The dilema of Uncle onion.

by uncle_onion 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  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
• 

  larc

  Hi Uncle Onion,

  The story of Noah simply can't be true. The boat was a football field and a half long and about a football field wide. It had three levels to it. Noah took in two of each of the unclean animals and seven each of the clean animals. They lived in there for eleven months. Now, today there are 100,000 species of birds. Did he take in one pair of generic birds? If so, evolution really happened very rapidly after the flood. We also have problems with the fish. Fresh water fish can not live in the ocean and salt water fish can not live in fresh water lakes. Now when all this water got mixed together, how did the fish survive? Again, there would have to be fish that could survive everywhere and then evolved almost immediately so that they could live in their present habitat.

  Besides all the animals, Noah would have to have an eleven month food supply for all of them. How many cubic feet of space would that take, and how would he keep it from spoiling over an 11 month time span?

  I'm sorry, I'm running ahead of the "Organization."
• 

  larc

  I'm back,

  I could go on and on. Did Noah bring all the insects? I mentioned birds. They tend to be on the small side. What about the big critters like rinos and elephants, lions and giraffes and kangaroos. Speaking of kangaroos - after they got off the boat at Mt Ararat, how did they get to Australia?
  Friends, this is a folk story told by many tribes that had floods in there history. They did the best they knew how to make sense out of events, just as we do today. However, the story can not be accepted as fact.
• 

  Prisca

  Hey larc,

  even the Australian Aboriginals had their own story of the Flood. Very similar in some accounts.
• 

  Moridin

  Great post Uncle Onion. I too have been researching the validity of the Bible and the divinity. I always questioned the whole ark thing. There are too many questions that can't be answered. A good book that might help a little with your research on the Bible even questions the existence of a savior Jesus. It's called The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.
• 

  Farkel

  Thomas Paine's Age of Reason is a great book. So is Common Sense.

  With regards to the flood there are two other obvious reasons why it never happened. There are many anmals who eat fruit and cannot survive without fresh fruit. How in the world did fresh fruit last for nearly a year on the ark? Contrary to the straw-eating-theory folks, there were also many carnivors which needed to be fed. How did Noah and Co. keep enough fresh meat for a year for those critters?

  But the MOST important problem was the poop. And the pee. You've got a vessel about 170 yards long (1 3/4 football fields), 25 yards wide and three stories high just chock full of critters. Critters poop. Just the logistics of four men and four women taking care of the poop makes the whole flood story go right down the toilet. (No pun intended.) With three stories of critter poop we're talking about the length of FIVE footbal fields these people would have to constantly run up and down all day long for nearly a year. Even with wheelbarrows it's not a doable deal.

  Noah: "Hey Shem! Rhino poop on deck three! LOTS of it! Papa Rhino has the runs. Big time!"

  Shem: "Geeez, Dad. Why do I always have to take care of the Rhino and Elephant poop? Why can I get "squirrel poop" detail once in a while?

  With all that poop to take care of, how could the Noah family have time to feed all those animals, or for that matter, to actually take the time to poop themselves?

  With such a scenario and in my humble estimation, the only critters that could have survived such an ordeal would be flies. They would have loved it.

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 16 March 2001 10:17:35

  Edited by - Farkel on 16 March 2001 10:18:39
• 

  aChristian

  Hi Unc,

  First off, so far as the biblical flood being a true story, I believe the Genesis account may indeed be describing a large local flood that actually occurred in southern Mesopotamia. That our earth has never been completely covered with water since land masses first arose from its primordial global sea has been firmly established by modern science in more ways than I can possibly here begin to mention. For a discussion of this subject matter see Problems with a Global Flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html .

  A conservative Christian's typical response to such information is to say that they choose to believe the Word of God over the findings of scientists. This certainly sounds quite noble. And I suppose I would commend them for their stance if such a stance was called for by the Bible itself. But it is not. For a careful study of the flood account in Genesis reveals that the Bible does not tell us that the flood of Noah's day was global. And an examination of the sientific "evidence" presented by Christian fundamentalists in support of a global flood, sea shells on mountain tops and the like, quickly reveals that the presenters of this so-called evidence have a very poor understanding of science. ( By the way, sea shells on mountain tops are the result of earth's plate tectonics causing land masses to slowly rise from the sea over many millions of years. This process is an ongoing occurrence and can be proven by comparing the measured heights of various mountain peaks today to their measured heights just a few years ago.)

  That the Bible itself does not tell us that a global flood occurred in Noah's day can be seen from a careful examination of the text. To begin with we do well to keep in mind that the word widely translated as "earth" in the flood narrative, giving the impression that our entire planet was flooded, is often translated elsewhere in the Old Testament as "land." ( In acknowledging this fact, the translators of The New American Standard Bible chose to translate the same Hebrew word as both "land" and "earth" throughout the flood narrative.) We can certainly understand that without our modern means of global communication and global travel ancient peoples must have had a much more limited view of their world than we do today. That being the case, it seems more likely that the flood account in Genesis recounted the story of the whole "land" of Noah being flooded than the whole "earth" being flooded.

  But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative, and elsewhere in the Old Testament, at other times is translated simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)

  But what about the unmistakably "universal" language used in the account? Doesn't the Bible tell us that God destroyed "all life under the heavens" (Gen. 6:17) during the flood? Yes, it does. But it also tells us that "all nations under heaven" lived in fear because of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. (Deut. 2:25) We are also told that during a famine that occurred at the time of Joseph, "The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph." (Gen. 41:57) And it tells us that at the time of Paul the good news of Jesus Christ had been "proclaimed to every creature under heaven." (Col. 1:23) Are we to believe such statements included the nations of people which then lived in North America, South America, China and Australia?

  We must remember that the world of the Bible writers was a much smaller world than our world today. Their part of the earth was then for them "the whole world." We should also accept the possibility that Bible writers may, at times, have used larger than life expressions, just as we often do today. We often use figures of speech such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." This common form of speech is called hyperbole. It is certainly possible that it may, at times, also have been used by Bible writers. When we use such exaggerated figures of speech for dramatic impact we are being neither inaccurate nor dishonest. The same can be said for the writers of Scripture.

  But why would God have had Noah construct such a large ark if it was intended to carry only Noah, his family, and a collection of animals from his own land? Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't? We know that "God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." How could Noah be telling a land full of people to repent and get on the ark if that ark had no room for them? God's plan of salvation today has room for everyone on earth, does it not? Should we believe that God's plan of salvation in Noah's day did not?

  Another question that is sometimes asked is, "If the flood was confined to the land of Noah, why would God not have simply told Noah to take his family and pairs of animals and flee to higher ground?" Many who believe that the flood of Noah's day, as described in Genesis, was confined to the land of Noah say that the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." So, they say that by choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism.

  I encourage all Christians to investigate the possibility that the Bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of Noah. For I believe that when Christians now promote this teaching, a teaching which conflicts with all serious scientific evidence, they only succeed in making themselves, and Christianity, look very foolish to very many people.

  Now, so far as your doubting the inspiration of the books of the Bible that are thought to have been written by Moses, I don't see your point. 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.

  Edited by - aChristian on 16 March 2001 10:55:46
• 

  TR

  Hi Farkel,

  enjoyed your posts from the old H20.

  Zecharia Sitchin(Earth Chronicles) has some unique explanations for the Noah's ark flood dilemma. He might be a nut, but his explanations would resolve the questions about evolution, creation, where we came from, where the God's came from and why they left. Very interesting. More answers than the WTS could ever dream of. EXCEPT, how to redeem ourselves. Bummer, no cult to join.

  TR
• 

  aChristian

  Book Review - Skepdic.com

  Zecharia Sitchin and The Earth Chronicles

  Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, comprise the holy trinity of pseudoscientific mythmakers regarding ancient history. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin's claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. All other scholars have misread these tablets which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by some genetic engineering with female apes. No other scientist has discovered that these descendents of gods blew themselves up with nuclear weapons some 4,000 years ago. Sitchin stands alone, on nobody's shoulders, as a scholar nonpareil. He alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets.

  Sitchin, like Velikovsky, presents himself as erudite and scholarly. Both are very knowledgeable of ancient myths and both are nearly scientifically illiterate. Like von Däniken and Velikovsky, Sitchin weaves a compelling and entertaining story out of facts, misrepresentations, fictions, speculations, misquotes and mistranslations. Each begins with their beliefs about ancient visitors from other worlds and then proceeds to fit facts and fictions to their basic hypotheses. Each is a master at ignoring inconvenient facts, making mysteries where there were none before and offering their alien hypotheses to solve the mysteries. Their works read like bad-science fiction rather than good science. Nonetheless, they are very attractive to those who love a good mystery and are ignorant of or indifferent to the nature and limitations of scientific research.

  Sitchin's ideas have been appropriated by Raël, another wise man, who has started his own religion (Raëilian Religion) around the idea that we humans are the result of a DNA experiment by ancient visitors from outer space. Raël has even written a channeled book, dictated to him by extraterrestrials. It is called The Final Message. We can only hope it is.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

  TR,

  For reasonable answers to questions about evolution and creation, as well as most other questions about the book of Genesis, I highly recommend a book by Dick Fischer. Fischer graduated from the University of Missouri with a Bachelor of Science degree. His first article on religion was published in The Washington Post in 1986. He received his master's degree in theology in 1992. He has published articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and has reviewed articles for publication in Christian Scholar's Review. He is a member of American Scientific Affiliation, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Evangelical Theological Society, and he is listed in Who's Who in Theology and Science.

  Fisher's book is entitled The Origins Solution. It can be ordered from Amazon.com or from his own web site. http://www.orisol.com/

  Edited by - aChristian on 16 March 2001 12:55:10
• 

  Farkel

  : Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, comprise the holy trinity of pseudoscientific mythmakers regarding ancient history. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts.

  I've read von Daniken and Velikovsky: they are both crackpots, no better and no worse than Hitching. A little bit of logic and common sense is all it takes for one to challenge their theories on any number of fronts.

  On the otherhand, there is the late Joseph Campbell who is a genuine scholar. His books on myths and folklore are well-researched and meticulously presented. Have you read any of his books? If not, I do suggest you do. He's not especially kind to Judeo/Christian dogma, but then again, Judeo/Christians are well-documented genocidal maniacs.

  Farkel