 |
| |
|
|
Brent
|
|
There doesn't seem to be an active semi-all-purpose religion thread, so here's one. To give the thread some more specific direction if needed, it can focus mainly on monotheism in general. I'd like to learn a thing or two about Judaism, Islam, and Christian denominations other than my own, and if by some chance anyone wants to know anything about mine (that doesn't get any nastier than the poll thread or the Catholic or Jewish threads in recent memory), that's fine too, but I don't think people want to focus on mine (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism)) specifically and I don't think I'd want to try to proselyte any more directly than has been recently done around here by me or others even if it were allowed. And I'll try not to be too much the weird mystic I seemed like in the poll thread.
So I guess I should ask some questions or something... or otherwise specify some subtopics to start with, that as far as I know haven't had their own threads or otherwise been covered in memory.
How much of the Old Testament do you believe to be literal to what degree? Am I the only one around here who believes Adam and Noah existed?
To what degree do Muslims believe in or use the Judeo-Christian Bible? I thought they believed in it, but do they actually believe the Jews corrupted the text? From what little I know, it sounds like they don't use it much. Just wanting to know is all...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
Ok, I think it's a proper location to move my and LOTM's threadjack on the historical origin of the hebrews:
link:
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/show...158#post3718158
My version of the early events:
quote:
The probable picture that shows up through the mist of the old book is, IMHO, this:
A semi-nomadic family, that could've originated on the outskirts of mesopotamia, probably by a decision of the head of the family, given the extremely rigid patriarchal structure that these societies have, has decided to settle down in Canaan, in the town ( at the time probably nothing more than a small village surrounded by a rather low wall ) of Jerusalem, after having allied with the villagers previously, against fighting other kings ( other heads of villages. We're talking hundreds of people here, max, IMO). We're bordering prehistoric times here, btw. The priests of the village introduce the family to El, at which point the two communities merge ( I don't think that a violent takeover by the nomads is too possible, since we'd have some strong clues to it ) . The worship of El grows, and slowly, El displaces all the gods from the pantheon - won't be the first time such a thing happens. However, in other, smaller villages, that just got captured by a fledgeling kingdom, the cults of other canaanite gods are still going strong: the oh-so-hated Baal and Ashera, El's son ( one of 70, btw) and wife, are still a competition to El, and it's cult is being persecuted mercilessly.
Some **** hits the fan with Egypt - I am still not sure what, I am thinking about it, how to explain the whole Joseph capture, and ascent to the role of the first prime, or whatever. It's possible that Egypt actively captured the area, and instead of just asking for tribute, as usual, they appointed an administrator, who then climbed the imperial ranks, in some way. The whole "Joseph makes his dad to live in egypt, then people become slaves stripped of their culture for tens of generations, yet then come out as a united people" story is very thin. Plus if the were just 70 people, as Torah claims, when they arrived, how the hell was this a significant number to any slaving operation. Remember, only a couple of years passed from "70 Israelites coming to Egypt" to "Israelites building stuff and being flogged". doesn't hold water. |
LOTM's version:
quote:
The canaanites live in the lowlands, and cities like Hazor, Jaffa, etc. Where commerce, including plantation agriculture prevails. Most people are peasants, whose corvee labor is exploited by a class of priest kings. The local kings, per the Amarna letters are subject to Egypt, adopt some egyptian culture, and even have contingents of egyptian troops present. At some point, as Egypt goes into its late Bronze age decline, many of the peasants flee to the hill country, where they establish a relatively egalitarian society where land reverts to the peasant owner every jubilee year. They pare down the Canaanite pantheon to a single god, who embodies there distinctive social views. They may absorb some seminomadic types from east of jordan, who have historic tendency to occasionally go sedentary anyway. They may even absorb some semitic slaves escaped from Egypt (who MAY bring with them tales of a monotheist king called Akenaton) These disparate groups join in a covenant, perhaps at Shechem, where a covenant between different groups is recorded in the book of Joshua, IIRC.
This would account for the continuity with Canaanite culture, but also the social ethic, and also the exodus story (Most of the exodus story referring in fact to life in the Canaanite cities, and to flight from them, getting confused with a parallel story of fugite slaves from Egypt).
Also ties in with later history - the kings of Israel, once they capture the low country, revert to trade and plantation agricutlure, and to corvee labor (to your tents, oh Israel!) and to an oppressive state, and to the Canaanite pantheon. The Prophets attempt to fight back and defend the old hill country ways, eventually triumphing during the Babylonian exile.
Only thing inconvenient is that the low country, with its international trade ties (Tel aviv, silicon wadi?) is the socially oppressive canaanite place, while the hill country - Judea and Samaria - is the authentic home of Jewish civilization
|
My problems with LOTM's version:
quote:
his is an interesting version: The El-Amarna letters sure shed a healthy dose of light on all of this, however they also raise even more questions.
Why don't I like your story, which is, admittedly around the concensus today?
-The miss on the importance of Jerusalem from the earliest of times.
-No emphasis on the nomadic nature of Abraham and the other ancients.
The egalitarian society is not a problem - It's actually the natural state of the semi-prehistoric canaanites together with the sedentary tribe. It's the overwhelming emphasis on the nomadic in the life of the ancients that puzzles me.
And the Geography as well - The coastal towns are not mentioned until some time into the Tanah. I think they don't appear in the Torah, at all. In the Torah period, I think they were Phoencian ( another bunch of well-developed Canaanites ) , and the Torah doesn't have any hostility towards them, at all.
Also, the later story always sircles around the environs of Jerusalem. This place has one of the most ancient agricultural terrace systems in the world - No place for a bunch of nomads - that's why Abraham always hung around Beer Sheva, on the frontier, on the border of the desert.
This complete blend between the frontier society and the agricultural settlement shows that the merger must've happened very early on, and that it was relatively peaceful. And the relative clarity of the detail, and the consistency ( yet implausibility) of the story means that there was a healthy doze of clerics rewriting this peace of paper many times - after all, at that time, this was one of the most literate places on the planet. Of course, the clerics could've rewritten the story a lot of time later ( think post split Judea), but I am sure that the core was correct. You can't completely rewrite a well known scroll.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
I believe the Old Testament is the ancient lore of a population (the Hebrews). It was written at a time where people easily believed in the supernatural. As such, it's an interesting book for historians or antropologists, just like, say, the Epic of Sunjatta (Mali).
Useless to say, I don't think there is any shred of literal truth in it. Like most ancient epics, many depicted events are probably rooted in reality, but they show aggrandizement, exaggeration, and Deus-Ex-Machina plot twists that would characterize a bad novel in today's worlds (I am fully aware the standards of the time were vastly different).
I generally think it is misguided to look for literal truth in the Hebraic OT. But I think it is entirely idiotic to look for literal truth in its translations, especially the old European translations (such as King James'). No matter what you think of the divine origin of the Bible, the translators are neither God nor His prophets. The translators are flawed human beings, and even if the Bible was the actual word from God, the translations has to suffer from being mediated by man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I had heard that it was most probable that the Hebrews came into egypt during one of the times that egypt was conquered by a foreign group
and when egypt reinserted control, things were obviously not as good for foreign groups..
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Even in England, kings originally ruled fairly small groups of people.
Jerusalem wasn't posessed by the Israelites until David, I thought.
So people don't even think there's any literal truth in the end of the OT? with the Babylonian captivity and all?
I believe the King James traslation is fairly correct. It is what my religion mainly uses, although we do have a more recent translation, by a prophet. A major belief of ours is that people (mainly in the Middle Ages, I think) intentionally changed things.
I certainly don't find Genesis boring.
Jacob's name was changed to Israel, but I generally hear the name Israel referring mainly to his descendants and not so much the individual.
And if you're really talking about the early Old Testament story, what about the garden, the flood, and the tower?
Maybe some day I'll get somewhere with learning Hebrew (the written language is particularly tricky for me) and be able to read the Bible in Hebrew.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
quote:
Even in England, kings originally ruled fairly small groups of people.
Jerusalem wasn't posessed by the Israelites until David, I thought.
|
So the good book says. It's possible that the book is wrong.
quote:
So people don't even think there's any literal truth in the end of the OT? with the Babylonian captivity and all?
|
Actually, most chances are that most of it is half-true, or to various degrees distorted. Much less in the era of the monarchy, much more in the tribal era.
quote:
I believe the King James traslation is fairly correct. It is what my religion mainly uses, although we do have a more recent translation, by a prophet. A major belief of ours is that people (mainly in the Middle Ages, I think) intentionally changed things.
|
Where did they change things? This could happen to translations as well, btw.
quote:
And if you're really talking about the early Old Testament story, what about the garden, the flood, and the tower?
|
Fables, imho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
1. Canaanites and lowland cities - I dont think Phoenicians show up till the rise of the Davidic monarchy, by which times the Canaanites south of Phoenicia have been conquered by either the Israelites or the Philistines. The Phoenicians seem to be simply Canaanites who survived. The Phoenicians seem to be friendly to the Israelite kings. When they intermarry with said Israelite kings, however, this is associated with the restoration of pagan worship under Ahab and Jezebel, and the prophets, keepers of hill country monotheism against Canaanite paganism rail against this.
2. Patriarchal associations with places - IIUC this is standard stuff - different Israelite tribes had different legendary progenitors, which is why the places associated with Avraham avinu are different from those associated with Yaakov, for ex. At some point these stories were merged. Theres alot of rewriting, much associated with the need to integrate the stories of the northern tribes with those of Judea - probably took place after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when refugees went south
3. I know of no evidence that Jerusalem was in Israelite hands anytime before the time associated with King David.
4. Note that Apiru (hebrew?) is a term used in amarna letters for seminomadic bandit types. Again there probably was a considerable element of them in the mixture, which would make sense of the nomadic stories (my father was a wandering Aramean...)
To Brent - the fact that i subscribe to the above scientific view, does not mean I cant read the Bible was an integral narrative, and derive spiritual lessons therefrom. While my views would have been seen as deeply heretical by past generations of Rabbis, there IS a tradition of viewing the text at different levels, all of which are held to be true simultaneously. There are truths to be learned from the story of Abraham and Isaac for example, and those truths are NOT lessened by acknowledging say, that the pattern of sacrificial locations associated with Abraham LOOKS like an attempt to associate a legendary ancestor with cult sites.
As for Adam, his story tells us that what humans have in common is more important than what sets us apart, that you have to make your own decision to follow G-d, even when your spouse tempts you, that actions have consequences, and MANY other TRUTHS, that are not contradicted by believing that man evolved from early primates in East Africa.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Can't be sure in every chase which changes were intentional, but some things that were intentionally removed at some point may have been clearer indications in the OT that Jesus was the fulfilment of messianic prophecy, clearer indications of the true nature of God (his having a body and such), that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate beings but one in purpose, and the book of Revelation may have been intentionally rearranged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
About Adam and Eve, I believe they didn't so much sin as transgress. They had to do what they did so they could multiply and fill the earth as commanded. It was all planned out beforehand.
I d on't think the other gods mentioned in the bible were meant to be taken as being actual beings, just manmade concepts and objects worshipped falsely. However, my religion, which considers itself Christian, does believe there are other gods out there, but we have no connection to them because they are not our creator. And they are all one in purpose. Actually, as I understand it, there are higher and higher Gods ruling over us, but we think of there being one God because they are one in purpose and really we have no need to concern ourselves with the matter in this life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
Brent, you're Mormon, correct?
Since this is a general religion topic, I just wondered if you feel like explaining why you believe in Mormonism. To me it seems even more obviously made-up by man than the other major religions (and that's saying something) Why do you think Joseph Smith is special.
I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm simply curious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
I believe what I believe because it is logical to me. It is logical for God to be fair, and the scriptures and such seem to logically indicate that He is.
What is it that says to you that my religion is fabricated other than the fact that it was unknown before Joseph restored it?
I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet because his teachings are logical to me. None of the witnesses who saw the Golden Plates, whether the three by supernatural means nor the eight by natural means, ever denied their statements, and the fact that they left the church anyway but still didn't deny their statements actually is itself saying something. No refutement of the Book of Mormon is convincing to me.
And then of course there is that which cannot be transmitted by mere words. It just feels right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
Were you raised Mormon?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Yes, as were both of my parents. Some of my ancestors have been in it since the 1850s.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
quote:
It's nice to think of Sri Lanka as being the Garden of Eden though- the Romans called it Serendip, and the Muslims place Eden there, don't they ?
|
Talk about disappointment... 4 out of 5 tsunami victims agree. 
quote:
1. Canaanites and lowland cities - I dont think Phoenicians show up till the rise of the Davidic monarchy, by which times the Canaanites south of Phoenicia have been conquered by either the Israelites or the Philistines. The Phoenicians seem to be simply Canaanites who survived. The Phoenicians seem to be friendly to the Israelite kings. When they intermarry with said Israelite kings, however, this is associated with the restoration of pagan worship under Ahab and Jezebel, and the prophets, keepers of hill country monotheism against Canaanite paganism rail against this.
|
Phoenician city states date before 1200BC.
quote:
2. Patriarchal associations with places - IIUC this is standard stuff - different Israelite tribes had different legendary progenitors, which is why the places associated with Avraham avinu are different from those associated with Yaakov, for ex. At some point these stories were merged. Theres alot of rewriting, much associated with the need to integrate the stories of the northern tribes with those of Judea - probably took place after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when refugees went south |
Umm, no, while different tribes did have different legendary progenitors, they were brothers ( and also one of the brother's sons ), and lived in the same household. Plus, the history should've been rewritten earlier for that, during the times of the united kingdom.
quote:
3. I know of no evidence that Jerusalem was in Israelite hands anytime before the time associated with King David. |
What evidence exactly do you want, if the complete notion of the Israelites wasn't even formed before those times ( while it does say otherwise in the bible).
quote:
4. Note that Apiru (hebrew?) is a term used in amarna letters for seminomadic bandit types. Again there probably was a considerable element of them in the mixture, which would make sense of the nomadic stories (my father was a wandering Aramean...) |
Don't get me started on the Apiru!
How do they connect with the sea people? Which one captured egypt?
These are all questions I still have no answers for.
Summary:
The whole "Hill country shepherds vs. Plain farmers" argument doesn't hold water for many reasons:
-first, the hill country is also sedentary mostly.
-Second, the hill country was the place where all the action in the bible is, except the clashes with the philistines.
-egalitarian society, and tribal structure was present with the agriculutral canaanites.
-The Apiru have attacked not only here, and in egypt, but in mesapotamia as well, IIRC.
So maybe, when they say" Avraham ha Ivri" in the bible, they mean "Abraham of the Apiru", as a legendary forefather of the nation. But then, why does he come from Ur?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
1. Canaanites and lowland cities - I dont think Phoenicians show up till the rise of the Davidic monarchy, by which times the Canaanites south of Phoenicia have been conquered by either the Israelites or the Philistines. The Phoenicians seem to be simply Canaanites who survived. The Phoenicians seem to be friendly to the Israelite kings. When they intermarry with said Israelite kings, however, this is associated with the restoration of pagan worship under Ahab and Jezebel, and the prophets, keepers of hill country monotheism against Canaanite paganism rail against this.
|
quote:
Phoenician city states date before 1200BC. |
I think we agree here. What i meant was that Canaanites live on the coast - in the south theyre displaced by Philistines and Israelites and disappear, in the north theyre simply renamed.
quote:
2. Patriarchal associations with places - IIUC this is standard stuff - different Israelite tribes had different legendary progenitors, which is why the places associated with Avraham avinu are different from those associated with Yaakov, for ex. At some point these stories were merged. Theres alot of rewriting, much associated with the need to integrate the stories of the northern tribes with those of Judea - probably took place after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when refugees went south |
quote:
Umm, no, while different tribes did have different legendary progenitors, they were brothers ( and also one of the brother's sons ) |
Yes, but IIRC there are also associations with the Patriarchs/avot.
quote:
, and lived in the same household. Plus, the history should've been rewritten earlier for that, during the times of the united kingdom. |
Thats IF the united monarchy (to avoid confusion with Great Britain) actually existed, which has been doubted by many, IIUC. Alternatively it may have existed LATER - theres a suggestive matching of names of one of the later kings between the Judean and Israelite king lists - tanaach doesnt acknowledge it, but then Taanach doesnt give muchg legitimacy to the post-split northern kingdom - Taanach takes a Davidic line POV, and probably magnifies the achievements of the southern line, and minimizes those of the northern kings.
quote:
3. I know of no evidence that Jerusalem was in Israelite hands anytime before the time associated with King David. |
quote:
What evidence exactly do you want, if the complete notion of the Israelites wasn't even formed before those times ( while it does say otherwise in the bible). |
IIRC the surge in settlement in the hill country is archeologically visible BEFORE 1000 BCE, and thats the movement Im associating with "exodus" and the formation of the Israelite people. I would expect some evidence from the City of David excavations of a transition before 1000 BCE, or continuity across that line. I dont recall what the C of D excavations found wrt to that - do you?
quote:
4. Note that Apiru (hebrew?) is a term used in amarna letters for seminomadic bandit types. Again there probably was a considerable element of them in the mixture, which would make sense of the nomadic stories (my father was a wandering Aramean...) |
Don't get me started on the Apiru!
quote:
How do they connect with the sea people? Which one captured egypt? |
For sea peoples - see Drews "The End of the Bronze Age".
quote:
Summary:
The whole "Hill country shepherds vs. Plain farmers" argument doesn't hold water for many reasons:
-first, the hill country is also sedentary mostly.
-Second, the hill country was the place where all the action in the bible is, except the clashes with the philistines.
-egalitarian society, and tribal structure was present with the agriculutral canaanites. |
Im having trouble making myself clear. IIUC there is little settlement in the hill country in the period BEFORE 1200 BCE or so. (until you go way back to like early Bronze) So circa 1500 BCE youve got sedentary farmers in the plains, and seminomad types, perhaps moving between the hills west of Jordan and the steppes east of Jordan (like historical era Beduin, IIUC) Sometime around 1200 BCE you get a major increase in sedentary farming settlements in the hill country - some late bronze age chalutzim are settling the hills. My supposition (actually somebody elses, but i cant remember the source) is that the settlers refugees from the lowlands, possibly joined by seminomads (ethnically related, also western semites). THIS is the birth of Israel. The NEW society, post 1200 BCE, IS sedentary farmers - the distinction from the lowlands is that while the lowlands have plantation agriculture, perhaps irrigated, and cities living on the surplus, the hills have subsistence agriculture based on family farms - (and its gonna stay that way, thanks to the jubilee year, which prevents the accumulation of land) The social conflicts of the Israelite kingdoms arise when the kings, (David, per Taanach - but it could be someone else) conquer the low country, and grow wealthy from its resources, and are tempted to a way of life far removed from Israelite hill country austerity.
quote:
-The Apiru have attacked not only here, and in egypt, but in mesapotamia as well, IIRC. |
Apiru in origin may not be an ethnic name, but may be generic for nomadic bandits.
quote:
So maybe, when they say" Avraham ha Ivri" in the bible, they mean "Abraham of the Apiru", as a legendary forefather of the nation. But then, why does he come from Ur? |
Cause Ur has tremendus cultural prestige to the western semites, whose initial script at Ugarit was cuneiform, who have often been conquered by Mesopotamia, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2005 11:41
The OT is a pure bore, filled with crappy literature. How can you defend such a terrible work! 
You make me sick 
|