any christians here in this entire site please stand up
POSTED BY: leelu7777
UPDATED: Monday, September 22, 2025 14:45
VIEWED: 32293
PAGE 20 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by Gizmo:
And regarding extremism in religion, I personally think that can happen when someone takes one line of the Scripture and turns it into something that it's not by taking it out of context. Not that the small parts are insignificant, but it's always important to see the big picture.
A few good sources on hermeneutics really helped me in studying the Bible.
And I'm not necessarily talking about whole books on the subject of hermeneutics. Even small, brief studies on hermeneutics have been very beneficial to me. I would recommend them to anyone who was interested in serious study of the scriptures. A lot of it is just common sense, but the thing for me was to remember to actually apply the principles when studying the scriptures, themselves.
It also actually helps to have a good translation (as opposed to a paraphrase) with extensive footnotes of the manuscript variations. Personally, I've also found that having interlinear translations are very helpful, as well -- I have both Hebrew-English and Greek-English interlinear Bibles. Of course, unless one knows Hebrew & Greek (I don't), one will also need a very good Hebrew & Greek lexicon (have those, too).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
Considering how we have populated well beyond any "local" carrying capacity, and how very dependent we are on technology and transporation (just look at the sewage problem from hurricane Katrina) I would imagine that we would depopulate very, very quickly.
There's a city that was abandoned in South America (I think it may have been Mayan, but I'm not sure off hand), the reason given was because they surpassed the ability of their technology, especially their agricultural technology, to sustain them. We're even more dependent now.
I think without technology the total supportable population of Earth is measured in a little over a million? we're currently over 6 Billion, so our very existence is pretty much dependent on technology...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is actually archeological evidence, I believe, according to the history channel, that there was no racial upset as a result of Biblical Hebrew conquest of Canaan, which suggests that the Hebrews were small enough to be incorporated into the population as the Norse in Central Europe and/or they were of similar racial stock. But I think that both Hebrews and the Canaanites were a similar ethnicity and it is likely that the base population of the early Israelite Kingdom was essentially Canaanite.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So we are left with two possibilities.
1) All sieges were short duration, which could be possible, the site most people believe was Jericho had damaged walls from an earthquake that hadn't been repaired after 100 years, so it's possible that medieval scholars reading "Siege" thought it was a bigger deal and the Caananite cities actually proved to be.
2) An Israelite army well in advance of a population already farming occupied lands and sending supplies forwards.
We also have to ask what happened to the Caananites? Perhaps what really happened was that over time the larger population became the bulk of the Jewish nation, taking on the cultural identity of the victors? Perhaps back then being Israeli was more acceptance of an idea than a a strict racial definition?
Even though the Canaanites may have been racially similar, I think they were also more technologically advanced then the Hebrews. The Canaanites had a relatively large kingdom, presumably walled cities, an established government, a form of writing and had created a relatively vast trade system throughout the Mediterranean. I think the Canaanites are also attributed with having invented the alphabet that became the Hebrew alphabet, and even the inspiration for the Greek Alphabet.)
What were the Hebrews? If they were simply lightly armed Bedouins or riffraff, I’m not convinced that a hundred or so would have much success against a Canaanite army in the field much less a heavily defended one. So I think you have to assume that something else was working in the Hebrews favor or that perhaps the Hebrew who invaded Canaan were not necessarily the same who fled Egypt.
Quote:Initial sanctimonious comments aside, I don’t really disagree with this. I just don’t think any of this precludes historical inquiry.
Originally posted by citizen:
Well if you bothered to read what I posted for comprehension rather than just try and shout me down by playing word games like “They weren’t called Israelites back then”, or repeat what I’ve already said as if it disproves what I’ve said, you'd know. I'll spell it out too you:
That the story of Exodus, like other Bible stories, is a composite of many real events that happened at disparate times and became folk law among the people who became the Israelites and was then written down in a later evolved form as Exodus in the Torah and later the Old Testament of the Bible.
That Exodus wasn’t a ‘real event’ but a composite that formed folk law, like the legends of King Arthur were based on some real events and real people that were composited and the gaps filled.
The language used in the Ipuwer papyrus to describe the slaves/foreigners is not inconsistent with how one might imagine a slave revolt in the midst of a catastrophic breakdown of society would appear to the Egyptian aristocracy. Why would rebel slaves necessarily be viewed as ‘leaving,’ instead of ‘attacking?’ And why would the Egyptians view themselves as the oppressor, instead of the victim? As for the use of the word Habiru, I see no reason, at this point, to assume that it is not used in the Ipuwer text; without an untranslated copy and an understanding of Egyptian, I can’t make that judgment. However there is a point of view to Exodus as well, and as unlikely as it would be for Egyptians to paint an unsympathetic picture of themselves, it is equally hard to think that the Jews would spend much time on their own oppressive or barbaric reactions to the Egyptians. The Hebrews ar
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But I think that both Hebrews and the Canaanites were a similar ethnicity and it is likely that the base population of the early Israelite Kingdom was essentially Canaanite.
This could very well be true. Canaanite gods are mentioned in the Bible and the Canaanite god Ba'al was also know as Ba'al-zebub which became beelzebub.
Quote:
Initial sanctimonious comments aside, I don’t really disagree with this. I just don’t think any of this precludes historical inquiry.
I'm sorry if it came across as sanctimonious but you were making out like I didn't have a point and at a number of times it came across to me like you weren't reading my posts, just skimming them looking for things you could use to discredit me. Like when you ignored nearly my entire post and then questioned it’s validity by questioning my use of the term “Israelites” instead of “people who became the Israelites”. That's how it came across; if it isn't true I'm sorry.
I’m not sure what you mean by “precludes historical inquiry”.
Quote:
The language used in the Ipuwer papyrus to describe the slaves/foreigners is not inconsistent with how one might imagine a slave revolt in the midst of a catastrophic breakdown of society would appear to the Egyptian aristocracy. Why would rebel slaves necessarily be viewed as ‘leaving,’ instead of ‘attacking?’ And why would the Egyptians view themselves as the oppressor, instead of the victim?
Except the attacking Barbarians are not described as slaves rising in revolt or any other internal threat, they're described as barbarian tribes coming IN from outside of Egypt.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wasn’t even aware that the comment I made on Israelites had been viewed as questioning the validity of anything until you said something. On another point, as I’ve stated I’m not an Egyptologist or particularly familiar with Egyptian history, in some cases this is the first time I’ve thought about some of this stuff. I’m familiar with most of the basics, but I’ve rarely sat down to put 2 and 2 together. As it turns out it seems that it might come out to something like 3.5 with some massaging.
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm sorry if it came across as sanctimonious but you were making out like I didn't have a point and at a number of times it came across to me like you weren't reading my posts, just skimming them looking for things you could use to discredit me. Like when you ignored nearly my entire post and then questioned it’s validity by questioning my use of the term “Israelites” instead of “people who became the Israelites”. That's how it came across; if it isn't true I'm sorry.
I think you’re a smart guy, I wouldn’t try to discredit you. Unless there was money involved or it was funny.
Quote:We’re lacking a lot of information to try to draw too many strong conclusions about things surrounding Exodus, but that’s not an uncommon problem in history, especially ancient history. You gave an example of King Arthur, but you don’t even have to get that obscure. Just piecing together what occurred during the Roman rule of Britain in the several hundred years before Romano-British collapse is as wrought with assumption as the King Arthur story. In most cases, especially where ancient history is concerned, all history is going to be a portion fact and sometimes a larger portion imagination, and sometimes the best you can do is take what you know and piece it together as best as you can and see how it looks.
Originally posted by citizen:
I’m not sure what you mean by “precludes historical inquiry”.
Quote:That’s true. But there were people in Egypt (the Hyksos, the Hapiru, the Shasu and probably others I’m not familiar with) who clearly may have existed in Egypt who were viewed by the Egyptians as foreigners or invaders (the Hyksos actually ruled Egypt for a hundreds years). So the author could be describing people as foreign simply because from his point of view, they don’t belong in what he considers Egypt. And the Hebrews were not traditionally viewed as being Egyptian. Indeed the Hyksos and the Hebrews are considered by some historians (those favoring the Ramses II date) as being the same people, though clearly that is in contrast to the accepted date of Ipuwer and the Theran eruption.
Originally posted by citizen:
Except the attacking Barbarians are not described as slaves rising in revolt or any other internal threat, they're described as barbarian tribes coming IN from outside of Egypt.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jesus saves!!
But Owen scores on the rebound.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*stands up*
-------------------------------------------------
(by iiicons)
Because Dancers are tough,mean...Chicas!! -Summer Glau
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Im here
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know this reply is late but I'm standing up now!
No greater love has any man than he give up his life for his friends!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
[qoute]Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But I think that both Hebrews and the Canaanites were a similar ethnicity and it is likely that the base population of the early Israelite Kingdom was essentially Canaanite.[/qoute]
Well if you really want to get technical about it the Israelites are Mesopatamian. Abraham came from the ancient city of Ur - which translates in modern terms to ancient Iraq.
No greater love has any man than he give up his life for his friends!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME