uncle_onion

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 250 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by uncle_onion

• 
  52

  Neanderthals and the Bible?

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am doing some research on neanderthals.

  we know that this species existed and by very recent dna test we can tell that they are definitely not human.has any one done anything on this subject or the accuracy of carbon dating?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  larc

  So how would you answer the question that ALL scripture is inspired of God for beneficial......

  UO
• 
  52

  Neanderthals and the Bible?

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am doing some research on neanderthals.

  we know that this species existed and by very recent dna test we can tell that they are definitely not human.has any one done anything on this subject or the accuracy of carbon dating?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  "I do not believe, however, that God tryed to explain it to us in inspired scriptures. I think the early writings were man's attempts to explain it to themselves. "

  So are the scriptures inspired or not?

  UO
• 
  52

  Neanderthals and the Bible?

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am doing some research on neanderthals.

  we know that this species existed and by very recent dna test we can tell that they are definitely not human.has any one done anything on this subject or the accuracy of carbon dating?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  "You don't need anything but psychological explanations for these pheonemena"

  So where are ethe psychological explanations? This is what I need to see before I can go any further.

  UO
• 
  52

  Neanderthals and the Bible?

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am doing some research on neanderthals.

  we know that this species existed and by very recent dna test we can tell that they are definitely not human.has any one done anything on this subject or the accuracy of carbon dating?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  Thanks "D"

  Thanks everyone for their comments.The question on the tongues is the crunch for me.

  UO
• 
  1

  How would you answer this?

  by ozziepost in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in my daily bible reading this morning, i read from luke chapter 8 about the man in the country of the gerasenes who was demon-possessed.

  jesus cured this man by commanding the demons to come out of him and enter into pigs who jumped over a cliff into the sea.

  then verses 38,39 read:.

  1. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  Hi

  Funny this one as I had an Evangelical vicar around the other day to try and "prove" to me the Trinity and this was the first scripture that he showed me.

  The classical JW answer will be that because Jesus gets his power from Jehovah, then this is what the scripture means.

  Seems to me that there are scriptures for and against the Trinity. It is not clear cut as we were led to believe as JWs.

  Uo
• 
  39

  The dilema of Uncle onion.

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my dilemma.

  those of you who know me personally and via the web will know that i am a studious person.

  now take a look at genesis 36:31. this verse says these were the kings who reigned in edom before any israelite king reigned.. at the time of writing genesis, they were no kings of israel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  No, Noah wouldn't necessarily "have to have an eleven month food supply" for the animals ... not if God Himself miraculously supplied their needs, perhaps on a daily basis even. Certainly, He's capable of performing such a feat. Then there's also the possibility that God caused the animals to go into hibernation ... or something similar to when God "had a deep sleep fall upon [Adam]" in order to create Eve from Adam's rib.

  So what was the point of the ark and the flood? Why didnt God just wipe it clean and start again?Why bother with the fuss of the flood? If you are going to use the miracle arguement, then anything is possible! This is the kind of thinking that I cannot fathom out. People try to show the validity of something by defining it logically, then when this "logical reasoning" is shown to be ilogical, they say "well God must have done this or that for it to happen". Then what is the point of this thread. If we are to believe that God used miracles for the flood to happen,then we might as well stop this thread now.:-)

  I have been in discussion with a christian friend about this and he tries to show me from history that the flood existed from Geology etc. But when I raise an objection to his reasoning, he then replies "well it what you out your faith in". Then why try and show me Archeaological evidence if it is a case of faith?

  Uo (who doesnt know what way to turn now!)
• 
  39

  The dilema of Uncle onion.

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my dilemma.

  those of you who know me personally and via the web will know that i am a studious person.

  now take a look at genesis 36:31. this verse says these were the kings who reigned in edom before any israelite king reigned.. at the time of writing genesis, they were no kings of israel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  . It is admitted by all Bible scholars that these books could obviously, for some of the reasons you pointed out, not have been written entirely by Moses. Clearly, if Moses did write these books then some later writers and editors must have added to his writings. How does this fact put the inspiration of these books in question? For no one claims that Moses was the only man God used to write the Bible.

  So if the bible is meant to be inspired, why did God allow it to be altered? What else was altered?

  UO
• 
  39

  The dilema of Uncle onion.

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my dilemma.

  those of you who know me personally and via the web will know that i am a studious person.

  now take a look at genesis 36:31. this verse says these were the kings who reigned in edom before any israelite king reigned.. at the time of writing genesis, they were no kings of israel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  My Dilemma

  Those of you who know me personally and via the web will know that I am a studious person. I try to find out as much as I can about a subject before I can make a decision on that subject. I cannot help that, as that is my nature.

  I have been doing some research on the validity of the flood. When I put a few questions to a friend whose opinion I value and respect, he said that if it is good enough for Jesus to believe in the flood (matt 24:37) then it is good enough for him. The account is recorded only in Genesis.

  This made me think. At the time of writing this, I am not sure if the flood happened. One of the arguments that Christian’s use is that nearly every culture around the world has a “Flood” tail in their fables. This is true but the details vary considerably. And some of the fables originated before the time of the flood that is supposed to have happened in 2370 BCE.

  Some have stated that that when the Bible says “The whole earth” it means the area around where Noah and his family lived. But Psalm 104:6 says that it covered the mountains of the whole earth.

  So then it occurred to me that what if the account in Genesis was not written by Moses and therefore not inspired? I contacted a friend who told me of a man who lived in the 18th century called Thomas Paine. He was a radical thinker and I have started reading his work.

  I am only a part way through his work but I wanted to share with you the things that I have learnt and would appreciate your comments.

  The question is did Moses write the Pentateuch?

  There is no statement that says that Moses wrote it. He may have well have written but there is no definite concrete proof. What does not help the situation is that it is all written in the third person tense.

  If Moses did write it then he must have been a very vain man. Look at Numbers 12:3.

  "And the man Moses was by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground."

  Who would write this statement about themselves?

  Genesis 14:14 says this:

  "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."

  This account cannot be true if it was written in Moses time. The city of Dan did not exist for another four hundred years. The WTS admit this:

  "*** it-1 573-4 Dan ***
  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."

  This to me is on very shaky ground. And I think that the WTS know this as well because I found a different reasoning:

  "*** w60 6/1 350 The Bible's So-called Anachronisms ***
  Among the first seeming anachronisms found in the Hebrew Scriptures is the reference to the city of Dan at Genesis 14:14, where we are told that Abram chased certain kings “up to Dan.” But at Judges 18:29 we read that the Danites, after entering the land of Canaan, renamed the city of Laish Dan. Since Moses died before the name was changed, it is argued that he could not have written the book of Genesis.

  However, certain Bible scholars insist that there was more than one city by the name of Dan. They point to the city of Dan mentioned at Deuteronomy 34:1 and to Dan-jaan referred to at 2 Samuel 24:6. Nor can the possibility be ruled out that the reference to Dan at Genesis 14:14 is due to a copyist’s error or deliberate choice so as to avoid ambiguity. Whichever the case may have been, certainly here we do not have any evidence disproving that Moses was the writer of the book of Genesis."

  So what veiw is correct?

  Now turn to Deuteronomy 34:5-8

  "5 After that Moses the servant of Jehovah died there in the land of Mo'ab at the order of Jehovah. 6 And he proceeded to bury him in the valley in the land of Mo'ab in front of Beth-pe'or, and nobody has come to know his grave down to this day. 7 And Moses was a hundred and twenty years old at his death. His eye had not grown dim, and his vital strength had not fled. 8 And the sons of Israel proceeded to weep for Moses on the desert plains of Mo'ab thirty days. At length the days of weeping of the mourning period for Moses were completed."

  So how did Moses write this if he was dead? Bible scholars say that probably Joshua added the final part of the book although this cannot be verified. So did Moses write the books or not?What bits were added by other people and how do we know? It all seems as a stab in the dark to me.

  Now take a look at Genesis 36:31. This verse says “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned”.

  At the time of writing Genesis, they were no kings of Israel. The WTS says this:

  "*** it-1 680 Edom ***
  Some critics have viewed the reference at Genesis 36:31 to the Edomite rulers as “the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel” as an anachronism or as a later insertion. This is not the case, however, since Moses, the recorder of Genesis, already knew God’s clear promise to Jacob (Israel) that “kings will come out of your loins.” (Ge 35:11) Moses himself foretold that Israel would eventually have a king.—De 28:36."

  Point taken. But please read verses 31-43. Now turn to 1 Chronicles 1:43-54. Bear in mind that Chronicles was written about 700 years after Genesis. The two accounts are more or less word for word. So therefore Genesis must have been written AFTER chronicles.

  Exodus 16:35 says:

  "And the sons of Israel ate the manna forty years, until their coming to a land inhabited."

  Now how would have Moses known this as he would have been dead at this time and therefore could not have wrote this? Joshua 5:12 tells us:

  "Then the manna ceased on the following day when they had eaten some of the yield of the land, and manna did not occur anymore for the sons of Israel, and they began to eat some of the produce of the land of Ca'naan in that year."

  So how do the WTS explain this one away?

  "*** w60 6/1 350-1 The Bible's So-called Anachronisms ***
  Still another so-called anachronism is found at Exodus 16:35. It reads: “And the sons of Israel ate the manna forty years until their coming to a land inhabited. The manna was what they ate until their coming to the frontier of the land of Canaan.” True, it is not likely that Moses penned those words at the time he wrote the original record about the Israelites’ receiving manna, but who could argue that he himself did not add these words at the end of the forty-year trek in the wilderness when he stood at the frontier of the land of Canaan, knowing that his people would thereafter no longer be eating manna? Whether he or another added these words, they of themselves certainly cannot be used to argue that the entire book of Exodus was not written by Moses."

  This again is all based on assumption.

  There is a lot more info on this if you are interested at
  
  http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/Age-Of-Reason-Part-1.html
  
  http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/Age-Of-Reason-Part-2.html

  Thought and comments would be welcome but insults (Fred Hall) are not!

  UO

  Edited by - uncle_onion on 16 March 2001 5:16:42
• 
  22

  Their Time Will Come.....

  by ISP in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  despite an abundance of evidence that hits at the heart of the wts, it should be no surprise that many seem to ignore everything and continue.

  you may wonder why particularly as many of us were in the wts and did not ignore the comprehensive mass of proof against the claims and teachings made.

  typically brothers can enjoy themselves as elders.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  Yep, very good post ISP. Hits the nail right on the head.

  Uo
• 
  2

  Update to web site

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have updated my web site to include my latest letters to the org about the 1874 dishonesty issue and franz and that that scholarship.

  please take a look www.607v587.com and while you are there have a look at the guest book where our friend fred hall has once again "opened his mouth" before thinking.

  well done fred and i anm still waiting for that "evidence".. uo

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  uncle_onion

  neither do you, obviously as you cant show your evidence.You can run Fred but you cant hide!

  UO