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.
Thank you. Your remarks about the Assyrian seige of Hezekiah's Jerusalem is well taken. Both sides' accounts were hardly intended as accurate and objective history but as PR and propaganda. Sennacherib glosses over the fact that he didn't take Jerusalem and the OT account ascribes the fact that the Assyrian siege had to be broken off to a plague sent by God and no mention of the tribute that had to be paid nor the huge effort put into Jerusalem's defences (as archeology shows) whereas Lacheish was left relatively vulnerable and its sack was passed over in a few lines in the Bible. The Assyrians carved a whole set of reliefs to celebrate it.
Ramesses II's victory over the Hittites is a test case. While the intention is to give all the credit to the king, it is evident from the text that he almost got beat and it was lucky that he had one regiment coming up while the Hittites were busy. Even then, the 'nick of time' plot may just be to make Ramesses look more of a hero, but after all, if the story is too far from what actually occurred and is more than just a PR tweaking, that is risky.
Your point is a good one that there is always discussion and even partiality. Research, discussion and checking will iron out most of the mistakes and errors and a fairly reliable picture will emerge. The one emerging diverges ever further from the OT and i believe that eventually the message will get through that the NT is not as it appears, either.
It's quite possible that Sennacherib's Siege was not intended to conquer and lay waste to the city, but merely to force them back into an acceptable vassal status. Smaller towns could be safely destroyed to help strike fear into the larger government, so that's also a possibility. Speculation, yes, but entirely possible. It's much more profitable to keep a thriving city relatively intact and functioning, rather than destroying it. With that said, however, the Assyrians DID have a reputation for severe brutality and deportation of conquered peoples into other lands so they could not effectively stage a rebellion - like Hezekiah's. So - it is possible that he intended to truly invade the city. We will probably never know, due to the ideological versions of both accounts.
This whole conversation - in relation to the New Testament - is interesting because the early Church seemed to have rejected almost the entirety of the Hebrew Bible (if it could even be said to have had just one theology or message among the many voice) and relegated it to "Old" Testament status. In their eyes, the OT was just a stroll in the part on the way to Jesus. Prophecy had a supposed 400 year gap only fulfilled by Jesus (at least, this is what many modern Christians with access to only the Protestant canon assume). Trying to start a new religion (which I maintain is entirely separate from the Judaism that proceeded it, and not even related in spirit) under the auspices of the Romans - who had a great religious tolerance for religions that had pedigree, or antiquity, was difficult. Always suspected of being a cult of incestous love meetings, the Christians were at a disadvantage. I think that the early Christians only retained the "Old" Testament to give themselves an air of antiquity for the eyes of the Romans. How they were able to manage this while retaining their own views was by painting the Jews as failed Covenant members - their elect status stripped of them when they supposedly rejected what the Christians viewed as the true Messiah, Jesus. This supercession of the Yahwistic Covenant with Israel was done by stating that the Christians (eventually mostly Gentiles) were the new "spiritual" Israel, heirs of the Covenant. And as we know from history, the Romans eventually accepted this supercessionist policy. To this day, most Christians refer to the Hebrew Bible derisively as the Old Testament and many still insist that it was the Jews who killed Jesus - not the Romans who actually did.
So - in the end of it all - the Christians have always had no problem with claiming that the Old Testament really doesn't matter. Jesus did away with any obligations due to it - in their eyes. Yet - Christians still use the OT to their purposes, which to me doesn't make any moral or ethical sense. Paul was responsible for much of this, and I'm not particulary fond of his heretical (from the standpoint of Judaism, and technically from the standpoint of Jesus -who demanded that the Torah was still active and required for entry into the "Kingdom") interpretation of Judaism, the Hebrew Bible and Jesus' reported words - especially in Matthew. So is it any wonder how many Christians can so glibly reject many of the stories in the Hebrew Bible when faced with the contradictory nature of it in relation to Christianity, yet still call themselves Christians? Is it any wonder that they take Genesis as literal, but instead read into it later Hellenistic ideas that were never present in the text - just to they cannot be accused by moderns of adhering to obviously outdated views on science and nature? Jesus becomes the nicer, kinder Yahweh - and even later actually becomes God himself. Amazing how that happened.
It seems that Israel and Judah were both sucked into the Assyrian Empire and Israel revolted and was destroyed. Judea under Hezekiah, bought the Assyrians off and that, given that tribute appeared to be ruinously heavy, seemed to be enough to save Judea, except that apparently Hezekiah revolted. The effort put into the defences seems to indicate that the submission was to buy time.
If you revolted against Assyria, you could expect to be destroyed. Last -minute offering of tribute wasn't going to work, and example would be made. Jerusalem lasted because of its defences and maybe it was trouble back home with Sennacherib's sons, disease cause by a long siege, but it was broken off and Assyria had to put a good face on it.
Now as to the Christian view of the OT. There is a curious mix of views. The OT is valuable as containing prophetic proof of Jesus. It is also necessary background the the sin - thing without which of course, Jesus would have no mission. The Christians are ambivalent about the Law. Some of it is absolutely mandatory, that which isn't is not only useless but a 'stumbling -block' as Paul called it and should not be observed as it is a positive barrier to salvation.
As to the stories, it is curious.Some love the old stories, some seem to regard the OT,as you imply, as a rather embarrassing relative who they wish wouldn't keep turning up to visit.
I certainly have learned that, while trying to get at the truth, rather than just winning the argument however one can, may seem to be giving too much position away, it is much more rewarding in the end.
It may seem that all I am trying to do is demolish religion, but it's more that it just doesn't stand up under scrutiny and where I am is where I had to arrive by way of evidence and reason.
It was discussion here on these boards that seemed to show that Exodus didn't seem to work, and, while I already knew that the prophecies of Tyre and Babylon broke down, it was here that it clicked as to why they broke down and what implication that had about their date.
Ella, I know you pop in in the morning's early hours to check on responses and reply. I took a night off so I will reply or continue on tomorrow, ok? If you have found anything else to share; any additional discoveries, PLEASE share.
I want to thank you again for all the information you have given me. Most of it is so far over my head that I am digging and scraping to get a handle on all of it. So far, I have been fascinated by all that I have read.
I want you to know that the info you have given me thus far has opened up several new avenues of thought for me. While I haven't reached any conclusions, I have been toying with several unconventional ideas that do fill in some answers to some questions I have had. And, not necessarily in the direction you were pointing me. Time will tell.
I still haven't been able to give up my opinion of "sons of God" referring to the descendants of Adam. I came across a verse the other night in my reading which originally served to reinforce my opinion (and still does ). It is Luke 3:38 which refers to Adam as the son of God in the genealogy listed. There are several others, but I didn't learn to read as Chapter and verse, so I can never find anything specific when I want to reference it. I just happened to stumble across this in my reading the other night. These types of references led me to believe that the Bible text and the writers thereof considered Adam as the son of God (whether or not that was an accurate assumption on their parts). In my opinion, creation was a totally different event than that of Adam and Eve. So, the gentiles were already on the earth and in this geographical area that is the setting of the Bible. Therefore, the sons of God (Hebrews) met the daughters of man (gentiles).
However, the information that you have given me certainly indicates to me that there is "more to the story". I tend to believe that there are many layers to the Bible and that there is/are information/hints/clues interwoven. So, I am not discounting anything that you have offered.
I'm still interested in any insights you gained about the many discrepancies.
Being history buff, I've been aware for some time that at least the first five books of the bible were not credibly history(didn't happen), but only recently did I read the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein (an archaeologist with Tel Aviv University( and Silberman, the editor of Archaeology magazine).
Their thesis is that the events described in the first seven (7) books of the Bible were gathered from folklore, the Hebrews never were slaves (or even in) Egypt, but were nomadic herders and later farmers in Cananna. Over 250 of their settlements have been located since 1967.
A fellow from Humanities Department at Caltech has placed an abbreviated version of this book on the web.
There it is, late, but better late than never....My laugh of the day
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.
Time will tell.
