TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

[ttf_Baron von Bone]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Today at 11:21 AMDave, I think that what Martin is hinting at is that your use of your "Occam's Razor" test works well for you except when it might go against your naturalistic presuppositions and then they trump the Razor.
Only if you're using the magic variable.
 
X + Y + MV = ∞
 
The most popular formulation by far:

[ttf_drizabone]

Its our version of the cosmological constant

[ttf_drizabone]

Ezekiel 7 text

Highlights

 - Now they're really in trouble

Summary

 - God tells Ezekiel that he will punish Israel for their abominations, without pity
 - Disaster will come after disaster.
 - their pride, violence and abominations have become so great that the day of their punishment has arrived
 - Their abundance and wealth will all disappear. Buyers and sellers will both mourn, and the sellers won't get back what they've sold.
 - The people are prepared for battle but won't be able to fight, since God's wrath is on them.
 - Destruction by the sword is outside the city, and pestilence and famine are inside.
 - The survivors will be left in the mountains, like doves fleeing their valley.
 - They'll grow weak in the knees and don sackcloth in repentance and shame.
 - Their wealth, which they used to create their idols, won't be of any use to them and they'll be forced to throw it away.
 - The invading Babylonians will seize that wealth and take it for booty.
 - God will turn away his face, so that the invaders can plunder and defile his own Temple.
 - The arrogant will find no peace and disaster will follow on disaster. The priests and prophets will be useless to the people.
 - The people will know that God is The Lord when he does to them according to their own judgements

Questions and Observations

1) There are 2 types of oracle so far:
  - one type is where God tells Ezekiel stuff and he writes it down. So far these have been judgements.
  - the other type is where Exekiel sees a vision (eg ch1) and recounts it.  This one has been a vision of God's court room

[ttf_drizabone]

Ezekiel 8 text

Highlights

 - visions of abominations

Summary

 - Date: 6/5/5. Ezekiel is sitting in front of Judah's elders. The hand of the Lord falls on Ezekiel.
 - He sees a figure with fiery loins and legs and an amber torso. Its hand reaches out and grabs Ezekiel by a lock of his hair, and the spirit of God brings him to Jerusalem in a vision.
 - It sits him down in front of the "image of jealousy" in the Temple. The glory of God looks the same way he saw it in Chapter 1
 - God shows Ezekiel this idolatrous "image of jealousy" but says, just wait, there's worse.
 - He tells Ezekiel to dig through the Temple's wall. Ezekiel digs through and sees a room with all kinds of animals and creeping things on the walls.
 - The elders of Israel are in the room, swinging incense and worshipping the evil images.
 - But God says there's still worse to come.
 - Next, he shows Ezekiel women weeping for the god Tammuz, and finally, twenty-five people all bowing down to the sun.
 - God says that the people won't stop with these abominations. They're also filling the land with violence and "putting the branch to their noses" .
 - God will bring wrath on them; groveling won't help one bit.

Questions and Observations

1) visions and words.  Multimedia!

2) The "image of jealosy" or abomination reminds me of the "abomination of desolation" that is described in Daniel 12, Matthew 24

3) I guess putting the branch to your nose would be kind of like thumbing your nose

[ttf_BillO]

An expression of possible violence from the God of the Christians?

No way!!!

Religion is not violent, is it?



I've not been following this since the early submissions regarding Genesis.  Sorry for the sudden interjection.

[ttf_drizabone]

Hey BillO, nice to meet you.

Glad you could drop in.

If you hadn't been following since Genesis, you've missed a lot of violence.  And good stuff too.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 20, 2017, 02:39PMI'm wondering why Ezekiel decided to write what he did to the exiles in Babylon?  The exiles would have been in a pluralistic society that had idols, values and world views that would have competed with Yahweh.  Sounds like today. The message of being faithful to Yahweh seems to fit strongly with your i).  Given that idolatry didn't seem to be a problem after the exile, it seemed to have been successful.  Would this have been the case if Ezekiel's predictions hadn't been accepted as accurate and reliable?  (They may have stopped overtly worshipping other gods/idols but that didn't mean that they were particularly faithful to Yahweh.) 

I've sat down three times now to write some stuff in reply to this about Judaism moving from polytheism to monotheism and how the exile related to this. How Yahweh-worshippers won out, basically - what influences went into the change. But three times I've abandoned the effort, becoming daunted by the scale of the topic, its ill-documentedness, and my patchy knowledge of it. So I think I'll have to abdicate it for now, in the interests of not holding up my thread participation... Sorry.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 20, 2017, 09:08PMI nearly forgot this. I wanted to explain how I see things.  I think I understand why you don't understand. You're a material sort of guy.  We or at least I, on the other hand, believe that the God of the bible exists, that he created everything and that everything that happens, whether mundane or exotic, is God's activity.  So whether or not we can identify a mechanical explanation for something, its not a problem to see a spiritual explanation to it. 

(Aside: And he knows what is going to happen either because he is out of time and can see it everything at once, or because he knows what he's going to do.) 

I understand that the bible is God's revelation to us, so its expected that things that it talks about will have special significance, regardless whether they are seen as mundane or not.

I also note that the scientific explanation of gravity and other non-supernatural physical phenomena are far from mundane.  Any one for some quantum mechanics before breakfast?  Entanglement is so not mundane isn't it.  (But I know science didn't skip the easy obvious explanation and go straight for the right one, like you're complaining about for these prophecies.)
'Mundane' is perhaps a misleading term for me to have used; it has two meanings, as the dictionary tells us:

1. lacking interest or excitement; dull.
2. of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one.

My intended meaning is the second one, with a vaguely-humorously-meant allusion to the first signposted by the use of the word 'exotic' in contrast, intended to make the reader compare the two meanings and wonder what the reason was that the word developed both. Things proceeding in easily-seen ways from known physical principles that have proven consistent with reality. That doesn't preclude the principles and mechanisms being difficult ones for the human brain to get itself around. If you've established that something a bit weird-seeming happens, then it becomes valid to use it in one's thinking.

The difference between us is that you think that 'God did it' is already well established as both a principle and a mechanism. So you add that to your list of candidate possibilities.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 20, 2017, 09:08PMSo I'm just pointing out that the simple mundane explanation is often not right, and my perspective facilitates our not being biased to exclude a spiritual cause for events.  And it also allows me to express this so that it sounds like we're not biased like you
Ref 'mundane' above.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 20, 2017, 09:08PMOn a slight tangent, I've read that many people rejected Newton's idea of gravity because the idea of objects acting on each other at a distance was to exotic and smacked of the supernatural.

Indeed! Did you know that this aspect is not yet fully resolved?

But - and here's the important difference separating the 'faithy' mindset - it's okay to admit that. It's a strength to do so. We note the question as an important one to continue working on, while also noting that Newton's theory (and Einstein's later refinement) describe what we observe incredibly well.
But I've abandoned it three times on grounds of it being a huge and ill-documented topic that I don't understand well enough, and it's holding up my other participation in the thread. So I'll abdicate it, I think, for now... Sorry.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 21, 2017, 11:21AMDave, I think that what Martin is hinting at is that your use of your "Occam's Razor" test works well for you except when it might go against your naturalistic presuppositions and then they trump the Razor.

So no, as Martin says, this wasn't what he was saying, or hinting at. Reading between the lines on the internet, even with humour, is truly a fraught art apt to go wrong on every occasion.

If I might attempt a slightly barbed observation... Martin's words are a whole lot easier to interpret than those of the Christian Bible... Sorry, that was perhaps unfair...

John, could you lay out for me exactly what you think my presuppositions are? I have a feeling that they may not be exactly what you are assuming... I guess we could get back into the strand I mentioned in my reply to Martin above, if it helps:

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 20, 2017, 02:35AMThis is a basic problem of human recording. All events are filtered through the perception of the recorder, no matter how objective they strive to be. But that doesn't mean that objectivity isn't worth the effort, despite the attempts of some to line up attempted objectivity and passionately embraced subjectivity as equivalent - we touched on this a few pages back with John pointing out that being scientific is not some kind of philosophical perfection as if that invalidated the worth of striving to get closer to reliability. I ran out of time to reply to that strand - but that observation was the core of my next reply that never got written.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 21, 2017, 10:15PMI've not been following this since the early submissions regarding Genesis.  Sorry for the sudden interjection.

No apology needed; the more the merrier.

Would you care to oblige us with a chapter summary?

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 21, 2017, 07:58PMEzekiel 8 text

 - Date: 6/5/5.
i.e. 592 BC, a year after the first prophecy.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 21, 2017, 07:58PM - Next, he shows Ezekiel women weeping for the god Tammuz, and finally, twenty-five people all bowing down to the sun.
Tammuz is a deity that we haven't heard of in these books before. Apparently the Babylonian god of agriculture.

We see from Ezekiel's description how non-uniform religious worship was in his society - or at least we see how frightened the Yahwists were of other religious traditions.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Ezekiel 9 text

Highlights

 - Ezekiel imagines a bloody retribution for non-Yahwists

Summary

 - In the vision, Yahweh appoints seven men to 'cleanse' Jerusalem of those that don't mind religious pluralism
 - The first man is appointed to go through the population and place a mark on the forehead of any who pass the test
 - The rest are instructed to follow with weapons and kill all that are unmarked, with a specific instruction to disregard age and gender

Questions and Observations

1) The mark is reminiscent of the passover story.
2) This isn't just an imagined purge of those that aren't Yahwists - it's also of those that don't object to the existence of non-Yahwists. Extreme. Fortunately, Ezekiel is once again tripping balls...

[ttf_patrickosmith]

I recall the quote from Pulp Fiction, Ezekiel 25:17.
This Ezekiel dude seems like a real badass.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 03:19 AMNo apology needed; the more the merrier.

Would you care to oblige us with a chapter summary?
I wouldn't mind providing you with another step toward my apostasy, but I'd have to go back to Genesis 1 and 2 and relate to you how I got kicked out of confirmation classes.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 02:50 AMSo no, as Martin says, this wasn't what he was saying, or hinting at. Reading between the lines on the internet, even with humour, is truly a fraught art apt to go wrong on every occasion.

If I might attempt a slightly barbed observation... Martin's words are a whole lot easier to interpret than those of the Christian Bible... Sorry, that was perhaps unfair...

John, could you lay out for me exactly what you think my presuppositions are? I have a feeling that they may not be exactly what you are assuming... I guess we could get back into the strand I mentioned in my reply to Martin above, if it help"


Dave, Yes, I did miss a few days-- I was busy and sidetracked-- and it does look like I misunderstood somewhat.  I even missed what looks like a call for me to jump in.

However, the issue of presuppositions still does come in.  If I'm understanding the flow correctly, you were wrestling with the historical background to Ezekiel in the context of the Assyrian empire and pointing out that we have some data from the biblical texts and some from the Assyrian court records, both of which contained clear religiously laden understandings and don't always agree.  Your inclination was to trust the Assyrian because it was "closer to the scene."  This does raise the issue of self-promotion which has been documented as occuring in the Ancient Near East, but that's another issue.  Your discussion shows your attempt to find a "naturalistic" explanation that would bypass any need for the supernatural such as foretelling.  It's at that point where my quip about the selective use of Occam's Razor came in.  Since I was out of the loop for a few days, I very well may have misunderstood.

Have I understood the discussion?  I don't want what was intended to be a humorous, but still relevant quip to be on the basis of misunderstanding what your intent was.

[ttf_BillO]

Ezekiel 10 text

Highlights

 - Ezekiel’s hallucination continues

Summary
- A rather opulent sapphire throne appears and the man in the linen clothes is asked to take coals from the fire between the cherubim and spread them though the city.
 - The man is handed the coals by a cherub and then he leaves
 - The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the splendor of the cherubim returning to the house of the lord on a rather lavish and strange looking carriage having beryl wheels with eye-filled rims and spokes.

Questions and Observations

1) Well, let's hope we find out what the guy with coals does with them in the next chapter.  This one is a real cliff-hanger!
2) What’s the significance of the wheels not turning?
3) Or all the eyes?
4) If the wheels don't turn, why are they called whirling wheels?
5) Seems that the Lord is a spendthrift.  Are sapphire thrones and beryl wheeled carriages really necessary while there are people starving?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:28 AMEzekiel 10 text

Highlights

 - Ezekiel’s hallucination continues

Summary
- A rather opulent sapphire throne appears and the man in the linen clothes is asked to take coals from the fire between the cherubim and spread them though the city.
 - The man is handed the coals by a cherub and then he leaves
 - The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the splendor of the cherubim returning to the house of the lord on a rather lavish and strange looking carriage having beryl wheels with eye-filled rims and spokes.

Questions and Observations

1) Well, let's hope we find out what the guy with coals does with them in the next chapter.  This one is a real cliff-hanger!
2) What’s the significance of the wheels not turning?
3) Or all the eyes?
4) If the wheels don't turn, why are they called whirling wheels?
5) Seems that the Lord is a spendthrift.  Are sapphire thrones and beryl wheeled carriages really necessary while there are people starving?


It's a heavenly vision.  The wheels whirl within themselves, but don't turn for direction.

The eyes refer to the omniscience of the Lord.  There's a long discussion about this in both Jewish and Christian history of interpretation.  I have a friend who wrote his PHD thesis on the history of interpretation of this vision, but the last I talked with him about it was years ago

Since it's a heavenly vision, the quip about the Lord being a spendthrift is really a moot point.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 08:28 AMEzekiel 10 text

...

5) Seems that the Lord is a spendthrift.  Are sapphire thrones and beryl wheeled carriages really necessary while there are people starving?


Good question.  It made me think.

So assuming the question is about a vision of reality rather than a hallucination, I think
- God created everything, just by speaking. (Sapphires are trivial compared to galaxies)
- so creating stuff, even expensive impressive stuff is cost free for God, so he's going to do it for different reasons than money
- I think the sapphire thrones and beryl wheels are likely to be there because they look nice and because they are visually impressive rather than to tell us that God is wealthy
- I would rephrase your question as: if God can easily create sapphire thrones and beryl wheels he can create food too, so why doesn't he feed everyone.  or more generally why does he make or let people suffer?
- in the context of Ezekiel: its happening because God is punishing people.
- as to why God allows or causes people to suffer generally? We've argued about that before and not convinced anyone of anything so don't think there's much use in discussing it again, but if you want to, then can we go over to the Religion thread?

Or were you just being rhetorical?

--------------------------------------- New point!

But what strikes me as potentially significant about the passage is that The Lord is leaving the temple.

Since Moses God has been Israel's God, and he has dwelt among them. Even when they betrayed him and apostated themselves (is that a word), he did not leave them.  Now he is leaving them.  This looks serious.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 05:13 PMOr were you just being rhetorical?
Nope.

Perhaps I should have said "...while people are dying".  Why show such ridiculous opulence against the background of slaughter and suffering?  It makes God seem more like a drug lord than the glorious and benevolent creator.  Does God need to create images of sapphire thrones and beryl wheeled winged chariots to impress?  Seems like the approach of someone with deeply seated insecurities.  More like the creation of a human mind that admires such trinkets, rather than an omnipotent mind.

If you're God, why even do all this slaughtering anyway?  Did God create a flawed thing in his image?

Why make up this vision of you sitting back in ridiculous opulence with little cherubs to do your bidding while co-opted assassins do the dirty work of going out and murdering your subjects because you made them in such a way that they are fallible. Is he not able fix it?  Here's an idea.  Maybe God should create this thing called evolution and over time the errors that cause people to do stupid things will naturally and eventually get weeded out for you.

There is a lot in this book of the Bible and it brings up many question if you're willing to apply a little critical thinking.  None of it is very flattering.

I think this religion needs a new marketing firm.

[ttf_BillO]

To Ezekiel it is technically an hallucination as the 'vision' is not happening around him.  There is no direct physical external stimulus.  The only difference between a spiritual vision and an hallucination is the assumed source.  BUt we digress....

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:43 PMWhy make up this vision of you sitting back in ridiculous opulence with little cherubs to do your bidding while co-opted assassins do the dirty work of going out and murdering your subjects because you made them in such a way that they are fallible. Is he not able fix it?  Here's an idea.  Maybe God should create this thing called evolution and over time the errors that cause people to do stupid things will naturally and eventually get weeded out for you.


QuoteThere is a lot in this book of the Bible and it brings up many question if you're willing to apply a little critical thinking.  None of it is very flattering.

Byron and I have been discussing these issues on and off for the last 15 years or so and not got anywhere with convincing the other.  Some people are just not able to apply critical thinking are they.  (I was deliberately ambiguous, as the statement would apply to at least one of us - and we both think its the other I'm just not as dogmatic as he is  Byron )

QuoteI think this religion needs a new marketing firm.

The client is is happy with his current strategy.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 07:24 PMThe client is is happy with his current strategy.
Sorry driz, the client isn't firing on all cylinders.  Fear of divine punishment has not cleared our prisons or reduced the incidence of senseless violence.  It really doesn't work that way.

Positive reinforcement and education has proven, hands down, to be a better way to gain compliance.  Education is one of the things the Bible does not abide.  This is not limited to the Hanif religions either.  Control of the masses has always required their ignorance.  Trump counts on it (excuse the side slide).

The archaic religious way of instilling lithification to doctrine through fear has the smell of spoiled meat.  It's past its prime.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 07:24 PM(I was deliberately ambiguous, as the statement would apply to at least one of us - and we both think its the other I'm just not as dogmatic as he is  Byron )
Byron is anything but dogmatic, and your ambiguity was rather ... transparent.  That's to be expected.

Critical thinking demands you are primarily critical of your own thought first, before you go hunting for others to criticize.  I find this talent lacking in a lot of people.  Especially those that give their personal thought over to the doctrine prescribed by an alleged supernatural being.

Of course those so afflicted with doctrine are unable to recognize real critical thought.  Comes with the territory.  You'd realize that if you just put the pieces together.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 05:43 PMWhy make up this vision of you sitting back in ridiculous opulence with little cherubs to do your bidding while co-opted assassins do the dirty work of going out and murdering your subjects because you made them in such a way that they are fallible. Is he not able fix it?  Here's an idea.  Maybe God should create this thing called evolution and over time the errors that cause people to do stupid things will naturally and eventually get weeded out for you.
You quoted this in your last post.  That is quite remarkable.  I wonder why?

Driz, do you believe in evolution?

[ttf_drizabone]

I'll answer these in the religion thread.

[ttf_drizabone]

Ezekiel 11 text

Highlights

- More Wrath and the promise of a New Hope

Summary

- The spirit carries Ezekiel to the east gate of the Temple. He sees twenty-five men there, including Jaazaniah son of Azzur and Pelatiah son of Benaiah.
 - God tells Ezekiel that these guys are bad. They're falsely informing Jerusalem that they'll be safe from God's wrath. He tells Ezekiel to prophesy against them.
 - God says that the people have been smugly claiming that they're safe in the city like meat in a pot.
 - But in reality, all the corpses in the city will be the meat in the pot, while the people themselves will be taken out of it by the invaders.
 - As Ezekiel's making this prophecy, Pelatiah falls down and dies.
 - Ezekiel himself falls down and asks if God's planning to destroy everyone from Israel.
 - God tells Ezekiel that his own kin, his fellow exiles, and the whole House of Israel have strayed from God and are losing their land as punishment.
 - But he's going to re-gather them from exile in the future and give their land back to their descendants.
 - They'll be able to follow all of God's laws at that time, and he'll give them a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone.
- But the people who worshipped idols and abominations will definitely be punished.
 - The chariot with the cherubim and the glory of God finally flies away. The spirit brings Ezekiel back to Babylon, where he tells the exiles about what he saw.

Questions and Observations

1) More violent punishment.
2) The heart of flesh is the same as that associated with the New Covenant announced in Jer 31.  Which implies that the original covenant is gone and being replaced.  But when will this take place, and what are the terms. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 22, 2017, 08:17AMQuote from: MoominDave on Jun 22, 2017, 02:50AMJohn, could you lay out for me exactly what you think my presuppositions are? I have a feeling that they may not be exactly what you are assuming... I guess we could get back into the strand I mentioned in my reply to Martin above, if it help"
[...]

However, the issue of presuppositions still does come in.  If I'm understanding the flow correctly, you were wrestling with the historical background to Ezekiel in the context of the Assyrian empire and pointing out that we have some data from the biblical texts and some from the Assyrian court records, both of which contained clear religiously laden understandings and don't always agree.
I think two different flows are getting merged here.
1) In discussing how one compares source documents in general, I raised Sennacherib, his siege of Jerusalem, and his later death, contrasting the final detail of the narrative of the Bible and that of Assyrian sources, of which there are a small handful. Hence Assyrian talk over this Babylonian book.
2) Martin mentioned Ezekiel and related him to the exilic outcome of strongly-established Jewish monotheism. I made a post in which I regretted not being able to do the complexities of this topic justice, with reference to its historical roots and its causes and effects - largely because they aren't well documented.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 22, 2017, 08:17AMYour inclination was to trust the Assyrian because it was "closer to the scene."  This does raise the issue of self-promotion which has been documented as occuring in the Ancient Near East, but that's another issue.  Your discussion shows your attempt to find a "naturalistic" explanation that would bypass any need for the supernatural such as foretelling.  It's at that point where my quip about the selective use of Occam's Razor came in.  Since I was out of the loop for a few days, I very well may have misunderstood.

Have I understood the discussion?  I don't want what was intended to be a humorous, but still relevant quip to be on the basis of misunderstanding what your intent was.
So you're working on the Sennacherib strand here, though thinking that I'm saying something other than what was said. So replying further may not make best sense - but let's see what may be drawn out, as there is some oversimplification that is characteristic of ongoing misunderstanding here.

Let me run it over again - we begin by inspecting the words found in the texts.
2 Kings 19:36-37: Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh. And as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammelech and Sharezer, his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place.
Isaiah 37:5-7: When the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah, Isaiah said to them, “Say to your master, ‘Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the young men of the king of Assyria have reviled me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land.

The Bible tells us that Sennacherib went home, and was then murdered by his sons, who were acting under Yahweh's control. Note that I picked this episode partly because using it as an illustration of source comparisons seems uncontroversial, and partly because there are tidy comparisons to be made. Assyrian court records also exist, and tell us that Sennacherib ruled 20 years after he left the siege of Jerusalem. Is there any reason to suspect that these would err on this chronology? I can think of no reasonable objection. So we ask ourselves why Kings and Isaiah give the impression that his assassination occurred much sooner than it actually did, and a logical reason presents itself - once Sennacherib had left Judah, his interest to the chroniclers of the region dropped to near zero. A 20-year reign in Nineveh is not of relevance when one is compiling the history of Jerusalem. It's a detail that they didn't care about. I note that they don't record anything factually wrong with regard to it, but the way it is presented strongly suggests an inaccurate chronology. The words as presented in this segment of Kings make good historical sense in the main, barring odd little loose corners such as this one - I have no problem trusting them as historical description where no distorting motive is apparent - when it is, it is usually a desire to attribute something to Yahweh in order to support his cult. I trust Assyrian records on the point of the years that Sennacherib reigned - this is pretty obvious, no? I do not automatically throw out Kings because we have something to compare it to - rather I read both, and where textual conflict occurs, look for motive; I treat Bible books as I treat any other books - and just as you would treat old Norse epics - filter out the legendary stuff to see what is left for possible historical inference. I note that the Assyrian texts tend to 'talk up' their team, and that the Judahite texts do the same; it's fascinating to be able to put them side by side. It isn't a question of labelling one text "reliable" and another "unreliable" - they're all a very human mixture of the two. Does that tease out the oversimplification made? This hasn't touched at all on the philosophical (in)sensibility of considering accurate prophecy a priori a reasonable hypothesis - but then the strands of my replies that you mentioned had little to do with that.

There's a fair bit more to the comparison between Kings and Assyrian records than this. A 1920s scholarly treatment of the then available sources is available here online, with searchable text; I could happily go through this after we finish here, if anyone else fancies that? A discussion of the interaction between Nineveh and Jerusalem starts on p.10 and continues for a good few pages, comparing what is written in the available sources, including Kings. Searching for "Hezekiah" within it will bring up all the references.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Thanks for clarifying, Dave.  I obviously jumped into a discussion after being out of the loop for a few days and missed some crucial data.  Sorry for the miscue.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Easily done, no worries at all

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 22, 2017, 08:28AMEzekiel 10 text

Huzzah! I get to deploy a fifth colour on my progress spreadsheet. Bill, you are officially purple, to go with Martin's green, my yellow, John's red, and Dusty's blue. It's welcome to have more viewpoints making summaries than just Martin's and mine; I hope you'll continue to contribute chapters, and I hope others will begin to too.

On the subject of the wheels, I see that they have inspired at least one patent...

[ttf_MoominDave]

Ezekiel 12 text

Highlights

 - Ezekiel's performance art career continues

Summary

 - Ezekiel is to present himself as a living symbol of Judah's exile
 - He is to do this by packing up his baggage, and tunnelling out through a wall with his bare hands
 - He does so, making sure to be observed by his fellow exiles
 - Ezekiel recognises that this will confuse the observers, and supplies a commentary on the act:
 - He symbolises the exile to come in this fashion for the prince of Jerusalem
 - The prince will go to Babylon, and die there, but not seeing it
 - The people will be massacred, but some will escape
 - Israel will come into good times, but not just yet

Questions and Observations

1) The prescribed method of leaving Jerusalem is intended to refer to Zedekiah, I assume. In my non-supernatural way, I assume that such details as knowing of his blinding imply at the least some later retouching.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 23, 2017, 07:17AMOn the subject of the wheels, I see that they have inspired at least one patent...

another prophecy fulfilled

[ttf_drizabone]

Ezekiel 13 text

Highlights

 - God speaks against false prophets and sorceresess

Summary

 - God tells Ezekiel to prophesy against false prophets, saying that they're like jackals wandering in ruins, and haven't done anything to protect their city. They've only given Jerusalem a false sense of security.
 - They've lied and pretended to speak God's words when they were really only speaking out of their own imaginations.
 - God says he's going to punish these false prophets.
 - They won't be permitted in Israel's councils or register or even in the land itself.
 - The prophets are like people trying to smear whitewash on a wall that's weak and doomed to be destroyed by a storm.
 - God says that he himself will send the storm that will destroy the white-washed wall and destroy the prophets who falsely predicted peace.
 - God concludes by telling Ezekiel to prophesy against sorceresses who use magical veils and arm bands to capture people's souls and do dark magic.
 - They've basically sold out their integrity and profaned God, making (false) life-and-death prophecies in exchange for lousy morsels of food.
 - God says he'll tear off the bands and veils that the sorceresses are using to hunt souls as though they were birds.
 - God will punish the sorceresses for protecting the wicked and injuring the good, and he'll save his people from their ways.

Questions and Observations

1) God dislikes people that lie in his name and put his people in danger.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Ezekiel 14 text

Highlights

 - Jerusalem will regret not taking Yahweh more seriously

Summary

 - Israelite elders consult Ezekiel
 - He strongly advises them to refrain from idol worship in Yahweh's voice
 - Yahweh will dispense strong judgement against Jerusalem in consequence

Questions and Observations

1) In v12, three legendary good figures are cited - Noah, Daniel, and Job. Noah and Job we know of. Daniel is less clear. There is the shortly-upcoming Book of Daniel, but it is hard to argue fully convincingly that this is the same Daniel. The responsible conclusion seems to be that we don't really know.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Ezekiel 15 text

Highlights

 - Yahweh will destroy Jerusalem like a useless thing

Summary

 - The inhabitants of Jerusalem are compared to vine wood
 - Which is well known to be useless, used only for burning

Questions and Observations

1) Straightforward, this one. If harsh.

[ttf_BillO]

So Driz,

You asked me to point out warnings of the wrath of God?  Well Ezekiel 14 seems to fit the bill.  That's at least twice in this book.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Jun 26, 2017, 08:15AMSo Driz,

You asked me to point out warnings of the wrath of God?  Well Ezekiel 14 seems to fit the bill.  That's at least twice in this book.


I know God's wrath is in the bible (especially The Prophets) so you don't need to point that out. 

I meant to ask you point out passages that proscribed general education.  Sorry for not being clear enough.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 26, 2017, 06:37AMEzekiel 14 text
...

Questions and Observations

1) In v12, three legendary good figures are cited - Noah, Daniel, and Job. Noah and Job we know of. Daniel is less clear. There is the shortly-upcoming Book of Daniel, but it is hard to argue fully convincingly that this is the same Daniel. The responsible conclusion seems to be that we don't really know.

the arguments for the Daniel of the lion's den you referenced seem pretty strong to me and the arguments against not.  But what did you think was lacking in the arguments for?   (I'm curious)


Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 26, 2017, 06:41AMEzekiel 15 text

...

Questions and Observations

1) Straightforward, this one. If harsh.

if you are rejecting the God who gives life then don't you think its logical that you would lose your life?  Or should they be allowed to say "We don't want anything to do with you or your rules, but we do expect that it is fair and just to keep the things that you provide"? 

I know you don't see the situation like that but that's how I do. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 26, 2017, 04:20PMthe arguments for the Daniel of the lion's den you referenced seem pretty strong to me and the arguments against not.  But what did you think was lacking in the arguments for?   (I'm curious)
I'm a bit reluctant to delve in in depth until we've read Daniel, I must admit...

But here's my current take-away - start by observing that I have acquired in the chapters so far general wariness about taking things in the Book of Ezekiel at face value. There's been a lot of fantastical stuff only reported here presented as observed truth along with the usual attempt to psychologically browbeat us into not questioning the words by appealing to the author's particular deity. Continue by observing that our knowledge of the book's provenance and route to us is very sketchy indeed - we have no way of knowing quite when it was written down, or by who, or in which modified pieces. These are pretty standard markers of uncertainty in biblical book terms - they apply to many (most) of the narratives that we've read - but they impel one to question with rigour anything written therein before considering whether it is intellectually possible to accept it.

General considerations of reliability aside, the relevant points raised at that link are:
1) The phrase "Noah, Daniel, and Job" is rather peculiar. Noah and Job are legendary - indeed non-Israelite - figures of antiquity. Daniel would have been contemporary with Ezekiel. Does that Daniel fit in this rhetorical device?
2) The Hebrew spelling of Daniel here does not match the Hebrew spelling of Daniel elsewhere in the Bible.

We know that there have been other Daniels mentioned of earlier date, but we have few details of any of them.

That all casts too much doubt on the sensibility of solidly identifying one Daniel with another here.

And then we also read that the Book of Daniel is widely considered to be a later work in its entirety, one based around a legendary 'good' character - somewhat (though not exactly) in the Joseph story mould. There's a whole pile of uncertainty here, and so it seems to me that the only intellectually responsible thing one can do is to note all the uncertainty and consequently be extra cautious about making logical jumps based on it.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 26, 2017, 04:20PMif you are rejecting the God who gives life then don't you think its logical that you would lose your life?  Or should they be allowed to say "We don't want anything to do with you or your rules, but we do expect that it is fair and just to keep the things that you provide"? 

I know you don't see the situation like that but that's how I do. 

It would have looked just as much like puffery to those not Yahwists then as it does now to assert that they owed their existence to Yahweh. "Yeah, good one, and you know that how?", followed by "And you know you owe your existence to Baal? Come on, disprove that one to me."

Non-Yahwist Israelites get extremely short shrift in all of these books. They were written and maintained by those who sought to use Yahwism to control the Israelite population, and so those that didn't believe were a direct threat to the power structure of those writing. They are simply treated as the property of Yahweh - people who had no right to freedom of religion, whose non-Yahwism was an apostasy punishable by death - incidentally, something that people get very exercised about today regarding the most brutal forms of Islam. There is zero respect present in these texts for these people.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Ezekiel 16 text

Highlights

 - Jerusalem as a woman whose sexual acts challenge their society

Summary

 - Ezekiel claims that Yahweh has cared for Jerusalem, raising it from infancy to adulthood
 - He casts its religious plurality as a strong partisan negative
 - It took in cultural influences from its stronger neighbours, which was "playing the whore"
 - Jerusalem is compared to other cities viewed as gone astray by the writer, such as Sodom
 - All are framed as sexually uncontrollable women in the metaphor
 - But all these cities will in time be rescued
 - Reminder of the covenant

Questions and Observations

1) Ezekiel's metaphorical creation of Jerusalem doesn't really jive with the conquest story. It does however sit better with the idea that the Israelites were just another group of Canaanites that arose in their later location. We have no idea what the state of the writer of the Book of Ezekiel's historical and folkloric knowledge was though.
2) These prophets have been very Jerusalem-focussed. It's as if a group of English exiles could only talk about London and its hinterland. Not-too-distant Oxford might get a mention, but the larger and more important hub of Manchester not, and the regional rural areas - not a chance. We are seeing only a very narrow range of interests expressed in these documents, focussed on the court, its city, and the area supporting it. I wonder if we start to see the classic rural vs urban divide in this focus; I note that the later Maccabean revolt can be viewed as a rural uprising against the Hellenised ruling class.
3) Who was it who was so scathing of prostitutes recently that he also used them as a shorthand for evil in this kind of metaphorical tirade? Jeremiah, wasn't it? It still isn't an endearing set of prejudices.
4) It is interesting that this comparison is one that is automatically reached for as a way to make people feel that the terrible things that have gone on have been justified. There's some deep deep misogyny underlying it - the kind that simultaneously holds women as sacred and seeks to control them. Even the sheer length of this particular tirade speaks of it.
5) Very variable chapter lengths here - this one a full 63 verses, but the previous one only 8.

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 01:45 AM
Non-Yahwist Israelites get extremely short shrift in all of these books. They were written and maintained by those who sought to use Yahwism to control the Israelite population, and so those that didn't believe were a direct threat to the power structure of those writing. They are simply treated as the property of Yahweh - people who had no right to freedom of religion, whose non-Yahwism was an apostasy punishable by death - incidentally, something that people get very exercised about today regarding the most brutal forms of Islam. There is zero respect present in these texts for these people.

Don't forget that the context is that the judgment is more than personal judgment on the non-Yahwists.  The context is that idolatry results in exile in Babylon and destruction of their culture by the Babylonians.  In other words it has effects on the whole people.

It is that context that leads to the "zero-respect for these people (non-Yahwists)."  In other words the stakes are extremely high if the prophet does not call out the sin of idolatry and the prophets took those stakes seriously.  Later on, chapter 33, Ezekiel is called a watchman and told that the blood of the people will be on his hands if he doesn't warn them.  Pretty good motivation to warn, I would say. I think perhaps you're reading the text too much from the perspective of a Western pluralistic democracy and not in the context in which it was written in.

Today we applaud those who, for example, warned the German people of the evils of the Nazi regime and that it would destroy them and don't say that they should have been more tolerant of the Nazi ideas.  When you study the history of Baal, worship, it doesn't leave a lot to emulate with its sacred prostitution, and sometimes even child sacrifices.

[ttf_BillO]

Ezekiel 17 text

Highlights

 - A Parable of two eagles and a vine with an explanation by God.

Summary
  - A brawny looking eagle took the top of the Cedar of Lebanon, then replanted it to grow a vine
  - Another big eagle becomes the focus of the vine, which bends its roots towards the great bird
  - Then God explains the parable and foreshadows the coming of Christ.

Questions and Observations

1) So it seem the King of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar II) took out the King of Jerusalem and his court.  He made a covenant with one of the abductees (Zedekiah?) to rule Judah so that the kingdom might get back on track.  However Zedekiah reaches out to Egypt for military support to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar II, thereby breaking the covenant.

2) Apparently the whole effort of the Babylonian king was for not and the whole affair just convinces God that Judah needs cleansing.  That’s when God says he’ll do the job of creating a vine myself and hints at the coming of Christ.

3) I would never have gotten all that from the parable if God hadn’t explained it.

4) I must ask, in light of God's omniscience, why was he surprised at Zedekiah's behavior?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 07:22 AMEzekiel 17 text

Highlights

 - A Parable of two eagles and a vine with an explanation by God.

Summary
  - A brawny looking eagle took the top of the Cedar of Lebanon, then replanted it to grow a vine
  - Another big eagle becomes to focus of the vine, which bends its roots towards the great bird
  - Then God explains the parable and foreshadows the coming of Christ.

Questions and Observations

1) So it seem the King of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar II) took out the King of Jerusalem and his court.  He made a covenant with one of the abductees (Zedekiah?) to rule Judah so that the kingdom might not get back on track.  However Zedekiah reaches out to Egypt for military support to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar II, thereby breaking the covenant.

2) Apparently the whole effort of the Babylonian king was for not and the whole affair just convinces God that Judah needs cleansing.  That’s when God says he’ll do the job myself and hints at the coming of Christ.

3) I would never have gotten all that from the parable if God hadn’t explained it.

4) I must ask, in light of God's omniscience, why was he surprised at Zedekiah's behavior?


Can't quite see where the text says that God was surprised.  Perhaps I'm missing something or there is something more than a "literal" reading of the text here. 

[ttf_BillO]

It's not literal.  I get it from God saying "But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army. Will he thrive? Can one escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape?" that God was expecting a different result.  Why else would God be asking for validation for the actions to be taken as a result of the behavior?

You can just put it down to my uninformed misinterpretation, as I am sure you will.

Anyway, are interpretations not allowed here?

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:36 PMIt's not literal.  I get it from God saying "But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army. Will he thrive? Can one escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape?" that God was expecting a different result.  Why else would God be asking for validation for the actions to be taken as a result of the behavior?

You can just put it down to my uninformed misinterpretation, as I am sure you will.

Anyway, are interpretations not allowed here?

Those are rhetorical questions.  Nothing in the text implies that God was surprised. 

Yes, interpretations are allowed here, but I was very puzzled at yours.  To me it was so obvious that those were rhetorical questions that I never would have thought otherwise. 

It's a good example to me of making sure that the normal use of such things as figures of speech, normal literary devices, etc, are observed in interpreting the text. The context nowhere describes a God who was surprised, so that fits very well with those phrases being rhetorical questions.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:44 PMThose are rhetorical questions.

Good point.  But God being God, why be rhetorical?  Just say "He must bear punishment" and have done with it?

QuoteIt's a good example to me of making sure that the normal use of such things as figures of speech, normal literary devices, etc, are observed in interpreting the text.That's precisely what I did John.  Rhetorical questions are frequently used as a literary device to influence the reader for the purposes of seeking persuasion or validation. 

[ttf_John the Theologian]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:55 PMGood point.  But God being God, why be rhetorical?  Just say "He must bear punishment" and have done with it?
That's precisely what I did John.  Rhetorical questions are frequently used as a literary device to influence the reader for the purposes of seeking persuasion or validation. 



You are asking the question why is the text the way it is, which is a different one than interpreting the text before us.  We can ask those questions, but I'm not sure it is all that fruitful in interpreting the text itself. 

A lot of answers could be given to your question, but they all would be speculative, I think.  At least mine and yours would be.

[ttf_BillO]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 12:58 PMYou are asking the question why is the text the way it is, which is a different one than interpreting the text before us.  We can ask those questions, but I'm not sure it is all that fruitful in interpreting the text itself. 
Don't let the course of the discussion move us from our goal.

I did interpret Ezekiel 17:12 as God being surprised.  I also explained why I made that interpretation.  My other question "But God being God, why be rhetorical?" is not that important to me.  It just points out the the verse was written as though God was trying to influence the audience.  This is consistent with God looking for validation, which is consistent with God having to make a decision that was not expected, or at least, hoped not to have to make.

If you want to convince me my interpretation is invalid, then do so by offering a justified argument like I did.  I can be convinced, but not by telling me I'm wrong without some justification.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Yesterday at 01:45 AMIt would have looked just as much like puffery to those not Yahwists then as it does now to assert that they owed their existence to Yahweh. "Yeah, good one, and you know that how?", followed by "And you know you owe your existence to Baal? Come on, disprove that one to me."

Non-Yahwist Israelites get extremely short shrift in all of these books. They were written and maintained by those who sought to use Yahwism to control the Israelite population, and so those that didn't believe were a direct threat to the power structure of those writing. They are simply treated as the property of Yahweh - people who had no right to freedom of religion, whose non-Yahwism was an apostasy punishable by death - incidentally, something that people get very exercised about today regarding the most brutal forms of Islam. There is zero respect present in these texts for these people.

Its interesting to read your thinking on what the non-Yahwists would have thought.  I'd never thought of it that way.  To me they were always rebels who were deliberately flouting the truth and the ignoring the obvious evidence of the fulfilled prophecies so that they could build up their own power structure and tread down the people and amass wealth.  And the yahwists were not mostly about maintaining there own power structure but about obeying Yahweh and pointing supporting the down-trodden.  Stop making me think.  It hurts.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 04:29 AMDon't forget that the context is that the judgment is more than personal judgment on the non-Yahwists.  The context is that idolatry results in exile in Babylon and destruction of their culture by the Babylonians.  In other words it has effects on the whole people.

It is that context that leads to the "zero-respect for these people (non-Yahwists)."  In other words the stakes are extremely high if the prophet does not call out the sin of idolatry and the prophets took those stakes seriously.  Later on, chapter 33, Ezekiel is called a watchman and told that the blood of the people will be on his hands if he doesn't warn them.  Pretty good motivation to warn, I would say. I think perhaps you're reading the text too much from the perspective of a Western pluralistic democracy and not in the context in which it was written in.

Today we applaud those who, for example, warned the German people of the evils of the Nazi regime and that it would destroy them and don't say that they should have been more tolerant of the Nazi ideas.  When you study the history of Baal, worship, it doesn't leave a lot to emulate with its sacred prostitution, and sometimes even child sacrifices.

We're still trapped in the circular perspective thing here. The Yahwists think that the non-Yahwists caused this stuff. The non-Yahwists think something else. Is it at all reasonable for the Yahwists to preach this divisive stuff? Our modern ways say that you can believe what you like, but that your free speech must be moderated by the harm principle. If you and your friends sincerely believe that I and my friends are a threat to you - but an independent judgement can't see your argument, with the only thing telling you so an unverifiable belief system - then it becomes highly unreasonable.  Those who believe separate themselves off in fright, and put up a mind-wall to keep out the bad ideas - a really suboptimal outcome, and one we see all over the place even today. There needs to be a recognition of everyone that they might be wrong, and to further recognise the probabilities of their being wrong.

The Nazi comparison also has the same perspective problem - only the silliest think that the evils that came out of Nazi Germany weren't the direct result of Nazi policies and actions, whereas the conclusion that the destruction of Jerusalem was caused by the non-Yahwists not being Yahwisty enough would be vigorously disputed by any non-Yahwist, whether a member of that society or not. One needs to believe in their god paradigm to buy into the conclusion at all.

Quote from: drizabone on Yesterday at 10:37 PMIts interesting to read your thinking on what the non-Yahwists would have thought.  I'd never thought of it that way.  To me they were always rebels who were deliberately flouting the truth and the ignoring the obvious evidence of the fulfilled prophecies so that they could build up their own power structure and tread down the people and amass wealth.  And the yahwists were not mostly about maintaining there own power structure but about obeying Yahweh and pointing supporting the down-trodden.  Stop making me think.  It hurts.



This is something that's bothered me throughout. The picture I've built up in my head is of a society that gradually evolved from a polytheistic patchwork of worship practices to settle on the one documented here. The Yahwists were the winners out of all of this - what is it they say? "History is written by the winners". This is their documentation of how their power base outcompeted all the other power bases; it's not going to be a pretty narrative of sincere TTF-style happy debates after which one party folds up their Moloch-branded tents in order to paint new ones with the stronger logical claims of Yahweh. There's going to be blood and conflict, and they're going to shade it to favour their cause, for example by justifying their atrocities while decrying those of their competitors. We've seen these things over and over, and chewed them around as they've arisen.

So they had all these different strands - maybe one village was for Moloch, one for Baal, one for Yahweh, one for Asherah and Yahweh together, one for Dagon, one for El. They co-existed for centuries (millennia?) in their religious pluralism. Maybe there was regular conflict over it - it isn't documented well enough for us to know, but I guess it would have been likely. Also over time an ethnic identity grew, as Canaanites began to think of themselves as Israelites (as this is my personal picture of it all, note that the Exodus story gets no credence, as discussed when we read it). We know that Israelites (which includes Judah for shorthand) practised a variety of religions in the kingdom years - we are told this in these books. So there were many Israelites that followed and had always followed other gods, who in time (centuries, with the exile providing the final stimulus) were persuaded by fair means or foul to get on board the Yahweh train.

Is it then valid for the Yahwists to claim all these people, who had never been 'theirs', as under their jurisdiction? We learn from these books that a standard tactic was to influence the king, whose ideas would propagate over the land - there are Yahwist kings (e.g. Hezekiah, Josiah - and names ending in '-iah' are a definite hint, it being Yahweh's name), and there are non-Yahwist kings (e.g. most of the others). This was a society where powerful figures used the powerful political tools at their disposal to co-opt others against their wills - and the Yahwists were no different - in fact, as the eventual winners of the process, it could be argued that the Yahwists were the most successful political game-players of all.

If the Genesis/Exodus narrative is believed, we weaken these objections, as it neatly pulls the starting points together. But being a Christian does not tie one to committing to literal belief in Genesis and Exodus. And what about those raised to believe in a different god by parents who had moved away from Yahweh? With time their own family traditions would become the only known reality even if their ancestors had worshipped Yahweh. Is it fair to count them?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: BillO on Yesterday at 12:36 PMAnyway, are interpretations not allowed here?

Definitely.  And be prepared to explain it. 

We've had some pretty different perspectives here, and different interpretations which is interesting.  The christians know that the atheists see it differently and vice versa.  We don't always understand why they do but they do. 

I see this exercise as going through the chapters explaining how you understand the text  If someone disagrees then they can ask why you think what you do, or say what they think.  Then we move on.

In case anyone was thinking I was shirking my christian responsibility to convert you or an internet responsibility to convince you that I I'm right and you're wrong, I don't accept either.  As a christian I take it as my responsibility to present the gospel to you, my hope, to explain it when you want and pray for you.  I think this is an excellent way of doing that.  I enjoy learning from you while I'm doing it too, so that's a bonus.