|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
The verse has no connectivity with future kings or any futurerism: Of course it does, what do you think the word 'before' is relating to, a time before Edomite Kings or a time after the Edomite Kings?
it is set in the contemporanous tense only. This doesn't mean that it is a contemporaneous text. People who write historical novels, such as Tranter's 'Wallace' tales, obviously use the present tense in their writings, but the Tranter books were written about 700 years later. Having a tense doesn't mean it is contemporaneous.
The 'before' relates to the 'these are'! Indeed it does, so think about it. 'These are' so there was Edomite Kings, and this was 'before' a King ruled in Israel, so this 'before' relates to something that happened AFTER the Edomites had Kings, thus it is relating to a future event.
It means only what it says: the nations had kings; but Israel did not; period. Hallelujah!! But Israel had Kings AFTER the Edomites, so the author must have known this, or the passage would make no sense. If the Israelite monarchy hadnt been established then this passage would be incorrect, but is is obvious that the author has written this after the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.
There is no reference to any kings of Israel - You are joking aren't you! LOL No reference to any Kings of Israel when it says before there was kings ruling over Israel? What is wrong with you?
your reading is adding what is not there, and not required to be legible. No it isn't, it is perfectly in line with what is there, and this is the understanding of countless theologians and textual critics. For example, From apologeticspress Even this extremist website agree with my interpretation, and offer two silly ”apologetics’ to try and explain the anachronism. Firstly, There actually are two logical reasons why Moses could mention future Israelite kingship. First, Moses knew about the express promises God had made both to Abraham and Jacob concerning the future kings of Israel. On one occasion, God informed Abraham and Sarah that many kings would be among their posterity. Secondly, A second reason Moses is justified in having knowledge of Israelite kingship before it was known experientially is because Moses was inspired (John 5:46; Mark 12:26; cf. Exodus 20:1; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). How on earth you arrive at your interpretation of the text is beyond me, you appear to have completely misunderstood it. It is amazing the lengths some people go to in their attempts to make the Bible into something it isn’t.
These are desperate, contrived straws, and also poor grammar. There's only one person who has comprehension problems here mate, this is just ludicrous.
Nor do you have any proof the OT was written after Saul: Of course I do, mountains of evidence, however you have no proof that any of it was written before the first Book of Kings.
do try to recall a 1000 names, dobs and dods - 2500 years in the past - Well, let's see how wonderfully accurate and amazing the Bible is when it comes to names. Answer this, what was the name of the pharaoh at the time of the Exodus. Any historical text worth its salt surely shoould mention the name of one of the central characters of the event. Then there's Moses. What was Moses' full name? 'Moses' is only part of a name and has to be preceded with the name of a god for it to be complete. So, was Moses' real name ramoses, Ahmoses, or Thutmoses, or something else?
and get them to be syncronised with a 1000 other dates in the OT calendar! These amazing 'synchronised dates' will be the ones that you keep failing to provide, and are the dates that you tell us are disputed.
You are selecting what you loke, if it can be contrived to suit you. It still failed. The fact that it is failing is entirely down to your inability to read a text without your fundy spectacles on. But keep denying the obvious, it just demonstrates to the lurkers just what fundamentalism can do to ones brain. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Analyse this!
Gen 36:31 And these [are] the 'Queens' that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any 'Queen' over the children of Israel. That Israel later had or never had queens does not render that verse any different. It just means there were queens in Edom but, pointedly different, none in Israel. Period. It does NOT say 'before the period of kings in Israel'; the before connects only with the period signified by the sole qualifying clause in the verse; it acts as 'when' edom did have kings. Its less safe to use a christian view of the OT, as per your link. The retreat to Moses knowing of future kings is not relevent here - it is out of context and in contradiction of the entire passage which is about the generations of Edom - not Israel.
quote: There is no reference to future kings; the 'before' relates to Edom, not the future of Israel.
quote: The names I mentioned relates to 1000s of names given, which are authentic to their period, but which you run away from with another deflection: you are thus looking for what you can misconscrue while avoiding all else. Moses' lineage is given, including the names of both parents and the tribe they come from.
quote:Dates are pervasive in the OT verses and paragraphs, and they are entirely synced (intergrated). That is why these names and dates, spaning 3000 years, could not be recalled later. Try it! The Tel Dal find also vindicates the date of David's reign, in the OT, and the follow-up kings: another co-incidence? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Analyse this! Gen 36:31 And these [are] the 'Queens' that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any 'Queen' over the children of Israel. That Israel later had or never had queens does not render that verse any different. Indeed it does! The ”Queen’ ruling over the children of Israel is a time hook. It is telling the reader that the Edomite Kings ruled BEFORE there was Israelite ”queens, if there had been no Israelite ”queens’ then the verse is pointless, because the reader would say ”what’s the point of mentioning that it was before an Israelite queen when there has never been an Israelite queen! (of course there has been lots of Israelite queens) This verse is quite clearly an anachronism, it was written after the establishment of the Israelite monarchy or it would make no sense.
It just means there were queens in Edom but, pointedly different, none in Israel. Yes there were none in Israel at the time there were kings in Edom, but 400 years later there would be kings in Israel. This is the whole point, how does the author know that there were Kings in Edom BEFORE there were kings of Israel if he didn’t know that there has been a king in Israel? The author is clearly saying that before Israel had a king there were Kings in Edom, so the author had to know that there had been a king in Israel for this passage to make sense. What if there had never been a King of Israel, the mention of before there was an Israelite king is pointless, there has to have been a King of Israel to make the time reference useful.
It does NOT say 'before the period of kings in Israel'; the before connects only with the period signified by the sole qualifying clause in the verse; it acts as 'when' edom did have kings. So, when Edom had kings this was before Israel had kings, how did the author know that Israel was going to have kings? This is what is being said. Edom had Kings, Israel had kings, Edom had Kings before Israel, the author must have known that Israel had kings. It is simple. Israel must have had kings if Edom had them BEFORE Israel. if israel never had a king then how could Edom have had kings before Israel did?
Its less safe to use a christian view of the OT, as per your link. Whose view should I use then, A Jewish one? It is immaterial anyway, it is obvious what the verse is saying.
The retreat to Moses knowing of future kings is not relevent here - it is out of context and in contradiction of the entire passage which is about the generations of Edom - not Israel. Of course it is relevant, the whole discussion is about how the author knew that Israel would have a monarchy, it is central to the issue.
There is no reference to future kings; the 'before' relates to Edom, not the future of Israel. The ”before’ relates to the situation BEFORE the Israelite monarchy, it is a time reference to an event that happened before Saul became the first king.
The names I mentioned relates to 1000s of names given, which are authentic to their period, but which you run away from with another deflection: Yet of these ”thousands of names’ you are the only one who seems to have these, and I have pointed out before that there are real problems with the names in the Book of Exodus, but you ignore these with your usual fingers in ears stuff. Hell for an historical book it sure leaves out a lot of information that one would expect to find in an historical account.
you are thus looking for what you can misconscrue while avoiding all else. You haven’t provided anything substantial though, just some links to amateur fundy websites that have no critical research going on.
Moses' lineage is given, including the names of both parents and the tribe they come from. So what? Do you think it is impossible for someone to invent a lineage? And as I said, Moses’ name is incomplete, another fact that doesn’t seem to bother you.
Dates are pervasive in the OT verses and paragraphs, and they are entirely synced (intergrated). Well not really, if you look at the list of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah they are a real mess, but this is another thread. You keep stating how wonderfully accurate the Bible is, and you even have the naivety to claim that historians and archaeologists use the bible to date near eastern discoveries, yet you cannot provide a single date worth discussing, not a single one, so it looks as if your Bible is not that impressive at all.
That is why these names and dates, spaning 3000 years, could not be recalled later. This makes no sense.
Try it! I have, but you clearly haven’t.
The Tel Dal find also vindicates the date of David's reign, in the OT, and the follow-up kings: another co-incidence? It isn’t a coincidence because everything you claim for the tel dan Stele is incorrect. You do appear to have a extremely nave view of what archaeology is and it methods, the Tel Dan stele is still being debated, and as far as David goes, this may or may not be a reference to him. Ever wonder why an empire as huge as the Bible says David’s was is completely invisible in the archaeological record? Even if the Tel Dan Stele is a reference to david’s dynasty, it is meagre support for the bible narratives about him. One mention in an Aramaic Stele written a couple of hundred years after David was supposed to have reigned is not that impressive. I would suggest that you dig a bit deeper into the tel Dan discussion because it is far more complex than you seem to think. Even the way that Biran went about announcing this find is shocking for an archaeologist, to stick the fragments together and publish before anyone else had seen the fragments or reviewed his conclusions was a disgrace, and more than one scholar has highlighted Biran’s unprofessional approach here, and more than one scholar thinks the fragments do not even belong together. Personally, I would say that the first unambiguous reference from archaeological sources for Israel would be the mention of King Omri in the Moabite Stone. Brian Edited by Brian, : added some text
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When I was a kid I read a puzzle. A child was shown a medal, with a hand written note accompanying it. To simplify the letter read something like this "For your courageous efforts during the First World War,
George V" It was a little more involved than that - but that was the key part because somebody figured out that it was a fake and the puzzle was to work out which information about it meant it was definitely a fake. The answer being - George V died before WWII so how would he know that the Great War was the First World War. Designed for kiddies, but reading this thread I see the same puzzle completely foxes some adults still. I wonder if the text read "Before any Emperor ruled in Rome" or "Before the great and illustrious Roman Catholic Church was ever mercifully ruling Europe" or even "Before Saul ruled in Israel" - it would be more apparent to IaJ, I suspect not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Do you see your error now? They would not call it pointless at all, nor would they respond as you did - which is retrospectively from your POV, that 'YOU' now know there were future kings. That verse can only conclude that edom had queens but israel did not - regardless of what happens in the future. This puts paid to your imposed significance there were kings 400 years later - because the verse works with queens just as well, without the clause being superfluous, as inferred. For me - that settles the grammatical aspect - as nothing else will. Now I will give you the real stuff. You will note the name Israel is used here, by Moses: do you understand the significance of it? This does not refer to a land, but a nation - indeed the land was not yet acquired in Moses' time, so there could not be any reference to future kings. Now we can use a check on this point, by refering to the first mention of the name Israel as a nation (aside from Jacob's name change in Genesis), which occurs in Exodus, right after the cencus. From this point on, the hebrews are no more called 'children of Jacob', or the hebrews, but 'Nation of Israel' ('Aam Yisrael'/Heb) for the rest of the five books. This is perhaps the first recording how a tribal community becomes a nation. Here, Israel refers to a nation before any land was acquired. So when Moses speaks of Israel, it is not a reference to land. Infact, the name Israel never applied to the land till much later after it was acquired, making the allocation of kings of Israel incoherent.
quote: That's a new one again. You also said the same about the Egyptian stele which mentions israel, and the Tel Dan find that mentions david. It appears not just fundy but very talibanic: science is not a religion - you can admit being wrong!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reding Junior Member (Idle past 6107 days) Posts: 29 From: Belgium Joined: |
quote: Sure you can not accept it with reason, you’re prepared to blindly believe, I’m not and it’s not because the biblical document is “unique” (as you pretend it to be) that it is therefore the inerrant word of God. There’s no basis that says “you’re forced to take the bible as an absolute truth to a tee or you will die a screaming death!!!!”, figuratively speaking ofcourse. And I agree that you agree one has to believe out of free will too. Just to get that out of the way.Nor did humanity retrograded in time to become a bunch of psychotics saying “We do!!”. It’s what you want it to be and from here’s where you make your opinions. This isn’t fact nor science, it’s all about faith exactly because there’s nothing similar (again, as you pretend it to be). Just like you claim that one cannot reasonably not accept the scriptures - as a disputation or not - one cannot accept it blindly as a truth and claim that truth as God’s. It’s not because artefacts match biblical elements that it makes all the rest in the bible true. That doesn’t work in science my friend. Those artefacts do not imply empirical evidence. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to say I got the word of God figured out and it’s His. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to attribute it to God and I believe you know this as well, somehow you do but there are other things in your persona that are screwing up your priorities . . quote: I'm not sure what you're saying here. So you think the OT is as old as it says it is and precedes Israel? If thats the case i already knew you did...
quote: again, it can be disputed, for one it carries a major responsibility, plus the last 25-30 years casted serious doubts about the bible's veracity, let alone being God's word.I couldn't find anything on those Ezekiel key figures found in archaeological digs but if you take Daniel's tomb serious too, well which of the many? quote: there should be other cultures around those times surrounding Canaan and Egypt who mention a major revolt with the superpower, right? And if that's the case they would probably mention their rival too... That should be good enough for me!
quote: As is the exodus ...among other. Edited by Reding, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Not with the inclusion of 'these are': what does "these are" have to do with "before"? nothing. dick fucking all. whatever. you're crazy. i'm out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
LOL,
If you can manage to step back and look at his posts, it is f*cking hilarious. No wonder the crackpot evangelists have such a big following. I would love to have the time to look at the psychology of religion, wee Joseph there would be an amazing subject. I don't know whether to feel sad or not for the guy. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
.
Edited by Brian, : ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
.
Edited by Brian, : dbl pst
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
this is just a test
Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Accepting anything blindly has no merit. The OT is not based on belief or obedience, but on strivings for truthfulness - the reason the stiffnecks were chosen. Artifacts are not about proof of Gd but evidence of a text's veracity only - and even this is rejected with a disdain of anything called 'religion'. The term 'Religion' has given the OT a poor disposition from 2000 years of unilateral misrepresentation, overturning 'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH (COMMITS A CRIME) IT SHALL PAY' to 'NO SLAVATION BUT THROUGH ME', paving the way for my falsehood is better than your falsehood. It is a corruption which the world is rejecting, and has cast all thimgs with a religious odour as a generic falsehood. None can blame humanity for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
double post
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
doule post
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
double post
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024