OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.

Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.

In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.

In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.

Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat.  Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.

One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.

Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.

I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

...

I'd agree that a small number of escapee slaves could have left Egypt. With such a small number the rest of the storytelling is not needed.

Several dozen to 100 people easily could have got past the border posts and made it to Palestine. Doing so in way less than 40 years.

No parting the Reed Sea or flooding out the chariots of Egypt required. Besides which, they could have walked or waded through the Reed Sea.

Moving on.

At the time this was supposed to have occurred Egypt rules the eastern Med up to the Euphrates river. It was the New Kingdom period. It was the time Egypt ruled from "the river in Egypt to the Euphrates" which was the model for the storyteller who claimed the same land was promised to Abraham and later ruled by Solomon.

The entire story is an entertaining retelling of real history in the same way storytellers have always rehashed history for their fiction. The fact that it is historical fiction also dates it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since we have moved on, I leave you to further research this subject on your own.

Alright.  I am convinced that the dating was in error and that the research this person has done and published as of the past couple years is sound and legitimate.  I watched the hour long presentation on the link I gave you and with the pottery information included and the detail at which he goes into on the subject, it seems quite clear.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I went through that link and it is not convincing. Wood is claiming about 1400, though tests are in a wide range.

If we go with his 1400 date and add 40 to 50 years to it, we are in about 1440 to 1450 BCE. The 40 to 50 years are the supposed time the Hebrews wandered in the desert.

The current Pharaoh then would be Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE)

During his reign many battles ocurred between Egypt and the Mitanni. Thutmose attacked sucessfully many city states of the Mitanni during this time.

Egypt dominated the area through the reigns of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV, leaving no room for an invading horde of escapee slaves from Egypt called Hebrews to conquer anything.

See Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw, pp 243-253,

see also the Armana Letters,  - http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amarna/corpus

see the Annals from Egypt - this one is about Thutmose III on Wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Thutmose_III

I'll check out those links, but he argued the date discrepency can go either way and archealogists prefer other means of dating to confirm occurances.  His video goes further into that.  The pottery dates to the Biblical claim.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We haven't found any being that created anything.

Pretty much why we have this discussion. You claim the god(s) did it and have nothing physical to show that was so.

That's because we're looking for the wrong information.  I've used the example that someone is trying to make me prove to them that Kangaroos exist using an apple.  You yourself said "we haven't found any being that created anything...you claim the god(s) did it and have nothing physical to show that was so."   You're asking for physical proof of a metaphysical occurance. 

Our walk through of history is working on the physical means of proof that at least the stories of the Bible have a place in history, but this in no way even begins to scratch the surface of how God fits into the picture.  Through history and historical geology, we can see evidences of occurances that are claimed to have been caused by God such as the crossing of the Jordan and the Reed Sea through natural events.  Whether that was an actual act of God or whether people just happened to be at the right place at the right time every time, well it's a subjective interpretation through history alone. 

To actually research the God, we would have to look at more recent activity and events and analize them. 

Though I am enjoying our historical walk through and learning a lot in the process.  I remember way back when we started we both agreed that we're not going to convince each other of our understanding of the truth and that we were going into the historical walkthrough really just for the fun of having the discussion.  With that understanding, I'm not sitting here trying to show you evidence of God, I'm trying to show you evidences in history of the stories of the Bible.  If you see God working in any of that, it's an understanding you would have come to and nothing I tried to convince you of. 

We've both agreed that through history there's some stuff we can understand and know and there's some stuff we just can't know from researching history alone.  The unknowns in any way do not discredit God, nor do they prove him.  They're just gaps in the historical records that we may or may not eventually find through more digging and research.  Simple as that.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, you don't seem to get what I meant above. If that what occurred in the storytelling is explained by science or was just misunderstood by the ancients then none of it contributes towards a basis for a god.

All the ancients misunderstood much of what our elementary school children understand today. The texts are filled with claims of various gods doing this and that. Yet, it really only shows they were ignorant of the reasons. The god did it idea was the way they labeled it for they had no other way to understand.

Ignorance of reasoning does not prove or disprove a god's involvement.  People still use the excuse of ignorance today for those who believe in God, but unfortuately for those who claim that, there are some very intelligent and involved minds who believe in God.  That case against God has sunk in the depths long ago.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know you claim the god works through normal means and claim its the timing.

None of which you can actually show or prove.

This discussion is going off track as they do time to time.

It is going off track... your conclusion is also subjective...e.g. nothing I can show or prove.  proof is subjective and showing anything and what you conclude from that is also subjective.  Evidences are undeniable. we need to stick to our focus.  We already know we're not working on convincing each other through this particular study. right?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I'd

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'd agree that a small number of escapee slaves could have left Egypt. With such a small number the rest of the storytelling is not needed.

Several dozen to 100 people easily could have got past the border posts and made it to Palestine. Doing so in way less than 40 years.

No parting the Reed Sea or flooding out the chariots of Egypt required. Besides which, they could have walked or waded through the Reed Sea.

Moving on.

It's one thing to look at the evidences, it's another thing to inject your own possibilities.  Sure, anything could happen, but we have not found an alternative story or timeline that would take the place of the Biblical story/timeline.  We have agreed that it is possible that it could have happened this way.

Therefore, whether it was really had to take 40 years or not, there's nothing in history to suggest it didn't.  Whetehr the parting of the Reed Sea happened or not or was even necessary, there's nothing in history to say it didn't, and there is geological evidence that it could have happened as described. 

In conclusion, I can inject my own interpretation and say for sure that it did happen because the Bible says so... You can also inject your own interpretation and say that other means of escape and timing were possible.. and we're back to where we started once again. 

Evidences in this case point to the Biblical claim being true be it that there is a space for it in the timeline of history and it was a possible occurance in a smaller volume.  There are no evidences of an alternative occurance by any means no matter how unnecessary the alleged occurance was, so any injection of such is purely speculation and is not necessary.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since we have moved on, I leave you to further research this subject on your own.

Alright.  I am convinced that the dating was in error and that the research this person has done and published as of the past couple years is sound and legitimate.  I watched the hour long presentation on the link I gave you and with the pottery information included and the detail at which he goes into on the subject, it seems quite clear.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I went through that link and it is not convincing. Wood is claiming about 1400, though tests are in a wide range.

If we go with his 1400 date and add 40 to 50 years to it, we are in about 1440 to 1450 BCE. The 40 to 50 years are the supposed time the Hebrews wandered in the desert.

The current Pharaoh then would be Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE)

During his reign many battles ocurred between Egypt and the Mitanni. Thutmose attacked sucessfully many city states of the Mitanni during this time.

Egypt dominated the area through the reigns of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV, leaving no room for an invading horde of escapee slaves from Egypt called Hebrews to conquer anything.

See Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw, pp 243-253,

see also the Armana Letters,  - http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amarna/corpus

see the Annals from Egypt - this one is about Thutmose III on Wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Thutmose_III

I'll check out those links, but he argued the date discrepency can go either way and archealogists prefer other means of dating to confirm occurances.  His video goes further into that.  The pottery dates to the Biblical claim.

In my research I have not found an opening for the Hebrew "invaders" to invade Palestine without encountering either Egyptian forces, Mitanni or Hittites. That was the point I'm making.

I go pretty much with Israel Finkelstein's position that the Jews of Judah are just like everyone else in Palestine, they settled in the highlands as did they all.

As to the Northern kingdom, I'm not convinced it was ever part of the religious beliefs of Judah at all. We will get into that as we go through 1 & 2 Kings.

And this view is not just formed from his book but others, such as "The View from Nebo" by Amy Dockser Marcus, many history books on Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, some of which I have mentioned before.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We haven't found any being that created anything.

Pretty much why we have this discussion. You claim the god(s) did it and have nothing physical to show that was so.

That's because we're looking for the wrong information.  I've used the example that someone is trying to make me prove to them that Kangaroos exist using an apple.  You yourself said "we haven't found any being that created anything...you claim the god(s) did it and have nothing physical to show that was so."   You're asking for physical proof of a metaphysical occurance. 

Our walk through of history is working on the physical means of proof that at least the stories of the Bible have a place in history, but this in no way even begins to scratch the surface of how God fits into the picture.  Through history and historical geology, we can see evidences of occurances that are claimed to have been caused by God such as the crossing of the Jordan and the Reed Sea through natural events.  Whether that was an actual act of God or whether people just happened to be at the right place at the right time every time, well it's a subjective interpretation through history alone. 

To actually research the God, we would have to look at more recent activity and events and analize them. 

Though I am enjoying our historical walk through and learning a lot in the process.  I remember way back when we started we both agreed that we're not going to convince each other of our understanding of the truth and that we were going into the historical walkthrough really just for the fun of having the discussion.  With that understanding, I'm not sitting here trying to show you evidence of God, I'm trying to show you evidences in history of the stories of the Bible.  If you see God working in any of that, it's an understanding you would have come to and nothing I tried to convince you of. 

We've both agreed that through history there's some stuff we can understand and know and there's some stuff we just can't know from researching history alone.  The unknowns in any way do not discredit God, nor do they prove him.  They're just gaps in the historical records that we may or may not eventually find through more digging and research.  Simple as that.

You know I can't just pass by and let you make unwarranted god did it claims.

The problem I have with the metaphysical being idea is if it made the world and supposedly interacted then it did or does have a physical connection. Therefore some physical proof should exist.

I agree, neither of us will move from our view, fun all the same.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, you don't seem to get what I meant above. If that what occurred in the storytelling is explained by science or was just misunderstood by the ancients then none of it contributes towards a basis for a god.

All the ancients misunderstood much of what our elementary school children understand today. The texts are filled with claims of various gods doing this and that. Yet, it really only shows they were ignorant of the reasons. The god did it idea was the way they labeled it for they had no other way to understand.

Ignorance of reasoning does not prove or disprove a god's involvement.  People still use the excuse of ignorance today for those who believe in God, but unfortuately for those who claim that, there are some very intelligent and involved minds who believe in God.  That case against God has sunk in the depths long ago.

We see this from far different perspectives.

I see misunderstanding where you see the god "may have been" involved.

No point in discussing further. Neither of us will give on our position.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know you claim the god works through normal means and claim its the timing.

None of which you can actually show or prove.

This discussion is going off track as they do time to time.

It is going off track... your conclusion is also subjective...e.g. nothing I can show or prove.  proof is subjective and showing anything and what you conclude from that is also subjective.  Evidences are undeniable. we need to stick to our focus.  We already know we're not working on convincing each other through this particular study. right?

Again, I can't just let you slide in god did it claims without comment. Back on focus.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In my research I have not found an opening for the Hebrew "invaders" to invade Palestine without encountering either Egyptian forces, Mitanni or Hittites. That was the point I'm making.

You should at least browse the presentation.  His point was that the pottery found was of a value that would not be logical to find there unless there was something more to claim about the location.  He obviously goes on to say that the Biblical story is shown though that finding... He goes into geological occurances and other researchable situations that further validate the Biblical account.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I go pretty much with Israel Finkelstein's position that the Jews of Judah are just like everyone else in Palestine, they settled in the highlands as did they all.

Could be... these stories are from one particular account and in no way speak for all of Jews during that time.  I'm sure there were many many other Jewish communities not mentioned in scripture who had a different walk of life.  Remember these stories follow a very specific genealogy. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
As to the Northern kingdom, I'm not convinced it was ever part of the religious beliefs of Judah at all. We will get into that as we go through 1 & 2 Kings.

ok

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And this view is not just formed from his book but others, such as "The View from Nebo" by Amy Dockser Marcus, many history books on Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, some of which I have mentioned before.

You can take any one story from history and deem it true or false based on X... but you can't assume then that all other stories fall under the same reasoning for truth or fiction.  Each story should be compared, but also taken on their own. 

Unless you have a specific likeness comparison or have some way of logically comparing one story to another, their place in history shouldn't be a factor in your decision.  With that likeness, we'd need to see how they compare and why before considering their place in history.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You know I can't just pass by and let you make unwarranted god did it claims.

That's the thing... I'm not making any "God did it" claims.  I'm saying God is claimed to have done it... looking in history, the story has grounds for basis in truth.  I never once said that due to the fact that X story can be proven in history, God did it.  If you feel I've implied that, then I'm sorry, it was never my intention, only to talk about the stories as is.  Be it that the stories are based around the Jewish belief in God, the topic of God will of course come up in the stories.  As I've said though, history alone barely scratches the surface of how God fits into the picture... in other words, from our walkthrough alone, i can't claim "God did it", only that there is evidence in history among other avenues that the events happened as claimed. 

And again, if you see that as a claim that God did it, then it's your own conclusion and you can't blame me for saying it unless you can quote me on it. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem I have with the metaphysical being idea is if it made the world and supposedly interacted then it did or does have a physical connection. Therefore some physical proof should exist.

Of course God has a physical connection and of course there is physical proof... but what is physical proof of God's actions if you can't consider God as a possibility?  Take the God possibility out and all we're left with are natural explanations... as to which I've said God would work through his creation and so you'd likely find them... but it comes down to the irony of location and time. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I agree, neither of us will move from our view, fun all the same.

exactly

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, you don't seem to get what I meant above. If that what occurred in the storytelling is explained by science or was just misunderstood by the ancients then none of it contributes towards a basis for a god.

That's like saying if you can explain something I did, then I didn't really do it.   It again comes down to the timing and location.  How ironic or phenominal can something be before it's too ironic to be ironic?  Events that can be explained in multiple ways doesn't leave the cause up to a subjective decision, it still had only one cause regardless of how many ways you can explain its happening.  

I mean sure, someone could win the powerball 10 times in a row, but would you blow it off as explainable because... well, he played and his odds of winning are the same so it's possible, or are you going to assume he's cheating the system. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We see this from far different perspectives.

I see misunderstanding where you see the god "may have been" involved.

Different perspectives does not give either of us leeway to come to subjective conclusions. 

My "god may have been involved" is only taking all possibilties into consideration, just as any good scientist would do.  Unlike atheistic POV's, I consider God as one of many possibilites. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No point in discussing further. Neither of us will give on our position.

As we originally agreed.  I've always said I'm willing to change my perspective if someone can give me logical and empirical reasoning to do so. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Again, I can't just let you slide in god did it claims without comment. Back on focus.

Just remember what i said about those alleged "god did it" claims you suggest.

Back on focus.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I know we get sidetracked

I know we get sidetracked from time to time, but I hope that didn't deter you from continuing with the historical walk through with me.  I have been enjoying what i've been learning and sharing.   Hope all is well with you


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Working too much

I have been working too much on my seasonal side job lately, I do taxes for one of the major tax prepare companies. I'll have more time soon and will continue on this subject.

I was also putting in significant time with the Gramster on his thread for a while, though he has now bailed.

I do appreciate our discussions, thanks for asking about me as well.

 

PJTS

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have been working too much on my seasonal side job lately, I do taxes for one of the major tax prepare companies. I'll have more time soon and will continue on this subject.

I was also putting in significant time with the Gramster on his thread for a while, though he has now bailed.

I do appreciate our discussions, thanks for asking about me as well.

 

PJTS

 

Sure.  Life comes first.  Just making sure you're good and that I wasn't the reason you stopped.  By all means, take your time. 

Taxes huh... k, I'll be hearing from you in June then Eye-wink  Gl with that


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Continuing 1 Kings 2 & 3

1 Kings 2
This chapter describes King David's instruction to Solomon as he supposedly neared his end.
He tells him to follow the Law of Moses such that he may prosper. This will supposedly insure that the heirs of David will continue on the throne.
He goes over all the insurrection that has happened during his own reign, instructing Solomon to rule wisely.
David then dies soon after reigning 40 years. Solomon is now upon the throne. We already discussed the time line issues earlier.


Solomon then begins the purges that so often occur on the change of leaders.
His 1st action is to have his older brother Adonijah executed. He then orders Abiathar to go to Anathoth as he is worthy of death but Solomon told him as he carried the Ark of the god for David and was affected as David was he would not do so. This was to fulfill the word of the god in regard to Eli. Next in line was Joab who had sided with Adonijah. Solomon hears he has fled to the tabernacle of the god and sends Benaiah to slay him. He would not leave and told him to slay him there. Benaiah returns to Solomon who told him to go back and kill him there. He does. His reward is to be put in charge of Solomon's forces. Zadok the priest replaces Abiathar.


The purge is not over. He next calls for Shimei. He tells him to build a house in Jerusalem and not to ever leave it or he would be killed. 3 years go by and 2 of his servants ran away to Gath. He pursued them. Solomon hears of it. When Shimei returns he is called by the king. He is told that he has broken his oath to the3 god and will die. Benaiah kills him.


1 Kings 3
Solomon makes an alliance with the Egyptian Pharaoh, which includes the marriage to one of the Pharaoh's daughters.

Solomon continues in his building program for his palace and the temple to the god. Meanwhile the people continue to sacrifice in the high places.


Solomon prays to the god that he be granted wisdom. The god liked this request as he had not asked for riches or long life nor even the eradication of his enemies. So the god granted him wisdom and understanding.


As an example of this wisdom is the famous story of the 2 whores both who gave birth within days. The second whore's child had died because she crushed it in sleep. The 1st woman claimed that when she woke up that she found a dead baby in her bed, not hers but that of the 2nd. The other denied that she had switched them. So they had come to the king for his wisdom and judgment. He calls for a sword to divide the child in half. Th 1st woman says no give it to the other while the 2nd said, go ahead divide the child. Solomon orders the child to be given to the 1st woman as she was surely the mother.


All of this is not substantiated in any way. It's not even clear Solomon was ever a king as no other country of his time ever mentions him. This becomes even more of an issue as we progress through his story.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:1

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 2
This chapter describes King David's instruction to Solomon as he supposedly neared his end.
He tells him to follow the Law of Moses such that he may prosper. This will supposedly insure that the heirs of David will continue on the throne.
He goes over all the insurrection that has happened during his own reign, instructing Solomon to rule wisely.
David then dies soon after reigning 40 years. Solomon is now upon the throne. We already discussed the time line issues earlier.


Solomon then begins the purges that so often occur on the change of leaders.
His 1st action is to have his older brother Adonijah executed. He then orders Abiathar to go to Anathoth as he is worthy of death but Solomon told him as he carried the Ark of the god for David and was affected as David was he would not do so. This was to fulfill the word of the god in regard to Eli. Next in line was Joab who had sided with Adonijah. Solomon hears he has fled to the tabernacle of the god and sends Benaiah to slay him. He would not leave and told him to slay him there. Benaiah returns to Solomon who told him to go back and kill him there. He does. His reward is to be put in charge of Solomon's forces. Zadok the priest replaces Abiathar.


The purge is not over. He next calls for Shimei. He tells him to build a house in Jerusalem and not to ever leave it or he would be killed. 3 years go by and 2 of his servants ran away to Gath. He pursued them. Solomon hears of it. When Shimei returns he is called by the king. He is told that he has broken his oath to the3 god and will die. Benaiah kills him.


1 Kings 3
Solomon makes an alliance with the Egyptian Pharaoh, which includes the marriage to one of the Pharaoh's daughters.

Solomon continues in his building program for his palace and the temple to the god. Meanwhile the people continue to sacrifice in the high places.


Solomon prays to the god that he be granted wisdom. The god liked this request as he had not asked for riches or long life nor even the eradication of his enemies. So the god granted him wisdom and understanding.


As an example of this wisdom is the famous story of the 2 whores both who gave birth within days. The second whore's child had died because she crushed it in sleep. The 1st woman claimed that when she woke up that she found a dead baby in her bed, not hers but that of the 2nd. The other denied that she had switched them. So they had come to the king for his wisdom and judgment. He calls for a sword to divide the child in half. Th 1st woman says no give it to the other while the 2nd said, go ahead divide the child. Solomon orders the child to be given to the 1st woman as she was surely the mother.


All of this is not substantiated in any way. It's not even clear Solomon was ever a king as no other country of his time ever mentions him. This becomes even more of an issue as we progress through his story.

Kings was designed to be a sequal if you will to the Samuel series.  It all used to be kings, then later split up.   The chronology of kings is a lot of researched estimation.  Zondervan is quoted to be saying, "By integrating Biblical data with thsoe derived from Assyrian chronological records, the year 853 B.C. can be fixed as the year of Ahab's death, and the year 841 as the year Jehu began to reign..........With these (and other mentioned) fixed points, it is then possible to work both forward and backward in the lines of the kings of Israel and Judah to give dates for each king."

It is generally clear in the writing that the author used a variety of sources, 3 are named "the book of the acts of Solomon"  "The book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel"  "The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah"  It is understood that many other sources were used beyond these.  To conclude how clear or unclear the claims in Kings are, we'd have to study each source used... which is impossible at this time.  Generally, when mutliple sources are used however, it is understood that the compilation of the information is more accurate vs. less.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Kings was

caposkia wrote:

Kings was designed to be a sequal if you will to the Samuel series.  It all used to be kings, then later split up. 

I know that Samuel and Kings were all once called Kings.

caposkia wrote:

The chronology of kings is a lot of researched estimation. 

Interesting way to put it.

caposkia wrote:

Zondervan is quoted to be saying, "By integrating Biblical data with thsoe derived from Assyrian chronological records, the year 853 B.C. can be fixed as the year of Ahab's death, and the year 841 as the year Jehu began to reign..........With these (and other mentioned) fixed points, it is then possible to work both forward and backward in the lines of the kings of Israel and Judah to give dates for each king."

The Assyrian records do substantiate Ahab and Jehu. However, the Assyrians do not detail what god beliefs were prevalent in Palestine.

Going backwards from Ahab and the Omri dynasty into the storytelling legends of Solomon, David and Saul is what I call interpolation. Though a point on the other side of the David dynasty would be nice, which there isn't

on the historical side from other lands and cultures.

caposkia wrote:

It is generally clear in the writing that the author used a variety of sources, 3 are named "the book of the acts of Solomon"  "The book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel"  "The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah"  It is understood that many other sources were used beyond these.  To conclude how clear or unclear the claims in Kings are, we'd have to study each source used... which is impossible at this time. 

Yes it is impossible as these supposed books are lost to time.

caposkia wrote:

Generally, when mutliple sources are used however, it is understood that the compilation of the information is more accurate vs. less.

That may not be exactly true in ancient times. Stories are told and retold orally and changed a bit. The compiler enters his own views into the mix as well discrediting parts he

does not accept and injecting his own opinions.

I will continue later today with our adventure.

PJTS

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Continung 1 Kings 4

1 Kings 4

Verse 1 indicates that Solomon was King over all Israel. I personally doubt that was so.

1-Nothing in the northern part of Palestine called Israel during this time period indicates what their religion may have been circa 10th century BCE.

They clearly worshiped the standard Canaanite deities.

2-Solomon has never been shown to have existed or discussed by other countries of his time period.

3-Archaeological finds indicate 2 completely different distinct societies dating back far before the alleged time period under discussion.

Please refer to Finkelstein's book The Bible Unearthed, pp130-145; pp149-162.

The next verses detail the officers and princes in Solomon's employ.

Verse 21 indicates Solomon ruled over all the land from the river (Jordan or Euphrates) to the land of the Philistines (coastal cities) and as far as the border of Egypt.

Where the border of Egypt was located is not mentioned, it was not the Nile however probably somewhere in the Gaza desert. This verse also does not indicate how far to the north the alleged kingdom encompassed unless the river is meant as Euphrates not the Jordan.

The next verses indicate how much provisions were needed daily - 30 measures of flour (330 bushels) and 60 measures of meal (660 bushels); 10 fat oxen; 20 more oxen from the pastures; 100 sheep; plus harts, roebucks, fallow deer, and fatted fowl.

This is far more food then the entire city of Jerusalem as well as the whole country of Judah would require during this time period due to it's very small population as shown by archeology, which for Judah consisting of some 20 odd villages including Jerusalem was 3000 to 4000 people.

You think you could feed 4000 people on 100 sheep, 30 oxen 330 bushels of flour, 660 bushels of meal? I'll be generous and use 4000 people for the entire population of Judah and Jerusalem. The oxen alone would provide over 5lbs of meat per person figuring each weighed 1500 lbs and using a 50% loss you have 30 x 1500 x 0.5 / 4000 = 5.63 lbs. The average weight of sheep is about 660 lbs. Again I'll only use 50% of the weight 100 x 660 x 0.5 /4000 = 8.25 lbs of sheep meat. and the flour was about 60 lbs per bushel x 330 / 4000 = 4.95 lbs each. The meal at a rate of 48 lbs per bushel would be 48 x 660 / 4000 = 7.92 lbs. So the entire population of Judah was eating about 26 lbs of food per day not counting the harts, roebucks, fallow deer and fatted fowl.

I think they all would be fatter than Henry the 8th.

The verse however indicates this was for Solomon's provisions meaning his household and forces.

Verse 24 claims Solomon had dominion over all the region on this side of the river (Euphrates) from Tiphsah (aka Thapsacus possibly a city on the Euphrates in Northern Syria or Southern Modern Turkey) to Azzah (Philistine city possibly Gaza) and over all the kings on this side of the river (meaning either Euphrates or Jordan).

Why I personally don't buy this - The northern area was dominated by those called the Neo-Hittites as documented by countless archaeological expeditions.

Aleppo and Carchemish are examples. The Temple of the Storm God excavated recently indicates use in this period.

See - Tiphsah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thapsacus see - http://www.biblicalzionist.com/tiphsah.html

Neo-Hittites aka syro-Hittites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro%E2%80%93Hittite_states

hama stones - http://www.hittitemonuments.com/hama/

Karkamish - http://www.hittitemonuments.com/karkamis/

Temple of the Storm God - http://www.archaeology.org/0911/abstracts/storm_god.html

Verse 25 indicates all of Judah and Israel lived safely from Dan to Beersheba during the days of Solomon.

Dan is indicated far to the North in areas likely controlled by Neo-Hittites and Aramaens and eventually Damascus aka Syria

The last verses deal with the wisdom of Solomon indicating he was known far and wide in all nations round about. As I mentioned earlier, no one seems to have documented his fame in other countries so perhaps they weren't all that impressed.

Other references for study - As I mentioned before, Israel Finkelstein's book - The Bible Unearthed; also The View from Nebo by Amy Dockser Marcus. History and Archeology books on the Neo-Hittites.

See also this link - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/archaeology.html?c=y&page=1

Also don't forget about Egyptians and the Aramaeans.

I don't see a place for Solomon in this time period as put forth in the Bible claims. Perhaps he did exist in the backwater kingdom of Judah ruling over the tribal society that archeology indicates was present during the time period.

Also I do not see a united kingdom of both Israel & Judah here, nor ever really. More on this when we get to the marriages that are discussed between the 2 kingdoms royal families after the supposed disintegration of the alleged United Monarchy.

As we continue through the chapters on Solomon, I will go into more detail on each claim I have personal issues over acceptance as likely and indicate my reasoning.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Generally, when mutliple sources are used however, it is understood that the compilation of the information is more accurate vs. less.

That may not be exactly true in ancient times. Stories are told and retold orally and changed a bit. The compiler enters his own views into the mix as well discrediting parts he

does not accept and injecting his own opinions.

I will continue later today with our adventure.

PJTS

 

Hypothetically that's true... then again with what is known of the transcribing of the texts, these were taken more carefully.  Also, if a writer was to take the time, especially in ancient history, to sit down and actually look through a compilation of documents to make sure the information they're portraying is accurate... their intention is not to embellish, rather to be as accurate as possible... otherwise, they would have more likely had 1 source for support their own adjenda. (resources weren't as easy to come by as they are today) Unfortunately to say for sure the inentions of the writer and how much is really "added" is speculation at best... my case is taken by what we know of the care taken in documenting and translating other books of the Bible.  Despite the accuracy of the originals, which can only be speculated for most, the care of translating and transcribing has been documented as immaculate.    therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the original writers didn't take just as much care. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 pauljohntheskeptic wrote:1

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 4

Verse 1 indicates that Solomon was King over all Israel. I personally doubt that was so.

ok

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1-Nothing in the northern part of Palestine called Israel during this time period indicates what their religion may have been circa 10th century BCE.

They clearly worshiped the standard Canaanite deities.

The Bible acknowledges that there were many different followings during that time in that location.  The God of the Bible was one of many... that further supports the scripture.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2-Solomon has never been shown to have existed or discussed by other countries of his time period.

this may be another situation where ruler may be more towards people groups rather than nations.  I'd have to look into it a bit more.  Keep in mind during this time, nations were not meaded out like they are today.  People were segregated more by following rather than nationality.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

3-Archaeological finds indicate 2 completely different distinct societies dating back far before the alleged time period under discussion.

Please refer to Finkelstein's book The Bible Unearthed, pp130-145; pp149-162.

Been meaning to read that book at some point anyway.  I'll have to look into it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The next verses detail the officers and princes in Solomon's employ.

Verse 21 indicates Solomon ruled over all the land from the river (Jordan or Euphrates) to the land of the Philistines (coastal cities) and as far as the border of Egypt.

Where the border of Egypt was located is not mentioned, it was not the Nile however probably somewhere in the Gaza desert. This verse also does not indicate how far to the north the alleged kingdom encompassed unless the river is meant as Euphrates not the Jordan.

The next verses indicate how much provisions were needed daily - 30 measures of flour (330 bushels) and 60 measures of meal (660 bushels); 10 fat oxen; 20 more oxen from the pastures; 100 sheep; plus harts, roebucks, fallow deer, and fatted fowl.

This is far more food then the entire city of Jerusalem as well as the whole country of Judah would require during this time period due to it's very small population as shown by archeology, which for Judah consisting of some 20 odd villages including Jerusalem was 3000 to 4000 people.

You think you could feed 4000 people on 100 sheep, 30 oxen 330 bushels of flour, 660 bushels of meal? I'll be generous and use 4000 people for the entire population of Judah and Jerusalem. The oxen alone would provide over 5lbs of meat per person figuring each weighed 1500 lbs and using a 50% loss you have 30 x 1500 x 0.5 / 4000 = 5.63 lbs. The average weight of sheep is about 660 lbs. Again I'll only use 50% of the weight 100 x 660 x 0.5 /4000 = 8.25 lbs of sheep meat. and the flour was about 60 lbs per bushel x 330 / 4000 = 4.95 lbs each. The meal at a rate of 48 lbs per bushel would be 48 x 660 / 4000 = 7.92 lbs. So the entire population of Judah was eating about 26 lbs of food per day not counting the harts, roebucks, fallow deer and fatted fowl.

I think they all would be fatter than Henry the 8th.

you're getting stuck again on numbers... we've disussed this.  Whether they're inflated or not, it does not change the plot, events, or outcome of the story... it also doens't change the validity of the story in truth.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The verse however indicates this was for Solomon's provisions meaning his household and forces.

Verse 24 claims Solomon had dominion over all the region on this side of the river (Euphrates) from Tiphsah (aka Thapsacus possibly a city on the Euphrates in Northern Syria or Southern Modern Turkey) to Azzah (Philistine city possibly Gaza) and over all the kings on this side of the river (meaning either Euphrates or Jordan).

Why I personally don't buy this - The northern area was dominated by those called the Neo-Hittites as documented by countless archaeological expeditions.

I'm curious, despite what any king claimed to have dominion over, how well do you think they were able to patrol the complete coverage area?   Better yet, do you feel they actually took the effort to thoroughly sweep every square mile of their dominion?  esp. if the coverage is as vast as claimed? 

As far as the king was concerned and as far as the people whom the king ruled over were concerned, the king was in complete control of all those terretories... However, the only ones that really mattered for was those who were under the rule of the kind and/or those who might try to take dominion over the alleged claimed territories. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Aleppo and Carchemish are examples. The Temple of the Storm God excavated recently indicates use in this period.

See - Tiphsah - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thapsacus see - http://www.biblicalzionist.com/tiphsah.html

Neo-Hittites aka syro-Hittites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro%E2%80%93Hittite_states

hama stones - http://www.hittitemonuments.com/hama/

Karkamish - http://www.hittitemonuments.com/karkamis/

Temple of the Storm God - http://www.archaeology.org/0911/abstracts/storm_god.html

Verse 25 indicates all of Judah and Israel lived safely from Dan to Beersheba during the days of Solomon.

Dan is indicated far to the North in areas likely controlled by Neo-Hittites and Aramaens and eventually Damascus aka Syria

The last verses deal with the wisdom of Solomon indicating he was known far and wide in all nations round about. As I mentioned earlier, no one seems to have documented his fame in other countries so perhaps they weren't all that impressed.

Other references for study - As I mentioned before, Israel Finkelstein's book - The Bible Unearthed; also The View from Nebo by Amy Dockser Marcus. History and Archeology books on the Neo-Hittites.

See also this link - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/archaeology.html?c=y&page=1

Also don't forget about Egyptians and the Aramaeans.

I don't see a place for Solomon in this time period as put forth in the Bible claims. Perhaps he did exist in the backwater kingdom of Judah ruling over the tribal society that archeology indicates was present during the time period.

Also I do not see a united kingdom of both Israel & Judah here, nor ever really. More on this when we get to the marriages that are discussed between the 2 kingdoms royal families after the supposed disintegration of the alleged United Monarchy.

As we continue through the chapters on Solomon, I will go into more detail on each claim I have personal issues over acceptance as likely and indicate my reasoning.

 

I will look into those links and get back to you.  The book might take longer. 

I like the detail you go into and love the fact that you're willing to give rational reasoning to your angle.  It makes me do my homework.  Despite my counters to your claims, I understand why you conclude the way you do. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Links

I looked into all the links..  I still need time to read the last link be it that it was quite long and had a story basis to it.  Very interesting from what i"ve read so far, though so far it seems any conclusion on any point is speculated only.

The rest of the links as far as I can see either don't mention Biblical claims and/or only cover a small detail here and there about history of that time.  One of the links even goes as far as to say the Biblical reigns were short... which can be supported scripturally. 

None of the links suggest a history that would replace the Biblical accounts and/or suggest that they couldn't have had a part in history.  If anything, Kings still fits in history.   Especially considering the possibility that the accounts of the Bible were short, there would be less documentation in history of such accounts happening... there would also be more room in history for them to fit.  These links suggest to me more of a possibility of truth vs. less. 

Again, i'll have to read the last link more to see where the story resolves and how. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I looked into

caposkia wrote:

I looked into all the links..  I still need time to read the last link be it that it was quite long and had a story basis to it.  Very interesting from what i"ve read so far, though so far it seems any conclusion on any point is speculated only.

The rest of the links as far as I can see either don't mention Biblical claims and/or only cover a small detail here and there about history of that time.  One of the links even goes as far as to say the Biblical reigns were short... which can be supported scripturally. 

None of the links suggest a history that would replace the Biblical accounts and/or suggest that they couldn't have had a part in history.  If anything, Kings still fits in history.   Especially considering the possibility that the accounts of the Bible were short, there would be less documentation in history of such accounts happening... there would also be more room in history for them to fit.  These links suggest to me more of a possibility of truth vs. less. 

Again, i'll have to read the last link more to see where the story resolves and how. 

Not all of the links  mention Biblical claims per se, but present relevant information for consideration and study. They give basis to what was and what was not possible.

Tiphsah for example I included to show how far it was from Jerusalem.

I included the Hittites and the Neo-Hittites as many Bible believers don't consider their impact or the importance of their civilization into the history of the time period.

The link to Hittite monuments shows the large impact and presence of both the Hittites and the Neo-Hittites. Go to the main page and spend some time going through the other pages.

Each city, town on the main page has a link to a page. For example, click on Aleppo - http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/ and you see some of the artifacts for the area, including the Storm god Stele.

The point being it shows insight into the civilization in Syria as well as parts of Turkey during the periods we are discussing.

The last link will help you to understand Finkelstein's views. Reading his book, The Bible Unearthed, is the best method however. It is difficult to present the detailed views and analysis he has done in a few short paragraphs.

For more on Israel Finkelstein go to his page at Tel Aviv University. There are links to some of his work.

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/directory/dir_israel_finkelstein.html

Also visit this link which has many of his previous articles and research as well as current projects. http://isfn.skytech.co.il/Default.aspx

I appreciate your open minded atitude to constantly question what you have accepted on faith. Questioning and understanding is what man does. The more you know, the more you want to learn.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Not

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not all of the links  mention Biblical claims per se, but present relevant information for consideration and study. They give basis to what was and what was not possible.

I grasped that much.  Still didn't see reasoning to discount Biblical accounts based on those presentations

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Tiphsah for example I included to show how far it was from Jerusalem.

I think the distance in the Bible was part of the implication of the vastness of the kings ruling.... which is also why I can easily see that many things could happen on the kings territory without the kings knowledge.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I included the Hittites and the Neo-Hittites as many Bible believers don't consider their impact or the importance of their civilization into the history of the time period.

The Bible is just one particular angle on a wide history.  It is noted that there were many cultures, even larger ones than that focused on in the Bible... why is it that Bible believers don't consider the Hittites and Neo-Hittites important?  Keep in mind, though I have sources, history is not my strong point.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The link to Hittite monuments shows the large impact and presence of both the Hittites and the Neo-Hittites. Go to the main page and spend some time going through the other pages.

Each city, town on the main page has a link to a page. For example, click on Aleppo - http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/ and you see some of the artifacts for the area, including the Storm god Stele.

The point being it shows insight into the civilization in Syria as well as parts of Turkey during the periods we are discussing.

The bible accounts for the Jewish people living among many other cultures... most of whom believed and followed other gods. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The last link will help you to understand Finkelstein's views. Reading his book, The Bible Unearthed, is the best method however. It is difficult to present the detailed views and analysis he has done in a few short paragraphs.

For more on Israel Finkelstein go to his page at Tel Aviv University. There are links to some of his work.

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/directory/dir_israel_finkelstein.html

I've heard of that book.  I'll have to read it at some point.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Also visit this link which has many of his previous articles and research as well as current projects. http://isfn.skytech.co.il/Default.aspx

I'll check those links out

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I appreciate your open minded atitude to constantly question what you have accepted on faith. Questioning and understanding is what man does. The more you know, the more you want to learn.

thanks.  it's the only way to be sure what you think you know is really true.  I appreciate that you enjoy a step by step historical runthrough of the Bible.  It's helped me add strength to my understanding of history. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Continuing 1 Kings 5

1 Kings 5

The story begins that Hiram king of Tyre, a David supporter heard Solomon was now king. Solomon tells him that David was unable to build the temple to the god due to constant warfare. Solomon plans to build it as the god prophesied as such to David. Solomon wants to hire Hiram's people to hew the wood of the cedar trees. Hiram agrees. They will float them down the coast in the Sea. In payment Solomon sent 20,000 measures of wheat for his household and 20 measures of oil each year.

In order to do this work, Solomon raised a levy of Israel of 30,000 men. Read as drafted into service (more than the entire population of the area at the time though) The men were sent to Lebanon 10,000 for a month and 2 months at home. In addition, Solomon had 3 score and 10,000 that bared burdens and 4 score thousand hewers in the mountains. And there were besides Solomon's officers there were 3300 who ruled over the workers, (read as white hats). They quarried great stones for the foundation as well.

Chapter 6

The supposed construction of the Temple began 480 years after they had escaped Egypt.

This is how some date the Exodus to 1447 BCE or so. Not the time of Rameses II but rather the time of Amenhotep II and Hatshepsut. A time that is not very likely at all. Palestine was dominated by Egypt, the Hittites, and the Mitani. Assyria and Babylon to the East both were power houses as well. though as we discussed. 50 to 100 escaped slaves would not be of much concern to anyone. Though the 100s of thousands as indicated in the Exodus tales would have been clearly noticed by one if not all. Anyway, back to the tall tale of the Temple construction.

v 2 describes the size of the Temple - the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits approximately 90' x 30' x 45'. A small high school gym with a high ceiling in other words.

Why the need for thousands of workers?

The porch of the Temple was about 30' x 15' - a double carport.

The main building had windows (not glass but lattice work) Around the main building other rooms were built for chapels and such. V 6 indicates the nethermost room was 7.5' x 9' x 10.5' Other verses give details of the final building such as any beams from the outer rooms were not attached to the main building. No hammers or axes were used as the stones were pre-cut and sized and laid in. A door for the middle room was on the right side of the building with winding stairs. The roof was made with cedar beams and boards.

The god told Solomon if he walked in his ways he would perform to his word. He would dwell with Israel and not forsake his people. So Solomon built the house and completed it.

Inside, the walls were finished with cedar as well as the flooring. And all the cedar of the inside was carved with knobs and flowers and none of the stone was visible. More interior dimensions are mentioned for the oracle where the holy of holies was located along with the Ark. The entire house was overlaid with gold and a partition of gold (chains) before the oracle. And the altar before the oracle was overlaid with gold as well. 2 cherubs of gold were made, about 15' across with a height of 15'. The entrance to the oracle were doors of olive wood and carved on them were cherubim and palm trees and fitted them with gold. All of this took about 7 years to construct.

Yet, after several invasions, and booty looting, nothing has ever been found of Solomon's Temple.

The temple complex Herod built, was much more vast in comparison.

A small gym is what is described here.

The question is where did Solomon steal all the gold? Why did no one notice this display of exorbitant extravagance.

The Solomon's Temple described in these chapters to me is a myth. First off, Solomon in Jerusalem had no where near the population base as described. Israel and Judah were not connected then if ever. The settlement patterns so indicate this was the case. Jerusalem was insignificant compared to virtually all other cities at the time, being little more than a large town with walls. The Northern part called Israel was vastly more developed at this time as were places in Syria and elsewhere.

Since none of this has ever been found and would be if it had all that much gold, one can't give legitimacy to the story. Stories of greatness are one thing if substantiated, though this one has no corroboration from anywhere.

This to me is a story that indicates how great things were at the time of United Israel and how they aren't so after. I don't consider a United Israel and Judah to have ever been, especially in the 10th century BCE.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 6

The supposed construction of the Temple began 480 years after they had escaped Egypt.

This is how some date the Exodus to 1447 BCE or so. Not the time of Rameses II but rather the time of Amenhotep II and Hatshepsut. A time that is not very likely at all. Palestine was dominated by Egypt, the Hittites, and the Mitani. Assyria and Babylon to the East both were power houses as well. though as we discussed. 50 to 100 escaped slaves would not be of much concern to anyone. Though the 100s of thousands as indicated in the Exodus tales would have been clearly noticed by one if not all. Anyway, back to the tall tale of the Temple construction.

v 2 describes the size of the Temple - the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits approximately 90' x 30' x 45'. A small high school gym with a high ceiling in other words.

Why the need for thousands of workers?

The porch of the Temple was about 30' x 15' - a double carport.

The main building had windows (not glass but lattice work) Around the main building other rooms were built for chapels and such. V 6 indicates the nethermost room was 7.5' x 9' x 10.5' Other verses give details of the final building such as any beams from the outer rooms were not attached to the main building. No hammers or axes were used as the stones were pre-cut and sized and laid in. A door for the middle room was on the right side of the building with winding stairs. The roof was made with cedar beams and boards.

The god told Solomon if he walked in his ways he would perform to his word. He would dwell with Israel and not forsake his people. So Solomon built the house and completed it.

Inside, the walls were finished with cedar as well as the flooring. And all the cedar of the inside was carved with knobs and flowers and none of the stone was visible. More interior dimensions are mentioned for the oracle where the holy of holies was located along with the Ark. The entire house was overlaid with gold and a partition of gold (chains) before the oracle. And the altar before the oracle was overlaid with gold as well. 2 cherubs of gold were made, about 15' across with a height of 15'. The entrance to the oracle were doors of olive wood and carved on them were cherubim and palm trees and fitted them with gold. All of this took about 7 years to construct.

Yet, after several invasions, and booty looting, nothing has ever been found of Solomon's Temple.

The temple complex Herod built, was much more vast in comparison.

A small gym is what is described here.

The "small gym" you're describing from what I can see only references to the inner room or "the most holy place".  The dimensions from others research including Elmer Towns suggests a structure with a height of 20 stories or 207 feet. 

The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.  They know that it didn't last much further than 586 B.C. despite timing of construction.  The Babylonians destroyed it in 586 B.C.  In it's place Harod built a much larger temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D. during the seige of Jerusalem.  The whailing wall is what is left of that larger temple. 

The floor plan is a type that has a long history in Semitic religion.  (Zondervan) 

This would suggest some possibility in history despite its labeling.  Also, due to the fact that history suggests that Harod built a similar yet much larger temple on the spot that this temple was located, it is logical that nothing has been associated with Solomon's temple, yet the evidence likened to Harod's temple could have some part in Solomon's.  Understanding that 2 similar temples were destroyed on the same spot, it would be near impossible to descipher which fragments belonged to which temple especially seeing as they were both built in close historical proximity to each other. 

Even if carbon dating could suggest older fragments of another temple prior to Harod's, be it that Harod's temple was built so soon after the destruction of Solomon's, it's also very likely that most, if not all fragments from the previous temple were "cleaned up" before construction. 

I still don't see anything to fill up the space in history that the story of Solomon likely took place.  I see there was a lot of opposing powers within the boundaries of Solomon's reign, but that was common of any kingdom during the time.  The larger the claimed area, the more likely other powers claimed the same territory unaware of each other's claim... When those opposing claims were found out, historically there'd be a war.  This again is congruent with most kingdoms of the time and earlier. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The question is where did Solomon steal all the gold? Why did no one notice this display of exorbitant extravagance.

don't know.  Though more things have been forgotten in history than we could even begin to imagine.  I find it very likely that someone did notice, we just don't have documentation of it. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Solomon's Temple described in these chapters to me is a myth. First off, Solomon in Jerusalem had no where near the population base as described. Israel and Judah were not connected then if ever. The settlement patterns so indicate this was the case. Jerusalem was insignificant compared to virtually all other cities at the time, being little more than a large town with walls. The Northern part called Israel was vastly more developed at this time as were places in Syria and elsewhere.

Since none of this has ever been found and would be if it had all that much gold, one can't give legitimacy to the story. Stories of greatness are one thing if substantiated, though this one has no corroboration from anywhere.

This to me is a story that indicates how great things were at the time of United Israel and how they aren't so after. I don't consider a United Israel and Judah to have ever been, especially in the 10th century BCE.

As you described it, yes... most temples were not that small and could not be likened to a small gym. 

The reoccuring theme you keep bringing up is the insignificance of many things mentioned in the story... that should tell you something.  Maybe that you're looking for a needle in a haystack when looking at world history.  The fact that all you mentioned is so insignificant should suggest that finding documentation of it in history could be near impossible... Scripture however is some of that documentation.  Many would view this as one source, however, let's not forget that one story has typically many many sources that helped compile it to what we read today.  Some of the sources can still be found, but as we've elaborated, some are impossible to reference to today. 

 

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

But ...

Were one to spend the same verbiage to discredit the reality of Dorethy's adventures in Oz what would your opinion of that exercise be? How about all the details as to why what Penn and Teller do being impossible instead of simply agreeing they are professional magicians?

Making a case against implies there is something credible that deserves the effort. There isn't.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
...

The "small gym" you're describing from what I can see only references to the inner room or "the most holy place".  The dimensions from others research including Elmer Towns suggests a structure with a height of 20 stories or 207 feet.

The man is obviously an idiot if he failed to note that is essentially impossible and to have any open area at all on the entry level. Meaning the "floor plan" would be solid stone until about the 15th of 16th "floor."

Just because it is in the bible does not mean stones are magically strong and arches are unnecessary and the impossible can happen. Rather knowledge of the physical world is the most common way to know the stories are fantasy.

Quote:
The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.
 

Before even the arch was invented. 

Even a cursory knowledge of stone construction in the ancient world knows the idea of such a height is in the same category as the Emerald City. It is not amazing how easily people suspend rational thought at the mere mention of the bible. It is the same reaction to all fiction.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

But ...

Were one to spend the same verbiage to discredit the reality of Dorethy's adventures in Oz what would your opinion of that exercise be? How about all the details as to why what Penn and Teller do being impossible instead of simply agreeing they are professional magicians?

 

You seem to have an entire Web Site attempting to discredit the myths and storytelling.

It's OK for you but not others to do?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Making a case against implies there is something credible that deserves the effort. There isn't.

 

So what are you doing bothering with the storytales of the Jews on your web site? Are you giving them legitmacy as something credible to address by even bothering?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

But ...

Were one to spend the same verbiage to discredit the reality of Dorethy's adventures in Oz what would your opinion of that exercise be? How about all the details as to why what Penn and Teller do being impossible instead of simply agreeing they are professional magicians?

You seem to have an entire Web Site attempting to discredit the myths and storytelling.

It's OK for you but not others to do?

If you mean Made in Alexandria, that is 359MB. My website is 2.3GB.

Perhaps I should rephrase ... Entering into a discussion of details entails giving credence to the source material. Discussing the details of Solomon's temple gives credence to both Solomon and the temple and by implication the united kingdom along with an ancient Jerusalem ruling it all.

It is essentially counter-productive to debate details given all the implied stipulations just to participate in the debate.

I could reduce all I have written to the simple statement, "The Letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is not a translation." That does beg the question as to what it is.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Making a case against implies there is something credible that deserves the effort. There isn't.

So what are you doing bothering with the storytales of the Jews on your web site? Are you giving them legitmacy as something credible to address by even bothering?

The tales are by the Greek rulers of Egypt and the context in which they were created. Other than the above single statement they are filler. And if I can come up with double the verbiage I can self-publish as an ebook.

P.S. I am close to establishing Judah Maccabe was a Greek. I have everything but the smoking gun. Stay tuned.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

The "small gym" you're describing from what I can see only references to the inner room or "the most holy place".  The dimensions from others research including Elmer Towns suggests a structure with a height of 20 stories or 207 feet.

The man is obviously an idiot if he failed to note that is essentially impossible and to have any open area at all on the entry level. Meaning the "floor plan" would be solid stone until about the 15th of 16th "floor."

There's a lot more to the construction than just what was mentioned here.  The point in question was the size of the temple in comparison to the materials claimed to be needed... I was clarifiying that the size was much larger than we were assuming here.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Just because it is in the bible does not mean stones are magically strong and arches are unnecessary and the impossible can happen. Rather knowledge of the physical world is the most common way to know the stories are fantasy.

Just becasue any story is in any book doesn't in any way suggest any validity of any story.  It's physical world knowledge that has helped me better understand the stories of the Bible and clarify discrepensies. 

This whole thread is based on real world fact.  So far, the only case against scripture is that Bible writers were not the best of historians themselves, were bad at dating things correctly that happened in a history before their lifetime and that they tend to exaggerate to advance the appeal of the stories... strangely this is consistent with all hsitorical writings of the like..

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.
 

Before even the arch was invented. 

why did the arch have to be invented?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even a cursory knowledge of stone construction in the ancient world knows the idea of such a height is in the same category as the Emerald City. It is not amazing how easily people suspend rational thought at the mere mention of the bible. It is the same reaction to all fiction.

I had mentioned that the floor plan was based on temples of an even older smetic religion... Basically the temple was built from a floor plan based on temples built around 1000 years before this one was built.  


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
...

One of the big hints I got was all the contortions and mental gymnastics people have to go through just to try to claim there is some sliver of fact in the Septuagint. Yet the sole basis, the one and only basis, for claiming the Septuagint is a translation is a "letter" which has been known to be a forgery almost from the moment it appeared.

 

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

Flatly excludes the possibility of anything remotely like remotely like it to the point nothing can be considered a model for it.

Quote:
I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

Did that myself. That is how I got here.

Quote:
The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original. It really is that simple.

Having tried it the hard way I found the greatest success I ever achieved was gaining a "you might be right about that point" which immediately led to "but all the rest is true." It is along the lines of agreeing Dorothy did not really meet a tin man while in Oz. A currently popular one is, Maybe Solomon was only a hilltop warlord but all the rest is true even though it should be obvious you can't get there frm here. Almost all view what little they know of the bible as unconnected vignettes that introduce sermons. Maybe David didn't exist but there is a lesson to learn from his son's rule.

You can see this in even atheist discussions here. The constant attempts to reconcile the bible with reality for the sole purpose of salvaging something. You will find the saves for different parts are mutually exclusive. You will find they really do not care.

Don't let me discourage you but you will eventually discover the piecemeal approach can make no progress.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...

The "small gym" you're describing from what I can see only references to the inner room or "the most holy place".  The dimensions from others research including Elmer Towns suggests a structure with a height of 20 stories or 207 feet.

The man is obviously an idiot if he failed to note that is essentially impossible and to have any open area at all on the entry level. Meaning the "floor plan" would be solid stone until about the 15th of 16th "floor."

There's a lot more to the construction than just what was mentioned here.  The point in question was the size of the temple in comparison to the materials claimed to be needed... I was clarifiying that the size was much larger than we were assuming here.

Since when is argumentation in favor of impossibly large size a substitute for physical evidence? Since when is it clarification to makes claims that are clearly impossible?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Just because it is in the bible does not mean stones are magically strong and arches are unnecessary and the impossible can happen. Rather knowledge of the physical world is the most common way to know the stories are fantasy.

Just becasue any story is in any book doesn't in any way suggest any validity of any story.  It's physical world knowledge that has helped me better understand the stories of the Bible and clarify discrepensies.

Yet you do not know the first thing about stone construction and the strength of stone. And as the discrepencies cannot be distinguished from bullshit what is the point of the exercise? There are no discrepencies. The authors were clearly making it up as they went along. Why would you waste the effort when there is no historical evidence for it and all the archaeological evidence excludes the possibility of it being credible?

Quote:
This whole thread is based on real world fact.  So far, the only case against scripture is that Bible writers were not the best of historians themselves, were bad at dating things correctly that happened in a history before their lifetime and that they tend to exaggerate to advance the appeal of the stories... strangely this is consistent with all hsitorical writings of the like..

This scripture you talk about first appears in history in Greek and is commonly called the Septuagint. Whoever the writers were they wrote in Greek. Those are the only facts in evidence. Why not start from there? Finding fanciful ways to salvage obvious nonsense does not mean there is anything to salvage. Simply claiming "they" exaggerated implies there is in fact evidence it was written by someone other than Greeks. There is none. You should know that.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Quote:
The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.
 Before even the arch was invented. 
why did the arch have to be invented?

As I said, you are ignorant of construction. A flat stone over a doorway (lintel) can support very little weight as what it does support puts the stone in tension. Stone has minimal tensile strength. That limits the height of the stone above it.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even a cursory knowledge of stone construction in the ancient world knows the idea of such a height is in the same category as the Emerald City. It is not amazing how easily people suspend rational thought at the mere mention of the bible. It is the same reaction to all fiction.

I had mentioned that the floor plan was based on temples of an even older smetic religion... Basically the temple was built from a floor plan based on temples built around 1000 years before this one was built.  

There are none of the height you suggest. The ratio of base to height for the pyramids is about as small as it can get and the open space inside is trivial in comparison to its size. They can't be much larger because they did not have arches. You gave not only impossible heights but impossible interior spaces. Without arches the height of a building is limited to the height of the stone columns supporting wooden beams of the roof. The height of the columns is limited by the weight crushing the bottom stone.

And there is still no physical evidence for the magical one built by the mythical Solomon. That is to be expected. There is only historical mention of one enlarged by Herod. The current myth about its location first appeared in the 19th century.

Face the facts. You are trying to salvage a story by Greeks in Egypt who had no particular knowledge of stone construction either. They were creating a backstory justifying their proxy against the Seleucids Judah the Hammer to rule as a totalitarian theocrat.

Even should you convince yourself you have succeeded you will still have no physical evidence it existed and you will still have all the archaeological evidence of such backhills, primitive, illiterate culture that could have neither built it nor written about it. Nor will you have evidence of a literate culture to write about it until the the mid 3rd c. BC at the earliest when they all spoke Aramaic or Greek or the pidgin of the two called Hebrew.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

One of the big hints I got was all the contortions and mental gymnastics people have to go through just to try to claim there is some sliver of fact in the Septuagint. Yet the sole basis, the one and only basis, for claiming the Septuagint is a translation is a "letter" which has been known to be a forgery almost from the moment it appeared.

 

obviously you haven't done your homework then.  Might want to read some of this thread... probably closer to the beginning before we got to the books with less historical support, e.g. the Kings and Samuel section.  No mental gymnastics here... Pauljohn won't accept that and neither will I.   After you do that, might want to do more homework on the general points in history.  Due to the fact that these stories take place so far back in history and in some cases are hard to originate, sometimes you have to leave it to the timelines of history.  In other words, if you can find a history that can take the place of the timeline's written in the Bible, then please inform me.  I want to look into it


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Since

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Since when is argumentation in favor of impossibly large size a substitute for physical evidence?

Nothing substitutes physical evidence, since when did lack of physical evidence automatically determine validity?  If that were the case, then the majority of history didn't actually happen.  

Where does this suggest impossibly large sizes?  The construction was based off a temple from a culture known to have built temples over 1000 years prior.  It would make sense if for some reason the temple was larger than the originals that over 1000 years, the understanding of construction improved a tad.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Since when is it clarification to makes claims that are clearly impossible?

what's impossible about the temple claim? 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Yet you do not know the first thing about stone construction and the strength of stone.

ah... ya got me... I'm not an architect, nor an archaelogical historian.  However, I'm not basing my belief off of my own understanding of the strength of stone.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And as the discrepencies cannot be distinguished from bullshit what is the point of the exercise? There are no discrepencies. The authors were clearly making it up as they went along. Why would you waste the effort when there is no historical evidence for it and all the archaeological evidence excludes the possibility of it being credible?

So... in other words... despite the fact that there's evidence of the later temple being built then destroyed as claimed... the fact that there is no physical evidence of the prior temple invalidates the whole story?   You must be one of those people who questions whether you're really here or not.  Keep in mind we're talking about a history that is so far back that it would be near impossible to have all the physical evidence on hand.  I'm not sure if you could accept any evidence of history regardless of source that goes against what you have currently accepted as valid history.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

This scripture you talk about first appears in history in Greek and is commonly called the Septuagint. Whoever the writers were they wrote in Greek. Those are the only facts in evidence. Why not start from there? Finding fanciful ways to salvage obvious nonsense does not mean there is anything to salvage. Simply claiming "they" exaggerated implies there is in fact evidence it was written by someone other than Greeks. There is none. You should know that.

you mean as compiled... it is generally understood that the OT specifically was translated into Hebrew from Coyne Greek, but translated into Greek from a prior language as found on many of the older fragments... Aramaic I think?  Though there are other theories of language origin.  The Septuagint as claimed is a compilation of the 100's of fragments from many different periods of time and locations.  It was translated as such by groups that were understood to be reliable in translation, but did not necessarily accept the following... In other words... the translators wouldn't have had an adjenda to "trick people into believing" in something they didn't believe in themselves.  They got paid and did their job.  As far as making claims about the original writers making it up... It's assumption really... unless you again can find a timeline that takes place of what is written.   The fact that there are first of all so many unrelated fragments that point to the same timeline and keep it smooth automatically lean the stories towards historical fact... Granted you can't conclude on just that, but it's too big to just dismiss.  The lack of clear sources makes it harder to conclude either way in many books, but generally the method of writing is understood to be written in such a way that would imply observation and/or record keeping and not "storytelling" as many try to make it out to be.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As I said, you are ignorant of construction. A flat stone over a doorway (lintel) can support very little weight as what it does support puts the stone in tension. Stone has minimal tensile strength. That limits the height of the stone above it.

I never said I was a construction expert... however, of all the skepticism about this temple, this is the first I've heard anyone questioning it's structural integrity.. mainly because not only have many replicated temples based on its description and the fact that it's design is based off much older temples, but the details behind exactly how it was built or engineered are vague due to the fact that it is generally understood that the writers were not architects or engineers themselves.  If anything the structure is possible and has been done as proven in history.  This was not some extravagant new design.  I'm sure the lack of details in the story don't clarify how the weight of the temple was distributed sufficiently enough for this conversation to come to a conclusion.  

All I know is the structural integrity from what i've seen is not being questioned by the professionals, therefore I have no need to question it myself right now.. unless you have a link i should check out....

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There are none of the height you suggest.

The height mentioned is not set in stone and is based on details in the story, nothing more.  The height also does not suggest that the weight automatically was placed on the specific frame.   It is possible that the weight was distributed differently.  If this construction is as impossible as you make it out to be... it would already be general knowlege in the archaelogical study Bible.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And there is still no physical evidence for the magical one built by the mythical Solomon. That is to be expected. There is only historical mention of one enlarged by Herod. The current myth about its location first appeared in the 19th century.

hmmm... the 19th century... when people first had the ability to start dating and strategically pinpointing history.  Interesting.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Face the facts. You are trying to salvage a story by Greeks in Egypt who had no particular knowledge of stone construction either. They were creating a backstory justifying their proxy against the Seleucids Judah the Hammer to rule as a totalitarian theocrat.

If you can show me those facts, i'll face them. oh.. btw... your word alone isn't going to cut it.  I need the details behind the claims... just as you would.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even should you convince yourself you have succeeded you will still have no physical evidence it existed and you will still have all the archaeological evidence of such backhills, primitive, illiterate culture that could have neither built it nor written about it. Nor will you have evidence of a literate culture to write about it until the the mid 3rd c. BC at the earliest when they all spoke Aramaic or Greek or the pidgin of the two called Hebrew.

 

If I based my belief solely off the construction of this particular temple and nothing more and completely disregarded the rest of the OT and NT, you might have a point... sadly that's not how it works... it takes much more research than that.  


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

One of the big hints I got was all the contortions and mental gymnastics people have to go through just to try to claim there is some sliver of fact in the Septuagint. Yet the sole basis, the one and only basis, for claiming the Septuagint is a translation is a "letter" which has been known to be a forgery almost from the moment it appeared.

obviously you haven't done your homework then.  Might want to read some of this thread... probably closer to the beginning before we got to the books with less historical support, e.g. the Kings and Samuel section.  No mental gymnastics here... Pauljohn won't accept that and neither will I.   After you do that, might want to do more homework on the general points in history.  Due to the fact that these stories take place so far back in history and in some cases are hard to originate, sometimes you have to leave it to the timelines of history.  In other words, if you can find a history that can take the place of the timeline's written in the Bible, then please inform me.  I want to look into it

Nothing written any place other than a credible source describing the Septuagint as a translation can change the fact that a forgery is the only basis for that claim. There is nothing to excuse or explain. There is no other basis in all of history than that forgery.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Since when is argumentation in favor of impossibly large size a substitute for physical evidence?

Nothing substitutes physical evidence, since when did lack of physical evidence automatically determine validity?  If that were the case, then the majority of history didn't actually happen. 

Without physical evidence it is nothing more than someone's fantasy particularly when found in a book of magical tales. As for your ignorance of history, education can correct that.

Quote:
Where does this suggest impossibly large sizes?  The construction was based off a temple from a culture known to have built temples over 1000 years prior.  It would make sense if for some reason the temple was larger than the originals that over 1000 years, the understanding of construction improved a tad. 

You gave heights which are impossibly high. There were no temples of that height period. Why do you lie and claim there were? If you are merely repeating a lie why do you do that?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Since when is it clarification to makes claims that are clearly impossible?

what's impossible about the temple claim?

Re-read what I wrote.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Yet you do not know the first thing about stone construction and the strength of stone.

ah... ya got me... I'm not an architect, nor an archaelogical historian.  However, I'm not basing my belief off of my own understanding of the strength of stone. 

Appealing to your own ignorance neither makes it possible nor excuses spreading nonsense as though it were a fact.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And as the discrepencies cannot be distinguished from bullshit what is the point of the exercise? There are no discrepencies. The authors were clearly making it up as they went along. Why would you waste the effort when there is no historical evidence for it and all the archaeological evidence excludes the possibility of it being credible?

So... in other words... despite the fact that there's evidence of the later temple being built then destroyed as claimed... the fact that there is no physical evidence of the prior temple invalidates the whole story?   You must be one of those people who questions whether you're really here or not.  Keep in mind we're talking about a history that is so far back that it would be near impossible to have all the physical evidence on hand.  I'm not sure if you could accept any evidence of history regardless of source that goes against what you have currently accepted as valid history. 

There is no physical evidence. Yet you claim there is. Why lie? You could at least cite the archaeological paper to support your nonsense claim.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

This scripture you talk about first appears in history in Greek and is commonly called the Septuagint. Whoever the writers were they wrote in Greek. Those are the only facts in evidence. Why not start from there? Finding fanciful ways to salvage obvious nonsense does not mean there is anything to salvage. Simply claiming "they" exaggerated implies there is in fact evidence it was written by someone other than Greeks. There is none. You should know that.

you mean as compiled... it is generally understood that the OT specifically was translated into Hebrew from Coyne Greek, but translated into Greek from a prior language as found on many of the older fragments... Aramaic I think?  Though there are other theories of language origin.  The Septuagint as claimed is a compilation of the 100's of fragments from many different periods of time and locations.  It was translated as such by groups that were understood to be reliable in translation, but did not necessarily accept the following... In other words... the translators wouldn't have had an adjenda to "trick people into believing" in something they didn't believe in themselves.  They got paid and did their job.  As far as making claims about the original writers making it up... It's assumption really... unless you again can find a timeline that takes place of what is written.   The fact that there are first of all so many unrelated fragments that point to the same timeline and keep it smooth automatically lean the stories towards historical fact... Granted you can't conclude on just that, but it's too big to just dismiss.  The lack of clear sources makes it harder to conclude either way in many books, but generally the method of writing is understood to be written in such a way that would imply observation and/or record keeping and not "storytelling" as many try to make it out to be. 

That is one hell of a lot of fantasy words which have nothing whatsoever to do with the forgery. It remains a forgery. No number of fantasies you invent out of whole cloth can possible salvage the OT as the original. What motivated you to make up all that crap? How it is possible for you not to know you made it up?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As I said, you are ignorant of construction. A flat stone over a doorway (lintel) can support very little weight as what it does support puts the stone in tension. Stone has minimal tensile strength. That limits the height of the stone above it.

I never said I was a construction expert... however, of all the skepticism about this temple, this is the first I've heard anyone questioning it's structural integrity.. mainly because not only have many replicated temples based on its description and the fact that it's design is based off much older temples, but the details behind exactly how it was built or engineered are vague due to the fact that it is generally understood that the writers were not architects or engineers themselves.  If anything the structure is possible and has been done as proven in history.  This was not some extravagant new design.  I'm sure the lack of details in the story don't clarify how the weight of the temple was distributed sufficiently enough for this conversation to come to a conclusion.  

All I know is the structural integrity from what i've seen is not being questioned by the professionals, therefore I have no need to question it myself right now.. unless you have a link i should check out....

That you have not heard before does not excuse you. You could have googled for ancient temples of that height and discovered there are none. How does your absense of due diligence excuse your lying? How does failure do the most elementary and simplest research even now excuse your repetition of this same lie?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There are none of the height you suggest.

The height mentioned is not set in stone and is based on details in the story, nothing more.  The height also does not suggest that the weight automatically was placed on the specific frame.   It is possible that the weight was distributed differently.  If this construction is as impossible as you make it out to be... it would already be general knowlege in the archaelogical study Bible. 

People who call themselves biblical archaeologists are notoriously idiots and liars. Even if they knew it they would lie. You might as well appeal to creationists on the origin of life. You should know that.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And there is still no physical evidence for the magical one built by the mythical Solomon. That is to be expected. There is only historical mention of one enlarged by Herod. The current myth about its location first appeared in the 19th century.

hmmm... the 19th century... when people first had the ability to start dating and strategically pinpointing history.  Interesting.

It has been known a myth since the early 20th c. What is your excuse for such ignorance?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Face the facts. You are trying to salvage a story by Greeks in Egypt who had no particular knowledge of stone construction either. They were creating a backstory justifying their proxy against the Seleucids Judah the Hammer to rule as a totalitarian theocrat.

If you can show me those facts, i'll face them. oh.. btw... your word alone isn't going to cut it.  I need the details behind the claims... just as you would.

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1 for the real story of the revolt. You should already know when the Jews/Judeans first appear in history in 67 BC they are nothing like the Septuagint portrayal.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even should you convince yourself you have succeeded you will still have no physical evidence it existed and you will still have all the archaeological evidence of such backhills, primitive, illiterate culture that could have neither built it nor written about it. Nor will you have evidence of a literate culture to write about it until the the mid 3rd c. BC at the earliest when they all spoke Aramaic or Greek or the pidgin of the two called Hebrew.

If I based my belief solely off the construction of this particular temple and nothing more and completely disregarded the rest of the OT and NT, you might have a point... sadly that's not how it works... it takes much more research than that.  

 

It makes no sense to have beliefs at all as they are arbitrary and capricious. Studied ignorance makes even less sense. To imagine an illiterate bunch of hill people created the stories you believe makes no sense at all.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Nothing

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Nothing written any place other than a credible source describing the Septuagint as a translation can change the fact that a forgery is the only basis for that claim. There is nothing to excuse or explain. There is no other basis in all of history than that forgery.

Can you further support the forgery claim?  There is more support in history as described in other parts of this thread... in fact, the whole discussion has been based on what has happened in history and where this particular perspective would fit in if at all...


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Nothing written any place other than a credible source describing the Septuagint as a translation can change the fact that a forgery is the only basis for that claim. There is nothing to excuse or explain. There is no other basis in all of history than that forgery.

Can you further support the forgery claim?  There is more support in history as described in other parts of this thread... in fact, the whole discussion has been based on what has happened in history and where this particular perspective would fit in if at all...

Why not do yourself a favor and learn to use google? That way you can use it for many things in addition to confirming the letter has long been known a forgery.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Without

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Without physical evidence it is nothing more than someone's fantasy particularly when found in a book of magical tales. As for your ignorance of history, education can correct that.

ignorance of history huh... lol... ok, my point was the majority of history is only known to us by minimal if any physical evidence and is largely based on... as you would say "books of magical tales"... though I'm not sure if magic really applies to the tales, but I guess if that's how you better understand it... I'm speaking generally here.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You gave heights which are impossibly high. There were no temples of that height period. Why do you lie and claim there were? If you are merely repeating a lie why do you do that?

the point was simply that it was larger than a gymnasium... the design of the temple was based on temples that were built over 1000 years before this one... you can look it up yourself.  

Looking back i think i typed the measurement wrong...   Are you honestly basing your belief in the Bible stories on my number that I likely messed up?  Or is that just one thing you're trying to use to convince me that my whole belief system is wrong?  I made a mistake.  My apologies.  

Something tells me that regardless of what i typed in you would still have the same problem.  The fact still remains that the design was based on older temples... likely the size as well.  Those temples have historical validity.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no physical evidence. Yet you claim there is. Why lie? You could at least cite the archaeological paper to support your nonsense claim.

Why base your belief on lack of evidence?  

BTW Mr. Historian expert... did you bother to do the research and find out why we don't have any physical evidence at this time for this particular temple?  Wiki it and get back to me...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is one hell of a lot of fantasy words which have nothing whatsoever to do with the forgery. It remains a forgery. No number of fantasies you invent out of whole cloth can possible salvage the OT as the original. What motivated you to make up all that crap? How it is possible for you not to know you made it up?

wait... um... are you honestly trying to tell me that the languages, fragments and later compilation of the fragments is all fantasy????  I think we're done here.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1 for the real story of the revolt. You should already know when the Jews/Judeans first appear in history in 67 BC they are nothing like the Septuagint portrayal.

I'll respond to this though...

you're basing a portrayal of a people from a time period much closer to NT claims of jews vs old... of course they're going to have differences.... and if your 67 BC claim is true, then who was the people and what were they called that eventually became the Jews?  What made them take what at the time would be such a drastic approach to reject their own following and suddenly fully dedicate themselves to the God of the Bible?  I want to read the source too.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Why not

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Why not do yourself a favor and learn to use google? That way you can use it for many things in addition to confirming the letter has long been known a forgery.

 

your defense seems to be based on making me look uneducated.

I will say this... I'm not on this thread for a bitch fight.  I'm here to speak on factual historical ground focusing on the Bible.  We are doing a walkthrough and are currently on Kings.  

If you have any factual, historical and substantial input that I can research myself that either takes the place of the timeline at hand and/or supports the scriptures or a counter to them, I'm interested in looking at it... if you want to bitch fight me... go on my dormant Atheists quest for the unholy grail thread or start a new one with me.  I'll run in circles with you there.  


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Without physical evidence it is nothing more than someone's fantasy particularly when found in a book of magical tales. As for your ignorance of history, education can correct that.

ignorance of history huh... lol... ok, my point was the majority of history is only known to us by minimal if any physical evidence and is largely based on... as you would say "books of magical tales"... though I'm not sure if magic really applies to the tales, but I guess if that's how you better understand it... I'm speaking generally here.

As the majority is not know through magical tales you again demonstrate your ignorance of history. Again correct your ignorance of the subject. I will not engage in attempting to educate you. Nor will I indulge your attempts to play word games. You are not up to the task.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You gave heights which are impossibly high. There were no temples of that height period. Why do you lie and claim there were? If you are merely repeating a lie why do you do that?

the point was simply that it was larger than a gymnasium... the design of the temple was based on temples that were built over 1000 years before this one... you can look it up yourself.  

Looking back i think i typed the measurement wrong...   Are you honestly basing your belief in the Bible stories on my number that I likely messed up?  Or is that just one thing you're trying to use to convince me that my whole belief system is wrong?  I made a mistake.  My apologies.  

Something tells me that regardless of what i typed in you would still have the same problem.  The fact still remains that the design was based on older temples... likely the size as well.  Those temples have historical validity. 

I said your height claim was nonsense. I said your height is clearly false. I said if you looked into it you would know there were none anything like that height. I will state if you make that height claim again you will be lying again.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There is no physical evidence. Yet you claim there is. Why lie? You could at least cite the archaeological paper to support your nonsense claim.

Why base your belief on lack of evidence? 

What kind of idiot prefers belief to knowledge? Notice I am simply inquiring as to the type of idiot you are.

Quote:
BTW Mr. Historian expert... did you bother to do the research and find out why we don't have any physical evidence at this time for this particular temple?  Wiki it and get back to me...

What does that have to do with you spreading bullshit about about which you know there is no physical evidence?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is one hell of a lot of fantasy words which have nothing whatsoever to do with the forgery. It remains a forgery. No number of fantasies you invent out of whole cloth can possible salvage the OT as the original. What motivated you to make up all that crap? How it is possible for you not to know you made it up?

wait... um... are you honestly trying to tell me that the languages, fragments and later compilation of the fragments is all fantasy????  I think we're done here. 

I described what you posted as fantasy. Do you think simply because things exist any crap you post about thing that exist is true?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1 for the real story of the revolt. You should already know when the Jews/Judeans first appear in history in 67 BC they are nothing like the Septuagint portrayal.

I'll respond to this though...

you're basing a portrayal of a people from a time period much closer to NT claims of jews vs old... of course they're going to have differences.... and if your 67 BC claim is true, then who was the people and what were they called that eventually became the Jews?  What made them take what at the time would be such a drastic approach to reject their own following and suddenly fully dedicate themselves to the God of the Bible?  I want to read the source too.

 

As Josephus says, Jews took their name for being Judeans and nothing else. Only Judeans are Jews. Galileans are Galileans and Samaritans are Samaritans. They never did any such thing. They also worshiped Ashara the consort of Yahweh. One of her temples was on what is currently called the temple mount. The Yahweh temple was not there. Herod built one of her temples in Caesarea. There was one in Tyre before Alexander conquered it. If I remember correctly there was also one in Magdelea.

The first simple declarative sentence of there being only one god comes from the Koran. You do need to read real history and stop believing the crap people tell you about it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Why not do yourself a favor and learn to use google? That way you can use it for many things in addition to confirming the letter has long been known a forgery.

your defense seems to be based on making me look uneducated.

To the contrary I have left open the possibility you are educated and are lying.

Quote:
I will say this... I'm not on this thread for a bitch fight.  I'm here to speak on factual historical ground focusing on the Bible.  We are doing a walkthrough and are currently on Kings.  

If you have any factual, historical and substantial input that I can research myself that either takes the place of the timeline at hand and/or supports the scriptures or a counter to them, I'm interested in looking at it... if you want to bitch fight me... go on my dormant Atheists quest for the unholy grail thread or start a new one with me.  I'll run in circles with you there.

I have posted many well known facts. That you seem to think your belief in unprovenanced (google the word) religious material has merit is your problem.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:As the

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As the majority is not know through magical tales you again demonstrate your ignorance of history. Again correct your ignorance of the subject. I will not engage in attempting to educate you. Nor will I indulge your attempts to play word games. You are not up to the task.

On this thread, I don't play.  I'm honestly and sincerely trying to stick with factual history and keep it legitimate.  your claim of word games is an example that you're not up for that task.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I said your height claim was nonsense. I said your height is clearly false. I said if you looked into it you would know there were none anything like that height. I will state if you make that height claim again you will be lying again.

If I was lying I wouldn't have claimed it a mistake.  This shows me you're looking for a reason not to accept anything I tell you and that your'e not honestly taking an effort to have a productive conversation.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What does that have to do with you spreading bullshit about about which you know there is no physical evidence?

it would explain why... which includes the fact that archaeologists are not allowed to dig in that location due to religious disputes.

who was it here that didn't have a good grasp on history again?   You might want to do some homework yourself... and stop making claims you can't back up. 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I described what you posted as fantasy. Do you think simply because things exist any crap you post about thing that exist is true?

I do my homework first... btw, do you think that just because you describe what i post is fantasy, everyone's supposed to believe the "crap" i post is automatically not true?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As Josephus says, Jews took their name for being Judeans and nothing else. Only Judeans are Jews. Galileans are Galileans and Samaritans are Samaritans. They never did any such thing. They also worshiped Ashara the consort of Yahweh. One of her temples was on what is currently called the temple mount. The Yahweh temple was not there. Herod built one of her temples in Caesarea. There was one in Tyre before Alexander conquered it. If I remember correctly there was also one in Magdelea.

The first simple declarative sentence of there being only one god comes from the Koran. You do need to read real history and stop believing the crap people tell you about it.

 

The Koran came out 600 years after the NT books... what are you talking about?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2496
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I have

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have posted many well known facts.

... and many assumptions and guesses

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That you seem to think your belief in unprovenanced (google the word) religious material has merit is your problem.

 

that depends on what aspect you're referring to.  Jewish, of course there's an origin, but where was it?  My point was that the Jewish belief and traditions dated futher back than the time they were called Jews.  The names mean nothing.  Only to what bloodline they're from.  From what I've seen in my research, i have yet to find an origin for this particular following... .many have tried to tie it into other historical beliefs that even mixed through the ages with the Judeo-christian belief, but without success be it that it is seen in history that they were confused at times, but still separate.  Look up Ba'al and Sumerian gods.  better yet, just read back in this thread.

oh right... I should use a big word now and tell you to google the word so as to make sure I look smart too.... k....

It seems your POV is very astigmatic (google the word)


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

But ...

Were one to spend the same verbiage to discredit the reality of Dorethy's adventures in Oz what would your opinion of that exercise be? How about all the details as to why what Penn and Teller do being impossible instead of simply agreeing they are professional magicians?

You seem to have an entire Web Site attempting to discredit the myths and storytelling.

It's OK for you but not others to do?

If you mean Made in Alexandria, that is 359MB. My website is 2.3GB.

Perhaps I should rephrase ... Entering into a discussion of details entails giving credence to the source material. Discussing the details of Solomon's temple gives credence to both Solomon and the temple and by implication the united kingdom along with an ancient Jerusalem ruling it all.

Perhaps discussing the details may be considered by the believer in that way, OTOH, you as a scientist and/or engineer realize that claims and ideas must be considered and the claimant must be shown why his paper, project, theory or idea is illogical, impossible, too expensive, too labor intensive, or counter to physics. Or in this case impossible to have actually happened due to the evidence to the contrary. Though they put on blinders when they are shown it cannot be and deny all. I'm sure you have dealt with this in your endeavors as a scientist just like I have as a R & D engineer. Eventually, the person involved is so disgraced professionally they are never taken seriously again or they admit their blindness to the impossibility of their theories ( I consider that this also applies to the area of god beliefs as much as technology, as the commonality to both are people who are in denial of reality).

In the same way, the claims of the believers can also be addressed. Your way is basically to tell them that it was Made in Egypt and is a forgery. This is like telling the followers of "cold fusion", LENR or Rossi that it's bullshit without providing an analysis. Though with Rossi one has little clue WTF he's really doing as he hasn't been forthcoming.

Anyway, the believers as you say usually dig their own holes to bury themselves. they stay in denial throughout the discussion even if/when you show that the story could not have happened in the dimension of reality we occupy. Perhaps, they are the one's that need a nuke exploded in their faces. Some do concede they have nothing but their own personal experiences as a basis and admit the Babble is not true as written (read as fictional story telling) though they still adhere to the fantasies.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is essentially counter-productive to debate details given all the implied stipulations just to participate in the debate.

I do understand, discussion of a subject does not mean the subject or details are credible, in fact the point being is to show the believer that it is not at all credible. If enough holes are put in their boat, even with constant bailing it will sink. Though they may try to hold on to the debris to remain floating.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I could reduce all I have written to the simple statement, "The Letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is not a translation." That does beg the question as to what it is.

Yes, but they will still deny that you are correct. There is no real way to eradicate the belief of someone who despite all contains to grasp at god beliefs.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Making a case against implies there is something credible that deserves the effort. There isn't.

So what are you doing bothering with the storytales of the Jews on your web site? Are you giving them legitimacy as something credible to address by even bothering?

The tales are by the Greek rulers of Egypt and the context in which they were created. Other than the above single statement they are filler. And if I can come up with double the verbiage I can self-publish as an ebook.

The tales may have been created in Egypt, but the believers sees them otherwise. It's that which needs to be addressed. How is the reaction you get from believers to your technique. Do they see the errors they make and indicate to you they have been accepting a book of fiction as a basis for life? Or do they just go off in a huff and tell you that you are wrong and never bother to see why their whole basis for belief is founded on fairytales?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

P.S. I am close to establishing Judah Maccabe was a Greek. I have everything but the smoking gun. Stay tuned. 

OK, that would be very interesting.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 5 ...

As there is no archaeological or historical evidence that comes closer than a lightyear to the Septuagint stories, what is the point of this digression?

 

For the readers on this forum that are in the grey areas. One sometimes must go through the details one at a time to show how the storytelling adventures fall apart.

I know archaeology does not support the myths of the great United Israel, it never existed. You and I both know this.

Flatly excludes the possibility of anything remotely like remotely like it to the point nothing can be considered a model for it.

Exactly!!

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
I know that no other culture discusses the supposed great almighty Solomon, as do you.

If I have to I'll tear apart ever single chapter and verse in the Hebrew Bible one at a time to get through to a few that's what I will do.

We have the same goals, you use nukes and I eat away at their foundations.

Did that myself. That is how I got here.

I understand.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The Yahweh beliefs are based in myths and legends. This is used to build the morphed religion of Christianity. You say, attack the root. The roots are the Jewish storytelling legends.

The hard core believers let obvious evidence go in one ear and out the other. They are living in a land of never was and never will be. That's fine, they can live there in their dimension of fantasy. There are others that can be brought back to reality, sometimes a 2 x 4 works like you do, sometimes that just pisses them off. Whatever works.

The letter of Aristeas is a forgery therefore the Septuagint is the original. It really is that simple.

Having tried it the hard way I found the greatest success I ever achieved was gaining a "you might be right about that point" which immediately led to "but all the rest is true." It is along the lines of agreeing Dorothy did not really meet a tin man while in Oz. A currently popular one is, Maybe Solomon was only a hilltop warlord but all the rest is true even though it should be obvious you can't get there frm here. Almost all view what little they know of the bible as unconnected vignettes that introduce sermons. Maybe David didn't exist but there is a lesson to learn from his son's rule.

How true. The idea is to get across to them that it is all fairytales. If one could get them to see it was all created in Alexandria then that would be a successful technique. They will deny this though and so really you are not making any progress in breaking up their illusions. If Solomon was a tribal chief not a ruler over all from the Nile to the Euphrates then the story is clear fiction, which is what one finds upon examination.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You can see this in even atheist discussions here. The constant attempts to reconcile the bible with reality for the sole purpose of salvaging something. You will find the saves for different parts are mutually exclusive. You will find they really do not care.

I know. In my discussions I take the view it is not true as written, meaning it is fiction. That names and places may be used only indicates the writer was attempting to make it sound plausible. As example, the BS of the Exodus and the Hebrew Horde invading Palestine. It all sounds likely to the believer, though archeology and history of all of the superpowers of the supposed time period indicate it could not have happened as the storytales present. Yet, instead they may say it could have been 100 who did so. 100 is not 600,000.

My view is if one destroys the foundations of the fairytales, Jewish myths, then the whole structure should fall in upon itself.

Though the Catholic Church and some sects of Judaism are prepared for this, they are willing to concede it was mostly allegory or analogies and parables, but the sky daddy is still up there somewhere.

The god could have used evolution to make the world according to scholars in the RCC, but that in itself doesn't make god not real.

There may not be a heavenly cloud place either or an actual hell as John Paul 2 discussed. But the god is still out there.

And so the fairytales are interpreted so the cash cow continues to expel gold.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Don't let me discourage you but you will eventually discover the piecemeal approach can make no progress.

 

No approach can make real progress with all believers. Piecemeal, nukes, or even an advanced alien civilization suddenly appearing will not alone do in the fairytale beliefs.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
No such Temple in the time Period

Jerusalem in the 10th cenury was a small village and not the center of a great empire from Egypt to Syria.

See Finkelstein "Bible Unearthed" pp 132-134

No Temple was there, only a small village. No great city.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 6

The supposed construction of the Temple began 480 years after they had escaped Egypt.

This is how some date the Exodus to 1447 BCE or so. Not the time of Rameses II but rather the time of Amenhotep II and Hatshepsut. A time that is not very likely at all. Palestine was dominated by Egypt, the Hittites, and the Mitani. Assyria and Babylon to the East both were power houses as well. though as we discussed. 50 to 100 escaped slaves would not be of much concern to anyone. Though the 100s of thousands as indicated in the Exodus tales would have been clearly noticed by one if not all. Anyway, back to the tall tale of the Temple construction.

v 2 describes the size of the Temple - the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits approximately 90' x 30' x 45'. A small high school gym with a high ceiling in other words.

Why the need for thousands of workers?

The porch of the Temple was about 30' x 15' - a double carport.

The main building had windows (not glass but lattice work) Around the main building other rooms were built for chapels and such. V 6 indicates the nethermost room was 7.5' x 9' x 10.5' Other verses give details of the final building such as any beams from the outer rooms were not attached to the main building. No hammers or axes were used as the stones were pre-cut and sized and laid in. A door for the middle room was on the right side of the building with winding stairs. The roof was made with cedar beams and boards.

The god told Solomon if he walked in his ways he would perform to his word. He would dwell with Israel and not forsake his people. So Solomon built the house and completed it.

Inside, the walls were finished with cedar as well as the flooring. And all the cedar of the inside was carved with knobs and flowers and none of the stone was visible. More interior dimensions are mentioned for the oracle where the holy of holies was located along with the Ark. The entire house was overlaid with gold and a partition of gold (chains) before the oracle. And the altar before the oracle was overlaid with gold as well. 2 cherubs of gold were made, about 15' across with a height of 15'. The entrance to the oracle were doors of olive wood and carved on them were cherubim and palm trees and fitted them with gold. All of this took about 7 years to construct.

Yet, after several invasions, and booty looting, nothing has ever been found of Solomon's Temple.

The temple complex Herod built, was much more vast in comparison.

A small gym is what is described here.

The "small gym" you're describing from what I can see only references to the inner room or "the most holy place".  The dimensions from others research including Elmer Towns suggests a structure with a height of 20 stories or 207 feet.

The height you give here is not what is described in 1 kings 6.

Interior dimensions:

The dims are thus: length - 135' x width - 35' x height - 50' - source Time-Life Books "The Sea Traders"

The Wiki dims seem smaller -length - 27 M or 88.7' width - 9M or 29.5' height - 14M or 46'

A NBA basketball court not counting the stands is 94' x 50' with at least a 50' ceiling

So it is gym size, in all estimates not as wide as even a elementary school gym.

caposkia wrote:

The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.  They know that it didn't last much further than 586 B.C. despite timing of construction.  The Babylonians destroyed it in 586 B.C.  In it's place Harod built a much larger temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D. during the seige of Jerusalem.  The whailing wall is what is left of that larger temple. 

The floor plan is a type that has a long history in Semitic religion.  (Zondervan)

This is  not a fact. Archeaology indicates Jerusalem was a small insignificant village in 960 BCE.

caposkia wrote:

This would suggest some possibility in history despite its labeling.  Also, due to the fact that history suggests that Harod built a similar yet much larger temple on the spot that this temple was located, it is logical that nothing has been associated with Solomon's temple, yet the evidence likened to Harod's temple could have some part in Solomon's.  Understanding that 2 similar temples were destroyed on the same spot, it would be near impossible to descipher which fragments belonged to which temple especially seeing as they were both built in close historical proximity to each other. 

Even if carbon dating could suggest older fragments of another temple prior to Harod's, be it that Harod's temple was built so soon after the destruction of Solomon's, it's also very likely that most, if not all fragments from the previous temple were "cleaned up" before construction.

There is no spoon!!!

Or in this case no Temple or even city of Jerusalem, only a small insignificant village.

caposkia wrote:

I still don't see anything to fill up the space in history that the story of Solomon likely took place.  I see there was a lot of opposing powers within the boundaries of Solomon's reign, but that was common of any kingdom during the time.  The larger the claimed area, the more likely other powers claimed the same territory unaware of each other's claim... When those opposing claims were found out, historically there'd be a war.  This again is congruent with most kingdoms of the time and earlier.

There is nothing to fill here from the non-existent Judahite or Israelites.

The history is well covered by all other cultures, they ruled the area, not non-existent mythical people of Solomon.

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Solomon's Temple described in these chapters to me is a myth. First off, Solomon in Jerusalem had no where near the population base as described. Israel and Judah were not connected then if ever. The settlement patterns so indicate this was the case. Jerusalem was insignificant compared to virtually all other cities at the time, being little more than a large town with walls. The Northern part called Israel was vastly more developed at this time as were places in Syria and elsewhere.

Since none of this has ever been found and would be if it had all that much gold, one can't give legitimacy to the story. Stories of greatness are one thing if substantiated, though this one has no corroboration from anywhere.

This to me is a story that indicates how great things were at the time of United Israel and how they aren't so after. I don't consider a United Israel and Judah to have ever been, especially in the 10th century BCE.

As you described it, yes... most temples were not that small and could not be likened to a small gym.

See the dimensions of NBA basketball courts yourself.

caposkia wrote:

The reoccuring theme you keep bringing up is the insignificance of many things mentioned in the story... that should tell you something.  Maybe that you're looking for a needle in a haystack when looking at world history.  The fact that all you mentioned is so insignificant should suggest that finding documentation of it in history could be near impossible... Scripture however is some of that documentation.  Many would view this as one source, however, let's not forget that one story has typically many many sources that helped compile it to what we read today.  Some of the sources can still be found, but as we've elaborated, some are impossible to reference to today.

However, archeaology supports my view that Jerusalem was a small village at this point in time around 960 BCE.

The rest of my discussion was to show how overblown the Temple size and greatness are because of mythical development.

As Anony showed you, there are issues in building a construct the size indicated with a open area that large.

The Romans accomplish this with the arch and creativity

See Roman Pantheon - http://www.rome.info/pantheon/

As far as I see, a small village called Jerusalem had no need for a great Temple. If you wish to argue a point, discuss the size of the village of Jerusalem and proof it was more than a tiny village using sources outside the Bible.

On to more of 1 Kings for now.

Let's see where this all ends up.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
1 Kings 7 - 11

I have not been discussing the extreme differences so far that are in 1 & 2 Chronicles versus Kings.

I will soon.

1 Kings 7

This details the other buildings that Solomon did not build in the small village of Jerusalem and continues the storytelling of the non-existent Temple that was never built in 960 BCE.

See Finkelstein for why - "Bible Unearthed" pp132-134.

1 Kings 8

Details the ark and the supposed dedication of the Temple in the small village of Jerusalem.

1 Kings 9

Here apparently Hiram king of Tyre was not pleased with the cities Solomon gave him to rule. Since there is zero support Solomon ruled even a small goat herd especially in view of the other powers that be of the time one needs to find something to give credence to any claim from here on by providing actual inscriptions, clay tablets or archaeological finds. There are none to be found that I have ever heard about.

Supposedly, Solomon also rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. However, it seems this construction actually belongs in the period in the 9th century at least 100 years later under the reigns of Omri kings or leaders. See Finkelstein "Bible Unearthed" pp135-142.

One also has to wonder in regard to the Arameans' impact in the area, which were causing issues to the Assyrians from somewhere in the mid 11th to the 10th century BCE

Soon after the supposed reign of Solomon, Pharaoh Sheshonq campaigns in Palestine, taking the major cities in Southern Palestine such as Gaza and Meggido. Also mentioned is Gibeon which is geographically very near the small village of Jerusalem.

Not mentioned is the small village of Jerusalem nor the supposed non-existent temple without gold or silver (since it wasn't there, there was also no treasures - hence no mention in the detail of the booty taken)

See - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sheshonqi.htm

But his campaign supposedly comes in the reign after the Non-existent United kingdom is split up of King Rehoboam - more later on this.

Also in 1 kings 9 is the claim that goes counter to Egyptian practice; that the unnamed pharaoh gave his daughter as a wife to Solomon.

This was never done - yes daughters of other kings were taken as wives but the daughters of the Pharaoh were never given to others in marriage.

 

1 Kings 10

This chapter has the Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon. Who that may be is a question.

The point of this I guess is to somehow give it respect and credibility, yet it does not; it just creates more issues and questions.

The chapter continues with grandiose claims of navies and riches of gold and treasures. What navy did this landlocked hick small village possess?

None of which are mentioned being seized by Sheshonq I in the small village of Jerusalem soon thereafter.

1 kings 11

Solomon is presented as the world's biggest swinger with 700 wives and 300 concubines. They supposedly turn him from the god to theirs such as the goddess Ashtoreth and even the god of Moab such as Chemosh.

This obviously did not please the god and he was angry. So the god intended once more to renege and modify the agreements he had made.

The later part of the chapter creates an issue in regard to Egypt. If the Pharaoh was so delighted and enthralled with Solomon that he'd go against the 1000s of year of tradition and give away one of his daughters;

then why did he allow adversaries of Solomon sanctuary and aide? Such as Hadad the Edomite? Who is supposedly married to the sister of the wife of Pharaoh?

Several other enemies are also introduced in this chapter: Rezon, Jeroboam.

Solomon at first helps out Jeroboam by giving him charge over the house of Joseph. Sometime after, the prophet Ahijah tells Jeroboam he will rule the 10 northern tribes and Solomon's heir will get only 1. After this, Solomon attempted to kill him but he fled to Egypt to the Pharaoh. So why is it the Pharaoh also allowed another adversary aide and comfort?

Solomon then dies.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1380
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

The "small gym" you're describing from what I can see only references to the inner room or "the most holy place".  The dimensions from others research including Elmer Towns suggests a structure with a height of 20 stories or 207 feet.

The man is obviously an idiot if he failed to note that is essentially impossible and to have any open area at all on the entry level. Meaning the "floor plan" would be solid stone until about the 15th of 16th "floor."

There's a lot more to the construction than just what was mentioned here.  The point in question was the size of the temple in comparison to the materials claimed to be needed... I was clarifiying that the size was much larger than we were assuming here.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Just because it is in the bible does not mean stones are magically strong and arches are unnecessary and the impossible can happen. Rather knowledge of the physical world is the most common way to know the stories are fantasy.

Just becasue any story is in any book doesn't in any way suggest any validity of any story.  It's physical world knowledge that has helped me better understand the stories of the Bible and clarify discrepensies. 

This whole thread is based on real world fact.  So far, the only case against scripture is that Bible writers were not the best of historians themselves, were bad at dating things correctly that happened in a history before their lifetime and that they tend to exaggerate to advance the appeal of the stories... strangely this is consistent with all hsitorical writings of the like..

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
The construction took place likely sometime after 960 B.C.
 

Before even the arch was invented. 

why did the arch have to be invented?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Even a cursory knowledge of stone construction in the ancient world knows the idea of such a height is in the same category as the Emerald City. It is not amazing how easily people suspend rational thought at the mere mention of the bible. It is the same reaction to all fiction.

I had mentioned that the floor plan was based on temples of an even older smetic religion... Basically the temple was built from a floor plan based on temples built around 1000 years before this one was built.  

About the construction. A_Nony_Mouse may have aluded to scale, in the mention of things like a 1000 years of knowledge. As a much needed point of reference I would look at a couple of models for the Solomon's temple. A_Nony_Mouse might be aluding to torsion and tensile failure points in various materials ("stone" included). Span and scale matter. An ant's exoskeletal legs would fail under stresses caused 'size-wise' and weight IF it were significately scaled-up. Spans would an area to look into. Personally only seen the footprint myself and this is not my strong point. It reminded me of a Hitite Temple (this is the footprint I was viewing). Meaning nothing since it was merely a footprint of the description.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
...

I do my homework first... btw, do you think that just because you describe what i post is fantasy, everyone's supposed to believe the "crap" i post is automatically not true?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As Josephus says, Jews took their name for being Judeans and nothing else. Only Judeans are Jews. Galileans are Galileans and Samaritans are Samaritans. They never did any such thing. They also worshiped Ashara the consort of Yahweh. One of her temples was on what is currently called the temple mount. The Yahweh temple was not there. Herod built one of her temples in Caesarea. There was one in Tyre before Alexander conquered it. If I remember correctly there was also one in Magdelea.

The first simple declarative sentence of there being only one god comes from the Koran. You do need to read real history and stop believing the crap people tell you about it.

The Koran came out 600 years after the NT books... what are you talking about?  

There is no declaration that there is only one god any place in the blble or in Christian or Jewish writings before the Koran declares there is only one god. If you can find a simple, declarative sentence saying there is only one god prior to the Koran please feel free to post it.

Of course after the Koran both jumped on the idea and claimed it for their own and that they always knew it. The creeds say 'I believe in one god.' How hard would it have been to say 'I believe there is only one god' if that is what they meant? And if they believed there was only one god what was the point of the words they did include?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have posted many well known facts.

... and many assumptions and guesses

We can discuss the reasonablenss of the assumptions and guesses but that does not negate the facts which as I have stated. If you find the facts point to something different please feel free to post your ideas. No problem.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That you seem to think your belief in unprovenanced (google the word) religious material has merit is your problem.

that depends on what aspect you're referring to.  Jewish, of course there's an origin, but where was it?  My point was that the Jewish belief and traditions dated futher back than the time they were called Jews.

Can you produce physical evidence of that? If not why would you say something that is not in evidence?

Quote:
The names mean nothing.  Only to what bloodline they're from.

Science shitcanned the idea of bloodlines more than a century ago. The reality of propinquity, prostitution and rape shitcanned the idea long before science was invented. Only a child could believe in bloodline claims and then only because it has not grown up.

As to their ethnic origins the only historical name we have for that group comes from Herodotus. They are they Syrians from Palestine as he learned they called themselves.

Quote:
From what I've seen in my research, i have yet to find an origin for this particular following... .many have tried to tie it into other historical beliefs that even mixed through the ages with the Judeo-christian belief, but without success be it that it is seen in history that they were confused at times, but still separate.  Look up Ba'al and Sumerian gods.  better yet, just read back in this thread.

oh right... I should use a big word now and tell you to google the word so as to make sure I look smart too.... k....

It seems your POV is very astigmatic (google the word)

POV is not a word. Astigmatic does not apply in this context.

Beliefs about history are amusing at best. We have only recorded history. The only recorded history is the Septuagint is the original. There is only a forgery claiming otherwise. There is no basis for claiming the Septuagint is the translation once the forgery is removed.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:
...
caposkia wrote:

I had mentioned that the floor plan was based on temples of an even older smetic religion... Basically the temple was built from a floor plan based on temples built around 1000 years before this one was built.

About the construction. A_Nony_Mouse may have aluded to scale, in the mention of things like a 1000 years of knowledge. As a much needed point of reference I would look at a couple of models for the Solomon's temple. A_Nony_Mouse might be aluding to torsion and tensile failure points in various materials ("stone" included). Span and scale matter. An ant's exoskeletal legs would fail under stresses caused 'size-wise' and weight IF it were significately scaled-up. Spans would an area to look into. Personally only seen the footprint myself and this is not my strong point. It reminded me of a Hitite Temple (this is the footprint I was viewing). Meaning nothing since it was merely a footprint of the description.

Quite simply the floor plan does limit the height. Columns can only support a fixed amount of weight. The more columns the higher. The floor plans surviving in the region, the fraction of the floor space used for columns, limit height to about 40 feet. There are no surviving columns in the region from the date he implies. They can be found at Karnak.

Once stone is removed pressure causes the stone to try to spread which is tension which is where it is weakest.

There are other problems. The stronger the stone the harder to finish. It you don't care how it looks you can build aquducts with much stronger stone. If you care how it looks it has to soft enough to give a smooth finish like marble. That requires a softer stone meaning not as high.

But what gets me is these people who wax rapturous while demonstrating a total disconnect from reality. How hard would it have been for him to have done the googles I suggested? Forget the details of stone construction. How hard to simply be familiar with temples? I do not accept his pointing the finger at a liar higher up the food chain. If you say it, defend it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jerusalem in the 10th cenury was a small village and not the center of a great empire from Egypt to Syria.

See Finkelstein "Bible Unearthed" pp 132-134

No Temple was there, only a small village. No great city.

Just for fun wait for a believer to wax eloquent over the city of Jerusalem and then drop the fact the walls were built in the 16th c. by some Ottoman caliph. They all seem to have in the back of their small minds they were built by Solomon.


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml