Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 145 of 175 (413071)
07-27-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by arachnophilia
07-26-2007 2:31 AM


Re: have you even read these books?
quote:
first this bit about the single most common idiomatic way to refer to the nation of israel not being repeated (it is some 500 times or more! you can't read a section of the torah of any length without seeing it!)
This factor was never related to the issue; that Israel was called a nation was. It is also true that Israel status became a nation officially, regardless of the terms children of jacob being repeated.
quote:
and now this? no, jacob was born. he just wasn't dead yet. this is contemporary to jacob. and jacob's new name "israel" isn't given in exodus, it's given in genesis, only four chapters before this point.
You are wrong. The passage is narrated retrospcetively by Moses, as is Adam's story. The OT is not texted chronologically but contectually - and this is the correct way.
quote:
and this too! saul was the first king of israel. he was rejected, and david took his place. david was the "great king" but saul came first.
It does not apply. Only that Israel had no kings when the OT was written and contexted, during the life of Moses, applies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2007 2:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2007 3:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 175 (413072)
07-27-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by arachnophilia
07-26-2007 2:52 AM


Re: hey, look, MORE anachronisms
quote:
i agree, that is suspicious indeed. how does a city that existed at the same time as the very first person called "hebrew" acquire a name in the language his decendents would speak?
The name Jerusalem, which appears over 500 times in the OT, was established by Abraham, by connecting two Hebrew words. It was established as the Capital by David. It never existed before - with that name.
quote:
this means that either the entire joshua story (which you apparently haven't read) is a fabrication.
Its not a fabrication. It is followed by real history: this became a sovereign nation 200 years later under king David. The war of deborah and the battles of Samson occured in the Judges period - less than 100 years after Joshua.
quote:
also no true -- they were absolutely NOT sovereign under roman occupation.
There was a war with babylon in 586 BCE.
It was sovereign till the Roman invasion, which accounts for a 1000 years. The babylon invasion represented a 70 year absence only. Lets hope your science is not vested on similar assumptions!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2007 2:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2007 3:47 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 147 of 175 (413075)
07-27-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by arachnophilia
07-26-2007 2:24 AM


Re: before there kings in the nation of israel
quote:
you failed to answer my question. there is no difference, it's the same grammatical structure: {event y} before {event x}. it's not a difficult point -- something has to happen before it's written about as a past event.
I won't waste any more time on grammar here. My position is the OT grammar is correct and the highest example of it than anyplace else. I suspect you guys are clinging to desparate improvised straws which have no credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2007 2:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2007 3:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 151 of 175 (413249)
07-30-2007 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by arachnophilia
07-27-2007 3:35 PM


Re: have you even read these books?
quote:
uh, no, that's exactly the opposite of what this verse proves. they wrote about having kings -- so it was written after they had kings. get it?
No sir. It could only be written when no kings existed, as a pointer to the other nations and the events in question; and by the fact it is stated by one who was not around when kings of israel appeared in the future. Its like Moses writing about Adam - before any other humans existed; the verses are retrospective to the narrative's and setting's spacetime.
quote:
and your point is still demonstrating great unfamiliarity with the OT. you probably meant "torah" but the OT was certain written and compiled after israel and judah had kings. heck, there's a book called "kings" that is so long it won't fit on a single scroll.
Of coz, only the Mosaic five books define the israelite and hebrew history pre and post ancient egypt. The other writings are post-Mosaic (Torah) descriptions of later events. These are categorised as OT by christianity, which lumps it all together, depending on what it sees as fitting the NT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2007 3:35 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 4:38 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 152 of 175 (413251)
07-30-2007 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by arachnophilia
07-27-2007 3:47 PM


Re: hey, look, MORE anachronisms
quote:
"jerusalem." if it never existed before, by that name, why is called by that in joshua? if it was only called "jerusalem" after david, when must this verse have been written? what about this one:
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
The name 'JERUSALEM' was coined by Abraham and Melchizedek. One Prefered Yeru, the other argued for Shlayim; finally, both Hebrew words were combined, and Yerushalayim was settled with. The later narratives use this name retrospectively.
quote:
:
think again. salem = zion, the holy mountain of the most high god, yahweh. what is jerusalem, named during david's time, doing in genesis. when must this verse have been written?
David established Jerusalem as the Capital after defeating the Philistines; the name was established by Abraham; Jacob knew about the sacredness of this place and its name, as the point his father Isaac was offered as a sacrice by Abraham.
quote:
you apparently don't read MY comments either. you said they were sovereign until 70CE. i said "they weren't when they were under roman rule." roman rule extends at least until or past 70CE (i'm not terribly familiar with the history of palestine past the first century). they were under roman rule when christ was born. they were under roman rule in 70CE when they rebelled, and the romans burnt down the second temple. your statement is is just flat out wrong. they were NOT soverign until 70CE.
The distinction of being a vassal state under Rome was not the fulcrum issue here, but that this was the Jewish kingdom in 70CE. There was no such place as Palestine or christianity during Jesus' time - he was not a christian or European. Its historical revisionism, better allocated to a belief system only.
quote:
had you read the gospels, where christ is handed off to roman officials, and executed on a roman tortured device at the command of a roman prelate, pontious pilate, you might have known this.
And had you read actual history, you would have known that over 1 million other jews were executed by the Roman holocaust - unpardonably disregarded in the NT. Your use of the term 'rebellion'by the jews is somewhat naive here! How about:
WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME ROME'S GREATEST WAR?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2007 3:47 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 4:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 154 of 175 (413254)
07-30-2007 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by arachnophilia
07-27-2007 3:54 PM


Re: before there kings in the nation of israel
quote:
you have no qualification to make any comment about the grammar of the bible when you cannot understand the grammar in translation, let alone having the ability to read any of the original.
The variant, grotesque and antithetical reading of this texts is yours, not mine. This is true by concencus, period of time, and almost every commentary throughout a host of writings by the sages in this spacetime between the OT and the last hebrew books before 70 CE; then again from that point to today. Subtle point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2007 3:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by arachnophilia, posted 07-30-2007 9:42 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 156 of 175 (413256)
07-30-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Brian
07-30-2007 4:38 AM


Re: This is the same as what we have been saying
quote:
This is exactly what we have been saying Joseph.
Moses could only write about Adam because he knew adam had lived. Thus the author speaking about before there were kings in Israel could only have written this if he knew there had been a king of Israel.
It is exactly the same. The author knew Israel had a few Kings after the Edomites did. The verse makes no sense at all any other way.
Correction! Adam is vested in Moses' past; kings in Moses' future. Not quite exactly the same - the retrospective factor only applies with the past; where no time machine was required. Subtle point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 4:38 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 5:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 157 of 175 (413257)
07-30-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Brian
07-30-2007 4:38 AM


Re: This is the same as what we have been saying
Double post
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 4:38 AM Brian has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 158 of 175 (413258)
07-30-2007 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Brian
07-30-2007 4:45 AM


Re: hey, look, MORE anachronisms
quote:
Any chance of you supporting this statement?
hat evidence do you have that this occurred?
Its an abuse to the premise of proof.
quote:
There was no such place as Palestine or Christianity during Jesus' time.
Sure there wasn't Christianity, but Herodotus wrote about Palestine 500 years before Jesus was born.
The name Palestine is derived from the Philistines.
The philistines, a non-semetic peoples, spoke no Hebrew; Jerusalem is a hebrew name. The name Palestine was coined by Rome, as a reference to Israel's ancient enemies (the philistines) conquered by David a 1000 years earlier. There was never a land called Palestine before Rome's destruction of Jerusalem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 4:45 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 5:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 161 of 175 (413264)
07-30-2007 5:14 AM


Greek independent cross-verification of the OT books.
quote:
Herodotus - Wikipedia
It is possible to see the dialectic theme of Persian power and its various excesses running like a 'red thread' throughout the narrative”cause and effect, hubris and fate, vengeance and violence.[citation needed] Even the strange and fantastic tales that are liberally sprinkled throughout the text find their source in this momentum. At every stage, a Persian monarch crosses a body of water or other liminal space and suffers the consequences: Cyrus attacks the Massagetae on the eastern bank of a river, and ends up decapitated; Cambyses attacks the Ethiopians to the south of Egypt, across the desert, and goes mad; Darius attacks the Scythians to the north and is flung back across the Danube; Xerxes lashes and then bridges the Hellespont, and his forces are crushed by the Greeks. Thus, though he strays (and sometimes strays rather far) off of this main course, he always returns to the task at hand”answering the question, how and why did the Greeks and Persians enter into the greatest conflict then known, and what were the consequences?[citation needed]
The above details, including the names of Cyrus and Darius, are first and better described in the Book of Esther. Cyrus is mentioned as the persian king who sanctioned the return of the jews to Judea and israel, and the rebuilding of the temple. That it is also mentioned in later, greek writings - is a vindication of the OT. This is uneffected by the discrepencies found in Herodotus' motivated writings:
Herodotus:
Father of History, Father of Lies
By David Pipes
Herodotus - Wikipedia

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 07-30-2007 10:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 163 of 175 (413321)
07-30-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by jar
07-30-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Greek independent cross-verification of the OT books.
That's NUTS. There is no description of Babylon 2600 years ago better than that of the book of Esther. Its like reading the Sunday morning papers - the details are unequalled in its historicity, whereby a single passage says more than any other document. Stating so boldly that there is no corraboration is quiet ignorant: babylon invaded Israel and all Jews were exiled here; the Talmud was written here, and a number of revered figures are buried there. Your response is surely not worth catering to - sorry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 07-30-2007 10:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-30-2007 11:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 165 by jar, posted 07-30-2007 11:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 172 of 175 (413424)
07-30-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by jar
07-30-2007 11:15 AM


Re: Greek independent cross-verification of the OT books.
quote:
The problem with your evidence is that the fact that actual people are mentioned is not evidence that the story is true, that the people you mention lived 1000 years after the supposed Exodus, and that it is in no way evidence in support of the actuality of the Exodus fiction.
Yes, it is evidence if the names and historical data is authentic and contemporary. This is how king david was evidenced in the Tel Dan find. There is no video recording of the event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 07-30-2007 11:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 07-30-2007 10:13 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024