Spitzonian Musings: January 2005

From BR Message Board
http://www.bib-arch.org/cgi-bin/tekboard2.cgi

"cross over which jesus crucifi"

Posted by: Srinadh
IP Address: 212.72.6.163
Date posted: Fri18/01/2002
Time posted: 05:59:32AM
Email: subhakarasrinadh@hotmail.com
can any one tell me what happend to the original cross over which jesus crusifide. Is it every found ?

Posted by: Harry

Ah! A seeker after the true cross. How wonderful! Of course we can trace from the contemporary documents the history of these venerable boards.
The Romans put the cross up for sale at the used lumber yard (45 CE) and they were purchased by one Chymee Bar Yachy who made some very nice end tables from it. These were left to his son Yosie bar Chymee Who modified them by carving some very pretty floral decorations into them. Many years later during the crusades Raphy bar Schlomo (a rather crude fellow) chopped up these pretty end tables to furnish tooth pick size pieces of the Cross to the lucrative pieces of the true cross trade. It is suspected that after he had sold all of the pieces of the true Cross that he continued in the business By chopping up other peoples crosses causing mayhem and confusion in the fragments of the true cross market. It is hoped that with the new modern tools of Radio carbon dating and genetic analysis we will soon be able to determine the real from the bogus fragments so that our lucrative fragment business can make a comeback.

Posted by: Harry
I just received the 1st answer to my post (off line so I won't take the liberty to copy it here).
A few years ago I was scammed by a Discover Magazine April fools joke about an Arctic Ice Mole that drilled through the Ice with a heat producing organ atop it's head.
The e-mail from Eric politely but skeptically asks me to verify my tall story. I could spin more creative silliness but instead I decided to fess up.

Hi Eric

Please excuse my inability to resist the temptation to have some fun with Srinadh's very innocent question.
Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans in the first century so it is very likely that the cross (the cross of Yeshua bar Yoseph) was reused many times on many unfortunate victims of the Roman Empire's version of law and order. The Cross did not become an object of veneration till many years after the Crucifixion so it is unlikely that anyone would have kept track of it. It is also certain that for the average first and second century Jews and Jewish followers of Yeshua, the Cross would have been a highly repulsive object. Imagine how we would react to a Religion that venerated an image of a noose or an electric chair.
There really was a trade in bogus fragments of the Cross during the Middle Ages. Many gullible Christians were taken in by this scam but the names of the perpetrators have been lost to History (as far as I know)
Thank You for giving me the opportunity to correct my embarrassing typos.

Harry Spitz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Warning label "
Posted by: Harry

In Jewish tradition the study of Kabala is considered so dangerous that only married men over 40 years old are allowed to enter into Kabalistic study.
Since the Bible contains explicit sex and violence, rape and incest shouldn't we shield young children from this potently dangerous text? Should the Bible get a triple X rating? At what age should children be allowed to read the Bible?
It is evident from this message board that the Bible can have a very dangerous influence over the immature.
Leading some into a demon haunted world of madness.
The Bible like tobacco and alcohol needs a warning label:

"This is an ancient text written for mature minds only! Children under 18 should not attempt to read this without Parental supervision. Unsupervised reading by the immature could lead to madness or death!"

This is just a first draft for the warning label which I believe should be placed on all Bibles if anyone out there would like to add to or write an alternative warning label I would appreciate your help.

Posted by: Glenn
IP Address: 203.124.2.57
Date posted: Sat18/05/2002
Time posted: 21:04:22PM
Email: gdecruz@singnet.com.sg
Recently a young person who loves to read the Bible became rather despondent when she came across Psalm 137:8-9; "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator,
Happy shall he be who requites you,
with what you have done to us,
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
She was shocked.
Of course there are many more texts from the Bible that explicitly condone and some cases God seems to be the one who destroys or advocates violence and bloodshed. The book of Joshua is another example.
I agree with you that the Bible is not a book that should be placed in the hands of young or immature people, unless they have guidance by a trained and mature person, grounded perhaps in the critical-historico method of understanding the bible. But to expicitly put a label on the bible, like alcohol, I am not very sure of that.
Thank you.
"Evolution is for Believers too"

Posted by: Harry
True bible believers already believe that legless snakes evolved from a talking serpent with legs.
So scientists and believers can agree that snakes had ancestors that walked on 4 legs. Bible believers know this to be true since it is stated to be so in the God inspired text of Genesis and scientists know this to be true because snake skeletons have residual hips. Of course for you believers, snakes had their legs taken away as punishment for introducing mankind to sin, and for scientists the legs slowly lost their function over many generations of crawling and then the snake ancestors with bigger useless appendages started losing the survival competition to their buddies with smaller useless appendages until only the more stream lined legless snakes were left (thus the saying "if ya don't use it ya lose it).But why quibble over trivial details the main thing is that we can rejoice in the fact that we all can agree, believers and agnostics alike that the wonderful legless snakes evolved from serpents with legs.
Just as with the snake the skeletons all cetacean skeletons show evidence of ancestor limbs they have toes and many other residual traits of terrestrial animals. Maybe the whales had a bad ancestor who offended God by being gluttonous or prideful. Maybe the good Lord rewarded the cetaceans for some virtue or another and turned their feet into flippers.
Anyway the snake in the Garden of Eden (Jesus Christ according to one branch of the ancient Gnostics) points the way to resolve the evolution issue once and for all. Evolution is blessed by God.

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.221
Date posted: Sun12/05/2002
Time posted: 18:14:13PM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
What kind of weirdness is this? Evolution is false, creation is truth, period. As you said, the snake was cursed because of what happened in the garden of Eden. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. God created everything just the way He wanted it and there's no evolution involved. Period.
Posted by: Harry
So Vicki
We agree that the talking serpent was punished and the fact that modern snakes crawl on their bellies and have no legs is a product of that punishment.
Once we accept this who knows what other interesting punishments and rewards were handed out to the creatures of the earth.
PS- How do you feel about other talking animals? How about Balaam's Ass? What about Mr. Ed?
I must admit that I too have a weakness for talking animals.

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 205.183.31.120
Date posted: Thu16/05/2002
Time posted: 08:46:13AM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
Baalam's talking donkey was for a special occasion. God can do as he chooses. If he can't get a human to speak, he can allow an animal to speak. He is the sovereign Creator of all things. As for Mr. Ed, you knows as well as I that that's just a fictional tv show. You're just trying to be funny or irreverent or who knows what.

Posted by: Garrett
IP Address: 208.165.184.253
Date posted: Thu16/05/2002
Time posted: 13:30:54PM
Email: jpgarrett@hotmail.com
You are so smart Harry. Why do we even need this message board? Instead of posting opinions, we could just ask Harry. In return, we get a smart remark and an insult. The only truth that should matter to you is that you don't know everything. The great thing is that the Bible promises Christians we will be made fun of for our beliefs and we should rejoice - for the reward is great. What do you have to look forward to?

Posted by: Oun Kwon IP Address: 66.67.72.39 Date posted: Sat11/05/2002 Time posted: 15:25:45PM Email: kwono@upstate.edu Why on earth do you have to see that the snake in the Garden of Eden story has four legs. Why not just take it as a snake we see now, regardless of whether one believes what it means by 'evolution'. P.S. Everything is evolving (sole exception be the Godhead). In that sense I might be called an evolutionist. Like a Greek philosophy 'everything is flow' I am not what I am as I have just written this up. To understand the problem of evolution, however, we have to separate out among all the observations and arguements of the evolution party and accept the facts and the proven theories but hold off the assumptions, the hypothesis, the motivation behind (getting rid of God), etc. Their theory (actually hypothesis) itself has been evolving so much with discoveory of nature of inheritance and genetics, genome elucidation. What we have to take up is their 'macroevolution' HYPOTHESIS (NOT THEORY) (such as apes, chimps, can become human beings given millions and possibly billions years to chance to work out!), which is something the believer will not accept. (Of course, they say it is not chimps becoming human being, but from common ancestor. This is a just round-around arguement but basically what they say is that they themselves are descendants of chimps.) For the believer community this may be no problem by just letting them to be descendants of chimps. The problem, however, we have to deal is their effort (political, social, and philosophical as well as scientific) of trying to make us the believers also descendants of ape-chimps and of changing the world order to fit their humanistic agenda(the examples are (a) humanist takeover of our educational system and (b)eugenic movement, Nazi movement, materialistic political movement, such as communism). My best regards, Oun. Posted by: Harry
Oun
I just reread the Genesis passages about the serpent. Sure enough my impression that there was a specific mention of legs was untrue. I would still maintain that when God says
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life."
it is implied that the serpent was deprived of its feet as a punishment.

In zoology animals are classified into various groups. The canines include wolves, coyotes, and dogs. The felines include lions, tigers, and cats. Apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans.
We not only evolved from apes but we are apes (bible believers too).
Since the Gods are all human inventions they do indeed evolve and become more complex and more sophisticated as we develop in our complexity.
Knowledge of the way things work is power and it can be used in good or evil ways.
When Prometheus brought us fire he not only gave us the power to cook and stay warm in winter but he also gave us a terrible weapon of war.
We can use our knowledge for good or evil. Knowledge of disease gives us medicine and germ warfare.
Your warning about the excesses and evil that science and pseudo science can and has lead us into should be heeded but we can also write a list of horrors that religions have brought upon us. We must learn to control our evil impulses but I think that we don't have to shield our selves from the truth to do that.

HS

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 205.183.31.120
Date posted: Thu16/05/2002
Time posted: 10:36:32AM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
Excuse me, but I'm NOT an ape and also I didn't create God, He created me and everything else. You just want to talk talk talk and analyze everything to death when the simple truth is staring you right in the face and you won't see it becaue satan, the god of this world, has blinded your eyes. So sad!
Posted by: Harry
If you are not an ape then you are not human. Humans are all members of the great ape family.
I have had to reread your short invective several times. Your strange and incredible "Satan, the god of this world"statement stands out and makes me wonder what kind of theology you subscribe to.
Do you believe that Satan is a God? Are you a polytheist? If Satan is the God of this world what world is God, God of?

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 205.183.31.120
Date posted: Fri17/05/2002
Time posted: 08:26:44AM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. You really need to get into God's word, sir. The devil is real according to God's word and he desires to be worshipped and he IS in control over our world system. People can make "gods" out of anything they want but there is only one true God who created heaven and earth. I have no interest in what evolutionist have to say. Evolution is only a theory, it can't be proven as fact. No matter what you or anyone else says human beings aren't apes, nor did we evolve from apes. We are a unique and distince creation from the animal kingdom. We will live forever in either heaven or hell whereas when an animal dies, it simple ceases to exist. There are creation scientists out there who accept the Bible's creation story. It makes a lot more sense to believe in an intelligent Creator that ramdom evolution or a "big bang" theory. That everything started from a big mass of rock that exploded in space. Evolutionists have only begged the question because they haven't answered where that big rock came from. There's a scripture that says that people will be without excuse before Him because they can plainly see the things God has made and the evidence for His existence. I think some people want to find "proof" that God doesn't exist and we owe are existence to chance. They know that if they admit there's a God, they will have to be subject to Him and they don't want that. I could go on and on but if you've already made up your mind, what good would it do. My prayers are with you. Bottom line, friend, is that you will live forever. God will not allow sin in His presence and He has provided a way to Him and that ONE way is through Christ.

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.178
Date posted: Fri17/05/2002
Time posted: 07:49:23AM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
satan is not God. By calling him what I did I simply mean he is in control of the world system as should be quite evident. I believe there's a scripture about it, I'll have to look it up. I believe in the God of the Bible as expresses in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not in plural gods. Satan is in control of this world system so therefore he's called the god (little g) of this world. He's a false god.
He wanted to be God, that's why he was kicked out of heaven

Subject: "Bad Book Review"

Reply: Oun Kwon Fri10/05/2002 Reply: Harry Mon29/04/2002 Posted by: Kyle IP Address: 63.78.125.196 Date posted: Sun28/04/2002 Time posted: 21:18:27PM Email: K_shink@yahoo.com In a Syro-Palestinian Archaeology class at a small Southern Baptist college, we were assigned Crossan and Reed's book Excavating Jesus to read and review. Let me just say that it is not worth the time spent. My professors attempt was to make us read it critically, but it is hard to be critical with something so terrible. Posted by: Harry
I agree that is just about the worst book review I have ever read. Please tell us why was this book so terrible?

"Murders in Acts"

Posted by: Harry
Who murdered Ananias and Sapphira? The book of acts accuses God of this barbarous act Peter has always been my prime suspect. This story was mentioned in the letters section of BR a while back in a letter that wasn't supposed to be published. Pretend that this happened in some strange cult. What would you think then?
Acts 5
1 But a man named Anani'as with his wife Sapphi'ra sold a piece of property,
2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, "Anani'as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
5 When Anani'as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8 And Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much." And she said, "Yes, for so much."
9 But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

Posted by: jmark
IP Address: 204.33.34.119
Date posted: Tue23/04/2002
Time posted: 22:38:35PM
Email: jmark@msn.com
Mark 11
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him

Acts 23
1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.
11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
13 And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.
14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.
15 Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.
16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
17 Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him.
18 So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee.
19 Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me?
20 And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly.
21 But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.166.7
Date posted: Tue23/04/2002
Time posted: 19:56:32PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
James 1:13-15
Hebrews 10:26-31

Posted by: Harry

Kevin
There is a joke about a bunch of guys who have been in prison so long that they all know all of each others jokes, so they decide that they would number all of the jokes that they know and call out the numbers instead of telling the jokes. One of the prisoners yells out 3,427 and all the other prisoners crack up laughing.
The rest of the joke is not relevant in this discussion.
I know that you must work hard to find just the right passages to express just the right thought, but I would really like to read your own words.

Posted by: jmark
IP Address: 199.182.93.243
Date posted: Wed24/04/2002
Time posted: 10:46:45AM
Email: jmark@msn.com
Who murdered Ananias and Sapphira? The book of acts accuses God of this barbarous act Peter has always been my prime suspect. This story was mentioned in the letters section of BR a while back in a letter that wasn't supposed to be published. Pretend that this happened in some strange cult.

Herodotus: "the ancient Egyptian deity "Amen" is Zeus"

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (third edition): "Amen is Zeus"

Romans called Zeus, "Jove"

Jove, Jahveh, Jahweh: "J-V"
Jehovah: "J-V" (excusing the vowels which were not present).

Speaking of "cults"!

Reply: Harry Wed24/04/2002 Posted by: Tanya IP Address: 12.230.10.42 Date posted: Tue23/04/2002 Time posted: 03:04:17AM Email: nique_amidala@attbi.com My only comment--did you steal that title from Agatha Christie? Kudos if you did! One of my favorite books! "degree w/o evolution"

Posted by: Jennifer
IP Address: 192.152.100.50
Date posted: Thu18/04/2002
Time posted: 16:58:13PM
Email: jennifer.spiegel@donet.com
Can someone please tell me where in the U.S. I can get a degree in Archaeology without having to study evolution????

Posted by: Harry
I can sympathize with your predicament I once wanted to learn to be an ocean navigator but all the courses that were available insisted that I subscribe to the fallacious round earth theory, as a committed flat earth believer I found this untenable after all the earth is flat and a good navigator should not have to break faith with the 4 cornered earth that was good enough for our ancestors. Then I wanted to be a Meteorologist but the teachers kept insisting that lightning was caused by "electromagnetic atmospheric disturbances". As a committed believer in the Norse God Thor, the great thunderer, I was highly offended and quit the class. Finally I wanted to be an astronomer. Would you believe the gall of those ridiculous ivory tower professors, Astronomy, with out the signs of the zodiac, without the Greek Gods? What kind of astronomy is that? What ever happened to predicting the rise and fall of kings? What ever happened to for seeing the future? Needless to say I quit that course too.
It is a hard life for the committed believer, please don't confuse us with the facts.
Remember what Ad Reinhart said "Art critics are to Artists as ornithologists are to the Birds". I would like to paraphrase.
Archaeology is to evolution as rocks are to the Bible. Take that you Ungodly evolutionists.
I think that I did see an ad for a correspondence Archaeology course on the back of a book of matches. I think it said something about being "evolution free". If I start smoking wacky weed again I'll keep an eye out for this ad and I'll be sure to forward it to you.

Posted by: Tanya
IP Address: 12.230.10.42
Date posted: Fri19/04/2002
Time posted: 19:10:38PM
Email: nique_amidala@attbi.com
Unfortunately, nowhere. But I agree with the one reply that states it's ok to study it, you don't have to believe it. I'm in the same situation, and I purposefully decided to attend a secular university precisely because I was going to be taught evolution. As the one ass who replied to you was trying to point out (I believe it was Harry, who obviously has no empathy with people of faith and doesn't understand why this is an important issue), evolution IS archaeology. Even the field of Biblical Archaeology is not free from it, as I naively thought. But you'll never succeed in this field unless you understand what it teaches and believes, and you'll never be absolutely secure in what YOU believe unless you fully understand the opposition. Again, I'm in the same boat. It can be unnerving, but don't rely on your own strength to make it through with your faith intact. Good luck, and God bless.
Tanya
Posted by: Harry
Tanya it's not nice to call people names.
I do understand why this is an important issue which is why I composed my parable to try to clarify things.
Science has the uncomfortable tendency to change our view of reality. It produces revolutions in thought and over turns past paradigms (even past scientific paradigms).
Saint Augustine warned the early Christians not to get into futile arguments with the scientists of his day over the age of rocks (it seems that this was a hot issue in his time) because they would make themselves and all Christians appear foolish (I think this was in "The Confessions of St.Augustine". I would appreciate it if someone on this message board could find the quote for us).
I agree with your advise to Jennifer, you do not have to believe everything that you are taught.
The Bible contains some of the most beautiful prose and poetry in the history of literature. Much of this has the power of metaphor and myth. If one reads this too literally then the metaphors become facts which have no meaning.
For instance- if you were to read the parables (midrash) of Jesus as historic facts then you would lose the idea that they hold a symbolic meaning. It is like looking at one of those optical illusion drawings (M.C.Esher) of birds flying to the left whose outlines define fish swimming to the right. You can see either birds or fish but not both at once.
If you read the Bible as the literal truth, historic and scientific. You rob your self of the ability to appreciate the deeper poetic truths and are left with a bunch of dry "facts". You will also be left with a very confused picture of science and history.
May Oden Bless You.
Posted by: Tanya
IP Address: 12.230.10.42
Date posted: Sat20/04/2002
Time posted: 11:56:29AM
Email: nique_amidala@attbi.com
Sorry for the name calling--I have a temper, especially on this subject, and especially when individuals don't seem to have an appreciation or sensitivity toward another view. I can understand the point of your "parable", however maybe my reaction gives you a clue as to how someone who constantly feels attacked for holding contrary views would take that. You may want to consider that your words may not be interpreted as helpful, and be little more careful to temper your illustrations.
You're right about the parables. HOWEVER, they were--in Jesus' own words--parables. I don't think you have to interpret all of scripture as parable or metaphoric. An event could really happen and still have metaphoric meaning. That doesn't mean it never occurred. How many times does a speaker use a personal life experience to illustrate a point? Just because life can teach lessons, does that make it any less reality? I'm sure proponents of "The Matrix" would say yes, but that aside....
I know all the arguements against Creationism, but one of the most ridiculous--and obviously uninformed--I've heard recently was a statement from a prof: that Creationists (actullay, Fundamentalists, which I would NOT term myself, I'd say I'm conservative, and you can argue that they're the same, I find one more insulting than the other) take everything on faith and don't use any science. Well, anyone who reads Creationist literature would know that they use the exact same science that evolutionists use to interpret data. Why are their results different? They start from a different bias. Evolutionists start from the bias that God didn't create the universe. Creationists say God DID create the universe. I have a long drawn out illustration to make this point, but suffice it to say this is the only difference between the two--the starting point. All the methods used are the same.
Now maybe you're a proponent of the evolution-and-God-working-hand-in-hand theory. I have theological reasons why that doesn't work. The trouble with scientists, philosophers, AND theologians is that they don't seem to have the ability to cross over between disciplines to expalain a thing. I don't think it's impossible. There are some places in an arguement where science or philosophy won't suffice, so you must turn to theology. And vice versa.
Thanks for daring to respond in spite of my temper. Try to remember that message boards and email are dangerous because your reader can't hear your tone of voice. You've got to throw in clues.

Posted by: Harry
Tanya:
no need to apologize I figured out that I was mistaken when I took your Biblical reference to Balaam's truthful ass as an insult. I'm just not hip enough for the room.
All scripture is not metaphoric or mythic but much of it is. For instance Balaam's talking ass, the word wide flood legend, the animals walking 2 by 2 into the Ark , Cain and Able, virgin birth and resurrection of the dead.
Your idea that scientists and creationists are equally biased is an interesting but I think mistaken idea. First of all some scientists who believe in evolution also believe in God and are practicing and faithful members of their respective religions. The Pope and the Catholic Church (hardly a bastion of atheism) has accepted the reality of evolution. Scientists can explore the nature of the world around us without making reference to a God theory( either pro or con). If you want to measure the speed of light you can bounce a laser beam off the moon and measure how long it takes the light to travel to the moon and back to earth. This is an example of how scientists can measure and answer a question in a way that works for the logical minds of Christians , Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists alike. Just because a scientist answers a question without resorting to a God theory does not mean he or she has an anti God bias.
The Evolution model of life works because it succeeds in explaining the living world around us. It explains how life morphs into new forms in reaction to the pressures of the environment. Science is self critical. Young scientists want to make a name for themselves. They want to disprove the theories of their elders. Science has to work or it ends up in the trash heap. Scientists try to answer questions. They are led by the evidence to the conclusions, that, they need to prove. These conclusions are then challenged and tested by their peers.
Creationists start with an answer and not a question. They try to use the language of science to support their preordained conclusions. Creationism is not science it is an attempt to harmonize ( I would call this harmonization contortionism) literature with reality.
Evolution predicts vestigial limbs and organs.
Evolution predicts the development of bacteria immune to antibiotics.
Evolution explains the fossil record.
What does creationism add to our understanding of life? What does it explain? What does it predict? Can it stand up to peer review?
Creationism abuses and misuses the poetry of the Bible and tries replace reality with a primitive delusion.
This is the 21st century. The world is a very real place. We can't afford to live in make believe. Our doctors have to live in the tough real world. We can not allow a delusional creationist pseudo doctor to make life and death decisions that can kill us.
We can not allow our statesman and leaders to live in a childish demon haunted world (a Carl Sagen reference)that can destroy all of us. We need to develop a reality based culture. We need to develop a scientifically literate society. We can not afford to have a delusional public led by charlatans like, talking to the dead, John Edward or religious Con men like the Reverend Moon.
Look at what religious fundamentalism has done to the Muslim world. The Muslims were highly advanced when Europe was in the shadows. Mathematics, Music, Literature, Science, Architecture. The Muslim world was the most advanced, the most civilized but now the fundamentalists are now dragging these once great people into a malaise of magical thinking, leading them into a murderous suicidal rage.
This is not a joke our civilization is being threatened.
I am not a proponent of the evolution-and-God-working-hand-in-hand theory. I am a proponent of the I don't know what I don't know (a Wittgenstein reference)theory. In the old days map makers would draw a map of the world which would be pretty good at showing the area of the world that the map maker knew and would actually make up out of whole cloth those areas that the map maker knew nothing about. I try not to pretend to know what I don't know. Kind of Gnosticism in reverse.
I am not anti-religous. I just don't think that we should allow a bunch of old dead guys run our lives at least not without asking a few questions.
I do interior renovations and I very often have to take apart the work of old dead carpenters. Sometimes it is a marvel how good their work is but some times you come across really bad work. Just because people are old and dead doesn't mean they were good. This goes for old dead writers too even ones with holy pretensions.

Posted by: JGarrett
IP Address: 208.165.184.253
Date posted: Mon06/05/2002
Time posted: 16:57:55PM
Email: jpgarrett@hotmail.com
The funny thing is about those who scoff at creationism is that if there isnt a Creator, where did the first evolutionary cell come from? the Big Bang? where did the Big Rocks from the Big Bang come from? Where did the chemical reactions from that created the Big Rocks from the Big Bang come from? To say that those who believe in a Creator are trying to take Tall Tales and hold on to them for some sort of truth miss the point that ANY belief in ANY form of evolution also begins with such a Tale. With everything we know TODAY, it STILL makes more sense that someone HAD to start this thing off. There had to be someone there to create this world. The next logical question that comes from those who don't believe in a Creator is where does the Creator come from? Good Question - but what we still know today (and see everyday) is that everything that exists has to start with a Creator. There has to be a God. Nothing else makes sense. As illogical as it is to believe that a Creator came before the creation, it is EVEN more illogical to think the creation came without a Creator.
Posted by: Jennifer IP Address: 192.152.100.50 Date posted: Thu25/04/2002 Time posted: 13:26:08PM Email: jennifer.spiegel@donet.com Thank you for a great laugh!
Posted by: Scott
IP Address: 207.170.35.10
Date posted: Mon22/04/2002
Time posted: 12:19:09PM
Email: slthom@arkansas.net
Sounds like Harry can't decide what he wants to be....Maybe you should start by being a Christian?

Posted by: Harry
Scott:
Elaborate please.

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.165.17
Date posted: Fri19/04/2002
Time posted: 19:55:51PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
Isaiah 40:22
Ecclesiastes 1:6,7
Isaiah 29:16
Proverbs 26:18,19

Posted by: Sheerahkahn
IP Address: 198.16.9.10
Date posted: Thu18/04/2002
Time posted: 19:34:35PM
Email: Sheerahkahn@yahoo.com
So far, from my observation, Christian college degrees (which are the only ones I know of that do not teach with evolutionary content) are only valued for non-science diplomas. You may want to study another field if your looking for a career.

"The Children of Abraham "
Posted by: Harry
Can we use the Biblical story of Isaac and Ishmael to shed light on the current tragedy in the Middle East?
Both Jews and Arabs believe themselves and each other to be the descendents of Abraham. Jews through Abraham's son Isaac, and Arabs through Abraham's son Ishmael.
Ishmael as the 1st son would have some legitimate claim to his father's inheritance (The land of Israel promised by God to Abraham's Children)while Isaac as the 1st legitimate son might also claim the inheritance. While this might only be a metaphor for the current troubles I wonder how deeply it festers in the minds of believers on both sides.
Whether this is history or legend the fact that Jews and Arabs are close relatives is evident in their physical resemblance to each other(Arabic speaking Jews have infiltrated terrorist cells and Arabs dressed in Israeli Uniforms have fooled Israelis).
After the rise of Islam thousands of people of all kinds including many middle eastern Jews became converts. During the middle ages Sabbatai Sevi and many of his follows were converted to Islam.
We are truly watching brothers and sisters murder each other.
The Bible also tells a story in which Isaac and Ishmael stand together at their father's grave.
Can religions which are now being used to divide people also be used to find common ground?
Can Jews and Arabs see each other as the children of Abraham?

Posted by: Jennifer
IP Address: 192.152.100.50
Date posted: Thu25/04/2002
Time posted: 13:53:30PM
Email: jennifer.spiegel@donet.com
Harry,

You are absolutely right to make a connection between the current events in the Middle East with the Biblical history of Isaac and Ishmael. This is a war which began over 5,000 years ago and is DEEPLY rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant. The Bible tells us that it is a war which will never be won...it will continue until Christ returns. It is obvious from your previous posts that you do not believe the Bible. So I am curious why you pose such a question, and why you have chosen the BIBLICAL Archaeology site to post your messages?

Posted by: Harry

Jennifer
The Bible is not just a book for the theological inclined. It is also an historical document. It is great literature. It is a law book. It is one of the central documents of our civilization.
I believe that we must reexamine the stories that we tell ourselves. I believe that we must reexamine the stories that the old dead folks tell us.
The Bible was written by people who thought that you could please God by killing and burning animals. We must be very careful with what these people advise us.
The Bible was written by people of various opinions who were on opposite sides of issues.
I don't know if Abraham is really the Jewish and Arab ancestor . But I do know about the stories that they tell themselves. My question has nothing to do with historical truth. My question was what effect does the story of Isaac and Ishmael have on the current situation.
By the way, I don't think that Arabs and Jews are natural enemies. There have been times when Jews had to escape to civilized Moslem Countries from hostile savage Christians. The Jews and Moslems ran Spain together in what Jews call Spain's Golden Age. Maimonides, a revered Jewish sage allowed Jews to eat in the homes of Moslems, who's dietary laws are similar to the Kosher laws but not in the homes of pig eating Christians.
My question had to do with the effect that the stories that we tell ourselves have on our paradigms.
How has the New Testament's charge that the Jewish People some how collectively murdered God affected Jewish /Christian relations?

Posted by: Jennifer
IP Address: 192.152.100.50
Date posted: Fri26/04/2002
Time posted: 09:51:00AM
Email: jennifer.spiegel@donet.com
Harry,

I cannot answer your question from a Jewish perspective because I am not Jewish, either by blood or by faith. I can only answer from a Christian perspective: it was not the Jewish people who killed the Messiah, it was the sins of the entire world (including yours and mine). You made a reference to the sacrifice of animals in an attempt to please God. God made it clear from the beginning that there would come a day when one perfect sacrifice would be made, to reconcile humans with God, and it would put an end to all other sacrifices for all time. That day came when Jesus Christ was crucified. He could have said the word, and he would have been removed from that cross. But he chose to stay and die because of his love for us. It was the fulfillment of God's plan that led him to his death, not an angry mob of Jewish rabbis.

On another note, I have studied the Bible both as a theological work as well as an historical document, and I do believe it to be both. I do not pretend to know all the details of the origins of life. I wasn't there. I am constantly being reminded that I am but a mere human being, and cannot even begin to fathom the depths of this universe. But I do know that however it happened, whenever it happened, God made it happen. I do not see science being in conflict with my religious beliefs. I believe that God IS science. Every universal truth that man has discovered since the beginning of time, was put in place by God. And that's all I really need to know.

Posted by: Zvi
IP Address: 212.150.48.67
Date posted: Mon15/04/2002
Time posted: 23:30:24PM
Email: exta7@yahoo.com
There is no evidence, that Arabs are descendants of Yishmael. Contrary, his mother was Egyptian and father Chaldean, how his descendants became Arabs?
Muhhamed just declared Arabs - Ismaelites, because no other tribes claimed so.
Anybody can do this. Like many kings in Europe and Asia declared themselves descendants of Israelite kings. Why should we believe to their claims?

Not all of modern Jews are descendants of ancient Israelites. Anybody can became a Jew, and join Am Yisrael (People of Israel), so they became Israelite by spirite and not by blood.

In the end, it's not a religious conflict, but a simple territorial dispute. So, why there is so many noise sbout it?
Two reasons:

1. Arabs, which conquered almost all Middle East and Northern Africa, which Arabized and Islamized almost all original inhabbitants of those areas, can't sleep well when they see a small island of non-Arab non-Muslim nation in the middle of their lands. And of course, billion of Muslims, support them in "pushing Jews into the sea".

2. Billions of Christians see our homeland as sacred place of their religion, because Christianity was born as a Jewish sect in ancient Israel.

Posted by: jmark
IP Address: 206.217.211.19
Date posted: Fri19/04/2002
Time posted: 04:39:10AM
Email: jmark@msn.com
First, we must understand the meaning of the word "Arab." You will find that the word in ancient times did not mean what we make it mean today. The term "Arab" meant "tent" and referred to the people who were distinguished by this custom of living. It included many so-called nationalities and was a term that can be compared to the term American, where many kinds of people are grouped together because of something they share. Neither the modern "Arab" nor the other people who now claim the title of "Israelite" are the descendants of the one called Abraham. The events regarding Abraham happened to a people and to a place that is on the opposite side of the world from the place we now call Israel. That will sound offensive to some, and I take no pleasure in that. But I believe that God is about to let us see what has been hidden for over 500 years. I think that most of us will soon be on our knees at what is about to be shown. We will even cry, but the miracle will show us that God still lives.

Posted by: Glenn
IP Address: 203.124.2.36
Date posted: Wed17/04/2002
Time posted: 03:01:34AM
Email: gdecruz@singnet.com.sg
Zvi,
Thank you for the enlightened information Re: The Children of Abraham, and opening my eyes that anyone can become a Jew, although by spirit rather my blood.

Posted by: Harry
Zvi:
I agree with your rational approach in answering my question. I also attempt to be rational about these matters. It is important that the mystical gloss that covers things religious be removed before we can find any historical core beneath the texts.
I never suggested that Arabs are the children of Abraham or even that Abraham (I'm not taking a position here) ever existed. I said that some Arabs and Jews believe themselves to be the children of Abraham. I then asked some philosophical questions about the consequences of such beliefs. I agree that Moslems "conquered almost all Middle East and Northern Africa, which Arabized and Islamized almost all original inhabitants of those areas". Many Jews were caught up in this conversion and their children are now our mortal foes. (no doubt that many of the Spaniards and the Portuguese that I have met are the children of Moranos)
I think that it is very sad that Religion is so good at creating barriers between peoples and I asked if it could be used for a more constructive purpose.
I was pleased by the intelligence evident in your reply and I am sorry if I created the impression that I was taking a fundamentalist stance. I hope that I have conveyed my position more accurately with this post.

PS- Zvi was the name I went by in Hebrew school many years ago.

Posted by: Zvi IP Address: 212.150.102.88 Date posted: Tue16/04/2002 Time posted: 19:07:46PM Email: exta7@yahoo.com Hi, Zvi/Harry :) BTW, when I was working in Mea Shaarim, the old woman there, was calling me Hirsh, I guess it's "deer" in Yiddish: Zvi -> Hirsh -> Harry. I forgot to mention, about theory, that the real Ishmaelite was Hyksoses, and not Arabs. They have few points there: 1. It's documented that ancient Arabs wasn't circumcised. But Ishmael as a son of Abraham, should be circumcised. 2. Hagar had a ties with Egyptian Pharaons, and as we know, Hyksoses, invaded Egypt and based their own Pharaon dynasty. Now to the RELIGION. First we need to define what "religion" is. JEWS HAVE NO RELIGION. The word "Judaism" is a relatively new invention. The real meaning of Hebrew word "yahadut" is a Jewry, and not Judaism. Before word "Judaism" was invented, "Jewish religion" was called "Laws of Moses". In fact it's not a conventional religion, like Christianity, but a way of life, our laws, our traditions, our history, our language, our land - in short our ethnicity. The religious terms, doesn't work here, we do not speak about "conversion to Judaism", but about "joining People of Israel". Also "Land of Israel" was promised to "People of Israel". And even our G-d is "G-d of Israel". So "Judaism" centered on People. And it's all about ethnicity - not religion. Now what Islam is? Islam also not a religion, but POLITICAL MOVEMENT. "Although Islam was created with lofty spiritual aims, and has grown to be the inspiration of millions of worshippers worldwide, one must remember it was originally formed within the context of direct battle against "the West", in the form of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire." from: The Prophet Mohammed, a Jewish pseudo-Messiah http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/theprophet.html sea also: Non-Arab and/or non-Muslims in the "Arab" world http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/nonarab.html So instead of talking of battle of two religions - Islam vs. Judaism, we should talk about territorial dispute of two peoples - Arabs and Jews, or about battle of two political movements - Islam vs. Zionism. Zvi
Posted by: Glenn
IP Address: 203.124.2.59
Date posted: Sun14/04/2002
Time posted: 10:35:16AM
Email: gdecruz@singnet.com.sg
According to an article "Abraham, the father of three faiths" in the Dec, 2001(I think) issue of National Geographic, a DNA test was conducted on some Jewish males and middle eastern male Arabs. It showed that they derive from a common ancestor. I don't know whether the tests were conclusive.

"Was Lot a "good man?"
Posted by: Harry
Was Lot a "good man" as the bible assures us?
First of all how are we to deal with the story that Lot offered his virgin daughters to the depraved homosexual mob(notice that they were not interested) to distract them from their intentions to rape his angelic visitors?
Second the bible narrator tells us that Lot's daughters got him drunk and then took advantage of him sexually in order to have his children. Are we 21st century people to believe this unlikely scenario? Our modern experience informs us of a far different scenario concerning drunken fathers and child abuse.
I am not asking if this is a true story or not but I'm asking what this story tells us about the people who produced it? Notice the similarity in theme and structure to the dirty jokes that modern crude people tell in bars.
Are we dealing with an ancient libelous attempt to depreciate the honor of the Ammonites and Moabites?
Are some of the Bible writers crude jokesters? Are many of us modern readers not getting the jokes?

19:4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, from the youngest to the oldest --
all the people from every quarter.
19:5 And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men
that have come in to thee to-night? bring them out to us that
we may know them.
19:6 And Lot went out to them to the entrance, and shut the door
after him,
19:7 and said, I pray you, my brethren, do not wickedly!
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known a man:
let me now bring them out to you; and do to them as is good in
your sight: only, to these men do nothing; for therefore have
they come under the shadow of my roof.

19:30 And Lot went up from Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and
his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar. And
he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the first-born said to the younger, Our father is old,
and there is not a man in the land to come in to us after the
manner of all the earth:
19:32 come, let us give our father wine to drink, and let us lie
with him, that we may preserve seed alive of our father.
19:33 And they gave their father wine to drink that night. And
the first-born went in, and lay with her father, and he did not
know of her lying down, nor of her rising.
19:34 And it came to pass on the next day that the first-born
said to the younger, Lo, I lay last night with my father: let
us give him wine to drink to-night also, and go thou in, lie
with him, that we may preserve seed alive of our father.
19:35 And they gave their father wine to drink that night also.
And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know of
her lying down, nor of her rising.
19:36 And both the daughters of Lot were with child by their
father.
19:37 And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab:
the same is the father of the Moabites to this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name
Ben-ammi; the same is the father of the children of Ammon to
this day.

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.168.180
Date posted: Sun07/04/2002
Time posted: 22:38:52PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
Jesus believed the story (Luke 17:28,29). 2 Peter 2:7,8 discusses Lot's righteousness.
Posted by: stew
IP Address: 198.81.16.178
Date posted: Sun07/04/2002
Time posted: 21:22:40PM
Email: stewshe@aol.com
Harry,

I'll reply only to a part of your post:

>

The explanation I have heard is that in the community at the time there were very strict rules concerning the rights of guests and the obligations of their host.

If a house was attacked the host had the duty to defend the guest with his life and those of his household. However, having said that, it seems to me that to offer your virgin daughters to a mob is going a bit overboard with the "dutiful host" bit, but then those are just my jaded opinions.

(I recall wondering what the daughters thought about it. Years ago I thought they would probably be hurt and mad at Lot. They would have had feelings of rejection by the mob, and at the same time be grateful for the rejection.)

However, if Lot was a "good man," I assume his daughters would be "good" as well and they would thus understand why he did what he did.

The idea of the rights/duties of guests/hosts underlies many old stories, such as Odessus' return home to find "guests" abusing his hospitality.

(There was an earlier post on the hand maidens or "servants" being killed. I suspect knowledge of much of the rights/duties of servant/master may have been lost, but we know the result was that they must have brought shame on Odessus, hence their deaths.

We do know that the story of Odessus defined the "heroic king" or "master," and, for the time it was composed, it must have laid out in detail what the society considered "right" at the time, just as Lot's offering to sacrafice his daughters shows the extent he was willing to go to do his "duty" to his guests.

Odessus'guests and many in his household did not do their "duty" to their host/master and died as a result.

By today's standards, anyone who offered virgin daughters to a mob instead of a few stranger "houseguests" would be considered a monster, a fool or both, however, having said that, Lot remains a heroic figure in his own place and time.

To answer your question, yes, I think Lot was a good man. However, if I am ever put in the same situation, the houseguests had better be able to fend for themselves!

stew
Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.100
Date posted: Thu09/05/2002
Time posted: 19:25:22PM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
Jesus was and is God. He knows all things and whether they are true or not.

Posted by: Harry
Yes,but what do think,Kevin?
If you read this story in the newspaper instead of the Bible what would you think?

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.165.207
Date posted: Mon08/04/2002
Time posted: 20:28:35PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
I am not fit to judge.
Luke 12:14
Romans 14:4

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.168.103
Date posted: Tue09/04/2002
Time posted: 15:13:33PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
Yes, Moses was omniscient; 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Judgement of Sodom is comparable to Har-Magedon; Luke 17:30.
Lot feared God, not man; Luke 12:4,5.

Posted by: Harry
But was he omnipotent?

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.77
Date posted: Fri10/05/2002
Time posted: 22:19:13PM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
Omniscent (not sure of spelling) means all knowing if I remember correctly. Moses was NOT all knowing. Only God is all knowing.

Posted by: Harry

Stew

I enjoyed reading your reply. I sense that you put a lot of thought into it and that you have thought about this topic before.

I found your speculation that Lots daughters might have felt bad about being rejected by the Mob strange but perhaps a side of human nature somehow contained in the story.

Now check out the same story told again with a different cast in a more gruesome and realistic manner in Judges Chapter 19. What do you think about the part of the story which reminds us of Saul's call to arms ( Saul cuts an Ox into 12 parts and sends these Ox parts out to call all of Israel into battle) the Levite cuts the (dead? It's not clear that she is) Concubine up as a similar Call to arms? This time we are not told that anyone is virtuous. This time we are just told the story almost like a newspaper report.

1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

3 And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

4 And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there.

5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

6 And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.

7 And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

8 And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them.

9 And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.

10 But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him.

11 And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.

12 And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah.

13 And he said unto his servant, Come, and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah, or in Ramah.

14 And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.

15 And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging.

16 And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites.

17 And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?

18 And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the LORD; and there is no man that receiveth me to house.

19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.

20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.

21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.

22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

Posted by: Stew
IP Address: 205.188.193.181
Date posted: Tue09/04/2002
Time posted: 08:58:02AM
Email: stewshe@aol.com
Harry,

I must admit I do not know what to make of the story. The master could have killed her earlier for being unfaithful, but did not.

I noticed in one passage:

>

The threshold was a very important part of a house, something never to be stepped upon. I think she was claiming sanctuary under the laws of hospitality, but am not familiar enough with the customs to be at all certain.

Perhaps the master killed her because he felt guilty seeing her, knowing what she went through in his place?

I will be interested in the comments of others.

stew

"Odysseus Hero or"
Posted by: Harry
When we 21st Century folks read ancient texts we sometimes have to suspend our current ideas about right and wrong in order to appreciate the heros of the texts as the heroes that they are supposed to be.
I'd like to use this Message Board to stimulate discussions across time about our current feelings about what it means to act as a decent human being today and how we are different or similar to people of past times.

The first topic that I hope could stimulate some discussion is the home coming of Odysseus in the Odyssey.
Odysseus comes home to a house full of suitors who are wooing his wife and dishonoring his home. They are there to compete for his wife and obtain his crown because he has been lost at sea for many years and is presumed dead. Odysseus redeems his honor by killing the suitors and then killing the maid servants of his house hold since they have been polluted by their participation in orgies with the suitors. This "glorious" slaughter is the grand conclusion of the book.
I submit that the "crimes" of the Suitors and the Maidservants do not by todays standards merit the punishment meted by Odysseus. The slaughter of the maidservants seems especial offensive.

Is this a matter of Morality vs Honor?

There have been recent news reports about Muslim women killed by their brothers or close relatives for dishonoring their families. Is this a similar concept?

How does this idealized concept of honor inform and affect our current ideas?

I invite readers on this message board to comment.

Posted by: irene
IP Address: 208.51.9.201
Date posted: Sun21/04/2002
Time posted: 21:32:56PM
Email: ijstross@yahoo.com
It's been a long time since I read the ODYSSEY (I was a child)& I don't remember that part. Thanks for reminding me to get back to it. Then I'll be able to comment on it. I think that these tales are part allegorical and moralising, though, and a sign of changing times. I suspect that these were written during a period of time when a paternalistic, male dominated society was taking hold. The Greeks (especially the Athenians) were coming to terms with a equal-opportunity male/female society and rejecting it (read: Amazons, who also were a presence at the Trojan war)and the Persian empire, where women were losing ground as moving forces in politics. This clash of cultures and attitudes within this narrow (a few hundred years) time-frame,seems to also diminish the role of godesses as warriors and huntresses, etc. Semiramis, Diana, Artemis and all them, to benevolent and inherently wise women that know their place, save for Aphrodite, who was, to say the least, lusty (Horrors! a rebellious woman who actually likes sex!)Anyway, slaughtering servants that fraternised with the "enemy",or any sign of disloyalty to "our side" especially women,seems like a calculated effort to make sure that the effect of the story takes hold: loyaly to your kind at any cost (racist)but women are ever at the bottom of the totem pole in this type of tale- destined to be told how to think, act, react, by a male, no matter how long dead. If you look at legends and tales of other peoples, i.e. hindi, gaul, scyth, siberian, slav, and extrapolate back to the same time period it will be noted that there too was a shift in attitudes. The warrior-woman tradition lasted longer in the Gallic/Slavic traditions (Boadicea et al)altho women were still highly esteemed in hindi-type tales as well as others,where women were actually masters of their own destinies. All these tales are a mirror of the times. We still see women warriors, in societies like the Kurds, Slavs, (partisans- Ukrainians, Russians, Serbs, etc.) Gauls, and even further back, like Zenobia, but their days are being numbered. I look at these tales as the sign of the times- the Catcher in the rye, the road trip stories, the peyton place and kinsey report that signal a shift,imply the shift, or validate and solidify the shift in attitude. there is no real justification to the slaughter but save for the fact that if you are a servent to a household, your loyalty is to the house, despite your hormones.Basically, it's all the forefront of culture or propoganda. All stories, plays, poems, songs are. It's no different then than now, with the beatles, stones, nirvana, yanni, kiss, pink floyd, weber, rogers and hammerstein, steinbeck,hemmingway, capote, kinsey, stein, max, picasso, ad nausum.We need to remember that these people are contemporary , the signposts of their generation. If we read between the lines we will see the same turmoil then as now. This is how I will approach the Oddessy now, as well as the Illiad, and Jason. Anyway, I have to go now but I have a lot of probably unorthodox opinions on this, as a female and a history/culture/social anthropology buff. Irene

Irene
I really enjoyed your reply.
I especially like the fact that you seem to see that the past was once the present. For many people the past seems to be this special precious place where all the laws of reality can be suspended. Where all the mundane dreariness of ordinary existence is suspended.
I enjoyed the connections that you were able to make across the sweep of time.
I will have to reread your post a few times. there's a lot going on in there.
Harry

Posted by: Stew
IP Address: 198.81.17.49
Date posted: Wed24/04/2002
Time posted: 16:48:31PM
Email: stewshe@aol.com
Irene,

You wrote:

>

I agree 100%. It is all too easy for us "readers" to get caught up in a story and think of "old" stories like these as being in essence "fiction." The protaginists (sp?} seem like "characters" and we forget they were once flesh and blood as we are.

Another side of the coin is for the "younger" generation to discredit the experiences and accomplishments of an older generation. I recall a girl friend over 40 years ago who was shocked by her great grandmother when discussing something of a sexual nature which she was certain "granny" just wouldn't understand.

Her grandmother had laughed and said something to the effect of, "Honey, how do you think you, and for that matter your parents, got here?"

My point is it is all too easy for all of us, not just "readers," to miss the flesh and blood anguish of another's life experiences, e.g., David in the lion's den or any other stories from "the past."

stew
"Middle East"

Posted by: Yosef
IP Address: 209.214.91.174
Date posted: Thu07/03/2002
Time posted: 13:11:16PM
Email: yjjn@bellsouth.net
Please let me know your feelings about this statement regarding the recent Terrorism and world "upheaval"?

Based on the Bible (Torah), we are seeing messianic revelation
in Israel and the world.

Posted by: Harry
Balderdash!

Who was Jesus's Grand Pa?

Posted by: Harry
Would someone please let me know which genealogy of Jesus is the false one and which one is true? Both Luke and Matthew relate Jesus to King David through Joseph and then both de nigh that Joseph was really his father (a very strange and convoluted maneuver) but between Joseph and David none of the other names match. They can't both be correct unless the suspension of logic is part of some holy miracle. How could such a mix up occur? I can't sleep until some kind person solves this riddle for me. Please Help!
Harry

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.164.2
Date posted: Mon04/03/2002
Time posted: 22:45:39PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
Matthew traced Jesus's lineage through Joseph; Luke traced Jesus's lineage through Mary. But of course, you already know that; don't you Harry?

Kevin
Yes I have heard that, but clearly that is not what I have read in any translation that I have read. According to Matthew Joseph's father was Jacob. According to Luke Joseph's father was Eli. So who was Jesus's Grandpa on his father's side (legal or genetic)Jacob or Eli?

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.165.77
Date posted: Wed06/03/2002
Time posted: 08:33:17AM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
I assume that, Legalistically speaking, it would be Jacob rather than Heli. My understanding is that Jesus was considered an adopted son of Jacob. I am not too familiar with the customs of the ancient Jews. Perhaps there are others who could contribute to this discussion.
Posted by: Harry
Was that a typo or have I missed something? You say Jacob adopted Jesus? Please elaborate.

Posted by: Kevin
IP Address: 63.50.164.231
Date posted: Thu07/03/2002
Time posted: 18:01:44PM
Email: kevinmail@earthlink.net
My mistake. I meant to say that it is my understanding that Jesus was considered as an adopted son to Joseph.

Posted by: ScottT
IP Address: 207.170.35.10
Date posted: Mon22/04/2002
Time posted: 15:36:00PM
Email: slthom@arkansas.net
Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom the Christ was born, is descended from a Levitic family, as the divine evangelists indicated. But Matthew traces Joseph's descent from David through Solomon, while Luke (says) through Nathan. Solomon and Nathan were both sons of David. Now the evangelists were silent about the ancestry of the holy virginsince it was not customary for the Hebrews nor for the divine scripture to give genealogies for women and there was a law prohibiting one family from contracting marriage (with a person) from another. Insofar as Joseph was descended from a Davidic family, he contracted to marry the holy virgin who was from his own ancestry. So they were content to indicate the ancestry of Joseph. Now there was a law that when a childless husband died, his own brother was to go to impregnate the wife and raise up an offspring for the one who had died. Thus the resultant child was, on the one hand, by nature (an offspring) of the second one, who had generated it, but by law, (offspring) of the one who died. Now, from the seed of Nathan, son of David, Levi generated Melchi. But from the seed of Solomon, Matthan generated Jacob. But when Matthan died, Melchi the son of Levi, from the family of Nathan, impregnated the mother of Jacob and generated from her Eli. This resulted in half-brothers with a common mother, Jacob and Eli. But Jacob was from the family of Solomon, while Eli was from the family of Nathan. Then when Eli, from the family of Nathan, died childless, and Jacob his (half-)brother took his (Eli's) wife he generated Joseph and raised up an offspring for his (dead) brother. So Joseph is by nature a son of the Jacob who descended from Solomon, but by law (he is son) of Eli (who descended) from Nathan.

Posted by: Harry

Scott
I don't buy it but I am very impressed. This is by far a most ingenious explanation. Do you know it's history ? I have read something like it before from one of the early church fathers but I am not sure which one (perhaps Jerome or Eusibus).

"Lucifer's Flood"

Posted by: Donna Candow IP Address: 205.188.197.174 Date posted: Sat23/02/2002 Time posted: 13:26:17PM Email: FTBAgent@aol.com Need more information on the possibility of two floods instead of just one. Posted by: Harry
Consider the idea of doublets. That is many Bible stories are told twice in 2 different versions. This is explained by an hypothesis which identifies several Bible writers who's stories have been woven together by an editor called the Redactor. See "The Book of J"
See "Who Wrote the Bible".

Subject: "giants"

Posted by: Donna Candow IP Address: 205.188.197.174 Date posted: Sat23/02/2002 Time posted: 13:24:22PM Email: FTBAgent@aol.com Does anyone have any information on the giant races?
Posted by: Harry
Just a theory and not original.
When people started mining for stone,and for metals. They occasionaly came across strange fossils and dinosaur bones. Tall tales grew around these finds. Thus Chinese and European Dragons, Biblical Giants.

"Lions or heyenas"
Posted by: Harry
In the October BR Janet Howe Gaines wrote an article about Lilith. On page 14 there is a photo of the Burney Relief.
It is stated that she is standing on 2 lions. I am pretty sure that these animals are heyenas.
Please send in your opinions. Lions or hyenas?

Posted by: Harry
Maybe my first post was too uninteresting to receive a reponse so I will elaborate and hopefully make things a little more stimulating.
While reading Janet Howe Gaines' article on Lilith I came accross the photo of the Burney Relief which seems to have caused some confusion since the 1930s. It seems that the iconography of the plaque
is consistant with the figure being identitified as Lilith except for the 2 lions that she is standing on which could make her into the goddess Inanna.
I don't think that these animals are lions.
I think that they are hyenas which would be consistant with the figure being identified as Lilith.
The animals faces not feline and look very much like the faces of the spotted hyena. The line of the animals back slopeing in a straight line from head to haunch is characterisic of the hyena. A lions back would be supple and curvey , the shoulders and haunches would not slope down but would come to similar heights.
Please take out your October issues of BR and check out the Burney Relief on page 14.
Does anyone out there see this the same way that I do?

Posted by: Battleaxe
IP Address: 66.51.193.12
Date posted: Sat23/03/2002
Time posted: 12:03:23PM
Email: battlexe@dslextereme.com
They are neither lions nor hyenas: they are cheetahs. It was during this time that cheetahs were trained to hunting, and have been used for this ever since. Inanna and her family were the first to put the cheetah to this service.

Posted by: Harry

Battle Axe
I took another look and I still think that this is Lilith and that she is standing on or grasping 2 hyenas in her talons.
Do a Google search on "the animal pictures archive" and then a search on "Hyena".
You seem to think that the author of this article has it wrong and that the goddess depicted here is Inanna and not Lilith. Do you have any ideas about the other bits of iconography. Why the talons? Maybe I'm mistaken but I think that she has 2 navels. What's up with that? Do you think that it might have something to do with the theological conundrum asking if Adam and Eve had navels?

Posted by: Augustine
IP Address: 67.192.242.223
Date posted: Mon20/05/2002
Time posted: 08:31:13AM
Email: harryspitz@juno.com
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Posted by: Harry
Augie:

I am so glad that you managed to cross the space/time continuum in order to add you thoughtful comments to our discussion. I hope your trip was pleasant.
Thank you for the wise words which I hope will finally put an end to the acrimony which has afflicted our message board.

I for one do not mind if some fundamentalists continue to give Christianity a bad name, but perhaps your right, perhaps we are wasting too much precious time and space on these foolish and fruitless discussions about Creationism vs Evolution, talking snakes and Mr. Ed.
Perhaps if my ability with words were less clumsy and more eloquent my futile attempt to harmonize scripture with science would have yielded a friendlier response. Instead I fear that I have alienated the very people I was trying to please.
I hope that your wise words will take root in fertile soil and help to dissipate the rancor between those who think that their spiritual paradigm is threatened by science and those for whom reality is a mystery to be explored with the tools that reason affords them.

Thank you again,
Harry

PS- perhaps you could encourage some of your friends, Spinoza, Pocahontas, Aristotle, Honest Abe Lincoln, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Hillel, Madam Blavatsky, Samuel Clemens, and Queen Victoria (John Edward step aside)to favor us with their wise consul to help adjudicate some of the problems we will face in the future.

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.124
Date posted: Mon20/05/2002
Time posted: 12:12:19PM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
God's word isn't dependent upon or subject to scientific knowledge. True science will support God's word and if it doesn't seem to then all the facts aren't in yet or they're being misinterpreted. Since God created this universe and all the scientific laws that govern it, true scientific knowledge won't conradict His word. I'm going to trust what He says not what man's scientific discoveries seem to say because man isn't infallable and can make mistakes in what he thinks he has discovered. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, Genesis 1:1. If He can't be trusted to tell us the truth about that how can we trust Him to tell us the truth about salvation? I'm going to trust what He says, not man.

Posted by: Harry
Vicki
Do you realize that you are arguing with Saint Augustine. One of the founding fathers of your Church
Posted by: Harry
In Jewish tradition the study of Kabala is considered so dangerous that only married men over 40 years old are allowed to enter into Kabalistic study.
Since the Bible contains explicit sex and violence, rape and incest shouldn't we shield young children from this potently dangerous text? Should the Bible get a triple X rating? At what age should children be allowed to read the Bible?
It is evident from this message board that the Bible can have a very dangerous influence over the immature.
Leading some into a demon haunted world of madness.
The Bible like tobacco and alcohol needs a warning label:

"This is an ancient text written for mature minds only! Children under 18 should not attempt to read this without Parental supervision. Unsupervised reading by the immature could lead to madness or death!"

This is just a first draft for the warning label which I believe should be placed on all Bibles if anyone out there would like to add to or write an alternative warning label I would appreciate your help.

Posted by: ciea
IP Address: 142.166.202.133
Date posted: Tue21/05/2002
Time posted: 10:25:37AM
Email: someday_island@hotmail.com
boy harry, you have said some pretty inflamatory things before, but this is a rare occasion where I actually agree. The Bible is violent. Humans are violent. History is violent. But the Bible never drove anyone mad, it may have contributed to thier pain, but a warning label ? I think that may backfire. People who would normaly dismiss the Bible as cute may actually read it, and that could get interesting. And violent.

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.136
Date posted: Sun19/05/2002
Time posted: 16:30:13PM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
Oh brother! Saying that God's word leads to madness and death!
You're looking for excuses to trash God's word. I've never heard anything so rediculous. His word leads to life not death, for those who heed what it says. As for the rape, incest, and murder, His word is merely recording what took place. And it records something far more important: how to receive eternal life. It would be in your best interest to think about that instead of coming up with these rediculous ideas.

Posted by: Harry
David Koresh and his followers. Jim Jones and his followers. Sabbatai Sevi and his followers. Heavens Gate. The Crusades. The Inquisition.
As I said "madness and death".

Posted by: Vicki
IP Address: 67.233.6.124
Date posted: Mon20/05/2002
Time posted: 12:17:16PM
Email: VLF55@msn.com
Excuse me but the people and groups you are naming were't true Christians.

Posted by: Harry Vicki You seem to believe that only "good Christians" like your self read the Bible. My warning label proposal has nothing to do with mature, intelligent folks like your self. I agree that the sex and violence in the Bible is necessary in order for the Bible to tell us universal truths about the human condition but the Bible like other powerful things has to be handled in a responsible and mature manner. I simply think that Children and immature people need to be shielded from some of the inappropriate material contained in the scriptures. Imagine, if you will, a poor deluded Satan worshiper reading the Bible backwards to fulfill some sick purpose. Now wouldn't you agree that a warning label might be appropriate, in this case, to save a poor soul from Madness or worse?
Posted by: ScottT
IP Address: 207.170.35.10
Date posted: Mon20/05/2002
Time posted: 10:51:20AM
Email: slthom@arkansas.net
Mathew 24:5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many.

Spitzonian Musings

Monday, January 31, 2005

How to turn water into wine

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Peter has Ananias rubbed out

Friday, January 21, 2005

My strange discussions on the now defunct Bible Review forum

About Me

Previous Posts

Archives