The rock of ages

 

So I recently...realized something. I mean...????? ChatGPT to the rescue. Thanx, Sam.

Are the Jehovah´s Witnesses old earth creationists? I assumed they were young earth creationists. Did they recently change their position?

Yes — Jehovah’s Witnesses are no longer young-earth creationists in the strict sense, and their current official position allows for an old earth. They did at one time hold more literal interpretations, but have changed. Here’s how it stands:

---

What Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe Now

From their official FAQ:

• They believe God created everything, but they do not agree with all forms of creationism. Specifically, they reject some “creationist ideas” that conflict with their reading of the Bible. JW.org+2RE:ONLINE+2

• They reject the idea that the six “days” of creation in Genesis must be literal 24-hour days. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can signify a longer period, in their view. JW.org+1

• They state that the Earth and universe existed before the six creative days described in Genesis 1. JW.org

• They say they have no objection to credible scientific research that holds the earth (and universe) may be billions of years old. JW.org+1

So their current position is consistent with old earth creationism / day-age interpretations rather than young-earth creationism (YEC; i.e. a few thousand years for the whole Earth/universe). JW.org+2Wikipedia+2

---

Did They Use to Be Young-Earth Creationists?

• Historically, yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses teachings (especially earlier in the 20th century) were more literal about Genesis, the flood, etc. They more closely echoed typical creationist views, though not always in the full Young Earth style used by some other Christian groups. Watchtower Documents+1

• Over time, their literature has shifted, clarifying that some “creationist” claims are not accepted (e.g., that the six days are literal 24-hours each), and that earth’s age is not explicitly fixed at a few thousand years.

---

So: Are They Old Earth Creationists Now?

• Yes, in effect. They accept that the Earth and universe may be much older than a few thousand years. That places them in the camp sometimes referred to as Old Earth Creationism, or at least closer to that than to Young Earth Creationism. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

• However, they do not use the label “old earth creationism” themselves in many of their publications, often preferring to emphasize that they accept scientific evidence “where credible” but interpret Scripture in a way they believe is faithful. JW.org+2wol.jw.org+2

---

If you like, I can track when exactly this doctrinal shift happened (which years, which publications) in Jehovah’s Witnesses history — so you can see how their teaching evolved.

Yes, please. I think I met an old earth creationist JW in the late 1980´s, but I assumed his position wasn´t the offical one. Isn´t there a well-known JW book which promotes younge earth creationism?

Great memory — you’re right, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official position shifted gradually, and there was a time when many assumed they were strict young-earth creationists, partly because of their publications. Let me map it out:

---

📚 Early Jehovah’s Witnesses and Creation

• In the late 19th / early 20th century (Charles Taze Russell, “Studies in the Scriptures”), the Witness movement was generally literalist in its reading of Genesis.

• Their Bible Student movement often echoed mainstream Protestant fundamentalism of the day, including short time spans for human history (thousands of years, not millions).

---

📖 Let God Be True (1946, 1952 editions)

• This book is one of the earliest widely distributed doctrinal summaries by the Watchtower Society.

• It clearly affirmed that the creative “days” in Genesis were not 24-hour days but longer epochs.

• However, it still portrayed human history as only about 6,000 years old (consistent with their teaching that the Millennium would begin around 1975).

• This made it sound like young-earth creationism, but actually it was “young humanity, old earth.”

---

📖 Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation? (1967)

• This is the book most people remember as “young earth creationist.”

• It strongly rejected evolution, attacked radiometric dating, and often cited scientific evidence selectively in favor of a recent creation of humankind.

• While it didn’t insist the earth itself was only thousands of years old, the tone is very similar to young-earth creationist arguments.

• This book deeply shaped how outsiders perceived Witnesses: as if they were standard creationists of the fundamentalist Protestant type.

---

📖 Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985)

• This replaced the 1967 book and is the one you probably encountered in the late 1980s.

• It softened the stance:

  • Stated that the earth and universe can indeed be billions of years old.

  • Rejected Darwinian evolution but allowed for “days” of creation to be long epochs.

• This is when Jehovah’s Witnesses were clearly identifiable as Old Earth Creationists (though they didn’t like that label).

---

🔄 The Shift

• So yes, before the 1980s, the Watchtower’s public image was much closer to young-earth creationism — largely due to the 1967 book and earlier timelines for human history.

• But by the time you met that JW in the late 1980s, his “old earth” stance was official — it wasn’t just his private interpretation.

• Since then, official JW literature (like their FAQ today) has doubled down on distancing themselves from YEC.

---

✅ Summary:

• Early Witnesses: literalist, short human history, sometimes sounding like YEC.

• 1967 book: very YEC-sounding.

• 1985 book: pivot to Old Earth Creationism, which is now the consistent position.

---

Would you like me to pull specific Watchtower quotes from the 1967 and 1985 books side by side, so you can see the doctrinal shift in black and white?

Yes, please. Is their position still that the first humans lived only 6000 years ago?

That’s a sharp question — and it touches a sensitive turning point in Witness history.

---

⏳ The Old 6,000-Year Teaching

• For decades, Jehovah’s Witnesses taught that human history was only about 6,000 years old.

• The reasoning came from a very specific Watchtower chronology:

  • Adam created in 4026 BCE (calculated by Watchtower chronologists in the early 20th century).

  • That meant that 1975 marked the end of 6,000 years of human history, and they speculated it could begin the Millennium (a major expectation in the movement at the time).

• This was repeated in many publications, especially in the 1960s and early 1970s. For example:

  • The Truth Shall Make You Free (1943) and Let God Be True (1952) explicitly tied 6,000 years of human existence to their prophetic timetable.

  • The 1967 Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation? book leaned heavily on this framework.

---

📖 Shift in 1980s – 1990s

• After the disappointment of 1975, the Watchtower Society grew much more cautious about exact dates.

• The 1985 Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? book dropped the 6,000-year timetable as a central claim.

  • It still rejected evolution and insisted Adam and Eve were directly created, but it no longer pegged humanity’s age to 4026 BCE.

  • The book instead emphasized that the Earth/universe is ancient, while humanity is relatively recent — without saying how recent in exact years.

• In the 1990s and later Watchtower literature, the 4026 BCE date is barely mentioned, and when it is, it’s stripped of apocalyptic emphasis.

• Today, the JW FAQ on creation avoids setting any number of years for human existence. It stresses only that humans were created directly by God and not through evolution.

---

✅ Current Position

• Jehovah’s Witnesses today do not officially teach that humanity is exactly 6,000 years old.

• Individual older Witnesses may still say this (because it was taught strongly up through the 1970s), but it is no longer an official doctrinal point.

• The official line is:

  • The Earth/universe is very old (billions of years, in harmony with science).

  • The creative “days” were long epochs, not 24 hours.

  • Humans were specially created — but they don’t tie this to a strict 6,000-year timeline anymore.

---

So in short:

• Before 1980s → Adam ~6,000 years ago (4026 BCE), humanity’s age tied to prophecy.

• Since 1980s → Dropped from official teaching; now humans are “recent” without specifying a date.

---

Would you like me to pull an example quote from the 1967 book vs. the 1985 book, so you can see how they first promoted, then quietly dropped, the 6,000-year teaching?