That article provides several specific pieces of evidence supporting that Philistines were in the middle east at the time of Abraham. In order to dispute the article, you have to dispute at least one of those pieces of evidence.
Also, if you don’t think that there is anything in the Bible that can’t be explained away, then your faith is as great as mine. That’s a compliment.
Inventing the idea that the Philistines was a name used for a thousand years … which is not recorded by any other historical record EXCEPT the Bible is not much of an explanation. You seem to think that the Philistines were easier to track PRIOR to their arrival in Palestine than AFTER.
This is the same self-serving logic that lets you think that 12 literal sons actually created 12 literal tribes…
and that it happened YET AGAIN with the Arab tribes.
Or that someone actually exchanged their birthright for a bowl of pottage … or that Yahweh really garbled the language of all humankind.
Folk tales…
George
Wait a minute. Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers and Leviticus were all written by Moses. Moses was an educated Egyptian prince, therefore, in these first five books of the bible there is a record of what not only what the twelve tribes of Israel knew but also what the Egyptians knew. Therefore if Moses wrote “Philistines” then that’s the name the Hebrews and the Egyptians placed upon that people, does that make it false? No. that is how they knew that people.
When you read the bible know that you are reading from the perspective of the writer in the perspective of Adam’s family. In the case of Moses, the perspective is that of the Levi tribe, in the family of Jacob, in the family of Abraham, in the family of Noah, in the family of Adam. Also know that Moses was adopted by a princess of Egypt. His adoption made him educated in the ways of the Egyptians. Then he learned of his heritage and wrote it down in the teachings of the Egyptians. The story of Genesis is recorded in part in the stories of the Egyptians, in part in ancient Chaldean culture and Babylon. Since this story is related in Egypt, Babylon and Phoenicia, we can rest assured that his story is true in both literal and metaphorically
Look we write today to achieve one of two purposes: Function or art. Functional writing can be described as literal, and artistic work can be described as metaphorical. But what if Moses wrote for the purposes of both functional and metaphorical. Is this not shown again in the words of the Prophets and in the New Testament?
What we do know and the Bible agrees with is that the Philistines were like the Egyptians and Phoenicians, in the fact that they admit to being descendants of the Nephilim. Now the Philistines and the Minoans were actually two separate people as the article points out. But I think it is more of a social class, where the greek sailors were called Philistines and the royal family was called Minoans. This makes sense.
If Moses was TRULY educated as an Egyptian aristocrat:
-
He would have been circumcised (and probably so would all the teenage male slaves);
-
He would have taught the Hebrew about the Afterlife, because all Egyptian nobility believed in an afterlife;
-
He would have had no place to flee to in the Promised Land, because Palestine was under Egyptian Hegemony (even during the notoriously weak phase seen in the Amarna documents) – extending all the way to the highlands of Jerusalem;
-
The Exodus couldn’t happen until after the arrival of the Philistines in 1130 BCE… which is pretty late to be having an Exodus.
George
You forget about the rest of it:
Yes the Egyptians believed in the afterlife and took pride in the fact or so they said that they are descendants of the Nephilim.
Mose was circumcised. This was the practice of the tribes of Israel and the creation of a ceremony called Bar-Mitz-ma (I think I spelled it right)–a tradition of the Mosaic Code or Law of Moses. Which follows the tradition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The Hebrew understood about Sheol.
The area of Palestine you refer to is on the coastal area of the land of Canaan. East of that is the desert where he fled to with the Israelites during the Exodus.
The Exodus could happen if the Philistines term was used like the term “hippie” is used today. What if the people who called themselves “Philistines” were around as a fad during the time of Abraham? But there is no record of it except in the memory of Abraham’s descendants? To follow that what if this fad continued until years later when the “Philistines” were an established city-state thus people? Is that not possible? We speak of King David running into the Philistines, what about Samson and Joshua before David? And didn’t the Egyptians turn away this naval tribe?
Remember it is Moses who wrote the Exodus, so he wrote it in the matter of the knowledge he knew inspired by God. Now the inconsistencies are the failures of man, so Moses did use the knowledge he learned from Egypt as well as the knowledge he got from God. I have read many ancient texts and you would simply be amazed that at the heart of the stories how similar they really are. Details are different but the story line is basically the same.
The name “Philistine,” therefore, may simply be the Biblical term for Aegean peoples from Crete, from any time period. Another name used in the Bible for the people from Crete is “Caphtorites.” Deuteronomy 2:23 states, “as for the Avvites who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorites coming out from Caphtor destroyed them and settled in their place.” According to the Bible, then, peoples from Crete took over the southwest coastal area of Canaan prior to the time of Moses. That is precisely the area where Abraham and Isaac encountered “Abimelech king of the Philistines.” quoted from that article by Bryant G Wood that I linked to earlier. He makes a compelling argument that artifacts in Crete resemble the feathered Philistines illustrated on the tomb of Ramses III. Evidence of Ramses III’'s subjugation of the Philistines in 1200 BC is not evidence that the Philistines were not present in smaller numbers prior to Ramses III. Wood gives potsherd evidence of Philistines in the area and time period of Abraham.
Also, porridge is delicious. Brothers starting tribes is not far fetched. I don’t know from Arabs. How miraculous does a miracle have to be exactly before you refuse to believe it? Is there some sort of litmus test? Is it like, more miraculous than curing blindness but less miraculous than a big man swallowing fish?
I agree with your statement and to prove it I was looking on the perspective of the writer which seems to agree with your statement. Moses would have known of these people.
1 Like
@TheOx
Sorry to nitpick -
The Bible is to be taken ‘literally’ in these instances - Jesus literally uttered these words. Whether the words themselves were to be taken literally is another story.
1 Like
Hi Brad,
Your reference to a “special kind of time” is right on and I’d like to offer a view on how time might be represented in Genesis 1 (it isn’t). It turns out that there are at least two models for representing how events unfold - temporally or spatially. I argue that the Genesis 1 author represents the unfolding of creation events in the same way frames of a movie are edited. The Genesis author, however, puts us in the same reference frame as God. So, we see creation as God saw it, i.e., like a film editor able to move instantly between frames and adjust/edit any particular one.
I’ve described this way of understanding the sequence of creation events in Genesis 1 in some detail in my commentary on the first day of creation. However, it is verse 1:4 that describes the spatial orientation of light and dark. In the commentary for 1:4 is a video in which the physicist and author, Brian Greene, describes how the past, present, and future can exist simultaneously - exactly how the text reads!
And, of course, this is exactly how the first creation story unfolds - where past, present, and future exist simultaneously and we see God editing each frame completely independent of any other frame and independent of the passage of time. I might add that this view also resolves our confusion about the various events of creation occurring “out of sequence.”
Not only does the text of the the Bible support this argument, but so do the physics!
Blessings,
Michael
Thanks for the quick response.
I do not accept concordist interpretations because the Bible is not a reliable source of physical or historical knowledge. Nor do I believe that scientific evidence is (must be) necessarily consistent with Bible. As a matter of fact, my view is that if biblical revelation is inconsistent with current scientific understanding, then our understanding of Holy Scripture (but not necessarily the theology) probably needs to be revisited. I do agree that the Bible does NOT tell us the age of the earth, I believe the day-age theory to be unsupported by the biblical witness, I do believe the flood was a real historical event, but it was a local flood not a global one.
As for a literal interpretation, I am unsure what people mean in this forum so this answer may be off the mark of what you were expecting. I apologize.
However, I follow N.T. Wright’s view (here).
Nahum Sarna is a scholar that I respect enormously and, truth be told, I’ve been greatly influenced by his writings. On the issue of literal interpretation, let me quote Sarna, as he said it best,
… it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science. Any correspondence which can be discovered or ingeniously established between the two must surely be nothing more than mere coincidence.
Like Sarna, I put a great deal of importance to narrative revelation. Here, again, Sarna says it best (and I paraphrase):
The key to understanding the importance of the narrative (esp the purpose of the Genesis creation accounts) is that its purpose is present certain principles of faith that set His creation apart from the pagan views of neighboring nations. Among these key principles (principles that distinguish the Hebrew view of creation) that Sarna identifies are the following:
There is one God
The entire universe is subservient to the one God
God is outside the realm of nature
God has no mythos; that is, there are no stories about the life of God
There is no magic involved in the worship of God
Man is a God-like creature who is given responsibility for the care of the world
There is a universal moral order that governs human affairs
In my own writings and teachings, I often describe the Genesis creation accounts as rather strident polemics against the creation narratives of other cultures. I can understand and appreciate a God whose chief concern is the correct understanding of mankind’s place in His creation, i.e., the 7 principles above.
Blessings, Christy. I hope you find my answers useful, if not on point.
Michael
I see, thanks for clarifying. I made the wrong inference when you said this:
It seemed like you were interested in reconciling the account in Genesis, including its chronology, with scientific reality.
I think most people on this forum would agree with your Sarna quote, and the idea that the Genesis account was concerned with refuting pagan cosmologies. Lots of NT Wright fans hanging around too. 
@DKWhetstone the solution that you’re looking for is that the Bible is true. Whether you take this given passage literally or figuratively it is always taken as truth. For example it is not necessary for there should be a historical Adam and Eve in order for the story of Adam and Eve to be true. Consider that Jesus told many stories. Parables. The fact that they weren’t “true stories” doesn’t mean they are not true. The danger comes when we start thinking of parts of the Bible as being untrue or only partly true. Insisting that everything must be taken literally leads to this for many people. But we don’t go through life taking everything literally. So why should we read the Bible that way? Go ahead and take the whole thing as being non literal if you want. But when you take it as being less than fully true that is when you lose the basis for your faith.
1 Like
I think a better question is ‘If you don’t think the bible is God’s word to you, When does the Bible start being God’s word to you?’ There a several types of literature in the Bible; history, poetry, wisdom, etc. Some is just historical narrative to provide background and context. Some is apocalyptic and the writer uses a figurative description because the experience stretches beyond his nature understanding. But, the bottom line is that as a whole the Bible is God’s revelation to man - and not man’s made up explanation of what he thinks about God. The Bible reaches down, not up. The overarching narrative is that God wants fellowship with his ultimate creation, man. And even though man has become proud, self-centered and fallen below of the being that God had intended, God by His grace continually reaches out to man and offers a way to be made whole and restored to fellowship. God’s ultimate act is the Incarnation, an difficult to describe and imagine joining of the human and divine natures in the person of Jesus. The goal being not a pardon and a higher understanding, but an invitation to transformation and wholeness ( body, soul and spirit restored to God’s initial design for man ). You cannot be transformed in your mind only, you must be transformed in your very nature (inner / moral self) so out of that transformed self comes the attitudes and motives that fit you for eternal fellowship with God.
1 Like
Every denomination has a different answer for when and where is the Bible to be taken literally.
Some people and some churches do NOT believe Jonah was inside a big fish for 3 days.
Some people and some churches do NOT believe you demonstrate your faith by handling snakes.
Some people and some churches do NOT believe you demonstrate your faith by speaking in tongues.
Some people and some churches do NOT believe that prayer with sufficient faith will move a mountain.
Do I really need to go on with such a list? You are asking for a definite answer about which NOBODY should expect a definite answer.
It should be unsurprising that Adam and Eve is also on that list.
So when do you start singing in tongues, Terry?
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear communicating my thoughts. My point is that the Bible is not a book of suggestions where some suggestions are definite to do’s and others are just good advice. The point of the Bible is that it is God revealing Himself to man. I you don’t start with that then it’s just a bunch of stories written by a bunch of old guys on how life should be lived. You can include God in the package or not. However, if it is God’s revelation about Himself to men and He is truly God then He should be able to communicate clearly to those who want to hear. So, do people want to search it out and hear what God is saying to them, or do they just want to hear what fits into their patterns of thinking?
I don’t believe there is any scripture about singing in tongues, but there are a few about praying in tongues and also speaking in tongues when someone is present to interpret.
BTW - The Gospel is offense because it didn’t ‘make sense’ to men. It meant they had to be humble before God.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
1 Cor 1:18-25
So… you endorse speaking in tongues as practiced in the Pentacostal denominations, yes?
And so you must believe that you can move a mountain if your prayer is true enough?
Do you covenant to affirm and promote:
- The Inherent worth and dignity of every person;
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Then given #1,#2,#5,#6 and #7 why are you being so nasty to me?
My apologies, Terry! I did not realize you thought I was being nasty.
I thought I was just being insistent. I regret any injury I may have caused you.
And I assure you that deciding which parts of the Bible should be taken literally is an extremely
delicate and emotionally wrenching process … even if the Book of Genesis didn’t exist at all.