|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This belief thing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I honestly don't know much about this issue but understand that I wasn't saying (certain modern)Muslims call the Hebrew Bible prophets "imposters". I was saying they call them "imitators", which is considered an attribute of a (Jewish) culture that admires the (once divinely) revealed (then lost by say 1000 BCE) events (say 10,000 years ago). The Koran doesn't put chronological dates on those same people and events the Hebrew Bible does.
Here is one site that I found on google.
quote: This is a long article and I left a lot out. Go to 125 street in Harlem (even the east side, but also on the west where the Apollo Theatre is)and you will see lots of black nationalists selling all sorts of books and DVDs on black nationalism. While they are mostly race-based conspiracy theory books, there are a few that don't mention black issues at all. The Bible Unearthed , by Israel Finkelstein, is always a book for sale. Some more extreme scholars say that the 1st Temple Jews didn't exist, and Jews came from Babylon in the 6th century BCE, then were made white by Europeans in following centuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
OK, that's the 'What' of your discourse - as to the why, I'm still unclear.
Salibi's ideas are not exactly 'new', they're from the early 80s. And yes, they have been used for propaganda purposes to dispute the validity of Israel. I'm not sure of the connection to my post. That religious beliefs are diverse? Were you challenging the notion that the Koran describes incidents at some of the same places as the Bible because some people think those places exist at different coordinates? I'm just unclear as to why you brought it up sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: That's a book on archaeology and the Bible and pretty much in the mainstream (of archaeologists), if maybe tending a little towards the minimalists. It doesn't suggest that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were anywhere but Palestine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: In post 110 you said:
quote: It has been standard for Muslims to see the Hebrew Bible as largely written close to the time of the events and in the same local as the events. It has been standard to see the "inspired" prophets (of which the Koran mentions like 30 or so) as not very far removed from the books in the Hebrew Bible that bear their name. It might not be the case anymore (for whatever reason). I was just making a clarification of your post because, for example, Muslims have told me that the real Psalms of David would have heaven, hell, resurrection, and judgment day mentioned. And they could very well have existed long ago and in a place far away from Palestine. Additionally. It should also be said that it is more difficult to disprove Koranic descriptions of events (except the flood), especially if the Adam story is a metaphor. There are no chronological markers which can make it easily falsifiable. The Tower of Babel story is absent, so that helps the Koran a lot when it comes to standing up to critics.
quote: I'm not sure Israel is the main reason many Muslims argue these points. Many are actually quite critical of the theory of evolution plus are sensitive to attacks against the history presented in both the Bible and Koran. This reality doesn't have a visible internet presence, but - truth me - it is real never the less. And (multi generational American) blacks have a monumental obsession with race and historical issues. There is a very big difference between African immigrants and multi-generational African Americans. Black Africans , on the one hand, see Ethiopia as part of the Middle East, while (multi-generational) African Americans will call anybody a racist who doesn't think even Egyptians and Palestinians/ Israelites were 100% black African. Black Africans will read the same history as everybody else, while most African Americans think standard history books are racist. Go to a public library in any black area (and there are many) in New York, then take a look at books on the library shelf. You will be hard pressed to find any standard history books of the Ancient Near East because they are deemed racist. I'm not saying that there is a huge amount of "alternative history" (on the Middle East and such) books in the libraries (the kinds sold on street corners and the most obsessed over), but there are some along with the legions of books on library shelves on more recent black history and issues. The white skin of present-day Jews is quite an obsession among blacks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: But is allows for the possibility of no know "Jews" before 700 to 750 BCE. A major obsession among black Muslims. (black Christians will be obsessed over the race of Israelites but never question the history). It is too complicated to explain, but I can assure you it matters a lot. There is an obsession almost to the point of complete total saturization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I don't think so. I certainly don't remember it offering any reason to believe that. If you have anything in mind I would appreciate exact quotes - and I will check them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It has been standard for Muslims to see the Hebrew Bible as largely written close to the time of the events and in the same local as the events. It has been standard to see the "inspired" prophets (of which the Koran mentions like 30 or so) as not very far removed from the books in the Hebrew Bible that bear their name. It might not be the case anymore (for whatever reason). So? I mean if the Koran is believed to be referring to other times and places then the Bible will be believed to also refer to other times and places. The same other times and places as with the Koran. So even believers that differ in where and when things occurred according to history and geography, they still agree that the Koran and Bible are referring to the same things.
It should also be said that it is more difficult to disprove Koranic descriptions of events (except the flood), especially if the Adam story is a metaphor. There are no chronological markers which can make it easily falsifiable. The Tower of Babel story is absent, so that helps the Koran a lot when it comes to standing up to critics. As I said, it's not a history book. But what's this got to do with the topic or the subtopic? The Temple of Solomon is located somewhere. Most people say it is in modern day Israel. Other people say elsewhere. Mormons believe the garden of eden is in America, for instance. Doesn't mean they aren't talking about the same place as Jews, Catholics and Muslims.
I'm not sure Israel is the main reason many Muslims argue these points. Then look it up.
. Many are actually quite critical of the theory of evolution plus are sensitive to attacks against the history presented in both the Bible and Koran. What has this got to do with why Muslims might say modern day Israel is not in the right place?
And (multi generational American) blacks have a monumental obsession with race and historical issues. And again, what exactly has this got to do with the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: Let me think of the best parallel to explain what I mean. Lets take the world's oldest monotheistic religion for a parallel. Go to a library and look up Zoroastrian in the Encyclopedia Britannica (both in the macropaedia and micropaedia). You will see that they don't even consider Zoroaster to have lived earlier than c. 630 to c550 BCE. (628-551 is standard). It's (macropaedia article) the most scholarly source on Zoroastrianism around (except for the super rare Encyclopedia Iranica), but it considers the traditional date as 100% secure. Except the traditional date is now believed to be based on a mistakenly identified person as a chronological marker. (as of the 1980s, this has been true) A king to be specific. A Zoroastrian king to be more specific. A much revered and beloved king to be even more specific. Vishtaspa - Wikipedia Now linguists date the holy texts (Gathas)which first mentioned him as far back as 1800 BCE and much later than 1500 BCE. Historians date the text around 1500 BCE to 1000 BCE. NOW THE HYPOTHETICAL. Now imagine if this c.600 BCE Vishtaspa had many legends built around him and if these legends made it into the texts of a new religion that started several hundred years after his life. Now we have a new c.200 BCE religion with religious texts that have a famous (and beloved) King Vishtaspa as one of the founders of the national culture based on the "true revelation". Imagine if the original c.1500 religion, with the original King Vishtaspa, died off and no textual fragments remained nor were they alluded to in any tradition (nothing extant from 1500 to 600 BCE for us to discover). Nothing that gives any clue that there was a king that lived before 600 BCE that is. Then a revelation came one day to a Joseph Ali living in c.900 AD England which told a "pure" religion with a King Vishtaspa from 1523 BCE in western Afghanistan (which happened to be India in 900 AD I suppose). Except the dates weren't mentioned. Just the character. And then the surviving religion (which started in 200 BC and is still with extant texts unlike the 1500 BCE religion) was mentioned, in the revelation, as "inspired" and in the same (garbled)tradition, but corrupted and full of man-made additions, and wrapped around a nationalism created by the kings of a narrow strip of land that the (corrupted) religion took hold. Too make even matters worse, a priesthood developed which created a caste system to empower their succession for eternity, except the priestly succession was just as man-made as the priestly system itself, not to mention that the priestly texts were made up by the priests as much as the (nationalistic & dynastic supported/invented) national chronicle religious texts were made up by the monarchs. But not all of this was explicitly mentioned in the revelation, but there were implicit allusions at times. END HYPOTHETICAL. Now we have a situation where Islam occupies the same place as this hypothetical c.1500 religion mentioned above. That's how they see things. Their scholars might have never considered this situation before the rise of 2 movements. 1st First, the rise of modern scholarship, which has called into question that dates of the texts, and modern archaeology, which finds an Israel from 1200 BCE - 730 BCE but no Judah until terrified Israelite refugees, fearing ever more endless Assyrian assaults, turned the highland hamlet Jerusalem into a population center around 750-720 BCE and the Holy Bible was written (see introduction to the Finkelstein book for the atmospherics surrounding the origins of the texts). 2nd The Nation of Islam movement which challenged the Jewish texts (not to mention the people) and their claims of representing the original events. Perhaps a 3rd factor could be the Zionist state and its treatment of the native Muslims. It raises new issues for the evolution verses creation debate. Islam is becoming a very large religion and views are changing. It is very much on topic IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: He said that Jerusalem only had a few hundred people during the 13th to 9th century BCE and only about 1000 by 750 BCE. Many question if Judah is simply a place name and and whether Judah had "Judeans" or "Jews". Judah isn't mentioned at all till after 750 BCE. It could have been an imitation name of 5000 year old Arabians or Africans. Either an eponymous tribesman or simply a famous figure that left no offspring. (So the newly Islamic theory goes)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: So why take a book which suggests that David and Soloman ruled Judah as supporting this idea ? One that points to archaeological evidence of a people of at least similar culture to the inhabitants of Israel, a population that remained in place even after the Babylonians deported the elite and we're still there when Cyrus let the exiles return ? It's about as silly as the idea that the Western Wall - part of Herod's additions to the Second Temple - isn't Jewish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Why read the ancient Greek & Roman historians which present traditions of a Zoroastrian King Vishtaspa being a follower of Zoroaster during the prophet's lifetime?
Vishtaspa actually existed during the 628-551 period which was then the assume life of Zoroaster. David means beloved Solomon means peaceful. The Biblical texts could date much later than the 10th century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
That doesn't change the fact that the archaeological evidence - the whole point of the book - doesn't support such a claim.
If Judah was populated by people kin to the Israelites from well before the 8th Century BC, if that population was swelled by refugees from Israel in the mid-8th Century, and the combined population mostly stayed put through the Babylonian Exile then it doesn't really matter when the Biblical texts were written. And if they are a Canaanite people, living in the region as pastoral nomads even earlier - as Finkelstein suggests - then they are hardly newcomers or outsiders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
It raises new issues for the evolution verses creation debate. Not really. I've encountered both Christian and Muslim apologists for their version of creationism. Their arguments against evolutionary theory are nearly identical, and always flawed, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
[ Remove content. --Admin ]
Edited by Admin, : Remove content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Now we have a situation where Islam occupies the same place as this hypothetical c.1500 religion mentioned above. Really?
quote: First off, the distance is not comparable. The distance from Tehran to London is 5.5 thousand km. Second, this is not what Muhammed did. Here's what happened according to their own religious histories: The Jews wrote their texts and their histories. Different groups/sects/factions arose. New Jewish prophets came, some real and ignored, others fake and ignored, others fake and believed and a few real and believed. But those prophets likely got followers, formed their own little sects, some probably grew. The Samaritans, provide a striking example for instance. Then the Temple was destroyed and the believers wanted to know what to do. A new prophet shows up called Joshua. He gives his instructions on how to pray and have a relationship with God in a world without the temple and other things too. He reaffirmed previous texts, providing alternate interpretations, reinforcing some points etc and said some new things. This Jewish subsect grew into Christianity. (OK, within the religion, Christ preceded the Temple destruction but the point is the same) Then in another semitic group, from 800km south another Prophet rises. Others of the time think it is a new Old Testament cult. The Prophet says that the stuff in Judaism is basically correct, he cites specific Jewish texts as being holy scripture. He clearly has been exposed to those texts based on what he says. He reinforces some points, provides some alternate interpretations. He does not say Solomon was ruling in Arabia in 5000BC. Then in 1982 a man writes a pop religion-history book with a controversial idea. The idea is that the information contained within the Bible about the locations is all relative based. He observes that the Bible doesn't really make sense of the locations, they don't map out properly. He proposes that instead of limiting the borders discussed in the Bible to the region of Israel/Jordan - the entire Arabian peninsula (something like this). He 'blows up' the map given in the Bible and transposes it over the whole area. He comes up with dates that differ from traditional dates. I don't see any significant Islamic support for this notion, but there is some support out there. That's all you've shown me so far as far as I can see. There doesn't appear to be a parallel that I can see to your hypothetical that matters.
First, the rise of modern scholarship, which has called into question that dates of the texts, and modern archaeology, which finds an Israel from 1200 BCE - 730 BCE but no Judah until terrified Israelite refugees, fearing ever more endless Assyrian assaults, turned the highland hamlet Jerusalem into a population center around 750-720 BCE and the Holy Bible was written (see introduction to the Finkelstein book for the atmospherics surrounding the origins of the texts). There has basically always been dispute over the dates.
The Nation of Islam movement which challenged the Jewish texts (not to mention the people) and their claims of representing the original events. The Nation of Islam is not influential in Islam. They have less influence over Islamic opinion than the Alawites, for example. Even the Druze has more influence over Islamic thought than the Nation of Islam. Seems to me the flow of influence as far as religious ideas is basically one way.
It raises new issues for the evolution verses creation debate. Why?
Islam is becoming a very large religion and views are changing. It's basically the same size as it was relative to the rest of the world when the debate started. They've always been involved in the EvC debate. Change has been happening in the Islamic world for just as long. Around Darwin's time people were saying
quote: Seems to me you provided a minority viewpoint which doesn't challenge anything I said. It's an interesting perspective, so thanks for sharing, but you seem to think it's a big deal and I just don't see it.
It is very much on topic IMO. Can you confirm that my guess about your point is correct? You are trying to say that there were two Solomon's in this perspective? One real one, and one fictional one and that Islam is increasingly claiming to believe in the real one - while arguing that the Biblical one is the fictional one? Because I don't see that happening, but I'd be interested if you have more evidence than Salibi's theories as I understand them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024