The chronology in David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom's The Book of J dates the earliest part of Genesis written by the Yahwist (J) at 950-900 BCE. But who knows?Originally Posted by SFG75
Interpretation is itself a story.
The chronology in David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom's The Book of J dates the earliest part of Genesis written by the Yahwist (J) at 950-900 BCE. But who knows?
Interpretation is itself a story.
The Bloom dates are more widely believed I think, since they are based on evidence.
The 1453 date is held by fundamentalist Christians and some conservative Jewish people because they believe the earliest books were written by Moses. However, this is no where near the broadly accepted dating of the book.
The reason for dating the earliest parts to the 900-800 BCE range is that those are the times when the historical information in the Bible corresponds to what we can verify from other contemporary sources and from archeological evidence. (Amongst other things like analysis of the language and style)
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
There is an interesting interpretation of comparative Flood Stories in the movie Kymatica. You can probaby find it for free online, youtube it or whatever. definitely interesting stuff. The movie as a whole is pretty dumb, but it's good at parts.
For me the story is symbolic maybe the arc stands for a piece of land that survived and each animal stands for 10 animals and even if it's not symbolic we can always think God made more people and animals after because with the amount of animals really written in the bible it's impossible for them to survive because once the pair has babies their would be no more generations.
the pen is mightier than the sword
I don't entirely dispute the possibility of myths and legends in telling of an accurate history myself; some myths are used as broad time frames to check for geological events and they are occasionally accurate. However, even if we're to ignore the fact that a worldwide flood violates various laws of physics (as noted earlier by another poster), there is simply no evidence in the geological record indicating a world wide flood occurred, and this counts for far more than legends.
That said, has there been any comprehensive comparative study done on cultures all over the worlds and what their myths and legends actually say about a worldwide flood? I ask because I've often heard it said that cultures all over the world have stories about a worldwide flood, but no one seems to know who any of those peoples are, where they came from, or where one can find a transcript or oral documentation of those stories.
Last edited by Dark Star; 04-13-2013 at 10:16 AM.
I've recently read Stephen Mitchell's Gilgamesh. Mitchell made the Gilgamesh story seem more entertaining than Rosenberg's translation of J's work.
Not only was there a flood, but also a serpent to tie these two stories together. The flood was a detail in both, however, it made me suspect that the Israelites received this story through the Hittites since Solomon was at least half Hittite being Bathsheba's son.
In looking up Bathsheba, it appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathsheba)
Bathsheba was a daughter of Eliam, one of David's "thirty" (2 Sam. 23:34; cf 1 Chr. 3:5); Eliam was the son of Ahitophel, one of David's chief advisors.
Last edited by YesNo; 04-12-2013 at 10:29 PM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
One has to admit that names such as Bathsheba/Eliam and Ahitophel are some incredible names!!
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
They are rather strange names. It didn't occur to me until I looked at Wikipedia that Bathsheba meant "daughter of the oath". The Bat meaning daughter. And then all of a sudden I understood the meaning of those "Bat" Mitzvah celebrations my daughters attended for their friends when they were 12.
Culturally, Bathsheba is linked in my mind with "bath" and the story of David watching her bathing. I see her more like Marilyn Monroe, but she may have politically been more like Margaret Thatcher. After all, she did get David to say that her son Solomon was to succeed him as king when there was likely a more legitimate heir waiting. Also, whatever kept Solomon occupied with concubines and wives, it couldn't have hurt her role as queen mother.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Hi YesNo what are Bat Mitzvah? I have never heard if them?
The story of Bathsheba is rather astonishing. I can't get over the fact that David took the blame all by himself and sparinb Bathsheba the fact that she also committed adultery.
The other thing I find incredible to believe is the bit with the son of David Absalom committing sexual act in public with his own father wives/concubines. Whatever for?
However I do not understand what you mean by this:
whatever kept Solomon occupied with concubines and wives, it couldn't have hurt her role as queen mother.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
A Bat Mitzvah is a Jewish religious celebration that girls around the age of 12 go through. It is like First Communion for Catholics. For boys, it is called Bar Mitzvah. What I just realized (I'm not Jewish) is that "bat" means "daughter" and "bar" means "son". All of a sudden, I understood the meaning of "batsheba".
I find the story of Bathsheba and David interesting. You're right that it doesn't make sense that she shouldn't be blamed for adultery as well. The whole story sounds like it was made up. Why would one want to make up that story? Well, if Solomon really wasn't David's son, one might need a story explaining why he was considered to be a legitimate heir of David.
The queen mother loses her influence once a queen arrives on the scene. If Solomon is busy with many females, this reduces the influence of any one of them and Solomon's mother retains her influence in the court.
Last edited by YesNo; 04-14-2013 at 10:47 AM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
How interesting i never thought about the concubines as being a distraction from the ruling idea. A bit like saying whilst the cat's asleep the mice play.
It is a tactic for the queen to keep her position secured. I guess the same would apply to England where if the king to be had many mistresses that would keep away any prospect for a queen to be to come to the throne to replace the present one queen mother by then. That would have been the Princess of Wales Lady Diana had she not been killed. This makes sense now to why many rumours about her death were suspiciously provoked murder/killing.
The king to be Prince Charles is getting on a bit and his present wife is no monarchy descendent so no throne for her. That leaves his mother the present Queen and she is way too old to long last. It makes you think.
Prince Harry is still available but his entourage is less likely to attract any princesses and Prince William is married to a girl next door hardly a threat the throne. To ascend to the throne you have to be a monarch by descendence and at the minute it is not looking for the English monarchy.
Last edited by cacian; 04-14-2013 at 01:55 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Actually, the parallel Catholic sacrament is Confirmation, which is also a rite of passage to religious adulthood. First Communion is usually at age seven.
Yes, I see from Wikipedia this is closer to Confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Bible is a book which is send by Allah. it is a religious and good book. i faith on this book that it is send by Allah. Allah is one who is king of all universe. thanks
Lucky women... I'm a son of God, talk about an absent parent...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote