sooda
Veteran Member
You're good.. You know your stuff.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Meet the Real King David, the One the Bible Didn’t Want You to Know About
- Thread starter sooda
- Start date
You're good.. You know your stuff.
sooda
Veteran Member
This is a really good article with lots of facts...
Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient...
Jan 11, 2019 · Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.” (Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)
gnostic
The Lost One
Well, you are more up to date than I am, because i didn’t know about Jeroboam II might be the original inspiration of David legend.
It does make sense, when you considered the propaganda of Josiah, trying to write his own history of Judah’s and of course, of monotheism’s superiority.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I appreciate your scholarship and respect your research... but this part about Eretz... not exactly the strongest evidence.
Genesis 1:1... heavens and earth, ha-Shamayim v'es ha-aretz
Genesis 7:4... i will make it rain on the earth, al ha-aretz
Genesis 7:6... the flood came, waters on the earth, al ha-artez
It seems logical to me that the Hebrew word used to describe the flood ( Gen 7:4 and 7:6) would indicate that the entire created earth ( Gen 1:1 ) was flooded.
but that doesn't refute the archaeology presented in this thread. i just thought I would point this out in case it's helpful for you or others.
gnostic
The Lost One
Thank you.
It does helpfully indicate the Genesis is narrating a world-wide or global flood. The Hebrew words and Hebrew language can be somewhat tricky to translate, to convey its original contexts.
But as it has pointed out, Genesis as a piece of literature, never existed in the Neolithic period (around 10,000 and 9000 BCE, to around 3100 BCE) or the Bronze Age (c 3100 to c 1000 BCE). All literary evidences showed that Genesis was written some times later in the mid-1st millennium BCE, so mid-Iron Age.
There are no (literary) evidences that any biblical texts existed prior to King Josiah. The oldest extant fragments discovered, containing a few verses from Number 6, from the Ketef Hinnom, has been dated around Josiah’s reign and before Jerusalem had fallen, so roughly 630 to 590 BCE.
Since Levant, especially Bronze Age Canaan and Iron Age Israel-Judah were situated in the trade routes between east and west, and north and south, the people living there weren’t isolated from the cultures of the outside world, their neighbors (eg the Hittite, the Mitanni, the Amorites, Syria, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, etc).
My points are that the Canaanites and the Hebrew people would have known of stories of the Babylonian flood myths, because tablets (fragments) the Epic of Gilgamesh and other stories have been found in mid-2nd millennium BCE (Bronze Age) outside of Babylonia, as far west as Hattusa (Hittite capital), in Amarna (Akhenaten’s capital in Egypt), in Ugarit (now called Ras Shamra) and in palace library of Megiddo (Canaan).
During the 1st millennium BCE, Israel and Judah continued to have contacts with Assyrians and Babylonians, whether it be through trades or wars.
Since we know that these tablets have spread so far west, then it is more than just simply educated guesses that the ancient Hebrews could have learn the Babylonian stories through one of the epics, and adapted such stories into their own, eg Genesis.
And it isn’t just the flood myth that we see parallels between Genesis version and much older Babylonian version. The creation story also seemed to be adapted, like the gods creating humans from the Earth (Epic of Atrahasis, parallels with Genesis 2, dust from the earth), and the order of creation (Genesis 1) is almost completely identical to order of creation in the Marduk’s myth in Enûma Eliš (Epic of Creation).
The Epic of Atrahasis is very similar to the one found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where Gilgamesh met Utanapishtim, so Atrahasis and Utanapishtim must be the same character.
Both Atrahasis and Utanapishtim were derived from character of much older sources, Ziusudra.
Ziusudra is a hero of the flood story found in the badly Sumerian fragmented tablets called Eridu Genesis and only briefly alluded to in the Death of Bilgames (Bilgames is a Sumerian name for Gilgamesh).
Anyway, the Sumerian Eridu Genesis and the Epic of Atrahasis only described a river flood. The Middle Babylonian version (as well as the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian versions) of Epic of Gilgamesh embellished and described the Deluge as a regional or sea flood.
By the time, Hebrews had adapted the flood story, it was further embellished to describe a world flood.
Anyway, sooda have been correct in saying there are no such evidences of a global flood, in archaeology, as well as in geological records, etc.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Understood. Thank you.
gnostic
The Lost One
@dybmh
I think you do understand Hebrew than I ever could, which I really don’t.
The only language that I could speak, read and write ( but even with English I struggled with it, with grammars, word usages, tenses of verbs, and so on, but I have digressed), so I am very dependent on any translation of texts that I am interested in reading and exploring.
Most of my interested in foreign texts are of ancient and medieval myth genre, so religious texts would fall under this category.
Anyway my questions are these:
Is the Hebrew transliteration of the word ha-aretz. ancient, medieval or modern?
Does only translate to earth, the planet Earth or land? Or any combination of the 3?
I think you do understand Hebrew than I ever could, which I really don’t.
The only language that I could speak, read and write ( but even with English I struggled with it, with grammars, word usages, tenses of verbs, and so on, but I have digressed), so I am very dependent on any translation of texts that I am interested in reading and exploring.
Most of my interested in foreign texts are of ancient and medieval myth genre, so religious texts would fall under this category.
Anyway my questions are these:
Is the Hebrew transliteration of the word ha-aretz. ancient, medieval or modern?
Does only translate to earth, the planet Earth or land? Or any combination of the 3?
sooda
Veteran Member
Of course the Jews hated the Samaritans.
gnostic
The Lost One
According to Samuel (book), it was Saul who united the tribes into single kingdom.
But in the sense, David did join Israel to Judah, because when Saul died, he only had the support of one tribe, his own. He had to re-unify all the tribes, through force and threats, executing all rivals. The only descendants of Saul whom David spared was Jonathan's crippled son (I don't remember his name), and of course, the women in Saul's family including Saul's daughter whom he married (another name I don't remember).
But the OT say it was Saul who first ruled over all the tribes; David wasn't the first.
sooda
Veteran Member
Mephibosheth was a son of Jonathan and also the grandson of King Saul, Israel's first king.
gnostic
The Lost One
Thanks.
I know the story, but I simply couldn’t remember the name, and I was too lazy to look it up.
sooda
Veteran Member
I can NEVER remember words or names I can't spell or pronounce.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Sorry it took so long to reply. Regarding Biblical Hebrew, I am just a baby compared to several of the other people here on RF. I will do my best to answer your questions, and hopefully if the information I provide is inaccurate, someone else will correct me.
Question: "Is the Hebrew transliteration of the word ha-aretz. ancient, medieval or modern?"
My understanding is it is ancient. According to the story of the transmission of the written Torah, Moses received the pronunciation of the words along with the written letters at Mt. Sinai. This pronunciation has been preserved through meticulous scrutiny and repetition starting with the generation in the desert and continuing to present.
If someone attends a Saturday morning reading of the Torah in a Jewish synagogue, they have an opportunity to witness this preservation of accuracy in action. When the Hebrew words are chanted, if they are mispronounced, the congregation is encouraged to interrupt the reading and correct the person chanting the words. In the smaller orthodox congregations where there are fewer leaders and more knowledgeable congregants, there is more of chance to hear the corrections from the crowd. But in every Jewish congregation regardless of denomination, whenever I have attended a reading of the Torah, there is at least 1 person standing next to the person chanting whose job is to following along and confirm that the words are pronounced 100% correctly.
Question: "Does [aretz] only translate to earth, the planet Earth or land? Or any combination of the 3?"
I think that "land" is the best overall translation. A good comparison is found in Gen 1:25.
hyperlink >>> biblehub.com - Genesis 1:25
Aretz ( in general ) refers to the surface or the land. Adamah ( in general ) refers to sub-surface or the earth. And this is reflected in the verse above ( and in other places too ). The beasts roam on the land and the creepy-crawlies burrow into the earth.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Thanks, @dybmh .
There are no need to apologize when and where you reply, as this is a forum, not a chat room or phone call, so everyone will reply here at their own convenience.
And again, thank you. Your reply was insightful about the Jewish customs as well as your explanations to the translations of the word that has been puzzling me.
I do understand the usage of the word earth in Genesis 1:25, because it make sense, contextual-wise.
But what about Genesis 1:1 verse? Is really talking about the creation of Earth as in “planet” or earth as in “dry land”?
As you see the word “heaven” may have multiple meaning in English. Heaven can be defined as everything that a person see in the sky, including sun, moon, stars and clouds and where birds can fly in the sky, where sky is view as a dome, vault or firmament. Or heaven could mean deep space outside of Earth including the universe. Or it could mean the home of God.
One word may have multiple definitions for different contexts. I believe that you can understand that this can lead to confusion.
Although I am not a Christian (I am an agnostic), but living in Australia, I do have some background where I have been made well aware of church teachings and church interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures that they called Old Testament.
My point is that I rarely meet Jews in Melbourne, so most often communicating with any Jew, happened here than in my neighborhood.
So I would welcome Jewish perspective on the Torah/Tanakh mostly out of genuine curiosity.
There are no need to apologize when and where you reply, as this is a forum, not a chat room or phone call, so everyone will reply here at their own convenience.
And again, thank you. Your reply was insightful about the Jewish customs as well as your explanations to the translations of the word that has been puzzling me.
I do understand the usage of the word earth in Genesis 1:25, because it make sense, contextual-wise.
But what about Genesis 1:1 verse? Is really talking about the creation of Earth as in “planet” or earth as in “dry land”?
As you see the word “heaven” may have multiple meaning in English. Heaven can be defined as everything that a person see in the sky, including sun, moon, stars and clouds and where birds can fly in the sky, where sky is view as a dome, vault or firmament. Or heaven could mean deep space outside of Earth including the universe. Or it could mean the home of God.
One word may have multiple definitions for different contexts. I believe that you can understand that this can lead to confusion.
Although I am not a Christian (I am an agnostic), but living in Australia, I do have some background where I have been made well aware of church teachings and church interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures that they called Old Testament.
My point is that I rarely meet Jews in Melbourne, so most often communicating with any Jew, happened here than in my neighborhood.
So I would welcome Jewish perspective on the Torah/Tanakh mostly out of genuine curiosity.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
My vote: It's a mystery.
That said, I wil try to answer your question.
1) Most modern Jewish people do not take the creation story literally.
2) When I read the story, the planet seems to be formed on the 2nd day, ( Genesis 1:6 ).
3) The first day is very bizarre, and hard to conceptualize.
* How is a day determined without the "luminaries" that were created on the 4th day?
* When was time created? It's not documented, but it is a requirement for the first word , "In The Beginning"?
* and others...
* When was time created? It's not documented, but it is a requirement for the first word , "In The Beginning"?
* and others...
The result that I come to in my brain, is that Ha-Aretz is indeed the surface of the land. On the first day in the story God has created a dividing line that seperates HaAretz from Shamayim. That's the way I read the word Ha-Aretz. It is the theoretical dividing line, the surface of the land.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes I have noticed that some Jews here, treated the story of Genesis creation as allegory, where the meanings are moral ones relating to relationship with god, not literal story to be treated as history or science.
I used to believe it was literal, because, although I never became a Christian, it was my sister’s church teaching that had me thinking it was literal.
About 18 or 19 years ago, I had revised my view on the Bible as a whole, and a couple of years later, I came to realization that Genesis made much more sense if I was to treat it as allegory.