This is a "Nova" show that aired last night in my area. It's available for watching online, too. It brought together three main strands: the origins of the ancient Israelites, the evolution of their belief in the one God, and the creation of the Bible. The show took the common-sense approach that as we come forward in time, the historical basis for the biblical chronology increases. For the earliest events, before the reign of King David, no historical corroboration exists. For David and Solomon heading a powerful united kingdom, the evidence was presented as mixed. Some believe that buildings discovered within the oldest part of Jerusalem are the fortress of David's city.

One speaker observed that there is no word for "history" in the Bible, and that history as we understand it wasn't what the Jewish writers of the Bible were up to. They were attempting to provide a sustaining story for a distinct people that had gradually emerged from a collapsed Canaanite kingdom. The historical nugget of truth in the Exodus story is that a smallish group of Canaanite slaves escaped from Egypt, picked up the god YHWH from another group on their way back home, and then inspired the rest of this Canaanite underclass with their tale of freedom under YHWH's protection. There was never a conquering of Canaan from an outside army of Israelites. The Israelites were there all the time.

Monotheism doesn't become established in Israel until after the return from the Babylonian exile in the 6th century. The Bible does talk about Israelite lapses into polytheism ever since the time of the legendary Abraham, but archaeology shows that polytheistic worship was constant by Israelites until it finally was purged by the exiled Jews in Babylon.

Reading the Bible as history to the letter is an aberration of fairly recent times. No doubt the Jews considered their Bible scribes to be inspired by Yahweh, but they understood inspiration differently from modern literalists. It didn't bother them that creation could be said to have happened in two ways, or that the flood story is actually a combination of two accounts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bi ... crets.html

Thanks DWill, unfortunately the video is not available for viewing in Australia, but it sounds interesting.

I confess, since reading Stephen Oppenheimer's account of tracking human DNA from Africa, I prefer to think that the Exodus is actually a very deep racial memory of the actual exodus from Djibouti to Yemen across the mouth of the Red Sea whereby homo sapien expanded from Africa to the rest of the world 80,000 years ago. And as for the flood, sea levels rose by about 150 metres from the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago to the dawn of the Holocene 10,000 years ago, and the flooding of all coastal districts over that long period could well have been distorted into the Biblical account.

I know this is pure speculation, but at least it is possible, unlike the Bible myths.

I don't know what is more amazing; the stuff that makes it onto TV, or the people who buy into it.

The scenario you relate seems to parallel, to a large degree the premises we encountered in TEoG. I confess that I did not watch the show and don't intend to - I've seen and heard it before and it falls apart on two fronts.

First of all, "One speaker observed that there is no word for history in the Bible..."[see DWill post above.]

His statement indicts him for his ignorance, and you and the other BT members would not be excited by this error if you had a basic knowledge of the Bible.

What about 1st and 2nd Chronicles? What is a Chronicle?

Generally a chronicle (Latin: chronica, from Greek χρονικά, from χρόνος, chronos, "time") is a historical account of facts and events ranged in chronological order, as in a time line. Typically, equal weight is given for historically important events and local events, the purpose being the recording of events that occurred, seen from the perspective of the chronicler. This is in contrast to a narrative or history, which sets selected events in a meaningful interpretive context and excludes those the author does not see as important

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle

[Originally 1st and Second Chronicles were one book in what we call the OT.]
As noted, in Hebrew it [was] called Divrei Hayyamim (also Dibh’re Hayyamim), meaning “the matters [of] the days,” based on “sefer divrei ha-yamim le-malkhei Yehudah” as well as “sefer divrei ha-yammim lemalkhei Israel,” meaning “book of the days of the kings of Judah” and “book of the days of the kings of Israel,” respectively.

theendtimesarehere.com/2011/03/17/book- ... hronicles/

Seems like Chronicles was a history to me. Even if wasn't called that exact word, that is what it was intended to be, as was, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st Samuel, 2nd Samuel, 1st Kings, 2nd Kings, 1st Chronicles, 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.

The first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as the Books of the Law.
The next 12 books of the Bible are referred to as the Books of History.

The books contain geneaologies, accounts of battles and encounters with people...in short histories.

Second, it is amazing that these 'scholars' know better what the reason for the writing of the Bible was than the authors. Try reading the Bible instead of listening to the hacks and you will learn something instead of wasting the time you spent wating NOVA.

I don't know what is more amazing; the stuff that makes it onto TV, or the people who buy into it.

Like thinking all humans are born unpure or sinful, that there is a place of eternal torture where we're sent to if we're bad, that at one point in the past every human on Earth was purely evil, that asses talked and faith makes you immune to poison, that all scientists are perpetrating a worldwide conspiracy greater than any ever known, that logic doesn't apply to epistemology.

Yes, the stupid things people buy into.

Interbane wrote: Like thinking all humans are born unpure or sinful, that there is a place of eternal torture where we're sent to if we're bad, that at one point in the past every human on Earth was purely evil, that asses talked and faith makes you immune to poison, that all scientists are perpetrating a worldwide conspiracy greater than any ever known, that logic doesn't apply to epistemology.

Yes, the stupid things people buy into.

The punishment you allude to is not predicated on misbehavior but your claim that it is represents an addition to your list-People who criticize things they have no knowledge of. The other points in you supposed rebuttal are all things which are recorded in a Book which has been the source of inspiriation and encouragement for thousands of years. You may question the stories but you can't disprove them. On the otherhand, when a major television broadcast purports to examine the Bible and fails in something as elementary as not understanding that the Bible was written, in part as a history, I must point that out. That the error was perpetuated in this discussion underscores my constant complaint that most of the participants on BT do not have even a basic understanding of the Bible. That they do not and do not want to is there choice, but don't get upset when you make silly errors about the Bible and they are pointed out. That is inevitable. I suppose that it is also inevitable that an unrelated jab at the Bible will result from the frustation of the error being pointed out.

stahrwe wrote:I don't know what is more amazing; the stuff that makes it onto TV, or the people who buy into it.

The scenario you relate seems to parallel, to a large degree the premises we encountered in TEoG. I confess that I did not watch the show and don't intend to - I've seen and heard it before and it falls apart on two fronts.

First of all, "One speaker observed that there is no word for history in the Bible..."[see DWill post above.]

His statement indicts him for his ignorance, and you and the other BT members would not be excited by this error if you had a basic knowledge of the Bible.

What about 1st and 2nd Chronicles? What is a Chronicle?

Generally a chronicle (Latin: chronica, from Greek χρονικά, from χρόνος, chronos, "time") is a historical account of facts and events ranged in chronological order, as in a time line. Typically, equal weight is given for historically important events and local events, the purpose being the recording of events that occurred, seen from the perspective of the chronicler. This is in contrast to a narrative or history, which sets selected events in a meaningful interpretive context and excludes those the author does not see as important

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle

[Originally 1st and Second Chronicles were one book in what we call the OT.]
As noted, in Hebrew it [was] called Divrei Hayyamim (also Dibh’re Hayyamim), meaning “the matters [of] the days,” based on “sefer divrei ha-yamim le-malkhei Yehudah” as well as “sefer divrei ha-yammim lemalkhei Israel,” meaning “book of the days of the kings of Judah” and “book of the days of the kings of Israel,” respectively.

theendtimesarehere.com/2011/03/17/book- ... hronicles/

Seems like Chronicles was a history to me. Even if wasn't called that exact word, that is what it was intended to be, as was, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st Samuel, 2nd Samuel, 1st Kings, 2nd Kings, 1st Chronicles, 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.

The first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as the Books of the Law.
The next 12 books of the Bible are referred to as the Books of History.

The books contain geneaologies, accounts of battles and encounters with people...in short histories.

Second, it is amazing that these 'scholars' know better what the reason for the writing of the Bible was than the authors. Try reading the Bible instead of listening to the hacks and you will learn something instead of wasting the time you spent wating NOVA.

The books contain geneaologies, accounts of battles and encounters with people...in short histories.

The New International Version includes the word history three times

Ezra 4:15
so that a search may be made in the archives of your predecessors. In these records you will find that this city is a rebellious city, troublesome to kings and provinces, a place with a long history of sedition.
Ezra 4:19
I issued an order and a search was made, and it was found that this city has a long history of revolt against kings and has been a place of rebellion and sedition.
Acts 17:26
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

Robert,

Thank you.

Star Burst,

I have no idea what your point was but I know people who have been slammed for duplica post.

stahrwe wrote:I don't know what is more amazing; the stuff that makes it onto TV, or the people who buy into it.

The scenario you relate seems to parallel, to a large degree the premises we encountered in TEoG. I confess that I did not watch the show and don't intend to - I've seen and heard it before and it falls apart on two fronts.

First of all, "One speaker observed that there is no word for history in the Bible..."[see DWill post above.]

His statement indicts him for his ignorance, and you and the other BT members would not be excited by this error if you had a basic knowledge of the Bible.

What about 1st and 2nd Chronicles? What is a Chronicle?

I used to like some children's books called The Chronicles of Narnia. I guess they were historical... must have been. You don't actually refute the statement, notice. But since you're not going to acquaint yourself with any of the rest of the presentation, out of certain knowledge that it all has to be false, don't you think it's be better just not to comment?

You proceed on the assumption that knowing the Bible equals having good judgment about it. You demonstrate that that isn't necessarily so.

DWill wrote:
I used to like some children's books called The Chronicles of Narnia. I guess they were historical... must have been. You don't actually refute the statement, notice. But since you're not going to acquaint yourself with any of the rest of the presentation, out of certain knowledge that it all has to be false, don't you think it's be better just not to comment?

You proceed on the assumption that knowing the Bible equals having good judgment about it. You demonstrate that that isn't necessarily so.

I actually did demonstrate the error about 'history' and the Bible and Robert, to his credit backed me up.

As for Narnia C. S. Lewis stated that his purpose in writing them was to present the Gospels in a format accessible to children. He was inspired by Tolkein and especially George MacDonald though MacDonald's fiction was not intended for children. It was never intended to be a history and to bring it up as a rebuttal is a definite miss unless you would like to propose it a the fiction discussion; after-all you did say you liked them.

As for watching the show, being wrong about 'history' does not inspire one with respect to the level of scholarship associated with it. I have also endured enough of those shows to know the drill so I am not optimistic that I would hear something new or compelling. Finally, one is getting too old to repeat the same mistakes so just as I don't have to pole myself in the eye to know it hurts I don't have to watch a show that didn't do basic fact checking to know it will ... well, you fill in the blank.