-Jay-

I've always had the impression that the ark served as God's throne when he had something to say, but that it wasn't his permanent seat.

The notion of God being effectively kidnapped when the ark was lost is an interesting one, though.

regards,

NinJay

Roger Pearse

I'm awfully sorry. I clearly didn't make myself clear; I'll try to do better.

If I was running a bible class (no chance), I can tell you that I would throw out any member of the class who I found out was getting together with people online to come up with 'clever' questions and answers, unless he had cleared it with the group first. It subverts the whole point of the group, unless *everyone* is in the same position.

This is why I wondered if you had checked it with them first. They may not take kindly to it, you know.

Of course it is of course everyone's right to do whatever they choose. There is nothing whatever to stop someone going into the local bar and asking 11 hell's angels what they think they're looking at; in the same way that it is everyone's human right to take a bottle in the face while innocently asking 11 hell's angels whether they can identify their trainers.

I merely indicate possible consequences.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cege

I'm not sure that I've had an impression about it in the past, but since 1 Samuel 4 (and other places in the OT) says:

4 So the people sent men to Shiloh, and they brought back the ark of the covenant of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim.

I do wonder know what the writer intended to convey and what the Israelites believed at that time, roughly 1200 BCE. The words seem to me to imply that LORD Almighty's permanent place at that time was between the cherubim, on an invisible throne of sorts, with the Holy of Holy area as a sort of throne room inside the tabernacle tent.

Or maybe "LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim" was one of many other titles given to the Jevohah God?

The name Ichabod-- meaning "the glory has departed from Israel"-- was given to Eli's newborn grandson by his dying mother on the day the ark was taken. If God wasn't considered kidnapped, it would seem at least the glory of God had been.

Cege

No Roger, I haven't "cleared it with the group", and don't intend to. I don't need to, especially since I'm not conspiring with atheists to come up with 'clever' questions to pose in class. Most of the class members have little or nothing to say or ask, but only listen. Believe me, the class members already are quite aware that I am not just a liberal but a "flaming liberal" as my husband describes me.

In class, I pose questions to the teacher, and he's fully aware that I participate in discussions online that include a majority of atheists and agnostics, with a spattering of Christians.

In this forum, I can learn from posters who have a wealth of history and archeology at their fingertips, and who have opinions based on their own research rather than just accepting what they've been told. None of those attributes are necessarily held by my classmates.

-Jay-

You bring up a interesting point, Roger. I'd like to make sure I understand your perspective.

I could construe your statement to mean that you think that ifone is involved in a Bible class, then one should not go outside of the class for clarification or other information. I don't think that's strictly what you mean.

I would agree with the notion that if one is involved in such a class, then one shouldn't go outside of the class for information with the express intent of tripping up the leader or undermining the charter of the class. I would agree with that whether you were referring to a Bible class, an astrophysics class, or a book club discussion of the latest Harry Potter. That approach is, well, unsporting at best. I think this is the spirit that your comment was intended.

I would disagree strongly with the notion that if one is involved in such a class, then one shouldn't go outside of the class for information to supplement one's own understanding of the material. This sort of excursion is just what people who are curious about things do.

Would you be as kind as to clarify a little more?

I personally lead a Sunday school group of 12-14 year olds, and I made it clear at the outset that I wanted them to go outside of the group for other opinions and interpretations, because I feel that such variety makes good discussion material, and because I'd rather have a group that I'm talking with than a group that I'm talking to.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

Cege, I commend you for your up-front approach to the matter. You're not in the most comfortable of positions to be in. I also commend your apparent spirit of inquiry.

When I volunteered to lead a Sunday school class for teens, I was very honest with both my parish priest and the lady who organizes the classes about my intention to introduce modern scholarship into the discussions and not merely read Bible passages to the kids. I benefit from having a fairly liberal priest who values modern interpretation and scholarship, but I understood from the outset that my approach might prove to be controversial to some. So far the kids have been a great group, and the parents have been supportive of my approach. (Most of them I already knew, and I made a point of talking with the ones I didn't.)

regards,

NinJay

Cege

NinJay, I commend you on your approach. It would seem to be much the same approach as my class' teacher takes. He doesn't use church/denomination teaching materials, but takes a chosen book of the Bible, verse by verse and explains modern interpretation and scholarship as well as the conventional. His expository verse-by-verse style has inspired 2 other adult classes of the same type.

-Jay-

I've got "official" materials. Sometimes they're very good, others not so much. I deviate from them. A lot. Often.

I actually find working with the kids to be more interesting than working with (some of) the adults. Once the kids actually engage, they as surprisingly thoughtful questions. Most of the adults tend to be content to sit and listen.

(I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to suggest why that's the case...)

I'm trying to build interest in a more interactive adult group, but it's a tough rock to get rolling.

regards,

NinJay

Cege

Since we're just being chummy for the moment, I'll comment about kids listening and asking thoughtful questions. My church's schedule changed in September, adding another Sunday School hour and church service to the Sunday mornings, and as a result my 31 year old son is now in my class (it's a class of mixed age adults, ranging from 17 to 72). He's mildly mentally impaired from birth, but is a good listener and he's been asking as many or more thoughtful questions as the 'normal' class members.

I'm a proud mom!

And now, back to 1 Samuel. In chapter 4, when the ark is captured, the Israelites are said to have had 34,000 men killed in battle during (what appears to be) 2 days. Is there any archeology to support those kind of numbers of dead soldiers in that area in that supposed time period of 1200 BCE?

Later in the book of Samuel, it says that a census showed 1,300,000 men fit for military service, but are those numbers anything close to accurate to the actual population of Israelites at that time?

-Jay-

None whatsoever. That would have been an unrealistically huge percentage of the entire population of the region.

Absolutely not. My quick read of both Finkelstein/Silberman (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Dever (or via: amazon.co.uk) suggests populations didn't get that large until much, much later. (Dever suggests a total population around that time of in the neighborhood of 50,000.)

For comparison, the population of modern Israel is about 6.5 million people. Of these, roughly 2.5 million men and women (the split is almost even) between the ages of 17 and 49 are fit for military service. In other words, 1 Sam shows a number of men fit for service slightly larger than Israel has now. That just doesn't pass any sort of reality check.

regards,

NinJay