Thursday, October 21, 2021

Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) on the Length of the "Days" in Creation and Not All the Bible being "Inspired"

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?

 

ANSWERThe 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)

 

Blog Archive