by Cadellin 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
EXCELLENT thread!!!
Cadelin, thanks for going to all that effort!! I found it fascinating to read!!
As mP said in his post #631, the nation of Israel was NEVER "great".... A puny kingdom subservient to greater powers, is more like it.
Vidgun, I've read the Code of Hammurabi, and found it to be superior to the Israelites' law codes in MANY ways, especially in its treatment of women.
The article identifies the four generations enslaved in Egypt as Levi, Kohath, Amram and Moses, who led the Exodus in 1513 BCE.
Hold on a second! "Four generations"? Surely they must mean two overlapping generations!
I don't suppose they mention how the nation managed to grow from 77 souls when they entered Egypt to the 2 million or so that supposedly left with Moses just a few decades later. The Bible is terrible at math.
Billy!!
The bible is filled with "MAGICAL" math!!!
I'm surprised at you!!
"I shall make a great nation out of you [Abraham].
( But all the oil wealth I will give to the Muslims)
Two quotes:
"EH argues that Israelite culture and language was so close to Canaanite so as to be nearly indistinguishable, which would hardly be the case had they been Egypt-dwellers for four centuries previously, as the article contends."
" The Merneptah Stele is an inscription made by Pharaoh Merneptah in 1210 BCE, boasting about conquering various Canaanite cities and Israel, which he supposedly "laid waste." Interestingly, the Israelites are shown dressed and groomed exactly as the Canaanites (which lends credence to EH's assertion of common culture). Awake! asserts that the occurrence of Israel on this stele "further support[s] the existence of this nation" (18), yet the hieroglyph used for Israel means "rural or tribal entity," as OH puts it (124), not the hieroglyph for nation or city-state, which is used for the Canaanite cities. The sign used for Israel "signify[ed] nomadic groups or peoples without a fixed city-state home, thus implying a seminomadic or rural status for Israel at that time," notes OH (97)."
As for the first one, WT chronology says they were Egypt dwellers for two centuries (215 years), and not for four centuries. The four centuries run from the establishment of the Abrahamitic covenant to the end of the Egypt-dwelling, according to WT chronology.
The second one, would not the OH quotes fit rather well also with the WT chronology, since the firm establishment of a nation did not take place until the unification as a Kingdom towards year 1,000? I feel the GA quote about the existence of Israel as a nation does not point to a firmly established, unified kingdom or nation as such, but to the esistence of the people, gathering of tribes, somewhat like that. I see, just as you do, that the quote says "nation", but as said, the same WT literature does not say the Kingdom came in existence until a couple of centuries later. And the book of Judges - and the WT comments on it in its literature - tell about conditions and happenings corresponding with the OH quote.
Or?
As Ziddina says, it seems as though women were treated better amongst the Babylonians than the Jews. But Jesus did affirm that divorce was allowed for in the Law for practical reasons, but that God disapproved.
The laws regulating Babylonian society are more complex because of three distinct classes. Much work has been done on a comparison of the Code of Hammurabi with the Mosaic legislation. There are many similarities since they are dealing with areas where there is universal agreement. In spite of resemblances there is no evidence of borrowing. The tone of the Hebrew law is most often more humane than that of the Babylonian.
E.g., theft, burglary, robbery, and other such crimes are dealt with severely. Theft from private citizens requires multiple restitution, but theft from the government (temple or palace) is punishable by death. The receiver of stolen goods is also put to death. Theft of an ox, sheep, ass, pig, or goat from the state requires a thirtyfold restitution, and similar theft from a private citizen a tenfold restitution. If the thief is too poor to make restitution, he is put to death. [1]
[1] Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). Vol. 2: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (606–608). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Oh, please...
Don't take Vidgun's word for it on the Code of Hammurabi - read it for yourselves and decide.
Another significant difference between the two cultures, is the much higher emphasis on agriculture in the Code of Hammurabi, whereas the Mosaic law is deeply concerned with herds, grazing rights, access to water sources, and so on...
Which again emphasizes the fact that the Israelites were primarily a nomadic peoples, not nearly as experienced in dealing with crops, irrigation and fields as were the Babylonians..
And the Code of Hammurabi, being dated back to around 1770 - 1772 BC, is actually a bit older than the bible. When one takes into account the probable older sources for the Code; such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, among others, its 'pedigree' stretches several hundreds of years BEFORE the Mosaic laws came into existence.
Excellent advce Ziddina. One should read it for yourself. What does all these idiots writing Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias know? So, it would depend in which class you found yourself. If you were a slave, the Mosaic Law was the better option. The only reason why I did not print out the Code, was because it's not on topic. Let's stick to the thread.
Israel might not have been great, but they are still around. They have left a great legacy to the world. And that's what's important. They survived against all odds, whereas if you want to find out about the great dynasties of Assyria and Babylon, do visit the British Museum. What's left of them is in there?
I look forward to the other 7 parts in this 8-part series being as nicely demolished.Brain cells ruin everything from Bambi through to Snow White and Holy Scripture. For superficiality, Awake's laugh-out-loud apologetics reminds me of one of their earliest pocket-sized books from the late 1960s entitled something like "Is the Bible Really the Word of God?" You just know with a title like that, the discussion can only ever go one lamentable way: "Why yes of course it is really the word of God! How could it ever be anyone else's word?! Duh!"
I recall reading in that slimey lime green little tome a supportive quote from a modern-day court anonymous "judge" who undertook his own assessment of whether the Bible really was the word of God. He reached the predictably limp conclusion that, 'yes, really was really the word of God'.
The searching question now decisively settled, the book plunged into its assortment of supportive "facts" forthe affirmative. I remember thinking back then even as an impressionable young man on the cusp of adulthood, Why quote a wordly judge's opinion about the Bible? Would they have so readily quoted him if he had reached a contrary opinion: "No it's fkg-well not the word of God!"
It's telling that more than 40 years later, the level of the discussion remains at an elementary-school level and the judge who declared the Bible really was the word of God? I never did hear whether he ever ventured into a local kingdom hall - probably because he didn 't...Poor man: What's the use of believing the Bible is the word of God if you're not a JW?
vid
muslims have very strict laws about toilet etiquette, touching the dead and so on. i cannot state where these ideas were formulated or where the writers of koran copied these from. the laws of the jews are not superior. they also believed touchingba women menstrating was extremely hazardous to ones health. we have a story in genesis where rachel steals some of her fathers idols and laban wont dare approach her because she is menstrating. you might want to alsomexamine the 613 miztvots in wiki. the laws are not great. these same fools also believed demons caused deisease etc. it would appear ypu are drinking too much wts cool aid about the jewish laws...
