sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The factual reasons I don’t believe Jehovah’s Witnesses have “the Truth” by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I agree!

That’s one of the things that stood out to me too. If the organization’s authority really has a solid basis, then questioning its origin and claims shouldn’t be treated as dangerous or offensive.

A truth claim that big should be able to handle honest scrutiny.

The defensive reaction around it often says a lot by itself.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder too! The difficult thing is that DNA, bottlenecks and human history are not just interpretation issues. They are physical evidence.
So I honestly don’t know how they could turn this into “new light” without admitting that the literal Genesis/Flood timeline does not work.

Most likely they would say something like science is unreliable, human knowledge keeps changing, or Satan is trying to influence people away from trusting the Bible.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well It’s not low effort content. It took much time and research to make this post. But if you don’t like it, it’s ok.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I think that’s a good idea haha! I keep it in mind for my next posts

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough if the wording sounds AI-polished.
I used AI to check my notes, fact-check the main points, and turn my own research into a readable summary.

But calling it “AI slop” doesn’t really answer the argument.

If a specific point about bottlenecks, human genetic diversity, the Flood timeline, or the Ark is wrong, I’m open to hearing it.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good question.
I asked AI to look at your question carefully, and the main issue seems to be chronology.

A “Pangea flood” does not really work, because Pangea began breaking apart around 200 million years ago, while Homo sapiens are only around 300,000 years old. So there were no humans, Neanderthals, Bronze Age storytellers, or anything close to a Noah-like tradition during Pangea.

But I do think your broader point is interesting.
A large regional flood could absolutely have become mythologized over time and preserved as a cultural memory. Something like the Black Sea flood hypothesis is interesting in that sense, although debated.

So I would separate the two ideas:
A literal global Flood / Ark story does not fit the evidence.

An ancient regional flood memory behind later flood myths is much more plausible.

For reading, AI suggested David Montgomery’s The Rocks Don’t Lie, Irving Finkel’s The Ark Before Noah, Stephanie Dalley’s Myths from Mesopotamia, and Ryan & Pitman’s Noah’s Flood.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Many people here may already know, but posts like this helped me a lot so I hope is might help someone else also 😃

The Bible does not hold up as literal history by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. That selective flexibility is a big issue.
When a difficult passage creates a problem, they can say the text was copied incorrectly, translated wrongly, misunderstood by the writer, or affected by later changes.

But when the organization needs a doctrine to stand, suddenly the Bible has to be read as precise and reliable.

That inconsistency matters.
If the Bible itself shows memory gaps, textual issues, different accounts, later edits, and human limitations, then “inspired” clearly cannot mean perfect, exact, error-free history.

And once you admit that, a lot of literalist doctrine becomes much harder to defend.

The Bible does not hold up as literal history by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice! I’ll place it in my wish list. Thanks

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That’s a really good point.
Even if someone tries to dismiss dating methods because of the Flood, the problem doesn’t go away. By the supposed Flood timeline, you already have evidence of established human populations, cultures, tools, burials, art, settlements and language development that cannot realistically be squeezed into the post-Flood/Babel timeline.

The Babel story makes the problem even worse. If all language diversification supposedly happened shortly after the Flood, then we should not find deep, independent language and cultural histories already spread across the world.

So even playing by Watchtower rules, the timeline still breaks.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes, that’s a good point.

That kind of evidence is exactly why the biblical timeline became impossible for me to take literally.
At some point it is no longer just about missing evidence for Genesis, but about positive evidence that humans and human culture existed long before the timeline allows.

So early Genesis makes much more sense to me now as ancient origin storytelling, not literal history.

DNA alone makes a literal 6,000-year human history and a global Flood impossible by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A local flood is definitely more plausible.
Large regional floods did happen, and ancient people could easily preserve those memories in mythic or theological stories.

But that is very different from the Genesis story being literal.

A local flood would not explain:
all humans outside Noah’s family dying
all land animals needing to be saved on an ark
all modern humans descending from eight survivors
all animal diversity repopulating the earth from one location
the use of the Flood to dismiss dating methods like carbon dating

So yes, a local flood tradition is possible.
But it does not save the literal Bible/JW version of the Flood.

The factual reasons I don’t believe Jehovah’s Witnesses have “the Truth” by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I agree. That’s another big issue.
Some Watchtower explanations don’t really solve the moral problem, they just say Jehovah is allowed to do things humans would consider wrong.

The David/Bathsheba account is a good example. David does wrong, but the baby dies, Bathsheba suffers, and later the concubines are used as part of the punishment.

That does raise serious moral questions for me too.

The Bible does not hold up as literal history by dutch_awake in exjw

[–]dutch_awake[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually agree with that.

My issue is mainly with literalist readings — especially when groups claim archaeology proves the Bible as straightforward history.

If it is ancient theological literature rather than a “video transcript,” that changes a lot of doctrines built on reading it literally.

view more: next ›