• 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!

Arabia and the Bible

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Actually, the Bible says it was only a small minority of 3000 people who were involved in the sin (this is the number of people killed by the Levites). So it's not the Israelites in general. Furthermore, a midrash points out that they said "these are your gods" not "these are our gods", so the midrash says that this is because the main people involved in the sin were the mixed multitude.

Now I don't have any evidence that these people worshiped Egyptian gods in particular, but it seems logical to me.

Hmmm... I suppose that could be the case. Seems kind of confusing to me, though. Especially since that extrapolates a lot of specific assumption on words that do not go into no detail in that direction at all. I suppose some folks might drop their faith in Yahweh at the prospect of what happened to them in Egypt, but eh... So many that Arron made for them an idol? Seems a bit of a stretch, IMO.

All this is conjecture, ofcourse. :D
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmmm... I suppose that could be the case. Seems kind of confusing to me, though. Especially since that extrapolates a lot of specific assumption on words that do not go into no detail in that direction at all
This how Jews study just about anything.
I suppose some folks might drop their faith in...at the prospect of what happened to them in Egypt
That's not what I meant. I think it's clear that they still worshiped the same God. They just thought it should be done via a physical manifestation. And what I meant before was, wouldn't it make more sense that this physical manifestation was based on Egyptian gods rather than Canaanite ones?
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
And what I meant before was, wouldn't it make more sense that this physical manifestation was based on Egyptian gods rather than Canaanite ones?

I suppose that depends on how long the Israelites were in Egypt for. If they had been there for many generations, and their culture had pretty much been absorbed by their host nation, then I can see that happening. Why would they drop all of that upon exiting Egypt, though? It seems like it would be a part of their cultural expression at that point. It would influence their art, their language, their writings, their dress, etc.

I suppose 40 years in the desert could explain the attempt to kill off the older ways, though surely some things would endure. Cultural expressions are deeper than what we present - they are behavioral on a subconscious level and are picked up and incorporated by our children. There would have to be a serious attempt to cull anything culturally Egyptian related to make that happen, and even then, it seems like there would be some leftovers, IMO.

This how Jews study just about anything.

Yah... It's interesting. I kind of have to wonder to what ends, though?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I suppose that depends on how long the Israelites were in Egypt for. If they had been there for many generations, and their culture had pretty much been absorbed by their host nation, then I can see that happening.
Like I said, all there was was a bad bunch - 3000 people out of 2-3 million at the least (and some scholars argue for many more). So although the Torah tells us they were there for centuries, it is evident that the majority didn't follow Egyptian ways, or at least did not follow most of the Egyptian ways. We know this because: a. Most of the names of people who left Egypt that are recorded in the Tanach are Semitic. There are a bare few that have Egyptian or Egyptian-rooted names, mainly Levites, and we know from the Torah account of the sin that the Levites certainly weren't a part of the event. b. When the first pharaoh died, they cried out to God, not to the Egyptian gods.
There may be other reasons, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with your view that the calf was based on a Canaanite deity, it's just my own logic ties it to the Egyptian deities.
I suppose 40 years in the desert could explain the attempt to kill off the older ways
Maimonides, for example, thought that several of the commandments were given to us by God in order to remove mentalities instilled in us during the sojourn in Egypt. Not all commentators agreed with him, though.
Yah... It's interesting. I kind of have to wonder to what ends, though?
To reach the fullest understand of God's word possible.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Yes because there are numerous sources confirming it existed, plus archeological evidence.
The Bible provides a continuous history of the sons of Adam.

People would be ignorant of the accuracy of the ancient biblical texts were it not for the relatively recent (re)discoveries in archaeology.

Noah is to many a mythical figure, by which they mean he did not exist. Yet, his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth each bear children and inhabit specific areas of the earth. The grouping of these names give an indication of the places they inhabited.

Here's a passage from Genesis 10:6-12.
'And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Ninevah, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah,
And Resen between Ninevah and Calah: the same is a great city.'


From this biblical information one can begin to look at what archaeology has discovered. Archaeology is playing catch-up!

ARCHAEOLOGY IN MESOPOTAMIA | Facts and Details

Can you see that each of these biblical names is relevant to geography and locations? Babel (Babylon), Erech, and Accad (of the Akkadians) and Calneh (modern Niffer). These are actual places, not 'mythological' nonsense.

When one turns to Arabia, the same is true. Of the children of Shem (Semites), there is Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. From Arphaxad comes Salah and Eber, of whom Peleg and Joktan are children. The Sons of Joktan appear to have settled in Arabia because the names appear throughout the land: Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab.

The sons of Abraham, such as Midian, also show a movement of people into Arabia. Moses was later to visit Jethro in Midian.

The generations of Ishmael, given in an earlier post, give evidence of towns and castles in Arabia that still provide evidence to this day.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Like I said, all there was was a bad bunch - 3000 people out of 2-3 million at the least (and some scholars argue for many more). So although the Torah tells us they were there for centuries, it is evident that the majority didn't follow Egyptian ways, or at least did not follow most of the Egyptian ways. We know this because: a. Most of the names of people who left Egypt that are recorded in the Tanach are Semitic. There are a bare few that have Egyptian or Egyptian-rooted names, mainly Levites, and we know from the Torah account of the sin that the Levites certainly weren't a part of the event. b. When the first pharaoh died, they cried out to God, not to the Egyptian gods.
There may be other reasons, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with your view that the calf was based on a Canaanite deity, it's just my own logic ties it to the Egyptian deities.

Maimonides, for example, thought that several of the commandments were given to us by God in order to remove mentalities instilled in us during the sojourn in Egypt. Not all commentators agreed with him, though.

To reach the fullest understand of God's word possible.

Harel13, did I not read that you had embarked on a course in archaeology? What do you believe about the people and place names contained in the text of the Torah?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Right here in Israel. And it's not just one course, it's my whole BA. :)

Yes.

Yeah, I did say that.
Well, I wish you all the best with the course. I hope it builds your faith in the LORD!

Do you know whether there is much cooperation between the Saudi Antiquities department and that of Israel?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I believe Arabia holds many secrets that could illuminate our understanding of both the Bible and Qur'an.

What do you know about the myths and legends of early Arabia?

Which tribes and peoples occupied the Arabian Peninsula?

Do place names give hints as to the earliest settled occupants?

Was Mount Sinai in Arabia?

'Yemen was the name of the southern portion of Arabia, but the Greeks called it Happy Arabia, on account of the fertility. Saba was the name of a city there of great importance in early times. In that region Joktan, the mythical great-grandson of Noah's son Shem, became father of a people living in rich and populous cities of commercial importance. A thousand years before Christ, the rich king King Solomon was reigning at Jerusalem, and wondrous were the stories told about him, - stories that travellers slowly carried along the shores of the Red Sea, so tradition asserts, until they got quite down to the Indian Ocean, where they reached the ears of Balkis, the queen of Saba*. [*The capital of Yemen, the seat of the Himyaritic dynasty to which the queen of Saba is said to have belonged, was Mareb, two days' journey northeast of a city called Sana, and great numbers of finely cut stones, inscriptions, coins, and jewels still give evidence that a city of importance once stood there. Balkis is represented to have been descended from one Afrikis, who according to tradition, gathered the remnants of the Amalekites after Joshua overthrew that people, and led them to the other side of the Red Sea, where they multiplied and were known from their barbarous dialect as Berbers.'] Her people were Sabeans; they stood on their rich wadies and on their lonely sands, and gazed up to heaven in wonder, as the stars, the sun, and the moon shone down upon them, and they thought that such brights lights must be gods. Then they bowed their heads and worshipped the host of heaven.' [The Saracens, Arthur Gilman]

How do you think something like the location of the mount sinai would change any understanding of the Quran or the Bible? I mean in terms of theology!
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
How do you think something like the location of the mount sinai would change any understanding of the Quran or the Bible? I mean in terms of theology!
In terms of theology, probably not alot!

The accuracy of geography and history within scripture demonstrates to sceptics that the framework within which prophecy occurs is sound and reasonable.
 

Alex22

Member
The Bible provides a continuous history of the sons of Adam.

People would be ignorant of the accuracy of the ancient biblical texts were it not for the relatively recent (re)discoveries in archaeology.

Noah is to many a mythical figure, by which they mean he did not exist. Yet, his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth each bear children and inhabit specific areas of the earth. The grouping of these names give an indication of the places they inhabited.

Here's a passage from Genesis 10:6-12.
'And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Ninevah, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah,
And Resen between Ninevah and Calah: the same is a great city.'


From this biblical information one can begin to look at what archaeology has discovered. Archaeology is playing catch-up!

ARCHAEOLOGY IN MESOPOTAMIA | Facts and Details

Can you see that each of these biblical names is relevant to geography and locations? Babel (Babylon), Erech, and Accad (of the Akkadians) and Calneh (modern Niffer). These are actual places, not 'mythological' nonsense.

When one turns to Arabia, the same is true. Of the children of Shem (Semites), there is Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. From Arphaxad comes Salah and Eber, of whom Peleg and Joktan are children. The Sons of Joktan appear to have settled in Arabia because the names appear throughout the land: Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab.

The sons of Abraham, such as Midian, also show a movement of people into Arabia. Moses was later to visit Jethro in Midian.

The generations of Ishmael, given in an earlier post, give evidence of towns and castles in Arabia that still provide evidence to this day.

There were never just two people on Earth, so the whole Adam and Eve story is ridiculous. Geology also says there was never any Global flood, the Hebrews probably took the story from the Sumerians, the Greeks have a Flood story but no took it or takes it literally. Also just because archaeology confirms the Hebrews existed does not show any of the claims of the Bible to be correct, much less talking donkeys and men who can survive in a whales stomach for 3 days.

So what if some Hebrew names for cities and places are accurate?, if I had a boat I could probably navigate my way through the Mediterranean using the Odyssey.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Like I said, all there was was a bad bunch - 3000 people out of 2-3 million at the least (and some scholars argue for many more). So although the Torah tells us they were there for centuries, it is evident that the majority didn't follow Egyptian ways, or at least did not follow most of the Egyptian ways. We know this because: a. Most of the names of people who left Egypt that are recorded in the Tanach are Semitic. There are a bare few that have Egyptian or Egyptian-rooted names, mainly Levites, and we know from the Torah account of the sin that the Levites certainly weren't a part of the event. b. When the first pharaoh died, they cried out to God, not to the Egyptian gods.
There may be other reasons, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with your view that the calf was based on a Canaanite deity, it's just my own logic ties it to the Egyptian deities.

Maimonides, for example, thought that several of the commandments were given to us by God in order to remove mentalities instilled in us during the sojourn in Egypt. Not all commentators agreed with him, though.

To reach the fullest understand of God's word possible.

This is all very interesting. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. :)
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
There were never just two people on Earth, so the whole Adam and Eve story is ridiculous. Geology also says there was never any Global flood, the Hebrews probably took the story from the Sumerians, the Greeks have a Flood story but no took it or takes it literally. Also just because archaeology confirms the Hebrews existed does not show any of the claims of the Bible to be correct, much less talking donkeys and men who can survive in a whales stomach for 3 days.

So what if some Hebrew names for cities and places are accurate?, if I had a boat I could probably navigate my way through the Mediterranean using the Odyssey.
Homer never claimed to be writing prophecy! The Bible is (claimed to be) a book of prophecy because the writers claim to be speaking the words of God, and do not claim the inspiration as their own.

The problem with arguing that the Bible took its history from the Sumerians is that the Bible goes back to times before the flood, to people and places before the deluge. But if the event was as widespread as the Bible indicates, then it should come as no surprise that stories of the flood should appear after the flood, in later legends.

And here we meet with another problem for the sceptic. The acceptance of Noah's flood is found in lsaiah [54:9], and in the words of Jesus [Matthew 24:37] and Peter [1 Peter 3:20]. So, in denying the flood one makes all three men liars and false prophets (given they were speaking prophetically).

As for the story of Adam and Eve, l think it fair to say that modern man must have an original starting point. If you claim that homo sapiens sapiens has multiple points of origin, then l'm going raise some serious questions about racial differences. Which strands of humanity have existed the longest? Which strands have the most developed brains and intellect? Which strands are superior?

Can you see where this is leading?

The Bible, and l believe genetics supports its teaching, states clearly that all humanity come from a comnon pool. As such, we are all brothers and sisters, removed. We are all, lMO, the sons of Adam, through Noah and his family.

When it comes to supernatural events in the Bible, l don't believe we should be surprised to find them. God is supernatural, and the central figure of Christ brings, lMO, the supernatural into our midst. This is not just something l believe. I have personally witnessed God's supernatural power of healing.

As for Jonah and the whale, let's first recognise that Jonah died and was dead in the the belly of the great fish (whatever it was). He was spewed up alive. And the reason Jesus refers people to the story is to prophesy his own three days and nights in the grave. The resurrection from the dead then becomes a central feature of the revelation of God to man. It's to be understood as a literal event, seen by witnesses.

IMO.
 
Top