Moniker wrote:Oh my goodness. I don't even know what to say -- yet, I'm replying.
That's so barbaric. They didn't share this story when I was zoning out at the Methodist Church. Or if they did I was so zoned out in lala land I didn't catch it.
Why wouldn't you consider them barbaric? It's not like they were especially civilized.
I suspect the numbers may not be entirely reliable. But these peoples certianly existed. Chariots existed in that time and area. That these people existed and fought seriously for control of that area is quite historical. The Philitines were real invaders that came in boats, tried to invade Egypt but were repulsed. They had much more success in Isreal. People fought for their lives. It is a cold hart which can come up with no sympathy for Isreals struggle to survive.
Perhaps later story telling inflated Davids military success but the political entity that he established is historical. It is true that direcet evidence of David himself is pretty much limited to the Bible. The kingdom though divided figures in the historical comments of outsiders. It is real history as real as the day as long. Clearly significant unifying military success happened at the time of David. That is no fictiion.
The idea that polical unities capable of living under a rule of law were formed at the price of brutal fighting is not just some fiction of the Bible. It is the pattern found all over the world. It is our history, our reality, whether we are too squeemish to look at it or not.
Seems to me like mention of King David of Isreal, or the House of David (I forget which) was found on a tablet uncovered in the desert in Isreal a few years ago.
Hi Harmony, I believe you are correct about the find you mention. It adds to the general picture that at the very least starting with Judges the Old Testament is concrete literal history. My thought is that the large movements or events are important and real while details like the exact number of combatants in a confict are not so important and may or may not be really accurate.
I have had the impression that the style of Judges and themes of Judges seem closer to Book of Mormon style than some other parts of the Bible. For wat ever reasons. The similarity does not argue much against the historical reality of the struggle described in the Old Testament to my understanding.
huckelberry wrote:Hi Harmony, I believe you are correct about the find you mention. It adds to the general picture that at the very least starting with Judges the Old Testament is concrete literal history. My thought is that the large movements or events are important and real while details like the exact number of combatants in a confict are not so important and may or may not be really accurate.
I have had the impression that the style of Judges and themes of Judges seem closer to Book of Mormon style than some other parts of the Bible. For wat ever reasons. The similarity does not argue much against the historical reality of the struggle described in the Old Testament to my understanding.
Personally, I think the authors were rewriting history, not writing it. They had an agenda. Isreal/Judah was a small city-state, from what I remember, not at all important in the grand scheme of things at the time.
harmony, If I said all, every possible instance, of history is a rewriting with an agenda, would you disagree? I think it makes sense when reading to ask what agenda is involved. I am not sure what significance you are intending by pointing out that Isreal is a little pipsqeek place. It does contribute to the fact that they understood themselves as in danger. They did not thnk of themselves as the big established authority, they were not. The fact might contribute to some inflation of numbers sometimes I imagine.
Moniker wrote:Oh my goodness. I don't even know what to say -- yet, I'm replying.
That's so barbaric. They didn't share this story when I was zoning out at the Methodist Church. Or if they did I was so zoned out in lala land I didn't catch it.
Why wouldn't you consider them barbaric? It's not like they were especially civilized.
The actions are barbaric -- it just seems odd everytime I see it in religion. I dunno -- it's just strange, for me. I attended when I was incredibly tiny at a Methodist Church then never really attended for years. My parents tried to take me back when I was a teenager but I embarrassed them so that didn't work out so well. I did go to a Catholic Church and LDS Church with friends as a teen -- but don't recall hearing stories like this -- or it's quite likely I just was not paying any sort of attention. I did read the Bible a looooong time ago... but may have actually not read the entire thing. I'm thinking I must not have? I did read the Book of Mormon a very long time ago, as well -- yet, quite likely didn't really absorb much of it. Read bits and pieces of the Book of Mormon lately -- but quite frankly had difficulty getting through it.
The sermons I've heard attending some local Churches just don't talk about these sort of stories from the Bible. I dunno -- it just seems weird to me.
I don't know how to explain it really. I don't know how to reconcile some of these horrific stories with religion. Is there some meaning that is supposed to be taken from them to improve life? Are these stories studied? I mean, what is done with the nastier aspects?