First Person: Bible and Archaeology

[Michael]

Hi Michael.  Welcome!

Despite your disappointment in both BAR and this Forum, I know why you subscribe to both:

They're the best there is 

I will half way agree with you. I have been banned from better forums.   

And sadly BAR is the best that is available. I just wish Hershel was more concerned about scholarship than making a buck. 

He has to cater to multiple viewpoints and pretend there is a debate when none exists. His silly editorial this month on trying to claim some sort of historical context behind the Samson myth is an example.  A better piece would have said, Samson was a myth based on the solar god Shamash. It was placed in an historical background. Shamash which scholars contend was the origin of Samson was never even mentioned in the article. Hershel doesn't want to offend his god believers and hurt his subscriptions.

[Admin1]

  HS's editioral did not at all "claim some sort of historical context behind the Samson myth"

The editorial is about what can and cannot be answered by archaeology.

Clearly the details of what happened to Samson personally (hair cut off, blinded, collapsed the building, etc.) cannot be answered by archaeology.

 That's exactly what he was saying.

[Admin1]

Michael, I do not at all agree with your views...but that's ok.

What's not ok is misquoting or misleading.

In Shanks' First Person article in the current issue of BAR he summarized the Biblical story of Samson, then said, QUOTE:

"Are these stories true or not? Was there an Israelite hero named Samson or not? Archaeology can provide us with absolutely no help."

Nowhere in the article did he even share his personal opinion.

See the third bullet point under Posting Rules in the TOS.

[Michael]

Michael, I do not at all agree with your views...but that's ok.

What's not ok is misquoting or misleading.

In Shanks' First Person article in the current issue of BAR he summarized the Biblical story of Samson, then said, QUOTE:

"Are these stories true or not? Was there an Israelite hero named Samson or not? Archaeology can provide us with absolutely no help."

Nowhere in the article did he even share his personal opinion.

See the third bullet point under Posting Rules in the TOS.

Rick, I did not misrepresent Shanks, I just didn't include all the things he mentioned. In spite of his disclaimer, he did try to provide a historical BACKGROUND for the story and never did he specifically mention the sun-god judge Shamash as the true origin of the story. This is intellectual cheating and is catering to the religous right. That is my point. He writes in a fashion to sell magazines to the largest group of people. I never claimed he said anything false.

[Admin1]

You said Shanks was "trying to claim some sort of historical context behind the Samson myth". 

Not true.

He went on to talk about the location of Timnah and some other background stuff, but remember the point of the story is not to defend or explain about Samson - it was to simply affirm that Archaeology cannot answer all questions about Biblical events and people.

Now, if his article was discussing the life of Samson himself and/or its possible origins, then you may have a right to complain in his not mentioning Shamash.

...but the article was not about Samson at all.

I believe you are inserting a reason to object where it is not even applicable.

[Fortigurn]

...the sun-god judge Shamash as the true origin of the story. This is intellectual cheating and is catering to the religous right.

It's not intellectual cheating if the purpose of the article is not to discuss Samson, and if he doesn't believe that 'the sun-god judge Shamash' is the 'true origin of the story'.  What a wacky idea, in any case.

[Michael]

...the sun-god judge Shamash as the true origin of the story. This is intellectual cheating and is catering to the religous right.

It's not intellectual cheating if the purpose of the article is not to discuss Samson, and if he doesn't believe that 'the sun-god judge Shamash' is the 'true origin of the story'.  What a wacky idea, in any case.

Have you looked up the meaning of the word "Samson?"
The idea he was based on Shamash is not wacky, but accepted theory outside of the Bible belt.

[Fortigurn]

The idea he was based on Shamash is not wacky, but accepted theory outside of the Bible belt.

The idea that Elvis is a live is also 'accepted theory outside of the Bible belt'.  Any idea that character X is based on character Y simply because if you go back to the theoretical root of both words and completely repoint the vowels you can make them sound similar, is not worth the paper it's written on.

I am aware of the meaning of the name 'Samson', and it's certainly not 'Shamash'.

[Michael]

The idea he was based on Shamash is not wacky, but accepted theory outside of the Bible belt.

The idea that Elvis is a live is also 'accepted theory outside of the Bible belt'.  Any idea that character X is based on character Y simply because if you go back to the theoretical root of both words and completely repoint the vowels you can make them sound similar, is not worth the paper it's written on.

I am aware of the meaning of the name 'Samson', and it's certainly not 'Shamash'.

It is more than that. Sun gods were judges because the sun light would reveal what happened in the night. Sun gods also had strong sexual urges.
Sun gods would have a barren birth associated with Cancer, home of the summer solstice. Samson is also strong during Leo (lion he killed) and Virgo (lighting the fires of the foxes tails).

Sun gods also have long hair representing the rays of the sun. This is where the sun gets its strength.

The cutting off of the hair and blinding of Samson represents the winter solstice. The star in ancient times which represented the winter solstice also represented the temple of Dagon which Samson destroyed.

It is not just word similarities. The story of Samson is exactly that of a sun god and is similar to that of Shamash.

 Your methaphors make no sense.

[rumplesnitz]

*deep sigh...*

The Mazzaroth was in place from The Beginning.  It was explained to Adam by God as the Plan of Salvation and that is exactly what it is - the whole story of Creation, The Fall, Redemption, Judgement, and Eternity recorded in the stars from Day One.

Samson was a real human person who lived and Judged Israel.  His life story was adapted by many cultures after the fact.

You can take almost anyone and Monday Morning Quarterback his life into a portrayal of your Sun god.  And you can take any number of fertility deities and superimpose them across the constellations because that is exactly what they were based on by errant human populations across the globe.  However the Mazzaroth in its entirety points only to Jesus Christ.

A decent example of a book on the subject:  'The Real Meaning of the Zodiac' by D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

[Michael]

*deep sigh...*

The Mazzaroth was in place from The Beginning.  It was explained to Adam by God as the Plan of Salvation and that is exactly what it is - the whole story of Creation, The Fall, Redemption, Judgement, and Eternity recorded in the stars from Day One.

Samson was a real human person who lived and Judged Israel.  His life story was adapted by many cultures after the fact.

You can take almost anyone and Monday Morning Quarterback his life into a portrayal of your Sun god.  And you can take any number of fertility deities and superimpose them across the constellations because that is exactly what they were based on by errant human populations across the globe.  However the Mazzaroth in its entirety points only to Jesus Christ.

A decent example of a book on the subject:  'The Real Meaning of the Zodiac' by D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

deeper sigh
There is no proof Adam existed or God explained another to him.
Samson is the sun god Shamash. They are nearly identical. He was a fictional person based on a solar god. The Jews did to gods the same thing the Catholics did. They made them into legendary figures sunservient to their own god.

Bible scholars agree with me on this point. It is the lunatic fringe that contends Samson was real. This is why I don't like BAR articles like this as it appeals to the lunatics who believe Samson contained magical powers in his hair. OH PLEASE!

Shamash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

INVESTIGATOR MAGAZINE No

Samson’s name was a variant of Shamash the Babylonian Sun God. It was also the Hebrew name for the Sun.

Samson was born in Tsorah near Beth-shamash (house of the Sun) which was an ancient centre of Sun worship.

[rumplesnitz]

Well, I've been evaluated by a forensic psychologist just this year and found to be perfectly sane.  So I'm scientifically demonstrated not to be a lunatic.  The rest of your claims hold just as much water, that is - none.  I suspect that you don't bother to list your propaganda sources due to the fact that you know they can be easily demonstrated as circular reasoning supported by rubber rulers.

Fair question:  Where did the signs of the Chinese, Babylonian, and Egyptian Zodiacs originate?  (three zodiacs, three answers)

[Michael]

Well, I've been evaluated by a forensic psychologist just this year and found to be perfectly sane.  So I'm scientifically demonstrated not to be a lunatic.  The rest of your claims hold just as much water, that is - none.  I suspect that you don't bother to list your propaganda sources due to the fact that you know they can be easily demonstrated as circular reasoning supported by rubber rulers.

Fair question:  Where did the signs of the Chinese, Babylonian, and Egyptian Zodiacs originate?  (three zodiacs, three answers)

They all originated from the zodiac constellations. I am not sure why there are 3 answers.

It is insane or out right stupidity to believe people have magical powers in their hair.

[rumplesnitz]

Nobody has magical power in their hair except Elvis.

Now, the constellations are the subject of the zodiacs, but not the source.  Who derived each culture's individual Zodiac?

[Admin1]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the original post anymore...

Bottom line in my mind: It's one thing to state that Noah and Moses did not exist; One has a right to hold that opinion.

But to make a claim such as the one in the original post, then misquote an article to make the point says a lot.

I am quick to accept conclusions, based on evidence, other than my own when presented well, but on the other hand quick to dismiss unfounded claims or claims made based on misquoted information.