Obama steps away from Israel

There's no evidence that it happened, though. That's guys are basing their assertions on speculatIon and question begging based on those speculations.

I don't accept the Exodus in any form. Tribes moved all the time, often into Egypt into times of drought in Palestine. Interaction means the interchange of views, gods etc. Many of the gods, like goddess Ishtar, are recognised throughout the Middle East of the time, sometimes under other names. This happened later with Roman and Greek gods. The Hebrew religion stemmed from their exile in Babylon. Before that they worshipped other gods. After their contact with Zoroaster. Heaven, hell, messiahs, One Supreme Creator with 2 attributes, personal responsibility for behaviour etc came from Ahura Mazda.

I'm aware that languages change over the years. I'm also aware that the Pentateuch was written by the hands of different Scribes, over a period of time in Babylon.
There were many variations of the Semetic languages. It's not surprising that some earlier writing was still used. Hebrew itself comes from the end of the 2nd century BCE until about 500BCE when it started to decline as a spoken language. As I said ealier, the movement of tribes etc. spread language, religion and deities across the region.

Omrides Dynasty started around 890BCE with Omri (give or take a few years according to various historians). It ceased with Omri's last descendant being unseated by Hazael and Jehu taking the throne around 840BCE.
Are you talking about 'David's' dynasty?

Agreed

The Priestly authors were in Babylon. The other sources were much earlier.

The Elohist authors were from the reign of Jeroboam II in the northern Israelite kingdom (793BC to 753BC).

The Jahwist authors were from the reign of Hezekiah in Judah (729BC to 687BC).

The Deuteronomist authors were from the reign of Josiah in Judah (640BC to 609BC).

And various stories like Jacob, Saul, and the escape from Egypt came from oral traditions from centuries before even the Elohist authors.



So you accept that a band of travelers brought the Hebrew religion to the West Bank area, but you find it impossible that those travelers were escaped slaves?

Why? Was it impossible for slaves to escape from Egypt?

What gave rise to the popular Israelite stories about the escape from Egypt, if there was no escape from Egypt?

When these non-escaped-slave travelers brought this new religion to the West Bank area, what made the new religion so popular if it wasn't being credited for their escape from slavery?



Egyptian records show that the Hebrew religion came from a local area in the region of the Bedouin nomads around 1400BC.

Archaeology shows that the Hebrew deity was worshiped in both the Kingdom of Judah and in the northern Israelite kingdom well before the period of Babylonian captivity. True though that lots of competing deities were also worshiped in this period.



The Omrides were not the only dynasty to rule the northern Israelite kingdom. Jeroboam I for example ruled it from 931BC to 910BC. And other kings ruled after the Omrides, up until the kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrians.

The Yahwist and Elohist traditions are often so intermingled that it is difficult to distinguish them, and many scholars speak of the combination as the ‘Jehowist tradition’. The Priestly writer’s re-interpretation of the tradition is much more clear-cut.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/bkl-genesis1.htm

All these 'authors' and traditions based on the stories written in the 7th century.

Apart from the history of the Kings in the Bible, ( greatly exaggerated) the rest is merely stories.

There are no references to any Exodus apart from the Hyksos being thrown out by Ahmose I, and a few disgruntled citizens being thrown out by his wife while he was away conquering elsewhere.

Neither is there any evidence that slaves were ill treated. Egyptians knew their value. Centuries later, when the Romans took over and Ptolemy led Egypt he treated slaves badly.

The scribes of the 7th century merely concocted the commandments and all the varies health, marriage, food regulations from those already practised in the earlier civilisations. And the creation, flood story etc were simply adaptations of earlier stories.

Archaeology proves only that certain things happened. Jericho was destroyed - not how. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed - not how. Why not earthquakes? They're both close and in an earthquake area. Jericho had been destroyed several times in 9000 years of history.

Ancient history shows the ancient stories are just that. The story of Abraham is just that. He could not have met the Hittites, he could not have come from Ur 'of the Chaldees' and probably never have met the Pharaoh. And 'Moses', who is supposed to have written the story, should have known this. This is all part of giving the Hebrews a history. Many Jews today accept this for lack of evidence. And over 50% of Jews no longer practise their religion or believe in god.

The'religion' changed from Polytheism to Monotheism and if you study Ezekiel his vision was one of a nation centred on Jahweh and a 'religious' nation. This was pursued.

As you say, many deities were worshipped, even by the Hebrews.

You mentioned the Omrides dynasty which lasted only about 40-50 years.
The other 'dynasties' were almost irrelevant in terms of achievements.

Interesting to talk to you

Elohist writings can be discerned by their perspective of being part of the northern Israelite kingdom when it was a prosperous and (regionally) powerful vassal of Assyria.

Yahwist writings can be distinguished by their rewriting of history to claim that David was once a grand overking over both Judah and the northern Israelite kingdom.



That's because they were the final editors.



The Deuteronomist authors wrote in the 7th century BC (court of King Josiah). The Elohist authors wrote early in the eighth century BC (when the northern kingdom began writing all their stories down). The Yahwist authors wrote late in the eighth century BC (just after the destruction of the northern kingdom).

Some of the stories had been passed down verbally for centuries before they finally started writing things down (the stories of King Saul for example, and the stories about the escape from Egypt).



The history of the kings is immensely valuable all by itself. It is also the history of the kingdoms that were ruled by those kings.



I wouldn't expect the escape of a small band of slaves to be such major news to the slaveholders that it would show up in their national records.



I expect that I'd be unhappy to be an Egyptian slave, and would seek to escape.



It must have been a heady time in the court of King Josiah. The Assyrians had collapsed as a power and King Josiah had true independence for the first time since the Omrides.



I've no objection to the idea that they were destroyed by earthquakes. In one of these threads there was just a conversation about Sodom and Gomorrah if you're interested.



Well Moses clearly didn't write Abraham's stories. If the leader of the escaped slaves (regardless of what his name was) composed any part of the Bible at all, it was only that small bit of extra-ancient language used to describe the escape from Egypt. And we don't even know that he was the one to compose that.

The trouble with the stories of the patriarchs is, they were politically unremarkable individuals. History and archaeology deal with cultures as a whole (or with the leaders of those cultures). This means the patriarchal stories didn't have a lot of historical content to begin with.

Not only that, but we don't even have accurate versions of Abraham's stories. When the oral stories of Abraham and King David were finally written down by the Yahwist authors, the northern Israelite kingdom had just been destroyed and Judah had suddenly absorbed a huge number of refugees. King Hezekiah needed to represent himself as the legitimate ruler over both populations while not contradicting the memories that the refugees had of the northern kingdom being much more powerful than Judah had been. The result was recasting King David as an ancient former overking over both countries before the time of the northern kingdom's independent history. And Abraham (the ancient hero of Judah) was recast as the grandfather of Jacob (the ancient hero of the northern Israelite kingdom).

Later during the Babylonian captivity Abraham was recast again by the Priestly authors as having been born in a prominent Babylonian city. The result is a pretty garbled version of the stories of Abraham compared to how they were originally passed down verbally.

I suspect that if we could somehow access the original stories of Abraham and Jacob, we'd find that the stories would say that they were morally righteous guys who lived in very early iron age Israel, before even King Saul, and that there would be little more to the stories than examples of their moral righteousness.

But who knows.



I think I agree, but just to be clear, the Hebrew deity was always a single deity. Early Israeli culture was polytheistic in that people also worshiped other deities in addition to their worship of the Hebrew deity.

There was also a period of transition, when hardliners for the Hebrew deity felt that things should be monotheistic and chafed against those who kept worshiping "rival deities". It is hard to date exactly when this attitude first occurred because some of the earlier prophets' condemnation of idolatry could have been written into the story centuries after the fact. King Hezekiah clearly tried to do away with rival deities though, so this viewpoint was established in the minds of the hardliners by the time of his reign.



Omri and Ahab were a high point for Israeli power and independence, but under Jehoash and Jeroboam II the northern Israelite kingdom was prosperous and exercised quite a bit of regional power as a vassal of Assyria.

After the northern Israelite kingdom was destroyed, under King Manasseh Judah also was prosperous and exercised regional power as a vassal of Assyria. After Assyria collapsed, Judah experienced prosperity and independence under King Josiah.



I'm enjoying this conversation too.

Time to Move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem to Save the Two-State Solution

Oralloy quote I expect that I'd be unhappy to be an Egyptian slave, and would seek to escape. quote

Egyptian 'slaves' were treated well, despite what people want to believe. Homes, families, food for regular work. Archaeology.

Oralloy quote The result was recasting King David as an ancient former overking over both countries before the time of the northern kingdom's independent history. And Abraham (the ancient hero of Judah) was recast as the grandfather of Jacob (the ancient hero of the northern Israelite kingdom).

Later during the Babylonian captivity Abraham was recast again by the Priestly authors as having been born in a prominent Babylonian city. The result is a pretty garbled version of the stories of Abraham compared to how they were originally passed down verbally.

I suspect that if we could somehow access the original stories of Abraham and Jacob, we'd find that the stories would say that they were morally righteous guys who lived in very early iron age Israel, before even King Saul, and that there would be little more to the stories than examples of their moral righteousness.

But who knows.


I agree - who knows.

Personally I believe the stories originate in the minds of the Babylonian Hebrew scribes.
Given Biblical Chronology Abraham is suggested to be circa 2100BCE - Moses circa 1400-1300 BCE. I don't believe that handed stories are a realistic answer at that distance in time.
What was known were historic events and places around which these stories were woven.
The character of the historic King figures in the Bible is down to religious bias. The dynasty of Omri is put to the background because he was an 'Idolator', sinning against 'god'. Emphasis is given to the faithful.

Oralloy quote Omri and Ahab were a high point for Israeli power and independence, but under Jehoash and Jeroboam II the northern Israelite kingdom was prosperous and exercised quite a bit of regional power as a vassal of Assyria.

After the northern Israelite kingdom was destroyed, under King Manasseh Judah also was prosperous and exercised regional power as a vassal of Assyria. After Assyria collapsed, Judah experienced prosperity and independence under King Josiah. quote.

Omri and Ahab were certainly prominent figures. Jehoash and Jeroboam not so. Jehoash had to give way to Hazael - king of Aram - and offer temple treasures. Hazael still killed all the 'princes of Judah'.
Jeroboam's conquest's were simply with the authority of Assyria. They would not have allowed it otherwise.

Manasseh certainly improved things in Judah in many ways. But could that be because he was in Assyria's good books.

According to Assyrian records he helped Assyria against Egypt, provided an Assyrian builder with materials a seemed to be favoured. Judah also had and olive oil industry. All-in-all he had things made - provided he did not rebel.


This is a bit hurried. Hope you understand it.

Oralloy. Some of my post seems to have gone missing. Look back later.

This will merely further the Zionists' agenda and ignore the Palestinians' in any two-state solution.

The Palestinians' solution is to kill all Jews... **** 'em.

So, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem won't save the Two-State Solution, then?

What you are saying is that you agree with those that want to exterminate all Jews, right?

Everything done in connection with Israel isn't required to be designed to "save the two state solution."

Ceding Jerusalem entirely to the Palestinians is never going to be part of any two state solution and the sooner the Palestinians realize this, the better.

As it stands now they refuse the obviously necessary recognition of the right of a Israel to exist, and yes, as a Jewish State, and the cessation of attacks against Israelis, so what difference does the status of Jerusalem make?

Nope.

The opinion piece that I responded to asserted that moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would help to save the Two-State Solution, however.

I was responding to that assertion.

OK

But it is possible that it could if it convinces the Palestinians to give up their claim to Jerusalem.

I'm not confident that it will, but it's not way outside the realm of possibility.

At this point in time, any Two-State Solution would merely force the Palestinians to conceding to the Zionists' terms. They wouldn't be negotiating; they'd be capitulating. I don't see that occurring at all.



WaPo story

At this point in time, any Two-State Solution would merely force the Israelis to concede to the Jew haters terms of annihilation.

So, you're opposed to a two-state solution. What's your alternative?