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.

 

Goliaths Sword

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
You'd lose.
Moses' staff would turn your stone into a frog before it even left the sling. Then whilst you were wondering what to do next you'd probably get leprosy. Or something.

Sure, your sword might be all shiny and long, but Moses' staff has got a snake on it and everyone knows that snakes are cool.




posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Wait, oh yeah I forgot...

The handle of the sword as we already know is made of some E.T. alloy and has a prism on the end that runs through the handle into the blade of diamond. I forgot to mention that the handle has a coiled snake wrapped around it as well. This not only makes the sword equally as cool as Moses' staff, it also contibutes to my other theory as well.

I know , I know. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. But I didn't. See this other topic for confirmation about my theory of Goliath and the reptile.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Heehee

Nutzo



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Very interesting topic. I too have wondered about the significance of Goliath's sword in the past. I wonder if it's possilbe that this sword eventually became known as Excalibur, the sword of kings, after David gained possession of it?

Also, don't forget that Goliath had the same sort of spear his brother had.

King James Version 1 Samuel 17:4-7
4. And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
5. And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.
6. And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.
7. And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.

1 Chronicles 20:5
5. And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. [Note: The name Lahmi/Lachmi may be translated as warrior or fighter.]


Another interesting weapon mentioned later is the one being mentioned as being wielded by the giant Ishbi-benob.

KJV 2 Samuel 21:15-22
15. Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint.
16. And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant [Repha, Rephaim], the weight of whose spear [qayin] weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword [The word "sword" is Not in the Hebrew], thought to have slain David.
17. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel.

JPS Tanakh 2 Samuel 21:16 And Ishbi-benob, who was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with new armour, thought to have slain David.

So, whether Ishbi-benob had a new sword or was wearing a new suit of armor is unclear from the text. However, what I find the most interesting is that the Hebrew word qayin is never translated as "spear" anywhere else in the Bible except in 2 Samuel 21:16. Usually qayin is translated as "Cain".

Check this out:

KJV Genesis 4:16-22
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain [Tubal-Qayin], an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

So, one of Cain/Qayin's descendants, who was also his forefather's namesake, was "an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron". Also, there is a people mentioned a few times throughout the Old Testament called the Kenites. In Hebrew, Kenites is Qayini, which denotes "the people or descendants of Qayin" just as Israeli denotes the people or descendants of Israel. The children of Qayin were able to survive the Flood, which was actually only regional, not global.

Now Cain was half-angel himself being the literal son of Samael/Satan. (Satan was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - individuals and nations are often symbolized by trees in the Bible", and the forbidden fruit was sexual intercourse. Yahshua refers to certain people as the literal "children of the devil" in John 8:44.) Therefore, it makes sense that Cain's descendants would be in league with the hybrid, part-human/part-angel Rephaim/giants. So, whatever the weapon was that Ishbi-benob wielded, it was most likely supplied to him by Qayini (Kenite/Cainite) weaponsmiths.

By the way, the reference Koka made earlier to a "Holy Hand Grenade" is from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In the film, it's actually called the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch".

Also, I'm curious where you get the idea that Michael and Samael were the agents of Yahweh's creation. The first chapter of John seems to make it clear that the Son of God, Yahshua, was the agent of the creative act.

KJV John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Reason for editing: Removed two or three unnecessary words.

[edit on 15-6-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Yeah I caught the Monty Python reference. lol

I have also wondered if this Excaliber was the sword of Goliath. These same men sought the Holy Grail to tragic results. Maybe they were starting a collection.

There are different beliefs to this. The Jehovah's Witnesses belive that Michael and Jesus are the same entity and that he along side God, created the universe.

The belief that Michael and Samael had hand in creation is a Pagan legend. Some say that the two angels that did this were opposed to the idea of human beings and God burnt them and Michael and Gabriel replaced them. The two originals were known as the angels of peace and truth. The name for the angel of Peace is unknown , but the name for the angel of truth is supposedly Amitiel. Others believe that these angels were Samael and Michael. And Samael was the one who opposed of humans. Biblical verse confirms this last theory somewhat. It is said that when Samael refused to use his powers to help create man, he started to defy God and God bannished him to the Earth. In his coming to Earth he brought day hence the name Lucifer. Lucifer Morning Star. Lucifer means literaly 'Bringer of Light', contrary to the beliefs that Lucifer is eternal night. That was Gods new name for Samael, the Angels had their own name, Satan. Satan means literaly 'the accuser'.


There are verses in the Bible that point to some of these statements. It is still up to speculation. I would find them , but that would take some time and I must be off soon.

Check out the above topic that I pasted in my previous post, you may find that topic interesting as well and there are some well read contributors to that thread as well. I think you may have an opinion to that topic. We discuss the 'Giant' topic. Well, save your scroll finger, I will post it again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Nutzo


Edit: Edited for shpeeling

[edit on 13-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nutzobalzo

There are different beliefs to this. The Jehovah's Witnesses belive that Michael and Jesus are the same entity and that he along side God, created the universe.


Yes, I've heard that, but the references to Michael in the Book of Daniel and Revelation cast doubt on that belief. Michael is called "the archangel" in Jude 1:9. I think if the early Christians believed Michael and Yahshua were the same person, they would have been a little clearer about it. Also, the Book of Enoch, seems to place Michael on about the same level with the other angels: Gabriel, Raphael, Suryal, and Uriel.

1Then Michael and Gabriel, Raphael, Suryal, and Uriel, looked down from heaven, and saw the quantity of blood which was shed on earth, and all the iniquity which was done upon it, and said one to another, It is the voice of their cries;
2The earth deprived of her children has cried even to the gate of heaven.
(The Book of Enoch, Chapter 9, Translated from Ethiopic by Richard Laurence, London, 1883.)



Originally posted by nutzobalzo
Biblical verse confirms this last theory somewhat. It is said that when Samael refused to use his powers to help create man, he started to defy God and God bannished him to the Earth. In his coming to Earth he brought day hence the name Lucifer. Lucifer Morning Star. Lucifer means literaly 'Bringer of Light', contrary to the beliefs that Lucifer is eternal night. That was Gods new name for Samael, the Angels had their own name, Satan. Satan means literaly 'the accuser'.


According to what I've read in Isaiah ch. 14 and Ezekiel ch. 28, the Bible isn't really clear about Satan's opinion of the creation of Adam (ha-'adam, man). Isaiah 14:14 tells us that Satan wanted to "be like the Most High" and in verse 13 he proclaimed "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God". Also Ezekiel 28:17 informs of Satan: "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness...."

Therefore, I believe that Samael/Satan's rebellion had little to do with Adam (who did not yet exist). Rather, it was Samael's pride that led him to revolt against Yahweh and become Satan (the adversary/accuser). He was the first being to choose self-love over love for God, and that is the moment when the cosmic struggle between light and darkness began. As for Adam, I believe that Yahweh actually created him to be a warrior-priest who would destroy Satan. However, because Adam failed, Yahweh is going to do it himself in the form of His Son Yahshua.

At least some of the disinformation about Satan rebelling because he didn't want to bow down to Adam is from the Qu'ran/Koran (which I've read in its entirety).

Also, Lucifer can be translated "light bearer" as well. The actual Hebrew name in Isaiah 14:12 is Helel, which does in fact meaning "shining one". But the title "Morning Star" is a mistranslation in some Bible versions of ben-Shahar/Shachar which means literally, "son of the dawn/daybreak/morning. Some connect Shahar with the planet Venus which has certain interesting implications (although I believe Satan (Helel/Samael) originally ruled his angelic kingdom from Mars).

The Morning Star is actually a title of Yahshua in the Revelation to John. Those who mistranslated ben-Shahar as "morning star" in the NIV, etc. were probably Satanists/Luciferians.

But I agree that Satan has the ability to be "transformed into an angel of light" in order to facilitate his myriad deceptions.

Thanks for the link. I read the first few posts on the thread, and I'll try to check out the rest soon.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The Excalibur theory may hold some merit to it. If a sword of Goliath ever did exist David would have past it down and it would have been a sacred relic of the Jews for ages to come. It would be no far stretch to argue that the sword would end up in the Temple of Solomen along with many other ancient relics such as the Ark and perhaps even Holy Grail. It is well known that the the founding members of the Knights Templar excavated the temple and returned to Europe extreamly powerful and wealthy. The early authors of Arthurian legends can be directly connected with high ranking templars.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Whats wrong with a SHERMAN TANK??? Or a flamethrower?? I would use a grenade before a sword?? LOL.. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Actually in the Hebrew texts of 2 Samuel 21:19 a warrior named Elhanan NOT DAVID, was the one who killed Goliath, a descendant of the "giants" of Gath, at the battle at Gob

The Hebrew text of 2 Samuel 21:19 does NOT say "when Elhanan slew "the Brother" of Goliath the Gathite whose sword was as a weaver's beam..." in most texts. That comes from 2 Chronicles reworking rendition the story after the Exile (post 480 BC)

The plain reading of the text of 2 Samuel 19 reads rather "when Elhanan slew Goliath the Gathite whose sword was as a weaver's beam..."

The AV [=Authorised Version, i.e., King James Version] attempted to harmonize the discrepancy by reading: "Elhanan... slew the brother of Goliath," following an ancient tendency already found in 1 Chronicles 20:5.

These ancient textual discrepancies strongly suggest that the attribution of Goliath's slaying to David may not be the original one.

This is because Elhanan did the actual killing in the older versions of the Hebrew text (not David) , and later it was doctored up in the far more pro-David Book of Chronicles to give David the credit for Elhanan's killing of Goliath the Gathite Philistine "giant". Chronicles also leaves out the Adultery with Bathsheba episode and David's homosexual liason with Jonathan (read 1 Samuel 20 and 2 Samuel chapter 1, final three verses near the end)

The King James Version's introduction of the word "brother" in the Hebrew was to gloss over the internal contradictions about who actually killed Goliath in the story.

You'll also notice in 1 Samuel 17:4ff when comparing the different Hebrew versions of the Old Testament which contradict each other about 20% of the time, ( e.g. the MT/Masoretic Text compared to the Vorlage of the LXX, compared with the Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew variant copies, compared with the Syriac Pe#ta and the Targums) that the height of Goliath varies from 4 cubits to 6 cubits depending on the lateness of the text (the later the text the taller Goliath becomes, sort of like a fisherman's story...

According to an old textual tradition of 1 Sam. 17:4 (preserved at Qumran, in Josephus, and some lxx [Septuagint] versions), Goliath was a giant ‘four cubits and a span’ (6 feet, 9 inches) in height.

A more exaggerated figure is found in the received Hebrew text (MT [Masoretic Text], a late text dating from 850 AD in Leningrad) where Goliath’s height is recorded as ‘six cubits and a span’ (9 feet, 9 inches)...

So much for the holy "Word" of the clan god of Israel being inspired, or even a coherent tradition!



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Amadeus, why are you obsessed with attempting to disprove the Bible? What would you hope to gain by doing so?



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Hey Ischyros:

Actually I am merely showing to some of the theological ignorami that pepper these threads that the "holy" texts of Jews and Chrsitians (oh, and by the way, every other "faith" based on "sacred books" are internally contradictory and full of holes, and often deliberate fabircations by priestly groups---in other words, to warn thinking persons on these threads NOT to take them too literally, or seriously for that matter.

The writings of the Jews (and Jewish Christians who wrote the NT) are certainly not "holy", "inspired" or "Infallible" by any stretch, but mainly works of politico-religious propaganda, and none of the manuscript families match each other, so we have no "originals" to work with anyway.

Have you taken any time at all to do any of your own research on the subject, or do you just sit there and mope?



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus
Actually I am merely showing to some of the theological ignorami that pepper these threads that the "holy" texts of Jews and Chrsitians (oh, and by the way, every other "faith" based on "sacred books" are internally contradictory and full of holes, and often deliberate fabircations by priestly groups---in other words, to warn thinking persons on these threads NOT to take them too literally, or seriously for that matter.

The writings of the Jews (and Jewish Christians who wrote the NT) are certainly not "holy", "inspired" or "Infallible" by any stretch, but mainly works of politico-religious propaganda, and none of the manuscript families match each other, so we have no "originals" to work with anyway.

Have you taken any time at all to do any of your own research on the subject, or do you just sit there and mope?


No, I don't just sit there, and I don't mope.

The Bible and other related sacred texts have proved to me their validity, usefulness, and trustworthiness in my own personal experience. People I know who don't try to obey God's will for their lives are miserable, frigtened, and immoral, while those I know who do to make an effort to do so are powerful and motivated individuals with a sense of purpose and direction which sustains them through good times and bad.

I don't trust nor do I believe all the so-called 'scholarly' criticisms which have been made of the Old and New Testaments. The people who produce and publish such works have an obvious agenda that is not working towards the good of humanity. Why do you put so much trust in them? The idea that the world would be a better place if people stopped believing the Christian God is an absolute lie. Anyway, what would you have them believe instead? What are your own personal beliefs? Do you have any faith or hope in anything?



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Hey there, Ischyros:

It is odd that you use a picture from the Dead Sea Scroll Corpus as your photo-moniker, because those very scrolls re-discovered in 1946 at Qumran DO NOT MATCH the socalled "Hebrew" bible that JWs use for the OT (i.e. the late Masoretic Text family), and the text in your picture is at least 1000 years older---and DIFFERENT FROM THE TEXT OF YOUR BIBLE by as much as 20%.

Christian Textual Scholars for the past 200 years or more have only one real "agenda": to DISCOVER THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS with respect to the founding of "Rabinnic" post Jerusalem Destruction Judaeism, and early Christianity, and to separate the FACTS from the mythological overpainting that common people are not qualified to distinguished. It takes decades of study and perservance to be where I am in this regard, and to be able to look at an original text, (or copy of a text family) and fit the writing into the larger context of human history.

You shouldn't discount the mor than 100,000 scientific studies produced by scholarship (which has produced certain amounts of consensus over textual matters) over the past 150 years just because it has virtually disproved most of the cherished belief systems of "orthodox Jews" (whatever that means) and fundamentalist Christians (whoever they are) for the last 2,000 years...

You're obviously quite ignorant of the complex nature of the various original texts (and their histories) involved in producing the wacked and pseudo-scientific belief systems within Judeo-Christianity, and have no first hand knowledge of the information you are spouting as "inspired texts".

But there is plenty of information out there, provided you take the time to read. Try starting with WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Richard Elliot Friedmann, a student of Frank Moore Cross at Harvard: the book is an expositin of the Graf-Wellhausen studies but carefully re-written for the 21st century layman, and will lay most of your cherished misconceived ideas about "the bible" to rest.

Please try to back up some of your naive misconceptions with some hard information so we can proceed...



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hey there, Ischyros:

It is odd that you use a picture from the Dead Sea Scroll Corpus as your photo-moniker, because those very scrolls re-discovered in 1946 at Qumran DO NOT MATCH the socalled "Hebrew" bible that JWs use for the OT (i.e. the late Masoretic Text family), and the text in your picture is at least 1000 years older---and DIFFERENT FROM THE TEXT OF YOUR BIBLE by as much as 20%.

Christian Textual Scholars for the past 200 years or more have only one real "agenda": to DISCOVER THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS with respect to the founding of "Rabinnic" post Jerusalem Destruction Judaeism, and early Christianity, and to separate the FACTS from the mythological overpainting that common people are not qualified to distinguished. It takes decades of study and perservance to be where I am in this regard, and to be able to look at an original text, (or copy of a text family) and fit the writing into the larger context of human history.

You shouldn't discount the mor than 100,000 scientific studies produced by scholarship (which has produced certain amounts of consensus over textual matters) over the past 150 years just because it has virtually disproved most of the cherished belief systems of "orthodox Jews" (whatever that means) and fundamentalist Christians (whoever they are) for the last 2,000 years...

You're obviously quite ignorant of the complex nature of the various original texts (and their histories) involved in producing the wacked and pseudo-scientific belief systems within Judeo-Christianity, and have no first hand knowledge of the information you are spouting as "inspired texts".

But there is plenty of information out there, provided you take the time to read. Try starting with WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Richard Elliot Friedmann, a student of Frank Moore Cross at Harvard: the book is an expositin of the Graf-Wellhausen studies but carefully re-written for the 21st century layman, and will lay most of your cherished misconceived ideas about "the bible" to rest.

Please try to back up some of your naive misconceptions with some hard information so we can proceed.



Originally posted by Amadeus
Christian Textual Scholars for the past 200 years or more have only one real "agenda": to DISCOVER THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS with respect to the founding of "Rabinnic" post Jerusalem Destruction Judaeism, and early Christianity, and to separate the FACTS from the mythological overpainting that common people are not qualified to distinguished.


This statement does not fully answer my question. You say these 'Christian Textual Scholars' desire to convince Jews and Christians that their beliefs are based on corrupted and error-laden texts. However, it has been my experience that all humans must believe in something, even if that something is materialistic nihilism. So then, what belief would you and others who engage in these studies wish for people of the Christian and Jewish faiths to replace their former beliefs with?

Also, I don't believe we can have an honest debate unless I know what your personal beliefs about the nature of reality are. You obviously have some knowledge of what I believe. I'm not trying to hide anything.


Originally posted by Amadeus
Please try to back up some of your naive misconceptions with some hard information so we can proceed.


I am going to do some more research in this area. However, before I do, there are some brief points I would like to make which have some bearing on this issue.

1. Do you demand that all ancient texts are held to the same rigourous standards of scholarship to which you subject the Bible? All history, and every other sort of document that I know of, has been written by the hand of man. All of the men (and women) who recorded information in the past (and continue to do in the present) have some sort of motivation for putting pen to paper. While I do not consider it impossible that some few people have wished to convey information or an idea simply so that it would not be forgotten, I would argue that the vast majority have had an agenda of some sort, whether good or bad.

As I said before, every human on this earth believes in something, and almost all of them are convinced that their beliefs the best and most true, otherwise why would they would believe them? Now, some may wish to convey the ideas they believe simply to instruct or enlighten, but many are motivated by the desire to control and manipulate others through these ideas. Perhaps there are many more who are themselves being controlled by the ideas and beliefs which their societies and cultures have instilled in them, and they simply and unwittingly pass on the knowledge they have been taught because that is what they believe they must do, or they know they will gain some material, emotional, or spiritual benefit from doing so.

Anyway, my point is that if one wishes to hold a certain kind of knowledge up to a certain level of scrutiny, then everything capable of being known or learned must be viewed in the same light, otherwise such a preference and allowance for one form of knowledge over another would have to be described as highly subjective and intellectually dishonest.


2. If the Israelite priests and scribes edited and rewrote their sacred texts so frequently, why did they do such a sloppy job of it? Why did they leave in all the unfavorable episodes related to Abraham, Moses, and David when they could have easily covered up such inconsistencies shown to be in their characters. They could have made their patriarchs and heroes into unassailable towers of perfection, but instead they failed to extract all the details which revealed them as very human individuals with all the weaknesses and flaws as well as the strengths and virtues. Why leave in such stories as the one in Genesis chapter nine where one of the first things Noah is recorded doing after the flood is getting drunk and passing out in his tent?

There are also details of the New Testament which would have been better left out, such as Mary Magdalene and other women being the first to see Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh God) in his resurrected form and risen from the grave? The witness of a woman was not held in very high regard in most societies until recent times. It certainly would have been more effective to write that Peter, John, James or one of the other male disciples was the first to see the Messiah alive after his death and burial.

Well, as I said, I will do some research into the area of Biblical textual criticism. However, don't forget to enlighten me as to your personal spriritual beliefs, or lack thereof, and your ideas about the nature of reality. These are after all very relevant to the nature of our discussion.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Hi Ischyros:

Actually when I wrote "Christian Textual Scholars" I meant in the sense of "scholars who study Christian Texts" as opposed to scholars who hold to the "Christian" faith, so apologies for the confusion.

You do raise an important point: If the mangled texts of the "bible" (and I would have to include the "sacred" texts of both Jews and Christians, i.e. the OT and the NT) are seen by modern scientific textual research as socio-politico-religious propaganda (not only by their apparent form but also in technical midrashic language, import, purpose, source and content etc.), then what IS left for the modern human to believe in, i.e. in the 21st century?

We are living in the Information Age of Science and Space Exploration, so we would have to cling to ideas which reflect our values in these times, and not cling to ancient values which were only important to our pre-scientific ancestors who believed Fevers could be cured by excorsim of a Fever Daemon (e.g. "Jeezuzz" healing miracles using magical spells such as Talitha Cumi, or rubbing dirt and his own human spit into a man's eyes in order to cure him of blindness etc.)

Clearly, we must realise that the old ways and the old religious attitudes are no longer functioning in any useful way any more to control the common masses of people, who are left quite empty by all the "intolerant of difference" fundamentalist yelling and screaming found today (as in the past) in Christianity, Judaeism and Islam.

Take a look around to see where the tenets of religious bigotry and extremism has brought us in the 21st centuiry. Take an even closer look at the ancient texts in question that these zealots base their acts upon and you will begin to see what the net result is of for example "torah based racism" which is often expressed in acts of racist violence (e.g. in Iraq, and in Occupied Palestine today---and both Jews and Muslims are guilty of this religious extemist violence, their acts based on racist extremist interpretations of words in their so-called "sacred texts").

Don't ever forget what the Zionist Extremist (Brooklyn born) Dr Rabbi Baruch Goldstein perpetrated in the Cave of the Patriarchs in February 1994, when he took his automatic weapon (being a settler in Hebron, he was heavilly armed) and slaughtered in cold blood 29 Arab men and wounding another 87 persons in the process) wall of whom were on their knees at the time praying to their god Allah---butchered by this religious zealot (a member of the JDL among other groups) simply because they were "facing the east" (The good Rabbi was screaming Torah and Prophetic verses while he was busy killing, quoting loosely from Hezekiel chapter 8 and chapter 9, Deuteronomy chapter 13 and chapter 20).

In other words, this is what can happen when people take the "holy texts of the Jews" literally (i.e. "kill them all, exterminate, them, leave notning breathing, women, men, children AND THE ANIMALS...") an entire Weltanschauung which is ultimately based on racist, pre-scientific thinking which has little place in the Information Age where people no longer believe that fevers are caused by Daemons that need to be excorcised, the net result of much of their efforts has done little in the modern world except to marginilise whole populations as inferior (women) or sinful (gays) with an absolute intolerance of anything outside of their own Weltanschauung

In the not too distant past, Religion was very useful for world leaders to manipulate the common herd with (as Napoleon rightly commented) but this has radically changed since the Age of Enlightenment and the dimihshment of the Power of the Catholic Church in Europe, and with the emergence of the Scientific Revolution which began to take off especially since the invention of the printing press).

But Christianity and Judaeism are too localised to be of any "universal" use for anyone in the west (worshipping as it were a MiddleEastern post Exilic Israelitish clan god who uses blatantly racist terms like "Chosen People" (i.e. master race) and among other charming attributes, wants all the Amalekites dead and at times seems to think nothing of of a little ethnic cleansing now and then).


What we MUST do, if we are to survive as a human species into the 22nd century (the antagonism between nations holding to the Muslim faith and the so-called Judeo Christian countries will ultimately lead to Nuclear Annhialiation for most of the planet if left unchecked) is to find a belief system that ACCORDS WITH THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE as well as HAS RESPECT FOR THE PLANET--in other words, rediscover our roots as a species and re-introduce some of the higher aspects of our ancient past such as reverence for Sex in Nature (in all of its forms without pejoratives" where women can be finally re-instated in their proper place as equals to men (and not as socio-economic or even moral-religious inferiors) in society at large, and other groups are not marginalised (e.g. gays).

We've come a long way from burning people at the stake for being homosexual or for even being left handed ("sinister" as it says in the Latin) and therefore alligned "with the devil", but NOT FAR ENOUGH.

We need to seek a TRULY UNIVERSAL RELIGION (or PHILOSOPHY) where there are no CHOSEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE A MONOPOLY on RELIGIOUS TRUTHS or REVELATION, but where there is more of a balance between SCIENCE and THE GENERNAL PHILOSOPHICAL WORLD VIEW, between MALE AND FEMALE ENERGIES and between THE PLANET AND OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, and a MORE SCIENTIFIC /FACTUAL APPROACH TO BIRTH DEATH AND RE-INCARNATION---all of which are wholly lacking in Judaeism and Christianity and Islam---which is androcentric (male-based) and uses racist language ("No Moabite shall ever enter into the Congregation of Israel, not even beyond the 10th generation..." which I suppose counts out King David whose Grandmother Ruth was...you guessed it....a Moabitess).

You ask if I demand all ancient texts are to be held by the same rigorous standards of scholarship as the Biblical material? It would depend on what text we are talking about, whether a cookbook, or a law code, and what words are actually in the text at hand.

We may, say, have only one single ancient copy (made up example) of the text of the Grek Epic The Iliad, and yet we may have at our disposal have 1477 copies of the Hebrew book of Jeremiah, but the quality of the single text of the Iliad may be much higher (i.e. show less sign of multiple redaction) than the 4 different families of manuscripts of Jeremiah (e.g. the LXX compared to some of the Dead Sea Scroll copies compared to the Targums compared to the Masortetic Text, the last of which is a full 13 chapters longer !)---so it is a kind of non question you are asking.

Do you want to rephrase it?

The number of copies of any text is not always a test of accuracy or worth in terms of a text contains but rather that which is actually contained in any given text is what counts---i.e. quality NOT quantity.

And the sheer massive number of copies of the writings of the Jews and Christians only compounds the complexity of the manuscript traditions (more copies, means more tampering with the texts).

2. You mention that if the Scribes (both Jewish and Christian) copied and re-edited their sacred texts so often, why didn't they smooth out the contradictions a little better.

As Friedmann points out in WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?, this is because of what we today would call POLITICAL pressure to retain as much of a given tradition in the combination of sourcing e.g. when Ezra after 480BC had to combine scribal texts from the Northern Priests (i.e. the E and D writers) with those of the southern priesthoods of Hebron and Jerusalem (i.e. the J and P writers), he had to compromise to keep both halfs of the newly formed post exilic state of Israel happy and ended up with a composite document which does not satisfy modern minds, but kept the two rival factions happy (e.g in the Flood story exegesis in the book).

The same kind of political redaction happens today in Congress where the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES "passes" one version of a bill, then it goes to the SENATE, who passes another version of the bill, then it goes to a committee who re-edits the bill and sends up the COMPOSITE BILL to the president for signature. The bill which is signed by the president of the US is often quite different than either version (house or senate) and is a curious mix of language and import. Ditto for much of the "sacred" literature of the Jews and the Christians.

The editing was done for political expediency in order to get a given text accepted (and copied, which meant, survival of the text for posterity).

You might as well ask, Why are there FOUR CONTRADICTORY Gospels in the NT, when there easily could have been a council to harmonize them all like Tatian (later the heretic) did? The answer is that each of the FOUR "canonical" gospels represented FOUR of the LARGEST AND DISTINCT CULT CENTERS for early Christianity (e.g. the centre at Antioch for Matthews' Judeo-Christian Nazorean "gospel", Rome was the centre for the material found in "Mark", Alexandria seems to have been the location for the language found in the Gospel of John the Elder (whoever he was) and Luke's gospel seems to have emanated from Ephesus).

None of these important dioceses wanted their own books (that were read in THEIR churches for decades) to be tampered with, and so the councils in the 4th and 5th centuries "bowed to extreme political pressure" in order to unite these diverse, highly rival and often infighting "Christian Church" centres.

One has to see the complex history behind the socio-politico-religious world in which these texts were voted upon in the councils (the Rabinnic council in AD 90 at Janveh included) to understand how these texts eventually came to be regarded as "sacred": unfortunately very very few persons on these threads knows any of this important background, and come up with the most absurd conclusions, as you will see when you commence your own (hopefully open-minded) research on the subject.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I want the virgin Mary. Why you ask?

Well, a chick that hasnt been dealt with in 2000 years, she has to be pretty horny!



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
I want the virgin Mary. Why you ask?

Well, a chick that hasnt been dealt with in 2000 years, she has to be pretty horny!


Wow!
I aint Catholic, but I have to guess that a few here may not find that very funny...



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Amadeus, you will never get all the people of one nation, not to mention all of mankind, to agree to believe in one ideology without resorting to force or social programming and conditioning (i.e. brainwashing). As long as there are two mortal humans on this earth, they will find reason to disagree about something, and they also perfectly capable of finding an excuse to kill each other. Furthermore, it was not the Christian faith that led to and made possible the unspeakable horrors of the twentieth century, but the rising influence of godless pseudo-science and techonology on the mind of man and his societies. However, the blame is most of all laid at the door of the Luciferian secret socities led by the Rothschild-Rockefeller/Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Thule Society, and others of their ilk.

Man is basically selfish, prideful, and evil, not good. Children need to be trained how to be courteous and responsible; they are not born that way. Most people only do the right thing out of fear of punishment and/or because they expect to be rewarded.

Also, while researching Richard Elliot Friedman, I made the following discovery: [center]The man is a practicioner or at least an adherent of Jewish Kabbalah[/center]

Two of Richard Elliot Friedmann’s (author of [I]Who Wrote the Bible?[/I]) other books [I]Commentary on the Torah[/I] and [I]The Hidden Face of God[/I] advertised on the thewayofkabbalahwebpage which may say something about his religious views.

Editorial Reviews [For [I]The Hidden Face of God[/I])

Amazon.com
The Hidden Face of God is a record of biblical scholar Richard Elliott Friedman's attempts to understand why, after God tells Moses in Deuteronomy, "I shall hide my face from them," God proceeds to disappear from the face of the earth. "Gradually through the course of the Hebrew Bible ... the deity appears less and less to humans, speaks less and less. Miracles, angels, and all other signs of divine presence become rarer and finally cease," Friedman writes. This freewheeling work of biblical and cultural criticism considers the ways modern writers such as Friedrich Nietzsche have continued to develop the idea that "we are finally utterly on our own," wrestles with the insecurities, moral ambiguities, and spiritual doubts that modernism has aggravated, and looks to contemporary science and Jewish mysticism for some clues as to how God's absence may in fact be His way of showing His presence. Without ever lapsing into intellectual laziness or maudlin sentiment, Friedman provides an accessible survey of some of this century's biggest moral dilemmas. And within those dilemmas themselves, Friedman finds hope. --Michael Joseph Gross


Ingram
Seeks to reconcile science and religion for the purpose of establishing a universal moral code for the third millennium, citing three interlinking mysteries that include the parallel between the Big Bang theory and the Kabbalah. Reprint.


Book Description
Bestselling author Richard Elliott Friedman, whose Who Wrote the Bible? was an intriguing took at the origins of the Bible, takes on another momentous theme for the third millennium "to point the way toward a possible final reconciliation of science and religion and to provide the basis for a new moral code acceptable to believers and nonbelievers alike" (Cleveland Plain Dealer).
Remarkably readable, this inspiring work explores three interlinking mysteries: the amazing fact that in the Bible God gradually becomes more hidden; the eerie connection between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, who arrived at the idea of "the death of God" almost concurrently -- but independent of one another; and the extraordinary cosmic parallel between the big bang theory and the mystlcism of the Kabbalah. Bible Review hailed this book as "brilliant, an elegant and learned reflection on one of the central mysteries or the Bible and of modern life."

From Amazon.com

Kabbalah is vehemntly anti-Christian, so his integrity is totally compromised as a supposedly objective Biblical commentator and textual critic.

Also, I'm well aware of all the deception and fraud that goes on in the field of Biblical Textual Criticism. It is a field of study designed specifically with the intent to plant doubts in Christian minds about the validity of the Bible and destroy their faith outright if they can. I don't trust you or the people you have learned from. I know what the truth is, and I'm not going to exchange it for a bunch of cleverly packaged lies. There is a certain being in our world known as the father of lies, and he burns with hatred for true Christians and Christianity (not the religion, which he helped to create, but the authentic faith). He is the god of all of who reject Yahweh and His Son Yahshua.

So then, you can take all the lies you have been taught and send them back to the very dark place from which they came.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Ischyros:

Hold on to your horses !

I only suggested Richard Elliot Friedmann's book WHO WROTE THE BIBLE ?as a good STARTING POINT FOR YOU, i.e. for the non specialist (such as yourself) i.e. in introduce the lay reader to the linguistic complexities of the larger Graf-Wellhausen Source hypothesis (Friedmann breaks this subject down very well to those who cannot read Hebrew or Aramaic or even the Greek LXX for themselves)----his other books are certainly of no interest to me, whatever their subject matter.

I wholly admire for example the linguistic studies of John Allegro in the 1950s and 1960s (which are wholly scientific), but I do not subscribe to his Sacred Mushroom and the Cross Theory of 1970 (which is pseudo- Scientific and done for $$ profit only).

If you want to get into the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis on your own as a starting point on your studies, you may do so at any time, but unless you have the necessary background in Hebrew (especially grammatical) you will come a cropper rather soon.

There are a great many other books, over 200 in print, that I could recommend from other linguistic scholars (with various levels of scholarship) that have all come to the same literary conclusions outlined/narrated by Friedmann about the authorship of the Bible, since the same evidence is being handled.

Friedmann merely writes in a style that is more readilly comprehended by the average reader with no or little theological training.

So my message to you is simply, Don't throw the baby out with the Bath Water...and try to open your mind a little, sheeeesh !!



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nutzobalzo

1 Samuel 21:9
And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

1 Samuel 22:10
And he enquired of the LORD for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine.

2 Samuel 21:19
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

1 Chronicles 21:30
But David could not go before it to enquire of God: for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the LORD


the last two have nothing to do with goliath's sword. The first simply notes that the jews at the time were impressed with it, that it was a nice sword. Why hadn't david seen it previously by the way, it seems like this is the frist time he saw it? I am surprised that there is any concern over the sword. Most armies at this time fought with spears. The philistines are supposed to be natives to the levant tho, so perhaps they stuck with swords for some strange reason. The description of the shield and sheild bearer tho sound more in line a heavy spearman than anything. Perhaps thats why goliath seemed so impressive, becuase he was a heavily armed and armoured main battle line soldier, and david was a skirmisher, a slinger. Tho, keep in mind that there wouldn't, at least I don't think, have been anything quite like greek hoplites at this time.


The second notes that it was given to god as an offering. Not surprising, since its supposed to be god that allowed david to slay goliath in the story.

So why would you want the sword?

Heck, why not take the spinning flamming flying sword that guards the tree of infinite life. Then you could eat of that tree and become a god. Thats what the sword and the guard are there to prevent anyways




Nutzo



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join