you START from the assumption that the Bible is not contradictory, you're prejudicing the result of your investigation. The proper way to assess the truth of something is not to assume anything, but to examine the evidence. If the evidence shows it to be self-contradictory, then you have a problem. But if you then say "well, let's pretend it isn't, how could we explain these apparent contradictions?", you lose my respect, because you're showing prejudice. Why not accept that it IS contradictory? Why not allow that there are mistakes? Why not, in short, wake up to the reality that it is an allegorical document written thousands of years ago in a more primitive culture, and not a totally accurate historical encyclopedia? What is wrong with that position? It wouldn't, in itself, damage in any way the concept of your god or your belief in him to acknowledge that the Bible is not infallible - would it?

"I am more interested in what is required of God's people today and in the future"

Me too. Hence the until-now-ignored questions about which laws you have to obey and which you can safely choose to ignore.

"That said, your question did interest me enough to do a little research! Looks like I'm one big contradiction myself!!"

So far, Jon, you're one big responsive, polite and non-ignorant person prepared to think, research, and engage in debate. For which - kudos.

"I don't think this is the best forum to discuss biblical questions as they tend to be highly emotional and/or complicated."

Well, *I* didn't write a Guide Entry about JWs beliefs. I just read it and asked some questions. I'm not emotional about the Bible or questions arising from it, and the questions I've asked seem to me to be really very simple.

"Also I tend to get bored with lots of typing/reading."

Please don't. Please bear with me. You're a very rare commodity, believe me.

"... provide ... your name and address ... so that you can discuss your questions face to face."

Ahahaha, I rather think not. As you say, some people have a tendency to get emotional about these things, and I'd rather not have such emotional people near me, thank you. This is an ideal medium for such debates, as it strips away all the extraneous noise of body language, accent and tone and cuts to the chase - information. I want information, and I've listed my questions above, several times. I look forward to the answers anyone may offer.

H.

Thank you for your kind and complimentary feedback.

I am not convinced we will do anything other than go around in circles in this forum - however, I am willing to give it a try provided that I think you are genuinely interested.

"The problem with picking individual passages of scripture and comparing them with others is that out of context they can sound very contradictory."Well, yes... that is kind of the point. Since this book is being held up as the divinely inspired Word of God, I for one would have expected an omnipotent, omniscient being to be able to get his story straight.

I don't agree with what you are saying here as you could pick up any book and isolate passages from different pages/chapters (indeed probably this conversation) which on their own could appear contradictory without taking into account the context of the passage in which they are written.

However, I do agree with your final statement about God getting his story straight. Here you hit the crux of the matter along with your other statement:

Why not, in short, wake up to the reality that it is an allegorical document written thousands of years ago in a more primitive culture, and not a totally accurate historical encyclopedia? What is wrong with that position? It wouldn't, in itself, damage in any way the concept of your god or your belief in him to acknowledge that the Bible is not infallible - would it?

Whilst I have never heard of Occam or his razor (earlier in this paragraph for anybody else reading this!) I appreciate what you are saying. Your final sentence is crucial. To a Jehovah's Witness if the bible was proved fallible it would strike at the heart of their faith. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that "All Scripture is inspired of God". As you say you would expect, therefore, the whole Bible to be consistent and accurate, save perhaps errors in translating from ancient Hebrew and Greek into other modern languages. If one cannot reasonably reconcile any apparent contradictions then a Jehovah's Witnesses' whole faith is brought into question. I personally believe that you either believe the whole bible or none of it - you can't pick and choose.

With regard to your question on which laws you have to obey and which you can safely choose to ignore (nice link heh?!) JW's will only "ignore" a scripture if there is a scripture elsewhere that justifies this. In the case of the Mosaic Law (600+ commandments, including the famous 10) the apostle Paul stated at Romans 7:6,7 that "Now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we are being held fast...." Paul goes on to quote the 10th commandment, thus it is reasonable to deduce that he was referring to the Mosaic Law.

At Romans 10:4 Paul also writes that "Christ is the end of the Law". We believe that Jesus replaced the Law with his two commandments "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, You must love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the prophets (Matthew 22:35-40). The context of this latter passage is when Jesus was responding to the Pharisees who asked which is the greatest commandment in the (Mosaic) Law.

There are many other scriptures that also support this - I won't bore you with them and all the paraphanalia(?) that goes with them as you appear to appreciate, like me, short answers to the point!

You also asked "is it possible that the NEW Testament is out of date?"

I don't believe so, I believe we are living in a time prophesied in the bible as "the last days" and whilst the majority of prophesies have been fulfilled a few still remain to be fulfilled (from both the Old and New Testement). Will there ever be a replacement for the new testement? Who knows, I'm happy to keep an open mind on that one. Certainly when the meek posess the Earth, we are living in paradise conditions and we are gradually being restored to perfection (assuming I/we make it through judgement day) then I feel it is reasonable to consider the possibility of a new set of laws - one of which may include guidance on how to explain to the resurrected ones what is going on!! Please note that the answer to this question is my own personal opinion. I do not know if JW's have an official position with regard to this question.

I hope this is useful information - I'm off to spend some time with my family now, but will be happy to try and answer any specific questions you may have, although ultimately I recommend that you have a bible study with a Jehovah's Witness - that said we could try conducting an electronic bible study as I've never tried that before!!

"Thank you for your kind and complimentary feedback."

You're welcome.

"I am not convinced we will do anything other than go around in circles in this forum"

I'm afraid you may be right. However...

"I am willing to give it a try provided that I think you are genuinely interested."

I am genuinely interested in what you believe, and also why you believe it.

"However, I do agree with your final statement about God getting his story straight."



"Whilst I have never heard of Occam or his razor"

I'll come to that in a minute, we're getting somewhere...

"To a Jehovah's Witness if the bible was proved fallible it would strike at the heart of their faith."

This is interesting. To me (a rationalist) this would seem to imply that this gives them/you an enormous bias. You can't consider rationally whether the Bible is fallible, because you cannot deal with the consequences of a negative answer. I'm not attacking that position, merely observing it.

(worth pointing out here that I have no problem with other people following whatever religion they choose. My arguments on this site have revolved *not* around religion, or even around the teaching of religion (both vital subjects for education) but rather the teaching of religion AS SCIENCE. That's where I get off the bus, so to speak. But, onward...)

"I personally believe that you either believe the whole bible or none of it - you can't pick and choose."

Hmm. I disagree, actually. I find it perfectly credible that some of the events depicted in the Bible occurred. Indeed, some of them can be corroborated by reference to other contemporary historical accounts. For instance - I'm perfectly able to believe that, say, Pontius Pilate had three guys executed at Golgotha some time around AD 30. But believing that doesn't confirm or deny the truth of ANYTHING else in the Bible, does it?

What interests me is that many people DO pick and choose, for all sorts of reasons. Jews believe bits of it, up to a point. Christians in general seem to believe more, but not all of them take notice of all of it. If you're going to ignore bits, you have to have reasons.

ATHEISTS "believe in" bits of the Bible, if you allow "believe in" to mean "follow the laws in". I don't kill, steal, or covet my neighbour's ox . I don't do so out of belief, I just do it because it's self evidently proper behaviour (even though my neighbour has a really cool ox.)

Anyway, I'm banging on and being flippant...

"With regard to your question on which laws you have to obey and which you can safely choose to ignore (nice link heh?!)"



"JW's will only "ignore" a scripture if there is a scripture elsewhere that justifies this."

OK. That makes sense.

"..."Now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we are being held fast...."
...
At Romans 10:4 Paul also writes that "Christ is the end of the Law". We believe that Jesus replaced the Law with his two commandments"

Well, that explains a lot. (Not entirely sure why the person who wrote this entry didn't just say that right away, it's a perfectly sensible explanation).

A question occurs, which is - if, to all intents and purposes, the Old Testament and all its laws have been completely superseded by the New, why then is the Old Testament retained as part of the Bible? Why is it necessary?

"You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, You must love your neighbour as yourself."

Words to live by, indeed. However...

If this is the whole of the law - if that really is the replacement for Mosaic law - how can a JW justify allowing a child or other relative of theirs to die for want of a blood transfusion? (I'm aware of the specific verses in Acts 15 requiring abstention from blood, but surely that means you can't EAT it, doesn't it? (no black pudding ))

"There are many other scriptures that also support this"

"You also asked "is it possible that the NEW Testament is out of date?""

And I must confess that *that* was a somewhat mischievous question, and not really intended seriously. Thanks for answering though!

"I don't believe so, I believe we are living in a time prophesied in the bible as "the last days" "

Yes, the entry does make reference to this. A (now out of date) reference work on religion refers to JWs as a "millenarian" sect. The entry this thread is attached to specifically states that:

"some who saw the events of 1914 will also see the complete destruction of the present wicked world"

That's going to make 2038 a VERY interesting year, which I hope I live to see. Anyone who was even born in 1914 is going to need to live a record-breaking age to still be alive that year. (It's going to be an interesting year also because it'll be the 75th anniversary of the assassination of Kennedy, the point at which any remaining classified documents will be made public...)

I invite speculation here - IF (and I accept this is a big IF...) IF, hypothetically, the prophecies of "end times" do not come true, and 2038 passes peacefully into 2039, what do you, personally, think will become of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Many other religious movements (and come to that, David Icke...) in the past have made dire predictions of the end of the world, and have made similarly specific statements of when it will be. So far, we're all still here - including, in some cases, some of the believers in those prophecies, who've just shifted their dates a bit further into the future.

Do you think the JW movement would in some way implode if "end times" do not manifest within the next 38 years or so? Or would the prophesied goalposts be moved to a more distant date? I personally predict the latter, but I'd be interested to know what you think.

"I hope this is useful information"

Very. I'm grateful for it, because it does explain a significant amount, and answer many of my questions. I'm only sorry the author of the entry couldn't give these answers.

"I'm off to spend some time with my family now, but will be happy to try and answer any specific questions you may have"

Well, there are a couple here to be going on with. One I would be interested to know above all the others, though, is this - WHY do you believe what you do? Were you brought up believing it and never consider anything else, did you return to it, or turn to it, and if so, why? This is, to me, the most interesting question, and the one people have the greatest difficulty expressing in words. (which is one of the things I think makes it a good question...)

Don't feel the need to respond in detail, or at all quickly (or at all, for that matter, I'm just some bloke on a website after all!).

The beauty of this type of forum is that I can pose a question here, and you can answer it any time you like - there's no hurry, and you can write a bit at a time and only post it when you're ready if that's what works. It'll just drop gently down my list of conversations until you're available, then when you do answer it'll pop back up to the top so I can read it. It's quite an agreeable way to converse if you've only a limited or fluctuating time available.

"that said we could try conducting an electronic bible study as I've never tried that before!!"

We seem to be trying it now, sort of, don't we?

I said I'd come to Occam's Razor, so now, finally, I shall. Basically, it's a principle which states that you should not, when attempting to explain something (the result of an experiment, the commission of a crime, the existence of the universe...) invent a more complex explanation than necessary. For a fuller explanation, with an excellent example, go here:

http://www.2think.org/occams_razor.shtml



H.

You don't hang about do you?! I will take you up on your offer to answer a bit at a time.

Interesting article re Occam's Razor - I wonder which is the least complex answer to how we got here - creation or evolution? Good example used in the link, however I'm sure there are instances where applying Occam's Razor would bring one to the wrong conclusion.

You can't consider rationally whether the Bible is fallible, because you cannot deal with the consequences of a negative answer. I'm not attacking that position, merely observing it.

I appreciate the end comment - very disarming! I partly agree with what you say. For some of my fellow believers you are probably correct, but for me if the Bible was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be significantly fallible then I would have to question the authenticity of the bible's claim to be "inspired of God".

At the moment there are numerous reasons why I believe the bible to be genuine. To name a few:

1. The honesty of the bible writers - some writers confessed to sins that carried the death penalty.

2. Harmony of the bible - Over a period of around 1600 years the same theme permeates through the scriptures and some writers wrote about future bible writers whom they didn't know

3. Practicality of bible standards and scientific accuracy - scriptures such Proverbs 14:30, 1 Cor 15:39, Leviticus 11:6 are backed up by today's scientific and medical knowledge which would likely not have been known at the time.

4. Prophesies - All of the prophesies relating to the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus. Some of these were even fulfilled by Roman officers who I'm sure wouldn't deliberately fulfill a Jewish prophesy! Also in Isaiah 44v28 the bible prophesied that Cyrus would rebuild Jerusalem 200 years before he was born and Cyrus was opposed to Jehovah God!

I digress - but perhaps begin to answer why I believe what I do.

A question occurs, which is - if, to all intents and purposes, the Old Testament and all its laws have been completely superseded by the New, why then is the Old Testament retained as part of the Bible? Why is it necessary?

It's only the Mosaic Law that has been superseded. The rest of the Old Testement is still valid - some of the prophesies relate to our day. This is also illustrated by the fact that Jesus regularly referred back to the Old Testement during his ministry.

If this is the whole of the law - if that really is the replacement for Mosaic law - how can a JW justify allowing a child or other relative of theirs to die for want of a blood transfusion? (I'm aware of the specific verses in Acts 15 requiring abstention from blood, but surely that means you can't EAT it, doesn't it? (no black pudding ))

This will take a bit of time to explain - as will your question re the generation of 1914, particularly as JW's have recently slightly altered their understanding with regard to the latter. I'll have to do some research and get back to you on that one.

As a starter for 10 on the blood issue though - if you were abstaining from alcohol would you be happy to have it transfused into you so long as you didn't DRINK it? I appreciate we are not dealing with life and death here, but I think the principle is the same.

I will endeavour to get back to you in the next few days regarding your other questions.

"You don't hang about do you?!"

No, I don't!

However, I'll wait until you've responded a bit more fully before I plough on again, otherwise this could get seriously confusing. Thanks for the answers, some food for thought...



H.

H

Just to let you know I haven't forgotten you. I've been tied up with family, work and tax matters. Unfortunately, Jesus told us that we have to be diligent about paying our taxes!

Hope to have further info for you by the weekend. Got pages of research on "generation" to plough through and try to summarise in a couple of sentences!

J

May I ask what denomination you are please and whether you are evangelical or not, ie "born again"?

Thanks: Thumper.

H

"some who saw the events of 1914 will also see the complete destruction of the present wicked world"

The scripture referred to here is Matthew 24:34 - "Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."

In the past JW's have believed that this meant that the people seeing the events of 1914 would see the complete destruction of the present wicked system (not the earth, as the bible says the earth will reside forever). However, in 1995 The Watchtower suggested that there may be a more likely explanation of the word generation.

It focused on two key points: "A generation of people cannot be viewed as a period having a fixed number of years" and, "The people of a generation live for a relatively brief period."

It then quoted an example: we might say, 'The soldiers of Napoléon's generation knew nothing about airplanes and atom bombs.' Would we be referring just to soldiers who were born in the very same year as Napoléon was? Would we be referring merely to those French soldiers who died before Napoléon did? Of course not; nor would we by such a use of "generation" be trying to fix a set number of years. We would, though, be referring to a relatively short period, not hundreds of years from Napoléon's time into the future.

The basis for this argument followed from the fact that in the Gospels the word "generation" is translated from the Greek word ge·ne·a', which current lexicons define in these terms: "Lit[erally] those descended fr[om] a common ancestor." (Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) "That which has been begotten, a family; . . . successive members of a genealogy . . . or of a race of people . . . or of the whole multitude of men living at the same time, Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48; 21:32; Phil. 2:15, and especially of those of the Jewish race living at the same period." (W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

It goes on, but I think you get the point.

Personally, it doesn't bother me that there has been an alteration in thinking - after all we are imperfect humans and the Bible does state that only God knows the hour - no man knows the hour (including Jesus)!

You asked why I believe what I do. I was brought up a JW (my parents changed from Methodist and Church of England when I was aged 2). Their basic reasons were that JW's were the only religious organisation that gave them answers from the Bible. When my mother asked a clergyman about the Trinity she was told that it was a mystery!

Obviously, as I entered my teenage years and adulthood I began to determine whether or not my parents' religion was the right one for me. I concluded yes on the following grounds:

1. I believe there must be more to life than living 70-odd years and then dying - some animals and trees live longer!

2. I cannot accept that we all arrived by random chance - there is too much design in the earth. Therefore, if I am happy to accept creation I must believe in a creator.

3. If I'm going to choose a religion then I am looking for one that practices what it preaches. That narrows the list significantly, particularly if I rule out any religious organisation that supports killing other people (e.g. clergymen blessing bombs during WWII) and those that get involved in politics (Jesus said that his people would be no part of the world).

4. On top of this my study of the Bible has led me to the conclusion that it was right to state that "All scripture is inspired of God". As such, the religion I follow must live by the Bible - all of it, not just the parts that are convenient.

The latter leads on nicely to the "Blood" issue. In short I am happy for me and my family to risk losing a few years now (although much evidence suggests that bloodless surgery is better than blood surgery) for the possibility of living forever in the future by following God's commandment.

For further information please refer to the JW official website:
http://www.watchtower.org/

You also mentioned a while ago how about how religious beliefs can fit with society (something like that anyway). If this link is still valid it gives a good example of how JW's stand on blood has led to important medical breakthroughs (specifically the last two paragraphs, but you may wish to read the whole article for context).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,400747,00.html

J

Hello Again,

I apologize for not replying again after my last post, due to being ill with Fibro Myalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I have been unable to use my PC. I am happy to see that somone else was able to assist you in your queries.

Friendly Regards Simon