Actually the text says YHWH prepared the whale specifically for Jonah to be swallowed. But for the unbelievable part read chapter 2 which Jesus seems to reference in the gospels. It's a Prayer that Jonah wrote down while inside a whales belly. apparently he 'saw' somehow the bottoms of the mountains.
HowTheBibleWasCreated
JoinedPosts by HowTheBibleWasCreated
-
24
Ah, Jonah. 3 day air supply explained ?Whale sharks gulp down air to float vertically while feeding
by waton inhere from new scientist magazine: .
whale sharks gulp down air to float vertically while feeding.
life 12 may 2021by christa lesté-lasserre.
-
-
-
5
On the Deuteronomist history (And the majority of the prophets) A shocking discovery this morning
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inevery now and then i come ac ross a person in ancient times that blows my mind.
for instance at one time i agreed with many that in 175bce antiochus place a statute of zeus in the temple and nothing was there before.
but lo and behold several sources from then claim that before zeus was an idol of set-typhon in the temple (synchronism) it was really judas maccabee and his family that were the original 'deuteronomists' (not josiah).
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Disillusioned there are a few areas. David is of course Saul's son-in-law in the current narratives. However David has three introductions.
1 Samuel 16 that you quoted I feel is late and Deuteronomist having Samuel anoint David among his brothers as one of Jesse' sons.
There are two more 1 Samuel 17.has two narratives and both are amusing:
1 Samuel 17:12-15 seems to state the obvious but watch my highlighting>>...Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons. The man was an elderly old man in the days of Saul. 13 The three oldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle; and the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. 14 David was the youngest; and the three oldest followed Saul. 15 Now David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.- WEB
The texts twice repeats the three sons and introduces Jesse into the narrative as a side note. ;The original likely only had the bold. (My theory)
I need to mention that verse 12-31 are not original to the LXX translation. Even the NWT 1984 reference bible has a footnote.
Not after verse 31 David and Saul are in an argument and the if we removed David's Greek tale of slaying lions the text seems to indicate David and Saul have a close relationship. This whole next several verses contradict chapter 16 where the Deuteronomist says David is a man of war. and an armor bearer Here he is a child who has never used armor.
Note however the third introduction to David by the idiot trying to merge the accounts in verse 54-58 in the World English Bible with my italics
David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his armor in his tent.
(What a fool to add this verse^^^ David would not conquer Jerusalem for awhile)
55 When Saul saw David go out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the army, “Abner, whose son is this youth?”(If we assume the Deuteronomist is thrusting David into a pervious story then this makes sense. But in this narrative it become laughable and Saul in need of medical help.)
Abner said, “As your soul lives, O king, I can’t tell.”
56 The king said, “Inquire whose son the young man is!”
57 As David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.
(That was a worthless journey to Jerusalem with a rotting head uphill and a downhill hike back to Saul. This is so forced onto the account it ludicrous.)
58 Saul said to him, “Whose son are you, you young man?”
David answered, “I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.”
(Duh!)
As for a direct reference the problem is that 1 Samuel 18 continues this narrative however there is a massive doublet later with David sparing Saul's life twice. The oldest one says:
It came to pass, when David had finished speaking these words to Saul, that Saul said, “Is that your voice, my son David?” Saul lifted up his voice, and wept. -1 Samuel 24:16 WEB
The other version uses the previous thus at 1 Samuel 26:17-
17 Saul recognized David’s voice, and said, “Is this your voice, my son David?”
There is obviously a text that has been reworked and in some versions like the latter copies of the Septuagint even removed a large chunk of the David and Goliath story to harmonize things.
So the original question in the original J story (Yahwist) was David Saul's son. The answer is simple. I have no clue! LOL. Actually I am still researching this but I find the three introductions to David and Jesse very intrusive and will be following that lead eventually.
-
40
What is your status (as of today) as a Jehovah's Witness?
by RULES & REGULATIONS inactive believer...still attend meetings, go out in field service, believe it's ''the truth''.
active non-believer... go to meetings and field service to please family... living a double life .
inactive believer...don't attend meetings but believe it's the truth, one day might go back to kingdom hall.
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
I'm inactive. I stay under the radar to spry and destroy.
-
5
On the Deuteronomist history (And the majority of the prophets) A shocking discovery this morning
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inevery now and then i come ac ross a person in ancient times that blows my mind.
for instance at one time i agreed with many that in 175bce antiochus place a statute of zeus in the temple and nothing was there before.
but lo and behold several sources from then claim that before zeus was an idol of set-typhon in the temple (synchronism) it was really judas maccabee and his family that were the original 'deuteronomists' (not josiah).
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Every now and then I come ac ross a person in ancient times that blows my mind. For instance at one time I agreed with many that in 175BCE Antiochus place a statute of Zeus in the temple and nothing was there before. But lo and behold several sources from then claim that before Zeus was an idol of Set-Typhon in the temple (Synchronism) It was really Judas Maccabee and his family that were the original 'Deuteronomists' (Not Josiah)
But two thing bugged me.
1. Daniel quotes Jeremiah in chapter 9 alluding to the 70 years And Jeremiah is by the same hand as Deuteronomy (This is so obvious I will not even bother to explain why here. That is a whole book to itself)
2. We know that had written historical texts from Genesis to Kings already based on the book of Enoch and it's early stages (It was written over time)
But then this morning I reread Daniel 9 and the answer was right there. 164 BCE is solidly fixed for Daniel however chapter 9 is so weird in the text that it is NOT original to Daniel. In fact if we count down we could conceivably end up in the late second century BCE if we start in the right place. Also Daniel 9 used Yahweh several times and uses phrases like 'law of Moses'. It has Daniel praying regarding guilt of the exile. No Daniel 9 is Deuteronomist additions. Yahweh is and Moses are omitted elsewhere and Daniel 1:1 is NOT based on the book of King. In fact it cause too many problems. So this left me banging my head over my dates. Sirach is written in 130 (Not 180) and knows the books of kings and even Nehemiah. (Never heard of Ezra) So we know kings existed before 130 BCE. But can we narrow Deuteronomists material even closer?
Genesis -1 Kings 10 (removing Deuteronomy and all material based on it) leads to a beautiful story of Eden to Peace. At 1 Kings 11 everything and everyone gets well F**ked up.
I casually searched records from the Maccabean revolt and dynasty and all of the sudden I found it>>>
Eupolemus a historian in the time of Judas/Jonathan/Simon in 155BCE he listed the kings of Israel:
- Moses: Prophesied for 40 years
- Joshua son of Nun: Prophesied for 30 years and established a sacred tabernacle at Shiloh.
- Samuel: Prophetic reign is not given a period of time.
- Saul: By the will of God, Samuel chooses Saul to be king, and Saul rules for 21 years, then dies.
- David: David son of Saul becomes king, subdues the region through warfare, and dies.
- Solomon: Reigns and builds the temple.
Note several issues:
No history past Solomon! David is Saul's son? (Actually remove the Deuteronomist material and you can reach that conclusion!) He does mention a Jeremiah but portrays him as fictional (I will throw a kind bone and say Jeremiah was likely a historical oracle in the 7th century BCE and Baruch likely recorded some oracles which I believe are mostly lost.
Now let me say this is a very hot smoking gun!
155-130BCE is the timeframes involved for not only Deuteronomy the history called the Deuteronomist History but also Jeremiah and much additions or even composition of prophets and even many Psalms.(Provers, Job, Ecclesiastes (A Stoicism document) predate this by a century likely and never mention later kings. Proverbs actually makes up an imaginary king in chapter 31!
This was way later then I even liked or wanted. Thus raises a whole new layer to the Hasmonean dynasty. But more important the fact is that the texts from 1 Kings 11-2 Kings 25 uses two source documents. The Kings of Israel/The Kings of Judah which are fairly accurate. These documents unlike other material in the bible were NOT Babylonian or Greek or Egyptian legends. The most accurate section of the bible is indeed 1 Kings 11-I2 Kings 25 (Obviously mostly based on kings annuals)
Glad I found this key historian!
-
24
I am still not able to solve this God's name paradox...
by psyco ini am finishing to read the entire bible (nwt 2013) for my first time (my fault) and i wrote down hundreds, maybe thousands, of questions not clear to me, but one especially came in my mind meditating on god's name.. if i wanted to summarize the entire bible in one phrase i would say (even before the kingdom): god’s name sanctification.. god is jealous about his name.
he does everything for the love of his name, and he wants to be called and prayed using his name.
no doubt about all this (repeated several times in the bible), but it involves the pronunciation of his name.. god left us his name in the form of יהוה which is unpronounceable.
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
The JWs did not add Jehovah to the New Testament they just followed other bibles mostly that did this already. Some bibles add it even more then 237 times.
The original poster has come to a very odd conclusion. With 66 books in the canon you have many views of god.
I would recommend before you get hung up on Jehovah's name check out 'Yahweh' on Wikipedia (and check the sources at the bottom!) and find out where Yahweh came from....The Shasu tribe.
-
3
I've been reading selected texts of Plato and...The bible is really going out of it's way
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inafter timaeus and crisis i had over 20 parallels to genesis 1-6 and i wasn't even cherry picking.
after symposium not only did i feel sick at the pedophilia in the text but i say lines that made it into 1 corinthians 13.. yeah,...the famous ones.
socrates looked at young boys for hours on end.).
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Yes at this stage I'm only 25% done. It's 99% research and 1% typing. The parallels between zorastrian and Hellenistic works are so strong that it's becoming obvious to me that the authors of the bible we religious synchronists
-
48
An Expert Explains the Beginning of Christianity with Dr Richard Carrier
by Rocketman123 inhere is an interesting discussion about how christianity probably began.
hierarchical political interest may have been involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civ8gscbo_g.
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
The issue as always is taking paul's letters as dating to the 50s. The earliest allusion or recognition of these letters is mid second century. Galatians likely has at least two authors and 1 corinthians was reworked 3 times as seen by the position on speaking in tongues or women preaching.orveven the resurrection. There are no sources outside the bible about jesus until tacitus and by then there are a lot of oral traditions of christianity floating around
-
12
The WT will now produce a Jesus Movie (Series)
by HowTheBibleWasCreated ini'm actually looking forward to their warped view of matthew, mark, luke and john for this.
the drama from 2015 wasn't that bad.
however.... yeah steven lett mentions othe films about jesu are plagued with false religion.
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Let's be honest here. The WT Jesus is according to Richard Carrier an improvement over Protestant Christianity. However the way Jesus is portrayed in the two books devoted to him by the WT is loonie. For instance. Jesus in same cases is required to travel 30-40 miles a day to bridge stories in the WT books (Greatest Man... The Way) that follow each other. To be honest the Mormons have done a better job
-
123
1969 "fact": You will never grow old in this present system of things
by Ding inawake!
"if you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things.
because all the evidence in fulfillment of bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years... therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers.
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Im almost 43 (though unlike most my age I refuse to grow old and have the heart of a teen. However I was born in 78.... In 1969 a child born would be 52.. This is sad. In the 1980s the doctrine of JWs was semi-believable. The Live Forever Book I still find interesting for it's brainwashing tactics. But after Fred Franz died the WT is F**ded up.
-
28
May JW Broaadcast - so bad, "it's not even wrong"
by FFGhost indon't know how many of y'all still watch it.. this month's topic is "the king of the north" - cook goes into monotonous detail over the jw interpretation about rome, germany, ussr, russia, etc.. leaving aside for other commentators the emotionally manipulative videos of jws in russian holding cells, the tearjerker interviews, the god-awful stiffness of cook (i suspect he has never genuinely smiled, much less laughed, in his 60+ years), just thought i'd comment on one topic.. the centerpiece of the program is a "morning worship" monologue from splane.
let's again just leave to the side the dude's pomposity, smugness, and inflated sense of his own genius, and think about this part of his monologue.. he was tracing the history of the "king of the north" and talked about how "britain" (not england, not the united kingdom, not great britain, but "britain" - no idea why they have that fixation - anyway...) became the kotn in the 19th century.. paraphrasing his comments: "britain would not have become kotn if france had its way.
france was much wealthier and more powerful, but at the battle of waterloo, britain defeated france.
-
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Why does every topic on here about a useful subject dive into American politics? I mean Ecclesiastes though not inspired has a statement right.."there is nothing new under the sun. One generation comes another goes..". Stop trying to follow governmental systems that date to roman times!!! So many political parties are a rehash of roman and earlier greek systems.. are they here? Nope. While Some obsess with government and how foreign people are idiots.. (They are not they are HUMAN) the rest of the world is trying to make 2021 are year of recovery.