It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Old Testament is a Military manual

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I just saw a show last night on the History channel speaking about how most of the New Testament is actually a military epic, including the Exodus.

Each point was supported by scripture which highlighted just how brutal the Israelites were. In Jericho they even exterminated women and children... even the animals...

It was rather wild. And it just goes to show how it is the story of a people during the bronze age. Much like the other tribal stories from Northern Europe...

Why these crazy songs were ever taught to me about Jericho and the other parts of the Old Testament is beyond me, as I'm not a descendant of these people.

Anyway, here is one of the books which was covered during the show... Really some amazing stuff!

/pdplwg




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Thanks for the link, duder.

My $0.02: The brutality of the Israelites in the Old Testament is merely indicative of the times in general. I don't think the Moabites or the Hittites were any less brutal.

Indeed, the worshippers of Moloch did far worse than the Israelites (babies being thrown into bonfires etc).



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Roark
 


Yep, I agree with you. Studying the Israelites is like studying any tribal culture. You might as well be studying the Maya, or the Apache, or some Celtic tribe. They subdued a strategic piece of land in a brutal manner, and had to defend it from attackers who were equally as brutal.

It amazes me how a large portion of the world claims the tribal history of just one of these tribes as the foundation for their religions... as honorable as it is for the true descendants of these peoples to still revere the traditions, I believe everyone should get in touch with their own yet similar tribal stories...



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Yeah, totally. People might actually learn something, though. THEN where would we be?!!!



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
When you look at it like that it becomes pretty clear the book is just propaganda for the ancient jewish people. I mean, if any fanatical militants got to write a religious book, I'm sure it'd be similar. Hitler would have wrote quite a bit about the Aryans being the chosen people who had God on their side. He'd make up stories of the divine to help perpetuate that propaganda.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ThePiemaker]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


It's important for any peoples to have a narrative.

The question is... who's narrative have you adopted? Does it belong to your people or another?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I'd have to say it must only be some of the books. Because Genesis certainly doesn't fit that description, nor do Proverbs or Psalms. I'm sure there are others as well.

I look at things in terms of understanding. If the book doesn't give you understanding that is relevant and helpful in today's world, then it is useless for you. That doesn't mean it might not have meaning at a later date, or that it is automatically wrong, just that it isn't useful for you. So set it aside.

There are things that I see showing a huge amount of understanding, and then I see things that are examples of what I shouldn't do. So I accept what I understand, and don't accept what doesn't make sense or seems wrong. Some people frown on this and call it cherry picking or whatever, but I personally don't give a crap what they think about it.



Buddha said -- Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.


Works for me.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


The Old Testament is also a (Great) guide for making money.

The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition is the direct opposite of it just to make things clear..



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I'd have to say it must only be some of the books. Because Genesis certainly doesn't fit that description, nor do Proverbs or Psalms. I'm sure there are others as well.



Actually Genesis does fall into this as well. Abraham was a leader of a group of Habiru (Hebrew). Lot was Abrahams nephew, and was captured by foreign invaders. Why did they take Lot... because Abraham was the leader, and Lot was a good hostage.

Abraham then leads a small army and attacks at night...

Here is a Rabbi's account of it...

Link

And although this Rabbi tries to imply there is no military tradition, that the scripture exhorts them to be more like Aaron than Joshua, one cannot deny that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges are all about military conquest, in some instances justified, in others not so much.

I completely recommend you checking out the show I saw... which is told from a soldiers viewpoint...

www.amazon.com...



[edit on 25-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
i heard that before, God seemed to be abit of an A-hole in the old test ,i wouldnt want to spend eternity with that petty dumbass. guess i could just hide in a garden from him or something. lol Just like the old superman he didnt have all his powers in the early years ,he could jump tall building but couldn't fly



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by candy coated clown
i heard that before, God seemed to be abit of an A-hole in the old test ,i wouldnt want to spend eternity with that petty dumbass. guess i could just hide in a garden from him or something. lol Just like the old superman he didnt have all his powers in the early years ,he could jump tall building but couldn't fly


Well if you look at all of the tribal histories from the Eurasian continent, they are all very similar in the respect that they were all fighting each other...



So the God of the OT isn't any more an A-hole than any Gods from the other tribes.

Also keep in mind that many of the books of the OT are as steeped with myth as say the bhagavad gita or any other ancient tribal narrative... Meaning it didn't have all the accouterments of God etc when it was really going down, just in hindsight by peoples who saw these events as necessary to their own existence.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Sure the old test god isnt the same dude, he didnt have the same powers and didnt act the same, i took history in university and read all the old sumerian storys predating the bible ,the old test is the rewrite centreys and centrys later even the exact wording was copyed in many parts into the old test.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by candy coated clown]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by candy coated clown
 


Well not a total rewrite, obviously Joshua was an actual Habiru, but yeah the creation myths etc were lifted directly from the Sumerian epics.

What you have is a history of a people which has been skewed by a religious perspective on the wars of said peoples, and starts off with a "how did we get here" piece which, as you mentioned, was lifted from the Sumerian epics.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
yes but not only was it a how did we get here? story , the bible added a family tree to it centuries later from adam lol adding the god that didnt know where adam was when he was hiding in ther relatively small garden of eden, compared with the vast universes all seeing and all knowing compassionate god of the new test, it ant the same thing or god there talking about, its smacks of bs





[edit on 25-5-2009 by candy coated clown]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by candy coated clown
yes but not only was it a how did we get here? story , the bible added a family tree to it centuries later from adam lol adding the god that didnt know where adam was when he was hiding in ther relatively small garden of eden, compared with the vast universes all seeing and all knowing compassionate god of the new test, it ant the same thing or god there talking about, its smacks of bs
[edit on 25-5-2009 by candy coated clown]


Yeah but it doesn't really matter, the creation myth itself was changed several times through the history of the Habiru...

You act like the Sumerians came up with their creation myth when in fact they borrowed it from still earlier peoples and added to it to suit them.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I would say the Sumerians came up with their creation myth and the fact is it was borrowed for the old testament and added to it to suit them.We know this for a fact.
Sumerians have the first writing and written word stories on the planet, the record shows this , there is know older writing and written word stories to go on. you have no type of proof ,fact or evidence to say its a even older story, just books that came centreys later thats been obviously plagiarized from Sumerian texts. There is no record of any kind to say this. Plus the records of human dna migration patterns following genetic mutations and timelines from migration out of North Africa shows there was know other civilization who had mastered writing and written word stories.
Now still earlier peoples may have had storys by word of mouth but not written word stories. thats what the record and evidence shows You cant say in 2009 that some unknown people with a unknown word of mouth story many many millennia ago had there story borrowed by the Sumerians. with no facts to back you up its pure speculation.

100% speculation



[edit on 25-5-2009 by candy coated clown]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by candy coated clown
 


I really don't care when writing was created. In many cultures it could have happened but it was actually forbade, like in Celtic cultures.

The traditions prior to writing were transmitted orally and thus changed quite a bit.

Although the Sumerians *might* have been the first to write down this creation myth, doesn't mean that they came up with it or kept it in the same condition they received it.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
dude when your telling me as a FACT

"!You act like the Sumerians came up with their creation myth when in fact they borrowed it "

"when in fact" LOL take out the word fact and change it to i THINK or GUESS or as i said "speculat"

ohh and if your talking about ancient written books and stories its best to care when writing was created lol and what a thing called evidence shows

whatever dude


and as for writing was forbade in Celtic cultures lol dude i have a degree in history from trinity college dublin specialising in celtic studies, it wasnt forbade in the way your saying thay had a thing called the Ogham alphabet aswell as the greek and latin letters. Druids had an oral tradition to memorize tens of thousands of verses, but no brehon law forbade or outlawed writing.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by candy coated clown]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by candy coated clown
 


Key things here...

1. The creation myth in the OT is a derivative of the Sumerian creation myth. Not just archetypal similarities but an actual derivative.

2. The Sumerians themselves were once nomads, and thus their creation myth was probably also borrowed. Just because they created a form of writing doesn't mean that what they wrote was original. In fact (A statement declaring the obvious), it most likely had been passed down orally for generations prior to being written.

3. The thread is about the OT being primarily a Military history of conquest.


[edit on 25-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Let's stay focused on the topic and not on each other.

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join