Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Ben Masada

Universal Salvation

76 posts in this topic

Universal Salvation

When the earth was dry as the Flood was over, the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another catastrophe of the size of the Flood to hit all Mankind again as long as the natural laws operated properly. That's inGenesis 8:21,22.

Jeremiah must have read the text above and connected it with the fact that as long as Israel remained as a People before the Lord forever, the natural laws would operate as usual. That's in Jeremiah 31:35-37.

Jesus must have read both texts: That of Genesis and the one of Jeremiah and said that salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22) From the Jews he said and not from one among the Jews.

Based on the three texts above, I don't believe that the salvation of the world depends on Noah or the rainbow in the sky. That's the same case with Sodom and Gomorrah which would have been spared if there had been at least a Minyan of 10 adult Jews. (Gen. 18:32)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you think we are safe as long as there are at least ten Jews in Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you think we are safe as long as there are at least ten Jews in Palestine.

No, not only in the Land of Israel but in the whole world. That's what I understand from reading the Scriptures. That's what Jeremiah understood and so did Jesus. And for "Palestine" there has never been a country called "Palestine" throughout the History of the world. If you want to tell me what you think I am missing, I'll be glad to hear.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universal Salvation

When the earth was dry as the Flood was over, the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another catastrophe of the size of the Flood to hit all Mankind again as long as the natural laws operated properly. That's inGenesis 8:21,22.

Jeremiah must have read the text above and connected it with the fact that as long as Israel remained as a People before the Lord forever, the natural laws would operate as usual. That's in Jeremiah 31:35-37.

Jesus must have read both texts: That of Genesis and the one of Jeremiah and said that salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22) From the Jews he said and not from one among the Jews.

Based on the three texts above, I don't believe that the salvation of the world depends on Noah or the rainbow in the sky. That's the same case with Sodom and Gomorrah which would have been spared if there had been at least a Minyan of 10 adult Jews. (Gen. 18:32)

Ben, your take is always interesting to read. I give you credit for doing your homework and working within the framework of your chosen book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the time of Jeremiah being written, the returning Israelites were seeking to re-assert their dominion over the land they had been exiled from during the Babylonian captivity. In the time of the New Testament writings, the Jews were seeking to retain their identity in the face of Roman occupation and dominion.

In both cases mentioned in the OP, the narrative is essentially ethno-political propaganda told through religion and intended to inculcate or re-assert a sense of social identity and purpose.

There is no such thing as "the salvation of the world", as the world survived before we as a species existed, and will continue to survive long after we have ceased to exist.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, your take is always interesting to read. I give you credit for doing your homework and working within the framework of your chosen book.

Thanks but I did not choose "my book"; It chose me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the time of Jeremiah being written, the returning Israelites were seeking to re-assert their dominion over the land they had been exiled from during the Babylonian captivity. In the time of the New Testament writings, the Jews were seeking to retain their identity in the face of Roman occupation and dominion.

In both cases mentioned in the OP, the narrative is essentially ethno-political propaganda told through religion and intended to inculcate or re-assert a sense of social identity and purpose.

There is no such thing as "the salvation of the world", as the world survived before we as a species existed, and will continue to survive long after we have ceased to exist.

The difference between us is that I am using Biblical Theology and you scientific theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that the salvation of the world depends on Noah or the rainbow in the sky.

I believe Second Timothy says: "For the Grace of God hath appeared for the salvation of all mankind."

That's unconditional. Nothing about having to "believe in Jesus" - whatever that means. Or even believe in god. Or bow toward Mecca five times a day. Or be baptized. Or circumcised. Or even live a particularly good life. Simply by existing, you are "saved." Sort of renders religion irrelevant.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between us is that I am using Biblical Theology and you scientific theories.

At least, he is using scientific theories. Wish religion could come up with something as solid.

Gravity is "just a theory." Drop a pencil. If it doesn't fall to the floor, then perhaps religion is more reliable than science. Pythagoreus' Theorem is "just a theory." But engineers use it to build bridges and sky-scrapers. You bet your life on it just sitting in a building typing on your computer. Yet it's "just a theory." Evolution, global warming, the Combined Gas Laws, the Laws of Motion, the Laws of Reason, Chaos and Chance - all "just theories."

As far as I can tell, theology is nothing more than speculation about things that are unknowable by their nature.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Second Timothy says: "For the Grace of God hath appeared for the salvation of all mankind."

That's unconditional. Nothing about having to "believe in Jesus" - whatever that means. Or even believe in god. Or bow toward Mecca five times a day. Or be baptized. Or circumcised. Or even live a particularly good life. Simply by existing, you are "saved." Sort of renders religion irrelevant.

Doug.

Now, you can dance the dance of joy because I do agree with you. The Grace of God has indeed appeared for the salvation of all mankind when Israel was created out of the loins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If this had happened before the Flood, the Flood would not have happened. As long as Israel remains as a People before the Lord forever, the sun will be in the sky to light the day and the moon and starts to light by night. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) We need do nothing. That's what Divine love is: To make the way of salvation freely coming from the Jews as Jesus meant in John 4:22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least, he is using scientific theories. Wish religion could come up with something as solid.

Gravity is "just a theory." Drop a pencil. If it doesn't fall to the floor, then perhaps religion is more reliable than science. Pythagoreus' Theorem is "just a theory." But engineers use it to build bridges and sky-scrapers. You bet your life on it just sitting in a building typing on your computer. Yet it's "just a theory." Evolution, global warming, the Combined Gas Laws, the Laws of Motion, the Laws of Reason, Chaos and Chance - all "just theories."

As far as I can tell, theology is nothing more than speculation about things that are unknowable by their nature.

Doug.

What's so solid about the big bang theory which most scientists throughout the world have adopted as the closest reason for the beginning of the universe? Nevertheless, atheists would worship it akin to a god until they found out that the Bible has been teaching about the beginning of the universe for 3,300 years. Lemaitre did nothing beyond confirmation of the Biblical truth about the universe. And with regards to the "theories" you mention above, the name stuck for some preconceived notion but the mystery has been explained as a miracle that ceases being a miracle. The law of gravity for instance is no longer to bet referred to as a theory whose meaning is tantamount to cease being one when another rises to replace it. Can anything else ever arise to explain that the force of attraction of an object to earth is other than gravity? It means that it is no longer a theory but a physical law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so solid about the big bang theory which most scientists throughout the world have adopted as the closest reason for the beginning of the universe? Nevertheless, atheists would worship it akin to a god until they found out that the Bible has been teaching about the beginning of the universe for 3,300 years. Lemaitre did nothing beyond confirmation of the Biblical truth about the universe. And with regards to the "theories" you mention above, the name stuck for some preconceived notion but the mystery has been explained as a miracle that ceases being a miracle. The law of gravity for instance is no longer to bet referred to as a theory whose meaning is tantamount to cease being one when another rises to replace it. Can anything else ever arise to explain that the force of attraction of an object to earth is other than gravity? It means that it is no longer a theory but a physical law.

3300 years. That's before the Hebrew language existed (The oldest known Hebrew writing is the Gezer Stone, an agricultural calendar dated to about 930 BC.). 3300 years ago was 1286 BC. That would be during the reign of Seti I. Personally, I think there might be some truth in the story of the Exodus and that Seti I was most-likely the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But that's a different discussion.

The Big Bang is certainly not universally accepted among scientists. I've heard dozens of variations on the idea. You do an excellent job in your research of Judaic tradition, but when it comes to science, your knowledge is somewhat limited. And your last couple posts about atheists are little more than rants.

Theories are sound, well-tested descriptions of physical realities. In point-of-fact, the only difference between Laws and Theories is that some scientific society voted to accept So-and-so's Theory as So-and-so's Law. Mostly, we don't even use the distinction any more. The point I was trying to make is that LG had some sound thinking backing up his viewpoints, but I don't see any backing up yours. How about posting some?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, you can dance the dance of joy because I do agree with you. The Grace of God has indeed appeared for the salvation of all mankind when Israel was created out of the loins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If this had happened before the Flood, the Flood would not have happened. As long as Israel remains as a People before the Lord forever, the sun will be in the sky to light the day and the moon and starts to light by night. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) We need do nothing. That's what Divine love is: To make the way of salvation freely coming from the Jews as Jesus meant in John 4:22.

I tried to trace the historical prototypes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Results were mixed: Abraham visited Shur. Shur didn't exist until Sesostris II built his canal and created an irrigated garden in the desert about ten miles west of modern Ismailia. (BTW: "Shur" means "Wall," a reference to the "Wall of the Prince," a series of defensive fortifications, including the canal, that was built along Egypt's eastern frontier to keep out "Asiatics;" the name is preserved on modern maps as Abu Suere. It was a British airbase during WWII.). BUT: the name "Abraham" appears in the Execration Texts from about 2200 BC. These were curses written on clay pots, smashed and buried. Archeologists reconstructed the pots to find out who was being cursed - and there was Abraham. So Abraham came to Egypt about 350 years before he stayed at Shur - or maybe there were several different Abrahams?

Didn't find anything on Isaac.

Jacob was Jacob-Baal, the Hyksos Pharaoh. Check out Moses' genealogy; now check out the Pharaohs of the 16th Dynasty, predecessors to Amos I. Same names. Moses' biblical genealogy is a Hyksos king list!

While your at it, note that Jochebed was also the name of an Egyptian queen; literal translation: "Ya's Queen," a reference to the Jewish god?

Let's be real careful about Bible stories. Too many chances to make mistakes.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Fumble-finger struck again!

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3300 years. That's before the Hebrew language existed (The oldest known Hebrew writing is the Gezer Stone, an agricultural calendar dated to about 930 BC.). 3300 years ago was 1286 BC. That would be during the reign of Seti I. Personally, I think there might be some truth in the story of the Exodus and that Seti I was most-likely the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But that's a different discussion.

The Big Bang is certainly not universally accepted among scientists. I've heard dozens of variations on the idea. You do an excellent job in your research of Judaic tradition, but when it comes to science, your knowledge is somewhat limited. And your last couple posts about atheists are little more than rants.

Theories are sound, well-tested descriptions of physical realities. In point-of-fact, the only difference between Laws and Theories is that some scientific society voted to accept So-and-so's Theory as So-and-so's Law. Mostly, we don't even use the distinction any more. The point I was trying to make is that LG had some sound thinking backing up his viewpoints, but I don't see any backing up yours. How about posting some?

Doug.

I have Logic backing me up mind you. I really don't care if the big bang is not universally accepted among all scientists. For all that I am concerned, it could have been an embellishment for the "Let there be light and there was light" of Genesis 1:3. We have a large field for what could have happened in terms of theories. At least we praise ourselves for the decency to acknowledge all probabilities including yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to trace the historical prototypes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Results were mixed: Abraham visited Shur. Shur didn't exist until Sesostris II built his canal and created an irrigated garden in the desert about ten miles west of modern Ismailia. (BTW: "Shur" means "Wall," a reference to the "Wall of the Prince," a series of defensive fortifications, including the canal, that was built along Egypt's eastern frontier to keep out "Asiatics;" the name is preserved on modern maps as Abu Suere. It was a British airbase during WWII.). BUT: the name "Abraham" appears in the Execration Texts from about 2200 BC. These were curses written on clay pots, smashed and buried. Archeologists reconstructed the pots to find out who was being cursed - and there was Abraham. So Abraham came to Egypt about 350 years before he stayed at Shur - or maybe there were several different Abrahams?

Didn't find anything on Isaac.

Jacob was Jacob-Baal, the Hyksos Pharaoh. Check out Moses' genealogy; now check out the Pharaohs of the 16th Dynasty, predecessors to Amos I. Same names. Moses' biblical genealogy is a Hyksos king list!

While your at it, note that Jochebed was also the name of an Egyptian queen; literal translation: "Ya's Queen," a reference to the Jewish god?

Let's be real careful about Bible stories. Too many chances to make mistakes.

Doug

I don't believe you did. Have you checked the Bible? If you have, what is it that makes the Bible not an acceptable source, the opinions of preconceived notions of historians who wish they could erase the Jewish mind from the face of the earth? Of course, you will not have to struggle too hard to find them almost at every corner of the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still wondering why a perfect God would make an imperfect man and then punish the imperfect man for being imperfect, then send a 'perfect' man to die a hideous death in order to save the imperfect man, so that a number of hoops could be created that the imperfect man had to jump through in order to escape the wrath of the perfect God that created an imperfect man.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you did. Have you checked the Bible? If you have, what is it that makes the Bible not an acceptable source, the opinions of preconceived notions of historians who wish they could erase the Jewish mind from the face of the earth? Of course, you will not have to struggle too hard to find them almost at every corner of the town.

That was the result of my own research, mostly:

Ahmose: "Child of the Moon." Moses: "Child."

Amu: "Father." Amram: "Father."

Yoam: No translation. Kohash: No translation.

*** Levi:

Yakbam: No translation. Isaac: No translation, BUT: notice similarity between "Yak" and "Isaac."

Jacob-Baal Jacob-Israel

Ahmose was the 1st Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty.

"Amu" is in the Amoritic language (A Hyksos language related to Hebrew).

Amu, Yoam, Yakbam and Jacob-Baal are the last four Phroahs of the 16th Dynasty, a Hyksos dynasty. The Hyksos were Semites, the probable ancestors of the Jews.

"Jacob-Baal" means "a follower of god;" so does "Jacob-Israel."

You ought to be careful about reading that Bible: it says the Jews are descendants of a bunch of leperous ex-slaves. Numbers 5:2-4: “2. Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: 3: Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. 4: And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.”

The actual derivation of "Jacob" isn't very flattering, either.

Jochebed was Moses' mother. The name means "the nobility of Ya," or "Ya's Queen." She was also the wife of Amenhotep III, the mother of Akhenaten, the heretic Pharaoh, and the daughter of Yuya, a likely prototype for the biblical Joseph.

As you can see, I use the Bible as a source. But it's only one source. There are hundreds. Maybe you should try reading the Bible. If you read it for yourself you'll find all sorts of things you didn't know was in. Like: the 104th Psalm may have been written by the Pharaoh Ay (At least, something VERY similar was found in his tomb, entitled "A Hymn to the Sun by the King." Or maybe, you'll learn that Balaam (the guy who owned the talking donkey) was a real-life priest of Baal - there's archeological evidence that he really lived - he's not just a Bible story.

If you actually studied the Bible, you'd learn that the "King of the Jews" was an Arab. And that the title "King of the Jews" was a creation of the Roman Senate and was bestowed on Herod the Great by Augustus Caesar. You'd also learn that Amenhotep III created the first cavalry units in Egypt, so Genesis 50:9 could not have been true any earlier than 1355 BC. The Bible tells about "God's chosen people" worshipping at a shrine to Baal - and coming home with a case of gonorrhea (Like Thomas Jefferson said, "The Bible is not fit reading for children."). You'd learn that the Crossing of the Red Sea actually happened - at El Kubrit, now a station on the Suez Canal (There's an airport where the Hebrew camp was.). Of course, it probably happened to an Egyptian work gang, rather than a bunch of escaping slaves. You'd also learn that somewhere along the line, the story of the Exodus got rewritten so that each stop that occurred at a full moon was named for the God of the Moon, Sin (Hence the name Sinai.). You'd also learn that the mountain that Moses climbed had a Temple of Hathor on top - just who wrote those "Ten Commandments" and which of the three versions do Jews go by?

There's an awful lot in that book that doesn't fit with traditional Judaism or Christianity. All-in-all, the Bible is a fascinating book. There's a lot of good information in it. You REALLY ought to try reading it instead of just pretending to.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's an awful lot in that book that doesn't fit with traditional Judaism or Christianity. All-in-all, the Bible is a fascinating book. There's a lot of good information in it. You REALLY ought to try reading it instead of just pretending to.

It is a very interesting set of scriptures (it's not a book) for sure. And there is a lot of good information in it. It is only when one seeks to cram the entire history of the world into the bible and make it somehow fit that one gets into trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting set of scriptures (it's not a book) for sure.

It's a bibliography; hence, the term "Bible." I get that. A book is a set of flat things stacked together; the "books" of the Bible are written on paper and stacked together; hence, the Bible is also a book. Just semantics.

[

It is only when one seeks to cram the entire history of the world into the bible and make it somehow fit that one gets into trouble.

There was a humongous weather/climate disturbance in 2807 BC. It lasted from 2807 to 2801 - seven years - that makes it BIG. It is evident in the tree ring chronologies of California bristlecone pines. There was also a disaster in Egypt about that time, involving a lot of water. It was during the reign of Sekmet, Sixth Pharaoh of the First Dynasty - the world's first earth-fill dam collapsed. Its remains are still there. I hypothesize that this was The Flood referred to in Genesis.

Depending on which version of the Bible's genealogies you want to use, there were either eight or ten generations between The Flood and Adam. Funny thing: that's the same number given in Sumerian writings, complete with the same eight-versus-ten mistake. At any rate, using ancient king lists and doing a little arithmetic, we can conclude that a "generation" lasted about 40 years. And that would mean that Adam lived between 320 and 400 years before The Flood, or about 3200 to 3100 BC. And that approximates the founding of Eridu - a likely prototype of Eden. Eridu was the residence of the god Ya (or Ea), who is represented in cuneiform writing by the symbols "ankh" and "key," so archeologists call him "Enkey." Read up on the ruin Eridu. There's a lot to make one suspicious that Jehovah was Enkey. That's a lot of speculation to put in one stack, but its certainly no more than you see in the local "Christian" book store.

Anyway, 3100 BC to 180 AD (the first known reference to the Book of John) is about 3300 years - half of recorded history. So even the Bible doesn't try to squeeze all of history in. Check out Isaac Azimov's "History of the World." That DID try to squeeze all of history in. Josephus, in his own day, did the same thing.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joc Quote

It is only when one seeks to cram the entire history of the world into the bible and make it somehow fit that one gets into trouble.

There was a humongous weather/climate disturbance in 2807 BC. It lasted from 2807 to 2801 - seven years - that makes it BIG. It is evident in the tree ring chronologies of California bristlecone pines. There was also a disaster in Egypt about that time, involving a lot of water. It was during the reign of Sekmet, Sixth Pharaoh of the First Dynasty - the world's first earth-fill dam collapsed. Its remains are still there. I hypothesize that this was The Flood referred to in Genesis.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Actual chronological world history doesn't support a world wide flood of any kind in which all civilizations were destroyed and all living people killed. According you your hypothesis....around 2807, every person in the world died in a 40 day flood.

When you stop trying to conform reality to the Bible...and begin to see the Bible is a 'part' of reality instead of the whole...then things start making more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Actual chronological world history doesn't support a world wide flood of any kind in which all civilizations were destroyed and all living people killed. According you your hypothesis....around 2807, every person in the world died in a 40 day flood.

When you stop trying to conform reality to the Bible...and begin to see the Bible is a 'part' of reality instead of the whole...then things start making more sense.

There's no way I can make that flood cover the whole world. I ran into an interesting bit of thinking in regards to The Flood. It went like this: "Noah's Flood has to be true, every word of it. People from all over the world have stories about it." OK. How did all those people manage to leave stories behind if they were all killed in The Flood?

That 2807 date isn't mine. Author David Massey believes The Flood was the result of an asteroid impact in the Indian Ocean (Berkel Crater) that occurred "on or about May 10, 2807 BC." He thinks The Flood was the result of rainout of ocean water evaporated by impact energy. I want to get some data on the age of that crater before I go off the deep end, but no deep sea drill rigs seem to be headed that way. The tree ring observation is mine. I'd like to do a study on it, but it'll be years before I have the time, if ever.

Still, most of the biblical vignettes are either provably true, or at least plausible. But they are arranged to make stories that never happened.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way I can make that flood cover the whole world. I ran into an interesting bit of thinking in regards to The Flood. It went like this: "Noah's Flood has to be true, every word of it. People from all over the world have stories about it." OK. How did all those people manage to leave stories behind if they were all killed in The Flood?

That 2807 date isn't mine. Author David Massey believes The Flood was the result of an asteroid impact in the Indian Ocean (Berkel Crater) that occurred "on or about May 10, 2807 BC." He thinks The Flood was the result of rainout of ocean water evaporated by impact energy. I want to get some data on the age of that crater before I go off the deep end, but no deep sea drill rigs seem to be headed that way. The tree ring observation is mine. I'd like to do a study on it, but it'll be years before I have the time, if ever.

Still, most of the biblical vignettes are either provably true, or at least plausible. But they are arranged to make stories that never happened.

Doug

Okay. I misunderstood. I think the same way actually. Things happened. The story got told and retold over a long, long time. Then the story got somehow personalized and remained so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still wondering why a perfect God would make an imperfect man and then punish the imperfect man for being imperfect, then send a 'perfect' man to die a hideous death in order to save the imperfect man, so that a number of hoops could be created that the imperfect man had to jump through in order to escape the wrath of the perfect God that created an imperfect man.

IMHO, the reason for your wondering is based on the fact that you have such an anthropomorphic idea of God that you sound like a common theist believer of talking serpents. If at least you were not so afraid to read the Bible you would be able to find out that God did create man perfect.. I mean almost, were he not to die; but for granting him with Freewill man misused it as he pleased and became imperfect. That's in Ecclesiastes 7:29.

Another point is that God is not the one Who punishes us but we ourselves through the law of cause and effect. The third point is that God never sent any one to die on earth to save another. The opposite is true if you read Jeremiah 31:30 which asserts that no one is supposed to die for the sins of another. And last but not least, wrath is an emotion and God is not activated by emotions. Pious wrath comes as a result of pious religious people who attribute it to God in order to enhance credibility for their gospels.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the result of my own research, mostly:

Ahmose: "Child of the Moon." Moses: "Child."

Amu: "Father." Amram: "Father."

Yoam: No translation. Kohash: No translation.

*** Levi:

Yakbam: No translation. Isaac: No translation, BUT: notice similarity between "Yak" and "Isaac."

Jacob-Baal Jacob-Israel

Ahmose was the 1st Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty.

"Amu" is in the Amoritic language (A Hyksos language related to Hebrew).

Amu, Yoam, Yakbam and Jacob-Baal are the last four Phroahs of the 16th Dynasty, a Hyksos dynasty. The Hyksos were Semites, the probable ancestors of the Jews.

"Jacob-Baal" means "a follower of god;" so does "Jacob-Israel."

You ought to be careful about reading that Bible: it says the Jews are descendants of a bunch of leperous ex-slaves. Numbers 5:2-4: “2. Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: 3: Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell. 4: And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.”

The actual derivation of "Jacob" isn't very flattering, either.

Jochebed was Moses' mother. The name means "the nobility of Ya," or "Ya's Queen." She was also the wife of Amenhotep III, the mother of Akhenaten, the heretic Pharaoh, and the daughter of Yuya, a likely prototype for the biblical Joseph.

As you can see, I use the Bible as a source. But it's only one source. There are hundreds. Maybe you should try reading the Bible. If you read it for yourself you'll find all sorts of things you didn't know was in. Like: the 104th Psalm may have been written by the Pharaoh Ay (At least, something VERY similar was found in his tomb, entitled "A Hymn to the Sun by the King." Or maybe, you'll learn that Balaam (the guy who owned the talking donkey) was a real-life priest of Baal - there's archeological evidence that he really lived - he's not just a Bible story.

If you actually studied the Bible, you'd learn that the "King of the Jews" was an Arab. And that the title "King of the Jews" was a creation of the Roman Senate and was bestowed on Herod the Great by Augustus Caesar. You'd also learn that Amenhotep III created the first cavalry units in Egypt, so Genesis 50:9 could not have been true any earlier than 1355 BC. The Bible tells about "God's chosen people" worshipping at a shrine to Baal - and coming home with a case of gonorrhea (Like Thomas Jefferson said, "The Bible is not fit reading for children."). You'd learn that the Crossing of the Red Sea actually happened - at El Kubrit, now a station on the Suez Canal (There's an airport where the Hebrew camp was.). Of course, it probably happened to an Egyptian work gang, rather than a bunch of escaping slaves. You'd also learn that somewhere along the line, the story of the Exodus got rewritten so that each stop that occurred at a full moon was named for the God of the Moon, Sin (Hence the name Sinai.). You'd also learn that the mountain that Moses climbed had a Temple of Hathor on top - just who wrote those "Ten Commandments" and which of the three versions do Jews go by?

There's an awful lot in that book that doesn't fit with traditional Judaism or Christianity. All-in-all, the Bible is a fascinating book. There's a lot of good information in it. You REALLY ought to try reading it instead of just pretending to.

Doug

Well Dough, you have all the right in the world to pick up your little book of myths and make your own religion out of it. I'll stick to the Bible. I am sure it has much more credit in the whole world than your little book. There has never been a book in the History of the world to beat the Bible as an endless bestseller for all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.