Hypatia and the Fall of Christ

[logos880]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

You are looking at verse 6 while I was referring to verse 1. Verse 6 says “you are Gods (Elohim) and are children of God Most High (Elyon). Just like the Ugaritic pantheon.

have a look here:

http://chatbible.com/psalms/82-1.asp

Originally Posted by matthew henry commentary

God's supreme presidency and power in all councils and courts asserted and laid down, as a great truth necessary to be believed both by princes and subjects (Psalms 82:1): God stands, as chief director, in the congregation of the mighty, the mighty One, in coetu fortis — in the councils of the prince, the supreme magistrate, and he judges among the gods, the inferior magistrates; both the legislative and the executive power of princes is under his eye and his hand.

...it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

You are still referring to a different verse than I was.. Who is Elyon?

The nearest to Elyon in the existing Ugaritic texts is ‘ely’ and is applied to Ba’al but many scholars feel that more Ugaritic documents must come to light in the future so we shall see what happens then. There is an Aramaic inscription dated around 759 BC discovered at Sujin-Sepire (Phoenician)which speaks of a triad of Gods called ‘El, Elyon, Samem (the sky). According to Philo of Byblos (who claimed to receive his information from a Phoenician priest) Elyon is listed as the grandfather of El.

After many chapters discussing the etymology of El, Professor Martin H Pope, one of the world’s leading authorities on Ugarit and a practicing Christian, says:

“It is now clear that Elyon was a celestial deity quite distinct from El, corresponding to the Alalu of the Hurrian theogony in Hittite and thus older than El by two divine generations, just as Philo of Byblos has told us. In the OT the two originally distinct deities of El and Elyon are blended and identified with Yahweh.”

Source: El and the Ugaritic Texts.

none of this even matters in the context of what is being communicated in psalm 82:1-5. G-d stands, ie "is Chief" in the congregation of el, the mighty or God's congregation. G-d is also chief among gods, "human judges." the point is that G-d reigns supreme.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

As you are discussing a verse which I didn’t refer to

yep, I was confused for a minute there, but I know now...see above.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

We all know what Evil is, that is not the question, although few can agree on what constitutes good or evil and I don’t want to get into a discussion on that. God is in control of moral evil because he allows it to exist.

G-d allows evil, but that does not make G-d evil nor some dual natured good-evil two-faced figure. the point is that G-d does not produce evil, G-d produces good and agents of free-will pervert it.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

But my whole point is that the Bible describes the Canaanites as an abomination with evil practices and the Israelites are commanded to exterminate every last one of them, even their animals and belongings. Yet you think it quite reasonable for the Israelites to use their poetry as hyms?

we are talking poetic structure here, and no, I don't see a problem with using it.

isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."

to G-d, any and all sin is an abomination.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

No, the intentions of the one doing the translations decides. Why do you think the KJV translates words which happen to suit the purpose of the king and the 17th century Church?

we are speaking today, no? we have access to great websites, research tools, and pretty much any bible translation we can think of. so I disagree, the context decides...if context in a particular translation is vague or inconclusive refer to another translation or even a few select commentaries.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Agreed, those names are aspects of God but I am not talking about that. Your Creator has a name which shouldn’t be needed if he is the only One. It’s quite amusing really that while you think it ok to pray to an aspect of your God that fits with what you are looking for, I am called a heathen polytheist for praying to, say Bast, the aspect of Deity that looks after cats, when I need healing for a cat.

there's only one of me, I guess I don't need a name then.

I'm called lots of not-nice-things for my beliefs...keep on keeping on.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

But why do they find it necessary to lie if the Bible is a divine revelation? Such a book should speak for itself and should not need lies to bolster it. Could it be that there is a deficiency in the Bible?

no, because I don't find any need to lie for the bible. I'd say that is in fact an oxymoronic thing to do.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

My point was the there is no mention of the Chaldeans until the 9th century BC, long after Abraham, which posits that the story of Abraham was not written down until them and that Genesis was not written by Moses. So how could Moses know of the Chaldeans?

that doesn't mean moses hadn't heard of the chaldeans.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I’m not splitting hairs! I could have pointed out errors which everyone knows about but they have been done to death so I thought I’d bring one up that I had found myself. I laughed when I first read it. Your solution is ingenious but must receive the thumbs down. The Bible is said to have been dictated by God to the scribe so I have pointed out an error that God made.

Incidentally, the reason why the lions’ roles could not have reversed is because of the way a lioness’s womb is structured. It hangs on thick bands of tissue which allow the womb to swing back and forth while she is jumping on prey. You must have seen how the lioness sometimes goes head over heels when hanging onto a prey animal and how they can fall hard onto the ground. If she were pregnant and the womb was the way it is in other animals she would abort the cubs, but because it can swing the foetuses are safe. Incidentally that little fact gives lie to the idea that in Eden all the animals were vegetarian.

it is picture talk, a metaphor in a prophecy. where did the lion go, the king, who used to 'tear' and 'strangle'? a metaphor.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I have thought of two more errors. The idea that the sun goes round the earth as described in Psalm 19 and Isaiah 40. I’ve seen the excuse that this is describing the apparent movement of the sun and not the actualbut the Bible is supposed to be about truth so why not tell us the earth moves round the sun? The you’d have a real story to prove the Bible’s reliability.

I'm not interested in playing this game.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Yes it is another can of worms and I don’t want to get into that here. I read a Harmonisation by someone who claimed he had succeeded where all others had failed and when I read it I saw he had done it by leaving certain events and words out. Maybe you would like to post your version of the Harmonisation on another thread so we can discuss it?

I don't personally feel that there is an issue here, let alone an issue that needs to be discussed. but I could change my mind, but you're welcome to start such a thread if you like.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I didn’t start off that way. I began to see the fallacies of Christianity when I was a teenager and still nominally a Christian and when I began to study the Bible and then learn about ANE history at Uni I could see the errors and omissions in the Bible. They were obvious to me and no-one could explain them and still maintain the infallibility of the Bible. So I didn’t come to these ideas with an anti Bible bias in place, it grew with study until it could no longer be denied.

everyone sees things the way they want to see things, you see inconsistencies and errors where I see consistency and inerrancy. take the nahum 2:12 "error" that you pointed out, which was from a prophecy being spoken in metaphor.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

It’s not a question of the original Hebrew although as nothing prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls exists there is no way anyone can know what the originals said. It is a matter of the translation.

like I said, have a look at any translation you choose. look at them all. you lean on one single translation of you have and ignore the rest.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

It what the documents and texts say, not what I want to believe. It’s what many scholars say, not all of them atheist, so you need to take up this argument with them, not me since I am relying on them for what I say.

it's what some docs and texts say.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Have you not heard of employees evaluating their bosses? We did it once at work and it was such fun being able to tell the truth about incompetent managers. (Not saying you’re incompetent)

haha, hopefully that was anonymous! though you're not my employee either...lucky for you.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Depends on how the NT is interpreted.

far as I can tell there is only one true way, if you want to make a case for 'eternal life in hell' that might be best saved for another thread.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

PS Sorry about the delay in replying. My daughter has recently got married (for the first time at 50 – sensible girl !) so we have been mad busy.

no worries, I know you got a life outside the DI forum...I kinda like the pace, gives me time to mull things over.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by logos880

have a look here:

http://chatbible.com/psalms/82-1.asp

I know what the explanation and I have read many of the commentaries.

...it doesn't mean what you think it does.

It means what the Hebrew says. The Commentaries are explanations and apologetics which seek to show how and why certain words are translated as they are. My point is that in Canaanite religion there was a ‘Congregation of the Mighty’ just as there is in the Hebrew religion but because in the latter religion they cannot have any Gods competing with Yahweh then the questionable words have to be translated in a way which excluded polytheism. Theologians and Biblical scholars find tricky words and sentences in Hebrew which seem to hark back to Canaanite polytheism but they cannot allow that to show through in their translations so they find ways to obfuscate the original meanings. That is what ‘Elohim’ is translated as ‘God’ when they want it to mean that and ‘Judges’ when they want it to mean that. In other words the translations are fixed so that they show monotheism and eschew all Canaanite influence.

However the Canaanite influence is there whether people like it or not. Not wanting it to be true unfortunately isn’t sufficient. The translators have absolutely no way of knowing what the original writers had in mind when they wrote those controversial words down.

If you want to accept the explanations given by the translators and commentators then fine, but I reserve the right not to accept them because, and I’m not trying to be clever here, I do know more of the background than you do because I have studied this period and know what the Canaanites wrote about their own religion. I can see the connections even if you don’t want to.

For instance in the Ba’al Epic it says:

“Ilu (El) should appoint his son as his deputy, The Bull should appoint Yawwu as his deputy”

Can you prove that Yawwu is not related to Yahweh?

Or in KTU 1.1 IV 14 it says:

‘sm . bny . yw . ilt ‘ which translates as ‘The name of the son of god, Yahweh’

none of this even matters in the context of what is being communicated in psalm 82:1-5. G-d stands, ie "is Chief" in the congregation of el, the mighty or God's congregation. G-d is also chief among gods, "human judges." the point is that G-d reigns supreme.

What I posted may not matter in the context of Psalm 82 but it certainly matters when it comes to the point of my argument; that Hebrew religion grew out of Canaanite religion. Not that it was a copy but it was certainly influenced and that influence can be traced in the Hebrew text. And whether you think that matters or not is irrelevant.

Yes, in the Bible Yawheh reigns supreme because that is what the Bible was written to prove; the one God and his chosen people. The writers are embarrassed by the Canaanite references which is part of the reason the Canaanites are so vilified in the Bible.

G-d allows evil, but that does not make G-d evil nor some dual natured good-evil two-faced figure. the point is that G-d does not produce evil, G-d produces good and agents of free-will pervert it.

I didn’t say God was evil; I said he must be in control of it otherwise he is not omnipotent.

we are talking poetic structure here, and no, I don't see a problem with using it.

isaiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."

to G-d, any and all sin is an abomination.

You don’t see any problem with the Hebrew writers using the same poetic structure as the Canaanites? Don’t you think this shows that the Hebrews were Canaanites?

Why didn’t you have the courage to translate Isaiah 64:6 as the Hebrew writer originally intended it? ‘ niddah beged’ means ‘menstrual cloth’ because of course to the Hebrews and their God the natural functions of a woman are filthy and something to be avoided with horror. Don’t you think it humiliating to women that their monthly courses are seen as the filthiest thing that God could imagine? And please no lectures that it is just ‘ceremonial’ uncleanness and not physical uncleanness since that verse on it’s own tells us how the Hebrews and their God viewed women.

we are speaking today, no? we have access to great websites, research tools, and pretty much any bible translation we can think of. so I disagree, the context decides...if context in a particular translation is vague or inconclusive refer to another translation or even a few select commentaries.

Actually I wasn’t thinking of or speaking of today but of how translations were made in the KJV to suit the political climate of that time. Are the translations made today completely free from bias? I doubt it. How many Christians actually read other translations and commentaries? I know many who never even read the Bible and only hear it when they go to church. They simply accept what they are told and rarely question it. And what do you do when the translations disagree? Without knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek where does that leave people? I’ve heard people say what wonderful literature the Bible is not realizing that it’s not the Bible that is beautiful literature but the KJV.

there's only one of me, I guess I don't need a name then.

On the contrary, remarkable individual though you may be in yourself you are only one of millions.

I'm called lots of not-nice-things for my beliefs...keep on keeping on.

True. I hate the phrase ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me’. Words frequently do hurt.

Did you like the lovely statue of Bast with her kitties? My cat is called ‘Meri Bast’ which means ‘Beloved of Bast’. I thought of getting a collar for her with a name tag on and asking the guy to do her name in hieroglyphs but I thought that might be a bit unkind.

no, because I don't find any need to lie for the bible. I'd say that is in fact an oxymoronic thing to do

Don’t you wonder why other people feel the need?.

that doesn't mean moses hadn't heard of the chaldeans.

How could he when they didn’t exist in his time? It’s more likely that the Bible was not written down until after the 9th century BC which is what many scholars think, even if it may have been based on some earlier tales.

it is picture talk, a metaphor in a prophecy. where did the lion go, the king, who used to 'tear' and 'strangle'? a metaphor.

That is your explanation.

I'm not interested in playing this game.

I’m surprised you think Bible errors are a game. But ok. I’m not getting into discussions on that subject.

I don't personally feel that there is an issue here, let alone an issue that needs to be discussed. but I could change my mind, but you're welcome to start such a thread if you like.

Maybe if I have the time to do all the research, which is unlikely at the moment.

everyone sees things the way they want to see things, you see inconsistencies and errors where I see consistency and inerrancy. take the nahum 2:12 "error" that you pointed out, which was from a prophecy being spoken in metaphor.

Yes we see opposite things but which of is correct? Yes I accept that the lions verses are a metaphor but what a pity it couldn’t be zoologically accurate.

like I said, have a look at any translation you choose. look at them all. you lean on one single translation of you have and ignore the rest.

I’m certainly not ignoring other translations; I am more concerned with the original than the translation. Even the ‘original’ texts differ, so how do you know which one was the original?

it's what some docs and texts say.

I don’t follow you. Are you saying the Ugaritic texts differ amongst themselves? Because that’s what I was referring to as well as the Masoretic and LXX texts.

To sum up what I am trying to say is that the particular points of contact between Ugaritic and Israelite religion does n ot mean that they shared the ‘same’ or a ‘single’ religion, but these similarities do show that there was a larger religious tradition that was shared by West Semitic people in which the Israelites are included.

That is an opinion shared by very many ANE scholars based on the evidence from Ugarit and other Semitic sources. What it means of course is that there is nothing particularly special about the Israelite religion since its foundation rested on others and not on a special revelation which was quite different to any other religious ANE tradition.

[danceswithbunnies]

OMG...this thread looks INCREDIBLEY informative.

I wonder if i am going to have the time to read through the entire thing...(whew!)

Wow...thanks guys!

edited...good lord
That book by John Day?
"Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan"
is $70 on amazon..bit steep

Rapunzel-CONGRATS ON DAUGHTERS WEDDING

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by danceswithbunnies

OMG...this thread looks INCREDIBLEY informative.

I wonder if i am going to have the time to read through the entire thing...(whew!)

Wow...thanks guys!

edited...good lord
That book by John Day?
"Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan"
is $70 on amazon..bit steep

Yes, I paid £30 for the book which is around $70 but I had an Amazon voucher for £10.00 so I treated myself. You can get part of it on Google Books but it is so irritating when you read a couple of pages and then come to - Pages ... to .... are not part of this review and you were just in the middle of something interesting

Here it is if you want to browse a little

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y...page&q&f=false

Rapunzel-CONGRATS ON DAUGHTERS WEDDING

Thanks Bunny,the day went well and they are having a wonderful, three week honeymoon.

Cheers.

[danceswithbunnies]

Well i have so much to read (got a kindle fire) really need to cut back on that book addiction LOLOL.

With the ensuing discussion about Elyon , Elohim and Yahweh..
(is Eloah the singular of elohim?)

It recalled that verse so often used by christians to support that the creator is Yahweh son of god and god.

Proverbs 30:4

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Interestingly ELYON "most high" is often used by astrotheologists to support their theory that the God of the OT is just the Sun.
(ie "most high" is the sun at high noon...or in psalms He comes with healing in his wings...and they show you a picture of the egyptian solar disk)

I have never been convinced, even though it is VERY popular view in conspiracy circles..how could the Egyptians have the same contellations as the greeks, and the europeans...doesn't seem likely to me.


I can see that with the many different titles and references to God goin on in the bible and the importation of different texts..it is such a mishmash, you would pretty much need the patience of Job himself to sort it out.

[passerbye999]

Originally Posted by danceswithbunnies

Well i have so much to read (got a kindle fire) really need to cut back on that book addiction LOLOL.

With the ensuing discussion about Elyon , Elohim and Yahweh..
(is Eloah the singular of elohim?)

It recalled that verse so often used by christians to support that the creator is Yahweh son of god and god.

Proverbs 30:4


Interestingly ELYON "most high" is often used by astrotheologists to support their theory that the God of the OT is just the Sun.
(ie "most high" is the sun at high noon...or in psalms He comes with healing in his wings...and they show you a picture of the egyptian solar disk)

I have never been convinced, even though it is VERY popular view in conspiracy circles..how could the Egyptians have the same contellations as the greeks, and the europeans...doesn't seem likely to me.


I can see that with the many different titles and references to God goin on in the bible and the importation of different texts..it is such a mishmash, you would pretty much need the patience of Job himself to sort it out.

Eloah is the dualistic. It goes El then Eloah then Elohihim (3 or more). Eloah could refer to El and Elat the God and Goddess.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I know what the explanation and I have read many of the commentaries.



It means what the Hebrew says. The Commentaries are explanations and apologetics which seek to show how and why certain words are translated as they are. My point is that in Canaanite religion there was a ‘Congregation of the Mighty’ just as there is in the Hebrew religion but because in the latter religion they cannot have any Gods competing with Yahweh then the questionable words have to be translated in a way which excluded polytheism. Theologians and Biblical scholars find tricky words and sentences in Hebrew which seem to hark back to Canaanite polytheism but they cannot allow that to show through in their translations so they find ways to obfuscate the original meanings. That is what ‘Elohim’ is translated as ‘God’ when they want it to mean that and ‘Judges’ when they want it to mean that. In other words the translations are fixed so that they show monotheism and eschew all Canaanite influence.

some translations actually refer to the 'congregation of el' as 'gods', and the ultimate meaning of the verse remains the same. if there truly is a 'congregation of el', then it doesn't matter whether the canaanites spoke about it prior to the bible or not, the congregation of el would still be 'the congregation of el.' the point is that G-d is chief at all times, everywhere, and among all beings.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

However the Canaanite influence is there whether people like it or not. Not wanting it to be true unfortunately isn’t sufficient. The translators have absolutely no way of knowing what the original writers had in mind when they wrote those controversial words down.

seems pretty obvious what the writer was trying to say.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

If you want to accept the explanations given by the translators and commentators then fine, but I reserve the right not to accept them because, and I’m not trying to be clever here, I do know more of the background than you do because I have studied this period and know what the Canaanites wrote about their own religion. I can see the connections even if you don’t want to.

For instance in the Ba’al Epic it says:

“Ilu (El) should appoint his son as his deputy, The Bull should appoint Yawwu as his deputy”

Can you prove that Yawwu is not related to Yahweh?

Or in KTU 1.1 IV 14 it says:

‘sm . bny . yw . ilt ‘ which translates as ‘The name of the son of god, Yahweh’

I'm not denying the fact that the israelites were influenced by the canaanites, I just interpret what that means differently than you.

here is an interesting bit on this subject:

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8mn!).

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the “sons of god” are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

now, we have seen the influence that canaan had on israel, but it is important to keep in mind that a very generous portion of the old testament is dedicated to the prophets condemning israel for worshiping in the way of the canaanites.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

What I posted may not matter in the context of Psalm 82 but it certainly matters when it comes to the point of my argument; that Hebrew religion grew out of Canaanite religion. Not that it was a copy but it was certainly influenced and that influence can be traced in the Hebrew text. And whether you think that matters or not is irrelevant.

don't think so, which is why hebrew worship is different from canaanite worship in almost every way.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Yes, in the Bible Yawheh reigns supreme because that is what the Bible was written to prove; the one God and his chosen people. The writers are embarrassed by the Canaanite references which is part of the reason the Canaanites are so vilified in the Bible.

the writers are embarrassed by the canaanite references? why include the references if they are an embarrassment??

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I didn’t say God was evil; I said he must be in control of it otherwise he is not omnipotent.

fair enough.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

You don’t see any problem with the Hebrew writers using the same poetic structure as the Canaanites? Don’t you think this shows that the Hebrews were Canaanites?

no, the hebrews were not canaanites, and, like I said, the old testament spends a fair amount of time condemning the unrighteous behavior of the canaanites, effectively drawing a line in the sand.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Why didn’t you have the courage to translate Isaiah 64:6 as the Hebrew writer originally intended it? ‘ niddah beged’ means ‘menstrual cloth’ because of course to the Hebrews and their God the natural functions of a woman are filthy and something to be avoided with horror. Don’t you think it humiliating to women that their monthly courses are seen as the filthiest thing that God could imagine? And please no lectures that it is just ‘ceremonial’ uncleanness and not physical uncleanness since that verse on it’s own tells us how the Hebrews and their God viewed women.

do you make a habit of handling menstruous rags?

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Actually I wasn’t thinking of or speaking of today but of how translations were made in the KJV to suit the political climate of that time. Are the translations made today completely free from bias? I doubt it. How many Christians actually read other translations and commentaries? I know many who never even read the Bible and only hear it when they go to church. They simply accept what they are told and rarely question it. And what do you do when the translations disagree? Without knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek where does that leave people? I’ve heard people say what wonderful literature the Bible is not realizing that it’s not the Bible that is beautiful literature but the KJV.

I don't really believe that there is a political conspiracy surrounding the kjv, however, I will say that translations are victims of the process of changing a word from one language to another. there could be a bit of guess work involved, but the word is still intact in the kjv, I know because I've read it.

in my readings, I have come across, what appeared to be at first sight, contradictions in the bible, but once I do the necessary study, I find that contradictions disappear. we live in a great time for study thanks to computers and the internet.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

On the contrary, remarkable individual though you may be in yourself you are only one of millions.

yes, millions of things that need to be named. would you say a god, even a false one, is a thing? so, we have names and things have names, why wouldn't G-d?

Originally Posted by rapunzel

True. I hate the phrase ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me’. Words frequently do hurt.

Did you like the lovely statue of Bast with her kitties? My cat is called ‘Meri Bast’ which means ‘Beloved of Bast’. I thought of getting a collar for her with a name tag on and asking the guy to do her name in hieroglyphs but I thought that might be a bit unkind.

yeah, the statue was cool looking. neat name for your cat too. one my dogs loves her collar and the other one doesn't.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Don’t you wonder why other people feel the need?

sometimes.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

How could he when they didn’t exist in his time? It’s more likely that the Bible was not written down until after the 9th century BC which is what many scholars think, even if it may have been based on some earlier tales.

Originally Posted by tatian's address to the greeks

But let Homer be not later than the Trojan war; let it be granted that he was contemporary with it, or even that he was in the army of Agamemnon, and, if any so please, that he lived before the invention of letters. The Moses before mentioned will be shown to have been many years older than the taking of Troy, and far more ancient than the building of Troy, or than Tros and Dardanus. To demonstrate this I will call in as witnesses the Chaldeans, the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. And what more need I say? For it behoves one who professes to persuade his hearers to make his narrative of events very concise. Berosus, a Babylonian, a priest of their god Belus, born in the time of Alexander, composed for Antiochus, the third after him, the history of the Chaldeans in three books; and, narrating the acts of the kings, he mentions one of them, Nabuchodonosor by name, who made war against the Phoenicians and the Jews,—events which we know were announced by our prophets, and which happened much later than the age of Moses, seventy years before the Persian empire. But Berosus is a very trustworthy man, and of this Juba is a witness, who, writing concerning the Assyrians, says that he learned the history from Berosus: there are two books of his concerning the Assyrians.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

That is your explanation.

yes, and that is what nahum was talking about.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I’m surprised you think Bible errors are a game. But ok. I’m not getting into discussions on that subject.

for every "error" there is an "apology."

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Maybe if I have the time to do all the research, which is unlikely at the moment.

^busy lady.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Yes we see opposite things but which of is correct? Yes I accept that the lions verses are a metaphor but what a pity it couldn’t be zoologically accurate.

I think it has to do with the lion being considered 'the king' of beasts. as for which of us is correct? I suppose we'll find out when we die. for the time being, we are free to decide for ourselves.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I’m certainly not ignoring other translations; I am more concerned with the original than the translation. Even the ‘original’ texts differ, so how do you know which one was the original?

I believe it is based on the recovered fragments themselves.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I don’t follow you. Are you saying the Ugaritic texts differ amongst themselves? Because that’s what I was referring to as well as the Masoretic and LXX texts.

To sum up what I am trying to say is that the particular points of contact between Ugaritic and Israelite religion does n ot mean that they shared the ‘same’ or a ‘single’ religion, but these similarities do show that there was a larger religious tradition that was shared by West Semitic people in which the Israelites are included.

again, I disagree, the religious practices of the hebrews differed in many ways to those of the canaanites.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

That is an opinion shared by very many ANE scholars based on the evidence from Ugarit and other Semitic sources. What it means of course is that there is nothing particularly special about the Israelite religion since its foundation rested on others and not on a special revelation which was quite different to any other religious ANE tradition.

the old testament is history, the new testament is where the plot twist happens. there are most definitely similarities and a canaanite influence present, however much of the old testament is a condemnation of canaanite religious practices. I think the israelites were assimilating many gods into one G-d, and recognizing the truth of religion, the relationship between creature and Creator.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by logos880

some translations actually refer to the 'congregation of el' as 'gods', and the ultimate meaning of the verse remains the same. if there truly is a 'congregation of el', then it doesn't matter whether the canaanites spoke about it prior to the bible or not, the congregation of el would still be 'the congregation of el.' the point is that G-d is chief at all times, everywhere, and among all beings.

Now you are just interpreting the Bible which is not strictly what we are talking about.

seems pretty obvious what the writer was trying to say.

You mean the translators have made it seem obvious. That’s not the same thing.

I'm not denying the fact that the israelites were influenced by the canaanites, I just interpret what that means differently than you.

Good, I’m glad you acknowledge the influence. Of course the key question is – how much influence?

The Israelites were worshipping in the way they had always worshipped but as a new nation began to form so did a new religion, with the priests making vain attempts to marshal the inhabitants to believe in what the priests thought they should believe.

don't think so, which is why hebrew worship is different from canaanite worship in almost every way.

We don’t know excatly how the Canaanites worshipped as much that is written about them is supposition. However the Canaanites had a rite of the Scapegoat that is similar to the one in Leviticus .

the writers are embarrassed by the canaanite references? why include the references if they are an embarrassment??

Perhaps they had no choice. The Canaanite references clearly show the origin of their God and the priests/scribes could not leave out the Canaanites entirely so they vilified them. Remember, there is no proof that these writings, which became the Bible, were put down as sacred writings until the 7th cent BC. When you are trying to create a new religion, which is claimed to be exclusive and unique, it is very embarrassing to have to include elements that clearly show its true origin.

no, the hebrews were not canaanites, and, like I said, the old testament spends a fair amount of time condemning the unrighteous behavior of the canaanites, effectively drawing a line in the sand.

Of course the Hebrews were Canaanites! That’s what the archaeology shows and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Yes, the Bible draws a line in the sand: it says ‘this was the old and this is the new’. The Bible writers try to ease themselves away from their Canaanite origin by using stories of people who had lived in Egypt and applying them to the whole country, thus pretending that they were not Canaanites. But the evidence is there and cannot be denied.

do you make a habit of handling menstruous rags?

What does that have to do with it? Funny you should ask that question of a woman. Why do the translations seek to hide the original meaning of the sentence?

I don't really believe that there is a political conspiracy surrounding the kjv, however, I will say that translations are victims of the process of changing a word from one language to another. there could be a bit of guess work involved, but the word is still intact in the kjv, I know because I've read it.

I thought the official view was that the KJV was translated to support the status quo. I have already remarked on the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ being translated as "church", rather than "gathering" or "assembly".

”The Geneva Bible, regarded as subversive towards the monarchy, was their target. The new translation was required to endorse and entrench the ecclesiology of the Church of England (Archbishop Bancroft was given final arbitration, making fourteen changes, one of which was inserting the term 'bishopricke' in Acts 1.20). It also eliminated marginal notes that the King and various bishops disliked, particularly one concerning Regicide in II Chronicles, and another pertaining to Exodus 1.17, where the example of civil disobedience on the part of the Hebrew midwives had been commended.

The Greek ekklesia was additionally translated as "church", rather than "gathering" or "assembly" in order to give the impression that the Bible proposes a top-down form of ecclesiastical authority. We also ended up with the pious and individualistic-sounding 'righteousness', where the Hebrew text would have suggested 'justice'. “.

Source: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13854

Oh and why does 2 Samuel 16:16 say: “…God save the king, God save the King”, when the Hebrew says:

"Long live the king! Long live the king!" as in the NIV.?

The contradictions disappear because someone finds an ingenious answer that appears to solve the contradiction. In most cases the solution is arrived at by adding something to the words of the text or making assumptions and where that fails the old ‘scribal error’ is brought out.

yes, millions of things that need to be named. would you say a god, even a false one, is a thing? so, we have names and things have names, why wouldn't G-d?

Because he doesn’t need one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tatian's address to the greeks
But let Homer be not later than the Trojan war; let it be granted that he was contemporary with it, or even that he was in the army of Agamemnon, and, if any so please, that he lived before the invention of letters. The Moses before mentioned will be shown to have been many years older than the taking of Troy, and far more ancient than the building of Troy, or than Tros and Dardanus. To demonstrate this I will call in as witnesses the Chaldeans, the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. And what more need I say? For it behoves one who professes to persuade his hearers to make his narrative of events very concise. Berosus, a Babylonian, a priest of their god Belus, born in the time of Alexander, composed for Antiochus, the third after him, the history of the Chaldeans in three books; and, narrating the acts of the kings, he mentions one of them, Nabuchodonosor by name, who made war against the Phoenicians and the Jews,—events which we know were announced by our prophets, and which happened much later than the age of Moses, seventy years before the Persian empire. But Berosus is a very trustworthy man, and of this Juba is a witness, who, writing concerning the Assyrians, says that he learned the history from Berosus: there are two books of his concerning the Assyrians.

That quote doesn’t address my question in that Moses could not know of the Chaldeans, unless of course one admits that Moses did not write the Torah.

It is amusing to read in that extract that Tatian believed that Moses lived before the founding of Troy when the archaeology tells us that Troy I dates from 3000-2600 BC.

for every "error" there is an "apology."

I see it as an ‘excuse’. For example take Joshua 11: which describes Joshua’s conquest of Hazor

“When Jabin king of Hazor………………….

Verse 10-11

“At that time Joshua turned back and captured Hazor and put its king to the sword. (Hazor had been the head of all these kingdoms.) Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself.”

And verse 23 says:

“So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions.”
Joshua 15:21 confirms that Hazor and other towns were part of the area allocated to Judah.

We then see another Jabin and another Hazor in existence many decades laterin the time of Deborah as told in Judges 4:2-3

“So the LORD sold them (the Israelites)into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.”

How could the same king and the same city be destroyed twice. Some of the explanations are hilarious.

‘Jabin is a family name’ - where is the proof of that?

‘Hazor was reconquered by the Canaanites and rebuilt’ – that’s not what the archaeology says and that’s not what the Bible says either.

‘ Jabin was reigning elsewhere but kept the style of king of hazor’

Incidentally, what about the iron chariots? Chariots are made of wood and leather because they need to be lightweight and metal is only used in the fixings. Didn’t God know how to defeat these chariots?

I believe it is based on the recovered fragments themselves.

Which ‘recovered fragments’?

again, I disagree, the religious practices of the hebrews differed in many ways to those of the Canaanites

We don’t really know what the religious practices of the Canaanites were so it’s not possible to make a comparison.. One cannot use the Bible to determine what those practices were since the writers had an anti Canaanite agenda. The religious practices of the Roman Catholic and the Methodists differ in many ways bit they are all Christian.

the old testament is history, the new testament is where the plot twist happens. there are most definitely similarities and a canaanite influence present, however much of the old testament is a condemnation of canaanite religious practices. I think the israelites were assimilating many gods into one G-d, and recognizing the truth of religion, the relationship between creature and Creator.

There is very little accurate history in the OT before the time of Omri but I’m sure you know that.

I’ve posted this quote from William Dever before because I feel it is worth repeating:

"The similarities of Israelite religion to the religions of greater Canaan have long been known, and indeed are assumed by one strand of the tradition in the Hebrew Bible. But the degree of affinity and of actual continuity with Canaan have been minimized by scholars, both Jewish and Christian, to emphasize the uniqueness of ancient Israel. Recent archaeological discoveries redress the balance by showing that in terms of material culture and the behavior it reflects, there was very little distinction between Canaanite and Israelite religion, at least in practice."

Dever is the well respected archaeologist who started off as a fundamentalist preacher but later lost his faith and turned to secularism because of his work and what he had found, or rather, not found, concerning the accuracy of the Bible.

What you appear to be saying is that there was no special revelation from God and that God did not inspire the writing of the scriptures but that the Israelites more or less worked it out for themselves.

Do you think this discussion is nearing the end of its natural life?

[cwl3]

Wow, there are so many people on here who claim not to be religious but yet know their bible inside out.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by cwl3

Wow, there are so many people on here who claim not to be religious but yet know their bible inside out.

the bible has helped many to choose atheism or paganism.
it has been my experienced that christians are, as a whole, bible illiterate.
most only know the scripture that is pounded at them from the pulpit.

[danceswithbunnies]

Interpretation

Scapegoat has been found in most of the world religions according to Rene Girard
(don't know if he is correct)

What i do KNOW for certain is that it does appear to be a societal mechanism...especially in dysfunctional groups and families.

SATAN IS THE SCAPEGOAT WHO BEARS THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE.
Leviticus 16
in the old testament the scapegoat bears the sins of the people and is driven into the dessert, it is AZAZEL
another word for THE HORNED GOD

In western society people unconsciously project their own flaws unto this chosen person or group of people.
Jews,Pagans&Witches, Moslems , Homosexuals for society at large, long history there...and of course this also happens in families where one child is chosen and the family projects their garbage onto that one person.

In Christianity...

Who was driven into the desert by the Spirit?

who bears the sins?

John 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Accrding to Revelation Who was the Serpent?

So basically we can conclude that JESUS IS THE HORNED GOD/SATAN....SACRIFICED FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE

Okay.....i can claim that this IS what the Bible says.


SEE how it might be desirable to SEPARATE the TEXT from the INTERPRETATION?

That is what Rapunzel is trying to do.she is examining the text critically without interpretation thrown on top of it.

[michaelsherlock]

Originally Posted by cwl3

Wow, there are so many people on here who claim not to be religious but yet know their bible inside out.

"Know thine enemy!"

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by danceswithbunnies

Interpretation

Scapegoat has been found in most of the world religions according to Rene Girard
(don't know if he is correct)

What i do KNOW for certain is that it does appear to be a societal mechanism...especially in dysfunctional groups and families.

SATAN IS THE SCAPEGOAT WHO BEARS THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE.
Leviticus 16
in the old testament the scapegoat bears the sins of the people and is driven into the dessert, it is AZAZEL
another word for THE HORNED GOD

In western society people unconsciously project their own flaws unto this chosen person or group of people.
Jews,Pagans&Witches, Moslems , Homosexuals for society at large, long history there...and of course this also happens in families where one child is chosen and the family projects their garbage onto that one person.

In Christianity...

Who was driven into the desert by the Spirit?

who bears the sins?

John 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Accrding to Revelation Who was the Serpent?

So basically we can conclude that JESUS IS THE HORNED GOD/SATAN....SACRIFICED FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE

Okay.....i can claim that this IS what the Bible says.


SEE how it might be desirable to SEPARATE the TEXT from the INTERPRETATION?

That is what Rapunzel is trying to do.she is examining the text critically without interpretation thrown on top of it.

Thanks Bunny. Yes, I'm not interested in how Christians interpret the text but what the text actually says and what the background to that text is; i.e. does the Hebrew text that we have now (and we have no proof what the original text was like) resemble anything that was around beforehand and if so is there a connection.

There are numerous instances in which Biblical texts copy Canaanite text, and I haven't detailed then all here, and adding to that are the similarity of titles such as Ba'al the Rider of the Clouds and Isaiah 19:1 "Yahweh rides on swift clouds".

I can see the connections so clearly but I can understand Christians who cannot accept that although there are many historians, Christian and not, who do and who say they do.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Now you are just interpreting the Bible which is not strictly what we are talking about.

You mean the translators have made it seem obvious. That’s not the same thing.

nope, even in the hebrew the meaning is obvious:

Originally Posted by psalm 82:1

מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט

82:1 miz'môr l'äšäf élohiym niTZäv Baádat-ël B'qerev élohiym yish'Po†

82:1 ¶ [[A Psalm 4210 of ´Äsäf ?????.]] 623 ´Élöhîm ???????? 430 standeth 5324 z8737 in the congregation 5712 of ´ël ???; 410 he judgeth 8199 z8799 among 7130 the ´élöhîm ????????. 430

have a look for yourself:

http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/psalms/82.html#1

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Good, I’m glad you acknowledge the influence. Of course the key question is – how much influence?

I've acknowledged all along, but, so far all you've been able to offer up is similar poetic structure, proper nouns, and a few lines in the psalms.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

The Israelites were worshipping in the way they had always worshipped but as a new nation began to form so did a new religion, with the priests making vain attempts to marshal the inhabitants to believe in what the priests thought they should believe.

We don’t know excatly how the Canaanites worshipped as much that is written about them is supposition. However the Canaanites had a rite of the Scapegoat that is similar to the one in Leviticus.

hmmmm...so you know how the israelites "had always worshipped" but you don't know how the canaanites worshipped? the scapegoat was a picture of Jesus Christ...I started a thread on the subject of shared mythology that foreshadows Jesus Christ if you're interested.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Perhaps they had no choice. The Canaanite references clearly show the origin of their God and the priests/scribes could not leave out the Canaanites entirely so they vilified them. Remember, there is no proof that these writings, which became the Bible, were put down as sacred writings until the 7th cent BC. When you are trying to create a new religion, which is claimed to be exclusive and unique, it is very embarrassing to have to include elements that clearly show its true origin.

again, why would they have no choice but to publish what you construe as embarrassing secrets?? that doesn't make sense. if the writers didn't want the canaanite influence in the bible they wouldn't have put it in there.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Of course the Hebrews were Canaanites! That’s what the archaeology shows and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Yes, the Bible draws a line in the sand: it says ‘this was the old and this is the new’. The Bible writers try to ease themselves away from their Canaanite origin by using stories of people who had lived in Egypt and applying them to the whole country, thus pretending that they were not Canaanites. But the evidence is there and cannot be denied.

there simply isn't enough evidence for you to conclude that the hebrews were definitely canaanites or even late comers to the area. there is also another theory:

In this respect, the word "Hebrew" is important. This word became the name of the Israelites. Its origin is not cultural or racial but social and political. As indicated in chapter 2, the word probably is related to habiru or 'apiru. Scholars are not sure of the connection. It seems that the word "Hebrew" became a general word for everyone the powerful viewed as social outcasts and troublemakers. It was a pejorative nickname applied to those who caused problems. Cultural identity made no difference. Thus, Canaanite and Amorite misfits were also "Hebrews." The new followers of Joshua and the Moses-tradition also were "Hebrews." (7) During the upheaval that overthrew the kings and the cities and finally gave the land to farmers, the name Hebrew became associated with those who rebelled in the name of Yahweh.

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/joshua/may6264.stm

Originally Posted by rapunzel

What does that have to do with it? Funny you should ask that question of a woman. Why do the translations seek to hide the original meaning of the sentence?

a bloody rag does not make for a good wash clothe. and, apparently, some people will misunderstand the intended meaning and may even find those particular choice of words offensive. no problem though, as the intended meaning still shines through.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I thought the official view was that the KJV was translated to support the status quo. I have already remarked on the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ being translated as "church", rather than "gathering" or "assembly".

”The Geneva Bible, regarded as subversive towards the monarchy, was their target. The new translation was required to endorse and entrench the ecclesiology of the Church of England (Archbishop Bancroft was given final arbitration, making fourteen changes, one of which was inserting the term 'bishopricke' in Acts 1.20). It also eliminated marginal notes that the King and various bishops disliked, particularly one concerning Regicide in II Chronicles, and another pertaining to Exodus 1.17, where the example of civil disobedience on the part of the Hebrew midwives had been commended.

The Greek ekklesia was additionally translated as "church", rather than "gathering" or "assembly" in order to give the impression that the Bible proposes a top-down form of ecclesiastical authority. We also ended up with the pious and individualistic-sounding 'righteousness', where the Hebrew text would have suggested 'justice'. “.

Source: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13854

I don't think the intent behind the translators was as ill as the above quote makes it sound:

Originally Posted by KJV 1611 translators

As a preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators wrote a message entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” In it, they said, “happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture and thrice happy that meditate in it day and night. But how shall man meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close [veiled] in an unknown tongue?… [Contemporary] Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light….indeed, without translation into the vulgar [common] tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with…” (pages 3,4).

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Oh and why does 2 Samuel 16:16 say: “…God save the king, God save the King”, when the Hebrew says:

"Long live the king! Long live the king!" as in the NIV.?

there's a link to all translations...

http://chatbible.com/2-samuel/16-16.asp

again, I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill for the sake of argument. "G-d save the king" versus "long live the king", what's the big difference there??

Originally Posted by rapunzel

The contradictions disappear because someone finds an ingenious answer that appears to solve the contradiction. In most cases the solution is arrived at by adding something to the words of the text or making assumptions and where that fails the old ‘scribal error’ is brought out.

that's quite the broad brush you paint apologetics in general with, and I disagree. but, like I said, you see what you want to see.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Because he doesn’t need one.

I disagree, and I use proper nouns to refer to "G-d" even in my own private prayers. there is a pragmatic reason to use a proper noun.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

That quote doesn’t address my question in that Moses could not know of the Chaldeans, unless of course one admits that Moses did not write the Torah.

It is amusing to read in that extract that Tatian believed that Moses lived before the founding of Troy when the archaeology tells us that Troy I dates from 3000-2600 BC.

I won't quote the entire document because it's several pages and the format doesn't seem to translate properly, but here is a "potential solution":

A Potential Solution

Is there any viable option other than anachronism or textual updating? Does evidence exist that might indicate that Moses himself could have written the text as it is? In other words, could Moses have known of the existence of the Chaldeans and could he be accurate in identifying Chaldeans with ancient Ur prior to or contemporary with Abraham? Three different types of evidence are available that support authenticity of "Chaldeans" as an original Mosaic reading in Genesis: linguistic, genealogical, and historical

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20a.pdf

Originally Posted by rapunzel

I see it as an ‘excuse’. For example take Joshua 11: which describes Joshua’s conquest of Hazor

“When Jabin king of Hazor………………….

Verse 10-11

“At that time Joshua turned back and captured Hazor and put its king to the sword. (Hazor had been the head of all these kingdoms.) Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself.”

And verse 23 says:

“So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions.”
Joshua 15:21 confirms that Hazor and other towns were part of the area allocated to Judah.

We then see another Jabin and another Hazor in existence many decades laterin the time of Deborah as told in Judges 4:2-3

“So the LORD sold them (the Israelites)into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.”

How could the same king and the same city be destroyed twice. Some of the explanations are hilarious.

‘Jabin is a family name’ - where is the proof of that?

‘Hazor was reconquered by the Canaanites and rebuilt’ – that’s not what the archaeology says and that’s not what the Bible says either.

‘ Jabin was reigning elsewhere but kept the style of king of hazor’

Incidentally, what about the iron chariots? Chariots are made of wood and leather because they need to be lightweight and metal is only used in the fixings. Didn’t God know how to defeat these chariots?

seems you are playing that "game" I'd said I'd like to avoid, if you want to see errors and contradictions that's what you will see.

But the fact of the matter is, Professor Yadin’s discoveries revealed that there were two destructions at Hazor: one in the thirteenth century B.C. and another in the fifteenth century B.C. (Avi-Yonah, 1976, 2:481-482). Actually, this is precisely the picture presented in the Old Testament.

In addition to the conquest of Hazor during the time of Joshua in the mid-fifteenth century B.C., two centuries later, in the period of Israel’s judges, the Israelites again engaged the King of Hazor in battle. Under the leadership of Deborah and Barak (c. 1258 B.C.), the armies of Hazor, under Sisera, were decisively defeated (Judges 4:2ff.), and as professor Siegfried H. Horn observed, “undoubtedly Hazor was destroyed” (Horn, 1963, p. 31).

Avi-Yonah, Michael, et al. (1976), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Horn, Siegfried H. (1963), Records of the Past Illuminate the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald).

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Which ‘recovered fragments’?

The Masoretic tradition has provided us with several manuscripts:

1. The oldest Masoretic manuscr ipt is called the Cairo Codex (895 AD) and it contains the former and the latter
prophets.
2. The latter prophets are found in the Liningrad Codex (916 AD) and it was wr itten with a Babylonian punctuation.
3. At one point in time, 1948, we had a complete version of the OT ( the Aleppo Codex, dated 930 AD), but in its
rescue from a burning synagogue in 1948 and subsequent smuggling from Syr ia to Israel, por tions of it were
lost.
4. The largest and only complete Hebrew text of the OT is the Leningrad Codex (1008 AD) .
5. In addition to these manuscr ipts, we have pieces of the Old Testament in the Br itish Museum Codex (950 AD,
most of the Pentateuch) , the Reuchlin Codex (1105 AD, the prophets) and the Cairo Geniza fragments (6th-9th
centuries AD)

http://kukis.org/Doctrines/OTmanuscripts.pdf

Originally Posted by rapunzel

We don’t really know what the religious practices of the Canaanites were so it’s not possible to make a comparison.. One cannot use the Bible to determine what those practices were since the writers had an anti Canaanite agenda. The religious practices of the Roman Catholic and the Methodists differ in many ways bit they are all Christian.

so you claim to know how the israelites "always" worshipped but are unwilling to say the same regarding the canaanites, and now you compare the israelites/canaanites to the roman catholics/methodists...seems a bit biased there on your part. you're willing to take the word of the bible regarding the israelite's practices but not the canaanites. to be consistent in that view, then we would just have to drop the issue entirely and say it is inconclusive.

Originally Posted by wiki

According to Canaanite beliefs, when the physical body dies, the npš (usually translated as "soul") departs from the body to the land of Mot. Bodies were buried with grave goods, and offerings of food and drink were made to the dead to ensure that they would not bother the living. Dead relatives were venerated and sometimes asked for help.[12][13]
To worship their gods, Canaanites did the following - "Base sex worship was prevalent, and religious prostitution even commanded; human sacrifice was common; and it was a frequent practice--in an effort to placate their gods--to kill young children and bury them in the foundations of a house or public building at the time of construction."
Howard E. Vos, "An Introduction To Bible Archaeology" Revised ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953) pp. 17-19.[14]

^hmmm....

Originally Posted by rapunzel

There is very little accurate history in the OT before the time of Omri but I’m sure you know that.

I’ve posted this quote from William Dever before because I feel it is worth repeating:

"The similarities of Israelite religion to the religions of greater Canaan have long been known, and indeed are assumed by one strand of the tradition in the Hebrew Bible. But the degree of affinity and of actual continuity with Canaan have been minimized by scholars, both Jewish and Christian, to emphasize the uniqueness of ancient Israel. Recent archaeological discoveries redress the balance by showing that in terms of material culture and the behavior it reflects, there was very little distinction between Canaanite and Israelite religion, at least in practice."

IMO, this quote is academically dishonest. as the bible says, the israelites were guilty of apostasy on many occasions, in that context, the israelites worshipped exactly the same as the canaanites but, again, that was apostasy. so, to say there is little distinction is ignoring the fact that the bible condemned worship in the way of the canaanites, we can see that the prophets of israel distinguished proper worship from that of canaanite worship.

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Dever is the well respected archaeologist who started off as a fundamentalist preacher but later lost his faith and turned to secularism because of his work and what he had found, or rather, not found, concerning the accuracy of the Bible.

What you appear to be saying is that there was no special revelation from God and that God did not inspire the writing of the scriptures but that the Israelites more or less worked it out for themselves.

no, that's not what I'm saying at all. there was special revelation, hence the prophets distinguishing "bad worship" from "good worship." also, the entire bible is "special revelation."

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Do you think this discussion is nearing the end of its natural life?

I'd say so, as it is getting repetitive at this point. you have an empty cup view of the bible and I have a full cup view of the bible. like I said, for every error there is an apology.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by danceswithbunnies

Interpretation

Scapegoat has been found in most of the world religions according to Rene Girard
(don't know if he is correct)

What i do KNOW for certain is that it does appear to be a societal mechanism...especially in dysfunctional groups and families.

SATAN IS THE SCAPEGOAT WHO BEARS THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE.
Leviticus 16
in the old testament the scapegoat bears the sins of the people and is driven into the dessert, it is AZAZEL
another word for THE HORNED GOD

In western society people unconsciously project their own flaws unto this chosen person or group of people.
Jews,Pagans&Witches, Moslems , Homosexuals for society at large, long history there...and of course this also happens in families where one child is chosen and the family projects their garbage onto that one person.

In Christianity...

Who was driven into the desert by the Spirit?

who bears the sins?

John 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Accrding to Revelation Who was the Serpent?

So basically we can conclude that JESUS IS THE HORNED GOD/SATAN....SACRIFICED FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE

Okay.....i can claim that this IS what the Bible says.


SEE how it might be desirable to SEPARATE the TEXT from the INTERPRETATION?

That is what Rapunzel is trying to do.she is examining the text critically without interpretation thrown on top of it.

satan does not bear the sins of the people. satan is the adversary, no where in scripture does it ever say that satan bears the sin of the people.

[danceswithbunnies]

Originally Posted by logos880

satan does not bear the sins of the people. satan is the adversary, no where in scripture does it ever say that satan bears the sin of the people.

You MISSED THE POINT I WAS CONVEYING ENTIRELY BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION because you are so literalistic/legalistic you RUSHED to pick apart what was said instead of understanding the allegory

Since your posts have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of that level of conceptual abstraction, there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

[logos880]

Originally Posted by danceswithbunnies

You MISSED THE POINT I WAS CONVEYING ENTIRELY BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION because you are so literalistic/legalistic you RUSHED to pick apart what was said instead of understanding the allegory

Since your posts have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of that level of conceptual abstraction, there is really no point in discussing anything with you.

haha, ooookay...but the fact that you chose to attack my understanding rather than debate my point says it all. my point still stands, thanks.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by logos880

nope, even in the hebrew the meaning is obvious:

What you are saying is that Yahweh existed before the Canaanite Gods did so therefore it is not surprising that they should know about the Congregation of El. Of course you haven’t the slightest proof that Yahweh is the Ein Soph, it is just your belief. Nothing wrong in that, but the Bible cannot be used to prove that belief since the purpose of the Bible is to attempt to show that Yahweh is the One so it’s a circular argument.

I just find it strange that the Canaanites should have the ‘Congregation of El’ just as the Hebrews do.

I've acknowledged all along, but, so far all you've been able to offer up is similar poetic structure, proper nouns, and a few lines in the psalms.

There’s a lot more than that but I don’t want to bore any readers with long lists.

hmmmm...so you know how the israelites "had always worshipped" but you don't know how the canaanites worshipped? the scapegoat was a picture of Jesus Christ...I started a thread on the subject of shared mythology that foreshadows Jesus Christ if you're interested.

I mean we know from the Bible also from archaeology and the archaeology tells us that the Israelites were using Pagan statuettes and including a Goddess in their worship. What we can’t know is if this was a falling by the wayside from the practice of ‘true’ religion the prophets were always going on about, or whether the Israelites had [B ]always[/B] worshipped like this with the priests trying to get them to take part in the new worship of Yahweh.

again, why would they have no choice but to publish what you construe as embarrassing secrets?? that doesn't make sense. if the writers didn't want the canaanite influence in the bible they wouldn't have put it in there.

The Israelite religion evolved over a period of time. If the Hebrews were Canaanites, as the archaeology seems to say, then they evolved from Canaanite religion to a new religion brought back from Babylon and developed using old myths and stories over the following years and becoming an absolute monotheism. It would have been impossible to completely cut out the Canaanite influence.

there simply isn't enough evidence for you to conclude that the hebrews were definitely canaanites or even late comers to the area. there is also another theory:

It’s not my theory; I am relying on what the scholars say. I am aware there are other theories but the point is that there is no evidence that the Biblical story of the Conquest is true, in fact the archaeology would seem to say it is not.

In this respect, the word "Hebrew" is important. This word became the name of the Israelites. Its origin is not cultural or racial but social and political. As indicated in chapter 2, the word probably is related to habiru or 'apiru. Scholars are not sure of the connection. It seems that the word "Hebrew" became a general word for everyone the powerful viewed as social outcasts and troublemakers. It was a pejorative nickname applied to those who caused problems. Cultural identity made no difference. Thus, Canaanite and Amorite misfits were also "Hebrews." The new followers of Joshua and the Moses-tradition also were "Hebrews." (7) During the upheaval that overthrew the kings and the cities and finally gave the land to farmers, the name Hebrew became associated with those who rebelled in the name of Yahweh.
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/joshua/may6264.stm

But this is just the version of the story that posits that the Hebrews were originally Canaanites. I personally believe that in the chaos of the breakdown at the end of the Bronze Age many disparate groups took to the hills. Some would have been Canaanites, some may have come from Egypt, possibly some were originally of the Hyksos. And they would all have had different traditions. Possibly some of the people designated ‘Apiru’ came to live with them but whether there is a connection between the word ‘Hebrew’ and the word ‘Apiru’ I am not so sure.

a bloody rag does not make for a good wash clothe. and, apparently, some people will misunderstand the intended meaning and may even find those particular choice of words offensive. no problem though, as the intended meaning still shines through.

Well I am certainly offended at the implication that the filthiest thing the scribe could think of was a menstrual cloth. Why not a babies napkin? Crap is far more offensive than blood, even though it’s natural.

I don't think the intent behind the translators was as ill as the above quote makes it sound:

All I can say is that that is the opinion of a number of scholars and knowing James belief in the Divine Right of Kings it makes sense.

there's a link to all translations...

http://chatbible.com/2-samuel/16-16.asp

again, I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill for the sake of argument. "G-d save the king" versus "long live the king", what's the big difference there??

The difference is that it implies the Divine Right to say ‘God save…’ and again it’s not my argument.

that's quite the broad brush you paint apologetics in general with, and I disagree. but, like I said, you see what you want to see.

As do believers in the divine inspiration of scripture.

I disagree, and I use proper nouns to refer to "G-d" even in my own private prayers. there is a pragmatic reason to use a proper noun.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then.

I won't quote the entire document because it's several pages and the format doesn't seem to translate properly, but here is a "potential solution":
Quote:
A Potential Solution

Is there any viable option other than anachronism or textual updating? Does evidence exist that might indicate that Moses himself could have written the text as it is? In other words, could Moses have known of the existence of the Chaldeans and could he be accurate in identifying Chaldeans with ancient Ur prior to or contemporary with Abraham? Three different types of evidence are available that support authenticity of "Chaldeans" as an original Mosaic reading in Genesis: linguistic, genealogical, and historical
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20a.pdf

I started to read the article but it is not very well written and I have to admit I got bored half way through. Much easier to see Chaldeans as a later gloss.

seems you are playing that "game" I'd said I'd like to avoid, if you
want to see errors and contradictions that's what you will see.
Quote:
But the fact of the matter is, Professor Yadin’s discoveries revealed that there were two destructions at Hazor: one in the thirteenth century B.C. and another in the fifteenth century B.C. (Avi-Yonah, 1976, 2:481-482). Actually, this is precisely the picture presented in the Old Testament.

In addition to the conquest of Hazor during the time of Joshua in the mid-fifteenth century B.C., two centuries later, in the period of Israel’s judges, the Israelites again engaged the King of Hazor in battle. Under the leadership of Deborah and Barak (c. 1258 B.C.), the armies of Hazor, under Sisera, were decisively defeated (Judges 4:2ff.), and as professor Siegfried H. Horn observed, “undoubtedly Hazor was destroyed” (Horn, 1963, p. 31).
Avi-Yonah, Michael, et al. (1976), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Horn, Siegfried H. (1963), Records of the Past Illuminate the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald).

I see this as a very important error and not at all a ‘game’. To assume that the Conquest took place in the mid 15th century is to go against accepted history because it causes problems with Egyptian chronology. This was the time of Thutmoses III and the start of Egyptian dominance in Canaan. If Joseph was busy conquering Canaan at the time why no mention of the Egyptian army in the Bible and why, over one hundred years later, at the time of the Armana letters, are the Canaanites still in power and writing to Ahkenaten for help? Even more damning is the fact that on the Merneptah Stele, which was made over 150 years later than the Armana letters, is Israel still referred to as a nomadic people without land.

The 15th century destruction of Hazor had nothing to do with the Israelites therefore it cannot be used to counter the charge of error in the apparent double conquest of Hazor at the time of Joshua and Judges. There again there is the problem of dating Jericho which is another issue entirely and the subject of much squabbling in archaeology.

Quote:
The Masoretic tradition has provided us with several manuscripts:

1. The oldest Masoretic manuscr ipt is called the Cairo Codex (895 AD) and it contains the former and the latter
prophets.
2. The latter prophets are found in the Liningrad Codex (916 AD) and it was wr itten with a Babylonian punctuation.
3. At one point in time, 1948, we had a complete version of the OT ( the Aleppo Codex, dated 930 AD), but in its
rescue from a burning synagogue in 1948 and subsequent smuggling from Syr ia to Israel, por tions of it were
lost.
4. The largest and only complete Hebrew text of the OT is the Leningrad Codex (1008 AD) .
5. In addition to these manuscr ipts, we have pieces of the Old Testament in the Br itish Museum Codex (950 AD,
most of the Pentateuch) , the Reuchlin Codex (1105 AD, the prophets) and the Cairo Geniza fragments (6th-9th
centuries AD)
http://kukis.org/Doctrines/OTmanuscripts.pdf

I’ve already seen this somewhere else but I really thought you were referring to fragments from the BC period.

so you claim to know how the israelites "always" worshipped but are unwilling to say the same regarding the canaanites, and now you compare the israelites/canaanites to the roman catholics/methodists...seems a bit biased there on your part. you're willing to take the word of the bible regarding the israelite's practices but not the canaanites. to be consistent in that view, then we would just have to drop the issue entirely and say it is inconclusive.

We have the Bible and later Jewish writers to tell us how the Israelites worshipped but the amount of documents recovered from Canaan and Ugarit are insufficient to tell us those details. There is nothing in what is available that informs us on how any particular ritual was carried out. That’s what I mean.

No, I’m not willing to take the Bible’s account of Canaanite worship because there is nothing to back it up archaeologically. I don’t expect the Bible to tell the truth about them because the Israelites were stealing their land and they wanted the Canaanites out. What a wonderful excuse to kill them all by alleging them to be the lowest of the low. Just like the Nazis used the excuse that the Jews were degenerate.

I see no reason to doubt any description of Israelite practice in the Bible (do you) so the issue is not inconclusive. I think you understand the reason I compared the Catholics and the Methodists so I don’t understand your accusation of bias.

Originally Posted by wiki
According to Canaanite beliefs, when the physical body dies, the npš (usually translated as "soul") departs from the body to the land of Mot. Bodies were buried with grave goods, and offerings of food and drink were made to the dead to ensure that they would not bother the living. Dead relatives were venerated and sometimes asked for help.[12][13]

To worship their gods, Canaanites did the following - "Base sex worship was prevalent, and religious prostitution even commanded; human sacrifice was common; and it was a frequent practice--in an effort to placate their gods--to kill young children and bury them in the foundations of a house or public building at the time of construction."

Howard E. Vos, "An Introduction To Bible Archaeology" Revised ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953) pp. 17-19.[14]

^hmmm...

I agree with the first comment that the Canaanites had no particular concept of an afterlife which was in common with the Israelite belief.

As for the remained of that quote the author is just making it up since there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for human sacrifice and ‘base sex worship’. The practice of burying deceased children or other family members under the family home was fairly common in some cultures. Perhaps to keep their spirits close? It happened in the Bronze Age community on the island of South Uist and in Catal hoyuk, where up to 30 bodies are found under each house. But of course Bible believers like to imagine that they were human foundation sacrifice because that’s what Pagans did wasn’t it?

As for him describing Joshua 6:26 as evidence of foundation sacrifice it is nothing of the sort. It’s merely a prediction that his children will die as various translations make clear.

IMO, this quote is academically dishonest. as the bible says, the israelites were guilty of apostasy on many occasions, in that context, the israelites worshipped exactly the same as the canaanites but, again, that was apostasy. so, to say there is little distinction is ignoring the fact that the bible condemned worship in the way of the canaanites, we can see that the prophets of israel distinguished proper worship from that of canaanite worship.

As I pointed out William Dever was an evangelical preacher before he became an archeologist and he was well acquainted with the Bible. His career over 30 years eventually caused him to lose his faith because of what he found in his work. He was one of the most respected archaeologists around so I’d suggest you take your comment up with him and see how he responds. He was not a minimalist.

Again, as I have said before, where is your evidence that the Baal worshipping Israelites were apostasing and not simply practicing their natural religion before being converted to monotheism?

no, that's not what I'm saying at all. there was special revelation, hence the prophets distinguishing "bad worship" from "good worship." also, the entire bible is "special revelation."

And it’s that very claim of ‘special revelation’ that makes the Bible writers denigrate other religions. What evidence do you have that there was a special revelation?

I'd say so, as it is getting repetitive at this point. you have an empty cup view of the bible and I have a full cup view of the bible. like I said, for every error there is an apology.

You could start another thread about Biblical Archeology if you like. I’d like to hear other poster’s points of view.

[danceswithbunnies]

I thought it might be fun to get back to the original topic and
to post the writings of an occult luminary Lon Milo Duquette on Hypatia
Mr. Duquette is a really fun read..and i think some folks might enjoy this


ITS CHAPTER VI
http://books.google.com/books?id=RNm...ennium&f=false

If any of you want to read the book
i can probably figure out how to share it on my Amazon Kindle account.