Posts by uncle

135

The Watchtower and the Masons

by ozziepost in

jw
friends

the latest edition of the free in christ ministries journal contains a very interesting article entitled the watchtower and masons.. drawing upon material from the book the watchtower & the masons by fritz springmeier, it gives the following parallels between the things that c t russell believed and those taught by the masons:.

* both believe jehovah is the most important word being the basis of their dogma, and the name of their god.

* both believe god yielded power to a lesser god.

uncle_onion

Danny bear

If you read my post again, I am not talking about what Ozzie said but I am talking about the book that he is quoting from.

Take some of your own advice and "read before you critique".

BTW have you or Ozzie read the book in question?

UO

135

The Watchtower and the Masons

by ozziepost in

jw
friends

the latest edition of the free in christ ministries journal contains a very interesting article entitled the watchtower and masons.. drawing upon material from the book the watchtower & the masons by fritz springmeier, it gives the following parallels between the things that c t russell believed and those taught by the masons:.

* both believe jehovah is the most important word being the basis of their dogma, and the name of their god.

* both believe god yielded power to a lesser god.

uncle_onion

I have read that book and 99% of it is "well we can suppose" and "therefore we can presume"... It is all based on presumptions. He makes the point that most Masons have been catologued but CTR has never been listed as a Mason. It did not convince me.It was a good theory but did not hold any weight when the "evidence" is scrutinised.we should be interested in facts not fiction.

UO

11

The city of Dan?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i have another question for you xtians.

please read this verse from the bible as taken from the nwt:.

*** rbi8 genesis 14:14 ***.

uncle_onion

Ros

Thanks for the input.

But this reasoning causes you problems. Christ has quoted from the Pentateuch and acknowledged them as being written by Moses(1 John 5:46 plus other scriptures). So did Moses write them or not or was Christ misinformed? :-)

UO

11

The city of Dan?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i have another question for you xtians.

please read this verse from the bible as taken from the nwt:.

*** rbi8 genesis 14:14 ***.

uncle_onion

I have another question for you Xtians. Please read this verse from the Bible as taken from the NWT:

*** Rbi8 Genesis 14:14 ***
Thus A'bram got to hear that his brother had been taken captive. With that he mustered his trained men, three hundred and eighteen slaves born in his household, and went in pursuit up to Dan.

Nothing untoward in that scripture?WRONG! What about the city of Dan? That city did not even exist in Abrahams time! Read what the INSIGHT book says about it:

*** it-1 573-4 Dan ***
3. A city in the extreme N of Palestine. Prior to its capture by the tribe of Dan, it was called Leshem or Laish by the pagan inhabitants. (Jos 19:47; Jg 18:7, 27) The Danites rebuilt the destroyed city and called it “Dan by the name of their father, Dan.” (Jg 18:28, 29) However, the city is mentioned some four centuries earlier by the name of Dan in the account of Abraham’s pursuit of Chedorlaomer and his allies all the way “up to Dan.” (Ge 14:14) There is nothing to argue against the existence of this name, Dan, as applying to the indicated area in the time of Abraham. The correspondence of this early name to that of the forefather of the tribe of Dan may have been coincidental or even divinely directed.

"Divinely directed"? I can think of a better one than that!

Umm

UO

5

Any Xtians want to answer this for me please?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i have been reading a bit of thomas paine.

paine lived in the 17th century and was an agnostic.

i have many points that i want to share with you and i thought that this would be a good start.

uncle_onion

YK

Thanks for that answer. I was aware of that scripture. But what about the point that the kings had not even been born yet and yet were recorded in Genesis? Seems to me that Chronicles was written first and Genesis copied it?

UO

5

Any Xtians want to answer this for me please?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i have been reading a bit of thomas paine.

paine lived in the 17th century and was an agnostic.

i have many points that i want to share with you and i thought that this would be a good start.

uncle_onion

I have been reading a bit of “Thomas Paine”. Paine lived in the 17th century and was an agnostic. I have many points that I want to share with you and I thought that this would be a good start. Here is the quote followed by the verses from the Bible which he is talking about:

“I proceed now to state another point of historical and chronological evidence, and to show therefrom, as in the preceding case, that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis.
In the 36th chapter of Genesis there is given a genealogy of the sons and descendants of Esau, who are called Edomites, and also a list, by name, of the kings of Edom, in enumerating of which, it is said, (verse 31), And these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
Now, were any dateless writings to be found in which, speaking of any past events, the writer should say, These things happened before there was any Congress in America, or before there was any Convention in France, it would be evidence that such writing could not have been written before, and could only be written after there was a Congress in America, or a Convention in France, as the case might be; and, consequently, that it could not be written by any person who died before there was a Congress in the one country or a Convention in the other.
Nothing is more frequent, as well in history as in conversation, than to refer to a fact in the room of a date; it is most natural so to do, first, because a fact fixes itself in the memory better than a date; secondly, because the fact includes the date, and serves to excite two ideas at once; and this manner of speaking by circumstances implies as positively that the fact alluded to is past as if it were so expressed. When a person speaking upon any matter, says, it was before I was married, or before my son was born, or before I went to America, or before I went to France, it is absolutely understood, and intended to be understood, that he had been married, that he has had a son, that he has been in America, or been in France. Language does not admit of using this mode of expression in any other sense; and whenever such an expression is found anywhere, it can only be understood in the sense in which it only could have been used.
The passage, therefore, that I have quoted- "that these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel"- could only have been written after the first king began to reign over them; and, consequently, that the book of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time of Saul at least. This is the positive sense of the passage; but the expression, any king, implies more kings than one, at least it implies two, and this will carry it to the time of David; and if taken in a general sense, it carries it through all the time of the Jewish monarchy.
Had we met with this verse in any part of the Bible that professed to have been written after kings began to reign in Israel, it would have been impossible not to have seen the application of it. It happens then that this is the case; the two books of Chronicles, which gave a history of all the kings, of Israel, are professedly, as well as in fact, written after the Jewish monarchy began; and this verse that I have quoted, and all the remaining verses of the 36th chapter of Genesis, are word for word in the first chapter of Chronicles, beginning at the 43d verse
It was with consistency that the writer of the Chronicles could say, as he has said, 1st Chron., chap. i., ver. 43, These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel, because he was going to give, and has given, a list of the kings that had reigned in Israel; but as it is impossible that the same expression could have been used before that period, it is as certain as anything that can be proved from historical language that this part of Genesis is taken from Chronicles and that Genesis is not so old as Chronicles, and probably not so old as the book of Homer, or as Aesop's Fables, admitting Homer to have been, as the tables of Chronology state, contemporary with David or Solomon, and Aesop to have lived about the end of the Jewish monarchy.” END OF QUOTE

So here are the verses in question. What do you think?
Uncle_onion

*** Rbi8 Genesis 36:31-43 ***
31 Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of E'dom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel. 32 And Be'la son of Be'or proceeded to reign in E'dom, and the name of his city was Din'ha·bah. 33 When Be'la died, Jo'bab son of Ze'rah from Boz'rah began to reign instead of him. 34 When Jo'bab died, Hu'sham from the land of the Te'man·ites began to reign instead of him. 35 When Hu'sham died, Ha'dad son of Be'dad, who defeated the Mid'i·an·ites in the field of Mo'ab, began to reign instead of him, and the name of his city was A'vith. 36 When Ha'dad died, Sam'lah from Mas·re'kah began to reign instead of him. 37 When Sam'lah died, Sha'ul from Re·ho'both by the River began to reign instead of him. 38 When Sha'ul died, Ba'al-ha'nan son of Ach'bor began to reign instead of him. 39 When Ba'al-ha'nan son of Ach'bor died, Ha'dar began to reign instead of him; and the name of his city was Pa'u, and the name of his wife was Me·het'a·bel the daughter of Ma'tred the daughter of Me'za·hab.
40 So these are the names of the sheiks of E'sau according to their families, according to their places, by their names: Sheik Tim'na, sheik Al'vah, sheik Je'theth, 41 sheik O·hol·i·ba'mah, sheik E'lah, sheik Pi'non, 42 sheik Ke'naz, sheik Te'man, sheik Mib'zar, 43 sheik Mag'di·el, sheik I'ram. These are the sheiks of E'dom according to their dwellings in the land of their possession. This is E'sau the father of E'dom.

*** Rbi8 1 Chronicles 1:43-54 ***
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of E'dom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel: Be'la the son of Be'or, the name of whose city was Din'ha·bah. 44 Eventually Be'la died, and Jo'bab the son of Ze'rah from Boz'rah began to reign in place of him. 45 Eventually Jo'bab died, and Hu'sham from the land of the Te'man·ites began to reign in place of him. 46 Eventually Hu'sham died, and Ha'dad the son of Be'dad, who defeated Mid'i·an in the field of Mo'ab, began to reign in place of him. And the name of his city was A'vith. 47 Eventually Ha'dad died, and Sam'lah from Mas·re'kah began to reign in place of him. 48 Eventually Sam'lah died, and Sha'ul from Re·ho'both by the River began to reign in place of him. 49 Eventually Sha'ul died, and Ba'al-ha'nan the son of Ach'bor began to reign in place of him. 50 Eventually Ba'al-ha'nan died, and Ha'dad began to reign in place of him; and the name of his city was Pa'u, and the name of his wife was Me·het'a·bel, the daughter of Ma'tred, the daughter of Me'za·hab. 51 Eventually Ha'dad died.
And the sheiks of E'dom came to be sheik Tim'na, sheik Al'vah, sheik Je'theth, 52 sheik O·hol·i·ba'mah, sheik E'lah, sheik Pi'non, 53 sheik Ke'naz, sheik Te'man, sheik Mib'zar, 54 sheik Mag'di·el, sheik I'ram. These were the sheiks of E'dom.

31

Alleged Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus

by JanH in

jw
friends

most exjws are familiar with the claims that the gospel accounts about jesus "fulfills" around 300 prophecies in the old testament.

this claim is taken verbatim from christian fundamentalists.

checking out these so-called prophecies will reveal that they do not stand up to scrutiny.

uncle_onion

Ros

I dont know what I am leaning towards, hopefully the truth. I believe that there is a God (I think!) but i dont know if I can accept the Bible as his word.

UO

31