I recently read the following book to “bone up” on Jehovah’s Witness theology:
L.W. Jones, comp., What Pastor Russell
Said: Charles Russell Answers Hundreds of Questions Regarding His Faith (CreateSpace,
2009)
Interestingly, Charles Taze Russell, at
least in some of his writings, did not hold to the same views many JW’s (at
least in my limited experience) believe, such as a strict literal 6 (24-hour)
day creation and even that not all of the content of the Bible is necessarily
inspired (though it is all true). Note the following:
CREATION—Days
of, How Long?
QUESTION—Were the six of creation literal days of twenty-four hours each?
ANSWER—The word “day” as used in the Scriptures, signifies a fixed period of
time. We read of a fourth year day; “the day of temptation in the wilderness.”
(Heb. 3:8, 9) Again, we have the Scriptural statement that “One day with the
Lord is as a thousand years.” (2 Pet. 3:8) A year is frequently spoken of as a
day; as “I have appointed thee each a day for a year.” (Eze. 4:6.) Furthermore
the entire Gospel Age is called “The day of salvation.”—2 Cor. 6:2. When
considering the statements of Genesis respecting the six creative Days or periods,
or epochs, we should not limit our thoughts to a twenty-four hour day, but
examine the subject and see what period of time is signified. Doing this, we
find that a twenty-four hour day could not be meant, for the sun did not appear
until the fourth of these creative days; hence, in the first three of these
creative days there could have been no twenty-four-hour-day period such as we
now note. We would not, however, go in the opposite extreme and join with
so-called Scientists in their claim that there were millions of years elapsing
in the creative period.
We
find satisfactory evidence in the Scriptures, that one of these creative “days”
was a period of seven thousand years and, hence, that the entire creative week
would be 7,000 x 7 = 49,000 years. And although it is, we believe, quite reasonable
ample for the work represented as being accomplished therein-in ordering and
filling the earth, already in existence.
CREATION—Two
Accounts of the Work.
QUESTION—Were there two works of creation as narrated in the first and second
chapters of Genesis (Gen 1 and Gen 2) or are these simply two accounts of the
same works of creation?
ANSWER—The first and second chapters of the book of Genesis are wrongly
divided. There are two accounts of the work of creation and the division of the
chapters should show this and be in harmony with divisions contained in the
narrative. The first account ends with
the third verse of the second chapter, and the second account beings with the fourth
verse of the second chapter. The first account relates to the epochal division
of the work as arranged by the Lor. The second account is a commentary on the first,
explanatory of details, “These are the generations,” or developments, of the
heavens and the earth and their creatures, from a time before there was any
plant or herb. The first and principal account gives the word “God” when
speaking of the Creator, and the second, or commentary account points out that
it was Jehovah God who did the entire work—“in the day” that He made the
heavens and the earth—thus grasping the whole as one larger epoch day,
including the work of the six already enumerated. (L.W. Jones, comp., What
Pastor Russell Said: Charles Russell Answers Hundreds of Questions Regarding His
Faith [CreateSpace, 2009], 714-15)
BIBLE—Re
Being Without Error.
QUESTION (1911)—1—Do you believe the Bible absolutely devoid of error?
ANSWER.—There are certain parts of the Bible that are purely historical. The
Books of Kings and Chronicles and the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
are purely historical, and there is no particular need of inspiration in regard
to these, unless it would be that divine providence would guide them so that
they would not leave out what should be in. But where a history is written, it
is not of necessity that it should be inspired, because all truth is good. If
Saint Matthew, for instance, wrote that Jesus said thus and so, he is merely
telling what he heard, what he knew to be the facts. He did not need to be
inspired to tell the truth, any more than you need to be inspired to go out here
and tell what I have said: you should tell it straight; so there is no need of
any inspiration about it. Now, I would say there are passages in Kings and
Chronicles where evidently an error has been made. These are historical books,
and there are little slips somewhere in the way the thing has been recorded.
Both books cover the same period of time, but one gives it a little different
from the other. We may see some day just how they can be harmonized, but at
present we do not. (Ibid., 49, emphasis added)