Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ancient Jews were a people, who like all other people, found some time within their history to put their oral traditions to paper. Not unlike other people of the ancient world, they saw themselves as a special people in the eyes of a particular god; in this case, Yahweh. By the latter third of their scriptures, they saw themselves as the only people on earth serving the one true god, which invariably leads to ethnocentrism. The latter portion of their scriptures indicate they believe their god was going to subdue all other nations and place Israel at the head with its holy city, Jerusalem becoming the centerpiece of worship for all nations to the one true god of Israel. But, each story has to have a beginning and the Jewish story begins with, as you pointed out, Shem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
I'm treading carefully here, lest the thin ice break and plunge me into the icy water. Are we on the same side thus far? What you seem to be saying here is the way I read the text, also.
I do think that the Jews saw themselves as the only people on earth serving the one true God, but from the beginning of the text. Such does lead to ethnocentrism. However, isn't ethnocentrism pretty much a standard human condition? And isn't it pretty much still alive and well today? Not that that is of any importance, but isn't that expected in any text focusing on "of the [whomever], by the [whomever], for the [whomever]"?
Shem is, not surprisingly, presented as the mindful son and the one the praise is heaped up on. Again, not surprisingly, the Jewish patriarch, Abram, comes from the line of Shem and he, despite a few slips here and there, is held up as the father of faith and the rest as some kind of history according to the Jewish scriptures.
Ok. I think we are still together on the text here.
But even in the Jewish scriptures, just like the stories of other people around the ancient world, they came and met a universe, one of great mystery, however, they were not unique in any way with their story on how things came about. They simply took the older traditions of the regions and made them theirs and painted their deity into the story. He was the creator and thus expected the respect as such, but bits and pieces of the older stories they made their own,
Since we have left the text here, and because my knowledge of ancient history is very limited, I really cannot speak to this. I do want to thank you for this, because this and ideas like this give me information that I can investigate in order to learn and draw conclusions. This is why I enjoy an exchange of information. So, thank you.
the details of the peoples they got them from can be found and one is, "the sons of God." They believed the supreme god had sons to whom he gave dominion over the various nations. In Israel's case, they were given to Yahweh.
Ok. I think I understand what you are saying here. If not, I know you will correct me <grin>. I think we are back to my belief that the "sons of God" in Genesis meant the Jews, which you questioned initially.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, there is an ancient story/account/belief (Sorry. I don't know what to call it) that there were a group of gods, lead by a supreme god. That god had sons who were gods and those sons were given dominion over various nations. Yahweh (the God named Lord [this is from the English language text]) was given Israel as his domain. Is my understanding here correct?
If my understanding is correct, I have no argument. I don't know where the God of Israel came from. The text does not say.
Now, I am familiar with the Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythologies to a point. Sorry. While I have read a lot of the mythologies, I only read the individual stories. I never studied the mythologies as a chronological text, if one exists. I know of Zeus. I know that Zeus came to earth in an earthly form, found a woman, copulated with her, and produced an offspring (numerous times). These offspring were in human form (mostly [I'm covering my bases here; there seems to always be an exception]) and walked the earth. They were greater than humans, but less than Zeus. They were the "sons of God" - literally - in the Zeus story. In the Zeus story, "when the sons of God looked upon the daughters of man..." it would mean the males fathered by Zeus, himself.
Is this close to correct? I haven't read the mythologies in years (decades) and I didn't take the time to go back and look it all up. My memory isn't what it used to be. A mind is a terrible thing to lose <grin>.
I feel sure that every nation/culture/group, whether or not still in existence, of any long-standing (as in ancient) has its god (higher being/ not-of-earth/super power/etc.) stories. Israel has its, too. Since we are not discussing (yet, anyway <grin>) the truth or fiction of the idea of god or gods, (but instead, the text that is called Bible), I have no problem in our discussing this point with the assumption that anything "god" is a myth. I don't think that the point of this discussion ("the sons of God") is whether or not the God in this exchange is real. Given, of course, that I have a correct understanding of what you have said.
Now, here is where I jump up and down on the thin ice (grin). No matter the real or unreal, or true or untrue of the Jewish account, nor what was going on in the world before or during the account that may have shaped the account, we are back to the text for our discussion.
The reasons I believe that the text is referring to the Jews as the "sons of God" are still as I outlined previously, plus some additional points in regard to your statements. I think we must take the Jewish story and let it stand on its own in regard to the text reference in this discussion. Regardless of the other mythologies, this account does not include them. To include them in this text is to "offer facts not in evidence" - as it were, which is why I am so fussy with organized Christian religion (OCR).
Based only on the text and the information we are given, the "sons of God" would be the Jews. First and foremost, this is the Jews version of the story. Rightly or wrongly, they are telling their story from its beginning. Now, to the text: The statement about the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man" is in Genesis 6:2 and was the impetus for God's anger and subsequently the flood. Verse 8 (Gen 6:8) begins the information about Noah, which leads into the flood story. Based just on the text, it is telling us that the Jews were the "sons of God" in this story.
Leaving the text for a moment to refer back to Zeus: Where Zeus came to earth and had sex with mortal women and fathered children - who were rightly called "the sons of God" - the God, LORD (as he is named in the text), did not have sex to create "his children". He formed a mating pair and they had sex to produce LORD's children. There isn't anything in the Old Testament text to indicate that LORD "fathered" any children as we know biology to work. The closest thing to that is in the New Testament where LORD planted his biological seed - without sex - into Mary, who produced the "only begotten son" [that is text] of LORD. Whether or not one accepts this as "truth" or "real", it would indicate that LORD "fathered" no children in the OT. The text (OT) is filled with examples of LORD calling the Jews his "children", his "chosen", his "people", yet not even one of LORD as sire or biological father or blood relative to any of them.
From the account of Adam and Eve to the account of Noah, there is an unbroken genealogy. The passage, "the sons of God", came just before the flood and was the impetus for the flood. Therefore, the only conclusion that I can draw from the text is that Adam and Eve were the foundation pair for the Jews and that "the sons of God" in Genesis means the Jews. Unless of course, we accept OCR's story of the whole planet coming from Adam and Eve, and I just cannot go there!
There is also that little matter of "the face of the earth" which, for me, isolates this flood story to the Jews in the geographical area we now know as Israel (I put it that way because I don't know what else to call the area as it was at the time; it's just easier to call it Israel - that place where the text is set).
I appreciate the points you make in your post. Apart from "Either it is all "true" or none is." which is clearly a false dichotomy (the Exodus could be true, but that God arranged might not - or that God arranged for the Jews to leave Egypt could also be true, but not via the roundabout route in Exodus; Some things true, some not), I take your reading that the Bible doesn't need to be talking about more than a local area - In fact that is the case, as the ancient middle-eastern Flood legends never envisaged the whole globe and its peoples as we know it today being flooded.
I am prepared (after noting that the Creationist use of Genesis as source material does read it as the whole world as we know it today) to consider the idea of a purely local flood, though the idea of a man being given pre-warning so he could build a floating zoo to preserve all the local animals - with no extras to make up viable breeding - groups or take care of collateral wastage from a year cooped up in a floating box, sounds pretty much like folklore to me, plus of course that the legend originated in Mesopotamia in the first place. So it still looks 'untrue' as it appears in Genesis, even as a local flood.
You said: "Nothing in my post should have been interpreted as God's intent was to say, "Shape up, mankind"."
Nor did you. I was anticipating a possible (creationist) argument that God (since the complete destruction of all humankind seems unsupported by fact) just intended the flood as a warning. From that point of view, complete obliteration of 'All flesh' is (as I pointed out with my list of relevant and consistent (if you don't mind ) quotes, plus the wording of the covenant would nullify any such argument. Global or local,it was intended to wipe out all but one righteous man and his family.
As to the Bible being a lie, while this thread is about the first 7 books being folklore (which is not quite the same thing), as I say, there are some things in the Bible that I must credit as true - the sack of Lacheish and the siege of Jerusalem - though the latter has some 'spin' about it. Some as false - the Creation, the flood (on either a global or local basis), plus Exodus now looks to have no factuality other than (possibly) as a folk memory of the Egyptians driving the Hyksos out of the delta up into Canaan, where they came from.
And some true and not - as in the 'prophecy' of Tyre. That is true, or near enough, as regards the attack by Nebuchadnezzar and the later one by Alexander, including the causeway. But it is not true that the city never recovered, which also means that it is history presented retrospectively as prophecy and presenting the false prediction of never being rebuilt as information given by God is a false claim. While avoiding the term 'Lie', as that implies a deliberate deceit, Not True' is on the money. And that means that the Bible is not to be trusted, especially as regards the god -claims.
I owe you a mea culpa or two.
First, "lie" is totally incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out.
Second, I "read into" something you said as meaning that you were accepting some portions of the Bible (not the spiritual vs. the history, but the spiritual vs. the spiritual). I realize now that that was my mistake. I am sorry. That was my reference to "all true or none true". If one accepts God as real in one situation, then it is inconsistent to regard God as a myth in another situation and use one instance to try and disprove another. That is what I thought you were saying when you told me that the creation in Genesis was proof that it could not be a localized flood. Sorry.
I certainly understand your point about some of it being real and some not as far as actual historical events and events occurring as they are presented. I also understand one dismissing the spiritual aspect all together.
I see the text as a stand-alone account "of the Jews, by the Jews, for the Jews" and therefore encompassing their story and no others. Everything else that was going on in the world at the time may or may not have influenced the account. I don't know. However, at the time when the verbal account was being put together, how much communication was there. Once the written account was written down, what was the status of the rest of the world. Was communication much better? Considering this account is Jewish from their beginnings, why would they have based their own account on something from the outside, especially without noting it. This is not to argue that the Jewish account is true. It is only to point out that it was their history and their story, why not record it as was "true" to them. If they had beliefs based on something else in the world around them, why not incorporate them using the source? Those beliefs would have been "true" to them, too. There is nothing in the text to indicate that they had an alliance of ideas with any of those in their general vicinity. Just the opposite is true of the text.
A global flood and Adam and Eve as the one and only foundation pair of the entire planet (and a bunch of other things) are organized Christian religion (OCR), not text of the Bible. If one can unwind the Christian additions and read the text without its influence, a much different story emerges. Again, I'm not trying to sell the idea of true or not. I am trying to sell the idea that OCR has taken a story and re-made it into a very different one. The Bible - the book, the text, "true" not entering in - catches a lot of flack because it has been very distorted. These distortions, such as Creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc. do bother me.
Ella, first let me point out that is so refreshing to see your humility in these responses. I don't know much about you but it appears you are a Christian (not sure) but you admit the gaps in your knowledge and appear to be willing to learn or change your opinions of the evidence is presented. Unfortunately, we deal with some rather dogmatic and stubborn folks around here who throw cookie cutter, corporate answers around with NO intention to even consider anything else other than what they have been taught.
That being said, I believe we need to actually check out those myths and that history you don't know much about or remember much about for much of this to make sense. Please, stay tuned.
I take your reading that the Bible doesn't need to be talking about more than a local area - In fact that is the case, as the ancient middle-eastern Flood legends never envisaged the whole globe and its peoples as we know it today being flooded.
I am prepared (after noting that the Creationist use of Genesis as source material does read it as the whole world as we know it today) to consider the idea of a purely local flood, though the idea of a man being given pre-warning so he could build a floating zoo to preserve all the local animals - with no extras to make up viable breeding - groups or take care of collateral wastage from a year cooped up in a floating box, sounds pretty much like folklore to me, plus of course that the legend originated in Mesopotamia in the first place. So it still looks 'untrue' as it appears in Genesis, even as a local flood.
Hey, I'll take whatever I can get! <grin> I thank you for separating the creationist idea from the text of the book. Can you do the same for Adam and Eve? (you can't blame an activist for trying! )
I cannot fault you for having doubts about the reality of the flood. I agree with you. Could I gather up a mating pair of everything in my own backyard? No. And if I could, how long would the pair of rabbits (living in the woods behind my house) last on my ark housed with the pair of foxes (from the same woods)? Even if I could cage them, I'd have to feed them something. Foxes can't live on corn. I have a horse who eats his weight every day in vegetation. And yes, he drops piles and piles. What would I do, drill holes in the bottom of the boat??? So, you get no argument from me.
Here's what I feel about the flood: It's really not important to me if it is "real" or not. As a Christian, the God part is what I am interested in. The story part is just that - a story. A lot of the book was written from an oral history, which indicates that it is subject to a lot of allegory. Now, this is not an attempt to sell anyone on the "truth" or "not truth" of God. But, the purpose of the book was to be a spiritual-based lesson. It was the message that was inside the message that was the point of the book. If you don't believe in the God part, then the book is mostly useless as reading material.
I use the term "allegory" instead of "folklore" in order to split a very thin hair. The term "Allegory" comes with an understanding that it has a message within a message and that many times that message is spiritual. Folklore makes no such assumption; and the term often conjures up images of outrageous stories with no basis in reality (which is not really the dictionary definition). So, I really can't call the text folklore. Some of the text is historically accurate, some can not be proved. Yet, the message within a message is there throughout - for those who are interested in the second message, of course.
I also thank you Ella for your courteous response, willingness to listen and reconsider. Obviously we goddless pondslime do have an agenda in looking at the Bible, but we do try to apply rational and scientific methods rather than prejudice and bias in assessing the claims of the Bible - historical, scientific and god -claims.
I agree that the OT was written by Jews for Jews. That said, their god given right to rule over others is not just a later Christian view - their message that their god not only trumps the others, but the others don't even exist also goes with some strong messages that it would be good for the other nations if they walked in the ways of the Lord. We see that in Daniel with Nebuchadnezzar honouring the god of the Jews, which didn't save God from deposing him in favour of Cyrus.
The relevance is that critical examination of the text gives clues - indeed evidence -about whether they are fact of fiction (either folklore or invented to provide a background story for a Law code devised for a newly emergent nation.)
So, while you and I might tend to agree about the factuality of the creation, Flood and Exodus, your line is that such stories were only intended to pass on a spiritual message and were not to be taken as literally as Christian Bible- literalists now claim it to be.
It might be interesting to have a spin -off thread 'If the OT is not literal fact, what of the spiritual message?' because my line on that would be that, if the Bible cannot be trusted on history, how can it be trusted on the spiritual claims; and, if we are just going to find inspiration for Good in this or that story, poem or passage of Bible writ, what we are doing is applying human codes of morality or ethics to the Bible and picking examples of what is good. While ignoring those which are not.
Which is what we can do with any other book, pamphlet or speech - or ought to. So Christianity would be perhaps a personal preference or what one is used to and has no more validity than any other religion,or Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, for that matter as a source of spiritual inspiration.
But, you may have another view and a new thread might be a good place to discuss as I am sure that discussion with you would be a rewarding exchange rather than just stating opinions backed up by a headslap icon.
On this thread, we are just concerned with the factuality claims and ideas about how the Bible was written. There is a bit of odd evidence:- critical analysis suggests several stages in the OT; a god amongst others, then the top god and finally the only god, all the others not being real.
Archaeology suggests that the Israelites only appeared in the 1200's BCE (after Ramesses II and Merenptah) and that the large and strong Israel begun by David and continued by Solomon was actually the work or Omri.
Thus we are looking at a fairly late date for the writing up of Jewish law (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy - the earliest text is a silver roll of Numbers, not the Flood or Exodus, dated 600 BC) and the stories of the Creation, Flood, Exodus and conquest were added later, using the Babylonian creation and flood, the discovery of the baby Sargon in his reed boat and (I suggest) a folk memory of Ahmose driving out (not leading out ) the Caananite (surely) Hyksos dynasty back into Canaan.
Finally, I suggest that the prophecies of Babylon, Tyre and Daniel indicate a date of composition around the time of the Hellenistic empire and surely connected with the impending liberation revolt of the Maccabees. Plus Ezekiel's vision of a rebuilt Temple and God coming in zooom to inhabit the temple. The plan of course being used by Herod to built the 2nd temple.
There is obviously a lot to discuss, but I am pretty sure that something along those lines is going to turn out to be true,in the end.
Ella, first let me point out that is so refreshing to see your humility in these responses. I don't know much about you but it appears you are a Christian (not sure) but you admit the gaps in your knowledge and appear to be willing to learn or change your opinions of the evidence is presented. Unfortunately, we deal with some rather dogmatic and stubborn folks around here who throw cookie cutter, corporate answers around with NO intention to even consider anything else other than what they have been taught.
Thank you. I do try. That is what discussion is supposed to be about. I appreciate your civility and that of the few others who possess it. You're right. It is few and far between around here. I think that is the norm in online forums. I think everyone starts out defensive (or would that be offensive?) out of self-defense. I think the trick is to be nice in order to give the other side the chance to do the same. As my grandfather taught me, "The Bible says turn the other cheek. Once that is done, lead with your left!" (tee hee hee. Works good!)
I think there are people in online forums that just need to argue. Others are just jerks. Others have some sincere beliefs that are off-the-mark, but they just don't know why they believe it and they can't defend it. So, they get angry and loud and totally frustrated. I've found this latter among the organized religion people, especially. They were taught things as children, but they weren't taught "why". And sadly, it is very hard to use the Bible to justify religious teachings. When core beliefs are threatened, it can be very unnerving.
I am a Christian (a non-denominational one). I was taught to read the Bible (because I questioned the creation story when I was seven and my dad taught me to read it for myself) before OCR got hold of me (they're the ones that prompted the questioning). So, you and I will just agree to disagree on the God thing. I will explain "why" He's real for me, but I won't debate it or defend it. I won't invite your proof of "why not" nor discuss it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
That being said, I believe we need to actually check out those myths and that history you don't know much about or remember much about for much of this to make sense. Please, stay tuned.
You're right!
As a matter of fact, I had a little time tonight, so I looked up 6 or 8 articles - Semitic People; Ancient Semitic religion; Septuagint; Enûma Eliš; Creation myth; and a couple of others. I also read the "70 Gods and 70 nations" one, but I seem to have closed without saving and I don't remember the name or author. Do you have either so I can find it again.
What fascinating reading! Thank you.
I was reading fairly rapidly and I was by no means studying. But, the info is fascinating. I will continue to read. Now, I'm not one to jump to conclusions and I don't change my mind easily. So, don't expect any conversions anytime soon.
However, one possible conclusion did jump out at me. (drum roll, please!)
With all this new evidence, it seems that I have a much stronger case!
Geez, now I have thousands and thousands of years of existence and longevity and a whole bunch of people that are telling a similar story! WOW. (shut my mouth!!!!) [mea culpa ]
The evidence weighs in favor of the Bible as history.
Moderator cut: deleted
What you do have is the possibility that some of the people and places mentioned in those pages actually existed. But so what? That is true of much fiction. All the locations, companies, politicians and political events mentioned in the "Bourne Identity" books actually happened and exist and are verifiable. That does not mean for one moment that the event detailed in that book are real. Similarly there is a detailed Royal Family in a book by Sue Townsend. All the people mentioned in it exist or existed. That does not mean the events there really ever happened to the Royal family.
Much fiction draws on fact, and is based in, on and around fact. That does not stop it being fiction however.
Last edited by june 7th; 03-20-2013 at 10:06 AM..
Reason: Bashing of other member.
Thank you. I do try. That is what discussion is supposed to be about. I appreciate your civility and that of the few others who possess it. You're right. It is few and far between around here. I think that is the norm in online forums. I think everyone starts out defensive (or would that be offensive?) out of self-defense. I think the trick is to be nice in order to give the other side the chance to do the same. As my grandfather taught me, "The Bible says turn the other cheek. Once that is done, lead with your left!" (tee hee hee. Works good!)
I think there are people in online forums that just need to argue. Others are just jerks. Others have some sincere beliefs that are off-the-mark, but they just don't know why they believe it and they can't defend it. So, they get angry and loud and totally frustrated. I've found this latter among the organized religion people, especially. They were taught things as children, but they weren't taught "why". And sadly, it is very hard to use the Bible to justify religious teachings. When core beliefs are threatened, it can be very unnerving.
I am a Christian (a non-denominational one). I was taught to read the Bible (because I questioned the creation story when I was seven and my dad taught me to read it for myself) before OCR got hold of me (they're the ones that prompted the questioning). So, you and I will just agree to disagree on the God thing. I will explain "why" He's real for me, but I won't debate it or defend it. I won't invite your proof of "why not" nor discuss it.
You're right!
As a matter of fact, I had a little time tonight, so I looked up 6 or 8 articles - Semitic People; Ancient Semitic religion; Septuagint; Enûma Eliš; Creation myth; and a couple of others. I also read the "70 Gods and 70 nations" one, but I seem to have closed without saving and I don't remember the name or author. Do you have either so I can find it again.
What fascinating reading! Thank you.
I was reading fairly rapidly and I was by no means studying. But, the info is fascinating. I will continue to read. Now, I'm not one to jump to conclusions and I don't change my mind easily. So, don't expect any conversions anytime soon.
However, one possible conclusion did jump out at me. (drum roll, please!)
With all this new evidence, it seems that I have a much stronger case!
Geez, now I have thousands and thousands of years of existence and longevity and a whole bunch of people that are telling a similar story! WOW. (shut my mouth!!!!) [mea culpa ]
Have you considered converting???? <GRIN>
Ella
well, Ella, I will start with answering your last question. No, I not considered it and will probably never. You see, I was once a staunch Christian in the mold (at one point) of Vizio, Blasted and Mr5150 in one degree or another. I was born in the heavily conservative Caribbean (St. Thomas) but was actually raised on another island (St. Kitts) in a rural area, which during my time, was only linked to the outside world by a radio (we had not TV) when I lived there (a period of almost 9 years). People in our community were heavily into their Christian faith and in our home, all I ever heard my grandmother playing on her radio, was Gospel programming, most of it beamed in from the Southern United States. We were "Christian fundamentalists" long before it became a household name here in the states. So, you can say I "grew up in a Christian home" and thus, heavily indoctrinated in things Christian. I did not know what a Jew, Hindu or Muslim was. As far as I knew and believed, without knowledge of anything else, there was only one true god and he was in the bible.
After a stint of 4 years in N.Y, I moved back home to St. Thomas where I became an actual Christian (no longer just a social Christian) at age 14 and I was a serious, committed, dedicated Christian for the next 15 years or so. During that span I read through the bible four times (living in NY [again] and Florida), taught Bible studies, preached on occasion, played bass for our choirs, attended church religiously, hit the streets, hospitals and jails to evangelize and studied the bible down the most minute details. I passed up opportunities in higher education, a promising basketball career and also a promising music career to "seek ye first the kingdom of God." No one could NOT tell me the biblical god did not exist. After all, I could "feel" him in my soul. I saw his marvelous creation (because i "believed" he was responsible for it) and every neat thing that happened to me, I attributed as a miracle from him. In addition, my library was stacked with Christian apologetic books, Greek lexicons, Hebrew linear bibles, concordances, etc. I tried to be a walking bible and I did pretty well in accomplishing this and oh, I took the bible literally too. I went from being a fire and brimstone believer into a non-denominational "God is all about love" Christian, into worship songs and cheeky messages before the wheels started falling off, starting with a popular Christian author's book designed to strengthen the faith of Christians. Oddly enough (and herein lies the REAL miracle), it had the REVERSE effect on me and I slowly began my ascent out of the Christian maze into the light of logic, reasoning and for me, sanity. Internet content finished me off with my complete break from Christianity as I allowed myself to, for the first time in my life, consider that my views were not the center of the universe and that all along I was following a "Johnny come lately" theology that was actually shaped by older influences and/or surrounding influences and that what I believed was not as unique as I thought all those years. This then segues into this particular subject.
Just before departing Christianity about 10 or so years ago, I was getting heavily into the world of angels and demons, or as Christians call it, "spiritual warfare." Though I had read it a million times, I began focusing on Genesis 6 where the "sons of God" saw the daughters of men and mated with them. All along, I casually bypassed that passage and just assumed the "sons of God" were righteous men of that day and they simply got caught up with some hot women who led them astray. Being a fan of Greek and roman mythology from 3rd grade (New York), it hit me OR better put, I allowed myself to be entertained by the idea that this sounded a lot like the Greek myths of gods and mortal women. Then, for the first time in my life, I got a hold of the First book of Enoch which expands on the whole Genesis 6 story. This then led me to other Jewish Psuedopigraphal books I knew about but avoided because I believed they were of the devil. I was fully on my way to some very rude awakenings and some of this I hope to share with you going forward.
I also thank you Ella for your courteous response, willingness to listen and reconsider. Obviously we goddless pondslime do have an agenda in looking at the Bible, but we do try to apply rational and scientific methods rather than prejudice and bias in assessing the claims of the Bible - historical, scientific and god -claims.
You are welcome, and thank you for your courteousness and civility. Discussion does not have to be a battle. We don't have to agree on everything to have meaningful conversation. I welcome knowledge - even when it pokes at my beliefs. And, I don't think you are godless pondslime. You may not believe in God, but you certainly conduct yourself better than many who profess to believe. I understand your agenda as you have outlined it. I find no fault with that.
First of all let me say that I am totally overwhelmed by your post. Your knowledge and depth of study far exceeds anything that I possess or have done. I don't know that I can even exchange ideas in enough of a reasonably intelligent way to even converse with you on these topics. I'm going to be saying, "I just don't have any knowledge about that" a lot. If you will be patient, I will endeavor to keep up.
Also, please note that when I reference "the text" (the Bible), I am using what it says without any judgment as to whether or not that text is factual or allegorical or untrue - unless that is part of the conversation. Actually, I only joined this thread to try and separate the text from organized Christian religion's teachings, which usually do not support each other, because a poster had offered organized religion as Bible text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I agree that the OT was written by Jews for Jews. That said, their god given right to rule over others is not just a later Christian view - their message that their god not only trumps the others, but the others don't even exist also goes with some strong messages that it would be good for the other nations if they walked in the ways of the Lord. We see that in Daniel with Nebuchadnezzar honouring the god of the Jews, which didn't save God from deposing him in favour of Cyrus.
The relevance is that critical examination of the text gives clues - indeed evidence -about whether they are fact of fiction (either folklore or invented to provide a background story for a Law code devised for a newly emergent nation.)
I don't mean to poke you with a stick here, but didn't everybody (and don't they still today) with a god think theirs was/is the trump? Why else would they have believed in him? In a Jewish text, with the "of the, by the, for the", isn't it a given that their God would be the real, only, trump card, best, superior, etc. God? Didn't every group hold that belief? The text tells of all kinds of conquests and the various gods that came and went with the victors. They must have believed that their god was the best. Didn't all the mythologies do the same?
Now, I am waving a stick at you and I beg your forgiveness upfront. There were lots of gods back in those days. The text names many of them and the ancient mythologies that I have been reading name dozens (maybe hundreds) more. Of those, how many of them survive as a viable deity (real or not real, notwithstanding) in the world today? The God of the Jews did (not that that is a statement of "real", just that it is a statement of survival). [I don't know anything about the Hindu, Shinto, or Buddhist, etc. so I didn't include them is this statement.] I find it thought-provoking that the God of the Jews survives, when so many, many others in the region did not. And, the God of the Jews did finally take over the entire region. While Judaism and Islam certainly differ in the dogma and doctrine, the God is the same.
I think that man[kind] has always used "God" or some deity to lord over his fellow man. That is certainly still alive and well today. However, is that "God's" fault or man's fault? Sometimes, we don't separate the two. I'm reverting back to OCR here as an example. The Westboro church that pickets military funerals in the name of God is appalling to most of us. Many would look at these people and ask, "What kind of a god would promote such a thing?" Attributing this to any kind of a god (real or not) is not accurate. The point I am trying, very ineptly, to make is that what man does in the name of God (or god, or gods etc) should never be intertwined with what God (god, gods, etc.) does in the name of God (god, gods, etc). Proving what man does in the name of God (god, gods, etc) is very easy, but it is not a sound basis for indicting God (god, gods, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So, while you and I might tend to agree about the factuality of the creation, Flood and Exodus, your line is that such stories were only intended to pass on a spiritual message and were not to be taken as literally as Christian Bible- literalists now claim it to be.
It might be interesting to have a spin -off thread 'If the OT is not literal fact, what of the spiritual message?' because my line on that would be that, if the Bible cannot be trusted on history, how can it be trusted on the spiritual claims; and, if we are just going to find inspiration for Good in this or that story, poem or passage of Bible writ, what we are doing is applying human codes of morality or ethics to the Bible and picking examples of what is good. While ignoring those which are not.
Which is what we can do with any other book, pamphlet or speech - or ought to. So Christianity would be perhaps a personal preference or what one is used to and has no more validity than any other religion,or Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, for that matter as a source of spiritual inspiration.
But, you may have another view and a new thread might be a good place to discuss as I am sure that discussion with you would be a rewarding exchange rather than just stating opinions backed up by a headslap icon.
If you would like to start such a thread, I will meet you there. I don't know what I have of value to offer, but I'm up for discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
On this thread, we are just concerned with the factuality claims and ideas about how the Bible was written. There is a bit of odd evidence:- critical analysis suggests several stages in the OT; a god amongst others, then the top god and finally the only god, all the others not being real.
Which is why I have relied only on the text and have made an overt attempt to separate text from OCR. I've tried to be forthcoming in answering any questions that I was asked, but I haven't jumped in to promote any OCR or the basic Christian views of God or the Bible. I certainly did not come here to defend "my side" against "your side" or to try and tell you [all on this list] what you should believe. It would be my assumption (and my stance) that spirituality "is" or it "is not" and that what is true or not "lies in the eyes of the beholder." As far as the discussion at the heart of this thread, I have [for the most part] found it interesting and filled with knowledge, much of which I was unfamiliar. I have done a lot of reading of these areas unknown to me in the short time that I have had and I find it interesting and well worth knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Archaeology suggests that the Israelites only appeared in the 1200's BCE (after Ramesses II and Merenptah) and that the large and strong Israel begun by David and continued by Solomon was actually the work or Omri.
Thus we are looking at a fairly late date for the writing up of Jewish law (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy - the earliest text is a silver roll of Numbers, not the Flood or Exodus, dated 600 BC) and the stories of the Creation, Flood, Exodus and conquest were added later, using the Babylonian creation and flood, the discovery of the baby Sargon in his reed boat and (I suggest) a folk memory of Ahmose driving out (not leading out ) the Caananite (surely) Hyksos dynasty back into Canaan.
Finally, I suggest that the prophecies of Babylon, Tyre and Daniel indicate a date of composition around the time of the Hellenistic empire and surely connected with the impending liberation revolt of the Maccabees. Plus Ezekiel's vision of a rebuilt Temple and God coming in zooom to inhabit the temple. The plan of course being used by Herod to built the 2nd temple.
There is obviously a lot to discuss, but I am pretty sure that something along those lines is going to turn out to be true,in the end.
I realize that there are glaring inconsistencies and questions in the text. I also know that there was an entire planet teeming with people at the place and time of the account of the text. I'm pretty sure that there was no scribe following God (should he exist, of course) around in those early days of the text, so that, per se, tells me that there was only an oral account of whatever/something passed down through generations - and that is folklore by definition. What of the written accounts once scribes were at hand? With all due respect to historians everywhere, history is notoriously unreliable and incomplete. And not even going back to ancient times, I base this statement on the recorded American history of the USA. Just look at current events - those which we all are witnessing. If you watch Fox News AND MSNBC, you'd think you were viewing two parallel and opposite worlds. Which version will go into the official history record? And, what conclusions will be drawn about this block of time. Will it be anywhere close to accurate?
So, I think there will always be questions and those who ask them - and I think that is a good thing.
well, Ella, I will start with answering your last question. No, I not considered it and will probably never. You see, I was once a staunch Christian in the mold (at one point) of Vizio, Blasted and Mr5150 in one degree or another. I was born in the heavily conservative Caribbean (St. Thomas) but was actually raised on another island (St. Kitts) in a rural area, which during my time, was only linked to the outside world by a radio (we had not TV) when I lived there (a period of almost 9 years). People in our community were heavily into their Christian faith and in our home, all I ever heard my grandmother playing on her radio, was Gospel programming, most of it beamed in from the Southern United States. We were "Christian fundamentalists" long before it became a household name here in the states. So, you can say I "grew up in a Christian home" and thus, heavily indoctrinated in things Christian. I did not know what a Jew, Hindu or Muslim was. As far as I knew and believed, without knowledge of anything else, there was only one true god and he was in the bible.
After a stint of 4 years in N.Y, I moved back home to St. Thomas where I became an actual Christian (no longer just a social Christian) at age 14 and I was a serious, committed, dedicated Christian for the next 15 years or so. During that span I read through the bible four times (living in NY [again] and Florida), taught Bible studies, preached on occasion, played bass for our choirs, attended church religiously, hit the streets, hospitals and jails to evangelize and studied the bible down the most minute details. I passed up opportunities in higher education, a promising basketball career and also a promising music career to "seek ye first the kingdom of God." No one could NOT tell me the biblical god did not exist. After all, I could "feel" him in my soul. I saw his marvelous creation (because i "believed" he was responsible for it) and every neat thing that happened to me, I attributed as a miracle from him. In addition, my library was stacked with Christian apologetic books, Greek lexicons, Hebrew linear bibles, concordances, etc. I tried to be a walking bible and I did pretty well in accomplishing this and oh, I took the bible literally too. I went from being a fire and brimstone believer into a non-denominational "God is all about love" Christian, into worship songs and cheeky messages before the wheels started falling off, starting with a popular Christian author's book designed to strengthen the faith of Christians. Oddly enough (and herein lies the REAL miracle), it had the REVERSE effect on me and I slowly began my ascent out of the Christian maze into the light of logic, reasoning and for me, sanity. Internet content finished me off with my complete break from Christianity as I allowed myself to, for the first time in my life, consider that my views were not the center of the universe and that all along I was following a "Johnny come lately" theology that was actually shaped by older influences and/or surrounding influences and that what I believed was not as unique as I thought all those years. This then segues into this particular subject.
Just before departing Christianity about 10 or so years ago, I was getting heavily into the world of angels and demons, or as Christians call it, "spiritual warfare." Though I had read it a million times, I began focusing on Genesis 6 where the "sons of God" saw the daughters of men and mated with them. All along, I casually bypassed that passage and just assumed the "sons of God" were righteous men of that day and they simply got caught up with some hot women who led them astray. Being a fan of Greek and roman mythology from 3rd grade (New York), it hit me OR better put, I allowed myself to be entertained by the idea that this sounded a lot like the Greek myths of gods and mortal women. Then, for the first time in my life, I got a hold of the First book of Enoch which expands on the whole Genesis 6 story. This then led me to other Jewish Psuedopigraphal books I knew about but avoided because I believed they were of the devil. I was fully on my way to some very rude awakenings and some of this I hope to share with you going forward.
First of all, let me apologize for my last sentence of that post. That was supposed to be a "lol" moment. I wasn't trying to convert you, and I didn't mean to pry. However, I truly appreciate your sharing. It is odd how our lives meander round about to bring us to a specific point. I'm glad you came out on the other side and feel more positive about your life now. I hope this will not offend you, because that is the last thing I would want to do, but I'm glad you got out. OCR is way too much of a cult for my liking.
Some people never "get away". My maternal grandmother was tormented by her religious beliefs. She was Church of God (a "Holy Roller") and her religion taught that God was hiding behind every tree with a lightning bolt in each hand just waiting for her to breathe wrong so he could strike her dead and send her to hell. Her OCR taught that any and all jewelry was a mortal sin. She wore a thin, small gold wedding band on her hand and her friends at church tormented her over it. As she approached her 90th birthday and deep in the throes of congestive heart failure, she was terrified of dying and terrified of God. It broke my heart to see her so tormented. She was in hell - made by OCR.
It is so easy to say "if you are tormented, miserable, hurting, etc, just walk away", but the indoctrination is so deep and so wide, that she (and others) just couldn't (can't). It's like being addicted to drugs.
My story is much different. I was born into a home of "believers". Religion didn't really enter in to anything in my daily life. The grandmother above lived out of state and was not a daily influence in my life. My parents and paternal grandparents talked about God and Jesus as if they were a father and son living down the street. It was always a "friendly" relationship and God was never trying to kill us or send us to hell. God was never used as a battering ram to keep us in line. We were taught right from wrong, proper conduct, etc because it was "right", not because God was skulking around to pounce on us. My parents and grandparents read the Bible as their source of knowledge. They tried to do "good" and taught their children to strive to do good. We said "Grace" at the dinner table. My grandmother sang hymns as she went about her housework. We kids said our prayers at bedtime. Everyone was baptized. We went to church, but my dad was clear on the difference in "text" and dogma and doctrine. Therefore, I was never indoctrinated in organized religion, though I investigated many when I was searching for my path to God as a teenager. So, I have a totally different take on God than most of the OCR people and thus, a different take on the Bible.
My paternal grandparents were salt-of-the-earth, down-home, good hearted, poor, Southern (USA), farming people, from a long line of the same. Because of their very rural roots, the Bible was a major source of reading material and of information about God. The area had one little church, but they couldn't afford a preacher, so itinerate preachers roamed the rural areas and preached for Sunday dinner and a chicken or some flour here and there. Two weeks a month, the Baptist preacher came and the other two Sundays, it was the Methodist. Doctrine was real easy to see. So, life was all very simple and plain. My people were not drinkers or cursers. There wasn't a town, much less any mischief to get into. Farmers worked from two hours before daylight until dark. Who had time for sin?? So, they weren't afraid of God. They also had no reason to believe that belief in God would get them anything, so I was taught not to expect anything (earthly) in return for my belief. As my dad became "upwardly mobile", the core values, ideas, and principles remained - for better or worse.
OK. I think I see what you are saying about Gen 6. I haven't read any of the books you referenced, so I really can't speak to any of them. I did notice the similarities between the Greek and Roman Mythologies - and even the Norse - decades ago. I never read any of the information that you have - save some parts of the Mythologies. Your range of exposure to all these texts and different ideas is truly impressive. I am really in awe of the scope of it all. I truly feel that it is the height of arrogance for me to even try and defend my position on Gen 6 in light of the fact that you have a body of information that I do not have. By the same token, I cannot change my position without reading/studying those same texts for myself and drawing my own conclusions. A lot of questions come to mind which I would want to ask myself if I were reading those accounts. A lot of questions come to mind that haven't anything to do with any text. I'm not disputing the information. The info I read from the sources you gave me prove to me that these accounts exist and make some viable points. Yet, I just do not have enough info to discuss - much less debate - the possibilities.
Ella
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) quotes, plus the wording of the covenant would nullify any such argument. Global or local,it was intended to wipe out all but one righteous man and his family.
about it. Some as false - the Creation, the flood (on either a global or local basis), plus Exodus now looks to have no factuality other than (possibly) as a folk memory of the Egyptians driving the Hyksos out of the delta up into Canaan, where they came from. 
)
..it is. 
) the Caananite (surely) Hyksos dynasty back into Canaan. 
) out of self-defense. I think the trick is to be nice in order to give the other side the chance to do the same. As my grandfather taught me, "The Bible says turn the other cheek. Once that is done, lead with your left!" (tee hee hee. Works good!)
(shut my mouth!!!!) [mea culpa 
]
