OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I actually wouldn't characterize Peretti's work as "fire and brimstone" at all. I read some of his early books, and thought they were an interesting take. I certainly can understand muffler's tangibility concerns, though. Haven't read any of his non-fiction, I don't think.

Fair enough, as I admitted, having not read the work(s) I'm not really in any postion to state an opinion. Just my "gut."

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

Fair enough, as I admitted, having not read the work(s) I'm not really in any postion to state an opinion. Just my "gut."

Not a problem, just wanted to fill in where I could.

Peretti uses a very literal interpretation of angels and demons, and gives them very active roles in everyday life. However, my memory of the books is that they were very sympathetic to human characters who aren't perfect, which is why I don't see him as stereotypical fire and brimstone.

 

[muffler dragon]

Anyone have any topics they would like to talk about? I realize there are a few loose ends to others that haven't been finalized, but I'm open to anything.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Which OT passages support the notion that a Jewish Messiah would come twice?

 

[muffler dragon]

Which OT passages support the notion that a Jewish Messiah would come twice?

Since it's difficult to prove a negative, I will simply posit that there are none. :) (but I presume you already knew that)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Since it's difficult to prove a negative, I will simply posit that there are none. :) (but I presume you already knew that)

Yeah, I do. But, I'm just curious as to upon what others base the notion.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, I've been doing a lot of research on ancient kings etc. and have come to the conclusion that the Pharaoh of Exodus is most likely Ahmose I (although I think it's possible that it's Thutmose III).

Ahmose I expelled the Hyksos from Egypt (a "foreign" peoples who had overrun Egypt for quite some time) - making the Exodus the Hebrew accounting of this event. The Hyksos, so it would seem, left Egypt and found their way to the land of Canaan. Canaan, of course, is the land which G-d had promised Abraham and which we're told the Jews eventually took as their own.

So, are the Hyksos and the Hebrew at all related? Wiki I suppose the answer is "maybe" (though there does appear to be some serious division on the issue among those who are interested in this stuff.) But, consider also, the word Hebrew.

"Hebrew" may well be the same people whom the Egyptians called "Apiru" and whom the Sumarians/Akkadians called Habiru. These people - the Habiru/Apiru/Hebrew? - were peoples from the region without a country.

"...the term refers to a much wider class of 'displaced' people found from Mesopotamia to Egypt during the second millennium BC. Some took service as laborers or mercenaries, others became brigands; and runaway peasants might swell their ranks -- the term was not mainly an ethnic one."

Though it should be pointed out, this "displacement" and description of jobs is not inclusive of all Habiru. Some researches suggest that Sumerian records described many Habiri as active in service roles in the community, even up until the time of Nebuchadnezzar (this actually relates some to the idea I've stumbled upon which is that the Israelites have their beginnings in Sumeria (See, e.g., Flood of Genesis with Epic of Gilgamesh EDIT - also, the Sumerian Kings List outlines several folks with what lifespans which would be considered ridiculous by today's measures (969 years... pfft... they had a King who ruled for 36,000 some years. ) but is beyond the point of this post for now). But, others note that a very early Sumerian writer from the reign of Shugli of Ur, noted the Habiru as "unclothed people, who travel in dead silence, who destroy everything, whose menfolk go where they will ? they establish their tents and their camps ? they spend their time in the countryside without observing the decrees of my king" (Following the law, if my theory is correct on how they ended up in Egypt in the first place is correct, would be an issue.... IT would seem the Hyksos began to dominate Egypt during the reign of Hammurabi, who you may remember as a Babylonian King who made up all kinds of law... that is to say, it is my theory the Habiru did not care much for Hammurabi's "tight ship" and they invaded Egypt... invaded in the mass movement of people sense of the world, and not so much the "with intent to secure" sense. I believe the Hyksos were not specifically Habiru, but that the Habiru "joined" the Hyksos. A look at the Egyptian Kings list during the Hyksos reign does reveal awfully peculiar names - the most notable to me being a guy named "Jacob-baal" Not an Egyptian name, wouldn't you agree? Sounds pretty Jewish to me.... especially the Jacob part... I digress again... sorry)

Ok.. anyway, so the Habiru/Apiru/Hebrew? are peoples who had no country and engaged in various labors and so on. Let's look at how Abraham is described when we first meet him in the Bible:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

"Leave your country, people and father's house...." v. "class of 'displaced' people found from Mesopotamia"

I think the words Apiru/Habiru and Hebrew are describing the same peoples. The Hebrews.... who would later settle in Canaan after the Exodus... who would become known to us as Israelites... or Jews. In a sense, the Hebrew... in the 12 tribes sort of sense... are a lot like the whole "melting pot" idea of America. I believe these 12 tribes describe 12 kinds of nomads, of whom I think the Hyksos ended up being one of, who all came to worship the same G-d... and who earned power in the region at some point.

All this means to me is, that the Bible does indeed tell of true events, even if written from the perspective of a particular peoples (as opposed to the history written by competing peoples (like the Egyptians or Akkadians, etc.). I know most of my posts are about what is "wrong" with the Bible, and this one is intended to be "what is right" with it. However, I must note, this assertion has very little to do with G-d, and everything to do with ancient history and cross verification of sources. I do not believe G-d directed an exodus as described in the Bible - that is, as should be no surprise coming from me - there was no magic. No parting of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds?) no unexplained events... (though I do subscribe to the theory that the 10 Plagues describe environmental calamities)... just an accounting of the movements of a people who would one day rule a land.

I should also note that to the extent that my research on this topic has any credibility, the flood is absolutely doomed as literally accounted for. While I am on record as believing the tale describes an actual event, though displaced remarkably in time, if we are to use independent records to verify - or, I guess I should say "identify" - Pharaoh's and such, it becomes quite clear the Egyptians didn't notice the flood at all... but, that's really beyond the point here.

Point is this... I believe the Exodus is a real event. I believe the Pharaoh of Exodus was most likely Ahmose I. You may notice how "Ahmose" resembles "Moshe" or "Moses" There is a reason for that. Moses is an Egyptian name. I've heard (and am trying to confirm) that Ahmose translates in to Hebrew as "brother of Moses"... but, now I'm leaning towards the idea that Moses is simply Ahmose - and is he who expelled the Hyksos.... or, from the Hyksos perspective, he who set in motion what would be their exodus from Egypt to Canaan.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Oh, and I forgot, the Apiru are mentioned by the Egyptians as being laborers. And even slaves on some occasions.

Likewise, I failed to mention the Amarna letters which discusses the problematic Apiru/Habiru.

 

[Gatorubet]

Oh, and I forgot, the Apiru are mentioned by the Egyptians as being laborers. And even slaves on some occasions.

Likewise, I failed to mention the Amarna letters which discusses the problematic Apiru/Habiru.

And then they went to Missouri.

 

[Gatorubet]

Actually, BKB, that is interesting. I'm sure that several tomes will follow.
Darn. Kicked off again.

I was recently reading a theory about the emergence of the deity Yahweh that said Yahweh came to Israel from Edom, only to be accepted into the early Israelite Canaanite pantheon (Baal, Asherah, El, etc.) The author theorizes that El and Yahweh converged, drawing from Ugaritic texts and the similarities between El and Yahweh, Yahweh ultimately absorbing Baal's attributes as well.

I was looking at the early Genesis texts where polytheism is implied "3:22Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

At an archaeological dig at a site "Kuntillet Ajrud" pottery was found that had inscriptions that were translated as "YHWH and his Asherah", which suggests that at that time Yahweh was worshiped with a consort, or as a couple. In any event, not as the only Deity. Asherah was the consort of El, so maybe that reflects the transition and substitution of Yahweh for El as the Supreme being. In any event, perhaps the old testament gives us a glimpse into the earliest beliefs of the ancient polytheistic Israelis.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, BKB, that is interesting. I'm sure that several tomes will follow.

Eh, just kinda getting my thoughts in order a little bit. I've been looking at quite a bit of stuff on this topic over the last few weeks, but feel comfortable enough about it now that I thought I'd bounce it around here and see what comes of it.

 

[buckeyegrad]

At an archaeological dig at a site "Kuntillet Ajrud" pottery was found that had was found that had inscriptions that were translated as "YHWH and his Asherah", which suggests that at that time Yahweh was worshiped with a consort, or as a couple. In any event, not as the only Deity. Asherah was the consort of El, so maybe that reflects the transition and substitution of Yahweh for El as the Supreme being. In any event, perhaps the old testament gives us a glimpse into the earliest beliefs of the ancient polytheistic Israelis.

From the Old Testament we would would expect to find such evidence. Kuntillet Ajrud is believed to have been settled in the 7th to 9th centuries BCE. This places it right at the time of the two kingdom period, which Chronicles, Kings, and the prophets show to be a time that the Israelites strayed from the true faith given through Moses and introduced all forms of idolatry into their worship. Remember that G-d told Elijiah that there was only a faithful remnant of 7000 who remained in Israel at his time. We also know that Asherah polls were erected in the First Temple. It was this mixing of foreign gods that the prophets primarily decried, that lead to the Israelites being conquered by Assyria and Babylon, and resulted in YHWH's shekhinah glory departing from his temple (as shown in Ezekiel).

To suggest that the inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud somehow indicate that the Israelite's earliest beliefs were polytheistic is to dismiss the only account we have of what was occurring at that time, which gives quite a different understanding.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, BKB, that is interesting. I'm sure that several tomes will follow.
Darn. Kicked off again.

I was recently reading a theory about the emergence of the deity Yahweh that said Yahweh came to Israel from Edom, only to be accepted into the early Israelite Canaanite pantheon (Baal, Asherah, El, etc.) The author theorizes that El and Yahweh converged, drawing from Ugaritic texts and the similarities between El and Yahweh, Yahweh ultimately absorbing Baal's attributes as well.

I was looking at the early Genesis texts where polytheism is implied "3:22Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

At an archaeological dig at a site "Kuntillet Ajrud" pottery was found that had inscriptions that were translated as "YHWH and his Asherah", which suggests that at that time Yahweh was worshiped with a consort, or as a couple. In any event, not as the only Deity. Asherah was the consort of El, so maybe that reflects the transition and substitution of Yahweh for El as the Supreme being. In any event, perhaps the old testament gives us a glimpse into the earliest beliefs of the ancient polytheistic Israelis.

I have read a similar (maybe the same?) book, called [ame="http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563"]A History of God[/ame] by Karen Armstrong. Interesting stuff.

To suggest that the inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud somehow indicate that the Israelite's earliest beliefs were polytheistic is to dismiss the only account we have of what was occurring at that time, which gives quite a different understanding.

Only account? Hardly. There was a great deal of folks writing stuff at the time, including the Egyptians and Bablylonians, and while I've not yet completed my research in to the issue, I suspect the Assyrians and Hittites were also just a-scribbing away.

To accept only the Biblical accounting of ancient history is to dismiss the possibility of understanding a more accurate picture of civilization past. That may or may not be the least bit important, but I'm troubled by your comment above to the extent that it appears to warn about dismissing stuff when you're likewise dismissing things written contemporaneously. Of course, it's entirely possible I've just simply misunderstood you.

 

[buckeyegrad]

To accept only the Biblical accounting of ancient history is to dismiss the possibility of understanding a more accurate picture of civilization past. That may or may not be the least bit important, but I'm troubled by your comment above to the extent that it appears to warn about dismissing stuff when you're likewise dismissing things written contemporaneously. Of course, it's entirely possible I've just simply misunderstood you.

I should have been more clear. When I said the only source, I did not mean to dismiss other accounts in terms of what was occurring at that time in the history of civilization, rather I was specifically speaking of the history of the Israelites. As far as I am aware, the writings from other civilizations at the time, which we still have, do not mention what was occurring among the ancient Israelites.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I should have been more clear. When I said the only source, I did not mean to dismiss other accounts in terms of what was occurring at that time in the history of civilization, rather I was specifically speaking of the history of the Israelites. As far as I am aware, the writings from other civilizations at the time, which we still have, do not mention what was occurring among the ancient Israelites.

So it would seem. Unless the Apiru/Habiru are indeed the Hebrew as I discussed above. I feel we have to think the Apiru/Habiru are the Hebrew for one very important reason which I think you might accept....

We know ... or at least believe ... that the Israelites were in the area from Egypt to Babylon during the time of Biblical history. There is NO contemporaneous text which mentions "Isrealites" - most notably in Egypt - which I discuss more in a second. Now, there are Bablylonian records which acknowledge the Egyptians.. Egyptians texts which show awarness of Assyrains, Babylonians... Nubians.. and so on... but still, no where do we see any mention of the peoples of the Bible... UNLESS they are the Apiru/Hebiru "nomads" which are mentioned by several contemporaneous sources

The importance of the Egyptian failure to mention Isrealites is this. While I think we could agree that Egyptian scribes wouldn't write a lot about their failures, they sure don't seem to have had any problems writing about their successes and activities over people they dominated.... including, of course, the Apiru. Now, I would doubt that the Slaves of the Exodus would have written about their having been slaves. That is to say, I believe the Biblical account that these people were being forced to work for the Egyptians. Now then... wouldn't the Egyptians mention this? They mention other slaves... quite proudly, actually.. but.. never the Isrealites.

I would argue they do, and they call them Apiru. Hebrew. A "class" of nomdic folks (Without a country). As I noted above, Abraham was advised by G-d to leave his people and wander to where G-d told him to go, and was eventually promised the land of Canaan. But.. it was not until Jacob that Isreal was born... and even then, it was by name only, and not necessarily nation (as a plot of land). I want to tread lightly here on Jacob, because I'm going to try and explore the possibility that the Jacob of the Bible is the Jacob-Baal of the Hyksos rule in Egypt.

Anyway.... my point is, I think it's all but certain the Apiru/Habiru are talking about the very same people who the Bible discusses. I am aware that there is much schollarly debate on the issue, and it's not the least bit settled... but, I can't fathom another possibility.