Posted on 01/17/2007 10:38:52 AM PST by Hal1950
Originally appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 21, 2000, p. A19.
Wow. I wasn't aware that Judaism had it's own flaky revisionist version of the Jesus Seminar folks.
and since then, trashed.
Ze'ev Herzog invited such a comparison by concluding his Ha'aretz article with an explicit linkage to modern Israeli history: "It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women -- but is not up to adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye," he wrote.
To me, it sounds like he's the one with the agenda.
This tissue of incompetent blasphemy is right up your alley.
What a flaming idiot!
Interesting.
Where the scriptures translate in verse 5:2 of Daniel, the Hebrew word av to read father, it can also be translated as ancestor or predecessor; Belshazzar was not the direct son of Nebuchadnezzar but he was descended from him through his mother who married Nabonides.
Nabonides is considered the last great king of Babylon. His relationship with the previous Kings of Babylon is unclear, perhaps he was once a great general, but he came to the throne by overthrowing a young king named Labashi-Marduk. It is likely Nabonides substantiated his claim to the throne by marrying Nitocris, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, since he was not a blood relative to Nebuchadnezzar.
Being a religious eccentric, in 549 BC Nabonides left Babylon to live at Teyma (Tema) located in what is now Saudi Arabia northeast of Hijaz, where the ancient trade route between Medina and Dumah crosses the Nefud desert. Tayma is approximately 400 kilometers north of Medina. While on religious sojourn Nabonides left his son behind to rule in Babylon, but Belshazzar never fully came to the throne.
Skeptics believed that the writer of Daniel made an historical error in calling Belshazzar king, but when Belshazzar told Daniel that if he could interpret the strange writing on the wall he (Daniel) would be granted authority in the kingdom as third ruler, the scriptures show a detail which lends credence to the account. Belshazzar was not the first ruler of the kingdom, but he was in a secondary position, appointed to reign in Babylon while his father was away. By Babylonian tradition, all in the city with the secondary ruler would call him king. Belshazzar offered to Daniel third position, so the writer of the Book faithfully related the fact as a minor detail, and then much later archaeological evidence substantiated the trivia.
These findings in archaeology show that the writer of Daniel was telling of a real man named Belshazzar, thus the other details are likely true, also. These were no fables.
It is interesting to note that in the past some people stamped this passage and all of the Book of Daniel as mere myth-telling because Historians didnt believe there was such a king as Belshazzar who ever reigned in Babylon. But in 1854, a member of the British Consul was exploring ancient ruins in southern Iraq and dug into a great tower built there. He found a time capsule: clay cylinders inscribed with cuneiform writing; the cylinders were inscribed at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C., and commemorated repairs the king made to the tower; they included a prayer for long life of Nabonidus and his oldest son, Belshazzar, proving Belshazzar was not a fictional character.
..."In our last newsletter, we examined the route taken by Moses and the great multitude as they fled Egypt. We will now examine the evidences which tell us exactly who were the Egyptian royalties involved and the approximate date the Exodus occurred. This is a subject that gets quite involved and we will only be able to present a bare frame of reference in this publication. Bear with us, as we will attempt to present a large amount of information in a short space.
From Ancient History and Archaeology: Insights into Biblical Understanding
In the last few centuries, scholars proclaimed there was no evidence for most events in the Biblical account, and it was nothing but a collection of Hebrew legends. Then, a massive amount of evidence emerged through the findings of archaeologists, such as the discovery of the Hittite civilization, which vindicated much in the Bible that had been touted as fictitious. But, then the cry went forth that the Hebrews "borrowed" or "copied" stories from the peoples around them.
So much has been shrouded in confusion brought about by "explaining away" evidences which absolutely vindicate the Biblical account in a manner which makes it appear that the original incident occurred at an earlier date, and therefore the Hebrews incorporated the tale into their "mythology".
A good example of this is the evidence found at Jericho. In the 1930s, Professor John Garstang excavated Jericho. In 1931, he found the cemetery that had been in use by the inhabitants of Jericho from the earliest times. Because it had been so well concealed by the sand of the plain, it had escaped the plundering that so often occurs. Carefully excavating through the various levels, in 1932 they made a discovery which absolutely confirmed the Biblical account.
They found a succession of eighty scarabs bearing the cartouches (royal name) of the eighteenth dynasty pharaohs. They end with Amenhotep III of the 18th dynasty. Other archaeological evidence showed that the city ceased to exist at that time, which perfectly fit the account of the entry into the "promised land". ("New Bible Evidence", Sir Charles Marston, pub. by Fleming H. Revell Co., 1934, pps. 134-137.)
I don't know anything about Hebrew, but it seems pretty clear from even the English translations of the Bible that the term "son" can be used also to mean "descendent." Christ was the son of David, for example.
And Adam means "man" so the phrase "son of man" or "son of Adam" might mean the same thing, or at least might be easily confused and misinterpreted where they are used in the Bible.
If you keep this in mind while reading the genealogies, you find that these ambiguities can potentially rebut a lot of the doubts people have that are based on apparent discrepancies in the genealogies. They also enable you to construct a time line that does not necessarily lead you to conclude that the world is only 5,000 years old, as my pastor often claims. Personally, I don't believe that, yet when you actually read the Bible, you can see how that conclusion could be drawn from the text.
Some of the atheists I've known over the years ridicule that claim as proof that the Bible is not accurate. Of course, you can't say for certain that the devil did not create fossils to mislead us, as my pastor claims, but on the other hand, I suppose God could have created the world yesterday and planted false memories in our minds about what happened last week. Somehow, I don't think that's what happened though. If you can rebut the 5,000 year time line, you don't need to confront that issue.
History is constantly being revised. That doesn't mean its
all accurate or inaccurate. Of course the bible tells a story as Israelites saw it. If it can be proven the bible is a bunch of fairy tales designed to win over a nomadic people-so be it.
There will always be those who will believe anything in the face of absolute proof to the contrary.
And the bottom line is that since none of us were there, and the evidence is not exactly overwhelming, people will tend to believe what they want, depending on their own personal agenda and background.
We all tend to view the past through the lense of the present, or our own culture. It always introduces flaws, sometimes dramatic, in interpretations of the meanings of the tangible evidence we find.
the cylinders were inscribed at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C
How did they know it was 555-539 B.C.????????
Who was it that said slaves built the pyramids?
I always read locals did it. Perhaps a few Nubians thrown into
the mix.....NBA basketball players would be considered giants in biblical days....Ptooey!
This is the problem, "scientists" who let their political and ideological necessities drive their research. Everything they say is suspect. Just for the record, I will believe the Biblical record regardless of what they may "discover". It's 3000 years in the past, and they are politically motivated. I need something more than their "professional" opinions to discard the Word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.