1. 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!

My OT class

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Aqualung, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +97
    God is the Father of your spirit. He created your spirit before it was placed in the body that your biological father created. God is your Father and mine, just like Christ said.
     
  2. Squirt

    Squirt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,239
    Ratings:
    +158
    In John 17:20, Jesus said, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, andyour Father; and to my God, and your God." He referred to God as our Father roughly a dozen and a half times in the New Testament. Do you have a logical reason for insisting that God is not our Father in Heaven, or are you just going to continue to argue your point without any evidence to support it?
     
  3. i believe in tranquility

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    Ratings:
    +7
    You Guys Insist That God Is Our/my Father. Than Who Is Our/my Mother?
     
  4. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    His wife!!
     
  5. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Moses was born in a time when the Pharaoh of Egypt was very worried about the Hebrews. Hebrew is thought to come from the word Hebiru/Hepiru/Abiru/etc. which means mercenary. Back in that day (something that is foreign nowadays) free people would hire slaves into their armies as either soldiers or mercenaries. This could be one of the reasons why the Pharaoh was afraid of the Hebrews, even though they were just a slave class. Hebrew was a derrogatory term, and was never used between hebrews.

    We don't know the Pharaoh's name, but, intersetingly enough we know the names of some Hebrew midwives. :confused: This is strange...

    In v.8 when it says that there came a pharaoh who did not know Joseph, this doesn't mean that they just didn't know each other, but that this Pharaoh did know of Joseph's legacy. This was probably hundreds of years after his death.
    In v. 10, the Pharaoh says to deal shrewdly with the Hebrews (see the posts about the fall) because he is afraid that they might fight back (supporting the theory that the Hebrews were mercenarries).
    In v.14 it says that the Pharaoh dealt ruthelessly with the Hebrews. This is a P-source word. Remember, at this time, the Israelites were in exile under Babylon. This word was probably added in to remind the Israelites that their slavery in Babylon was nothing to what the Hebrews sufferred under the Pharaoh, and if they could stand it, the Israelites had nothing to worry about.

    The Hebrew midwives were ordered by the Pharaoh to kill the boys when they were on their birthstool. The Bible says this because the meaning of that was uncertain, but recently some evidence has come to light. First of all, why would Hebrew women just allow people to kill their sons after they were born? It's a rediculous assumption. They had this practice that at a certain time, women would come in for checkups, like today's ultrasounds, except they have to use much more invasive procedure. During this procedure, one could also find out the gender of the child. A few little "mistakes" in this could cause an abortion, something that was quite common anyway those days. Who would link that back to the midwife?
    The midwives' excuse for not killing the first born male was that the women were vivacious and gave birth before the midwife got there. Nobody gives birth without a midwife. What this really meant was that the hebrew women were strong enough and stubborn enough that they never went in for these checkups, but just gave birth without knowing the gender of their child. Thus, Pharaoh proposed drowning little boys in the Nile
     
  6. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +97
    An interesting side-note. My ancient near eastern texts professor was in Egypt looking in some mines in upper Egypt and found some interesting stuff. The excavation has yet to be published, but they have one of the earliest forms of an alphabet there. It's Egyptian heiroglyphs written to represent early semitic sounds. It's right around the same time as Ugaritic and other quasi-alphabets. It shows a couple of interesting things. It gives an example of "reformed Egyptian" (wink, wink Book of Mormon critics) and it shows that semitic peoples were indeed slaves in Egypt (wink, wink Bible critics). It was probably the Hyksos that enslaved them, which is the group considered by most to be Joseph's captors. Anothe interesting thing is that it is an example of grafitti, rare in ancient times, as commoners were rarely literate.
     
  7. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    The Hyksos who enslaved them? I was under the impression that the Hyksos were semitic themselves, and therefore didn't enslave the Israelites. That Israelite enslavement only came after the Egyptians revolted, and then they were scared of a similar semetic ruling, so they opressed the Israelites, et al.
     
  8. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +97
    You're right. My apologies.
     
  9. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Okay, so Moses flees after he kills that guy to Horeb, the mountain of god. God is "El" in Hebrew. I think I remember El Shaddai is god of the mountains. Hebrews, in that day, had regional gods. There was El Bethel (god at bethel), El Washington (god of washington :D), etc.

    v. 6 You see the fear that God strikes into Moses when he talks from the burning bush. This is an E-Source. A main proponent of the E Source is that god is fearful, and that men should tremble before them.

    Is Moses a good choice for a leader? You would think not. He's old, the Hebrews don't like him (after all, he killed a tyranical egyptian, and the Hebrews still hated his guts), the Egyptians don't like him and will definitely not respect him if he asks for freedom of the hebrews, he has a speech impediment... and on and on. Moses himself even thinks he's a poor choice (v.11). But, god comforts him with a sign. :biglaugh: This is the funniest part. Lood at v. 12. Isn't that kind of a dumb sign. "This is the sign that you will get free. YOu will meet me here after you get free." "This is a sign you will win the game - your team will have more points at the end of the game." Not a very persuasive sign, now is it?

    v. 13 Moses asks who the god is. Why? Because of the regional gods. NOw, in his mind, I'm sure he's thinking, "Let it be Baal, let it be Baal, let it be Baal." Baal, you see, is the god of war. There is nothing you want more than to be led out of egypt by the god of war. Plus, Baal is known. We know who Baal is, what he likes, what he doesn't like, how he acts, etc. He's not like that god who inexplicably accepted Abel's offering but not Cain's. There's comfort in knowing. But YHWH's answer is exceptionally disturbing. Not only is it not Baal, it's somebody who Moses doesn't know, nor can know. "I have been who I have been, I am who I am, I will be who I will be." God changes on a whim, and you can never be sure who he is. He's unknowable. He's not like Baal. YOu know how to worship Baal. You have no idea what this god is about or how to worship him. You feel dumb when you worship him. Who wants to feel dumb at church? Nobody! A huge let down.
     
  10. Ody

    Ody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,840
    Ratings:
    +277
    Who is teaching this class and what version of the old testament are you as a class going over Aqua?
     
  11. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    4:24. YHWH tries to kill Moses! :eek: Why the heck would he do that?! This underscores both his unknowable nature, but also his uncontrollable nature. Moses did what YHWH asked, yet he still tried to kill Moses. You don't know him, and you can't predict him at all. v.25-26 show us something monumental about him. If you can't know his character, at least know this - he is a god of covenant. He stops wrestling with Moses after he is "annointed" (for lack of a better word) with blood from a circumscision.

    Aaron, in this story was added by the P-source. Aaron is a priest. Those priests pretty much put in a cameo appearance of a priest into this story.

    Now, Moses goes to the Pharaoh and does a bunch of miracles. Why doesn't Pharaoh change? One reason is because these sorts of miracles are done all the time, by pharaoh's magicians and stuff. It's reproduceable and commonplace. The second reason is because God hardens Pharaoh's heart. This shows that it's not simply getting the Hebrews out of Egypt that he's concerned about. It's his manliness. He's having a little game of one-ups-manship with the Egyptian gods and with the Pharaoh.

    Then, they leave. When they go through the Sea of Reeds (improperly translated as red sea), the P source is the one who adds the parting of the water. The other sources just have a wind blowing over the water and pushing it aside. P does this for 2 reasons: 1) it's a theme of the P writer to seperate the waters from the waters and have dry land appear. 2) you can't attribute two walls of water on either side of you to coincidence or the tides.

    You can see the E source in this becauase the E source has generally a very poor image of humans (after all, it was the E source that had man created out of dust). It is the E source that has the Israelites complaining and bickering and asking Aaron to make a golden calf.

    Ex 15.
    v. 18 - God reigns over both man and the other gods (at this time, Israel is still monolotrous, not monotheistic).
    YHWH is described with bovine traits (powerful nostrils, and whatnot) as a throwback to Baal (who is represented as a bull). They're pretty much saying, "Oh, we're worshipping YHWH all right *wink, wink, nudge nudge*. It's just pure coincidence that it looks like Baal. (whispers: but it really is Baal)" They liked the comfort of Baal, of knowing him. Not this crazy I AM WHO I AM crap. You can't relate to that! It would be like taking your wife out to dinner, and she getting mad. IT's so unexpected, and so darned ahrd. With the other gods, how you worship dictates how they will act. They are trying to worship YHWH like Baal, to try to get him to act like Baal.

    The only way you can relate to this god is through covenant.
     
  12. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    42,042
    Ratings:
    +16,669
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I periodically scan this thread, sigh, and move on, but it's more than a little frustrating. For example ...
    Perhaps by some, but it's deceit or sloppiness to suggest that there is anything like a consensus on this. For example ...
    Habiru or Hapiru was the name given by various Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Ugaritic sources (dated, roughly, from before 2000 BC to around 1200 BC) to a group of people living in the areas of Northeastern Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent from the borders of Egypt in Canaan to Iran. Depending on the source and epoch, these Habiru are variously described as nomadic or semi-nomadic, rebellious, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, servants or slaves, migrant laborers, etc..

    The names Habiru and Hapiru are used in Akkadian cuneiform texts. The corresponding name in the consonant-only Egyptian script appears to be `PR.W, conventionally pronounced Apiru (W being the Egyptian plural suffix); {An example of how to see this word in Egy. is: prU = pr, pr, pr // Both are examples of the plural. pr is also pictured with the "walking feet", and with "pr" for house, and "r" combined}. In Mesopotamian records they are also identified by the Sumerian logogram SA.GAZ, of unknown pronunciation.

    When the first records of the Habiru were found (in Canaanite letters to an Egyptian pharaoh), scholars eagerly equated those people with the biblical`BRY {from &#1506;&#1489;&#1512;}, or "Hebrew", and thought that those records provided independent confirmation of the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews under Joshua. However, in spite of much new evidence and analysis, that hypothesis is still the object of much dispute.

    < -- snip -- >​

    Habiru as a loose ethnic group

    The Habiru name list on the Tikunani Prism (from Mesopotamia, about 1550 BC) indicates they were originally nothing more than a wandering tribe of Hurrians, but some argue for the disappearance of this ethnic distinction at a very early stage making them a non-exclusive ethnic group. Like the 17th century Cossack bands of Eastern European Steppes, scholars since Moshe Greenberg have envisioned the Hapiru as being formed out of outlaws and drop-outs from neighbouring agricultural societies. The numbers of the Habiru of the 2nd millennium BC grew from the peasants who had fled the increasingly oppressive economic conditions of the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms. The career of King Idrimi of Alalakh (ca 1500 – 1450) may provide a parallel on a grander social level: forced into exile, King Idrimi first fled to Emar on the Euphrates, and then to Canaan where he joined other Syrian refugees to live with the wandering Hapiru. His brief biography would not have appeared in inscriptions at all, if he had not been able to return and make a successful new bid for power in the city of Alalakh.

    Some scholars have seen the Habiru legacy preserved in the place-names of Iranian Kabira, the Khabur River valley of the Northern Euphrates and perhaps also the Hebron valley.

    Habiru and the Hebrew

    When the Tell el-Amarna archives were translated, some scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with the Biblical Hebrews (`BRY in the consonant-only Hebrew script). Besides the similarity in the ethnicons, the description of the Apiru as nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes attacking cities in Canaan seemed to fit the Biblical account of the conquest of that land by Hebrews under Joshua or even by names with David's Hebrew rally against Saul, except that the Habiru core was originally Hurrian not Hebrew.

    Scholarly opinion remains divided on this issue. Many scholars still think that the Hapiru were a component of the later peoples who inhabited the kingdoms ruled by Saul, David, Solomon and their successors in Judah and Israel. If the Habiru were the proto-Hebrews, a Hurrian origin would corroborate what some scholars see as Hurrian cultural themes in the Bible. Some Biblical proper names can be related to Anatolian or North Syrian (Hurrian) onomastics suggesting that these names may have entered Hebrew directly from Hurrian. For example, some of David's wandering Hebrews possess Hurrian Habiru names (e.g. Nihiri)[citation needed].

    There have also been theories relating the Habiru to the Biblical personages of Eber and Abraham. While most scholars agree that the genealogies traced from Abraham are based on cultural beliefs and are without historical foundation, there are some who feel that perhaps Eber represents an etymological link to the Habiru.

    Habiru as a general term

    As more texts were uncovered througout the Near East, however, it became clear that these Apiru were found throughout most of the Fertile Crescent. The scholars who wrote the Oxford History of the Biblical World concluded that the "Habiru" had no common ethnic affiliations, that they spoke no common language, and that they normally led a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society. Those scholars characterized the various Habiru/Apiru as a loosely defined, inferior social class composed of shifting population elements without secure ties to settled communities, who were frequently encountered in texts as outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves. In that vein, some modern scholars consider Habiru and related words to be more of a political designation than an ethnic or tribal one.

    - see Wikipedia

    Attempts have been made to find the origin of "Hebrew" in the phenomenon of the Hab/piru or 'Apiru documented over a long period of time and in a wide variety of texts deriving from all over the ancient Near East stretching from Egypt through Canaan into Syria and the Hittite sphere and down into Mesopotamia. For about a thousand years covering the entire second millennium B>C>E>, these people, wherever and whenever they appear, constitute an alien, inassimilable element in the population. They share in common an inferior social status. They may be mercenaries, slaves, marauding bands; only occasionally do they hold important positions. Certainly, the term Hab/piru or 'Apiru has no ethnic coloration, and the names they bear betray widely varying linguistic and cultural connections -- Akkadian, Hurrian, West Semetic, and others. The term is overwhelmingly derogatory, and in cuneiform texts it is often written as SA.GAZ, which syllables are associated with murder, robbery, and razzia. From all this it is clear that there is no connection between the biblical "Hebrews," who constitute a distinct ethnic group, and the Hab/piru or 'Apiru, unless the term simply indicates social elements marginal to a society.

    A widely held view of the origin of the biblical term "Hebrew" is to derive it from 'eber, "beyond, across," and to connect it with the phrase 'eber ha-nahar, "Beyond the River (Euphrates)," whence the ancestors of Israel came. This is how the Greek translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint seems to have understood "Hebrew," for it renders it "the one from beyond," "the wanderer." Still a third explanation traces it to Eber, ancestor of Abraham. Both of these attempts have the disadvantage of not being able to account for the biblical restriction of "Hebrew" to Israel, to the exclusion of the other ethnic groups that descended from Abraham or from Eber. Abraham's family in Aramnaharaim are "Arameans," while the other descendents of Eber are simply b'nei 'eber, literally, "sons of Eber." Until further evidence is at hand, the origin and significabce of the term "Hebrew" must remain a mystery.

    - see Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, by Nahum M. Sarna
    None of this is of any great import. I mention it only because the assertion that "Hebrew is thought to come from the word Hebiru/Hepiru/Abiru/etc. which means mercenary" is characteristic of much of the 'scholarship' in this thread ...
     
  13. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Ah, see, this is why you should butt in a little more often! :D I'm liable to just believe him if I don't have anybody to tell me otherwise.
     
  14. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    42,042
    Ratings:
    +16,669
    Religion:
    Judaism
    No: it underscores the primitiveness of the {J} thread, e.g.:
    What seems more plausible is that Zipporah's act reflects an older rationale for circumcision among West Semitic peoples than the covenental one enumerated in Genesis 17. Here circumcision serves as an apotopaic device, to ward off the hostility of a dangerous deity by offering him a bloody scrap of the son's flesh, a kind of synecdoche of human sacrifice. The circumciser, moreover, is the mother, not the father, as enjoined in Genesis. The story is an archaic cousin of the repeated biblical stories of life-threatening trial in the wilderness, and, as modern critics have often noted, it corresponds to the folktale pattern of a perilous rite of passage that the hero must undergo before embarking on his mission proper.

    - see The Five Books of Moses
    Talk about underscoring "his unknowable nature" is empty apologetics ... at best.

    No: Exodus 4:14,27-30 is identified as {E} - see R. E. Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed.
     
  15. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    42,042
    Ratings:
    +16,669
    Religion:
    Judaism
    That's sad.
     
  16. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Sure, but it persuaded you to add more to the debate, for which I thank you immensly.
     
  17. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    The Mosaic covenant is a Suzerain-Vassal covenant. The powers in the covenant are unequal, but there are mutal expectations and benefits. An example of this in more modern times is "protection services". You pay somebody (who is more powerful than you) to protect you. Both parties benefit (with either money or security) and both have expectations for the other (that they recieve the money or the protection).

    The sign of the Mosaic covenant is the Sabbath Day (like Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic and a rainbow was the sign of the Noahide covenenat).

    The sabbath is a very daring and different view. People had to work every day. If they didn't go out and gather food for themselves they would be hungry. If they didn't go out and tend their crops every day, they might fail, at least in part. The sabbath requires that the people trust god completely, and put their well-being into his hands.

    Ex 15:5 If you obey, you will be my treasured people. The Israelites have responsibility to god, and god has responsibilty to them if they obey.
    20:3 - Israel is still a monolotrous nation, not a monotheistic nation. But, it says no other gods before him. This means you can still worship other gods, just not more frequently or more fervently than the others, right?
    Wrong! v. 4 - No idols of the other gods. The only way to worship the other gods is to build idols. This is the only way they will pay enough attention to make your worship worth it.
    v. 7 - a warning against improper hypostatic extension. Don't use his name when he doesn't want you to. Don't use his name to try to give power to something that doesn't have his power
    v 8 - Another reason for the sabbath - you had to stay home and socialise. It's only through proper man-to-man relationships that you can develop good man-to-god relationships. The rest of the ten are man-man relationships.
    The ten are very bad for the people. People like taking short cuts, but God makes sure everybody knows that you can't shortcut the man-man relationships and still have a good man-god relationship.
     
  18. Deut 13:1

    Deut 13:1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,199
    Ratings:
    +84
    Thanks for making me laugh.
     
  19. Deut 13:1

    Deut 13:1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,199
    Ratings:
    +84
    Maybe it's my English but from the way I read that, you basically are saying only through X can you get Y. Then you say the rest are X. Then you say X is bad. But then you say, through X you can't have Y.

    what the hell...
     
  20. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +97
    If you do not love your fellow man you do not love God. You have to learn to love the one before you can love the other. Man is imperfect, and harder to love, but a man who does not love his brothers cannot have pure love of God.
     
Loading...