The Twin Horse Gods of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE) are the two angels who visited Lot in Sodom.
If the PIE brought with them diseases into the Middle East from Central Asia, not only would this potentially link the Plagues of Egypt to the Hyksos, but it makes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah look more like a plague story than anything else. The Twin Gods of the PIEs tended to take different forms whenever they entered new lands. If the Sherdani wrote the Old Testament, as I have hypothesized, then I believe I have identified the two angels, guests of Lot, who blinded the men of Sodom and killed its populace.
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis
12 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who visite
by Diogenes » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:42 am
- Diogenes
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by jimwalton » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:42 pm
Your post is too sparse to comment on responsibly. Perhaps answering a few questions will allow us to proceed.
1. What specific biblical group do you identify as the PIE?
2. Why do you identify the plagues of Egypt as disease? Seven of the ten plagues were environmental; the other three were a plague on cattle, boils, and the death of the firstborn.
3. The era of the Hyksos is rarely (if ever) linked to the era of the ten plagues and the Exodus. It seems that your potential link is an anachronism.
4. The Sodom & Gomorrah judgment is specifically described as "raining sulfur out of the heavens"—a natural environmental cataclysm. The "rain" is specifically some precipitation or cosmic phenomenon from the sky (same word in Gn. 7.4). Some have guessed a volcanic eruption, and earthquake, or even an airburst. There are historical accounts of bitumen ignited by earthquake activity, thrown into the air and descending red hot. The mineral salts of the region include sodium, potash, magnesium, calcium chloride, and bromide. An earthquake in the area could easily have ignited these chemicals, causing them to rain down on the victims of the destruction. What leads you to a conclusion of disease? Such a theory seems both random and unwarranted by what we are told in the text.
5. The mythography of the twin horse gods (purpose, attributes, and behavior—mostly riding horses, associated with water, agriculture, and romance) doesn't match anything about the angelic visitors to Sodom.
6. I've never heard anyone claim the Sea People wrote the OT. Wellhausen (et al.) attribute most of it to Judaistic sources of the middle-first century BC. (Disclosure: I don't care for the Wellhausen theory, nor do I think it's accurate.) The vocabulary, style, themes, and cult of the Hebrew text is different from what would have come from the Sea People. But you have obviously done quite a bit of thinking and research on this count, and it sounds like information I'd like to hear more about.
7. The two angels did not kill the populace of Sodom. They temporarily blinded the oppressors and rescued 4 individuals (rescue is commensurate with the Twin Horse gods, but not blinding).
On first reading, it sounds like you are making quite a bit of unjustified speculation to arrive at unwarranted conclusions, but I'd like to discuss it further.
1. What specific biblical group do you identify as the PIE?
2. Why do you identify the plagues of Egypt as disease? Seven of the ten plagues were environmental; the other three were a plague on cattle, boils, and the death of the firstborn.
3. The era of the Hyksos is rarely (if ever) linked to the era of the ten plagues and the Exodus. It seems that your potential link is an anachronism.
4. The Sodom & Gomorrah judgment is specifically described as "raining sulfur out of the heavens"—a natural environmental cataclysm. The "rain" is specifically some precipitation or cosmic phenomenon from the sky (same word in Gn. 7.4). Some have guessed a volcanic eruption, and earthquake, or even an airburst. There are historical accounts of bitumen ignited by earthquake activity, thrown into the air and descending red hot. The mineral salts of the region include sodium, potash, magnesium, calcium chloride, and bromide. An earthquake in the area could easily have ignited these chemicals, causing them to rain down on the victims of the destruction. What leads you to a conclusion of disease? Such a theory seems both random and unwarranted by what we are told in the text.
5. The mythography of the twin horse gods (purpose, attributes, and behavior—mostly riding horses, associated with water, agriculture, and romance) doesn't match anything about the angelic visitors to Sodom.
6. I've never heard anyone claim the Sea People wrote the OT. Wellhausen (et al.) attribute most of it to Judaistic sources of the middle-first century BC. (Disclosure: I don't care for the Wellhausen theory, nor do I think it's accurate.) The vocabulary, style, themes, and cult of the Hebrew text is different from what would have come from the Sea People. But you have obviously done quite a bit of thinking and research on this count, and it sounds like information I'd like to hear more about.
7. The two angels did not kill the populace of Sodom. They temporarily blinded the oppressors and rescued 4 individuals (rescue is commensurate with the Twin Horse gods, but not blinding).
On first reading, it sounds like you are making quite a bit of unjustified speculation to arrive at unwarranted conclusions, but I'd like to discuss it further.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by Diogenes » Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:05 am
> What specific biblical group do you identify as the PIE?
The authors. In order to claim ownership of the region, they wrote out their own identities from history. You’ll notice the Hittites are rebranded as sons of Shem, or semites, when we know they were not. The Hattusians, yes, but not the Hittites. You’ll also notice that there is no mention of philistine-like settlers in the north of Israel, yet we know they were there.
> Why do you identify the plagues of Egypt as disease? Seven of the ten plagues were environmental; the other three were a plague on cattle, boils, and the death of the firstborn.
Boils could be a reference to bubonic plague, which did originate in Central Asia. The rest could be literary license, or simply older stories being meshed together. King Arthur wasn’t a real person, but he was based on real, non contemporaneous people.
> The era of the Hyksos is rarely (if ever) linked to the era of the ten plagues and the Exodus. It seems that your potential link is an anachronism.
The Hyksos were driven out of Egypt after a century of rule. The Israelites wrote that they escaped. That’s like being fired but telling everyone you quit, or getting dumped but telling your friends you did the dumping.
And...the entire Bible is anachronistic. You expect it to have accurate information?
> The Sodom & Gomorrah judgment is specifically described as "raining sulfur out of the heavens"—a natural environmental cataclysm. The "rain" is specifically some precipitation or cosmic phenomenon from the sky (same word in Gn. 7.4). Some have guessed a volcanic eruption, and earthquake, or even an airburst. There are historical accounts of bitumen ignited by earthquake activity, thrown into the air and descending red hot. The mineral salts of the region include sodium, potash, magnesium, calcium chloride, and bromide. An earthquake in the area could easily have ignited these chemicals, causing them to rain down on the victims of the destruction. What leads you to a conclusion of disease? Such a theory seems both random and unwarranted by what we are told in the text.
So don’t rely on the text, as it doesn’t give us enough information to be considered reliable.
> The mythography of the twin horse gods (purpose, attributes, and behavior—mostly riding horses, associated with water, agriculture, and romance) doesn't match anything about the angelic visitors to Sodom.
Like I said, the Twin Gods tended to change form wherever they went. They became Castor and Polydeuces in Greece, Hengist and Horsa in England, Sleipnir in the North, Hayagriva in India... and a pair of angels in Palestine.
> I've never heard anyone claim the Sea People wrote the OT.
Well now you have.
> Wellhausen (et al.) attribute most of it to Judaistic sources of the middle-first century BC. (Disclosure: I don't care for the Wellhausen theory, nor do I think it's accurate.) The vocabulary, style, themes, and cult of the Hebrew text is different from what would have come from the Sea People. But you have obviously done quite a bit of thinking and research on this count, and it sounds like information I'd like to hear more about.
The OT and works of Homer were written around the same time, and for roughly the same purpose - nationalism. The Dorians were not from Greece, nor the Israelites from Israel, but those two works of faith made them so in the eyes of history.
> The two angels did not kill the populace of Sodom. They temporarily blinded the oppressors and rescued 4 individuals (rescue is commensurate with the Twin Horse gods, but not blinding).
Hospitality was a big deal in PIE culture, and is heavily alluded to in the Sodom story. The angels may not have killed those people, but their “lord of hosts” certainly did.
> On first reading, it sounds like you are making quite a bit of unjustified speculation to arrive at unwarranted conclusions, but I'd like to discuss it further.
Thank you for keeping an open mind. This is definitely a new idea in the academic world. I hope that I can at least foster discussion, since I don’t really have the training to write a whole scientific thesis.
The authors. In order to claim ownership of the region, they wrote out their own identities from history. You’ll notice the Hittites are rebranded as sons of Shem, or semites, when we know they were not. The Hattusians, yes, but not the Hittites. You’ll also notice that there is no mention of philistine-like settlers in the north of Israel, yet we know they were there.
> Why do you identify the plagues of Egypt as disease? Seven of the ten plagues were environmental; the other three were a plague on cattle, boils, and the death of the firstborn.
Boils could be a reference to bubonic plague, which did originate in Central Asia. The rest could be literary license, or simply older stories being meshed together. King Arthur wasn’t a real person, but he was based on real, non contemporaneous people.
> The era of the Hyksos is rarely (if ever) linked to the era of the ten plagues and the Exodus. It seems that your potential link is an anachronism.
The Hyksos were driven out of Egypt after a century of rule. The Israelites wrote that they escaped. That’s like being fired but telling everyone you quit, or getting dumped but telling your friends you did the dumping.
And...the entire Bible is anachronistic. You expect it to have accurate information?
> The Sodom & Gomorrah judgment is specifically described as "raining sulfur out of the heavens"—a natural environmental cataclysm. The "rain" is specifically some precipitation or cosmic phenomenon from the sky (same word in Gn. 7.4). Some have guessed a volcanic eruption, and earthquake, or even an airburst. There are historical accounts of bitumen ignited by earthquake activity, thrown into the air and descending red hot. The mineral salts of the region include sodium, potash, magnesium, calcium chloride, and bromide. An earthquake in the area could easily have ignited these chemicals, causing them to rain down on the victims of the destruction. What leads you to a conclusion of disease? Such a theory seems both random and unwarranted by what we are told in the text.
So don’t rely on the text, as it doesn’t give us enough information to be considered reliable.
> The mythography of the twin horse gods (purpose, attributes, and behavior—mostly riding horses, associated with water, agriculture, and romance) doesn't match anything about the angelic visitors to Sodom.
Like I said, the Twin Gods tended to change form wherever they went. They became Castor and Polydeuces in Greece, Hengist and Horsa in England, Sleipnir in the North, Hayagriva in India... and a pair of angels in Palestine.
> I've never heard anyone claim the Sea People wrote the OT.
Well now you have.
> Wellhausen (et al.) attribute most of it to Judaistic sources of the middle-first century BC. (Disclosure: I don't care for the Wellhausen theory, nor do I think it's accurate.) The vocabulary, style, themes, and cult of the Hebrew text is different from what would have come from the Sea People. But you have obviously done quite a bit of thinking and research on this count, and it sounds like information I'd like to hear more about.
The OT and works of Homer were written around the same time, and for roughly the same purpose - nationalism. The Dorians were not from Greece, nor the Israelites from Israel, but those two works of faith made them so in the eyes of history.
> The two angels did not kill the populace of Sodom. They temporarily blinded the oppressors and rescued 4 individuals (rescue is commensurate with the Twin Horse gods, but not blinding).
Hospitality was a big deal in PIE culture, and is heavily alluded to in the Sodom story. The angels may not have killed those people, but their “lord of hosts” certainly did.
> On first reading, it sounds like you are making quite a bit of unjustified speculation to arrive at unwarranted conclusions, but I'd like to discuss it further.
Thank you for keeping an open mind. This is definitely a new idea in the academic world. I hope that I can at least foster discussion, since I don’t really have the training to write a whole scientific thesis.
- Diogenes
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by jimwalton » Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:08 am
>> What specific biblical group do you identify as the PIE?
> The authors.
On what basis do you make this association? What evidence leads you to this conclusion?
> You’ll notice the Hittites are rebranded as sons of Shem, or semites, when we know they were not. The Hattusians, yes, but not the Hittites.
In Genesis 10 the Hittites are sons of Ham, not Shem. The term "Hittite" is a modern label. In the ancient world, the "Hittites" are various peoples. Archaeologically, they show a possible connection to the Far East Mongols. In the 2nd millennium BC, they rule a vast empire (centered in present-day Turkey and Syria) and are known as the people of the land of Hatti," who "spoke the language of the city of Nesha." But we don't know where they came from. At the beginning of the 12th c. BC, they disappear.
Centuries later, during the Israelite monarchy, a Neo-Hittite presence arises, but has little or no relation to the previous Hatti empire and people group, though they are known by the same name. These later Hittites are thoroughly Semitic in names and culture. The Hittites in Canaan have Semitic names while the Hittites of Anatolia were Indo-European. It may not be the case of relabelling at all but instead a separate people group called by the same name (as one might surmise that, say, for instance, America as we know it fell to foreign powers in war; several centuries from now another civilization rose up, and this new civilization might also be called America, though it had little or nothing to do with what we know of as America).
> You’ll also notice that there is no mention of philistine-like settlers in the north of Israel, yet we know they were there.
We know the Hittite empire and culture were destroyed by the Sea People in around 1200 BC. A successor neo-Hittite culture continued to exist in Syria until the 7th century BC. Assyrian and Babylonian records identify them as the "Land of Hatti." They also appear as far south as Hebron, and are part of what the Bible identifies as Canaanite. But I'm curious what makes you identify them as Philistines, something that I'm not aware any other source does.
> Boils could be a reference to bubonic plague, which did originate in Central Asia.
We have no particular reason to identify the boils with the bubonic plague. The Hebrew word is shehin, and is generic: "Boils breaking out into pustules." The exact nature of these boils is unidentifiable from the text or term, or even if one particular disease (to the exclusion of others) is not at all clear. It is pure speculation on your part to make this the bubonic plague; it could just as easily have not been that. I'm also unaware of any evidence for a bubonic plague in this region in this era. If you have evidence of that, I would be pleased to read it. Otherwise, it seems like you are making a guess to force support of your hypothesis.
> The rest could be literary license
You can't just make it read whatever you want it to read. That's not responsible scholarship. If you don't like what it says, claim "literary license" and change it to what you want it to be? The plagues of Egypt are primarily environmental, not bacterial. They are particularly associated with, and aimed to discredit, the religious cult of Egypt, which makes the environmental interpretation weighty and the bacterial or viral interpretation less probable.
> The Hyksos were driven out of Egypt after a century of rule. The Israelites wrote that they escaped.
This is correct, but the identification of the Hyksos with Israel is still tentative. Historically, the Hyksos were driven out in around 1570 BC, while very few, if any, historians put the possibility of the Exodus that early. Typical dates for the Exodus range from around the mid-1400s (at the earliest a full century after the Hyksos demise) to the mid-1200s.
> And...the entire Bible is anachronistic. You expect it to have accurate information?
C'mon. You have to do better than that. There is a little in the Bible that is anachronistic; there is much in the Bible that has been historically corroborated.
> So don’t rely on the text, as it doesn’t give us enough information to be considered reliable.
The text gives us enough to be considered reliable, and it gives us enough to ward off unwarranted speculation. The text specifically speaks of natural material molten phenomena raining down from the sky, the same term ("rain") used for literal water rain that descends. It's identified here as "burning sulfur." To completely ignore the terminology and context to make the text what you want it to say isn't responsible scholarship.
> Like I said, the Twin Gods tended to change form wherever they went.
Castor and Polydeuces—also associated with water (sailors) and horsemanship. Hengist and Horsa—horses and warriors. It just doesn't fit what the angels did at Sodom (rescue by walking out of the city).
>> I've never heard anyone claim the Sea People wrote the OT.
> Well now you have.
Well, there has to be some evidence for your claim for it to be worthy of consideration.
> The OT and works of Homer were written around the same time, and for roughly the same purpose - nationalism.
I dispute your dating of the OT writings. Discussing each book would be a lengthy endeavor not possible on the forum. There is much to support the Torah (Pentateuch) being written before the monarchy. Many of the Psalms fit the Davidic era. The prophetic books each relate to their specific era more so than to a generic JEPD 5th-c. BC authoring. But I know this is a huge conversation.
> nor the Israelites from Israel
The Israelites are of Aramean descent who established themselves in the hill country of Canaan in the 1200s BC (give or take). They are a unique cultural transplant in the region after centuries of Canaanite possession of the land.
> Hospitality was a big deal in PIE culture, and is heavily alluded to in the Sodom story. The angels may not have killed those people, but their "lord of hosts" certainly did.
It is obviously correct that hospitality was a big deal in PIE culture as well as all over the ancient Near East, but the emphasis of the Sodom narrative, as well as its literary flow, don't pertain to hospitality. No space here to be thorough, but let me toss out just some teasers:
I have analyzed the entire text, and it's too lengthy to write here, but you get the idea. This is not about hospitality but rather about their wickedness and deserving judgment.
> The angels may not have killed those people, but their “lord of hosts” certainly did.
Correct, and this is the point of the story: God's judgment on wickedness, rightly deserved. Genesis 19 is an image of corruption gone extreme and of justifiable cataclysmic destruction at the hands of a righteous God. At the same time, though, God shows mercy to those who deserve it, and even includes some in that net that didn't really deserve it (the wife, daughters, and sons-in-law).
> Thank you for keeping an open mind.
I started out with an open mind, but even in this second level of discussion, your theory isn't holding water. I'm not seeing evidence or support for your hypotheses, and actually evidence that contradicts your theories. There is still far too much speculation in assembling your case. I find myself doubting your premises and inferences and not being won over by your conjecture.
Do you have any evidence for what you're claiming? I'm not seeing the evidence.
> The authors.
On what basis do you make this association? What evidence leads you to this conclusion?
> You’ll notice the Hittites are rebranded as sons of Shem, or semites, when we know they were not. The Hattusians, yes, but not the Hittites.
In Genesis 10 the Hittites are sons of Ham, not Shem. The term "Hittite" is a modern label. In the ancient world, the "Hittites" are various peoples. Archaeologically, they show a possible connection to the Far East Mongols. In the 2nd millennium BC, they rule a vast empire (centered in present-day Turkey and Syria) and are known as the people of the land of Hatti," who "spoke the language of the city of Nesha." But we don't know where they came from. At the beginning of the 12th c. BC, they disappear.
Centuries later, during the Israelite monarchy, a Neo-Hittite presence arises, but has little or no relation to the previous Hatti empire and people group, though they are known by the same name. These later Hittites are thoroughly Semitic in names and culture. The Hittites in Canaan have Semitic names while the Hittites of Anatolia were Indo-European. It may not be the case of relabelling at all but instead a separate people group called by the same name (as one might surmise that, say, for instance, America as we know it fell to foreign powers in war; several centuries from now another civilization rose up, and this new civilization might also be called America, though it had little or nothing to do with what we know of as America).
> You’ll also notice that there is no mention of philistine-like settlers in the north of Israel, yet we know they were there.
We know the Hittite empire and culture were destroyed by the Sea People in around 1200 BC. A successor neo-Hittite culture continued to exist in Syria until the 7th century BC. Assyrian and Babylonian records identify them as the "Land of Hatti." They also appear as far south as Hebron, and are part of what the Bible identifies as Canaanite. But I'm curious what makes you identify them as Philistines, something that I'm not aware any other source does.
> Boils could be a reference to bubonic plague, which did originate in Central Asia.
We have no particular reason to identify the boils with the bubonic plague. The Hebrew word is shehin, and is generic: "Boils breaking out into pustules." The exact nature of these boils is unidentifiable from the text or term, or even if one particular disease (to the exclusion of others) is not at all clear. It is pure speculation on your part to make this the bubonic plague; it could just as easily have not been that. I'm also unaware of any evidence for a bubonic plague in this region in this era. If you have evidence of that, I would be pleased to read it. Otherwise, it seems like you are making a guess to force support of your hypothesis.
> The rest could be literary license
You can't just make it read whatever you want it to read. That's not responsible scholarship. If you don't like what it says, claim "literary license" and change it to what you want it to be? The plagues of Egypt are primarily environmental, not bacterial. They are particularly associated with, and aimed to discredit, the religious cult of Egypt, which makes the environmental interpretation weighty and the bacterial or viral interpretation less probable.
> The Hyksos were driven out of Egypt after a century of rule. The Israelites wrote that they escaped.
This is correct, but the identification of the Hyksos with Israel is still tentative. Historically, the Hyksos were driven out in around 1570 BC, while very few, if any, historians put the possibility of the Exodus that early. Typical dates for the Exodus range from around the mid-1400s (at the earliest a full century after the Hyksos demise) to the mid-1200s.
> And...the entire Bible is anachronistic. You expect it to have accurate information?
C'mon. You have to do better than that. There is a little in the Bible that is anachronistic; there is much in the Bible that has been historically corroborated.
> So don’t rely on the text, as it doesn’t give us enough information to be considered reliable.
The text gives us enough to be considered reliable, and it gives us enough to ward off unwarranted speculation. The text specifically speaks of natural material molten phenomena raining down from the sky, the same term ("rain") used for literal water rain that descends. It's identified here as "burning sulfur." To completely ignore the terminology and context to make the text what you want it to say isn't responsible scholarship.
> Like I said, the Twin Gods tended to change form wherever they went.
Castor and Polydeuces—also associated with water (sailors) and horsemanship. Hengist and Horsa—horses and warriors. It just doesn't fit what the angels did at Sodom (rescue by walking out of the city).
>> I've never heard anyone claim the Sea People wrote the OT.
> Well now you have.
Well, there has to be some evidence for your claim for it to be worthy of consideration.
> The OT and works of Homer were written around the same time, and for roughly the same purpose - nationalism.
I dispute your dating of the OT writings. Discussing each book would be a lengthy endeavor not possible on the forum. There is much to support the Torah (Pentateuch) being written before the monarchy. Many of the Psalms fit the Davidic era. The prophetic books each relate to their specific era more so than to a generic JEPD 5th-c. BC authoring. But I know this is a huge conversation.
> nor the Israelites from Israel
The Israelites are of Aramean descent who established themselves in the hill country of Canaan in the 1200s BC (give or take). They are a unique cultural transplant in the region after centuries of Canaanite possession of the land.
> Hospitality was a big deal in PIE culture, and is heavily alluded to in the Sodom story. The angels may not have killed those people, but their "lord of hosts" certainly did.
It is obviously correct that hospitality was a big deal in PIE culture as well as all over the ancient Near East, but the emphasis of the Sodom narrative, as well as its literary flow, don't pertain to hospitality. No space here to be thorough, but let me toss out just some teasers:
- Gn. 13.13 identifies the issue with Sodom as wickedness and great sin, setting the literary stage.
- In Gn. 14.23, Abraham refuses to identify with Sodom (choosing Melchizedek instead), reinforcing a lack of fellowship (sharing a meal, hospitality, etc.)
- Gn. 19.1: Set in the evening. "Night" is an archetype of wickedness, immorality, and danger. The symbolism of "evening" would suggest that judgment is expected but not certain.
- Gn. 19.1: the setting is the city, which is also an archetype of godlessness. "The city" is set against the 'kingdom of God" (the promised land).
- Gn. 19.1: Lot bows to the visitors. Lot is an elder in the city, but is still regarded as an outsider (v. 9). He shows respect for the visitors, something his neighbors do not. We are seeing, just in the fist verse alone, the two sides that will be prominent in the story: light vs. darkness, good vs. evil. This is what the story is about.
- Gn. 19.2-3. The point is not hospitality, but the danger the city square poses. Their rejection of Lot's invitation is countercultural. The point is to show the reputation and moral character of the city, that it is evil beyond common public safety. This is a clue that the city deserves the judgment that hangs in the balance.
- Gn. 19.3. Lot makes bread without yeast for them. It indicates he knew there was going to be trouble. Yeast is also a common symbol in the Bible for sin, again reinforcing the good vs. evil theme.
- Gn. 19.4. As night falls (the archetype of evil), sure enough, evil descends.
I have analyzed the entire text, and it's too lengthy to write here, but you get the idea. This is not about hospitality but rather about their wickedness and deserving judgment.
> The angels may not have killed those people, but their “lord of hosts” certainly did.
Correct, and this is the point of the story: God's judgment on wickedness, rightly deserved. Genesis 19 is an image of corruption gone extreme and of justifiable cataclysmic destruction at the hands of a righteous God. At the same time, though, God shows mercy to those who deserve it, and even includes some in that net that didn't really deserve it (the wife, daughters, and sons-in-law).
> Thank you for keeping an open mind.
I started out with an open mind, but even in this second level of discussion, your theory isn't holding water. I'm not seeing evidence or support for your hypotheses, and actually evidence that contradicts your theories. There is still far too much speculation in assembling your case. I find myself doubting your premises and inferences and not being won over by your conjecture.
Do you have any evidence for what you're claiming? I'm not seeing the evidence.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by Diogenes » Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:25 am
> Do you have any evidence for what you're claiming? I'm not seeing the evidence.
Most of came from posts on this site. Some of it came from answers I got here: like that the Sherdani/Sherden settled in Acre, which is near the Jezreel valley, whereupon I noticed that the words Jezreel and Israel are quite similar. The Mernepte stele more obviously refers to the valley when it claims to have laid waste to “his seed,” a clear reference to the word Jezreel which mean “El sows” (as in sowing seeds).
One needs only to be open to the possibility in order to notice the patterns.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/the-philistines-to-the-north/
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/the-philistines-to-the-north/
https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel/sherden-of-the-sea_aia-2012
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/world/middleeast/pigs-in-israel-originated-in-europe-researchers-say.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac#Possible_child_sacrifice
The fact that European pig bones were found throughout the boarders of Israel, but not outside it, since the philistines moved in suggests that the Sea People were in control of Israel during the first temple period. As there is no evidence for the existence of a first temple, we can probably assume this temple never existed, and that sea peoples were in control of both northern and southern kingdoms until Assyria and Babylon invaded in the 7th and 6th centuries bc.
There is a lack of eaten-pig bones in the archeological record around Jerusalem between the 13th and 10th centuries bc, but this before Judaism is supposed to have existed. This practice is clearly linked to the “Jebusites” and/or whatever real people the “Zedek” worshippers in the Bible were supposed to have been.
Then there’s the smoking gun: Abraham’s sacrifice. In the original version of the story, it has been suggested that Abraham came down the mountain alone, and that an edit was made when the angel stayed his hand. Jacob, the son of this child-sacrifice, should not exist in local legends.
Most of came from posts on this site. Some of it came from answers I got here: like that the Sherdani/Sherden settled in Acre, which is near the Jezreel valley, whereupon I noticed that the words Jezreel and Israel are quite similar. The Mernepte stele more obviously refers to the valley when it claims to have laid waste to “his seed,” a clear reference to the word Jezreel which mean “El sows” (as in sowing seeds).
One needs only to be open to the possibility in order to notice the patterns.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/the-philistines-to-the-north/
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/the-philistines-to-the-north/
https://scholar.harvard.edu/emanuel/sherden-of-the-sea_aia-2012
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/world/middleeast/pigs-in-israel-originated-in-europe-researchers-say.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac#Possible_child_sacrifice
The fact that European pig bones were found throughout the boarders of Israel, but not outside it, since the philistines moved in suggests that the Sea People were in control of Israel during the first temple period. As there is no evidence for the existence of a first temple, we can probably assume this temple never existed, and that sea peoples were in control of both northern and southern kingdoms until Assyria and Babylon invaded in the 7th and 6th centuries bc.
There is a lack of eaten-pig bones in the archeological record around Jerusalem between the 13th and 10th centuries bc, but this before Judaism is supposed to have existed. This practice is clearly linked to the “Jebusites” and/or whatever real people the “Zedek” worshippers in the Bible were supposed to have been.
Then there’s the smoking gun: Abraham’s sacrifice. In the original version of the story, it has been suggested that Abraham came down the mountain alone, and that an edit was made when the angel stayed his hand. Jacob, the son of this child-sacrifice, should not exist in local legends.
- Diogenes
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by jimwalton » Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:10 pm
This is a fascinating discussion. Thank you for it.
> like that the Sherdani/Sherden settled in Acre, which is near the Jezreel valley
Yeah, they did, if you mean the 'Akko Valley. Of course, this is in the 11th c. BC, before the Israelite monarchy.
> whereupon I noticed that the words Jezreel and Israel are quite similar.
They both have the theophoric element "-el", but that's where their similarity ends. So does Rachael, Michael, Daniel, and a host of others.
Israel means "God may strive for you; God will rule; Let God rule; May God persevere." It is related to the idea of striving, persevering, and overcoming.
Jezreel means "God sows." The name derives from the fertility of the valley.
They have no similarity except for the theophoric component.
> The Mernepte stele more obviously refers to the valley when it claims to have laid waste to “his seed,” a clear reference to the word Jezreel which mean “El sows”
This is not obvious at all. The reference to "his seed" is a common expression for descendants. The Merneptah stele is speaking of the obliteration of the Israelite people (warfare rhetoric, not literal extermination), not of the Jezreel Valley. The evidence for this is the first phase, "Israel is wasted." it is speaking of the military victory over a people group by killing not only the soldiers but also the next generation.
> links about the Philistines in the north
Sure. This is agreed. I don't know how it helps your point.
> Pigs with the Philistines
Again, no argument. Again, I don't see how this helps your case.
> The fact that European pig bones were found throughout the boarders of Israel, but not outside it, since the philistines moved in suggests that the Sea People were in control of Israel during the first temple period.
According to the Bible (and, as far as I know, archaeological confirmation), David was able to restrict Philistine rule and influence in the region. There is no evidence that the Sea People controlled Israel during the first temple period.
Destruction levels found in excavations at Ashdod and Ashkelon confirm the overthrow of Egyptian garrisons about 1150 BC and the resettlement of the area by the Philistines. Their attempt to conquer Egypt itself failed. At their height, the Philistine coalition expanded northward to Tell Qasile (on the coast at the Yarkon River) and east through the Jezreel Valley to Beth Shean. Under David and Solomon, the Philistine hegemony was held in check in the rest of Palestine. Though the Philistines remained in the area until the Babylonian destruction (586 BC), they were not a major political element in the region.
> As there is no evidence for the existence of a first temple, we can probably assume this temple never existed,
This is partially true. First of all, it's impossible to excavate the Temple Mount where we would most likely find such evidence. It's been off-limits since 1187. Second, there are some intriguing possible evidences of the first temple.
Granted, that's all we have, but we have to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No on has ever excavated under the Temple Mount. It's not a fair assumption that therefore this temple never existed.
> sea peoples were in control of both northern and southern kingdoms until Assyria and Babylon invaded in the 7th and 6th centuries bc.
There is no evidence they were in control. They were present, but the evidence suggests otherwise. There are many archaeological remains and corroborations of the Israelite monarchy in control of the area.
> There is a lack of eaten-pig bones in the archeological record around Jerusalem between the 13th and 10th centuries bc, but this before Judaism is supposed to have existed. This practice is clearly linked to the “Jebusites” and/or whatever real people the “Zedek” worshippers in the Bible were supposed to have been.
That's all well and good, but there is also an absence of pig bones during the monarchy, so your evidence here doesn't show that Israel was not around, not dominant in the area, or not in control of the area. The archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.
> Then there’s the smoking gun: Abraham’s sacrifice. In the original version of the story, it has been suggested that Abraham came down the mountain alone, and that an edit was made when the angel stayed his hand. Jacob, the son of this child-sacrifice, should not exist in local legends.
This is just plain wrong. For me to get even close to believing this, you need to verify an "original version" and an edited version. This is no smoking gun. What proof do you have of this "edit"?
> like that the Sherdani/Sherden settled in Acre, which is near the Jezreel valley
Yeah, they did, if you mean the 'Akko Valley. Of course, this is in the 11th c. BC, before the Israelite monarchy.
> whereupon I noticed that the words Jezreel and Israel are quite similar.
They both have the theophoric element "-el", but that's where their similarity ends. So does Rachael, Michael, Daniel, and a host of others.
Israel means "God may strive for you; God will rule; Let God rule; May God persevere." It is related to the idea of striving, persevering, and overcoming.
Jezreel means "God sows." The name derives from the fertility of the valley.
They have no similarity except for the theophoric component.
> The Mernepte stele more obviously refers to the valley when it claims to have laid waste to “his seed,” a clear reference to the word Jezreel which mean “El sows”
This is not obvious at all. The reference to "his seed" is a common expression for descendants. The Merneptah stele is speaking of the obliteration of the Israelite people (warfare rhetoric, not literal extermination), not of the Jezreel Valley. The evidence for this is the first phase, "Israel is wasted." it is speaking of the military victory over a people group by killing not only the soldiers but also the next generation.
> links about the Philistines in the north
Sure. This is agreed. I don't know how it helps your point.
- This was before the monarchy
- Sodom is in the south
- It doesn't speak at all to the radical claim that the Philistines wrote the OT
- It doesn't link the plagues to the Hyksos
- etc.
> Pigs with the Philistines
Again, no argument. Again, I don't see how this helps your case.
> The fact that European pig bones were found throughout the boarders of Israel, but not outside it, since the philistines moved in suggests that the Sea People were in control of Israel during the first temple period.
According to the Bible (and, as far as I know, archaeological confirmation), David was able to restrict Philistine rule and influence in the region. There is no evidence that the Sea People controlled Israel during the first temple period.
Destruction levels found in excavations at Ashdod and Ashkelon confirm the overthrow of Egyptian garrisons about 1150 BC and the resettlement of the area by the Philistines. Their attempt to conquer Egypt itself failed. At their height, the Philistine coalition expanded northward to Tell Qasile (on the coast at the Yarkon River) and east through the Jezreel Valley to Beth Shean. Under David and Solomon, the Philistine hegemony was held in check in the rest of Palestine. Though the Philistines remained in the area until the Babylonian destruction (586 BC), they were not a major political element in the region.
> As there is no evidence for the existence of a first temple, we can probably assume this temple never existed,
This is partially true. First of all, it's impossible to excavate the Temple Mount where we would most likely find such evidence. It's been off-limits since 1187. Second, there are some intriguing possible evidences of the first temple.
- The large rock inside the Dome of the Rock has a rectangular niche cut out, fairly central on the rock, that fits the size and shape of the Ark of the Covenant, and is possibly where the Ark rested in the Holy of Holies of Solomon’s Temple.
- An ivory pomegranate was discovered in 1978 that some scholars consider to be authentic may have been the head of a scepter from Solomon’s temple. The Hebrew inscription on the pomegranate reads, "belonging to the Temple of the Lord."
Granted, that's all we have, but we have to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No on has ever excavated under the Temple Mount. It's not a fair assumption that therefore this temple never existed.
> sea peoples were in control of both northern and southern kingdoms until Assyria and Babylon invaded in the 7th and 6th centuries bc.
There is no evidence they were in control. They were present, but the evidence suggests otherwise. There are many archaeological remains and corroborations of the Israelite monarchy in control of the area.
> There is a lack of eaten-pig bones in the archeological record around Jerusalem between the 13th and 10th centuries bc, but this before Judaism is supposed to have existed. This practice is clearly linked to the “Jebusites” and/or whatever real people the “Zedek” worshippers in the Bible were supposed to have been.
That's all well and good, but there is also an absence of pig bones during the monarchy, so your evidence here doesn't show that Israel was not around, not dominant in the area, or not in control of the area. The archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.
> Then there’s the smoking gun: Abraham’s sacrifice. In the original version of the story, it has been suggested that Abraham came down the mountain alone, and that an edit was made when the angel stayed his hand. Jacob, the son of this child-sacrifice, should not exist in local legends.
This is just plain wrong. For me to get even close to believing this, you need to verify an "original version" and an edited version. This is no smoking gun. What proof do you have of this "edit"?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by Diogenes » Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:02 pm
> This is a fascinating discussion. Thank you for it.
> Yeah, they did, if you mean the 'Akko Valley. Of course, this is in the 11th c. BC, before the Israelite monarchy.
Yes, and then they stayed there. Also, what evidence do you have that the Israelite monarchy ever existed?
> They both have the theophoric element "-el", but that's where their similarity ends.
Yshra and Yizre don’t sound similar to you?
> Israel means "God may strive for you; God will rule; Let God rule; May God persevere." It is related to the idea of striving, persevering, and overcoming. ... Jezreel means "God sows." The name derives from the fertility of the valley.
Words can change meaning over time, especially when an author is trying to confuse the reader. What evidence do you have that the name Israel wasn’t simply invented post-Babylonian captivity?
> This is not obvious at all.
Not to everyone...
> The reference to "his seed" is a common expression for descendants. The Merneptah stele is speaking of the obliteration of the Israelite people (warfare rhetoric, not literal extermination), not of the Jezreel Valley. The evidence for this is the first phase, "Israel is wasted." it is speaking of the military victory over a people group by killing not only the soldiers but also the next generation.
What evidence do you have that the stele was referring to Israel? The person who first postulated that was only guessing, based on his own religious bias. As someone without such bias, I don’t find this argument has traction.
> This was before the monarchy
But they stayed in the area for a few centuries, so it puts them in the right place at the right time.
> Sodom is in the south
We found sodom and Gomorrah? No way...
> It doesn't speak at all to the radical claim that the Philistines wrote the OT
The OT describes a relationship between the Philistines and Israelites as occasionally cooperative, occasionally competitive, while not mentioning the Sherdani at all. What do we think the relationship between the philistines and the Sherdani was like? If we look at any two modern or ancient Indo-European groups, we would say occasionally cooperative and occasionally competitive. I’m just saying, the shoe fits...
> It doesn't link the plagues to the Hyksos
No, that’s a separate issue. I just tacked it on for reference. But, again, I’m not the one who first linked the Hyksos to the exodus.
> There is no evidence that the Sea People controlled Israel during the first temple period.
There’s no evidence that the Israelites controlled Israel during the first temple period either. We’re even there.
And also, yes there is evidence that the Sea people controlled Israel. If you read into it, those pig bones came from Europe and were eaten by whoever lived in Israel. Israelites are pretty famous for not eating pigs. Whoever controlled the area was clearly not keeping kosher.
Destruction levels found in excavations at Ashdod and Ashkelon confirm the overthrow of Egyptian garrisons about 1150 BC and the resettlement of the area by the Philistines. Their attempt to conquer Egypt itself failed. At their height, the Philistine coalition expanded northward to Tell Qasile (on the coast at the Yarkon River) and east through the Jezreel Valley to Beth Shean. Under David and Solomon, the Philistine hegemony was held in check in the rest of Palestine. Though the Philistines remained in the area until the Babylonian destruction (586 BC), they were not a major political element in the region.
...
> Second, there are some intriguing possible evidences of the first temple.
Not good enough. Those don’t prove anything. That rock niche could fit any number of artifacts, and the” temple of the lord” could refer to any lord, any god. Many temples of that time were dedicated to a single god, but that doesn’t mean its worshippers were monotheistic.
> There is no evidence they were in control.
Of course they were in control. That’s what Sea people did. They controlled. They destroyed palaces, erased empires, and controlled the land they settled. Have you never met a white person?
> They were present, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
What evidence?
> There are many archaeological remains and corroborations of the Israelite monarchy in control of the area.
There really aren’t. A few stele with some biblical-ish names on them. But it’s entirely possible that whoever wrote the Bible simply had access to those stele and copied them. I know a blonde girl named Leilani - that don’t make her Hawaiian.
> That's all well and good, but there is also an absence of pig bones during the monarchy, so your evidence here doesn't show that Israel was not around, not dominant in the area, or not in control of the area. The archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.
There’s also an absence of evidence of the monarchy itself. So....tied there.
> This is just plain wrong. For me to get even close to believing this, you need to verify an "original version" and an edited version. This is no smoking gun. What proof do you have of this "edit"?
This is also not an original idea of mine. You can read more about it.
I understand that, individually, each piece of evidence for my claim is underwhelming. But if you take everything together, you’ll see a picture start to emerge. The tribe of Dan is supposed to be one of the older tribes of Israel, is it not? And what of the Danaoi? They have the same name. Is that not evidence that they were the same people? They have similar facial features (the Roman nose, dark curly hair and light skin) and power structures (the two kings of Sparta, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea) that have no parallel in levantine culture.
> Yeah, they did, if you mean the 'Akko Valley. Of course, this is in the 11th c. BC, before the Israelite monarchy.
Yes, and then they stayed there. Also, what evidence do you have that the Israelite monarchy ever existed?
> They both have the theophoric element "-el", but that's where their similarity ends.
Yshra and Yizre don’t sound similar to you?
> Israel means "God may strive for you; God will rule; Let God rule; May God persevere." It is related to the idea of striving, persevering, and overcoming. ... Jezreel means "God sows." The name derives from the fertility of the valley.
Words can change meaning over time, especially when an author is trying to confuse the reader. What evidence do you have that the name Israel wasn’t simply invented post-Babylonian captivity?
> This is not obvious at all.
Not to everyone...
> The reference to "his seed" is a common expression for descendants. The Merneptah stele is speaking of the obliteration of the Israelite people (warfare rhetoric, not literal extermination), not of the Jezreel Valley. The evidence for this is the first phase, "Israel is wasted." it is speaking of the military victory over a people group by killing not only the soldiers but also the next generation.
What evidence do you have that the stele was referring to Israel? The person who first postulated that was only guessing, based on his own religious bias. As someone without such bias, I don’t find this argument has traction.
> This was before the monarchy
But they stayed in the area for a few centuries, so it puts them in the right place at the right time.
> Sodom is in the south
We found sodom and Gomorrah? No way...
> It doesn't speak at all to the radical claim that the Philistines wrote the OT
The OT describes a relationship between the Philistines and Israelites as occasionally cooperative, occasionally competitive, while not mentioning the Sherdani at all. What do we think the relationship between the philistines and the Sherdani was like? If we look at any two modern or ancient Indo-European groups, we would say occasionally cooperative and occasionally competitive. I’m just saying, the shoe fits...
> It doesn't link the plagues to the Hyksos
No, that’s a separate issue. I just tacked it on for reference. But, again, I’m not the one who first linked the Hyksos to the exodus.
> There is no evidence that the Sea People controlled Israel during the first temple period.
There’s no evidence that the Israelites controlled Israel during the first temple period either. We’re even there.
And also, yes there is evidence that the Sea people controlled Israel. If you read into it, those pig bones came from Europe and were eaten by whoever lived in Israel. Israelites are pretty famous for not eating pigs. Whoever controlled the area was clearly not keeping kosher.
Destruction levels found in excavations at Ashdod and Ashkelon confirm the overthrow of Egyptian garrisons about 1150 BC and the resettlement of the area by the Philistines. Their attempt to conquer Egypt itself failed. At their height, the Philistine coalition expanded northward to Tell Qasile (on the coast at the Yarkon River) and east through the Jezreel Valley to Beth Shean. Under David and Solomon, the Philistine hegemony was held in check in the rest of Palestine. Though the Philistines remained in the area until the Babylonian destruction (586 BC), they were not a major political element in the region.
...
> Second, there are some intriguing possible evidences of the first temple.
Not good enough. Those don’t prove anything. That rock niche could fit any number of artifacts, and the” temple of the lord” could refer to any lord, any god. Many temples of that time were dedicated to a single god, but that doesn’t mean its worshippers were monotheistic.
> There is no evidence they were in control.
Of course they were in control. That’s what Sea people did. They controlled. They destroyed palaces, erased empires, and controlled the land they settled. Have you never met a white person?
> They were present, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
What evidence?
> There are many archaeological remains and corroborations of the Israelite monarchy in control of the area.
There really aren’t. A few stele with some biblical-ish names on them. But it’s entirely possible that whoever wrote the Bible simply had access to those stele and copied them. I know a blonde girl named Leilani - that don’t make her Hawaiian.
> That's all well and good, but there is also an absence of pig bones during the monarchy, so your evidence here doesn't show that Israel was not around, not dominant in the area, or not in control of the area. The archaeological evidence suggests otherwise.
There’s also an absence of evidence of the monarchy itself. So....tied there.
> This is just plain wrong. For me to get even close to believing this, you need to verify an "original version" and an edited version. This is no smoking gun. What proof do you have of this "edit"?
This is also not an original idea of mine. You can read more about it.
I understand that, individually, each piece of evidence for my claim is underwhelming. But if you take everything together, you’ll see a picture start to emerge. The tribe of Dan is supposed to be one of the older tribes of Israel, is it not? And what of the Danaoi? They have the same name. Is that not evidence that they were the same people? They have similar facial features (the Roman nose, dark curly hair and light skin) and power structures (the two kings of Sparta, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea) that have no parallel in levantine culture.
- Diogenes
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by jimwalton » Tue Nov 26, 2019 4:03 pm
> what evidence do you have that the Israelite monarchy ever existed?
* The Tel Dan stele mentioning the "house of David"
* Numerous bulla mentioning King Hezekiah
* Hezekiah, king of Judah, is mentioned on Sennacherib's prism
* The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (Assyrian) mentions King Ahab of Israel
* The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser mentions Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
* The monument at Tell Al-Rimah mentions Israelite king Jehoash
* King Manasseh of Judah is mentioned in a Ninevite inscription as providing building materials for Esarhaddon (Esarhaddon's prism)
* An inscription from Asurbanipal also mentions Manasseh, king of Judah
* King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah is mentioned in a funerary plaque
* We have a bulla that mentions "Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah"
* King Jehoiachin of Judah is mentioned on a Babylonian tablet
* King Omri of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha stele
* There is a royal seal of King Jeroboam II of Israel
* The Iran Stele of Tiglath Pileser III mentions King Menahem
* The annals of Tiglath Pileser III mention King Pekah
* We have the royal seal of king Hoshea
> Yshra and Yizre don’t sound similar to you?
The words are יִשְׂרָאֵל and יִזְרְעֶאל. You can readily see the differences.
> especially when an author is trying to confuse the reader.
Hmm. This is quite an assumption to throw in the mix to make the text read whatever you want it to. So you change texts at will if you assume the intent of the author is to confuse the reader? And from where does this assumption come, and what is the evidence for it? It sounds more like your bias, just to be honest with you.
> What evidence do you have that the name Israel wasn’t simply invented post-Babylonian captivity?
* Because the name "Israel" appears on the Merneptah Stele, 1230 BC.
* Gorg, van der Veen, and Theis have interpreted a statue pedestal from 1400 BC they interpret as Israel. Not all scholars agree, but the researchers make a strong argument.
* The Shishak relief of 925 BC mentions Israel
* The Mesha Stele (Moabite stone) of the 9th c. BC. mentions Israel.
* Possibly the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III
Anyway, there's enough evidence to show that "Israel" was known long before the post-Babylonian captivity.
> What evidence do you have that the [Merneptah] stele was referring to Israel?
Alternative translations exist, but they are not widely accepted. The vast majority of scholars accept the translation referring to Israel.
> We found sodom and Gomorrah? No way...
Now, now, don't get silly and sarcastic on me. Zoar, in the vicinity, appears on a 6th-c. Madaba map "in the valley of Siddim", pointing to the southern end of the Dead Sea. In the early Bronze Era, Zoar is called Safi. There are five sites of Early Bronze cities on the southeast plain of the Dead Sea, demonstrating the fairly large populations lived there from 3300-2100 BC, coming to an abrupt end at about the time of the Sodom story. There is persistent ancient tradition that great topographical changes took place around the south end of the Dead Sea in about 2000 BC.
The text itself describes the plain, *kikkar*, that extends from Jericho to Zoar.
Therefore we have multiple evidences that Sodom was in the region of the Dead Sea.
> The OT describes a relationship between the Philistines and Israelites as occasionally cooperative, occasionally competitive, while not mentioning the Sherdani at all.
Correct, but what does that have to do with the Sea People writing the OT?
> >There is no evidence that the Sea People controlled Israel during the first temple period.
> There’s no evidence that the Israelites controlled Israel during the first temple period either.
Sure there is. There are numerous and repeated archaeological artifacts speaking of the kings of Israel and Judah. Archaeological remains exist of fortified cities and governmental centers, all of Israelite control. We also know of the sites of Philistine control (primarily the 5 cities in the southeast and some in the north. Archaeology tells us that the Israelites were in control of the region though the Philistines occupied various locations.
The Philistines hold sway over Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age, and they hold it until the era of David, who confined them to the five cities of the coastal plain. Sites like Gath and Ashkelon have been adequately excavated.
> Not good enough. Those don’t prove anything.
I agree they're not good enough and don't prove anything. What I said was that they were intriguing. The truth is, it's a site that has never been excavated.
> There’s also an absence of evidence of the monarchy itself. So....tied there.
Wrong again. See above.
> I understand that, individually, each piece of evidence for my claim is underwhelming.
This is true. Underwhelming and mostly speculative. Your post has many "ifs" in it.
> But if you take everything together, you’ll see a picture start to emerge.
I do see a picture start to emerge, but not your picture. I see the one posed by scholarship: Genetic analysis shows that the ancient Canaanites derived from a mixture between local neolithic populations and eastern migrant related to the Chalcolithic Iranians. The Canaanites who survived the Conquest under Joshua became known as the Phoenicians.
The entrance of the Sea Peoples from southern Europe (the most popular theory) threw off Egyptian rule in the region, but they were contained by the Israelite monarchy.
The cemetery uncovered in Ashkelon (2013-2016) shows the Philistines to be a distinct group from the Israelites, in genetics and cultural practice. DNA studies show them to be similar to populations in the region of the Aegean Sea.
> The tribe of Dan is supposed to be one of the older tribes of Israel, is it not?
No, it is not. The tribes of Israel are all the same age. They were the sons of Jacob.
> And what of the Danaoi? They have the same name [as the Danites]. Is that not evidence that they were the same people?
Oh my. Of course not. That's not a cogent theory. The Hebrew Daniel of 600 BC and the Ugaritic Dan'el of the 14th c. have the same name. That's not evidence they were the same person.
> They have similar facial features (the Roman nose, dark curly hair and light skin) and power structures (the two kings of Sparta, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea) that have no parallel in levantine culture.
Oh my. What makes you think the Danites had light skin?
And you think that because there were two kings in Sparta and two kingdoms of Israel (Israel and Judah), that the two are the same?? That's not responsible scholarship. There were also two sides in the 100 years war—France vs. England. So what? Alexander the Great's kingdom split into 4 parts after his death; there are four points in the compass. So what?
> power structures (the two kings of Sparta, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea) that have no parallel in levantine culture.
What power structures are you talking about that have no parallel? Israel and Judah were both monarchies. The tribe of Dan was part of a 10-tribe coalition that made up Israel. Benjamin and Judah made up Judah. This has nothing to do with Sparta. Sparta was co-ruled; Israel and Judah were separate entities who did not share governance or worship.
* The Tel Dan stele mentioning the "house of David"
* Numerous bulla mentioning King Hezekiah
* Hezekiah, king of Judah, is mentioned on Sennacherib's prism
* The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (Assyrian) mentions King Ahab of Israel
* The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser mentions Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
* The monument at Tell Al-Rimah mentions Israelite king Jehoash
* King Manasseh of Judah is mentioned in a Ninevite inscription as providing building materials for Esarhaddon (Esarhaddon's prism)
* An inscription from Asurbanipal also mentions Manasseh, king of Judah
* King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah is mentioned in a funerary plaque
* We have a bulla that mentions "Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah"
* King Jehoiachin of Judah is mentioned on a Babylonian tablet
* King Omri of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha stele
* There is a royal seal of King Jeroboam II of Israel
* The Iran Stele of Tiglath Pileser III mentions King Menahem
* The annals of Tiglath Pileser III mention King Pekah
* We have the royal seal of king Hoshea
> Yshra and Yizre don’t sound similar to you?
The words are יִשְׂרָאֵל and יִזְרְעֶאל. You can readily see the differences.
> especially when an author is trying to confuse the reader.
Hmm. This is quite an assumption to throw in the mix to make the text read whatever you want it to. So you change texts at will if you assume the intent of the author is to confuse the reader? And from where does this assumption come, and what is the evidence for it? It sounds more like your bias, just to be honest with you.
> What evidence do you have that the name Israel wasn’t simply invented post-Babylonian captivity?
* Because the name "Israel" appears on the Merneptah Stele, 1230 BC.
* Gorg, van der Veen, and Theis have interpreted a statue pedestal from 1400 BC they interpret as Israel. Not all scholars agree, but the researchers make a strong argument.
* The Shishak relief of 925 BC mentions Israel
* The Mesha Stele (Moabite stone) of the 9th c. BC. mentions Israel.
* Possibly the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III
Anyway, there's enough evidence to show that "Israel" was known long before the post-Babylonian captivity.
> What evidence do you have that the [Merneptah] stele was referring to Israel?
Alternative translations exist, but they are not widely accepted. The vast majority of scholars accept the translation referring to Israel.
> We found sodom and Gomorrah? No way...
Now, now, don't get silly and sarcastic on me. Zoar, in the vicinity, appears on a 6th-c. Madaba map "in the valley of Siddim", pointing to the southern end of the Dead Sea. In the early Bronze Era, Zoar is called Safi. There are five sites of Early Bronze cities on the southeast plain of the Dead Sea, demonstrating the fairly large populations lived there from 3300-2100 BC, coming to an abrupt end at about the time of the Sodom story. There is persistent ancient tradition that great topographical changes took place around the south end of the Dead Sea in about 2000 BC.
The text itself describes the plain, *kikkar*, that extends from Jericho to Zoar.
Therefore we have multiple evidences that Sodom was in the region of the Dead Sea.
> The OT describes a relationship between the Philistines and Israelites as occasionally cooperative, occasionally competitive, while not mentioning the Sherdani at all.
Correct, but what does that have to do with the Sea People writing the OT?
> >There is no evidence that the Sea People controlled Israel during the first temple period.
> There’s no evidence that the Israelites controlled Israel during the first temple period either.
Sure there is. There are numerous and repeated archaeological artifacts speaking of the kings of Israel and Judah. Archaeological remains exist of fortified cities and governmental centers, all of Israelite control. We also know of the sites of Philistine control (primarily the 5 cities in the southeast and some in the north. Archaeology tells us that the Israelites were in control of the region though the Philistines occupied various locations.
The Philistines hold sway over Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age, and they hold it until the era of David, who confined them to the five cities of the coastal plain. Sites like Gath and Ashkelon have been adequately excavated.
> Not good enough. Those don’t prove anything.
I agree they're not good enough and don't prove anything. What I said was that they were intriguing. The truth is, it's a site that has never been excavated.
> There’s also an absence of evidence of the monarchy itself. So....tied there.
Wrong again. See above.
> I understand that, individually, each piece of evidence for my claim is underwhelming.
This is true. Underwhelming and mostly speculative. Your post has many "ifs" in it.
> But if you take everything together, you’ll see a picture start to emerge.
I do see a picture start to emerge, but not your picture. I see the one posed by scholarship: Genetic analysis shows that the ancient Canaanites derived from a mixture between local neolithic populations and eastern migrant related to the Chalcolithic Iranians. The Canaanites who survived the Conquest under Joshua became known as the Phoenicians.
The entrance of the Sea Peoples from southern Europe (the most popular theory) threw off Egyptian rule in the region, but they were contained by the Israelite monarchy.
The cemetery uncovered in Ashkelon (2013-2016) shows the Philistines to be a distinct group from the Israelites, in genetics and cultural practice. DNA studies show them to be similar to populations in the region of the Aegean Sea.
> The tribe of Dan is supposed to be one of the older tribes of Israel, is it not?
No, it is not. The tribes of Israel are all the same age. They were the sons of Jacob.
> And what of the Danaoi? They have the same name [as the Danites]. Is that not evidence that they were the same people?
Oh my. Of course not. That's not a cogent theory. The Hebrew Daniel of 600 BC and the Ugaritic Dan'el of the 14th c. have the same name. That's not evidence they were the same person.
> They have similar facial features (the Roman nose, dark curly hair and light skin) and power structures (the two kings of Sparta, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea) that have no parallel in levantine culture.
Oh my. What makes you think the Danites had light skin?
And you think that because there were two kings in Sparta and two kingdoms of Israel (Israel and Judah), that the two are the same?? That's not responsible scholarship. There were also two sides in the 100 years war—France vs. England. So what? Alexander the Great's kingdom split into 4 parts after his death; there are four points in the compass. So what?
> power structures (the two kings of Sparta, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judea) that have no parallel in levantine culture.
What power structures are you talking about that have no parallel? Israel and Judah were both monarchies. The tribe of Dan was part of a 10-tribe coalition that made up Israel. Benjamin and Judah made up Judah. This has nothing to do with Sparta. Sparta was co-ruled; Israel and Judah were separate entities who did not share governance or worship.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by Diogenes » Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:27 pm
> The Tel Dan stele mentioning the "house of David"
> Numerous bulla mentioning King Hezekiah
> Hezekiah, king of Judah, is mentioned on Sennacherib's prism
> The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (Assyrian) mentions King Ahab of Israel
> The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser mentions Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
> The monument at Tell Al-Rimah mentions Israelite king Jehoash
> King Manasseh of Judah is mentioned in a Ninevite inscription as providing building materials for Esarhaddon (Esarhaddon's prism)
> An inscription from Asurbanipal also mentions Manasseh, king of Judah
> King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah is mentioned in a funerary plaque
> We have a bulla that mentions "Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah"
> King Jehoiachin of Judah is mentioned on a Babylonian tablet
> King Omri of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha stele
> There is a royal seal of King Jeroboam II of Israel
> The Iran Stele of Tiglath Pileser III mentions King Menahem
> The annals of Tiglath Pileser III mention King Pekah
> We have the royal seal of king Hoshea
Like I said before, the existence of a few names scattered across the desert doesn’t prove the biblical narrative behind those names. It just proves that whoever wrote that narrative also knew of their existence. The authors appear more like genuine foreigners in a conquered land than native slaves, even today.
> The words are יִשְׂרָאֵל and יִזְרְעֶאל. You can readily see the differences.
Y-z/sh-R-[ayin]-E-L Y-z-r-ay-e-l (Jezreel) Y-sh-r-e-l (Israel)
You can just as readily see the similarities.
> Hmm... It sounds more like your bias, just to be honest with you.
My only bias is against all religion. The myths themselves I find endlessly fascinating, but to treat them as historical fact by a modern government is wrong.
> Because the name "Israel" appears on the Merneptah Stele, 1230 BC.
> Gorg, van der Veen, and Theis have interpreted a statue pedestal from 1400 BC they interpret as Israel. Not all scholars agree, but the researchers make a strong argument.
> The Shishak relief of 925 BC mentions Israel
> The Mesha Stele (Moabite stone) of the 9th c. BC. mentions Israel.
> Possibly the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III
Again, what proof for you have that these writings weren’t referring to Jezreel? Do you have anything which clearly calls Jezreel and Israel two different places? Do you have any historical references to Jezreel at all?
> Alternative translations exist, but they are not widely accepted. The vast majority of scholars accept the translation referring to Israel.
Bugger the majority. This hypothesis has stronger legs.
> There are five sites of Early Bronze cities on the southeast plain of the Dead Sea, demonstrating the fairly large populations lived there from 3300-2100 BC, coming to an abrupt end at about the time of the Sodom story.
Okay, so, have they found any meteorite creators or lava flows or something nearby? A sudden drop in population could easily have been due to disease.
> There is persistent ancient tradition that great topographical changes took place around the south end of the Dead Sea in about 2000 BC.
That’s right around the time the Proto-Indo-Europeans first showed up in the Middle East, isn’t it? Spoiler: it is.
> Correct, but what does that have to do with the Sea People writing the OT?
It’s a classic cover-up. One tribe is erased from history, while another is woven from myth. Like the Dorian invasion of Greece, the Sherdan conquest of Palestine was immortalized in quasi-accurate tomes that still exist today.
I’m going to skip ahead a bit...
> Oh my. What makes you think the Danites had light skin?
Because their descendants do. Right-wing Christians and Jewish people themselves are the only two groups who promote the idea that jews are not white. Local Arabs and everyone else think they look Greek.
> What power structures are you talking about that have no parallel?
The two-party system of the Sadducees and Pharisees was not unlike the dual nature of Spartan kingship. Given that 1 & 2 Maccabees make mention of some old alliance between Israel and Sparta, I found it curious.
But there are a series of twins or brothers throughout the Bible that don’t have inspiration from Mesopotamian myth. These two angels are just another example.
If I could remember what the two male lines were called, I would add those as evidence. I’d have to dig pretty deep into past messages....I’m too afraid. [I think one was kohen or levite...?]
> Numerous bulla mentioning King Hezekiah
> Hezekiah, king of Judah, is mentioned on Sennacherib's prism
> The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (Assyrian) mentions King Ahab of Israel
> The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser mentions Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
> The monument at Tell Al-Rimah mentions Israelite king Jehoash
> King Manasseh of Judah is mentioned in a Ninevite inscription as providing building materials for Esarhaddon (Esarhaddon's prism)
> An inscription from Asurbanipal also mentions Manasseh, king of Judah
> King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah is mentioned in a funerary plaque
> We have a bulla that mentions "Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah"
> King Jehoiachin of Judah is mentioned on a Babylonian tablet
> King Omri of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha stele
> There is a royal seal of King Jeroboam II of Israel
> The Iran Stele of Tiglath Pileser III mentions King Menahem
> The annals of Tiglath Pileser III mention King Pekah
> We have the royal seal of king Hoshea
Like I said before, the existence of a few names scattered across the desert doesn’t prove the biblical narrative behind those names. It just proves that whoever wrote that narrative also knew of their existence. The authors appear more like genuine foreigners in a conquered land than native slaves, even today.
> The words are יִשְׂרָאֵל and יִזְרְעֶאל. You can readily see the differences.
Y-z/sh-R-[ayin]-E-L Y-z-r-ay-e-l (Jezreel) Y-sh-r-e-l (Israel)
You can just as readily see the similarities.
> Hmm... It sounds more like your bias, just to be honest with you.
My only bias is against all religion. The myths themselves I find endlessly fascinating, but to treat them as historical fact by a modern government is wrong.
> Because the name "Israel" appears on the Merneptah Stele, 1230 BC.
> Gorg, van der Veen, and Theis have interpreted a statue pedestal from 1400 BC they interpret as Israel. Not all scholars agree, but the researchers make a strong argument.
> The Shishak relief of 925 BC mentions Israel
> The Mesha Stele (Moabite stone) of the 9th c. BC. mentions Israel.
> Possibly the Kurkh Stele of Shalmaneser III
Again, what proof for you have that these writings weren’t referring to Jezreel? Do you have anything which clearly calls Jezreel and Israel two different places? Do you have any historical references to Jezreel at all?
> Alternative translations exist, but they are not widely accepted. The vast majority of scholars accept the translation referring to Israel.
Bugger the majority. This hypothesis has stronger legs.
> There are five sites of Early Bronze cities on the southeast plain of the Dead Sea, demonstrating the fairly large populations lived there from 3300-2100 BC, coming to an abrupt end at about the time of the Sodom story.
Okay, so, have they found any meteorite creators or lava flows or something nearby? A sudden drop in population could easily have been due to disease.
> There is persistent ancient tradition that great topographical changes took place around the south end of the Dead Sea in about 2000 BC.
That’s right around the time the Proto-Indo-Europeans first showed up in the Middle East, isn’t it? Spoiler: it is.
> Correct, but what does that have to do with the Sea People writing the OT?
It’s a classic cover-up. One tribe is erased from history, while another is woven from myth. Like the Dorian invasion of Greece, the Sherdan conquest of Palestine was immortalized in quasi-accurate tomes that still exist today.
I’m going to skip ahead a bit...
> Oh my. What makes you think the Danites had light skin?
Because their descendants do. Right-wing Christians and Jewish people themselves are the only two groups who promote the idea that jews are not white. Local Arabs and everyone else think they look Greek.
> What power structures are you talking about that have no parallel?
The two-party system of the Sadducees and Pharisees was not unlike the dual nature of Spartan kingship. Given that 1 & 2 Maccabees make mention of some old alliance between Israel and Sparta, I found it curious.
But there are a series of twins or brothers throughout the Bible that don’t have inspiration from Mesopotamian myth. These two angels are just another example.
If I could remember what the two male lines were called, I would add those as evidence. I’d have to dig pretty deep into past messages....I’m too afraid. [I think one was kohen or levite...?]
- Diogenes
Re: The Twin Horse Gods of the PIE are the two angels who vi
by jimwalton » Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:29 pm
> Like I said before, the existence of a few names scattered across the desert doesn’t prove the biblical narrative behind those names.
You weren't asking for proof of the biblical narrative behind those names. Instead, your question was "what evidence do you have that the Israelite monarchy ever existed?" All of my bullet points (and there are many more) certainly prove the existence of the Israelite monarchy. That was the question and discussion at hand.
> My only bias is against all religion.
Well, then, that shows that you are biased against the biblical account and against Christianity. A better position, in my opinion, would be on the basis of evidence, not of prejudicial bias. Bias is just going to give you a skewed position, usually ignoring, or even worse, distorting evidence that disagrees with your position.
> by a modern government
????? I'm not aware we've been talking about any modern government.
> what proof for you have that these writings weren’t referring to Jezreel?
Because of the terminology and the context of those inscriptions.
> Do you have anything which clearly calls Jezreel and Israel two different places?
* 1 Sam. 1.29: Israel camped by the spring in Jezreel
* 2 Sam. 2.9: He made him king over Gilead, Ashuri and Jezreel, and also over Ephraim, Benjamin and all Israel.
* Hosea 1.4-5: I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel. In that day I will break Israel’s bow in the Valley of Jezreel.
> Do you have any historical references to Jezreel at all?
You mean extra biblical references? Archaeologists have found the site of Jezreel the city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezreel_(city))
> This hypothesis has stronger legs.
I disagree, following the evidence.
> have they found any meteorite creators or lava flows or something nearby?
Not that I know of. Archaeologist Kyle said that under Mt. Usdom "there is a stratum of salt 150' thick, and above it a stratum of marl mingled with free sulfur"—a very ignitable recipe.
Geologists Graham Harris and Anthony Beardow believe that the bitumen common in the area could have ignited during an earthquake and the resulting fire would have helped to destroy the city. There are historical accounts of similar occurrences. (In 37 BC, the town of Helice in Greece was reportedly lost through liquefaction, as were thousands of miles of area in China in 1921. More recently, a section of Valdez, Alaska, liquefied in the 1950s.)
Steve Collins (Biblical Archaeology Review, 2013) says, "We continue to find significant evidence that some kind of 'airburst' (of cosmic origin) occurred over the kikkar sometime between 1750-1650 BC. The magnitude of the event was somewhere between the Tunguska, Siberia airburst of 1908 and the one in 2013 that exploded over southern Russia. All of the phenomenological language of destruction preserved in Gn. 19 is consistent with this kind of cosmic impact. The evidence on the ground also supports such a cataclysmic, targeted destruction.
"Based on the hard evidence at and around Tell el-Hammam, we believe that the disintegration of a cosmic body (comet fragment or small asteroid?) put an end to the sophisticated Bronze Age civilization of the Jordan Disk (kikkar) between 1750-1650. (We’re still working with the diagnostic ceramics and other dating methods.) According to laboratory analysis, the heat index required to produce desert glass and melt the surface of fired pottery in the manner we’re observing exceeds 8,000 degrees Kelvin, or about 14,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is commensurate with that of cosmic airbursts."
> A sudden drop in population could easily have been due to disease.
We must be careful not to form an opinion without evidence. Speculation comes from nowhere and takes us nowhere. It's too easy to be skewed by our bias. Instead, we follow the evidence where it leads.
> That’s right around the time the Proto-Indo-Europeans first showed up in the Middle East, isn’t it? Spoiler: it is.
What? I said **topographical** changes, not population or cultural ones.
> It’s a classic cover-up.
You have no evidence for this thesis that the Sea People wrote the OT.
> Right-wing Christians and Jewish people themselves are the only two groups who promote the idea that jews are not white. Local Arabs and everyone else think they look Greek.
Evidence?
Genetic studies reveal that historically Jews originated in the Middle East, not in Europe. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/)
> The two-party system of the Sadducees and Pharisees was not unlike the dual nature of Spartan kingship
Actually it was nothing like it. Sadducees were the ruling priestly party. In religious matters, their interest was in ecclesiastical politics. They were known to be conservative. In political matters, they were much more political than the Pharisees (Sadducees dominated the Sanhedrin). The Pharisees outnumbered the Sadducees 5 to 1, but the Sadducees had the power. The Sadducees had no following among the plebeians; they were popular only with the well-to do.
The Pharisees were religious purists (and thus their clash with Jesus). They had the following of the people. They generally avoided political involvement unless the government interfered with the practice of law.
In stark contrast, Sparta had two kings ruling in partnership, sharing duties (division of power and balance of power). This was a totally different system from the Sadducees and Pharisees.
> These two angels are just another example.
There is no justifiable cause to see the angels as twins, brothers, or anything in common with the twin horse gods. Any surmised connection is spurious.
> If I could remember what the two male lines were called
Which two male lines? I have the whole thread at hand, but I don't know what you're referring to and can't find it, so hopefully it will come to your mind.
You weren't asking for proof of the biblical narrative behind those names. Instead, your question was "what evidence do you have that the Israelite monarchy ever existed?" All of my bullet points (and there are many more) certainly prove the existence of the Israelite monarchy. That was the question and discussion at hand.
> My only bias is against all religion.
Well, then, that shows that you are biased against the biblical account and against Christianity. A better position, in my opinion, would be on the basis of evidence, not of prejudicial bias. Bias is just going to give you a skewed position, usually ignoring, or even worse, distorting evidence that disagrees with your position.
> by a modern government
????? I'm not aware we've been talking about any modern government.
> what proof for you have that these writings weren’t referring to Jezreel?
Because of the terminology and the context of those inscriptions.
> Do you have anything which clearly calls Jezreel and Israel two different places?
* 1 Sam. 1.29: Israel camped by the spring in Jezreel
* 2 Sam. 2.9: He made him king over Gilead, Ashuri and Jezreel, and also over Ephraim, Benjamin and all Israel.
* Hosea 1.4-5: I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel. In that day I will break Israel’s bow in the Valley of Jezreel.
> Do you have any historical references to Jezreel at all?
You mean extra biblical references? Archaeologists have found the site of Jezreel the city (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezreel_(city))
> This hypothesis has stronger legs.
I disagree, following the evidence.
> have they found any meteorite creators or lava flows or something nearby?
Not that I know of. Archaeologist Kyle said that under Mt. Usdom "there is a stratum of salt 150' thick, and above it a stratum of marl mingled with free sulfur"—a very ignitable recipe.
Geologists Graham Harris and Anthony Beardow believe that the bitumen common in the area could have ignited during an earthquake and the resulting fire would have helped to destroy the city. There are historical accounts of similar occurrences. (In 37 BC, the town of Helice in Greece was reportedly lost through liquefaction, as were thousands of miles of area in China in 1921. More recently, a section of Valdez, Alaska, liquefied in the 1950s.)
Steve Collins (Biblical Archaeology Review, 2013) says, "We continue to find significant evidence that some kind of 'airburst' (of cosmic origin) occurred over the kikkar sometime between 1750-1650 BC. The magnitude of the event was somewhere between the Tunguska, Siberia airburst of 1908 and the one in 2013 that exploded over southern Russia. All of the phenomenological language of destruction preserved in Gn. 19 is consistent with this kind of cosmic impact. The evidence on the ground also supports such a cataclysmic, targeted destruction.
"Based on the hard evidence at and around Tell el-Hammam, we believe that the disintegration of a cosmic body (comet fragment or small asteroid?) put an end to the sophisticated Bronze Age civilization of the Jordan Disk (kikkar) between 1750-1650. (We’re still working with the diagnostic ceramics and other dating methods.) According to laboratory analysis, the heat index required to produce desert glass and melt the surface of fired pottery in the manner we’re observing exceeds 8,000 degrees Kelvin, or about 14,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is commensurate with that of cosmic airbursts."
> A sudden drop in population could easily have been due to disease.
We must be careful not to form an opinion without evidence. Speculation comes from nowhere and takes us nowhere. It's too easy to be skewed by our bias. Instead, we follow the evidence where it leads.
> That’s right around the time the Proto-Indo-Europeans first showed up in the Middle East, isn’t it? Spoiler: it is.
What? I said **topographical** changes, not population or cultural ones.
> It’s a classic cover-up.
You have no evidence for this thesis that the Sea People wrote the OT.
> Right-wing Christians and Jewish people themselves are the only two groups who promote the idea that jews are not white. Local Arabs and everyone else think they look Greek.
Evidence?
Genetic studies reveal that historically Jews originated in the Middle East, not in Europe. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/)
> The two-party system of the Sadducees and Pharisees was not unlike the dual nature of Spartan kingship
Actually it was nothing like it. Sadducees were the ruling priestly party. In religious matters, their interest was in ecclesiastical politics. They were known to be conservative. In political matters, they were much more political than the Pharisees (Sadducees dominated the Sanhedrin). The Pharisees outnumbered the Sadducees 5 to 1, but the Sadducees had the power. The Sadducees had no following among the plebeians; they were popular only with the well-to do.
The Pharisees were religious purists (and thus their clash with Jesus). They had the following of the people. They generally avoided political involvement unless the government interfered with the practice of law.
In stark contrast, Sparta had two kings ruling in partnership, sharing duties (division of power and balance of power). This was a totally different system from the Sadducees and Pharisees.
> These two angels are just another example.
There is no justifiable cause to see the angels as twins, brothers, or anything in common with the twin horse gods. Any surmised connection is spurious.
> If I could remember what the two male lines were called
Which two male lines? I have the whole thread at hand, but I don't know what you're referring to and can't find it, so hopefully it will come to your mind.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
12 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest