Bible's Buried Secrets

by Mat 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  designs

  Will Prof. Stroppyopoulus go au natural for the Eden segment
• 

  PSacramento

  This who you guys are talking about:
• 

  PSacramento
• 

  lovelylil

  Mat,

  I see what you are saying. I think you are misreading what this verse is saying. You believe it is saying God was given HIS inheritance which was Jacob, am I correct this is what you are saying?

  That is not what the verse is saying. Here is the common interpretation of it; (Deuteronomy32:8,9)

  while nations were being constituted under God's providence, and the bounds of their habitation determined under His government (compare Acts 17:26) , He had even then in view the interests of His elect, and reserved a fitting inheritance "according to the number of the children of Israel;" i. e., proportionate to the wants of their population.

  What we see by these verses is the land being divided with Isreals best interest in view as they were God's elect. Not that God was just then becoming their God. Hope this makes sense. Peace, Lilly
• 

  designs

  Nice Apples
• 

  Mat

  Hi Lovelylil

  I'm sure that is how believers in the bible read it, but why that view is questioned is because Israel are descendents of the Canaanites, or at least their settlements swept in from the west, not the east as the bible tells us. They would therefore be aware of the Canaanite beliefs, so any expression similar to expressions found in the Ugaritic texts would call to mind their teachings. The 'sons of god' are in fact other gods according to the Ugaritic Text, while in the bible it is assumed they refer to angels. There are other comparative expressions, perhaps worth starting a new discussion about.

  To be honest it is not very strong evidence to suggest a polytheistic origin for the bible, but it is indicative. But as you say, there are other ways to interpret the scripture that correspond with the monotheistic norm.
• 

  lovelylil

  Mat,

  Thanks for your input. I can see what you are saying. The Isrealites definately were aware of the Canannites beliefs, even mingling in worship with them at times. Very interesting information you provided. Peace Lil
• 

  Mat

  Ok, the third and final episode has just been aired, and is now on the link. To be honest, I didn't think it was very good. She argues that Eden was originally a reference to the Jerusalem Temple (because it had carvings of fruit trees and cherubs) and Adam was the king, and the banishment was a reference to snake worship leading to Babylon destroying the temple- or did I misunderstand it?

  The first episode was teh best one, the socond was also very good, but did play for time a bit. This last episode just didn't add up, I thought.
• 

  cantleave

  I thought tonight's programme was very thought provoking. I would like to see what her work is based on, other than her regular use of "I think".
• 

  wobble

  With her academic credentials,she is in a way, being quite brave with her "I think", she is putting her credibility on the line a bit. Most academics hide behind "It has been suggesteed that..." or "A number of scholars think".

  I agree that The Garden of Eden programme was a bit weak, and before it was screened I said it would be to my son, there is not much you can be sure of from a historical or archeaological perspective when you are dealing with an allegorical myth that is thousands of years old.

  She would have had similar difficulty in doing a programme on Noah.

  I hope she does a follow up series though, coz she's bleedin' gorgeous !