Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[Craig B]

To downplay the task of taking and holding the city of Megiddo and to further disregard its importance to the region, both would be highly insulting to me if I were Jewish.

Eh? What on earth are you talking about? if I say that the Biblical account of these military adventures is inaccurate, I'm insulting today's Jewish population? That is a very remarkable idea. If I disbelieve the Iliad, is that "highly insulting" to the people of modern Greece?

 

[ddt]

Certainly David was a "King" as it is widely used throughout the text of the Bible.

The bible is true because the bible says so?

There is no extrabiblical reference that refers to a king, or even to a tribal leader, David. There is no archaeological or historical evidence either of his "kingdom".

 

[Craig B]

The bible is true because the bible says so?

There is no extrabiblical reference that refers to a king, or even to a tribal leader, David. There is no archaeological or historical evidence either of his "kingdom".

There is this.

 

[ddt]

There is this.

I'm aware of the "House of David" quote from the Tel Dan Stele. But that's as ambiguous as "House of Windsor". It can refer to (a) a town, (b) the name of a dynasty (and not necessarily that of its founder), and indeed (c) the name of the founder of a dynasty. And in case (c), it still says nothing about the status of this founder. He could easily have been the appointed vassal of the pharaoh.

The Tel Dan stele gives not enough context to decide which; unlike, e.g., the Moabite stone which clearly speaks of an Israelite king Omri.

 

[barehl]

I suppose my favorite battle description comes from 2nd Kings. Concerning the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians and the end result. 2 Kings 19:35 "Then it happened that night that the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead."

Well, we know that didn't happen. In reality, the Assyrian army destroyed Babylon in 689 BC. What is rather funny is that the Hebrews seem to have picked up the Assyrian propaganda about associating Babylon with Tiamat. Babylon's actual patron god was Marduk. Anyway, the Assyrians took over the areas around Judah including Ammon, Moab, and Edom. The siege of Jerusalem actually ended when they paid tribute to the Assyrian king, Sennacherib. But, I guess claiming that God killed off your enemies is less embarrassing than admitting that you paid tribute.

Of course the most action and warring occurred under the Kings Saul, David and Solomon

How seriously can we take claims of battles with the Philistines? I doubt they are anymore real than the story about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho or the ridiculous stories about Samson or the nonsense about the Queen of Sheba.

I would say that the primary beef with the Philistines was that they were sea traders whereas the Hebrews were not. This meant that the Philistines would have had spices, fabrics, and dyes that would have been difficult to get by land trade. They also would have had access to better technology and weapons.

 

[barehl]

The reason being is that everyone that visited the links I gave previously to several Concordances and sources already knows the first definition listed for γενεά , Genea , is "Race". End of story.

Actually it isn't. If memory serves, your ideas come from Dr. Gleason Archer who specifically gave the race interpretation as a way of avoiding a perceived error in the prophecy. This meaning is claimed as being used by Homer, Herodotus, and Plutarch.

Off the top of my head, the uses by Herodotus did not appear to me to translate to race. I would have read them as either birth or heritage. And, neither of these would be applicable to Matthew 24:34. Plutarch would be a good reference since he was also a Hellenistic writer. However, I suppose it could be argued that learned writers might copy the usage of Homer since it was classic literature.

Even wikipedia gives the proper perspective of Strong's:

Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.

This is why I mentioned Homer and Plutarch as genuine Greek authors. So, again, to make this claim, a reference from Homer or Plutarch would be good. And, that's the actual story.

 

[barehl]

If I recall correctly you would have had rulers for each walled city like Kadesh or Megiddo. Naturally, in case of attack the people in that area would seek shelter at the city. I assume each of these rulers maintained a small garrison and they probably had militia training each year since the bulk of any army would have been militia. If memory serves, when a larger area was threatened they would promote a military leader called a Judge. The size of the influence for the Judge was strictly dependent on how many friends and supporters they had from the other areas. I suppose we would think of this as a general although they could also settle disputes and hence the judge association. The suggestion is that at some point people felt threatened enough to have an overall leader. This would be in miniature similar to how Charlemagne came to power.

So, I found it doubtful that Saul became king of Israel before Israel existed. It apparently didn't exist until after the death of Solomon (assuming Solomon existed). We can easily pick out a few themes here. For example the claim that both Saul and David were shepherds comes from the romanticization of the nomadic shepherd (preference of Abel over Cain and Psalm 23), even though the primary source of money in Judah was olive oil and wine. And clearly the claim that Solomon was wise comes from the heritage of being a Judge.

 

[barehl]

I am kind of curious about something. Apparently people who are superstitious about the Bible like Archer have been concerned, but I can't figure out what didn't actually happen. Matthew 24 seems like a reasonably accurate accounting.

4 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. Check

6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. Check

9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. Check

11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Check

15-28 is repetition.

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Check

30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Check

Was there something else?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Eh? What on earth are you talking about? if I say that the Biblical account of these military adventures is inaccurate, I'm insulting today's Jewish population? That is a very remarkable idea. If I disbelieve the Iliad, is that "highly insulting" to the people of modern Greece?

It is my opinion the tasks performed by the Hebrews as described were highly noteworthy. To discount them as nothing, and to further discount the area of Megiddo and its significance in the region is offensive to the culture IMO.

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.
Chris B.

 

[Leumas]

I'm aware of the "House of David" quote from the Tel Dan Stele. But that's as ambiguous as "House of Windsor". It can refer to (a) a town, (b) the name of a dynasty (and not necessarily that of its founder), and indeed (c) the name of the founder of a dynasty. And in case (c), it still says nothing about the status of this founder. He could easily have been the appointed vassal of the pharaoh.

The Tel Dan stele gives not enough context to decide which; unlike, e.g., the Moabite stone which clearly speaks of an Israelite king Omri.

Also notice that in that script they use a dot to separate words.

In the script it says BYTDWD ביתדוד (the letters on the stele are actually in paleo-hebrew which is in fact Phoenician and not in the block Hebrew which is in fact Aramaic) as one word and not BYT.DWD בית.דוד which would then imply that it should be one word meaning Betdwd much like Bethlehem or Bethel etc. and not House of David.

So it could be that the translation of lines 8 and 9 should be

• 8. the king of Israel, and I killed [...]yahu son of [... the ki]/ng of
• 9. the Hose of David Betdwd. And I made [their towns into ruins and turned]

Which would be much like saying the son of a king of some city or region which has a name possibly meaning Beloved House and not at all Clan of David as it is assumed to mean.

Just postulating!!!

Also even if it is House of David.... it does not mean David was real much like it says King of Israel and we all know Israel was not real.

Otherwise the existence of the city of Athens and Athenians would mean that Athena was real... no?

Or is it only Biblical mythical characters that are proven real by finding their names on stone?

 

[Leumas]

It is my opinion the tasks performed by the Hebrews as described were highly noteworthy. To discount them as nothing, and to further discount the area of Megiddo and its significance in the region is offensive to the culture IMO.

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.
Chris B.

Seriously... questioning the veracity of a book of fables and myths is the same as holocaust denial???

Wow.... so all science and rationality and reason and reality and archaeology and logic (and of course atheism) are an INSULT to Jews much like holocaust denial???

AMAZING casuistry!


Good try Brother Chris... but your ruse is quite obvious!

 

[ddt]

It is my opinion the tasks performed by the Hebrews as described were highly noteworthy. To discount them as nothing, and to further discount the area of Megiddo and its significance in the region is offensive to the culture IMO.

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.
Chris B.

Seriously? Questioning the veracity of the tales in the Bible - books that were only written down centuries and centuries after the tales allegedly happened, and have only very limited corroboration in written temporal documents from neighbouring cultures, or in the archaeological record - is the same as denying the Holocaust took place, an event in recent history that is proved by official documents, by testimony of both perpetrators and victims, and a huge amount of historical research?

Seriously?

Basically, you're saying the Bible is inerrant, and you still want us to buy your claim that you're not a Christian? You do realize you've made that claim already more frequently than Peter when he was caught sneaking into the Sanhedrin? Can you hear the cock crow?

 

[Craig B]

It is my opinion the tasks performed by the Hebrews as described were highly noteworthy. To discount them as nothing, and to further discount the area of Megiddo and its significance in the region is offensive to the culture IMO.

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.

Chris B.

That's a new one! So people who are not biblical literalists are equivalent to Nazis? What about the Jews I know, none of whom believe that "the Bible is true"? Are they all self hating Nazis?

Personally, I don't believe this ever happened. Does that mean I'm insulting today's Jews or their culture. Numbers 31

31 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people ... 6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods ... 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves ...

Now, this is not Judaism. It is part of the disgusting stories told by the ancestors of the Jews, who were barbarians, just as all peoples have ancestors who were barbarians. By denying this monstrosity I am not insulting Jews, but complimenting them. Here is what Thomas Paine wrote on the topic.

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.

It is an insult to Jews, and above all to victims and survivors of the Holocaust, that they should be told: unless you accept as part of your culture these ancient imaginary deeds of genocide and mass slaughter, you are as bad as the Nazis who have committed genocide against you. What a monstrous - and ridiculous - thing to say!

 

[Border Reiver]

It is my opinion the tasks performed by the Hebrews as described were highly noteworthy. To discount them as nothing, and to further discount the area of Megiddo and its significance in the region is offensive to the culture IMO.

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.
Chris B.

Stop.

Questioning if we are to accept that the OT is a historical document, then, like other historical tales, it has to stand up to independent scrutiny. A significant portion of the stories in the OT do not stand up to historical and archeological evidence, as there is often no corroborating evidence, such as mentions in the records of Egypt, the Hittites for pre-Assyrian conflicts. It therefore should be looked at as no more historical than the Volsunga Saga, or the Arthurian tales - national myths possibly based on some historical events, but distorted and exaggerated.

Conflating the recognition that the Bible is NOT history, but rather a political/religious/nationalist document is not akin to Holocaust Denial.

 

[Donn]

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general. I think you'd receive about the same reaction if you were claiming the accounts of the holocaust are made up and that it never really happened.
Chris B.

Weird. Sick, and... Weird.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Stop.

Questioning if we are to accept that the OT is a historical document, then, like other historical tales, it has to stand up to independent scrutiny. A significant portion of the stories in the OT do not stand up to historical and archeological evidence, as there is often no corroborating evidence, such as mentions in the records of Egypt, the Hittites for pre-Assyrian conflicts. It therefore should be looked at as no more historical than the Volsunga Saga, or the Arthurian tales - national myths possibly based on some historical events, but distorted and exaggerated.

Conflating the recognition that the Bible is NOT history, but rather a political/religious/nationalist document is not akin to Holocaust Denial.

Ah, but you see, even you understand that while not all the stories of the Bible are corroborated in other cultures of the day, some are. Isn't that interesting?

To me, and my way of thinking, it is childish reasoning to assume you will not offend a culture by denial of their book of faith. Try that with Muslims and the Koran and see if you don't end up at the end of a rope.
Chris B.

 

[Astreja]

To question whether or not the Bible is true would certainly be an insult. Not only to the religion but also to the entire culture in general.

If a culture believes what I see as utter nonsense, IMO it should be questioned. I value the quest for truth far, far above any and all cultural traditions -- So far above them, in fact, that cultural traditions are but a pale blue dot seen from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That's a new one! So people who are not biblical literalists are equivalent to Nazis? What about the Jews I know, none of whom believe that "the Bible is true"? Are they all self hating Nazis?

Personally, I don't believe this ever happened. Does that mean I'm insulting today's Jews or their culture. Numbers 31 Now, this is not Judaism. It is part of the disgusting stories told by the ancestors of the Jews, who were barbarians, just as all peoples have ancestors who were barbarians. By denying this monstrosity I am not insulting Jews, but complimenting them. Here is what Thomas Paine wrote on the topic. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.

It is an insult to Jews, and above all to victims and survivors of the Holocaust, that they should be told: unless you accept as part of your culture these ancient imaginary deeds of genocide and mass slaughter, you are as bad as the Nazis who have committed genocide against you. What a monstrous - and ridiculous - thing to say!

So, you tend to view some of the Bible as true and other parts untrue? Best of both worlds? LOL. I can't do that in good conscience. I think it's a better policy to investigate what's written and why to better understand the cultures of the time. I don't think the problem is with "Bible literalists" it's likely more akin to Bible illiteralists.

Certainly there were several cultures that sacrificed their children in those days. That's why we have the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Bible. It teaches to sacrifice the ram and not the child.

Above you mention "this is not Judaism" and I agree, today and after the lessons of Abraham, that statement is correct, but before Abraham, not so much.

I would suggest review of the worship practices of the god "Baal" and the influence of Middle East cultures of the period for a better understanding of child sacrifice and it's effect on early Hebrew culture.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

If a culture believes what I see as utter nonsense, IMO it should be questioned. I value the quest for truth far, far above any and all cultural traditions -- So far above them, in fact, that cultural traditions are but a pale blue dot seen from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

I get that. But we should understand that we may not know the reason behind the things they did that seem nonsensical to us now until we make the effort to investigate what those things were and why they did them.

Some of the practices in the Bible seem to tie in with modern science as well. The practice of quarantine for example, comes from the Bible and a time where man could have no idea that germs existed simply because it was impossible for them to see a germ. Yet, they knew in certain exposures people must be quarantined. Brow raising.
Chris B.

 

[Border Reiver]

Ah, but you see, even you understand that while not all the stories of the Bible are corroborated in other cultures of the day, some are. Isn't that interesting?

Not particularly. What it tells me is that the tribal peoples who became the Israelites developed a national myth of how they came to be as a nation state, and as was common at the time the political state had deep ties to a particular diety.

There are other such coincidences - the existence of the city of Rome does not validate the legend of Romulus and Remus, the mention of a battle at Badon Hill in "On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain" by Gildas does not prove that Arthur was a King, and the Tomb of Agamemmnon does not make Achilles a real person.

To me, and my way of thinking, it is childish reasoning to assume you will not offend a culture by denial of their book of faith. Try that with Muslims and the Koran and see if you don't end up at the end of a rope.
Chris B.

If you hold out a Book of Faith as a Book of History, then its fair game for the application of the historical method. That some people are so insecure in their faith that they cannot accept that the myths they hold as part of their religion are not real events then their faith is not very strong to begin with.

And I believe that blasphemers against Islam are supposed to be beheaded, not hung.