This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

  • Archaeology and the Bible 5 1
Rating:  
Topic: Archaeology and the Bible  (Read 15400 times)

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2012, 01:26:16 pm »
Article: Queen Jezebel: Biblical Bad Girl Had PowerSource:  http://www.livescience.com/2025-queen-jezebel-biblical-bad-girl-power.html
Jezebel, the queen whose name became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked, probably wielded a fair bit of power in ancient Israel, suggests a stone document seal newly traced to the Biblical "bad girl."

Originally discovered in Israel in 1964, the intricate seal was suspected all along to belong to Queen Jezebel, but confusion over the letters engraved on the stone left some uncertainty. Recently, closer scrutiny of the seal's engraving revealed markings characteristic of royal objects.

"The lion-sphinx with female head and female Isis-Hathor crown, which is unique, this clearly points to a queen," said Marjo Korpel, an Old Testament scholar at the University of Utrecht who conducted the research.

The seal confirms that Jezebel, who eventually met a gory demise, was a powerful figure in the ancient world who conducted business independent of her husband.

Complete results of the University of Utrecht study are published in a recent volume of the Journal for Semitics.

 Jezebel, whose life in the 9th century B.C. is chronicled in the Bible, was married to King Ahab of Israel. As a Phoenician, the Queen was considered pagan and attempted to sway the people of Israel to abandon their God and accept her chief deity Baal, partly through forging her husband's seal on documents, according to the scriptures.

The Bible says nothing of her own seal, but archaeologists have long believed that the stone discovered in 1964 was Jezebel's, despite the ambiguity of the symbols and the name depicted on it.

Multiple icons on the seal, as well as its above-average size, indicate that it belonged to a queen, the recent investigations concluded.

"The lotus (below the Horus falcon) was a symbol of gender definition and refers to a female owner," Korpel told LiveScience, "[while] the winged sun disk was a well-known symbol of royalty in and outside Israel."

Other symbols on the seal also reinforce the connection to a monarch, such as the Horus and double-cobra, a figure probably adopted from Egypt, she said.

A misspelling of the name "yzbl"—the queen's moniker in ancient Hebrew—also had archaeologists confused. However, by comparing the seal to similar examples from the time, Korpel found that an upper edge that had broken off likely contained the two missing letters that would have correctly spelled Jezebel's name.

Pagan queen had power

With her own seal, Queen Jezebel was able to exert a powerful influence upon people around her, much like the Egyptian queens, Korpel said.

"The biblical texts already prove that she was a powerful woman. The queens in Egypt … all have in common their prominent roles in religion, politics and representational art, and their status as principal wife. This also seems to count for Queen Jezebel," said Korpel.

Unlike Egypt, however, Biblical Israel did not look favorably upon powerful women. Jezebel was ultimately perceived as a threat and foreign idol worshipper, accused of prostitution, murder and sorcery, and tossed from her window to be ravaged by dogs.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2012, 01:39:23 pm »
Article: Queen Jezebel: Biblical Bad Girl Had PowerSource:  http://www.livescience.com/2025-queen-jezebel-biblical-bad-girl-power.html

"Jezebel, the queen whose name became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked, probably wielded a fair bit of power in ancient Israel, suggests a stone document seal newly traced to the Biblical "bad girl."

Unlike Egypt, however, Biblical Israel did not look favorably upon powerful women. Jezebel was ultimately perceived as a threat and foreign idol worshipper, accused of prostitution, murder and sorcery, and tossed from her window to be ravaged by dogs."

This account merely affirms the contention that 'biblical' sources 'demonized' those they didn't like, ("... became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked ...", "perceived as a threat ...") and attributing a stone seal to Jezebel does not alter such demonizing nor, provide evidence that the 'bible' is a reliable source, (even for such 'gossip').
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2012, 02:09:39 pm »
This account merely affirms the contention that 'biblical' sources 'demonized' those they didn't like, ("... became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked ...", "perceived as a threat ...") and attributing a stone seal to Jezebel does not alter such demonizing nor, provide evidence that the 'bible' is a reliable source, (even for such 'gossip').


right...because "lewdness, wickedness, idol worship, prostitution, murder and sorcery" are synonymous with righteous, God-like behavior.   ::)  

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2012, 02:17:26 pm »
This account merely affirms the contention that 'biblical' sources 'demonized' those they didn't like, ("... became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked ...", "perceived as a threat ...") and attributing a stone seal to Jezebel does not alter such demonizing nor, provide evidence that the 'bible' is a reliable source, (even for such 'gossip').

right...because "lewdness, wickedness, idol worship, prostitution, murder and sorcery" are synonymous with righteous, God-like behavior.   ::)  

No, because the "biblical account" contains a demonizing account of a woman who held power, (and the largely misogynist 'biblical' source was generally opposed to such).  As a woman, aren't you in the least bit offended by biblical characterizations, (which come across as gossipy, instead of 'divinely inspired'), of a strong woman?  There's no evidence to supportt the 'bible gossip' proposed which demonizes her.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2012, 03:23:13 pm »
No, because the "biblical account" contains a demonizing account of a woman who held power, (and the largely misogynist 'biblical' source was generally opposed to such).  As a woman, aren't you in the least bit offended by biblical characterizations, (which come across as gossipy, instead of 'divinely inspired'), of a strong woman?  There's no evidence to supportt the 'bible gossip' proposed which demonizes her.

According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4) so that she could install priests of Ba'al in their place.
Usually when people get a "bad name/bad reputation" for themselves...they've done something to earn it.  Considering what she is still known for...she was certainly no angel.

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2012, 03:34:47 pm »
According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4)

Once again, your source is self-referentiial, (e.g., the biblical source is being disputed and your response is to use another biblical reference).

Usually when people get a "bad name/bad reputation" for themselves...they've done something to earn it.  Considering what she is still known for...she was certainly no angel.

Not necessarily; most of the Isrealite men of that time were definitely misogynist, (conclusion drawn from written accounts such as the hebrew toran/old testament), and seemed unwilling to suffer a strong woman who had disparate religious beliefs.  Further, demonizing someone whom others do not like is not equivalent to that person being such a 'demoness'.  A reference to "what she is known for" is a reference to written gossip, (what civil courts define as libel these days went largely unchallenged when it comes to a religion's 'source book' back then - therefore, some people are challenging it now).
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2012, 04:34:48 pm »
According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4)

Once again, your source is self-referentiial, (e.g., the biblical source is being disputed and your response is to use another biblical reference).

well...the thread topic IS "Archaeology and the Bible" not "disputing biblical sources" is it not...

[to be continued, sorry... I got an annoying phone call to deal with... :-]   



falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2012, 04:54:23 pm »
According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4)

Once again, your source is self-referential, (e.g., the biblical source is being disputed and your response is to use another biblical reference).

well...the thread topic IS "Archaeology and the Bible" not "disputing biblical sources" is it not...

If the source is 'the bible' then disputing such self-referential biblical sources is indeed applicable to the subject title.  In general, taking the "bible" at face value is disputed, (in specific, using biblical references to support biblical references is disputed as being self-referential).

[to be continued, sorry... I got an annoying phone call to deal with... :-]   

That may account for your being distracted and, (possibly), attempting to leave biblical references as indisputable, (when they aren't).
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2012, 05:51:03 pm »
That may account for your being distracted and, (possibly), attempting to leave biblical references as indisputable, (when they aren't).
Oh I have no doubts you see biblical references as "disputable" however, since this thread is "archaeology and the Bible" and not "archaeology and any other book"...to start "disputing" might look like an attempt to "stray from the topic".

Back to Jezebel...while some may argue that the Jezebel of the Bible never existed, they will then turn around and say if she did exist, then she isn't as bad as the Bible portrays her.  They'll paint her as a woman of "power, of tremendous ability and intelligence, strong-willed, courageous and loyal"...and perhaps she was.  There was also ALOT more to her than just a "few good qualities".

Jezebel, brought Baal-Melqart worship into Israel.  Jezebel was not content to simply allow the worship of Baal and Asherah concurrently with the worship of Israel’s true God; she was determined to eliminate all worship of the true and living God. She killed most of God’s prophets and installed her false prophets of Baal and Asherah. She successfully controlled Ahab and implemented idol worship and had him build a temple for idol worship. Baal worship incorporated both animal and child sacrifices and ritualistic sensual dancing and sodomy by male and female Baal prostitutes.

In addition to idolatry Jezebel is known for witchcraft.
2 Kings 9:22 (NIV): When Joram saw Jehu he asked, “Have you come in peace, Jehu?” “How can there be peace,” Jehu replied, “as long as all the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?”

Jezebel is an arrogantly and pridefully self-appointed “prophetess.” She established herself as a teacher of God’s people and misled them into sexual immorality. The “eating of food sacrificed to idols” carries with it a meaning of fleshly indulgences brought about by spiritual compromise seasoned liberally with moral compromise.

Some will say Jezebel "painted her face in makeup" so she could die with dignity...die as a queen.  It was a wasted effort.   She was tossed out a window by three eunuchs, was trampled by horses and then she became 'dog-food'.  When they went to bury her, all that was left was her skull, feet and hands. (2 Kings 9:35)

Compared to all the other women of the Bible...Jezebel was definitely the "worst of the worst".

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2012, 11:20:35 pm »
Oh I have no doubts you see biblical references as "disputable" however, since this thread is "archaeology and the Bible" and not "archaeology and any other book"...to start "disputing" might look like an attempt to "stray from the topic".

Since I'm not disputing "any other book", the relevant disute is with the one in the subject title, ("the bible").  Your attempts to divert attention from this are doomed to continued failure so, I'll continue to relevantly dis[ute recourses to bibical references, (despite continued attempts to characterize such as "straying from the subject" while you simultaneously continue to refer to "the bible" as a reference source).  You can't have it both ways.  If the disputed reference source is immaterial to the subject, (as you contend), then so are continued references to such an immaterial source.

Jezebel, brought Baal-Melqart worship into Israel.  Jezebel was not content to simply allow the worship of Baal and Asherah concurrently with the worship of Israel’s true God; she was determined to eliminate all worship of the true and living God.

Your source for this is biblically-derived.  Here's how one can tell that's the case; designating the 'god of isreal' as the "true god" while denigrating the 'gods' of other religions is a dead giveaway.  As a sidebar, Aeyptian rulers permitted such "foreign gods", (to their neteru), to be brought in by foreigners, (of which, Jezebel was purported to be - from Assyria, IIRC).  Be that as it may, evidence of the probable existence of the woman does not constitute evidence that dubious, (and gossipy), biblical accounts of her are accurate.  These have already been disputed as misogynist, (a common view of the time period and afterword; when strong-willed women like Cleopatra and perhaps Jez were feared by males).

Compared to all the other women of the Bible...Jezebel was definitely the "worst of the worst".

So, the account of Lilith was one of a 'choirgirl' in comparison, no doubt?  Nevertheless, you may as well move on to something like 'the walls of Jericho' next, this one failed to support your argument.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #55 on: April 27, 2012, 06:57:27 am »
Oh I have no doubts you see biblical references as "disputable" however, since this thread is "archaeology and the Bible" and not "archaeology and any other book"...to start "disputing" might look like an attempt to "stray from the topic".

Since I'm not disputing "any other book", the relevant disute is with the one in the subject title, ("the bible").  Your attempts to divert attention from this are doomed to continued failure so, I'll continue to relevantly dis[ute recourses to bibical references, (despite continued attempts to characterize such as "straying from the subject" while you simultaneously continue to refer to "the bible" as a reference source).  You can't have it both ways.  If the disputed reference source is immaterial to the subject, (as you contend), then so are continued references to such an immaterial source.


Jezebel, brought Baal-Melqart worship into Israel.  Jezebel was not content to simply allow the worship of Baal and Asherah concurrently with the worship of Israel’s true God; she was determined to eliminate all worship of the true and living God.

Your source for this is biblically-derived.  Here's how one can tell that's the case; designating the 'god of isreal' as the "true god" while denigrating the 'gods' of other religions is a dead giveaway.  As a sidebar, Aeyptian rulers permitted such "foreign gods", (to their neteru), to be brought in by foreigners, (of which, Jezebel was purported to be - from Assyria, IIRC).  Be that as it may, evidence of the probable existence of the woman does not constitute evidence that dubious, (and gossipy), biblical accounts of her are accurate.  These have already been disputed as misogynist, (a common view of the time period and afterword; when strong-willed women like Cleopatra and perhaps Jez were feared by males).

Compared to all the other women of the Bible...Jezebel was definitely the "worst of the worst".

So, the account of Lilith was one of a 'choirgirl' in comparison, no doubt?  Nevertheless, you may as well move on to something like 'the walls of Jericho' next, this one failed to support your argument.

 I can have it "both ways"---it's MY thread.  I can't help it if you don't like the topic...you DON'T HAVE to post in it.  (I'm glad that you do, don't get me wrong.  I just think it's kind of "rude" to keep 'complaining' about the topic.) I can't help it if you don't find the Bible as a "accurate source".  I realize the Bible wasn't written to provide an account of history and I also realize that not EVERY shred of archaeologic evidence is valid.   The point is, what has been found and through the years that has been considered valid and /or plausible has been in agreement with the Bible.  (Not every shred of "evolutionary evidence" has stood the test of time...has it?  Scientists are always "finding bones" and trying to make them form into some 'creature' and then a few years later they will be like..."oh wait, this wasn't what we thought it was"... point is, when discoveries are made...it's fun to check them out and see where they belonged in history/in the Bible.  If you have a problem with that...I'm sorry.  (Sometimes in d&d, especially when the topic pertains to 'religious' matters, one may see things that they don't want to...that's why FC has a "warning" on the 'd&d' section.  ;))

 Archaeology has found things that without the Bible...noone would know what they found because there would be no explanation, no record.  The Bible lists details of historical facts, geneologies, etc. that have been a valuable resource to archaeologists, which is kind of funny that that Book would have so much incredible accurate historical information in it if it were written merely to just be a "book of fairytales".

 Back on topic...where is Lilith mentioned in the Bible/or is there some archaeolgical evidence found of her existence to share?  Because it's been my opinion that Lilith's complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth... :dontknow:

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 07:34:42 am by SherylsShado »

jordandog

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1394 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #56 on: April 27, 2012, 07:33:58 am »
Lilith is a nocturnal female demon originating in Babylonian tradition, said to harm male children. The name Lilith is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 34:14, where it is translated as "screech-owl" in the King James Version. According to medieval Jewish lore, Lilith was the first wife of Adam, who left Eden of her own choice because she considered Adam inferior. For this reason, she has recently become a symbol of the feminist movement.
 
The earliest recorded reference to Lilith is in the prologue to the Babylonian epic poem Gilgamesh, dating from as early as 2000 BCE. Much later, around the 9th century BCE, related demons are attested in Babylonian lore, including the male Lilu and the female Lilitu and Ardat Lili. All three are vampire-like monsters that prey on infants and pregnant women during the night.
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-lilith.htm
 
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

SherylsShado

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2052 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 56x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #57 on: April 27, 2012, 07:55:15 am »
It's the NRSV/Darby translations that read, "there too Lilith shall repose." (in Isaiah 34:14). It's a poor translation.  All the other major translations of the Bible say "night creature", "screech owl", or something similiar.   Even if  a"demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam isn't hinted at in this passage or its context. Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation in the Bible.

(note: for anyone that is interested, many different bible translations can be compared easily at http://bible.cc/isaiah/34-14.htm)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 07:59:34 am by SherylsShado »

falcon9

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Platinum Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 9741 (since 2010)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2012, 10:37:50 am »
I realize the Bible wasn't written to provide an account of history and I also realize that not EVERY shred of archaeologic evidence is valid.   The point is, what has been found and through the years that has been considered valid and /or plausible has been in agreement with the Bible. 

That is simply not true.  For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists).  None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).

(Not every shred of "evolutionary evidence" has stood the test of time...has it?  Scientists are always "finding bones" and trying to make them form into some 'creature' and then a few years later they will be like..."oh wait, this wasn't what we thought it was" ...

Ever see the bones of modern-day animals after predators and scavengers have had at them?  They get scattered and would require forensic archeologists to identify what critter the bones came from.  Same thing for dinosaur bones, (and if you're inherently implying that dinosaurs didn't exist by your comment regarding evolution and finding bones, that's a separate debate).

... point is, when discoveries are made...it's fun to check them out and see where they belonged in history/in the Bible. 

You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing.  They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.
 
If you have a problem with that...I'm sorry.  (Sometimes in d&d, especially when the topic pertains to 'religious' matters, one may see things that they don't want to...that's why FC has a "warning" on the 'd&d' section.  ;))

That works both ways.  Oftentimes, religious adherents will read refutations of their specious beliefs in d+d which they don't want to see or know about.  My condolences for this are extended.

Archaeology has found things that without the Bible...noone would know what they found because there would be no explanation, no record.

That is an incorrect contention.  There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions.  Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period.  While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).
 
The Bible lists details of historical facts ...

What "facts"?

... geneologies, etc.

Are you referring to geneologies of people who were reported in the 'bible' to be hundreds of years old as 'factual'?

... that have been a valuable resource to archaeologists, which is kind of funny that that Book would have so much incredible accurate historical information in it if it were written merely to just be a "book of fairytales".

Again, your contention is strongly disputed in that your reference source, (biblical), does NOT contain "much incredible accurate historical information".  Your argument is circular because the assumed premise is inaccurate; the conclusion is therefore inaccurate, (false).   

Back on topic...where is Lilith mentioned in the Bible/or is there some archaeolgical evidence found of her existence to share?  Because it's been my opinion that Lilith's complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth... :dontknow:

Jdog addressed this point however, my point was that biblical references are an invalid, (inaccurate), source.
One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

             

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3108 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Archaeology and the Bible
« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2012, 12:19:52 pm »
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
190 Replies
27900 Views
Last post September 06, 2011, 07:48:02 pm
by mardukblood2009
0 Replies
579 Views
Last post August 21, 2010, 05:46:04 pm
by marieelissa
2 Replies
931 Views
Last post August 23, 2010, 07:50:53 pm
by amyrouse
16 Replies
2480 Views
Last post October 14, 2010, 02:27:01 pm
by shernajwine
bible

Started by nicchargers « 1 2 ... 5 6 » in Off-Topic

82 Replies
8332 Views
Last post September 27, 2012, 04:27:52 pm
by ten7der