Post: #26

(11-04-2014 08:58 PM)Grange Wrote:  Anybody read this? http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Ar...684869136/ Not about the flood but seems like it would interest some of y'all. (Obviously literalists will not like it.) I read it many years back and thought it was great.

The description from Amazon:

Quote:In this groundbreaking work that sets apart fact and legend, authors Finkelstein and Silberman use significant archeological discoveries to provide historical information about biblical Israel and its neighbors.

In this iconoclastic and provocative work, leading scholars Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman draw on recent archaeological research to present a dramatically revised portrait of ancient Israel and its neighbors. They argue that crucial evidence (or a telling lack of evidence) at digs in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon suggests that many of the most famous stories in the Bible—the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, and David and Solomon’s vast empire—reflect the world of the later authors rather than actual historical facts.

Challenging the fundamentalist readings of the scriptures and marshaling the latest archaeological evidence to support its new vision of ancient Israel, The Bible Unearthed offers a fascinating and controversial perspective on when and why the Bible was written and why it possesses such great spiritual and emotional power today.

I can't find the youtube vid right now, but I watched a long british documentary examining the archaeological evidence for the Old Testament and it is quite clear that the whole idea of an isralite/jewish temple in Jerusalem has zero historical basis. There is not a pot shard of evidence for it, while there is plenty for other groups like the Philistines who were Greek invaders and who left a lot of evidence. The Israelities never really existed and polytheism was the norm in Judea and Samaria at the time. The Samaritans are the real Israelites and still exist to this day.

The Isralite myth comes from when the Assyrians invaded and Sammaritans fled to Jerusalem and concocted the idea of a strict one God theism, the chosen one, as Jerusalem was under siege. Keep in mind this is much after the Biblical David and Solomon - of whom there is zero, absolutely zero archaeological proof, while there is plenty of proof for other contemporary people.

I will try to find the doc later, very interesting and very factual.

Post: #27

(11-04-2014 08:58 PM)Grange Wrote:  Anybody read this? http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Ar...684869136/ Not about the flood but seems like it would interest some of y'all. (Obviously literalists will not like it.) I read it many years back and thought it was great.

The description from Amazon:

Quote:In this groundbreaking work that sets apart fact and legend, authors Finkelstein and Silberman use significant archeological discoveries to provide historical information about biblical Israel and its neighbors.

In this iconoclastic and provocative work, leading scholars Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman draw on recent archaeological research to present a dramatically revised portrait of ancient Israel and its neighbors. They argue that crucial evidence (or a telling lack of evidence) at digs in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon suggests that many of the most famous stories in the Bible—the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, and David and Solomon’s vast empire—reflect the world of the later authors rather than actual historical facts.

Challenging the fundamentalist readings of the scriptures and marshaling the latest archaeological evidence to support its new vision of ancient Israel, The Bible Unearthed offers a fascinating and controversial perspective on when and why the Bible was written and why it possesses such great spiritual and emotional power today.

Many of Silberman and Finklestein's conclusions have been challenged. The vast empire of Solomon and David has more evidence than the book suggests. That's basically the big argument in OT study today.

As for the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan, it seems as though they have some basis in fact, but the story told in the Bible is not the truth. The patriarchs seem to be an oral tradition that was later codified into the Old Testament. Their historicity is questionable, but the counter-argument is that we don't expect much evidence for them- they were wandering shepherds after all.

Post: #28

(11-04-2014 10:36 PM)berserk Wrote:  I can't find the youtube vid right now, but I watched a long british documentary examining the archaeological evidence for the Old Testament and it is quite clear that the whole idea of an isralite/jewish temple in Jerusalem has zero historical basis. There is not a pot shard of evidence for it, while there is plenty for other groups like the Philistines who were Greek invaders and who left a lot of evidence. The Israelities never really existed and polytheism was the norm in Judea and Samaria at the time. The Samaritans are the real Israelites and still exist to this day.

The Isralite myth comes from when the Assyrians invaded and Sammaritans fled to Jerusalem and concocted the idea of a strict one God theism, the chosen one, as Jerusalem was under siege. Keep in mind this is much after the Biblical David and Solomon - of whom there is zero, absolutely zero archaeological proof, while there is plenty of proof for other contemporary people.

I will try to find the doc later, very interesting and very factual.

This is not even close to true. The First Temple almost certainly existed. That's not a question in the least. What is a question, however, is how large the Solomonic/Davidic empire was. Silberman and Finklestein are minimalists, whereas others are maximalists. There is actual proof for David, or it's at least suggested by an inscription referring to the House of David.

The Israelites did exist, and we know that they existed. Even Silberman and Finklestein admit that. According to them, they were a Canaanite tribe that eschewed the worship of the Canaanite gods and took to the worship of YHWH, which we believe came from the south (Saudi Arabian area). At this point, they were henotheistic (they believed YHWH to be the primary god, but other nations had other gods). During the Babylonian Exile (roughly 587-86 BC), the Israelite elite classes combined four sources (J, E, P, and D) into what is known as the Torah. There's evidence of some redaction as well.

Post: #29

(11-04-2014 10:36 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 08:58 PM)Grange Wrote:  Anybody read this? http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Ar...684869136/ Not about the flood but seems like it would interest some of y'all. (Obviously literalists will not like it.) I read it many years back and thought it was great.

The description from Amazon:

Quote:In this groundbreaking work that sets apart fact and legend, authors Finkelstein and Silberman use significant archeological discoveries to provide historical information about biblical Israel and its neighbors.

In this iconoclastic and provocative work, leading scholars Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman draw on recent archaeological research to present a dramatically revised portrait of ancient Israel and its neighbors. They argue that crucial evidence (or a telling lack of evidence) at digs in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon suggests that many of the most famous stories in the Bible—the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, and David and Solomon’s vast empire—reflect the world of the later authors rather than actual historical facts.

Challenging the fundamentalist readings of the scriptures and marshaling the latest archaeological evidence to support its new vision of ancient Israel, The Bible Unearthed offers a fascinating and controversial perspective on when and why the Bible was written and why it possesses such great spiritual and emotional power today.

I can't find the youtube vid right now, but I watched a long british documentary examining the archaeological evidence for the Old Testament and it is quite clear that the whole idea of an isralite/jewish temple in Jerusalem has zero historical basis. There is not a pot shard of evidence for it, while there is plenty for other groups like the Philistines who were Greek invaders and who left a lot of evidence. The Israelities never really existed and polytheism was the norm in Judea and Samaria at the time. The Samaritans are the real Israelites and still exist to this day.

The Isralite myth comes from when the Assyrians invaded and Sammaritans fled to Jerusalem and concocted the idea of a strict one God theism, the chosen one, as Jerusalem was under siege. Keep in mind this is much after the Biblical David and Solomon - of whom there is zero, absolutely zero archaeological proof, while there is plenty of proof for other contemporary people.

I will try to find the doc later, very interesting and very factual.

Truth teller posted a great reply, but I wanted to say that there isn't any archeological evidence that the exodus occurred. There are however, reports of a strange tribe of people in Egypt who had brought about all sorts of mayhem because of poor management. Their name escapes me however.

When I look at Biblical accounts of the past, anything pre exodus is like a fuzzy dream.

Post: #30

On phone here so no quotes, but the Exodus story doors not get a pass because they were supposed to be nomadic at the time. There is evidence of other nomadic groups in the area from earlier and later periods. According to the book, anyway.

Post: #31

(11-05-2014 09:52 AM)Grange Wrote:  On phone here so no quotes, but the Exodus story doors not get a pass because they were supposed to be nomadic at the time. There is evidence of other nomadic groups in the area from earlier and later periods. According to the book, anyway.

The Exodus story, as related in the Bible, did not happen. What probably happened is that some nomadic group came up from Saudi Arabia or Jordan, brought YHWH with them, and then integrated with the Canaanites in order to create what is thought of as the Israelites.

It is rooted in fact, but the Biblical account is largely fictitious. Of course, it seems possible that people are looking in the wrong place, because the Mt. Sinai in the Sinai is VERY clearly not the Sinai of the Bible.

Post: #32

(11-05-2014 01:13 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 10:36 PM)berserk Wrote:  I can't find the youtube vid right now, but I watched a long british documentary examining the archaeological evidence for the Old Testament and it is quite clear that the whole idea of an isralite/jewish temple in Jerusalem has zero historical basis. There is not a pot shard of evidence for it, while there is plenty for other groups like the Philistines who were Greek invaders and who left a lot of evidence. The Israelities never really existed and polytheism was the norm in Judea and Samaria at the time. The Samaritans are the real Israelites and still exist to this day.

The Isralite myth comes from when the Assyrians invaded and Sammaritans fled to Jerusalem and concocted the idea of a strict one God theism, the chosen one, as Jerusalem was under siege. Keep in mind this is much after the Biblical David and Solomon - of whom there is zero, absolutely zero archaeological proof, while there is plenty of proof for other contemporary people.

I will try to find the doc later, very interesting and very factual.

This is not even close to true. The First Temple almost certainly existed. That's not a question in the least. What is a question, however, is how large the Solomonic/Davidic empire was. Silberman and Finklestein are minimalists, whereas others are maximalists. There is actual proof for David, or it's at least suggested by an inscription referring to the House of David.

The Israelites did exist, and we know that they existed. Even Silberman and Finklestein admit that. According to them, they were a Canaanite tribe that eschewed the worship of the Canaanite gods and took to the worship of YHWH, which we believe came from the south (Saudi Arabian area). At this point, they were henotheistic (they believed YHWH to be the primary god, but other nations had other gods). During the Babylonian Exile (roughly 587-86 BC), the Israelite elite classes combined four sources (J, E, P, and D) into what is known as the Torah. There's evidence of some redaction as well.

No, the first temple in particular did not exist. There is not a single mention of David or Solomon anywhere outside the Bible, not a pot shard from that era found in Jerusalem. The only mention of Israelites is from an Egyption pharao who mentions some uppity group called that and that he totally annihilated them.

The very little other evidence of Israelites is a small group of guerilla like Caananites, not outsiders, who might have placed greater emphasis on Yah-Weh than the rest of the pantheon.

In addition, there is zero evidence of stuff like Joshua and the battle at Jericho.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the problem is that plenty of other historical figures are mentioned during the day and there is plenty of contemporary archaeological evidence, such as the Philistines, Egyptians and Assyrians. We can't ignore this fact that all these other groups left behind tons of evidence to be digged up, but you really, really have to 'dig deep' to find even the slightest suggestion of a Israelite temple at Biblical times.

Samaria and Judea were two separate countries and Israel did not exist as a joined country.

When Assyrians invaded Samaria, they fled to Jerusalem in Judea, where their worship changed character and they invented the myth of David and the Temple, as they were under siege in Jerusalem.

There is rather convincing evidence on the other hand of polytheism in Israel at the time with Gods such as Ashera, Yah-Wehs wife, worshipped by twin raised stones.

Worship of Ashera called Ishtar by the Assyrians (and their main god), ended when the Assyrians invaded - for obvious reasons and this is when the warrior covenant god Yehova and his King David in Jerusalem is born.

The stone you are referring to seems to be a forgery: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programm..._qa.shtml.

Long story short, the Samaritans of today and their religion is probably the closest to what is actually the real Israelitis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans