Bible's Buried Secrets BBC2 Tonight At 9pm

zimovain

Just a heads up.

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou asks whether the ancient Israelites believed in one God as the Bible claims. She puts the Bible text under the microscope, examining what the original Hebrew said, and explores archaeological sites in Syria and the Sinai which are shedding new light on the beliefs of the people of the Bible. Was the God of Abraham unique? Were the ancient Israelites polytheists? And is it all possible that God had another half? AD SUB

Zombrex

I saw last weeks episode, it was good if a little light weight. Last weeks episode was about the lack of historical evidence for the Biblical notion that King David united Israel, and a possible historical reason why such a story would have developed later during unification under the south.

Interesting, but as the presenter herself pointed out in Israel there is always a new discovery just around the corner, so not sure if this would convince any believers.

This show isn't to be confused with the PBS show that aired in 2009.

eyescreamcone

I'm still waiting for the release of

Holy Ghost - The Early Years!!!

Fanny Cradock

Missed this. Did anyone catch it?

who the fug

It was about multiple gods in the bible, and that the one god in the bible started out as the head god of a committee.

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, I got that. I was hoping that we could investigate the claims. To my mind the Bible acknowledges that the Israelites - at least some of them - had a proclivity to lapse into the proscribed parctice of polytheism. Golden calves and all that.

The Bible readily admits that Abram's/ Abraham's relatives worshipped other gods . It hardly seems surprising to me that monotheistic Judaism grew out of a background of polytheistic worship.

homer911

She presents her analysis as ground breaking and earth shattering - hardly that!

homer911

She also makes out that "Asherah" is God's wife, and that angels are in fact "gods"

homer911

Whats really laughable issue is that one moment she is criticising the reliability of the Bible, the next she is using is using it to support her hypothesis :rolleyes:

Bus77II

These shows always wreak my head at some point. These 'big questions' semi-historical ones.
I tried to watch this but the opening question ''Was the God of Abraham unique?'' and the following reply from the Rabbi just tied my head in knots. I don't think he's in a position to answer that, nor really is anyone else for that matter.

Lots of reasons rallied around my head why it wasn't on. For example, at the time that was first laid down, those first 'tales' were spoken word, handed down orally.
It's only later in history we get this direct comparison with the bigger city states and the apparent polytheism they had. I say 'apparent' because even with lots of names sure wouldn't the people on the ground give patronage to one they favoured anyway?

So to me the question ''Was the one God of Abraham unique'' becomes moot very quickly.

Fanny Cradock

Well, in her defence (and in the defence of Biblical history) one must assume that these are historical questions that they can in principle be answered, even if only tentatively.

My problem with some of the Biblical history programmes I've seen in the past is that there isn't much of an attempt to explain that these hypothesis often lie outside of mainstream scholarship. This isn't to say that they are wrong, of course. But it is to say that they don't enjoy widespread acceptance amongst the academic community.

Perhaps this doesn't matter. On the extreme end of things the reason why something like The Zeitgeist Movie did so well was precisely because it coddled preconceptions. That it is actually chock full of lies obviously doesn't matter to some if the story is good. Which is probably the point of the BBC2 documentary in relation to Christianity. But such a charge might also be levelled at the documentary itself.

gbee

homer911 wrote: »

Whats really laughable issue is that one moment she is criticising the reliability of the Bible, the next she is using is using it to support her hypothesis :rolleyes:

I switched channels saying this very phrase. :rolleyes:

Bus77II

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My problem with some of the Biblical history programmes I've seen in the past is that there isn't much of an attempt to explain that these hypothesis often lie outside of mainstream scholarship. This isn't to say that they are wrong, of course. But it is to say that they don't enjoy widespread acceptance amongst the academic community.

Perhaps this doesn't matter. On the extreme end of things the reason why something like The Zeitgeist Movie did so well was precisely because it coddled preconceptions. That it is actually chock full of lies obviously doesn't matter to some if the story is good. Which is probably the point of the BBC2 documentary in relation to Christianity. But such a charge might also be levelled at the documentary itself.

I think it comes down to the fact the documentary makers themselves want to express something they view as important to know, and that's not great when they are also editing in/out others.

who the fug

gbee wrote: »

I switched channels saying this very phrase. :rolleyes:

Lucky you I lasted another 10 minutes and fell asleep, mutter about ****e made for the discovery channel

himnextdoor

Also, it is likely (I would say beyond doubt) that many significant documents that could compromise the Bible were destroyed. This allows opponents to dismiss such arguments as purely speculative.

It's a pity really.

Soul Winner

In the very first verse of the Bible the Hebrew text actually reads as follows:

"In the beginning Gods (i.e. Elohim which is plural for El which is God) created the heavens and the earth."

And God did say: "Let us make Adam in our own image."

And the Christian concept is that Jesus (the Word) was always facing The God from the beginning, suggesting a kind of plurality of beings.

But both the Hebrew and Christian concepts have a supreme Being which is above all others. The Hebrew phrase: "The LORD of hosts." should literally read: "The LORD of the Gods of the hosts." And Jesus in the New Testament said that the Father is greater than the Son.

So while she may be able to prove that both the Jewish and Christian faiths believed in a plurality of God like being there is still only one supreme God above all of them. So if she's going to rightly divide the text then I hope she does a thorough job of it instead of trying to show that the texts supports some a priori assumption that she might have made before delving into it and not showing everything else as well which would refute same. Lets wait an see huh?

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

In the very first verse of the Bible the Hebrew text actually reads as follows:

"In the beginning Gods (i.e. Elohim which is plural for El which is God) created the heavens and the earth."

And God did say: "Let us make Adam in our own image."

And the Christian concept is that Jesus (the Word) was always facing The God from the beginning, suggesting a kind of plurality of beings.

But both the Hebrew and Christian concepts have a supreme Being which is above all others. The Hebrew phrase: "The LORD of hosts." should literally read: "The LORD of the Gods of the hosts." And Jesus in the New Testament said that the Father is greater than the Son.

So while she may be able to prove that both the Jewish and Christian faiths believed in a plurality of God like being there is still only one supreme God above all of them. So if she's going to rightly divide the text then I hope she does a thorough job of it instead of trying to show that the texts supports some a priori assumption that she might have made before delving into it and not showing everything else as well which would refute same. Lets wait an see huh?

Well said and fair play Soul Winner.

To quote someone else; before you make up your mind, open it.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Also, it is likely (I would say beyond doubt) that many significant documents that could compromise the Bible were destroyed. This allows opponents to dismiss such arguments as purely speculative.

It's a pity really.

But it's not beyond doubt. Let's not confuse your speculation with evidence. Hey, maybe they'll give you your own documentary!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Cradock

Of course it was a problem. There are numerous condemnations of the Israelites for their polytheistic proclivities in the OT. Read Jeremiah 7 for one example.

himnextdoor

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, in polytheism there is a risk of a divided nation when the Gods war with each other.

One God, one nation.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But it's not beyond doubt. Let's not confuse your speculation with evidence. Hey, maybe they'll give you your own documentary!

Re-read what I said.

Fanny Cradock

I did! You said "it is likely (I would say beyond doubt) that many significant documents that could compromise the Bible were destroyed." By compromise I assume you mean something like "tarnish the reputation of..."

Am I wrong?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I did! You said "it is likely (I would say beyond doubt) that many significant documents that could compromise the Bible were destroyed." By compromise I assume you mean something like "tarnish the reputation of..."

Am I wrong?

Yes.

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

By 'compromise', I meant 'show that the original meaning of the original text is different to that which is in the Bible upon which Christianity is founded'.

'It is likely that...' means 'It wouldn't be surprising if...' and '(I would say beyond doubt)' means 'In my opinion it is the case that...'.

Since, in my opinion, evidence has been destroyed, then until undestroyed evidence surfaces, speculation is all there is and if you follow the link above you may find that others (scholars) are of a similar view.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yes.

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm

By 'compromise', I meant 'show that the original meaning of the original text is different to that which is in the Bible upon which Christianity is founded'.

'It is likely that...' means 'It wouldn't be surprising if...' and '(I would say beyond doubt)' means 'In my opinion it is the case that...'.

Since, in my opinion, evidence has been destroyed, then until undestroyed evidence surfaces, speculation is all there is and if you follow the link above you may find that others (scholars) are of a similar view.

It appears that we have a different understanding of the English language.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Since, in my opinion, evidence has been destroyed, then until undestroyed evidence surfaces, speculation is all there is and if you follow the link above you may find that others (scholars) are of a similar view.

Then you are arguing from silence, which is just another way of allowing you presupposition to get in the way.

The point isn't that you can find a particular academic who postulates a certain theory that you like. To people like you and me without specialist knowledge it seems sensible to bow to the common scholarly consensus, which admittedly might be wrong. That Stuckely's work seems largely confined to publications in "MatriFocus - Cross-quarterly for the Goddess Women" might not qualify that article as peer reviewed.

I don't actually have any problem with the idea that the Israelites worshipped other gods. That seems pretty obvious considering their own accounts.

gbee

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure it caused massive upheaval and would be the final straw that brought down the Western Roman Empire [as we know it] circa 350CE

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then you are arguing from silence, which is just another way of allowing you presupposition to get in the way.

The point isn't that you can find a particular academic who postulates a certain theory that you like. To people like you and me without specialist knowledge it seems sensible to bow to the common scholarly consensus, which admittedly might be wrong. That Stuckely's work seems largely confined to publications in "MatriFocus - Cross-quarterly for the Goddess Women" might not qualify that article as peer reviewed.

I don't actually have any problem with the idea that the Israelites worshipped other gods. That seems pretty obvious considering their own accounts.

I entirely agree with you apart from the 'your presupposition' part.

http://www.northernway.org/hgoddess.html

My point is that there are indications that monotheism is more a result of the willfulness of priests and less a result of the word of God.

I mean, we have free will; why doesn't God just sit back and watch the show? If God does exist, and again, I do not deny Him, why would He rely on the interpretations of men in order to bring us to Him. He would know that this is probably the must unreliable way of getting His message accross.

God's word is written into the hearts and minds of men. What need then of preachers? God's words do not spring from the Pope's mouth, nor from a vicar's mouth nor, even, from the Bible. I can't find any passage in the Bible where Jesus says, "Read the Bible to know the word of God" or similar.

God would know that language is inadequate.

Honestly, do you think the world is getting better or worse?

Isn't religion failing in its remit?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

I entirely agree with you apart from the 'your presupposition' part.

http://www.northernway.org/hgoddess.html

I don't know why you keep putting link up to sites - dodgy ones to my mind. Are they supposed to add to your argument?

himnextdoor wrote: »

My point is that there are indications that monotheism is more a result of the willfulness of priests and less a result of the word of God.

Fine. If you want to think that go right ahead. However, assuming you aren't dismissing the possibility that God interacts with his creation (and this might not be the case because I still can't figure out what it is you positively believe, only that you happen to disagree with just about everything here) then I don't know how you can discern what went on with Israelite priests many 1000's of years ago. Your indications appear only to be based upon your presuppositions.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I mean, we have free will; why doesn't God just sit back and watch the show? If God does exist, and again, I do not deny Him, why would He rely on the interpretations of men in order to bring us to Him. He would know that this is probably the must unreliable way of getting His message accross.

Why are you fudging the argument? This thread is about a BBC2 documentary. If you have problems with God's methods you are free to start a new thread.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I can't find any passage in the Bible where Jesus says, "Read the Bible to know the word of God" or similar.

Jesus wouldn't have mentioned the Bible because the NT wasn't written until after his ministry. It took several centuries for the Bible to be officially canonised. Still, even a cursory glance of the NT would show the writers of the NT were very fond of quoting Scripture (they were largely Jews after all). Apparently Jesus was no exception. It's also worth mentioning Plowman's point again - but this time in relation to you.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Honestly, do you think the world is getting better or worse?

Worse of better in relation to what? Or when? What has this got to do with the documentary?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Isn't religion failing in its remit?

What remit?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

I can't find any passage in the Bible where Jesus says, "Read the Bible to know the word of God" or similar.

What you can find, if you read the Gospels at all, is that Jesus quoted the Scripture as a clincher in any debate (eg Mark 12:10), told the Saducees that they were in error because they did not know the Scripture (Matthew 22:29) and saw His own actions as necessary in order to fulfil Scripture (Mark 14:49).

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

What you can find, if you read the Gospels at all, is that Jesus quoted the Scripture as a clincher in any debate (eg Mark 12:10), told the Saducees that they were in error because they did not know the Scripture (Matthew 22:29) and saw His own actions as necessary in order to fulfil Scripture (Mark 14:49).

All of which served as personal protection, which is different. In other words, He wasn't directing those references at the 'flock' but at His enemies.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

All of which served as personal protection, which is different. In other words, He wasn't directing those references at the 'flock' but at His enemies.

He was directing those references at those He came to save - human beings. Anyone reading the Gospels can see clearly that Jesus saw the Scriptures as being the Word of God.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't know why you keep putting link up to sites - dodgy ones to my mind. Are they supposed to add to your argument?

They do.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fine. If you want to think that go right ahead. However, assuming you aren't dismissing the possibility that God interacts with his creation (and this might not be the case because I still can't figure out what it is you positively believe, only that you happen to disagree with just about everything here) then I don't know how you can discern what went on with Israelite priests many 1000's of years ago. Your indications appear only to be based upon your presuppositions.

God doesn't interact with creation which is exactly why all the evidence of God is strictly anecdotal.

Control freaks are not a recent phenomenon.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why are you fudging the argument? This thread is about a BBC2 documentary. If you have problems with God's methods you are free to start a new thread.

'God's methods' is what motivates the making of such documentaries.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Jesus wouldn't have mentioned the Bible because the NT wasn't written until after his ministry. It took several centuries for the Bible to be officially canonised. Still, even a cursory glance of the NT would show the writers of the NT were very fond of quoting Scripture (they were largely Jews after all). Apparently Jesus was no exception. It's also worth mentioning Plowman's point again - but this time in relation to you.

In acourt-room, a liar can be trapped by his own testimony.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Worse of better in relation to what? Or when? What has this got to do with the documentary?

If everyone could see that the Bible is the work of men then 'self-fulfilling prophecy' could be averted.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What remit?

Indeed.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

He was directing those references at those He came to save - human beings. Anyone reading the Gospels can see clearly that Jesus saw the Scriptures as being the Word of God.

Since He was fulfilling scripture, how else could He have seen it?

con1982

Does anyone know if I can stream old episodes or download from the BBC archive legally? I had a look the other evening but no joy. I watched the 'God's wife' episode last week.. fantastic. I must take a look through my charity shop copy of the Bible maps.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Since He was fulfilling scripture, how else could He have seen it?

That question is not for me to answer, I leave that to the person who posted I can't find any passage in the Bible where Jesus says, "Read the Bible to know the word of God" or similar.