Temples from before 3000 found the island Sinai

[Elijah]

Shem Melchizedek is not speculation, it is written in the Jewish Midrash tradition.

Rahab is the mother eventually of David eventually of Jesus. She was willing to give up her profession 7 days ahead of time, in belief 7 days later Israel would kill the whole city. The men inspected not just the people but the walls, because two factors are of import, one that the walls fall from sound waves, and two the people would become confused because they were too haughty to think they could ever need defense other than those walls. But Jericho was the oldest city of Canaan built the year of Damascus 2237 BC it carbon 14 dates as 7000 years.

Not every wall fell. The cord didnt miraculously protect the house and wall, but rather it was predetermined by the Jewish inspectors to be the strongest point than anywhere else in the whole city wall. So the cord was the sign for Israelites not to slice thru anyone in that house with the cord when they went in killing them all. Hey, if the wall hadnt fallen, the killing wouldnt have happened.

As for knocking Lot having stupid daughters who thought the three of them were the only ones alive in the world, to say this was a scummy start over for the world, is like saying the same for Noah's family, his drinking because the world was gone, and the divided family over some penis play... many act as if the world is better to have all died, no humans, than to be the wicked world descended from Noah. I have met many american women who wanted me (a man who wants to marry) yet want no children, use birth control or abortion rather than the horrid thing of let a child suffer in this world. Isnt that dandy, the angels being totally right back then, especially since the spirit today is the same, better we all die today and now, than anyone survive because no one is truly good. If it required perfection to survive disaster, then why bother. Up to par too survive is sufficient. And of course the err or being short will bring its suffering. Thats life.

As far as your definition of the temple goes. Those who see it as the body of Jesus raised in 3 days after being destroyed, and so the physical temple destroyed and never raised again, would not agree with you saying our bodies are that same temple, other than scripture say Jesus is the first stone and all others upon it. But you fail to see that Jesus first has a body as wife before a body as children. And the wife have its last feet to pull up to heaven, just as the children will have its last feet raised to flesh before 1000 years have been reached.
The problem is you do as the Jews do, you define the future without the prelude to it. The Jews didnt need Jesus because potentially they could all be Jesus. So they felt who are you to get there first all perfect before the rest of us. The same now is with the bride, because if she goes to heaven when others dont, they all say the same to her they said to Jesus, how perfect do you think you are that you go and we dont, or that you got there first to what is perfection. And so will it be for 1000 years as people dont let anyone feel perfect enough until the year gets here and oh gee we must be perfect now. For this reason the temple is first Jesus the most holy, then grows to be his attached bride the holy, and eventually is a whole walled courtyard, those on earth. But the Jews jumped ahead and felt they were growing to be the whole double tabernacle, before the nations become the portable wall around it. They looked at what they sacrificed instead of what God would have to sacrifice in everything for us and always has, and will.
So too now that temple or wife is more important as a teaching Leader, than your individual perspective of each of us a temple which is actually the final stage. That final stage begins for 1000 years and you are way ahead of it, as the world agrees with you too. There will be no survivors without the sacrifice of the bride, and there will be no great crowd surviving unless she Leads as she has been doing. And it requires their voice to raise all the dead in her name married to her husband Jesus. Miracles no longer happen in the name of Jesus of churches because they ignore the name of the bride church he chose out of all churches. That name has done no miracle yet, because it fails to see it can.
THIS IS MY FAITH. When you see your own body as the temple you fail to see the analogy. Scripture and word does not say each single body is yet another temple of God as if one in Samaria and one in Egypt for Jehovah, because when Jesus said to Samaria the time will come it will be neither place but with spirit and truth, he still did not mean many places but rather the body is the WHOLE.... each of your bodies if you are the temple is only one stone in the whole temple. It requires cooperation of the whole or you are not a temple. Thus to say our bodies is the temple, and to think it means individually do as you please in the belief it is being closer to God, it is not close to God, if it makes the whole all divided in different beliefs contrary to truth. The woman or mother of us or the wolrd is everyone alive responsible for everyone born new, and it is here the future is either corrupted or succeeds, and becomes two women the good mother versus the bad for the same father in heaven. The Hagar of Ishmael versus Sarah of Isaac is no different than Adam favor Cain while Eve sees truth in Abel (Adam won over), and Isaac favor Esau while Rebecca favor Jacob (Isaac won over). Judah could not liken either of these preceding mothers in deciding whether The Son was Judah or was Joseph of Rachel. Being right about The Son is not to be compared to her being wrong about the fruit, for each fruit will prove itself by how Jehovah proves it. So then now choose how it is you want Jehovah to prove what ever he does for you, or thru you, or with you. You wonder why I dont get all uppity about my failures, or why i continue to seek new answers then, (while you beleive i create these answers, and my new answers should be yours from you), but it is because I see Jehovah as proving things, and that includes proving my wrongs to me... matters not if you see he prvoed my wrongs to you too, that's good if what i see i did wrong is seen by you too. Laban decided he was screwed over by Jacob because he decided to beleive this ability to make spost on sheep. Jacob created Darwinisim and when he dumoed it, Laban beleived it. Hmm, ever notice new churches that have accepted anything the WachTower once taught but has now has dumped.

[Elijah]

Thus may I say that the greatest temple is the bride of Jesus when she dies so that a great mulitude survive on the mountains thru Armageddon. This is why my answer to the greatest woman in the bible and the greatest temple in the bible is the same answer.

[tourmaline]

If you compare scripture with itself, it becomes plain as day.  "The nakedness of thy father’s wife ... is thy father’s nakedness." --Leviticus 18:8   The whole chapter indicates this uncovering is a euphemism for physical intimacy.

Now link back to...

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." --Genesis 9:22

I'm sorry, I would have to disagree. The Leviticus verse just before the one you cite in support of this theory clearly articulates each offense seperately, i.e. uncovering "the nakedness of your father" and "the nakedness of your mother"; it does not cloak the latter offense within the former. The passage that you cite, Leviticus 18:8, refers to "the wife of your father", which is differentiated from "your mother" in the verse preceding it.

For your theory to be correct, then Noah would have had to have taken an additional wife or remarried after the passing of the mother of his sons: the text says nothing of the sort, and who would he have married in this early post-flood world? His own daughter or granddaughter?

There are many apocryphal traditions that say all sort of things and make all sorts of connections (especially Jewish Midrash), but which cannot be taken as fact, and in the case of Midrash, are not intended to be fact. Give me a break...This and the Shem/Melchizedeq comment are really straining credulity. Let's stick to what the Bible actually says, please.

If we follow your good advice here and stick to what the Bible actually says...

If it's such good advice then why do you have such a hard time doing it. You exhibit a penchant for deriving conclusions from the text that are not even hinted at. Are these conclusions possible? Of course. Are they probable? No.

As I've made clear, I have come to the personal conclusion through scholarship that many parts of the Bible are unhistorical, especially the parts that purport to be earliest chronologically. So I don't necessarily believe that there was a Shem or a Ham that actually experienced these specific events. But I am happy to engage you on a theoretical level because I enjoy the Bible as an epic story.

and stick to what the Bible actually says, then we note that Shem lived 500 years after the flood.  That means he is still alive when Abram arrives in Canaan.  That means Shem is still the family high priest/oracle for all Semitic clans.  This explains Abraham paying him tribute after the deliverance from Kedorlaomer.

Shem as high priest? Oracle? Shem is notable only because he was the son of Noah from which Israel descended. There is no suggestion in the Bible that Shem migrated to Palestine, which was at this time Hamitic (Gen 12:6 -- "The Canaanites were  in the land at that time...")

Moreover, the Bible frequently gives "aka" names for both people and places [by using the 3rd person pronoun in Hebrew]. The text often seems intent on articulating exactly who or what they have in mind and in making note of any previous appellations, like in the identification of Bethel a.k.a. Luz in Gen. 35:6, or the name changes of Avram and Sarai. It is wild speculation to suggest that Shem was Melchizedeq simply because calculations place Shem being alive during Abraham's time.

I'm not saying people should die for this speculation, but it fits nicely.  It also sets up a nice chain of custody for the pre-flood eye-witness narratives, passed on with perfect continuity --  Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Joseph-Moses, etc.

Shem is not viewed as a key player in the pages of the Bible, unlike the other individuals in your list. He is passed by without any real narrative or distinguishing characteristics and never heard from again, like many others in the genealogies of early Genesis.  Could it be that "it fits nicely" for you because you are baffled and uncomfortable with Abraham paying homage to a seemingly Canaanite king, and are trying to not make that so by drawing difficult conclusions?

[Elijah]

Uh HELLO?

So you are looking for probable sources. As in they believe God said there would be a famine after 7 years so he forces the land of all he can for 7 years, yet the Law of Moses learns something from this and says you must allow wild growth the 7th year to put minerals and elements back into the ground.

Before you question this.... I am now referring to my surprise some years ago when the older sons of Jacob could not get the blessing of Judah because they had laid bare the nakedness of the other's mother. Afterall in the minds of the two sons, and the minds of these women, they were just servants not wives. Sounds to me like a law ought to be made and then was.
So perhaps as self-pity by women, and quibbling of brothers, you have this maid-servant who hits on one son, so the other says fine I'll do your son in return, take that. I suppose I should Google which sons with which mothers huh?

[Elijah]

Well, so much for holy months, or fasting; puking up and sick here on both ends crying my eyes out. Dysentary for sure? Warm 8-month old snack pack pudding? Bad eggs in the hamburger? Tea that wasnt boiled long enough? Belching sulfur and wishing I were dead. Been in this town 7 days.
So some take this as a lesson to never travel, maybe its alesson i should have just stuck to dorito chips and coke, was doing fine on it.

By the way, did they or did they not die from the dead quail... I mean lets see the same thing that killed assyrians, and first born out on the streets, if comet source like cyanide, the quail flies into it, and they all fall dead. Israel sick of manna perhaps another reaction to comet encounter for a 40-year orbit, they eat the quail, did they get sick or not, and then Moses blame them for having bickered for the quail to eat.

[notalent]

If you compare scripture with itself, it becomes plain as day.  "The nakedness of thy father’s wife ... is thy father’s nakedness." --Leviticus 18:8   The whole chapter indicates this uncovering is a euphemism for physical intimacy.

Now link back to...

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." --Genesis 9:22

I'm sorry, I would have to disagree. The Leviticus verse just before the one you cite in support of this theory clearly articulates each offense seperately, i.e. uncovering "the nakedness of your father" and "the nakedness of your mother"; it does not cloak the latter offense within the former. The passage that you cite, Leviticus 18:8, refers to "the wife of your father", which is differentiated from "your mother" in the verse preceding it.

I can't see that you're disagreeing with me here.  It makes no difference whether Mrs. Noah is a biological mother or not.  She is still "your father's nakedness".

Also remember that messing with the harem of someone in leadership in ancient near eastern culture is basically a symbolic power play for seizing that leadership at that moment.  Remember that David had possession of Saul's harem, and Absalom made his symbolic power play with David's harem in public view.  And Reuben with Bilhah, which cost him the clan leadership, which would have fallen to him naturally.  The implication is of a power grab for corporate leadership of the clan.

For your theory to be correct, then Noah would have had to have taken an additional wife or remarried after the passing of the mother of his sons: the text says nothing of the sort, and who would he have married in this early post-flood world? His own daughter or granddaughter?

It's typical of the efficiency of Hebrew that the step mother clause serves double duty for classifying whomever is married to your father, biologically related to you or not, as your father's nakedness.  The only way to see it otherwise is to argue that the mother isn't married to the father.

There are many apocryphal traditions that say all sort of things and make all sorts of connections (especially Jewish Midrash), but which cannot be taken as fact, and in the case of Midrash, are not intended to be fact. Give me a break...This and the Shem/Melchizedeq comment are really straining credulity. Let's stick to what the Bible actually says, please.

If we follow your good advice here and stick to what the Bible actually says...

If it's such good advice then why do you have such a hard time doing it. You exhibit a penchant for deriving conclusions from the text that are not even hinted at. Are these conclusions possible? Of course. Are they probable? No.

As I've made clear, I have come to the personal conclusion through scholarship that many parts of the Bible are unhistorical, especially the parts that purport to be earliest chronologically. So I don't necessarily believe that there was a Shem or a Ham that actually experienced these specific events. But I am happy to engage you on a theoretical level because I enjoy the Bible as an epic story.

and stick to what the Bible actually says, then we note that Shem lived 500 years after the flood.  That means he is still alive when Abram arrives in Canaan.  That means Shem is still the family high priest/oracle for all Semitic clans.  This explains Abraham paying him tribute after the deliverance from Kedorlaomer.

Shem as high priest? Oracle? Shem is notable only because he was the son of Noah from which Israel descended. There is no suggestion in the Bible that Shem migrated to Palestine, which was at this time Hamitic (Gen 12:6 -- "The Canaanites were  in the land at that time...")

Moreover, the Bible frequently gives "aka" names for both people and places [by using the 3rd person pronoun in Hebrew]. The text often seems intent on articulating exactly who or what they have in mind and in making note of any previous appellations, like in the identification of Bethel a.k.a. Luz in Gen. 35:6, or the name changes of Avram and Sarai. It is wild speculation to suggest that Shem was Melchizedeq simply because calculations place Shem being alive during Abraham's time.

Shem is Noah's oldest son and would inherit the family priesthood (e.g. Job, Laban, etc.).  He would be the family oracle (e.g. Jacob prophesied of his sons, Noah prophesied of his sons).  Shem would hold these offices for life upon the death of his father, Noah.

I think you can see there is no wild speculation in any of this.   The family priesthood is well attested.  Laban's panic over the loss of the teraphim, the symbols of his priestly authority (though pagan).  Job was high priest of his family.

And you can ask yourself the question, why did God pick Canaan as a land inheritance for Abraham?  Because the clan head (Shem) had staked it out already?  But the usurpation motif represented by the Ham/Mrs.Noah episode was being repeated in Canaanite squatting on that Semitic inheritance/claim?

This motif can be seen today, where the land once again is named for the nominal usurpers, Palestine/Israel, i.e. Ishmael (Palestinians) versus Israel in the land promised to Israel.

I'm not saying people should die for this speculation, but it fits nicely.  It also sets up a nice chain of custody for the pre-flood eye-witness narratives, passed on with perfect continuity --  Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Joseph-Moses, etc.

Shem is not viewed as a key player in the pages of the Bible, unlike the other individuals in your list. He is passed by without any real narrative or distinguishing characteristics and never heard from again, like many others in the genealogies of early Genesis.  Could it be that "it fits nicely" for you because you are baffled and uncomfortable with Abraham paying homage to a seemingly Canaanite king, and are trying to not make that so by drawing difficult conclusions?

Shem would have been the last man standing from the antediluvian civilization.  Can you imagine a 600 year old man who had seen the earth before the flood?  People would be standing in line, beating a path to his door to ask questions of him as the supreme sage and oracle of the age.  Not just the clan oracle and priest, but sage of all mankind at that time. 

When you think about it, there's pretty much no way that Melchizedek isn't Shem.  You have to just shut your eyes, plug your ears and gnash your teeth to see it otherwise. 

I mean, when was there ever a Canaanite priest of the Most High God?  It's insupportable from scripture.

[Elijah]

Dont any of you do a search in this site, I know i milked this topic dry here. Targums or Midrash, it says SHem is Melchizedek. Sources which said no did so because of pushing the Flood back to where Shem died before Abram. Shem is NOT the oldest who was born when Noah was 500, if it says Shem was 100 two years after the Flood.

Very simple explanation by comparing Gilgamesh versions. Noah's wife died before Peleg. So when confusion about how not to die young occurred, Gilgamesh went to Noah at Ararat and he was no longer there by himslef he crossed the water to teach Kittim (Cyrpus) how to build ships, yes boats that are not the same as his ark. So if Gilgamesh then went to Noah, what did other kings do. Well The Hyksos dwelt in Egypt until their 518th year which is Peleg's death to Exodus where they decide Moses and Israel are there christ or salvation out of Egypt. So this means they were not just Hittites from Ararat but also CHaldeans from Ur. Doing as Gilgamesh of Ereck did, they go to Ararat first finding Noah moved away. So then we have Josephus who says Salem was built 12 years before Abram (or does he say in 12th year of Abram), either way it is 12 years between Peleg's death and Abram's birth implying that Shem took those kings to Canaan, and many of them went on to Egypt. YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT KNOW ESCHATOLOGY. The curse of Noah defined as whoever gets Canaan first when it falls from its bad, or Egypt first because they are Hamites, results in this intrusion to dwell among them as aliens residency. You fail to see they all had this same calling of dwell among the evil that Abram at 75 decided he had too, and so heads for Salem built by Shem Melchizedek. When did he become KING of what is right. Well doesnt mean he died last of the three sons. just means Noah had the name before he did. So Shem did not have that name when he built Salem, because his father Noah died 10 years later at which time then they would call him that name instead.
Shem died exactly 400 years before king Adonis-Zedek of Salem was killed by Joshua Egyptians call the star of the Big dipper as the 400-year cycle of Set (Seth), and also as a 100-year cycle. I figure the 100 years compares 360 to 365 to 365 with leap days, while the 400 compares 3 day shift of the sun that we didnt enforce until 1582 AD.

[notalent]

Dont any of you do a search in this site, I know i milked this topic dry here. Targums or Midrash, it says SHem is Melchizedek. Sources which said no did so because of pushing the Flood back to where Shem died before Abram. Shem is NOT the oldest who was born when Noah was 500, if it says Shem was 100 two years after the Flood.

Since the discussion was turned toward scriptural self-consistency, I prefer to back up my conclusions using it alone as a foundation.   I prefer not to arrive at conclusions about it that don't have their foundation within it.  It is sufficient to defend itself and to explain itself.

[Elijah]

Maybe we can use the forum to agree by a considerate analysis of what each person is saying.

As Noah said to Gilgamesh while he was still alive, though words are all twisted after you die, while you yet live, why come to me when you fall asleep, dont listen, and go back with a twisted different story. Like Peter who thinks that his intepretation of dead spirit Jesus' words on the beach are only explained by him Peter; John cant be right since he was not standing there, didnt here these words, and was the one coming up to Jesus and Peter to see what they were talking about. And after Jesus disappeared, then Peter said hey John, my best friend Jesus told only me that youre gonna live forever until the kingdom comes and never die.
John says Jesus did not say that, he is deciding what Jesus said based on the words Peter used and said, and he has decided Peter is a liar and cant get the right message when someone says John is not your business, I am talking to you Peter to keep following me and do it now before youre too old you dont go where you choose too because others force you to stay with them.
 Amazing how reality gets twisted into crap gossip or miracles. Yes you heard me, the ice age Black sea rising in 2320 BC  is 50 years after the Flood 2370 BC, dated as 20,000 to 10,000 by rapid increased curve.