Lugubert

When an etymology looks too good to be true, it's usually false. The above chain looks good on paper, but fails to recognize the initial consonant ` of `Ašerat and others.

The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European 'star' is ster-. So far, I haven't seen a theory of a non-IE origin.

But if you can find a scholarly reference claiming a Semitic origin of 'star', I'd be delighted to know.

Fisher

Hey Baldie,

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to write back. Thanks for the link. I looked yesterday in GRD and could not find where you might have started this thread.

So I see you have brought me in to the realm of the history gurus. Damn, I don't know if I can hang in this jungle. History is not my strongest subject, but it does interest me. So for all you people that might be reading whose knowledge of ancient times surpasses mine, forgive me for my stupidity.

I actually do believe, for the most part, that the events in Genesis up to and including the flood could be some form of myth or story. I think that they were written to explain creation in a form that was easy for the people of the time to understand.

I believe that every tale and verse in the Bible has some sort of devine purpose, and I do not think that everything is meant to be taken literally. Basically, I think that God has put it all there, but for what reason, I am not so sure.

Pendaric

Hi Fish

To take it a bit further then, if it's potentially myth and legend up to the flood, do you agree it's possible that it may continue to be myth and legend for at least a period of time after the flood?

Where do you think the bible starts reflecting actual events in a literal fashion for the most part rather than being a collection of myths? Why do you judge the events before the flood to be potentially myth, and why could that same reasoning not be applied to events afterwards?

KingLouie

Hey Baldie,

I'm ready to talk about stuff now, and I'm sorry I'm late for the show.

To answer your question honestly, every bit of it could be myth. Every last line could be nothing but lies and storytelling, from Genesis to Job to Revelations. One of the coolest things about the bible to me is how the honest men in the story would actually wonder aloud about the same sorts of things. And they were there, in the flesh -- that is, if they were not myths and figments. I don't have the exact passage in front of me now, but one of the disciples said something along the lines of, "Hey. If this guy Jesus isn't who He says He is, then all of us are fools for following Him." I love that sort of thing.

So it could be myth, or it could be 100% true. I don't know for absolute sure. Maybe Noah loaded two of every animal on his divinely inspired ark; or, maybe, he was nothing but a figment of some writer's imagination, same as Jesus was, same as Zeus and Allah.

If I required proof to believe that Noah actually did what it said he did, or that Jonah got swallowed up by a whale, then why would I stop with there, with that? Why would I not require proof for everything that happened in between, from "Let there be light" to "Love thy neighbor?" I don't have any proof of things in this unfortunately small, mostly blinded human gaze and perspective. So I have to go with what makes the most sense to me.

From the Jungles of My Most Sense,

Kang Louie

Pendaric

So what makes the most sense to you?

If you had to bet the mortgage on did Noah sail around in an ark with a load of animals, which way would you bet?

KingLouie

What a great question, Baldie.

Now you may not know this much about me, but I'm the worst kind of gambler. Just two nights ago, I placed a bet on the USC game because I was positive USC would win the championship by more than 7 points.

See what I'm sayin? Texas won by 3, and the power bill may or may not get paid this month.

But even though I'm a terrible gambler, I do usually have reasons behind the things I'm betting on. And usually, it's because I'm choosing from a whole a pool of possible bets -- a slew of possible games -- and I choose the ones that look the most surefire to me. Sometimes I win, and sometimes I don't. But the juice normally takes me down the hole anyways, and such is gambling.

Take last weekend's assortment of bowl games for instance -- and you'll have to forgive me now because I'm talking about a sport that hosts an oblong ball and some uprights, and not a round one with black and white spots and a goalie with hooligans and head-butting. But I'm hoping you'll catch on to the idea.

There was a bunch of games to bet on last weekend. There was Alabama and Texas Tech, in which Texas Tech was favored to win by 3 whole points. And I thought to myself, "Them Vegasans must be smoking crack rock, because this is Texas Tech we're talking about: a second rate program versus the perrenial powerhouse who has built a whole season around a smothering defense. And they've got Brodie Croyle: the messiah of the South. There's no way Texas Tech is going to win this game."

And I won that bet, but just barely. Bama won by 3.

And then, there was the Auburn game. It was Auburn versus the Wisconsin Badgers. You may not know this about me either, but I love the Auburn Tigers. Went to school there and everything. The streets are paved with 24 karat gold.

But last weekend, Auburn was favored by 10 and a half points. And it was supposed to be the blowout affair of the entire bowl series; but something inside me told me I better lay off it. I thought about how it was Barry Alvarez's last game as the head coach for Wisconsin, and I had a feeling his boys were gonna be hyped to the gills.

They were, and Wisconsin beat the absolute snot out of my beloved Auburn Tigers. Damn it all to hades.

But consider this: there was the Sugar Bowl. And it was Georgia versus West Virginia.

I knew everything about Georgia; I watched them play several times this season. They have a great quarterback who tore Auburn a new butthole, they have an awesome coaching staff, and a field goal kicker who can boot the thing fifty yards while putting it right between my outstretched arms.

Georgia is a very solid team, and they were only picked to win by three. And over West Virginia, no less. And I mean, who the hell is West Virginia? I haven't seen West Virginia all year -- does ESPN know about this? Are they serious that the Mountaineers actually made it to the Sugar Bowl this season? To play Georgia? Who is, year in and year out, a national player?

I was this close to betting money on Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. But I refrained. And here's the reason why:

I view your question to me like I view these bowl games: there is a wide range of different picks for me to bet the farm on -- a holy host of choices I can choose to gamble with in my life. So, then, should I bet on Georgia to beat West Virginia this weekend, when I don't know anything about the Mountaineers? Not a single thing in the world, but that their uniforms are butt ugly?

Or, should I go with teams like Alabama who reside in my state, who I know a lot about, who are playing against a team who hasn't been on this big of a stage since Abraham Lincoln went to the stage play?

If I had all my life's possessions right in front of me, and I was to bet the whole pot on the story of Noah -- to fashion my life around it, or to glean deep meaning from it -- then I'd probably bet the farm on another Divine type of Bowl game, if y'knowwudimsayin.

Now let me ask you a similar question. And to be honest with you, as far as I'm concerned, it's not only similar: it's identical.

If you had all your possessions in front of you, would you bet everything you owned on this line: that matter simply emerged on its own accord, we people included?

West Vigrinia won the Sugar Bowl, just to let you know. And I saved a potential 50 bucks. I suppose ESPN did know about it, after all.

From the Jungles of Overs and Unders,

Kang Louie

rob117

Back to the OP's post-

There is some debate as to the dating of the Bible and the reality of the Exodus and United Monarchy.

The Pentateuch as it comes down to us is a post-exilic redaction of earlier works, but most of the source material is pre-exilic, probably dating from the last two centuries of the monarchy. The Deuteronomistic history is commonly believed to be propaganda commisioned by Josiah, and it was re-edited sometime during the Exile in order to suit the current situation. The Deuteronomist probably used temple records and earlier works when compiling his history of the two kingdoms (he makes explicit references to this-"As for the rest of the deeds of [insert king], they are written in the Annals of the Kings of Judah/Israel), but heavily edited them to suit his theological views, and probably inserted popular legends about past kings that were current in his own day (such as the story of Sennacherib's army being smote by an angel). For his information on pre-monarchic times, he probably relied on oral and written traditions, so its accuracy is suspect.

Apart from the Deuteronomist, the other three main sources are J and E, which are probably early-mid eighth century, and P, which is probably late eighth. There are also some smaller sources (such as Genesis 14, which is an independent composition); some of the more archaic poetry may date back to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries.

The Patriarchs as historical figures seem to have been discarded by most. The Exodus as the Bible tells is not believable, but some claim there was still a small influx of Egyptian slaves into the population of early Israel who brought their story with them, although I personally don't see the need for this. The conquest under Joshua is a myth, pure and simple. Certain traditions about the period of the Judges, such as Philistine dominance in the area and the Israelite expansion causing conflict between the two peoples, are attested archaeologically, but the memory of the period as it comes down to us is unsurprisingly distorted via centuries of oral tradition before it was written down.

While Finkelstein suggests that the United Monarchy was invented by Josiah as propaganda, he is in the minority in this, and the majority of archaeologists still give it some credence (although the Biblical account of it is definitely exaggerated). Finkelstein's Low chronology is still a minority view; if it ultimately proves correct, the United Monarchy will have to be discarded. But the existence of a man named David as the founder of the Judean (southern) dynasty need not be doubted- the Dan stele refers to him as the founder of the Judean maonarchy less than a century and a half after the rise of states in that region (the interpretaion of btdwd "Beth-Dod" is not seriously considered). Even if the United Monarchy proves unhistorical it is likely to have originated as a legend rather than as Josiah's propaganda- J, E, and P are probably pre-Josianic and still make references (in the form of "prophecy" and subtle allusions) to the United Monarchy.

Pendaric

I'm glad you won your bets on the ball game. I'm still not entirely sure if you're saying you believe in Noah and the ark or not.

As regards the start of the universe, it's an entirely seperate issue. That's why we have a different forum for Evolution/Creation. And to be frank, it's not an area I am massively well researched in. Therefore, I probably wouldn't bet until I'd done a deal more studying.

Having said that, you do understand that essentially this can be turned back on you: are you saying that God simply emerged on it's own accord?

Eventually, you have to accept an uncaused event, be it matter or God. Matter seems a lot simpler and is observable directly in the here and now.

You once ran a thread to which the answer was 'I don't know'. Guess that's where I am on matters of such cosmological significance. But I'd like to share a quote that I like - you may have seen me use it before:

If I'm forced to bet, I'm going for matter always existing. If you get in to the deep philosophy of it, time is seen by some as not existing without matter. Therefore, there wasn't a time without matter.

I'm forcing you to bet. Did Noah exist? Simple yes or no.

Pendaric

And just to say - the questions of creation and ancient Middle Eastern history are not really comparable.

Creation is still in the realms of theoretical understanding, to the best of my knowledge. Archaeological history, as evinced by the very interesting post by rob117, is very much more in the realms of the knowable. The sands don't shift nearly as much.

KingLouie

I don't know for sure, Baldie, is what I was trying to say.

From the Jungles Of Things I Wish I Did,

Kang Louie