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.
I'm glad you liked them. The series is pretty good, huh? I think it provides a really nice introduction into some of the issues that confront the modern study of the Bible, and the importance of a historical context for it, as well as an indication of the changes that are going on right now.
P.S. - The entire website is an excellent resource for the latest archaeological news, biblical scholarship and anything else related to the subject. New articles are constantly going up, and many are written by some of the best scholars in the field today. It also takes an active role in debunking sensationalist claims that one finds in the media.
That's nice. And has absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread topic.
But why “absolutely”? You yourself wrote Some slavery did later occur.
Well, what actually happened is that those of the Canaanites who were not killed were enslaved. Or maybe some killing only happened?
And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. (Joshua, 11:21-22)
They killed them all !!
So, what bothers you more? That they killed them all or that they enslaved them all?
The Israelites wrote down their story, their true story, as it was handed down to them by their ancestors and they did not care much if you and your wise academy will be embarrassed by their story three millennia later. They were honest but your academy is not –or maybe it is honest but not wise.
But why “absolutely”? You yourself wrote Some slavery did later occur.
Well, what actually happened is that those of the Canaanites who were not killed were enslaved. Or maybe some killing only happened?
And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. (Joshua, 11:21-22)
They killed them all !!
So, what bothers you more? That they killed them all or that they enslaved them all?
The Israelites wrote down their story, their true story, as it was handed down to them by their ancestors and they did not care much if you and your wise academy will be embarrassed by their story three millennia later. They were honest but your academy is not –or maybe it is honest but not wise.
If you want people to converse with you, you really need to jettison your conspiracy theory that some "Academy" is conspiring to hide some sort of hidden "truth" and is embarassed about certain things. It's ignorant and uninformed and makes you look crazy. Got it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
The Israelites wrote down their story, their true story...
Now you're talking like a Biblical Fundamentalist who believes that every single word of the Bible is true. If that is the case, then it automatically cancels out your mono-myth ideas - so make up your mind, Dtango: you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The issue of slavery as portrayed in the Conquest Narratives is a false one because the entire Conquest Narrative of the Bible prevents a false picture of what actually happened. I've already pointed this out several times in my post. Why did you not research this before replying? Archaeology, and other fields, has contributed immensely to this side of the picture. Robert Karl Gnuse presents a certain Bible Basic that needs to be understood about the Conquest Narrative:
Introductions used in undergraduate and seminary Hebrew Bible or Old Testament courses readily acknowledge that different theories have been proposes over the years to describe the Israelite settlemtent process. For years the German theory of peaceful infiltration was placaed in opposition to the American model of violent conquest, and then beginning in the 1960s a model of social revolution captured the imagination of scholars and students and inspired much theologizing and contemporary imperatives for social reform. In the past fifteen years all three models have waned before the new perception that Israel emerged by a slow internal process. We appear to be in the middle of a 'paradigm shift' as much of the archaeological data and biblical texts is being considered in a new fashion.
(No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, JSOTS 241. Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. pp. 23-24)
We can longer speak of the accounts of Joshua and Judges as being accurate accounts of what actually happened. Mark S. Smith writes
Biblical evidence is simarly problematic. Though it contains mcuh historical information, the accuracy of this information is complicated by centuries or textual transmission and interpretation. Indeed, the narrative material of the Hebrew Bible pertaining to the Iron I period dates largely from the latter half of the monarchy, removed at least two or three centuries from the events of the Iron I period that the texts relate.
(The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd Ed. William B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2002. p. 27)
So as you can see, the Biblical text is not an accurate account of what happened.
As I mentioned before, the widely accepted proposal is that the Israelites were originally Canaanites - and NOT in the sense that Genesis/Exodus portrays them as originating from Canaan, entering Egypt, becoming slaves, and then returning to their "Promised Land" to reclaim it against the Canaanite "giants". That sort of idea has not been seriously entertained for a very long time. In fact, "the violent conquest model has received the sternest critique of all three models" (Gnuse, idem, p. 29). They were Canaanites in the sense that I mentioned in a previous post, or as Smith puts it, "rather than viewing them as two separate cultures, some scholars define Israelite culture as a subset of Canaanite culture" (Smith, idem, p. 25).
You can find an excellent treatment in Gnuse's work, as well as various popular works out there by Dever, Finklestein or others. This is not some sort of new information, either - as should be evident from the above. It belongs in that category of Bible Basics that I keep mentioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
But why “absolutely”? You yourself wrote Some slavery did later occur.
Yes, in the context of how the Conquest Narrative is portrayed in the Hebrew text, some slavery did occur. How reliable is that text? Not very. In a pragmatice view of the text - that it was used to reflect then-current political situations - such a story of "enslavement" probably seemed a good way of explaining why not everyone in Canaan were part of the Yahweh-Alone movement that at some point decided to differentiate themselves from everyone else. One runs into problems when one is writing a "history" of a Conquest Narrative that has a goal of total domination, when the "Conquest" was not at all what actually happened, and the Canaanites happened to still be in the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Well, what actually happened is that those of the Canaanites who were not killed were enslaved. Or maybe some killing only happened?
And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. (Joshua, 11:21-22)
They killed them all !!
So, what bothers you more? That they killed them all or that they enslaved them all?
Neither bothers me one bit, for the great bulk of Joshua is probably made-up political propaganda with little-to-no actual historical basis. The "truth" you claim they wrote down was far from the actual truth.
Now do you see why such references to slavery (Ham's son Canaan; the Conquest Narrative) have little bearing on actual practices of slavery in Ancient Israel? The latter are political and religious ideology intended to prop up the ideologies of the writers of the various Biblical books and the people they wrote them for. The slavery laws of Exodus-Deuteronomy, however, have more bearing on the topic since they were most likely produced at a much later date (and definitely not when they purport to have been written: prior to the "Conquest", and by Moses) when society had to deal with the issues of sedentary life. Whether the events of the Desert Wandering were true or not - the Torah became authoritative in matters of legal and religious authority.
I was sitting around a campfire last week having a discussion about religion with a friend of mine and he was talking about how the bible condones slavery. He had a lot of interesting things to say that backed up such a bold statement.
after doing a little research when I got home I found that much of what he said was true. So what is your take on this?
Here are just a few examples
"neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s"
Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."
[LEFT]Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)[/LEFT]
First question to anyone reading this...
Even though the 'bible writers' condone slavery...would you yourself want to be a slave? yes, no?
The more I read stuff like this from the bible...the more I'm convinced man is simply his own 'god'....
If you want people to converse with you, you really need to jettison your conspiracy theory that some "Academy" is conspiring to hide some sort of hidden "truth" and is embarassed about certain things. It's ignorant and uninformed and makes you look crazy. Got it?
Yes, I got it! Whoever does not agree with the academy is uninformed and crazy. As for the “conspiracy theory” I only say that, as you wrote, they are embarrassed with certain fundamental facts; meaning that I prefer to think that they know and do not wish to let others know than to think that they possess not the required for the particular knowledge intellect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The issue of slavery as portrayed in the Conquest Narratives is a false one because the entire Conquest Narrative of the Bible prevents a false picture of what actually happened. I've already pointed this out several times in my post. Why did you not research this before replying?
You and the academy know what actually happened... and the Conquest Narrative in the Bible is wrong!!
Who looks crazy now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Archaeology, and other fields, has contributed immensely to this side of the picture. Robert Karl Gnuse presents a certain Bible Basic that needs to be understood about the Conquest Narrative:
We can longer speak of the accounts of Joshua and Judges as being accurate accounts of what actually happened. Mark S. Smith writes
So as you can see, the Biblical text is not an accurate account of what happened.
The only thing I can see is wise scholars studying dumb texts.
When philologico-allegorical interpretation fails, the only way out is to discard the texts entirely. Bravo Academy!!
What is the time frame in which the scholars and yourself place the conquest?
Let me remind you some of the words of Kirkpatrick:
This suggests that oral tradition, far from preserving the sources of its past (whether they be entertainment or historical recollection, or both) constantly reinterprets that past in the light of the present. Indeed one of the hallmarks of tradition is not that it conserves the past but rather that it is constantly evolving in such a way as to incorporate the changes of different historical periods and circumstances. The written transcription of presumed oral tales will inform us more, therefore, about the period in which those tales were transcribed than about the period in which they were presumed to have been composed.
Amend the last sentence to read than about the period in which the events happened and you’ll realize where your mistake is located.
The conquest happened when there were still Nephilim and Anakim on the earth; at that period when there were still Hrim-thurs(Ice-Giants) in Northern Europe, Fomorians (Fomo = Giant) in Ireland, Γιγαντες (Giants) in Greece and Suras (Giants) in India.
You are mentioning archaeological finds because of the incorporation in the narrative of historical elements of the epoch of the transcription. That is not very wise on your part or the gentlemen you are quoting. The Hebrew people have their mythology as every other nation has it, but neither you not your beloved academy seems to realize that simple fact. You limit the capacity of the memory of the humanity to a few thousand years when the same archaeology you invoked stretches its capacity to at least 40,000 years back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
As I mentioned before, the widely accepted proposal is that the Israelites were originally Canaanites - and NOT in the sense that Genesis/Exodus portrays them as originating from Canaan, entering Egypt, becoming slaves, and then returning to their "Promised Land" to reclaim it against the Canaanite "giants". That sort of idea has not been seriously entertained for a very long time. In fact, "the violent conquest model has received the sternest critique of all three models" (Gnuse, idem, p. 29). They were Canaanites in the sense that I mentioned in a previous post, or as Smith puts it, "rather than viewing them as two separate cultures, some scholars define Israelite culture as a subset of Canaanite culture" (Smith, idem, p. 25).
What Smith & Co. failed to understand is that so much in Genesis as in Exodus and the books that follow it is an account of the conquest of a land that is given. Egypt was conquered by political means and Canaan by military ones.
The earth, prior to the initial arrival of the Israelites in Canaan, was inhabited by Nephelim, Anakim, Frost Giants, plain Giants, Stone-Giants, Fomorians, Asuras and Wild Kamis, to quote only the main races/tribes of the non-human inhabitants (remember that Canaan was an uninhabited by man but inhabited by Nephelim land!). All these non-humans were exterminated by the gods who usurped their land. That is the main, the original story which is recounted in the Bible twice so much as regards the location of the land (Egypt and Canaan) and also as regards the identity of the conquerors (the sons of the Gods who received the earth as their heritance and, of course, the Israelites themselves).
It is obvious that in their mythology the Israelites play the role of the gods, quite rightfully if you ask me.
How would you and your colleagues treat a scholar who would come forward saying that the Israelites are the gods of the myths?
Unfortunately scholars are not known for their bravery.
How do we then answer the question of the op?
Slavery was introduced in the life of humans by the gods (being they the Israelites, or the Greeks, the Norsemen or the Indians) and since reference is made to a book relating the story of the gods, it is impossible for that book to denounce slavery.
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.(Εx. 21:5-6)
The above slave is a “hibri” a Hebrew one.
The Israelites did not counterfeit their history.
The OT is not for tender, idealist scholars. I am sorry for them, my dear friend.
The bible writers may 'condone' slavery...but I sure don't...
Although I do understand that back then there wasn't any machines or automated production or farm equiptment to convert raw resorces into useable good...
No machines, or farm equiptment, so they needed man power...and lots of it...
So man being man, justifies slavery, in order to meet the needs of industry...
The bible writers may 'condone' slavery...but I sure don't...
Although I do understand that back then there wasn't any machines or automated production or farm equiptment to convert raw resorces into useable good...
No machines, or farm equiptment, so they needed man power...and lots of it...
So man being man, justifies slavery, in order to meet the needs of industry...
Some things never change...
It seems as if we have exchanged slavery for something very close to it in the Modern World. Now we just have to spend the money we earn to provide our own housing, food, etc. and we get a degree of freedom - as long as we can afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Yes, I got it!
Apparantly not - as your entire post shows.
Dtango: Harbinger of the Giants! Herald of the Old Ones!
What do I have to tell my doctor to get the medication you're using? It sounds fun! Perhaps then we can have a "meeting of the minds" in our conversations.
Dtango: Harbinger of the Giants! Herald of the Old Ones!
What do I have to tell my doctor to get the medication you're using? It sounds fun! Perhaps then we can have a "meeting of the minds" in our conversations.
His last prescription is identical with No. 182 on the Ebers medical papyrus entitled: “How to drive out the Giant’s decease”
I am currently studying the diseases by which gods and goddesses as well as Giants and Giantesses contaminated men.
Wait and see!
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.
