OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
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.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jeffrick

caposkia wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

                              Since you asked.

 

 

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLmcDSlrqc 

 

 

Is there a thread linked to this or was this just something you wanted to discuss?

*added*

I've watched through about half of the video at this point.  I'm not sure if there's really a lot to say on this.  I can say I don't fully agree with either side fairly equally.  Let me know where you want to go with this.

 

[/quot

 

                        Do you realize that is me in the grey suit,  James E.F.Frederick = Jeffrick, it has been on the RRS posts back in March, I just put the video up rather then look for the original RRS post.  I have a big ego and when I do a TV show I post it here, so far Brian Sapient doesn't object.  Only two appearences deal with religion "Contemporary Issues "ep25  & ep 45 [the one you've seen half of] watch the rest, I get far more animated [and pissed at the airhead], the engineer was worried about the power of my voice so he set the microphone foreward to the Rev. & host that's why I sound so quite,  note the table is round  and I sit in  the middle,   that way all three  of us look equal in size; BUT, I am larger then the Rev.  and twice the size of the host: TV engineers pay attention to these details; appearences!!!!  the way story writers pay attention to appearences, they want you to see the story NOT the reality. 

 

 

                             I've done 4  other appearences on the same show  withOUT a religious topic "Contemporary Issues" Ep60, ep66, ep70 and ep71[soon to come] where I am ID as a "member of Rational Response Squad"  :     Brian Sapient [so far] has not objected.  The Rev. has not been invited back. You left a slight comment on your post and  I drove an ego-inspired link through it.  Comment has you wish, [watch the entire video] .  Sometimes I operate on pure ego.  How meny TV shows have you done?  

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                        Do you realize that is me in the grey suit,  James E.F.Frederick = Jeffrick, it has been on the RRS posts back in March, I just put the video up rather then look for the original RRS post.  I have a big ego and when I do a TV show I post it here, so far Brian Sapient doesn't object.  Only two appearences deal with religion "Contemporary Issues "ep25  & ep 45 [the one you've seen half of] watch the rest, I get far more animated [and pissed at the airhead], the engineer was worried about the power of my voice so he set the microphone foreward to the Rev. & host that's why I sound so quite,  note the table is round  and I sit in  the middle,   that way all three  of us look equal in size; BUT, I am larger then the Rev.  and twice the size of the host: TV engineers pay attention to these details; appearences!!!!  the way story writers pay attention to appearences, they want you to see the story NOT the reality. 

                             I've done 4  other appearences on the same show  withOUT a religious topic "Contemporary Issues" Ep60, ep66, ep70 and ep71[soon to come] where I am ID as a "member of Rational Response Squad"  :     Brian Sapient [so far] has not objected.  The Rev. has not been invited back. You left a slight comment on your post and  I drove an ego-inspired link through it.  Comment has you wish, [watch the entire video] .  Sometimes I operate on pure ego.  How meny TV shows have you done?  

I did realize it was you in the video.  Just in case I wasn't sure, when the host said your known online as Jeffrick it confirmed it.  

Me I don't do tv shows.  I was in the latest Andy Pratt music video however 

Anyway, what was the title of that thread based on this video?  I"ll comment there.. or if you want we can start another one.  your choice.  Just for basis, I'm not motivated by ego.  If that tends to get in the way with you, I will take you less seriously and likely my responses will show such.  I tend to get sarcastic and goofy rather than objective and factual with people like that.  Just ask Brian37.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Missed this earlier

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 As we go through, I still do homework on everything we've covered up to this point.  I don't remember if we talked about Pepy II or the Egyptian Admonitions.  The papayrus in posession has had some difficulty in dating, but it seems that Egyptologists are split as far as it being evidence of the Exodus.  

Just a random thought if you wanted to discuss it.  

He reigned supposedly 2284 BCE - 2184 BCE, far to early to have anything to do with the Exodus tale. According to the Biblical story tales Abe had yet to leave Mesopotamia at this point in time.

Th Egyptian Admonitions were likely written 400 years after Pepy II at best guess - see http://archive.org/details/admonitionsofegy00gard and - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

The 1st link is to a book by Alan Henderson Gardiner titled - " The admonitions of an Egyptian sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden(Pap. Leiden 344 recto)" It is FREE online.

I would generally subscribe to the position that this papyrus is relevant to the Hyskos invasion, though it may be others such as the Libyans or the Bedouins.

I have obviously not read all of Gardiners book as of yet.

What is it that you see here that is relevant to the Exodus, specify either page from Gardiner or the section from the other link.

Very generally, the story in Exodus dates the reign of the particular emperor to be quite long.  Pepy II happened to be one such emperor... I think the only emperor to have an extensive reign of over 80 years I think.    This would fit with the story at hand.  His son would have been the new emperor that grew up with Moses.  

How many years off would you say this would be?  Keep in mind that those first 5 books are written much later than their happenings.

Pepy II ruled from 2278 to 2184 BCE according to Oxford's Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw. That's 94 years! Kind of a very long time. He began his reign at the age of 6. He had many children over the years many he outlived. The problem of trying to put the Moses story tale here is Abraham's family were still in Mesopotamia based on the earlier stories in Genesis. The movement of the Semites from Mesopotamia is dated to the period around 2200 BCE. The tales indicates the Hebrews were enslaved for about 400 years in Egypt, taking the story of Joseph back to around 2600 BCE or so if  Pepy II was the father of the Exodus Pharaoh. However, he was succeeded by Queen Nitiqret from 2184-2181 and then numerous kings called Neferkara from 2183-2160 BCE. Meaning the Joseph story would involve the Old Kingdom period of the 3rd or 4the dynasty. This all doesn't fit well into the Genesis scenario.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Continuing in 1 Kings

Sorry for the delay, been kind of busy.

1 Kings 16 to 1 Kings 22:40 is a rant against King Ahab of Israel, this rant is far longer than even the supposed good kings of Judah. One wonders what Ahab did or his armies did to the writer or his family to warrant such an attack. maybe the writer's girlfriend or sister became one of Ahab's concubines or something. Just saying.


2 Chronicles 18 is a far shorter version, perhaps the writer's family was not kidnapped or raped by Ahab's forces.


1 Kings 16 begins discussing Baasha and the promise the god had made to eliminate all of his descendants as given by the prophet Jehu. Baasha dies and his son Elah ruled 2 years when Zimri instituted a coup  killing "all that pisseth against a wall" - 1 Kings 16:11 of Baasha's family. This completes the threat made by the prophet Jehu from the god. After 7 days, the people made Omri king over them. Omri began a conflict against Zimri and encircled Tirzah. Zimri then committed suicide when he saw the city was taken by Omri according to 1 Kings.  He torched the palace and died in the fire. 2 Chronicles has none of this story at all. There is no mention of Baash'a son Elah, the Jehu threat, or Omri. It begins its discussion of Ahab in regard to his consultation of prophets in regard to a possible battle. So no real help is found in Chronicles. Thus 1 Kings has to stand on its own against the history of others and archeology.


Omri reigned over Israel according to 1 Kings 16:21-27 for 12 years. He reigned from Tirzah for  6 years and 6 in the new capital, Samaria. The story goes  Omri bought the real estate for Samaria from Shemer for 2 talents of silver. It also claimed of course that Omri did EITSOTL (Evil in the Sight of the Lord) and made Israel to sin provoking the god.  Again there is nothing in 2 Chronicles as Omri is skipped over.


Finkelstein has lots to say in regard to both Omri and Ahab. 1st let's discuss Omri. Finkelstein attributes the building activities in Israel/Palestine to both Omri and Ahab not Solomon. His discussion begins on p 169 of Bible Unearthed continuing to p 195. Finkelstein in studying both Samaria and Megiddo attributes the Omride dynasty to be the most significant kingdom in the area called Israel - which I call Samaria to be neutral. Instead of Solomon he details how and why the developments are of both Omri and Ahab. The city of Samaria itself was a tremendous building project, see pp 181-186 of Bible Unearthed. In the 1920s an Iron Age palace was discovered in Megiddo by Clarence Fisher. He and John Crowfoot had also worked the site at Samaria and saw they were very similar. However, the expedition was primarily trying to show Solomon was real and so dated it to him. One of many expeditions that used a hammer to slam pieces of archeology into the story tales of the OT ignoring the reality they didn't fit.


Later on Yadin of the Hebrew University in the 1960s also dated it to Solomon. Instead, Finkelstein shows this was wrong and should be the Omrides, evil though the story tales of the OT indicate of them. Also the city of Hazor adds to the Omride evidence. And others, like the  city of Dan. Both Hazor and Megiddo had elaborate tunnels to bring water to the cities, both dated to the Omrides. So why should they all be dated to the Omri's and not the supposed great king Solomon. According to Finkelstein, the proof is in the city of Jezreel. A city built under Ahab. It existed only a short time and so artifacts from it and the style of construction can be used to define and compare to other sites. And when that is done, it is crystal clear that the supposed great building projects in the cities of the north were of the Omri's not a king Solomon who has never been found to be mentioned anywhere else other than the storybook tales of the OT. See pp 186-195 of The Bible Unearthed.


There should be little doubt that either Omri or his son Ahab were real kings of the city state Samaria. Ahab was discussed by the Assyrian king Shalmanser III in the Monolith Inscription which commemorates his battles including the 853 BCE booty trip to Syria-Palestine. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and the Mesha Stele or Moabite stone - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_15.html more on this when we get to 2 Kings, for now it helps show the Omri's were real kings of Samaria. Whether or not anyone called the area they were from Israel is unknown, the translation usually call it Israel but take that with a grain of salt.


As always, nothing indicates the city state of Samaria were of the Abe religion, nor is there anything to indicate a relationship ever existed with the small city state of Jerusalem aka Judah at this point in the time line. Finkelstein continues to expand on the point that the Northern city state, Samaria (Israel) and the Southern city state Jerusalem (Judah) were always separate and not a United kingdom as in the story tale.


Next up, Ahab the most vile evil king of all, at least according to the 1 kings story tales, enters the scene.


 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Pepy II ruled from 2278 to 2184 BCE according to Oxford's Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw. That's 94 years! Kind of a very long time. He began his reign at the age of 6. He had many children over the years many he outlived. The problem of trying to put the Moses story tale here is Abraham's family were still in Mesopotamia based on the earlier stories in Genesis. The movement of the Semites from Mesopotamia is dated to the period around 2200 BCE. The tales indicates the Hebrews were enslaved for about 400 years in Egypt, taking the story of Joseph back to around 2600 BCE or so if  Pepy II was the father of the Exodus Pharaoh. However, he was succeeded by Queen Nitiqret from 2184-2181 and then numerous kings called Neferkara from 2183-2160 BCE. Meaning the Joseph story would involve the Old Kingdom period of the 3rd or 4the dynasty. This all doesn't fit well into the Genesis scenario.

Considering the idea that the dates were exact, yes it doesn't fit well... however, we know there is quite the margin of error in the OT in regards to dating.   I can see the difficulty in tying it all together strictly on dating.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Sorry for the delay, been kind of busy.

I figured as much.. I understand..  It was either that or per your last post something went wrong with your computer Eye-wink  guess that all worked out.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 16 to 1 Kings 22:40 is a rant against King Ahab of Israel, this rant is far longer than even the supposed good kings of Judah. One wonders what Ahab did or his armies did to the writer or his family to warrant such an attack. maybe the writer's girlfriend or sister became one of Ahab's concubines or something. Just saying.


2 Chronicles 18 is a far shorter version, perhaps the writer's family was not kidnapped or raped by Ahab's forces.


1 Kings 16 begins discussing Baasha and the promise the god had made to eliminate all of his descendants as given by the prophet Jehu. Baasha dies and his son Elah ruled 2 years when Zimri instituted a coup  killing "all that pisseth against a wall" - 1 Kings 16:11 of Baasha's family. This completes the threat made by the prophet Jehu from the god. After 7 days, the people made Omri king over them. Omri began a conflict against Zimri and encircled Tirzah. Zimri then committed suicide when he saw the city was taken by Omri according to 1 Kings.  He torched the palace and died in the fire. 2 Chronicles has none of this story at all. There is no mention of Baash'a son Elah, the Jehu threat, or Omri. It begins its discussion of Ahab in regard to his consultation of prophets in regard to a possible battle. So no real help is found in Chronicles. Thus 1 Kings has to stand on its own against the history of others and archeology.


Omri reigned over Israel according to 1 Kings 16:21-27 for 12 years. He reigned from Tirzah for  6 years and 6 in the new capital, Samaria. The story goes  Omri bought the real estate for Samaria from Shemer for 2 talents of silver. It also claimed of course that Omri did EITSOTL (Evil in the Sight of the Lord) and made Israel to sin provoking the god.  Again there is nothing in 2 Chronicles as Omri is skipped over.


Finkelstein has lots to say in regard to both Omri and Ahab. 1st let's discuss Omri. Finkelstein attributes the building activities in Israel/Palestine to both Omri and Ahab not Solomon. His discussion begins on p 169 of Bible Unearthed continuing to p 195. Finkelstein in studying both Samaria and Megiddo attributes the Omride dynasty to be the most significant kingdom in the area called Israel - which I call Samaria to be neutral. Instead of Solomon he details how and why the developments are of both Omri and Ahab. The city of Samaria itself was a tremendous building project, see pp 181-186 of Bible Unearthed. In the 1920s an Iron Age palace was discovered in Megiddo by Clarence Fisher. He and John Crowfoot had also worked the site at Samaria and saw they were very similar. However, the expedition was primarily trying to show Solomon was real and so dated it to him. One of many expeditions that used a hammer to slam pieces of archeology into the story tales of the OT ignoring the reality they didn't fit.


Later on Yadin of the Hebrew University in the 1960s also dated it to Solomon. Instead, Finkelstein shows this was wrong and should be the Omrides, evil though the story tales of the OT indicate of them. Also the city of Hazor adds to the Omride evidence. And others, like the  city of Dan. Both Hazor and Megiddo had elaborate tunnels to bring water to the cities, both dated to the Omrides. So why should they all be dated to the Omri's and not the supposed great king Solomon. According to Finkelstein, the proof is in the city of Jezreel. A city built under Ahab. It existed only a short time and so artifacts from it and the style of construction can be used to define and compare to other sites. And when that is done, it is crystal clear that the supposed great building projects in the cities of the north were of the Omri's not a king Solomon who has never been found to be mentioned anywhere else other than the storybook tales of the OT. See pp 186-195 of The Bible Unearthed.


There should be little doubt that either Omri or his son Ahab were real kings of the city state Samaria. Ahab was discussed by the Assyrian king Shalmanser III in the Monolith Inscription which commemorates his battles including the 853 BCE booty trip to Syria-Palestine. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and the Mesha Stele or Moabite stone - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_15.html more on this when we get to 2 Kings, for now it helps show the Omri's were real kings of Samaria. Whether or not anyone called the area they were from Israel is unknown, the translation usually call it Israel but take that with a grain of salt.


As always, nothing indicates the city state of Samaria were of the Abe religion, nor is there anything to indicate a relationship ever existed with the small city state of Jerusalem aka Judah at this point in the time line. Finkelstein continues to expand on the point that the Northern city state, Samaria (Israel) and the Southern city state Jerusalem (Judah) were always separate and not a United kingdom as in the story tale.


Next up, Ahab the most vile evil king of all, at least according to the 1 kings story tales, enters the scene.


 

I'll have to read a little bit more before replying to this... been busy as well.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Sorry for the delay, been kind of busy.

I figured as much.. I understand..  It was either that or per your last post something went wrong with your computer Eye-wink  guess that all worked out.

The computer is running kick ass!!!

Been doing tax stuff. Training newbie tax preparers, updating tax software, reconfiguring the office, doing CE credits etc.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'll have to

caposkia wrote:

I'll have to read a little bit more before replying to this... been busy as well.  

Cap,

Are you still around?

 

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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I'll have to read a little bit more before replying to this... been busy as well.  

Cap,

Are you still around?

 

PJTS

Yes! sorry Pjts, I sat down and was reading a bit on it, then life shifted into overdrive... next thing I know weeks went by.  I'm so sorry, I have not forgotten.  I want to make sure I read those pages you suggested from the book thoroughly before I replied to that post as well.  

A general gist of what I'm getting from the author at this point:

I like the research done.  He's done well to go into detail as far as what has been discovered and what we know.  It's also clear that his position going into writing this book was to disprove the Bible.  Despite what he writes as far as the evidence and research goes, he tries to find some part that doesn't quite jive, then determine that none of the above could be realistic because of X.  I read pages of evidences and support for a particular point of scripture... oh but wait, this date doesn't work, or this artifact may not have been what they claimed, therefore it never happened... I'm having a hard time buying that with all he has represented in the book.  It seems he goes out of his way to make sure we see how it doesn't work rather than taking an objective approach to the whole thing.   

Regardless, I will still read the specific pages and get back to you on the topic at hand.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Omri reigned over Israel according to 1 Kings 16:21-27 for 12 years. He reigned from Tirzah for  6 years and 6 in the new capital, Samaria. The story goes  Omri bought the real estate for Samaria from Shemer for 2 talents of silver. It also claimed of course that Omri did EITSOTL (Evil in the Sight of the Lord) and made Israel to sin provoking the god.  Again there is nothing in 2 Chronicles as Omri is skipped over.

Sorry for the delay here now.  I finally have a moment to sit and think about this.

As far as the reference to Chronicles in 1 Kings in regards to Omri.  This is not to be confused with 1 and 2 Chronicles of the Bible, but rather an earlier Chronicles written about the reigns of the kings.  The Chronicles in the Bible was actually written later than 1 and 2 Kings and therefore these books would not be referencing to the Biblical Chronicles. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Finkelstein has lots to say in regard to both Omri and Ahab. 1st let's discuss Omri. Finkelstein attributes the building activities in Israel/Palestine to both Omri and Ahab not Solomon. His discussion begins on p 169 of Bible Unearthed continuing to p 195. Finkelstein in studying both Samaria and Megiddo attributes the Omride dynasty to be the most significant kingdom in the area called Israel - which I call Samaria to be neutral. Instead of Solomon he details how and why the developments are of both Omri and Ahab. The city of Samaria itself was a tremendous building project, see pp 181-186 of Bible Unearthed. In the 1920s an Iron Age palace was discovered in Megiddo by Clarence Fisher. He and John Crowfoot had also worked the site at Samaria and saw they were very similar. However, the expedition was primarily trying to show Solomon was real and so dated it to him. One of many expeditions that used a hammer to slam pieces of archeology into the story tales of the OT ignoring the reality they didn't fit.

I'm not sure why Finkelstein has a problem at all with this, I have no issue with the claim that Omri was associated with the building of Samaria... rather the rebuilding of the more strategic Samaria as quoted from Alfred Hoerth's Archaeology book.  Finkelstein does have a lot to say, but all in all, not a lot is known of Omri other than what is said factually and historically in Finkelstein's book.  There's no quams that I can see of scripturally about the construction dating.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Later on Yadin of the Hebrew University in the 1960s also dated it to Solomon. Instead, Finkelstein shows this was wrong and should be the Omrides, evil though the story tales of the OT indicate of them. Also the city of Hazor adds to the Omride evidence. And others, like the  city of Dan. Both Hazor and Megiddo had elaborate tunnels to bring water to the cities, both dated to the Omrides. So why should they all be dated to the Omri's and not the supposed great king Solomon. According to Finkelstein, the proof is in the city of Jezreel. A city built under Ahab. It existed only a short time and so artifacts from it and the style of construction can be used to define and compare to other sites. And when that is done, it is crystal clear that the supposed great building projects in the cities of the north were of the Omri's not a king Solomon who has never been found to be mentioned anywhere else other than the storybook tales of the OT. See pp 186-195 of The Bible Unearthed.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it does seem here that it wouldn't necessarily be associated with Solomon... at least the particular construction projects of Samaria being discussed.  I think we can agree the bulk of construction can be credited to Omri, while there were mini projects credited to a few others during the same time.  Hardly worth mentioning and not significant to the historocity of the scriptures from what i can see... unless I'm missing something here.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


There should be little doubt that either Omri or his son Ahab were real kings of the city state Samaria. Ahab was discussed by the Assyrian king Shalmanser III in the Monolith Inscription which commemorates his battles including the 853 BCE booty trip to Syria-Palestine. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and the Mesha Stele or Moabite stone - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_15.html more on this when we get to 2 Kings, for now it helps show the Omri's were real kings of Samaria. Whether or not anyone called the area they were from Israel is unknown, the translation usually call it Israel but take that with a grain of salt.


As always, nothing indicates the city state of Samaria were of the Abe religion, nor is there anything to indicate a relationship ever existed with the small city state of Jerusalem aka Judah at this point in the time line. Finkelstein continues to expand on the point that the Northern city state, Samaria (Israel) and the Southern city state Jerusalem (Judah) were always separate and not a United kingdom as in the story tale.

The Bible supports this too in the scriptures quoted.  vs. 21 "the people of Israel were divided into 2 parts"  The Bible seems to indicate that the side that was cooperating with Omri was the stronger side, but never explicitly states that all of Israel was united under Omri's reign.. we could only speculate.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Next up, Ahab the most vile evil king of all, at least according to the 1 kings story tales, enters the scene.
 

should be fun Smiling  again sorry for the extreme delay on this.  I'll try to get back quicker.  times are busy.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Omri reigned over Israel according to 1 Kings 16:21-27 for 12 years. He reigned from Tirzah for  6 years and 6 in the new capital, Samaria. The story goes  Omri bought the real estate for Samaria from Shemer for 2 talents of silver. It also claimed of course that Omri did EITSOTL (Evil in the Sight of the Lord) and made Israel to sin provoking the god.  Again there is nothing in 2 Chronicles as Omri is skipped over.

Sorry for the delay here now.  I finally have a moment to sit and think about this.

As far as the reference to Chronicles in 1 Kings in regards to Omri.  This is not to be confused with 1 and 2 Chronicles of the Bible, but rather an earlier Chronicles written about the reigns of the kings.  The Chronicles in the Bible was actually written later than 1 and 2 Kings and therefore these books would not be referencing to the Biblical Chronicles.

I know the Chronicles in Kings refers to something that does not exist today, was lost to time or never existed. Who knows which.

The comment in regard to Omri and the Bible 2 Chronicles was to point out some of the unreliable or lack of documentation found in the 1 & 2 Chronicles stories. The reliabilty and consistency in comparison to Samuel and Kings indicates low correlation and major problems in regard to some of the stories. This indicates to me and many scholars the Books of Chronicles were a far later  in origin from sources or oral stories that were inconsistent or incomplete. More later.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Finkelstein has lots to say in regard to both Omri and Ahab. 1st let's discuss Omri. Finkelstein attributes the building activities in Israel/Palestine to both Omri and Ahab not Solomon. His discussion begins on p 169 of Bible Unearthed continuing to p 195. Finkelstein in studying both Samaria and Megiddo attributes the Omride dynasty to be the most significant kingdom in the area called Israel - which I call Samaria to be neutral. Instead of Solomon he details how and why the developments are of both Omri and Ahab. The city of Samaria itself was a tremendous building project, see pp 181-186 of Bible Unearthed. In the 1920s an Iron Age palace was discovered in Megiddo by Clarence Fisher. He and John Crowfoot had also worked the site at Samaria and saw they were very similar. However, the expedition was primarily trying to show Solomon was real and so dated it to him. One of many expeditions that used a hammer to slam pieces of archeology into the story tales of the OT ignoring the reality they didn't fit.

I'm not sure why Finkelstein has a problem at all with this, I have no issue with the claim that Omri was associated with the building of Samaria... rather the rebuilding of the more strategic Samaria as quoted from Alfred Hoerth's Archaeology book.  Finkelstein does have a lot to say, but all in all, not a lot is known of Omri other than what is said factually and historically in Finkelstein's book.  There's no quams that I can see of scripturally about the construction dating.

His point being the construction activities elsewhere in Palestine Syria should be attributed to the Omride kings, such as Omri, Ahab et al. and not to the mythical King Solomon.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Later on Yadin of the Hebrew University in the 1960s also dated it to Solomon. Instead, Finkelstein shows this was wrong and should be the Omrides, evil though the story tales of the OT indicate of them. Also the city of Hazor adds to the Omride evidence. And others, like the  city of Dan. Both Hazor and Megiddo had elaborate tunnels to bring water to the cities, both dated to the Omrides. So why should they all be dated to the Omri's and not the supposed great king Solomon. According to Finkelstein, the proof is in the city of Jezreel. A city built under Ahab. It existed only a short time and so artifacts from it and the style of construction can be used to define and compare to other sites. And when that is done, it is crystal clear that the supposed great building projects in the cities of the north were of the Omri's not a king Solomon who has never been found to be mentioned anywhere else other than the storybook tales of the OT. See pp 186-195 of The Bible Unearthed.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it does seem here that it wouldn't necessarily be associated with Solomon... at least the particular construction projects of Samaria being discussed.  I think we can agree the bulk of construction can be credited to Omri, while there were mini projects credited to a few others during the same time.  Hardly worth mentioning and not significant to the historocity of the scriptures from what i can see... unless I'm missing something here.

You seem to be missing the point the construction thoughout Palestine Syria is claimed to be the Omride kings by Finkelstein instead of the mythgical Solomon by Bible wishful thinking writers and early researchers that incorrectly attributed them to an unproved Solomon instead of the Omrides.

I suggest you read the whole book.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


There should be little doubt that either Omri or his son Ahab were real kings of the city state Samaria. Ahab was discussed by the Assyrian king Shalmanser III in the Monolith Inscription which commemorates his battles including the 853 BCE booty trip to Syria-Palestine. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and the Mesha Stele or Moabite stone - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_15.html more on this when we get to 2 Kings, for now it helps show the Omri's were real kings of Samaria. Whether or not anyone called the area they were from Israel is unknown, the translation usually call it Israel but take that with a grain of salt.


As always, nothing indicates the city state of Samaria were of the Abe religion, nor is there anything to indicate a relationship ever existed with the small city state of Jerusalem aka Judah at this point in the time line. Finkelstein continues to expand on the point that the Northern city state, Samaria (Israel) and the Southern city state Jerusalem (Judah) were always separate and not a United kingdom as in the story tale.

The Bible supports this too in the scriptures quoted.  vs. 21 "the people of Israel were divided into 2 parts"  The Bible seems to indicate that the side that was cooperating with Omri was the stronger side, but never explicitly states that all of Israel was united under Omri's reign.. we could only speculate.

You misunderstood what I said.

The point Finkelstein makes is the North and the South developed separately and were independent of one another and were not part of a United Kingdom as the Bible stories claim.

I did not say the Omri's ruled the small insignificant city state of Judah aka Jerusalem.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Next up, Ahab the most vile evil king of all, at least according to the 1 kings story tales, enters the scene.
 

should be fun Smiling  again sorry for the extreme delay on this.  I'll try to get back quicker.  times are busy.

I'm working on it. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know the Chronicles in Kings refers to something that does not exist today, was lost to time or never existed. Who knows which.

The comment in regard to Omri and the Bible 2 Chronicles was to point out some of the unreliable or lack of documentation found in the 1 & 2 Chronicles stories. The reliabilty and consistency in comparison to Samuel and Kings indicates low correlation and major problems in regard to some of the stories. This indicates to me and many scholars the Books of Chronicles were a far later  in origin from sources or oral stories that were inconsistent or incomplete. More later.

This seems consistent with what i said

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

His point being the construction activities elsewhere in Palestine Syria should be attributed to the Omride kings, such as Omri, Ahab et al. and not to the mythical King Solomon.

I see his point, but he fails to take into consideration that though likely 90% or more of the construction can be attributied to teh Omride kings, there is a small percentage not built by them... this would open the door for the minimal construction credited to Solomon in the Bible.  There's little to go on as far as whether he did or didn't for sure, but evidences that I've seen point in the direction of Solomon.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You seem to be missing the point the construction thoughout Palestine Syria is claimed to be the Omride kings by Finkelstein instead of the mythgical Solomon by Bible wishful thinking writers and early researchers that incorrectly attributed them to an unproved Solomon instead of the Omrides.

I suggest you read the whole book.

I don't believe that was proven either way.  

I have a habit of reading books cover to cover, if I start a book, I have to finish it... I'm seeing a common theme though with this author.  My take is he has concluded prior to his research and is bent on making his research fit his perspective.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You misunderstood what I said.

The point Finkelstein makes is the North and the South developed separately and were independent of one another and were not part of a United Kingdom as the Bible stories claim.

I did not say the Omri's ruled the small insignificant city state of Judah aka Jerusalem.

I did misunderstand that sorry.  Regardless, there's nothing scripturally in that particular verse in question that would suggest they were ever completely united from what I can see.  Was it earlier?  I'll try to read thorough the chapter again to see if it was claimed elsewhere.  If it was, would that nullify the whole event and story and why?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm working on it. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow.

As you've noticed I've gotten quite sidetracked in recent weeks.  Take your time.  I understand.  


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Bob

'Original Sin' is an attempt to explain a fundamental problem that troubles people believing the world is governed by generally benevolent and/or just God(s): why do bad things happen to good people?

A better question is:
Why do good things happen?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:'Original

Jimenezj wrote:
'Original Sin' is an attempt to explain a fundamental problem that troubles people believing the world is governed by generally benevolent and/or just God(s): why do bad things happen to good people? A better question is: Why do good things happen?

Hey Jimenezi, Though i appreciate your input and attempt at conversation, this thread has a specific focus.  Namely the history of the Bible and how the stories fit in the historical picture of the world.  If you have knowledge in this area, we'd love to hear some input on your understanding.  Please reread the last page or so to get an idea of where we're at and where we're going.

God Bless you

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:As you've

caposkia wrote:

As you've noticed I've gotten quite sidetracked in recent weeks.  Take your time.  I understand.  

Me too. I worked 65 hours this week. I have a few pages written on Ahab but I want to put it all up at once.

Maybe this week.

Tax season sucks the life out of me, especailly this year as I'm the office manager.

There is probably 1 more hell week to go before it calms down a bit.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

As you've noticed I've gotten quite sidetracked in recent weeks.  Take your time.  I understand.  

Me too. I worked 65 hours this week. I have a few pages written on Ahab but I want to put it all up at once.

Maybe this week.

Tax season sucks the life out of me, especailly this year as I'm the office manager.

There is probably 1 more hell week to go before it calms down a bit.

 

Good luck.  Looking forward to your response when you get the chance. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia

Thank you for the invite.

PJ said:
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.
................

The problem with the sumerian and Egyptian creation stories is that they are a corrupted version of the original. And how do we know that ? Sumerian and Egyptian creation stories are full of selfishness , confusion and sexual perversion . The biblical creation story of the ancestors of Moses , is filled With Love, purity and a full understanding of causality .
Science is not solid because of constant changes in theory and equations , and therefore is not an accurate interpretation of creation.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Thank you for

Jimenezj wrote:
Thank you for the invite. PJ said: 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. ................ The problem with the sumerian and Egyptian creation stories is that they are a corrupted version of the original. And how do we know that ? Sumerian and Egyptian creation stories are full of selfishness , confusion and sexual perversion . The biblical creation story of the ancestors of Moses , is filled With Love, purity and a full understanding of causality . Science is not solid because of constant changes in theory and equations , and therefore is not an accurate interpretation of creation.

Jimenezi,

We are long past discussing Genesis 1:1 in this thread. Currently we are in 1 Kings and about to discuss Ahab. If you'd like to join in at or near that point you are most welcome to do that as Caposki mentioned. Your own threads are more appropriate for the discussion you'd like to do. This thread is a discussion of mostly history and whether the OT is or not as supported or not by other sources, archeaology and mentioned by other cultures/countries of the periods involved.

I have no intention of jumping around from subject to subject and going back and forth. And as Caposki indicated neither does he.

If you wish to discuss whether science is a realistic approach to understanding the universe this is not the place.

If you wish to argue the merits of love versus selfeshness this is not the place.

I'm not interested in being baited by your claims the Sumerians and Egyptians were more perverted than the supposed Hebrews/Jews.

All cultures in the past and present exhibit all of these traits you have mentioned in their stories and the OT, Egyptian, and Sumerian are not any less subject to such.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
PJ

Sumerian and Egyptian creation story presents perverted polygamy and polytheism ,Genesis 1 does not. I will not disturb your discussion anymore . Sorry for interupting . You may proceed.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know the Chronicles in Kings refers to something that does not exist today, was lost to time or never existed. Who knows which.

The comment in regard to Omri and the Bible 2 Chronicles was to point out some of the unreliable or lack of documentation found in the 1 & 2 Chronicles stories. The reliability and consistency in comparison to Samuel and Kings indicates low correlation and major problems in regard to some of the stories. This indicates to me and many scholars the Books of Chronicles were a far later  in origin from sources or oral stories that were inconsistent or incomplete. More later.

This seems consistent with what i said

 

OK.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

His point being the construction activities elsewhere in Palestine Syria should be attributed to the Omride kings, such as Omri, Ahab et al. and not to the mythical King Solomon.

I see his point, but he fails to take into consideration that though likely 90% or more of the construction can be attributed to the Omride kings, there is a small percentage not built by them... this would open the door for the minimal construction credited to Solomon in the Bible.  There's little to go on as far as whether he did or didn't for sure, but evidences that I've seen point in the direction of Solomon.

And many others including various Canaanite kingdoms, Phoenicians, Sea Peoples etc.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You seem to be missing the point the construction throughout Palestine Syria is claimed to be the Omride kings by Finkelstein instead of the mythical Solomon by Bible wishful thinking writers and early researchers that incorrectly attributed them to an unproved Solomon instead of the Omrides.

I suggest you read the whole book.

I don't believe that was proven either way.  

I have a habit of reading books cover to cover, if I start a book, I have to finish it... I'm seeing a common theme though with this author.  My take is he has concluded prior to his research and is bent on making his research fit his perspective.

 

OK, I will assume you have read all of it then.

Since the archeology of the land in question indicates settlement patterns that are in no way similar or supportive of the stories in the OT you would and have agreed in our discussions that it is not exactly as claimed. You have stated the OT stories were exaggerated, especially in regards to numbers. Also I think you have agreed in many places the stories that found their way to the OT may have been older ones that were adopted and or modified to tell the story. Though you still see it as telling the story somehow though it may not resemble it as generally assumed.

Such as 100 escape Egypt is not 600,000. Such as 40 years wandering may refer to something else etc. Such as a small band knock off a small village called Jericho which had no real walls at the time. Such as the ruins of the city of Ai were claimed to be from the invasion of the Hebrew horde, though they were ruins from the 3rd millennium BCE not any time in the 2nd.

For me these things add up to discredit the story, but I do understand you believe for other reasons not just the tales of the OT. And I don't for other reasons, not just the tales of the OT which I find to be unrealistic.

I do get your viewpoint, which is not under question or study in this thread at all.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You misunderstood what I said.

The point Finkelstein makes is the North and the South developed separately and were independent of one another and were not part of a United Kingdom as the Bible stories claim.

I did not say the Omri's ruled the small insignificant city state of Judah aka Jerusalem.

I did misunderstand that sorry.  Regardless, there's nothing scripturally in that particular verse in question that would suggest they were ever completely united from what I can see.  Was it earlier?  I'll try to read thorough the chapter again to see if it was claimed elsewhere.  If it was, would that nullify the whole event and story and why?

Other verses and chapters claim a united country.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm working on it. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow.

As you've noticed I've gotten quite sidetracked in recent weeks.  Take your time.  I understand.  

I have part of a post ready today, I will put it up though I need to take it much further as I am just starting the discussion and analysis of Ahab.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
King Ahab Part 1

When you read the story tales of King Ahab of the city State Of Samaria aka the fictional country of Israel in the OT, you immediately grasp the writer hated the man with a passion. Never was there born a more vile evil person than the story tale King Ahab. He most certainly did EITSOTL (Evil in the sight of the lord), there is no doubt about it, as far as the writer is concerned.

1 Kings 16:28 begins the tale which continues through 1 Kings 22:40, longer than the greatest king of the south, the hoped for mashiach though he wasn't, King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18-20.

We already discussed the erroneous dates in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles regarding who reigned when, so going right on with the story, Ahab began much like others he inherited the throne from Omri his father. As to doing EITSOTL, v 30 claims he did so " above all that were before him." How? Well he starts off by marrying a Phoenician princess, Jezebel. The claim is he worshiped and served Ba'al, which Ba'al is the question, probably the prince of thunder, also known by other names including Yahweh prior to the morphing of him to the story tales we have now. One does not have to look far to see a correlation between Ba'al and Yahweh, a look through the myth stories of Ancient Canaan and the ...But, back to the tale.


His marriage to Jezebel was a smart political move or an alliance for the time period. The approximate date for Ahab is 873 BCE. A major power in that time that would be of political benefit was the Phoenicians. Ahab’s wife was the daughter of one of the great kings of a Phoenician city state according to 1 Kings 16:31, King Ethba’al of the Zidonians. This refers to king Ithobaal I of Tyre.  See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithobaal_I This was a very powerful alliance and likely useful when war came to the land. The Phoenicians dominated maritime trade and most of the coastal cities.


Chapter 16 ends with this tidbit, 1 Kings 16:34 JPS – “In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho; with Abiram his first-born he laid the foundation thereof, and with his youngest son Segub he set up the gates thereof; according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by the hand of Joshua the son of Nun.”
How does this relate to Ahab one asks? I have no idea. Jericho is a very ancient city. It earliest archaeological evidences for civilization dates to about 9000 BCE. There was no town called Bethlehem at that time. Joshua wasn’t even a gleam in his father’ s, eyes, as this was 8000 years earlier. The verse quoted would lead you to consider something that is false.


See - http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/ancient-jericho.html
Or even Wiki.


1 Kings 17
This chapter deals with the prophet Elijah. He tells Ahab in v1 there would be no rain or dew for years. By v1 of Chapter 18 the god sends Elijah back to Ahab to inform him now after 3 years the god would allow rain to once again fall upon Samaria. This then goes into the tale of the prophets of Ba’al, which we will come back to shortly. By v45 of chapter 18 it rains. This was in approximately 870 BCE supposedly. There were 3 years, no rain, no dew. I know of only 1 place in the world with little to no rain for long periods, it’s in South America. Yes there were long periods where drought and famine occur, such as one in the 22nd century BCE lasting about 100 years, which had the net result of ending the Akkadian Empire and the dissolution of the dynasty in Egypt. Though it still rained on occasion, just not much.

More later.
 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Ahab Part 2 - 1 Kings 18

Ahab Part 2
1 Kings 18
This begins with the god telling Elijah to visit Ahab to inform him it would soon rain. So Elijah headed out to chat up Ahab. Samaria was in the midst of a severe famine so Ahab was making preparations to save his horses. He sent out his governor of his house Obadiah (probably chief steward or chief of staff) in one direction while he went another in search of water, grass etc to save as many as possible. Supposedly Obadiah was a Yahweh believer and whom should he encounter? Why Elijah of course.
Elijah tells him to go find Ahab and tell him where he is so he can meet him. Obadiah fears that Elijah will depart the area leaving Ahab upset to the point he would kill him as Ahab had been searching high and low for Elijah. Elijah assures him he will be there when Ahab comes. And so he was. He tells Ahab that he should get the prophets of Ba'al all 450 of them and have them come to Mt Carmel along with the entire population of Israel (paraphrase on my part - it says all of Israel so must be everyone right?) They will then lay out two bulls dressed out on wood but neither should be lit with fire. Then the prophets of Ba'al may call upon Ba'al to torch it as would Elijah to the god Yahweh. So this was done and from dawn till noon the prophets of Ba'al called on him but alas no sudden combustion occurred.


Elijah mocked them as we do to many that come to this forum with their claims of the god did it or can do it etc. By evening still no spontaneous combustion had occurred despite many and  all efforts of self inflicted wounds and blood letting. So finally Elijah puts his altar together laying out his bull in pieces upon the wood. He also made a trench that he filled with water from whence is not mentioned. If indeed there was a drought the last place water would be would be on it's top. But continue we shall with this storytale. So he has the people pour this scarce resource all over his altar. Then he orders up 4 more barrels of the liquid. Maybe it wasn't exactly clear water, there were supposedly thousands there. Anyway, they pour it on as well. So Elijah's altar is now dripping wet, he probably needs gasoline or phosphorus at this point to light it up. But no, Elijah prays to the Yahweh and it all goes up in flames consuming even the stones, the dust and the water in the trench.


So victorious Elijah now changes the deal and calls upon the people to seize all of the prophets of Ba'al. Whereupon he murders all of them at the Brook Kishon. What, a brook? I though water was no where to be because of famine? Guess that was misleading.
Elijah then tells Ahab to go and eat and drink, in other words go party as it will soon rain. Elijah tells his servant to go look towards the sea. He does and there is nothing. He repeated this 7 times when finally he came back and told him there is a small cloud. He told the servant to tell Ahab to get in his chariot and go down from the mountain least he be caught in the soon to be downpour and not be able to leave. So it was that the rain began and followed Ahab unto Jezreel.


This adventure is dated in my PTL Bible to 870 BCE. If it was 3 years as described it would have began in 873 BCE if we accept PTL's dating. One wonders at this as Ahab and his father Omri had expanded Samaria substantially during their reigns. And there is Ahab's large military to consider as well which is mentioned by Shalmanser III as part of the 12 kings who opposed him in 853 BCE.  This will be discussed shortly just mentioning it now to wonder at how this great king was taking orders from a man that even the OT indicates had a Wanted Dead or Alive bounty on him.


As the entire account is hearsay, one can accept it or not as one chooses. As it is composed however it is both fable like aka storytelling and propaganda. The propaganda should be obvious, if you oppose the god Yahweh you shall suffer and perhaps pay for it with your life.


There are clearly no other accounts of this story or validation from anywhere else.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


This adventure is dated in my PTL Bible to 870 BCE. If it was 3 years as described it would have began in 873 BCE if we accept PTL's dating. One wonders at this as Ahab and his father Omri had expanded Samaria substantially during their reigns. And there is Ahab's large military to consider as well which is mentioned by Shalmanser III as part of the 12 kings who opposed him in 853 BCE.  This will be discussed shortly just mentioning it now to wonder at how this great king was taking orders from a man that even the OT indicates had a Wanted Dead or Alive bounty on him.


As the entire account is hearsay, one can accept it or not as one chooses. As it is composed however it is both fable like aka storytelling and propaganda. The propaganda should be obvious, if you oppose the god Yahweh you shall suffer and perhaps pay for it with your life.


There are clearly no other accounts of this story or validation from anywhere else.

I assure you though I'm responding here that I read through both other posts and skimmed through the links.  I didn't see anything of significance that I felt needed a response... for the most part, I believe we're both on the same page in the other 2 posts.  

As far as other accounts, we did cover reasoning behind that as well.. though there might be that haven't been found or lost in history, these stories do in the grand scheme of things, cover narrations of small kingdoms in less populated areas.  There are bits and peices in history that have pointed in the direction of these stories being possible including little bits that were found around certain constructions e.g. Herod the Greats' builders destroyed most of Ahab's palace when they put down foundatinos for their constructions (Shanks 1985)


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Ahab part 3

Ahab Part 3
1 Kings 19


Eventually we will get to a point where I can bring in outside sources, so far these chapters are story tales and/or glorified fables.


My PTL Bible indicates this chapter is circa 860 BCE


Ahab returned to the city of Samaria and told his wife Jezebel all that had transpired with Elijah including the murder of all the prophets of Ba'al. She was miffed and sent a messenger to Elijah threatening his life. He fled to Beersheba in the mythical kingdom of Judah/Jerusalem upon hearing her threat. If Elijah could kill 450 prophets, why not one woman?  Would not his god protect him? No faith had he obviously.


Then he went 1 day’s journey into the wilderness and sat under a juniper tree. Note do these grow in the desert in Palestine? After researching this I found in the JPS version it is called a broom tree which is a desert shrub in the juniper family see - http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2009/04-12.html


Elijah has had enough and wishes to die and he sleeps under the tree. Shortly an angel touched him and told him to eat and drink, he had brought a cake baked on the hot stones in JPS (coals in KJV – however no fire is mentioned) and some water. So he did. The he naps again. The angel touched him once more telling him to eat and drink. Following his 2 meals he has enough energy to venture out for 40 days to the mountain of the god at Horeb. Sounds better than “5 Hour Energy” it was “40 Day Energy”. He found a cave where he was contacted by the god.

The reported converstion was thus:
The god said, “What doest thou here, Elijah?”
Elijah: 'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.'
The god: 'Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.'


So he did as ordered. And a great wind occurred, which broke up the mountains and caused stones to be broken. And then an earthquake, and then a fire. Then he heard a small voice.
The god: 'What doest thou here, Elijah?'
Elijah 2nd lame excuse : 'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.' Repetive prose doesn’t make a case here.
The god: 'Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when thou comest, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram; 16 and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. 17 And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. 18 Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.'


There is much to comment upon in this pronouncement of 1 Kings 19:15-18:
Currently the king of Damascus aka Syria in the story tales was allegedly Ben-ha’-dad according to 1 Kings 20:1. There were it seems 2 kings of the name Ben-ha’-dad. I and II. Again we have some problems that will need to be resolved. But that will be obvious in chapter 22. Hazael does not become king of Damascus until 842 BCE and reigns until 796 BCE. This supposed prophecy was circa 860 BCE according to the PTL Bible and other sources. In between is the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.


Elijah departed from his hiding and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who he placed upon him his mantle (a sign that he was to be a prophet replacing Elijah.) Elisha then stops his plowing and took the yoke of 12 oxen and killed all of them and boiled all of them and fed the people who did eat.


As people aren’t mentioned until the very end and also remember Elisha was plowing, one first gets the idea he is in the country, but one then wonders where enough people came from to eat 12 oxen. Killing and cooking 12 oxen might have taken Elisha a bit of time. Then one wonders where he found enough pots to boil 12 oxen. Just saying…..



 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ahab Part 3
1 Kings 19


Eventually we will get to a point where I can bring in outside sources, so far these chapters are story tales and/or glorified fables.


My PTL Bible indicates this chapter is circa 860 BCE


Ahab returned to the city of Samaria and told his wife Jezebel all that had transpired with Elijah including the murder of all the prophets of Ba'al. She was miffed and sent a messenger to Elijah threatening his life. He fled to Beersheba in the mythical kingdom of Judah/Jerusalem upon hearing her threat. If Elijah could kill 450 prophets, why not one woman?  Would not his god protect him? No faith had he obviously.


Then he went 1 day’s journey into the wilderness and sat under a juniper tree. Note do these grow in the desert in Palestine? After researching this I found in the JPS version it is called a broom tree which is a desert shrub in the juniper family see - http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2009/04-12.html


Elijah has had enough and wishes to die and he sleeps under the tree. Shortly an angel touched him and told him to eat and drink, he had brought a cake baked on the hot stones in JPS (coals in KJV – however no fire is mentioned) and some water. So he did. The he naps again. The angel touched him once more telling him to eat and drink. Following his 2 meals he has enough energy to venture out for 40 days to the mountain of the god at Horeb. Sounds better than “5 Hour Energy” it was “40 Day Energy”. He found a cave where he was contacted by the god.

The reported converstion was thus:
The god said, “What doest thou here, Elijah?”
Elijah: 'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.'
The god: 'Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.'


So he did as ordered. And a great wind occurred, which broke up the mountains and caused stones to be broken. And then an earthquake, and then a fire. Then he heard a small voice.
The god: 'What doest thou here, Elijah?'
Elijah 2nd lame excuse : 'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.' Repetive prose doesn’t make a case here.
The god: 'Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when thou comest, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram; 16 and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. 17 And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. 18 Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.'


There is much to comment upon in this pronouncement of 1 Kings 19:15-18:
Currently the king of Damascus aka Syria in the story tales was allegedly Ben-ha’-dad according to 1 Kings 20:1. There were it seems 2 kings of the name Ben-ha’-dad. I and II. Again we have some problems that will need to be resolved. But that will be obvious in chapter 22. Hazael does not become king of Damascus until 842 BCE and reigns until 796 BCE. This supposed prophecy was circa 860 BCE according to the PTL Bible and other sources. In between is the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.


Elijah departed from his hiding and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who he placed upon him his mantle (a sign that he was to be a prophet replacing Elijah.) Elisha then stops his plowing and took the yoke of 12 oxen and killed all of them and boiled all of them and fed the people who did eat.


As people aren’t mentioned until the very end and also remember Elisha was plowing, one first gets the idea he is in the country, but one then wonders where enough people came from to eat 12 oxen. Killing and cooking 12 oxen might have taken Elisha a bit of time. Then one wonders where he found enough pots to boil 12 oxen. Just saying…..



 

Does make you wonder, but then again, stranger things have happened.  This all sounds fine to me.  Obviously hard to support or deny this in history.  I see nothing to suggest it couldnt' have happened as told.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Does make you

caposkia wrote:

Does make you wonder, but then again, stranger things have happened.  This all sounds fine to me.  Obviously hard to support or deny this in history.  I see nothing to suggest it couldnt' have happened as told.  

As I said, just saying.... It sounds like many tales that have been embelished, such as the Robin Hood legends. Too much left open to questions, too many little things that sound strange.

Anyway, finally done with the tax season and once again can stand to type on a computer. I needed several days to let my fingers heal!!

Will start in again this week, maybe even today if I don't get involved in something else.

Thanks for being patient Cap.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Does make you wonder, but then again, stranger things have happened.  This all sounds fine to me.  Obviously hard to support or deny this in history.  I see nothing to suggest it couldnt' have happened as told.  

As I said, just saying.... It sounds like many tales that have been embelished, such as the Robin Hood legends. Too much left open to questions, too many little things that sound strange.

Anyway, finally done with the tax season and once again can stand to type on a computer. I needed several days to let my fingers heal!!

Will start in again this week, maybe even today if I don't get involved in something else.

Thanks for being patient Cap.

 

No worries.  We all have lives to live


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Ahab Part 4 - 1 Kings 20

Ahab Part 4
1 Kings 20

This chapter opens with Ben ha' dad the king of Syria aka Damascus and 32 other kings besieging the city state of Samaria. Circa 860 BCE according to the PTL Bible I have. The demands placed upon Ahab by Ben ha' dad were: the silver, gold, Ahab's wives, and his children. Ahab supposedly sent back agreement to this. Instead Ben ha' dad alters the demand to be: he would send his servants to take all that was pleasing to them. Ahab then called in the elders of the land and told him he had agreed to all the king of Damascus had asked, yet he wanted even more. The elders told him to refuse. So Ben ha'dad informs Ahab he would destroy the city.

Of course the god can't be left out of this storytale, so a prophet, not named of course goes to Ahab informing him thus: the god would deliver the horde of invades into Ahab's hand and he would then know that " I am the the Lord." Ahab questions as to how and is told it would be be the princes of the land as ordered by him. There were according to this tale, 232 young men that were princes and 7,000 people of Israel. They went out to attack at noon.

Meanwhile, Ben ha' dad and company were partying. Upon hearing of the princes coming from the city he ordered they be taken alive. Ahab had another plan, they and the rest of the army killed many of the Syrians. The rest fled as did Ben ha' dad who did so upon horseback. Ahab went out and devastated the invading army.

Later, the servants (probably advisers) of Ben ha' dad told him they lost the battle as they were fighting in the hills and the gods of their enemy Samaria aka Israel were thus stronger there. Instead let us fight them on the plains. So later that year the Syrian king assembled an army just as large as before and went to Aphek to battle Israel. Those of the Syrians filled the country side while those of Israel were 'like 2 little flocks of kids".

This tale of course must have more of the god in it, thus another unnamed man of the god visited Ahab and told him: the Syrians have said, "The Lord is the god of the hills, but he is not god of the valleys" So the god promised to deliver this great multitude as before to prove he is the Lord or in 21st century terms - "The One" see Jet Li on IMDB.

The battle raged on for 7 days. On the 7th day the children of Israel aka city state of Samaria killed 100,000 footmen (infantry) in one single day of Damascus. The rest fled into the city of Aphek whereupon the walls of the city fell on them killing 27,000 more. Ben ha' dad hid himself in an inner chamber in the city. Supposedly he sent messengers to ask for mercy and agreed to surrender. Ahab granted it and had the cities that were seized by Ben ha' dad's father from Omri returned as part of the deal.

So is there anything from other history or archeology that supports any of this?

One thing we know for sure, in 853 BCE Ahab joining with Damascus and other kings of Hatti-land to fight against Assyria. If as described Ahab had destroyed 2 armies from Damascus or Syria in a year of 100,000 plus as claimed in this chapter, would 7 years be sufficient time for Damascus to replace them? I doubt it.

And we have issues in regard to the population of the Areamaens aka Syrians or Damascus.  One source of course is the Assyrians. Shalmaneser III invaded in 853 BCE and was opposed by the "12 kings" an alliance is Assyrians terms of any joint opposition. The battle was at Qarqar. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar

Important to note here is the size of troops contributed by Hadadezar aka Ben ha'dad and Ahab. It appears from the chariot force of Ahab he was the strongest or one of them in the group.

Why is none of this included in 1 Kings one might ask? No alliance is described. No Battle of Qarqar is mentioned. Funny that. Then soon thereafter according to 1 Kings Ahab dies fighting his supposed ally? One wonders about that.





 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ahab Part 4
1 Kings 20

This chapter opens with Ben ha' dad the king of Syria aka Damascus and 32 other kings besieging the city state of Samaria. Circa 860 BCE according to the PTL Bible I have. The demands placed upon Ahab by Ben ha' dad were: the silver, gold, Ahab's wives, and his children. Ahab supposedly sent back agreement to this. Instead Ben ha' dad alters the demand to be: he would send his servants to take all that was pleasing to them. Ahab then called in the elders of the land and told him he had agreed to all the king of Damascus had asked, yet he wanted even more. The elders told him to refuse. So Ben ha'dad informs Ahab he would destroy the city.

Of course the god can't be left out of this storytale, so a prophet, not named of course goes to Ahab informing him thus: the god would deliver the horde of invades into Ahab's hand and he would then know that " I am the the Lord." Ahab questions as to how and is told it would be be the princes of the land as ordered by him. There were according to this tale, 232 young men that were princes and 7,000 people of Israel. They went out to attack at noon.

Meanwhile, Ben ha' dad and company were partying. Upon hearing of the princes coming from the city he ordered they be taken alive. Ahab had another plan, they and the rest of the army killed many of the Syrians. The rest fled as did Ben ha' dad who did so upon horseback. Ahab went out and devastated the invading army.

Later, the servants (probably advisers) of Ben ha' dad told him they lost the battle as they were fighting in the hills and the gods of their enemy Samaria aka Israel were thus stronger there. Instead let us fight them on the plains. So later that year the Syrian king assembled an army just as large as before and went to Aphek to battle Israel. Those of the Syrians filled the country side while those of Israel were 'like 2 little flocks of kids".

This tale of course must have more of the god in it, thus another unnamed man of the god visited Ahab and told him: the Syrians have said, "The Lord is the god of the hills, but he is not god of the valleys" So the god promised to deliver this great multitude as before to prove he is the Lord or in 21st century terms - "The One" see Jet Li on IMDB.

The battle raged on for 7 days. On the 7th day the children of Israel aka city state of Samaria killed 100,000 footmen (infantry) in one single day of Damascus. The rest fled into the city of Aphek whereupon the walls of the city fell on them killing 27,000 more. Ben ha' dad hid himself in an inner chamber in the city. Supposedly he sent messengers to ask for mercy and agreed to surrender. Ahab granted it and had the cities that were seized by Ben ha' dad's father from Omri returned as part of the deal.

So is there anything from other history or archeology that supports any of this?

One thing we know for sure, in 853 BCE Ahab joining with Damascus and other kings of Hatti-land to fight against Assyria. If as described Ahab had destroyed 2 armies from Damascus or Syria in a year of 100,000 plus as claimed in this chapter, would 7 years be sufficient time for Damascus to replace them? I doubt it.

And we have issues in regard to the population of the Areamaens aka Syrians or Damascus.  One source of course is the Assyrians. Shalmaneser III invaded in 853 BCE and was opposed by the "12 kings" an alliance is Assyrians terms of any joint opposition. The battle was at Qarqar. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar

Important to note here is the size of troops contributed by Hadadezar aka Ben ha'dad and Ahab. It appears from the chariot force of Ahab he was the strongest or one of them in the group.

Why is none of this included in 1 Kings one might ask? No alliance is described. No Battle of Qarqar is mentioned. Funny that. Then soon thereafter according to 1 Kings Ahab dies fighting his supposed ally? One wonders about that.

 

Doesn't seem to be much information on this particular section in the books I have.  Your issue with missing information is not uncommon in any ancient writings... especially seeing as all these stories were pieced together from many many different scripts.  It is likely these stories are quite incomplete.  Kings is included in scripture mainly for the consistency of a timeline.  The inclusion of God further confirms accuracy in the timeline be it that it is understood that God works in all generations through to Christ.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Battle at Qarqar

Omitting this battle is like not mentioning WWII in regard to Europe in the 20th century. Israel and Damascus (Syria) were the main participants on the one side versus Assyria.

If the writer had included the alliance with Damascus it would have detracted from his portrait of Ahab the vile. Clearly done so to make Ahab the most EITSOL character to date.

As to a consistent timeline. Avoiding the main issues and crisis of Ahab's reign - constant invasion and booty trips by Assyria does not make for consistency with reality.

It however does play into the dimension of never was story tales that are being weaved.

As I indicated upon the opening of this discussion of Ahab, the writer of Kings was so biased he must have had a reason - girlfriend deserted for Ahab's court, relatives killed - who knows.

Nothing at all is written by this writer that might show Ahab to actually have been an excellent king and military leader as well as a nation builder. Which is what is found elsewhere from the battles described and from archealogy.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Omitting this battle is like not mentioning WWII in regard to Europe in the 20th century. Israel and Damascus (Syria) were the main participants on the one side versus Assyria.

If the writer had included the alliance with Damascus it would have detracted from his portrait of Ahab the vile. Clearly done so to make Ahab the most EITSOL character to date.

As to a consistent timeline. Avoiding the main issues and crisis of Ahab's reign - constant invasion and booty trips by Assyria does not make for consistency with reality.

It however does play into the dimension of never was story tales that are being weaved.

As I indicated upon the opening of this discussion of Ahab, the writer of Kings was so biased he must have had a reason - girlfriend deserted for Ahab's court, relatives killed - who knows.

Nothing at all is written by this writer that might show Ahab to actually have been an excellent king and military leader as well as a nation builder. Which is what is found elsewhere from the battles described and from archealogy.

 

To omit it is one thing, but again, the stories have been pieced together.  I did not suggest that it was omitted, rather that it might not have been found which would be a legitimate reason why it wasn't included in this particular story.  The bible has a place in history, but is not itself a book on history.  It's a book on God.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: To omit it

caposkia wrote:

 

To omit it is one thing, but again, the stories have been pieced together.  I did not suggest that it was omitted, rather that it might not have been found which would be a legitimate reason why it wasn't included in this particular story.  The bible has a place in history, but is not itself a book on history.  It's a book on God.  

It was ignored or not mentioned for whatever reason. My thought was it put Ahab in a positive way, not what the writer(s) wanted.

Clearly the Bible is not a history book, that we have demonstrated well in this thread.

I will be very sporadic until June 20th if I post at all - I'm on vacation until then.

Have fun be back soon.

 

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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

To omit it is one thing, but again, the stories have been pieced together.  I did not suggest that it was omitted, rather that it might not have been found which would be a legitimate reason why it wasn't included in this particular story.  The bible has a place in history, but is not itself a book on history.  It's a book on God.  

It was ignored or not mentioned for whatever reason. My thought was it put Ahab in a positive way, not what the writer(s) wanted.

Clearly the Bible is not a history book, that we have demonstrated well in this thread.

I will be very sporadic until June 20th if I post at all - I'm on vacation until then.

Have fun be back soon.

 

PJTS

 

 

Sounds good, enjoy your vaca.

Just for the record, I don't believe I ever claimed the Bible as a "history book".  If i did, it's not what i believe and I was mistaken to say so.  what I am claiming is that it has its part in history and also paints a picture of a specific timeline in history.  

It is a broken timeline to the point where they are a compilation of hundreds of fragments that were pieced together into what we now know as The Bible.  

I agree with you that it is a book on God.

Something to work off of when you get back


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

To omit it is one thing, but again, the stories have been pieced together.  I did not suggest that it was omitted, rather that it might not have been found which would be a legitimate reason why it wasn't included in this particular story.  The bible has a place in history, but is not itself a book on history.  It's a book on God.  

It was ignored or not mentioned for whatever reason. My thought was it put Ahab in a positive way, not what the writer(s) wanted.

Clearly the Bible is not a history book, that we have demonstrated well in this thread.

I will be very sporadic until June 20th if I post at all - I'm on vacation until then.

Have fun be back soon.

 

PJTS

 

 

Sounds good, enjoy your vaca.

Just for the record, I don't believe I ever claimed the Bible as a "history book".  If i did, it's not what i believe and I was mistaken to say so.  what I am claiming is that it has its part in history and also paints a picture of a specific timeline in history.  

It is a broken timeline to the point where they are a compilation of hundreds of fragments that were pieced together into what we now know as The Bible.  

I agree with you that it is a book on God.

Something to work off of when you get back

No you never claimed the Bible was a history book and as I said we have demonstrated that.

As with other story tales of the ancients it is a composition of many different stories. One has to look no further than Robin Hood or the Greek tales to see how accurate that is.

There is some truth in every story tale. The problem of course is which parts.

Did Enki really brew beer? Did Herakles perform any of the feats claimed? Was there an invasion of Hebrews to Canaan? Was there an event at Sodom & Gomorrah? A flood involving Noah? Did Romulus and Remus found Rome after being suckled by a she wolf? Did Robin Hood rob the rich and give to the poor?

Who can really say for sure what is true and what is exaggeration? Super feats require extraordinary evidence. We don't seem to have it for these stories. Just saying....

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

To omit it is one thing, but again, the stories have been pieced together.  I did not suggest that it was omitted, rather that it might not have been found which would be a legitimate reason why it wasn't included in this particular story.  The bible has a place in history, but is not itself a book on history.  It's a book on God.  

It was ignored or not mentioned for whatever reason. My thought was it put Ahab in a positive way, not what the writer(s) wanted.

Clearly the Bible is not a history book, that we have demonstrated well in this thread.

I will be very sporadic until June 20th if I post at all - I'm on vacation until then.

Have fun be back soon.

 

PJTS

 

 

Sounds good, enjoy your vaca.

Just for the record, I don't believe I ever claimed the Bible as a "history book".  If i did, it's not what i believe and I was mistaken to say so.  what I am claiming is that it has its part in history and also paints a picture of a specific timeline in history.  

It is a broken timeline to the point where they are a compilation of hundreds of fragments that were pieced together into what we now know as The Bible.  

I agree with you that it is a book on God.

Something to work off of when you get back

No you never claimed the Bible was a history book and as I said we have demonstrated that.

As with other story tales of the ancients it is a composition of many different stories. One has to look no further than Robin Hood or the Greek tales to see how accurate that is.

There is some truth in every story tale. The problem of course is which parts.

Did Enki really brew beer? Did Herakles perform any of the feats claimed? Was there an invasion of Hebrews to Canaan? Was there an event at Sodom & Gomorrah? A flood involving Noah? Did Romulus and Remus found Rome after being suckled by a she wolf? Did Robin Hood rob the rich and give to the poor?

Who can really say for sure what is true and what is exaggeration? Super feats require extraordinary evidence. We don't seem to have it for these stories. Just saying....

 

 

The thing with the Bible compared to those other stories is each, (Enki brewing beer, Herakles performing feats claimed, Romulus and Remus founding Rome after being suckled by a she wolf, Robin Hood robbing rich and giving to the poor) would have to be true or none would have to be true.  The Bible is a compilation of many many stories.  Either all of them are true or none of them are despite bits and pieces of truth because as you said, the Bible is about God.  If God is real, the Bible is True, if not, then the Bible must be all false.  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is onlineOnline
As a friend, .. I'll let you re-phrase that Món Cap

As a friend, .. I'll let you re-phrase that  Món Cap

Quote:
PaulJohntheSkeptic wrote:

Who can really say for sure what is true and what is exaggeration? Super feats require extraordinary evidence. We don't seem to have it for these stories. Just saying ...

Caposkia wrote:
The thing with the Bible compared to those other stories is each, (Enki brewing beer, Herakles performing feats claimed, Romulus and Remus founding Rome after being suckled by a she wolf, Robin Hood robbing rich and giving to the poor) would have to be true or none would have to be true.  The Bible is a compilation of many many stories.  Either all of them are true or none of them are despite bits and pieces of truth because as you said, the Bible is about God.  If God is real, the Bible is True, if not, then the Bible must be all false.
Quote:
...

SEE Image ::

p.s. -- Some friend ! Hovind is giving free tickets to Dinosaur Adventure Land again or something ?


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

Knowing as we do that every significant item of interest in the OT is fiction in the sense of total fantasy with at most a borrowed name here and there does it not seem a bit odd to be chasing after minutia on the off chance there might be more than a borrowed name?

 

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:

Does make you wonder, but then again, stranger things have happened.  This all sounds fine to me. Obviously hard to support or deny this in history.  I see nothing to suggest it couldnt' have happened as told. 

Reasonability is not a substitute for physical evidence. NOTHING is a substitute for physical evidence. But without physical evidence you have nothihng.

 

 

 

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:

Doesn't seem to be much information on this particular section in the books I have.  Your issue with missing information is not uncommon in any ancient writings... especially seeing as all these stories were pieced together from many many different scripts.  It is likely these stories are quite incomplete.  Kings is included in scripture mainly for the consistency of a timeline. The inclusion of God further confirms accuracy in the timeline be it that it is understood that God works in all generations through to Christ.  

 

Lets see. "pieced together from many scripts". That eliminates the "Jews/Judeans" as they were illiterate until a century into Greek times.

There is no physical evidence of such kingS, plural. Rather there is only one, Omri, which does not rise above a borrowed name and even that is largely wishful thinking.

The inclusion of a god beyond a name used in a political speech is solid evidence it is intended as 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


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
...

As I indicated upon the opening of this discussion of Ahab, the writer of Kings was so biased he must have had a reason - girlfriend deserted for Ahab's court, relatives killed - who knows.

...

The guy who wrote this story did not read the other story and there was no one editing the works of the writers for consistency. That is a much simpler explanation. It is like bad SciFi TV where there is no significantly continuity. Think Star Trek Voyager where different technobabel was used to do the same thing in different eps.

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:

To omit it is one thing, but again, the stories have been pieced together.  I did not suggest that it was omitted, rather that it might not have been found which would be a legitimate reason why it wasn't included in this particular story.  The bible has a place in history, but is not itself a book on history.  It's a book on God.

 

INVENTING the idea out of whole cloth that they were "pieced together" is absolute gibberish without evidence of the existence of the pieces. And there is no such evidence. Nor is there a claim it ever existed by anyone from ancient times rather only modern believers. It is nothing but an invention of believers.

 

 

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: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
...

As I indicated upon the opening of this discussion of Ahab, the writer of Kings was so biased he must have had a reason - girlfriend deserted for Ahab's court, relatives killed - who knows.

...

The guy who wrote this story did not read the other story and there was no one editing the works of the writers for consistency. That is a much simpler explanation. It is like bad SciFi TV where there is no significantly continuity. Think Star Trek Voyager where different technobabel was used to do the same thing in different eps.

As you say, they had the Federation in common not much else.

As to Ahab, the writer of Kings completely ignored the real Ahab so it suggests it is complete storytelling fiction to me at least.

There are many things that don't work for me in the Ahab rant in Kings.

1- Nothing suggests Israel or more accurately the city state of Samaria was ever part of the storytelling legends of the Bible.

2- Nothing is shown that Ahab worshiped the yahweh, in fact he and his kingdom (city-state) are adequately shown to believe in the traditional Canaanite/Phoencian gods. There is much evidence of this.

There are no artifacts I know of that show the Yahweh god of the Jews was ever a god in the area of Samaria in the 9th century BCE (and I'm aware there were no Jews in the 9th century BCE - name made up far later from Yehud after the Persian period).

3-History shows Ahab was one of the powerful kings in the area along with Damascus. The Assyrians recognized that. The storytelling version of Kings  does not. Leaving out the battle of Qarqar discredits Kings and indicates storytelling on the writers part, no excuse is justified for it being omitted. The fictional battles in Kings where so many of Damascus are killed by Ahab is unrealistic and impossible given what we know from the Assyrians and that Qarqar occurred shortly later.

There is more I have mentioned in previous posts, but comparing the Kings Ahab rant to what we know from elsewhere and archealogy suggests the rant in Kings is fiction to me anyway. I need no more.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Does make you wonder, but then again, stranger things have happened.  This all sounds fine to me. Obviously hard to support or deny this in history.  I see nothing to suggest it couldnt' have happened as told. 

Reasonability is not a substitute for physical evidence. NOTHING is a substitute for physical evidence. But without physical evidence you have nothihng.

 

 

 

thus we have almost no history be it that the physical evidence we possess from history is barely 1% of history.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Doesn't seem to be much information on this particular section in the books I have.  Your issue with missing information is not uncommon in any ancient writings... especially seeing as all these stories were pieced together from many many different scripts.  It is likely these stories are quite incomplete.  Kings is included in scripture mainly for the consistency of a timeline. The inclusion of God further confirms accuracy in the timeline be it that it is understood that God works in all generations through to Christ.  

 

Lets see. "pieced together from many scripts". That eliminates the "Jews/Judeans" as they were illiterate until a century into Greek times.

There is no physical evidence of such kingS, plural. Rather there is only one, Omri, which does not rise above a borrowed name and even that is largely wishful thinking.

The inclusion of a god beyond a name used in a political speech is solid evidence it is intended as fiction.

I don't understand your reasoning here


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:As a

danatemporary wrote:

As a friend, .. I'll let you re-phrase that  Món Cap

Quote:
PaulJohntheSkeptic wrote:

Who can really say for sure what is true and what is exaggeration? Super feats require extraordinary evidence. We don't seem to have it for these stories. Just saying ...

Caposkia wrote:
The thing with the Bible compared to those other stories is each, (Enki brewing beer, Herakles performing feats claimed, Romulus and Remus founding Rome after being suckled by a she wolf, Robin Hood robbing rich and giving to the poor) would have to be true or none would have to be true.  The Bible is a compilation of many many stories.  Either all of them are true or none of them are despite bits and pieces of truth because as you said, the Bible is about God.  If God is real, the Bible is True, if not, then the Bible must be all false.
Quote:
...

SEE Image ::

 

 

p.s. -- Some friend ! Hovind is giving free tickets to Dinosaur Adventure Land again or something ?

 

I know what I had said.  The thing is, as you said, we don't seem to have evidence for these stories.... as this thread is reveiling, neither do we for the rest of history.  The thing is, other than speculative rants, no one has shown logical reasoning that any one of the books couldn't have happened as described.  Lack of belief doesn't determine truth, neither does belief.  The problem with Truth is it cares less what we think of it, it will still be what it is anyway.  


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is onlineOnline
No .. I said ???

Quote:
"The thing is, as you said, we don't seem to have evidence for these stories.... as this thread is reveiling"

   You are attributing a quote from PaulJohntheSkeptic to DanaTemporary, unless not getting enough sleep is showing its' awful signs.

   If you know what you said, Cap?  I'm assume you'd find no need in bothering to rephrase the statement.

   You are spread WAY TOO THIN !!


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

Quote:
"The thing is, as you said, we don't seem to have evidence for these stories.... as this thread is reveiling"

   You are attributing a quote from PaulJohntheSkeptic to DanaTemporary, unless not getting enough sleep is showing its' awful signs.

   If you know what you said, Cap?  I'm assume you'd find no need in bothering to rephrase the statement.

   You are spread WAY TOO THIN !!

I took what you said to mean that.... sorry I misrepresented it.  What I originally said still stands.  Let them shoot.. none have hit yet and I"ve been shot at for years by sects and non-believers alike.  God has kept True to his word.  Also if I'm wrong, I need them to surround me and fill me with holes.  I'd say by now that should have happened... I'm pretty confident in my understanding.  

I simply respond directly to every post.  I let the others lead.  If it gets spread too thin, i try to bring it back into focus.  

This particular thread has a very specific focus and I intend to keep it that way.  


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:
...

As I indicated upon the opening of this discussion of Ahab, the writer of Kings was so biased he must have had a reason - girlfriend deserted for Ahab's court, relatives killed - who knows.

...

The guy who wrote this story did not read the other story and there was no one editing the works of the writers for consistency. That is a much simpler explanation. It is like bad SciFi TV where there is no significantly continuity. Think Star Trek Voyager where different technobabel was used to do the same thing in different eps.

As you say, they had the Federation in common not much else.

Let me repeat in the form of paraphrase what I said. THEY are fiction. Fictions do not have federations. In simpler form there is no physical evidence whatsoever of any factual content of interest in the Septuagint stories either in the Greek original or the Hebrew translation.

Quote:
As to Ahab, the writer of Kings completely ignored the real Ahab so it suggests it is complete storytelling fiction to me at least.

There is no evidence of any real Ahab. He does not differ from Peter Pan.

Quote:
There are many things that don't work for me in the Ahab rant in Kings.

If you want to have the least chance of finding any "meaning" in it whatsoever look to the political situation in the region in the 2nd c. BC when these stories were created.

Quote:
1- Nothing suggests Israel or more accurately the city state of Samaria was ever part of the storytelling legends of the Bible.

Of all the "israelite" cities mentioned in the Septuagint this is the only one that has a possibility of serving as the inspiration for the Septuagint story about it. And even then it mostly ignores Omri in place of tales about his fictional descendants.

Quote:
2- Nothing is shown that Ahab worshiped the yahweh, in fact he and his kingdom (city-state) are adequately shown to believe in the traditional Canaanite/Phoencian gods. There is much evidence of this.

Yahweh and Ashara are found in archaeology as a traditional pair of Phoenician gods. Canaanites are a Septuagint creation like Philistines and Munchkins.

Quote:
There are no artifacts I know of that show the Yahweh god of the Jews was ever a god in the area of Samaria in the 9th century BCE (and I'm aware there were no Jews in the 9th century BCE - name made up far later from Yehud after the Persian period).

There were no Jews until there were Judeans. Jerusalem was the territory of the city-state of Jerusalem as Attica was the territory of Athens. Alexander did not conquer Judea yet he conquered everything therefore Judea did not exist in his time.

Samarians did not worship Yahweh until conquered by the Judeans and forced to convert in the 2nd c. BC. Yahweh worship as found in the Septuagint is an invented cult as opposed to a naturally occurring religion. The difference being the Maccabean cult priests make Stalin's Kommisars look like laize faire liberals. People do not invent religions like that. The are imposed.

Quote:
3-History shows Ahab was one of the powerful kings in the area along with Damascus. The Assyrians recognized that. The storytelling version of Kings  does not.

The artifact by which we know of Omri does not make him standout as other than worthy of note.

Quote:
Leaving out the battle of Qarqar discredits Kings and indicates storytelling on the writers part, no excuse is justified for it being omitted. The fictional battles in Kings where so many of Damascus are killed by Ahab is unrealistic and impossible given what we know from the Assyrians and that Qarqar occurred shortly later.

There is more I have mentioned in previous posts, but comparing the Kings Ahab rant to what we know from elsewhere and archealogy suggests the rant in Kings is fiction to me anyway. I need no more.

The simplest explanation is that the name Omri was simply an old name adopted by the storytellers who wrote Kings in the 2nd c. BC. It is done by writers of historical fiction all the time.

 

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:

Does make you wonder, but then again, stranger things have happened.  This all sounds fine to me. Obviously hard to support or deny this in history.  I see nothing to suggest it couldnt' have happened as told. 

Reasonability is not a substitute for physical evidence. NOTHING is a substitute for physical evidence. But without physical evidence you have nothihng.

thus we have almost no history be it that the physical evidence we possess from history is barely 1% of history.

You failed to state your implied conclusion which is, Therefore the Septuagint is real history. However your premise is false.

Archaeological evidence constitutes physical evidence. We do have archaeological evidence of the existence of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Alexander and so forth. There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of biblical Israel or Judah or any of its events or characters save for the occasional name such as Omri. When it comes to events in those real ancient kingdoms we find them carved into walls or written in clay by arkies within those kingdoms. The Septuagint stories, aka Old Testament, first applear in history in the late 2nd to mid 1st c. BC without provenance. That means no one knows where they came from or who wrote them or why. We do know they back up the tyranny of the Hasmodean priest-kings suggesting they were the creators of the stories.

 

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:

Doesn't seem to be much information on this particular section in the books I have.  Your issue with missing information is not uncommon in any ancient writings... especially seeing as all these stories were pieced together from many many different scripts.  It is likely these stories are quite incomplete.  Kings is included in scripture mainly for the consistency of a timeline. The inclusion of God further confirms accuracy in the timeline be it that it is understood that God works in all generations through to Christ.

Lets see. "pieced together from many scripts". That eliminates the "Jews/Judeans" as they were illiterate until a century into Greek times.

There is no physical evidence of such kingS, plural. Rather there is only one, Omri, which does not rise above a borrowed name and even that is largely wishful thinking.

The inclusion of a god beyond a name used in a political speech is solid evidence it is intended as fiction.

I don't understand your reasoning here

What is the physical evidence there were any "pieces" to put together these stories?

What is there about the people around Jerusalem, Judea, being illiterate that makes the reasoning "they did not create the stories" difficult to follow?

As to the god here, the ancients were not much different from us in their stories. If "Zeus/Yahweh/God" was on our side" the story is likely true. If the same gods took an active and visible hand in events they were intended as fiction. So a story of prayer, sacrifice, gratitude and victory attributed to a god has no bearing upon the validity of the story. When the god does something like send an overnight plague of mice and strike people dead it is intended as fiction. It is a form of the storytellers' art.

 

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