Let's talk about the Son of Jacob

[Elok]

? It started as an atheist pose-off. How much farther into the abyss can it go?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
? It started as an atheist pose-off. How much farther into the abyss can it go?

Well, I'm confident in the abilities of some people in this regard.

[East Street Trader]

Then Leah said, "I am happy, for the daughters will call me blessed." So she called his name Asher ("happy").

And of Asher he (Jacob) said: "Asher is most blessed of sons; Let him be favored by his brothers, And let him dip his foot in oil. Your sandals shall be iron and bronze; As your days, so shall your strength be."

A lucky guy.

Although not sure what Zilpah said. Perhaps "But he will grow up to be banned on Apolyton! Oh awful fate, oh luckless boy."

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yes gentlemen. Let's not let this thread slide into the abyss if it can be avoided.

Okay, Cort: I think your argumentation is flawed. In a thread discussing the potential intentions behind God's actions, attempting to dispute the veracity of the OT is useless because that's a different debate.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
"But he will grow up to be banned on Apolyton! Oh awful fate, oh luckless boy."

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is that not everyone agrees on what God's opinion is - as I explained above.

That is like saying that just because people disagree on a subject that there is no truth. There are people who doubt that men ever landed on the moon. There are people who doubt all manner of things, and yet is it not the first argument that truth exists irrespective of the opinions of some?

What we actually have is the word of men who claim to have recieved the word of God. Even ignoring the opinions of those who do not believe in God/s, believers will not agree among them themselves what His Opinion is.

That God blesses the land of Caanan is not in dispute among those who are believers, it is in dispute between those who believe in God and those who do not. There are some that say that God, because he is omnipotent ought not to do certain things, but I think the better answer is that they do not understand why God would act in this way. We may know what God has done, but the why remains unscrutable. I do not know why of all the lands on the earth he chose to bless the land between the Jordan and the Great Sea, but he has chosen to do so, and even if we do not understand why, his action remains.

[Ben Kenobi]

an old way, not the only old way. At least since the Victorian era there have been Christians who have disavowed the "vengeful OT God" for the "peaceful NT God" Have you really never heard that meme? Do i need to look for examples?

Yes I have heard so, but such things are a recent innovation. They belong to the same school as those who are from the famous school of German skepticism, which is where this innovation originated.

What would you say if I said that a school of Jewish interpretation dating back only some 150 years were as authoritative as those dating back several thousand? Old perhaps in the eyes of some, but very new and recent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
It was a comment on the arbitariness inherent in the omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe playing favourites with things.

Maybe theres a reason we dont know. Maybe arbitrariness is a proper part of divinity. Must God resemble a philosophers first cause?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


The problem is that not everyone agrees on what God's opinion is - as I explained above.

What we actually have is the word of men who claim to have recieved the word of God. Even ignoring the opinions of those who do not believe in God/s, believers will not agree among them themselves what His Opinion is.

Clearly the problem must exist of humans claiming Divine Authority to do their own bidding.

I wouldnt expect a non-Jew to be persuaded by the word of God to the Jews. I don't think the biblical author expects the Canaanites to give in, or holds their resistance as sinful (unlike the case of Amalek) though the prostitute in Jericho, who does recognize that the invasion is divinely ordained, is suitably rewarded.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes I have heard so, but such things are a recent innovation. They belong to the same school as those who are from the famous school of German skepticism, which is where this innovation originated.

What would you say if I said that a school of Jewish interpretation dating back only some 150 years were as authoritative as those dating back several thousand? Old perhaps in the eyes of some, but very new and recent.

Im sorry, I really didnt mean to indicate it was authoritative. I was more struck by how a certain kind of Christian mindset survives among some atheists.

[lord of the mark]

actually if secular scholars are to be believed, the tribe of Asher may have had little to do with the conquest:

"Despite the connection to this general geographic region, it is difficult to determine from the Torah the exact boundaries of the tribe, to the extent that it is even uncertain whether Asher even had continuous territory[4]. Sites which according to the bible were allocated to Asher, and whose locations have since been identified, appear to be a scattered distribution of settlements rather than a compact and well-defined tribal region[5]. Despite appearing to have had good contact with the markets of Phoenicia, Asher appears, throughout its history, to have been fairly disconnected from the other tribes of Israel; additionally it seems to have taken little part in the antagonism portrayed in the Bible between the Canaanites and the other tribes, for example in the war involving Barak and Sisera[6]. Scholars generally conclude that Asher consisted of certain clans that were affiliated with portions of the Israelite tribal confederation, but were never incorporated into the body politic[7].

According to the Torah, the tribe was founded by an individual, Asher the eighth son of Jacob, from whom it took its name; however Biblical scholars view this also as postdiction, an eponymous metaphor providing an aetiology of the connectedness of the tribe to others in the Israelite confederation[8]. In the Biblical account, Asher is one of the two descendants of Zilpah, a handmaid of Jacob, the other descendant being Gad; scholars see this as indicating that the authors saw Asher and Gad as being not of entirely Israelite origin (hence descendants of handmaids rather than of full wives)[9]. In common with Gad is the possibility that the tribal name derives from a deity worshipped by the tribe, this being Asshur, the chief Assyrian deity, in the case of Asher, a name with which it is cognate[10].

A group named Aseru, living in a similar region to Asher in the 14th century BC, are mentioned in Egyptian monuments of the period; though it is probable that the name of Asher derives from these Aseru, this would be inconvenient for a literalist interpretation of the Torah under the traditional Biblical chronology, since it places Asher in Canaan before the Israelites left Egypt[11]. Nevertheless, some archaeologists believe that the account of an exodus from Egypt is inaccurate, and that the Israelites simply arose as a subculture within Canaanite society[12], though a number have also proposed that some of the tribes originated as part of the Sea Peoples[13]. Egyptian accounts of the Sea Peoples mention a group named Uashesh/Ueshesh, referred to as the Weshesh by modern scholars for convenience; this name can be decomposed as Uash-esh, meaning men of Uash in Hebrew, which may be a reference to Asher, one or both of the names having been slightly corrupted[14].

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Maybe theres a reason we dont know. Maybe arbitrariness is a proper part of divinity. Must God resemble a philosophers first cause?

So basically you're saying that an omnipotent deity sometimes behaves like a human for no apparent reason, but there must be a secret reason for it.

I think it's anthropomorphism. Even 'land' is a human concept.

[Elok]

All statements about a God or Gods are bound to be somewhat anthropomorphic, as nobody has firsthand experience of the nature of divinity. We can only describe Him/Them in terms we understand, which is to say human terms. Which, I might add, is the beauty of apophatic theology--it avoids a large part of the attendant problems.

Anyway, I wouldn't assume the land in question is desired for its own sake. After all, God can make another patch just like it. Or a thousand more, if it comes to that. It might well derive its holiness from being a gift from the people who worked/fought to attain it. Human will is the one thing God does not control--which is why it, or its fruits, are the one gift of true value to Him.

[Ben Kenobi]

I was more struck by how a certain kind of Christian mindset survives among some atheists.

Yes, it's very interesting isn't it.

Check your PMs.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
actually if secular scholars are to be believed, the tribe of Asher may have had little to do with the conquest:

-long quote-

The scriptures clearly indicate that the children of Israel lived in a larger community of enslaved Canaanites in Egypt, and that a "mixed multitude" came out. It is part of the reason why the people had to be purged in the desert before settling in the Promised Land.