It is no wonder the first page or every rundown bible study starts with telling the poor mark that their con game is not to be questioned. You have to have a lot of fear (and shame) in your life to swallow such a huge turd willingly.

(November 7, 2011 at 6:28 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Min, I have noticed a mistake.

You haven't cherry picked.

Does seem to be a serious sin in reading this shit.

I'm surprised one of them hasn't shown up whining about "context." Whenever their shit doesn't make sense that is a knee-jerk reaction.

Here's what the book "Old Testament Survey" says about Micah 5. BTW there are several books by this name. The one I'm referring to is ISBN 978-0-8028-3788-2 pages 274-275. I will highlight an important bit in red.

"Oracles of Hope in Times of Distress Michah (4:6-5:9). Two positive messages about the "remnant" are given in 4:6-8 and 5:7-9. They frame three present/future contrasts in 4:9-10,11-13;5:1-6. Notice the term "now in 4:9,11;5:1. The last of the three is well known as a messianic promise (see Matt. 2:6). Like Isaiah, Micah reaffirmed ancient promises associated with the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16), and celebrated in the royal psalms (see Ps.2). Hezekiah's weakness during the Assyrian blockade of Jerusalem was to be followed by a new era of power and peace under a true son of David. Bethelehem is mentioned (v.2) to stress the humble origin of both David and his future successor, who would be a true shepherd of the people (v.4). In its context the oracle prophesises not the birth of the coming king, but the continuity of the line of David. "

I will talk about the dating of the book of Micah in another post just to make things a bit more organized. Also the book I cited is not an Atheist book. In the beginning of the book the authors say that they are most definitely theists.

---

Here's what the book "Old Testament Survey" says about the dating of the book of Micah . BTW there are several books by this name. The one I'm referring to is ISBN 978-0-8028-3788-2 pages 274-275.


"Basic Date. The book's title (1:1) places Micah in the regions of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, roughly 735-700 b.c. the message in 1:2-9 was given before the destruction of Samaira in 721. The appeal of Jeremiah's supporter to the prophecy of Micah confirms his connection with Hezekiah:

And some of the elders of the land arose and said to all the assembled people, "Micah of Moresheth prophesied during the days of Hezekiah king of Jodah..." (Jer. 26:17f.)

the judgement on Judah depicted in 1:10-16 seems to be linked with Asyrian campaigns against the Philistines in 720 or 714-711. The reference to human sacrifice (6:7) is often taken to reflect Manasseh's terrifying reign when the rite was common, but 2 Kgs. 16:3 attributes it to Ahaz as well. So the tradition that Micah, like Isaiah, prophesied just before and after the fall of the northern kingdom finds internal support, The threat of doom hanging over Jerusalem (see 3:12) and the references to Assyria as the prime national enemy (5:5f.) suggest the period between the fall of Samaria in 721 and the withdrawal of Sennacherib's army from blockading Jerusalem in 701. The affinities to Isaiah in the theme and emphasis support this conclusion.

Unity. While the oracles of judgement in chs. 1-3 have generally been accepted as Micah's, considerable question has arisen over dating the oracles of chs. 4-7. The major role of the preexilic prophets was to give a negative critique of conditions in the nation and to announce the judgement that must follow. So scholars look very carefully at messages of hope. They ask whether they came from the prophet who gave his name to the book or from later prophets. Certainly the final, canonical edition of the book gives the impression of coming from early postexilic times. The liturgical poem in 7:8-20 may presuppose that judgement has fallen on Judah and lay claim to the fulfillment of the messages of hope. Most of the messages of hope can be credited to Micah, but often their general content hinders reconstruction of a specific historical setting. What is important is the spiritual message of these prophetic texts rather than their precise historical origin."

BTW the book cited above has an entire chapter dedicated to the problems with dating anything from the OT. It's commonly known amongst Christians as "The Chronological Puzzle". They don't usually teach this in church to lay people but occasionally they do. The standard kindergarten doctrine that they feed people in church implies that Micah did everything as god told them to, at the time he told him to do it,....blah blah blah...

Quote:Bethelehem is mentioned (v.2) to stress the humble origin of both David and his future successor, who would be a true shepherd of the people (v.4). In its context the oracle prophesises not the birth of the coming king, but the continuity of the line of David. "

That of course is typical obfuscation. Since what it says is inconvenient we'll just pretend that it doesn't mean what it says and make up some other horseshit.

Interesting about that line of "reasoning" ( if you want to use the term incorrectly ) is that even centrist archaeologists like Finkelstein maintain that the whole "Davidic covenant" line of shit arose in the period after Hezekiah. The Kingdom of Israel serves as the bad example and it is Judah - under the probably fictitious "Josiah" - which is to take the lead of restoring the country to its former glory.

Of course, the problem with that is one cannot restore a country to former glory if such glory was an illusion. Archaeology shows that Judah in the 10th century was a rather pitiful collection of miserable villages and some wandering sheep and goat herders. No way in hell did it have any sort of "empire."

---

As I said to Justt the problem with dating any sort of literature like this is that we have no examples of it prior to the Greek septuagint in the 3d century BCE.

The closest we come is the Silver Scrolls an amulet found by Gabriel Barkay which contains two variants of the same generic prayer, an expanded version of which ended up in the Book of Numbers. God must be fairly shitty at dictation if no one can get it right.

(November 7, 2011 at 12:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Bethelehem is mentioned (v.2) to stress the humble origin of both David and his future successor, who would be a true shepherd of the people (v.4). In its context the oracle prophesises not the birth of the coming king, but the continuity of the line of David. "

That of course is typical obfuscation. Since what it says is inconvenient we'll just pretend that it doesn't mean what it says and make up some other horseshit.

Interesting about that line of "reasoning" ( if you want to use the term incorrectly ) is that even centrist archaeologists like Finkelstein maintain that the whole "Davidic covenant" line of shit arose in the period after Hezekiah. The Kingdom of Israel serves as the bad example and it is Judah - under the probably fictitious "Josiah" - which is to take the lead of restoring the country to its former glory.

Of course, the problem with that is one cannot restore a country to former glory if such glory was an illusion. Archaeology shows that Judah in the 10th century was a rather pitiful collection of miserable villages and some wandering sheep and goat herders. No way in hell did it have any sort of "empire."

---

As I said to Justt the problem with dating any sort of literature like this is that we have no examples of it prior to the Greek septuagint in the 3d century BCE.

The closest we come is the Silver Scrolls an amulet found by Gabriel Barkay which contains two variants of the same generic prayer, an expanded version of which ended up in the Book of Numbers. God must be fairly shitty at dictation if no one can get it right.

I hope I didn't piss you off by posting the book's information. I was just providing another viewpoint. In my mind biblical archaeology is a jumbled mess. There are a lot of people saying a lot of things. The loudest of which are the fundies (and various flavors therein) who have for centuries explained away and turned a blind eye to the horrors of the OT. I have read and seen on tv some things about biblical archeology that differes from that of the fundies but the information is very disorganized and they rarely cite sources.

Do you know of any organized source for accurate information? Though I am reading about other things right now If you have a good book I could put it on my reading list. Oddly I have difficulty researching information on the OT because I am repulsed by the current political situation. I am also repulsed by the savage primitive behavior of our "holy fathers" and their contemporaries. It's disturbing, makes me want to vomit, it's hard to imagine that people can be so horrible to other people. I can only deal with it in small bites before I have to put it down for a while. It took me months just to read Diarmaid Maculloch's book "The Reformation". I suppose if I grew up playing violent video games (not available in my time) perhaps I could objectify things a bit better, I don't know. I digress

Next on my list is Stephen Pinker's book on improving morality "The Better Angels of Our Nature" http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-...0670022950 . I hadn't planned on reading it but perhaps it might provide an alternate viewpoint to the millenalistic lens that fundamentalism (and oddly modern media) puts on history and current events. I digress again.

If anyone would find any value in it, I could post a passage in the OT book I had previously cited from. It mentions how when the Assyrians took over, OT chronology improved for a while (from 891-648). Aided by this was the recording of a solar eclipse that happened 15 June 763.

Quote:I hope I didn't piss you off by posting the book's information.

Certainly not, it is typical of the kinds of pointless replies they make.

Let me try to straighten out the "biblical archeology" mess for you. First off, William Dever uses the term Syro-Palestinian Archaeology to cover the region which is probably a better term.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries various religious institutions funded excavations which always found some link between their finds and the bible. It was a form of confirmation bias and they concocted a whole history on the basis of it.

Beginning in the 1950's the prevailing view was undermined somewhat when Kathleen Kenyon cast doubt on the whole Walls of Jericho story. Add in the newly discovered carbon 14 dating technique and the old system of using the bible to prove the bible was in trouble.

In the aftermath of the 1967 war Israel gained access to Sinai and the West Bank and teams of young archaeologists spread out seeking to find evidence of their ancestors. What they found ( or rather failed to find) stunned them. Groups at Kadesh Barnea a large oasis in the Eastern Sinai where the "Israelites" supposed lived for 40 years showed no indication of habitation prior to the Iron Age. Others searching for "Arad" found that this arch -enemy of the Israelites had not existed in the Late Bronze Age and, like Kadesh Barnea, only showed signs of occupation in the Iron Age. Meanwhile on the West Bank, surveys found a string of villages founded in the highlands that later grew into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. There was no outside conquest. The Israelites were indigenous to the region.

Since that time archaeology has moved steadily demolishing the bibles fanciful tales. Yes, fundies still cling to books written by preachers masquerading as archaeologists from 1910 but as with evolution you can't allow what fundies say to influence you.

(November 8, 2011 at 11:09 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I hope I didn't piss you off by posting the book's information.

Certainly not, it is typical of the kinds of pointless replies they make.

Let me try to straighten out the "biblical archeology" mess for you. First off, William Dever uses the term Syro-Palestinian Archaeology to cover the region which is probably a better term.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries various religious institutions funded excavations which always found some link between their finds and the bible. It was a form of confirmation bias and they concocted a whole history on the basis of it.

Beginning in the 1950's the prevailing view was undermined somewhat when Kathleen Kenyon cast doubt on the whole Walls of Jericho story. Add in the newly discovered carbon 14 dating technique and the old system of using the bible to prove the bible was in trouble.

In the aftermath of the 1967 war Israel gained access to Sinai and the West Bank and teams of young archaeologists spread out seeking to find evidence of their ancestors. What they found ( or rather failed to find) stunned them. Groups at Kadesh Barnea a large oasis in the Eastern Sinai where the "Israelites" supposed lived for 40 years showed no indication of habitation prior to the Iron Age. Others searching for "Arad" found that this arch -enemy of the Israelites had not existed in the Late Bronze Age and, like Kadesh Barnea, only showed signs of occupation in the Iron Age. Meanwhile on the West Bank, surveys found a string of villages founded in the highlands that later grew into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. There was no outside conquest. The Israelites were indigenous to the region.

Since that time archaeology has moved steadily demolishing the bibles fanciful tales. Yes, fundies still cling to books written by preachers masquerading as archaeologists from 1910 but as with evolution you can't allow what fundies say to influence you.

Interesting. I have heard and read smatterings of this information. Unfortunately, as I have said before, it is disorganized which makes it difficult to see if these archaeological digs/studies had any confirmation bias as well. I am familiar with the "findings" of archaeologists (perhaps I ought to put these in quotes as well but I will be nice) who dug in the ground for the purpose of proving the Bible. There are several books devoted to this. It is also a simple enough subject to preach bits of it in a sermon and in Sunday school.

Do you know if anyone has gathered the facts found so far into an organized book? I don't have the time to read it (I have a reading list of my own to get through) but I would love to scan (read fast not copy illegally) a few if they exist. Also other quick resources would be useful just so I can get an over view. I always prefer books and other sources that cite their sources (that aren't afraid to show where they get their information and leave a paper trail, so to speak, so others can follow it for more information if they need it.)

Min, ever thought about doing some videos on the history and archaeology of all this? Perhaps you could do a collaboration series with Paladin. I know I'd subscribe.

---

(Wow, triple century! I missed marking my double.)

No. I can barely take a photo with my cell phone.

Besides, it's already been done.


The Bible Unearthed - I believe in 4 parts.





The book is better but this isn't bad.

---

"The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silverman

"Who Were The Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From" by William Dever

"Did God Have A Wife" by Dever

"The Quest for the Historical Israel" by Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar

"The View From Nebo" by Amy Dockser Marcus


These are all archaeological books but written for laymen. Real archaeological papers are cures for insomnia to all but other archaeologists.
One reason that fundies prefer their fairy tales is because they are too fucking stupid to understand anything more complex.

Start with "The Bible Unearthed," Zip.

(November 7, 2011 at 10:30 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 7, 2011 at 6:28 am)5thHorseman Wrote: Min, I have noticed a mistake.

You haven't cherry picked.

Does seem to be a serious sin in reading this shit.

I'm surprised one of them hasn't shown up whining about "context." Whenever their shit doesn't make sense that is a knee-jerk reaction.

They might criticize you for not employing proper exegesis and hermeneutics of the text. Essentially how a certain passage of scripture fits into the particular book and the the bible as a whole.