Ish

I understand it quite well.

Frankly, I see no benefit in subjective allegorical interpretations like this. IMHO, they are a waste of time and likely only to be understood by the one who dreams them up.

Regardless, the SOL-OM-ON thing is just pure silliness. The Bible was written in Hebrew and this breakdown of a Hebrew name is nonsense borrowed loosely from Hinduism (among other things...). Solomon is the Greek corruption of the Hebrew "Shlomo" (kinda hard to get sol=sun outta that). "Shlomo" means something like "peaceable". You probably heard a similar word before: "Shalom = Peace".

Uncompromising literalism may not be good for Bible interpretation, but then neither is free association... Perhaps, take a step back and use a somewhat balanced approach.

Ish

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ish ]

sailor74

No most of the words are actually greek...

you believe what you will, a man with a 40,000 horses and 1000 women if you want, but youll miss the point.

Ish

Sorry, I should have said the Old Testament. However, you are still wrong. Most of the words in the Bible are Hebrew (unless you count the LXX instead of the Masoretic...or unless you're using an english translation of course ).

So far I've missed your points much more than I've missed anything in the Bible. What exact purpose does your Solomonic allegory serve?

Ish

[ September 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ish ]

sailor74

If i told you , you still would'nt get it. you are not paying attention. The whole bible is allegorical in nature, non literal, the bible itself makes this very clear. If you havnt yet known this , then you are behind my friend.


N jesus no resurection, no real solomon, noah, jonah etc, these are stories of mans mental advancement, and i dont have room to put it all here on these threads. Its out there, if you really seek it.

The bible is nothing more than a MIND book, dealing with three states of consciousness.."in or out of the body i can not tell. one caught up to the THIRD HEAVEN."

Know which verse it is?

the jesus story is the suns movement from virgo to leo fall to spring, the most ancient story there is. Its called the universal solar myth.


Keep arguing about the literalness of the bible and no one gets it.

danny

Ish

I think I'm beginning to see your point with the allegory thing, you're really saying: "I can't really explain what I'm talking about or what points I'm trying to make because I don't understand it myself."

I'll bet you I've done a hair more seeking than you have and I've not discovered what you call "facts".

As a matter of fact, I don't even think others would mind how much room you took if you could explain all this stuff that's out there that proves there was "no jesus, no resurrection, no...". So, feel free to present all this information that's "out there".

Yes. 2Co 12:2

So what exactly are you attempting to imply? Drug use perhaps?

This is a reference simply showing Paul's belief in resurrection.

Assertions like this are just preposterous. Why do you combine elements from other religions that have nothing to do with each other? You're not reading the works of any scholars that I've ever heard of. What exactly are your sources? And don't tell me I wouldn't understand... If you can quote me some Hebrew or Greek, I'll more than likely understand. If you can quote me some historical evidence for your assertions, I'll more than likely understand. Try me.

What no one gets is allegory. It's easy to understand that people existed and did things. It's much harder to understand assertions about what a text "really means". It's rather subjective after all. Think about it.

Ish

sailor74

Ish

go here and read this

if you're still not convinced, then thats all one can say to you.
http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/billy.html

Nomad

Thanks for the article Ish. I am forced to wonder how a book like The Bible Unearthed could be so convincing when the true scholars like of William Dever, Bernard Anderson, Richard Elliot Friedman and Kitchen find their theories so completely unconvincing. None of these individuals can be called conservatives or fringe scholars, and based on what I have read of them, they have little patience for arguments that everything (or even most of what is) found in the OT Bible is historically true or verifiable. At the same time they seem uniformly willing to accept as more or less uncontroversial the idea not only that Solomon lived, but that his mini-empire did as well.

"Allowing for legendary and theological embellishments, however, the narratives are so vivid and historically authentic that they must have come from a time close to the events described. This is especially evident in the Court History of David (2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2), a "succession narrative" evidently composed during the reign of David, perhaps by an eyewitness. Scholars regard this narrative, with its unusual realism and fluency of style, as one of the best examples of Hebraic prose in the Hebrew Bible.(1) By contrast, the history found in Chronicles is so dominated by theological bias that the historical pictrue is blurred, even though some of the traditions preserved in their late work are valuable."
(1) Gerhard von Rad has described this succession document as a new kind of historiography "without parallel in the ancient East."
(B.W. Anderson and K. Pfisterer Darr, Understanding the Old Testament, Abridged 4th Edition, [Prentice-Hall, Inc.:Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998], pg. 193-4)

Chapter 7, "The Throne of David" (pgs. 192-222) treats David's and Solomon's kingdom as genuine.

Richard Elliot Friedman, in Who Wrote the Bible? is equally clear in his belief that the empire of David and Solomon can be taken as historically probable. In his opening chapter, "The World that Produced the Bible: 1200-722B.C.", he goes into detail on subjects like the "Rise of the Monarchy", "David's Empire", "Solomon's Empire" and especially the Temple itself. He concludes:

"Thus the Bible pictures King Solomon as a great monarch of the ancient Near East. To look into that world and especially to feel the political issues of life then, first one must have a good knowledge of the geography of the land. Then one must have a real sensitivity to political and economic forces. And then one must read carefully what most people would consider to be among the most boring passages in the Bible; lists of territories, building projects, and notations of political developments in neighboring countries. The best analysis of all of this, in my judgement, is by an American biblical scholar, Baruch Halpern. I reached some of my conclusions concerning who wrote the Bible on several important points by applying his insights into political history to the Bible."
(R.E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, [HarperCollins Publishers: New York, NY, 1997], pg.43)

If I could see some of the "evidence" that others have found so convincing, yet noted scholars have not, perhaps I could be convinced. From what I have seen thus far however, if the only argument being offered is "read the book, and all will be made clear to you", then I think I will pass. Good arguments can be summarized, and I would like to see what they are. Obviously those arguments, whatever they may be, are not as convincing as some might believe.

For now, I think I will cast my lot with Friedman, Anderson, Darr, Dever and company against Israel Finklestein and Neil Silberman. As an aside, I found the Kirkus Review of Silberman's [/b]Heavenly Powers: Unraveling the Secret History of the Kabbalah[/b] to be especially devastating. Apparently, making claims that go beyond the evidence is not unknown to this author.

One final note if I may, but from Ish's Feature Article:

What about the pharaoh's gift of a daughter to Solomon? Many Old Testament scholars, in their arrogance and ignorance, (my emphasis) have labeled this report as impossible, citing as their only evidence the remark by Amenophis III (c. 1380 B.C.) that "from of old no [Egyptian] king's daughter has been given to anyone."(7) But more than 400 years later, customs had changed (no one in England, for example, expects the society of Elizabeth II to be at all similar to that of Elizabeth I, half a millennium ago).

Are scholars really allowed to talk about one another like this?

Perhaps solid research and limited claims should be the rule of the day. Such a rule could probably be applied to those on all sides of the theological debate je pense.

Nomad

sailor74

Nomad

you're pulling my leg right?


Man you are a real literalist huh.

Nomad

Hello sailor

For what it is worth, what are you talking about, and how did you reach your conclusion based on my post?

Nomad

sailor74

Nomad.

Maybe I just didnt get the jest of what you were saying.

Just what the %#("?^$ are you saying?

danny