|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This belief thing | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
The tendency seems to be to see the Hebrew Bible as an imitation of much earlier events (that might not have even happened in Palestine). The Koran used Hebrew Bible prophets & characters but the current trends, among Muslims, seem to be to see those as imitations of earlier humans (say 2000 years earlier and perhaps in Arabia or Persia).
The Koran (and Muhammad) requires belief in the Torah of Moses, the Psalms of David, the Prophets, and the Gospels of Jesus in order to be a Muslim. But the "Old Testament" people are put in a different time and place I think. I hear lots of American black Muslims saying this anyway. (and lots of conspiracy theories on why the blackness of Biblical characters were covered up and how modern Jews are just Greeks and Germans imitating Black Prophets mentioned in the Koran and the Bible. But many black Christians say the same thing, except they say "Jews were black" which is actually quite simple because at least "Jews" are a common point of reference when talking to Christians. Many black Muslims have conspiracy theories so elaborate that I get confused. It's like they know the name of every tribe in the Bible and relate them to every ancient people. "The Hyksos were black" then "Romans, Greeks, Germans flooded the Middle east and North Africa" is all I can remember. ) I think even Arab Muslims now question the traditional time and place issues. Now they say that there is a possibility of Solomon living in Arabia perhaps 5000 BCE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I honestly don't know much about this issue but understand that I wasn't saying (certain modern)Muslims call the Hebrew Bible prophets "imposters". I was saying they call them "imitators", which is considered an attribute of a (Jewish) culture that admires the (once divinely) revealed (then lost by say 1000 BCE) events (say 10,000 years ago). The Koran doesn't put chronological dates on those same people and events the Hebrew Bible does.
Here is one site that I found on google.
quote: This is a long article and I left a lot out. Go to 125 street in Harlem (even the east side, but also on the west where the Apollo Theatre is)and you will see lots of black nationalists selling all sorts of books and DVDs on black nationalism. While they are mostly race-based conspiracy theory books, there are a few that don't mention black issues at all. The Bible Unearthed , by Israel Finkelstein, is always a book for sale. Some more extreme scholars say that the 1st Temple Jews didn't exist, and Jews came from Babylon in the 6th century BCE, then were made white by Europeans in following centuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: In post 110 you said:
quote: It has been standard for Muslims to see the Hebrew Bible as largely written close to the time of the events and in the same local as the events. It has been standard to see the "inspired" prophets (of which the Koran mentions like 30 or so) as not very far removed from the books in the Hebrew Bible that bear their name. It might not be the case anymore (for whatever reason). I was just making a clarification of your post because, for example, Muslims have told me that the real Psalms of David would have heaven, hell, resurrection, and judgment day mentioned. And they could very well have existed long ago and in a place far away from Palestine. Additionally. It should also be said that it is more difficult to disprove Koranic descriptions of events (except the flood), especially if the Adam story is a metaphor. There are no chronological markers which can make it easily falsifiable. The Tower of Babel story is absent, so that helps the Koran a lot when it comes to standing up to critics.
quote: I'm not sure Israel is the main reason many Muslims argue these points. Many are actually quite critical of the theory of evolution plus are sensitive to attacks against the history presented in both the Bible and Koran. This reality doesn't have a visible internet presence, but - truth me - it is real never the less. And (multi generational American) blacks have a monumental obsession with race and historical issues. There is a very big difference between African immigrants and multi-generational African Americans. Black Africans , on the one hand, see Ethiopia as part of the Middle East, while (multi-generational) African Americans will call anybody a racist who doesn't think even Egyptians and Palestinians/ Israelites were 100% black African. Black Africans will read the same history as everybody else, while most African Americans think standard history books are racist. Go to a public library in any black area (and there are many) in New York, then take a look at books on the library shelf. You will be hard pressed to find any standard history books of the Ancient Near East because they are deemed racist. I'm not saying that there is a huge amount of "alternative history" (on the Middle East and such) books in the libraries (the kinds sold on street corners and the most obsessed over), but there are some along with the legions of books on library shelves on more recent black history and issues. The white skin of present-day Jews is quite an obsession among blacks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: But is allows for the possibility of no know "Jews" before 700 to 750 BCE. A major obsession among black Muslims. (black Christians will be obsessed over the race of Israelites but never question the history). It is too complicated to explain, but I can assure you it matters a lot. There is an obsession almost to the point of complete total saturization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Let me think of the best parallel to explain what I mean. Lets take the world's oldest monotheistic religion for a parallel. Go to a library and look up Zoroastrian in the Encyclopedia Britannica (both in the macropaedia and micropaedia). You will see that they don't even consider Zoroaster to have lived earlier than c. 630 to c550 BCE. (628-551 is standard). It's (macropaedia article) the most scholarly source on Zoroastrianism around (except for the super rare Encyclopedia Iranica), but it considers the traditional date as 100% secure. Except the traditional date is now believed to be based on a mistakenly identified person as a chronological marker. (as of the 1980s, this has been true) A king to be specific. A Zoroastrian king to be more specific. A much revered and beloved king to be even more specific. Vishtaspa - Wikipedia Now linguists date the holy texts (Gathas)which first mentioned him as far back as 1800 BCE and much later than 1500 BCE. Historians date the text around 1500 BCE to 1000 BCE. NOW THE HYPOTHETICAL. Now imagine if this c.600 BCE Vishtaspa had many legends built around him and if these legends made it into the texts of a new religion that started several hundred years after his life. Now we have a new c.200 BCE religion with religious texts that have a famous (and beloved) King Vishtaspa as one of the founders of the national culture based on the "true revelation". Imagine if the original c.1500 religion, with the original King Vishtaspa, died off and no textual fragments remained nor were they alluded to in any tradition (nothing extant from 1500 to 600 BCE for us to discover). Nothing that gives any clue that there was a king that lived before 600 BCE that is. Then a revelation came one day to a Joseph Ali living in c.900 AD England which told a "pure" religion with a King Vishtaspa from 1523 BCE in western Afghanistan (which happened to be India in 900 AD I suppose). Except the dates weren't mentioned. Just the character. And then the surviving religion (which started in 200 BC and is still with extant texts unlike the 1500 BCE religion) was mentioned, in the revelation, as "inspired" and in the same (garbled)tradition, but corrupted and full of man-made additions, and wrapped around a nationalism created by the kings of a narrow strip of land that the (corrupted) religion took hold. Too make even matters worse, a priesthood developed which created a caste system to empower their succession for eternity, except the priestly succession was just as man-made as the priestly system itself, not to mention that the priestly texts were made up by the priests as much as the (nationalistic & dynastic supported/invented) national chronicle religious texts were made up by the monarchs. But not all of this was explicitly mentioned in the revelation, but there were implicit allusions at times. END HYPOTHETICAL. Now we have a situation where Islam occupies the same place as this hypothetical c.1500 religion mentioned above. That's how they see things. Their scholars might have never considered this situation before the rise of 2 movements. 1st First, the rise of modern scholarship, which has called into question that dates of the texts, and modern archaeology, which finds an Israel from 1200 BCE - 730 BCE but no Judah until terrified Israelite refugees, fearing ever more endless Assyrian assaults, turned the highland hamlet Jerusalem into a population center around 750-720 BCE and the Holy Bible was written (see introduction to the Finkelstein book for the atmospherics surrounding the origins of the texts). 2nd The Nation of Islam movement which challenged the Jewish texts (not to mention the people) and their claims of representing the original events. Perhaps a 3rd factor could be the Zionist state and its treatment of the native Muslims. It raises new issues for the evolution verses creation debate. Islam is becoming a very large religion and views are changing. It is very much on topic IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: He said that Jerusalem only had a few hundred people during the 13th to 9th century BCE and only about 1000 by 750 BCE. Many question if Judah is simply a place name and and whether Judah had "Judeans" or "Jews". Judah isn't mentioned at all till after 750 BCE. It could have been an imitation name of 5000 year old Arabians or Africans. Either an eponymous tribesman or simply a famous figure that left no offspring. (So the newly Islamic theory goes)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Why read the ancient Greek & Roman historians which present traditions of a Zoroastrian King Vishtaspa being a follower of Zoroaster during the prophet's lifetime?
Vishtaspa actually existed during the 628-551 period which was then the assume life of Zoroaster. David means beloved Solomon means peaceful. The Biblical texts could date much later than the 10th century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
[ Remove content. --Admin ]
Edited by Admin, : Remove content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
My post went into some "PM" or something.
I did a link to a Wikipedia article on "Solomon's Temple". (I think) It referenced page numbers where Finkelstein apparently placed the 1st Temple at a later date than the 10th century. (the date seemed to be quite late) My responses and posts have been deleted a lot lately. I was planning to get back to the reincarnation thread, but doubt that will be possible since I can't quote others to show viewpoints.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I mentioned that the Bible says that the entire northern kingdom of Israel was shipped to Iranian cities.
Then easterners were placed in Samaria as a replacement. in 721 BCE? See 2 Kings 17 (?) Finkelstein's book starts out describing the refugees that filled Jerusalem around the same 720-730 date, and their endeavor to write a history. They came from the northern kingdom. I'll let you know if I remember any more of my post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: I'm a little confused (o.k. more than just a little). What exactly is this about and how are we to discuss it? Also. PaulK was asking me how the Finkelstein book can be seen as supportive of those who question the Jewish Temple (and scriptures) being the original product of Canaanitie/Israelite/Palestinian society and instead want to see the origins in Africa or Arabia (with the Jews simply being imitators of a foreign religion whose scriptures and history they co-opted and without attributing those they borrowed from). I was just showing that certain details from the Bible (and Assyrian texts) support the notion that there was a discontinuity between Palestinians pre 8th century and residents after. And the Finkelstein book says Jerusalem only had 1000 residents before the later 8th century BCE, when it shot up to 10,000. My deleted post was full of "I don't know" comments about the Jewish Temple pre-dating the extant archaeological (and in-situ textual evidence) evidence which doesn't show anything before the 7th century. I don't know if Judah existed before the later 8th century (when first mentioned), but I know it is seen as evidence (by some/many) that there were no Jews 800 BCE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
He might say that, but there were still Assyrian records of 10s of thousands of removals and replacements with as many transplants.
The Babylonians came later and removed a big chunk of the population. One can easily see opportunities for legends and (old)religions to travel and be co-opted (into newer religions). Carl Sagan, on Cosmos, said that Ionians, in the 7th century BCE, developed scientific theories of the Earth based on Enuma Elish. They "left Marduk out" and had naturalistic geological theories, but got the inspiration and details from the Babylon religious text. Thales? Or Anaximander? One of the two. Historians say that the early chapters of the Hebrew Bible, that are in Genesis, from the creation to the Babel incident, were inspired (or copied) by Sumerian and Babylonian history and religions. The later ones (especially if one looks at the inner testament period texts that aren't held sacred) seem to copy the Persian religions. Could the middle-ones be copies as well? I doubt it myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Huh? I didn't say that. I'm not sure where this came from. Somebody hacked me if this was under my name. Honestly. But on to the rest.
quote: The Islamic texts have always said that the Jewish texts weren't the original unmolested texts. There never was an actual explanation for how this happened and just how changed the texts were changed. Not an official position despite lots of individual opinions. I admit I don't have the (Muslim)scholars names, dates, and comments. I also can't assess how authoritative any were (naturally, since I'm ignorant of the first 3 details). Islam just states that "everything original has been lost, only God has those elusive texts". "The Koran tells us everything we need to know".
quote: I think we all can imagine lots of "chatter" over the past 1400 years. What was the "popular view" verses the official edicts from the Caliphs? I'm sure the Caliphs simply ignored the situation, and whatever comments they made about the Jewish scriptures and Gospels were very mild and not too earth-shaking.
quote: Judah was always assumed to have existed in the 10th century in a way comparable to the Biblical description. Now archaeologists admit that they can't tell the difference between 10th and 9th century pottery, and that Judah is 100% absent any evidence of existence pre 750 BCE. Even worse for the Temple of Solomon.
quote: Their forceful theories on geographical and racial/tribal issues surely made their way around the globe. Perhaps they were an extreme example of an "underground" type of average-guy Muslim which happens to be far more exotic in their explanation of how the Hebrew Bible (and Jews) came to be what it was (and is) verses the "pure revelation" that once existed.
quote: Did the Jewish Solomon actually exist? His name is a legendary name which describes the attributes of his reign and the conditions of his kingdom. I quoted William Dever admitting that the "peaceful" Solomon (and "beloved" David) of the Bible did not exist. Or at least the Biblical David and Solomon with their empire from Egypt to north Syria. My post is lost though. And the OP is made we are even discussing this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: First, the Assyrian textual records. Here is a quote from Context of Scripture by William Hallo (the Wikipedia editors don't know what that is it seems because they are asking for a citation).
quote: Now, the Bible seems to describe a depopulated land. 2 Kings 17 matches the Assyrian records. You have the Jews and the segregated Samaritans. The Gospel of John says that a Samaritan was shocked that Jesus was talking to her. She said they were so segregated that they weren't even allowed to talk to each other. Matthew says that Jesus sent his disciples to Jews and real Israelites, excluding Canaanites and Samaritans. Now you say the textual evidence is being used to "override the archaeological evidence ". Well, we were talking about peoples understanding of the situation on the one hand, and foreign influence on the other. The Biblical text has caused us all to see Israel as depopulated, right? Muslims would see that, right? The Biblical text describes foreigners replacing the northern kingdom Israelites, right? Now the archaeological evidence shows that "Israel" might have existed in the 10th century but Judah didn't exist until Israelite refugees flooded Judah and Jerusalem around 720 BCE. Finkelstein himself said that Jerusalem went from 1000 inhabitants up to 10,000 in just a few years or decades during that last quarter of the 8th century BCE. Right? Hope my post doesn't vanish lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Well, there are many different views on the numbers of refugees (in all directions). Here is what the Biblical text says about what you cite. It was a small number of people, and they might have been foreigners who assumed Israelite identity.
quote: There were deportations before 722/721. And immigration inward too.
quote: A.H. Sayce was the leading apologist before Albright. Here was one of his most important defenses of the Old Testament history. Full text of "The "higher criticism" and the verdict of the monuments" There were textual records from the Assyians that we have today. There was the 853 BCE Assyian invasion of Syria which included Syian states allied with Israel. Notice the absence of Judah and his reaction.
quote: He has this difficulty for the next 100+ years till about 740/730 when Judah is finally mentioned. Judah is mentioned after the Assyrians brought in foreigners to Palestine. Who knows if the "Israel" of 853-721 BCE had a pure pedigree. Did the actual people even care as the later biblical writers had? (My keyboa hasn't been woking. Sorry fo the short post. The r key is almost dead.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024