OT Tabernacle: Eight Ancient Parallels

[Dave Armstrong]

1) Third Millennium BC Egyptian Tabernacle Parallels: Kitchen ([i]On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003,[/i] 275) noted that biblical skeptics and minimalistic archaeologists have long since decreed that “the tabernacle is an exilic or postexilic figment of the imagination of Jewish priests (ca. sixth to fourth centuries B.C.), seeking to glorify their cult . . . by projecting a ‘tented’ form of Solomon’s temple back to the time of Moses . . .” He then proceeded to discuss “clear analogues from earlier epochs, and in particular before the Hebrew monarchy” (p. 276). In the 1920s, the tomb of Queen Hetepheres, mother of Khufu, builder of the Great Pyramid (c. 2600 BC), yielded a “secular tabernacle” with a gold covered wooden framework, fitted together with tenon and socket joints, with vertical and horizontal beams or poles, corners with special fitments (Ex 26:23), draped with curtains. In the shaft down to her tomb, a more religious similar structure was found, with limestone socket-bases (cf. silver bases in the biblical tabernacle: Ex 26:19-25). Four different Egyptian tombs, c. 2500 BC. yielded large tents with poles linked by horizontal rods along the top (cf. Ex 26:26-28). Kitchen concluded: “Thus, in Egypt, most of the biblical tabernacle’s technology was literally ‘as old as the Pyramids,’ . . . a thousand years before even a Moses, never mind exilic priests” (p. 276). So much for this skeptical myth . . .

2) Mari [Syrian] Tabernacle Parallels: texts dated 18th-17th century BC (four or five centuries before Moses) describe “tents or ‘tabernacles’ borne on wooden frames, using the same term (but in form qersu) as the Hebrew qerahim, ‘frames'” (Kitchen, p. 277). The texts refer to 43 men needed to transport these portable tents, with its cover, frames, bases (cf. Ex 26:18-25), and seeming units of latticework, perhaps to form an enclosure, as in the Bible (Ex 27:9-10). One of the texts also references sacrifices of an ass within this tent.

3) Ugaritic [Syrian] Tabernacle Parallels: from the 13th century BC, but with archaic language hearkening back to much earlier times, discovered tablets describe the supreme god El dwelling in a tent “(qershu), using the same term as found at Mari and Exodus” (Kitchen, p. 277). “Tents” and “tabernacles” are described “using the words ahl and mishkan(atu) in parallel, precisely as in Hebrew . . . contemporary at latest . . . with our Sinai tabernacle” (p. 277).

4) Second Millennium BC Egyptian (Striking!) Tabernacle Parallels:

Tuthmosis III (cs. 1479-1425) built . . . at Karnak temple what was a translation into stone of a pillared tent. Throughout the New Kingdom, but famously illustrated by the finds in the tomb of Tutankhamun (ca. 1336-1327), the pharaohs had concentric tabernacle-like shrines nested over their coffins, like huge wooden “boxes,” gold-plated, dismountable, and fitted together with tenons in sockets like the Hebrew tabernacle . . . faded linen decorated with gilded bronze rosettes . . . (Kitchen, ibid., p. 278)

Pharaoh Ramesses II (c. 1275 BC) had a rectangular tent divided in two parts (like the biblical tabernacle). The smaller inner room had figures of divine falcons facing each other and shadowing the royal name with their wings, as the cherubim did in the biblical tabernacle (Ex 25:20, 22; Num 7:89; eight others). “The concept of an empty sacred throne for a present but invisible deity was already current long since in Egypt” (Kitchen, p. 280).

5) Tabernacle Workers Parallels: inside the biblical tabernacle’s sanctuary priests alone served; in the outer court the Levites worked (Num 18:1-7; cf. 3:7-10). This was the case at Hittite temples in the 14th and 13th centuries. Punishments were also analogous in Hatti, Israel, and Egypt during this period. (see Kitchen, p. 280)

6) Tabernacle Consecration Rituals: Exodus 20 and Leviticus 8-9 describe these rituals, lasting seven days, for appointing the high priest (originally Aaron, Moses’ brother) and other priests. These were formerly claimed (and maybe still: who knows?) to have originated from the postexilic period (6th c. BC or later), because parallels had not been found. Now that has changed. Findings at Emar: another present-day Syrian site, from the 1970s, revealed elaborate nine-day rites which included anointing with oil (cf. Lev 8:2, 12, 30). Also, the Hittite ritual of Ulippi for inducting a deity into a new shrine shows strong similarities, and lasted six or seven days. (Kitchen, pp. 280-281)


7) Animal Sacrifices Atoning for Human Sin: this can be found in Hittite rites in the 14th-13th centuries BC. (see Kitchen, p. 281)

8) Graded / Differential Offerings: this was common in Hittite and Emar offerings  in the Late Bronze Age, compete with the disdain for blemished offerings: both aspects very familiar from the Bible. (see Kitchen, p. 282)

[Minimalist]

So?  Jews stole ideas from earlier and wiser cultures.  Not news.

They also had a box that they paraded around at the Opet Festival.... much later Jews turned it into the  Ark of the Covenant.

[Aliza]

You know, friend... when I used to regularly discuss religious topics on the forum (back on the original community, TTA), I had a few rules of thumb that I'd follow for posting religious stuff. 1) I didn't start the conversations about religion. It was fair game to reply to any conversation started by another, though. 2) I interacted with the forum members outside of the religious discussions so we could connect on a more personal level. 3) I did not discuss religion with people who weren't asking for a conversation on religion. 

In fairness, AD hasn't had much religious discussion lately, so you'd be waiting for the cows to come home before someone asked a meaty question for you to reply to, so yeah, even I would start a few topics if I wanted to discuss religion with this group. But maybe only a topic or two to see if interest germinates among the locals. If I see people want to ask good questions and provide positive feedback about what I'm saying, then I'd continue. 

When I think of very religious Christians, I think of people who are completely consumed in their religious values to the exclusion of all else. They are constantly proving and reproving their texts to themselves because I think deep down, they know shit doesn't add up. So, they reinforce their beliefs and get feedback from others to reassure themselves that their religion is servicing them in the way it's meant to. Atheists don't do that. Maybe at first they do, like if a religious person has reconciled that their religion is no longer working for them, and they take those fledgling steps away from Christianity (or whatever religion it was), and they need a lot of information and conversation to rewire their brains. But their new lifestyles as atheists starts to feel more natural and they have less pressure to prove to themselves over and over and perform for family members to sell this pious narrative. Religious studies take a backstage role to new ideas and ways of thinking before religious thinking vanishes all together. 

So yeah, a lot of atheist folks have reviewed these proofs and arguments to a point where they're sick of them. They're over it! They're comfortable where they are, they have experienced no divine retribution for their decision to leave religion (or refuse to join a religion), and they are enjoying their lives, learning new things and experiencing joy and happiness in their own ways. 

And they're fine. And you know what? From one theist to another, I'm pretty sure G-d is also fine with them. What kind of douchebag deity lets his children burn for an eternity for being the way he created them, amIright? That's stupid, paranoid thinking, and your inner voice knows it. 

So yeah. Maybe chill on the thread creation and step on over to the coffee house and get to know some of the people here. They're really cool folks! I'm sure you are too.

[Dave Armstrong]

So yeah. Maybe chill on the thread creation and step on over to the coffee house and get to know some of the people here. They're really cool folks! I'm sure you are too.

I've tried to make replies to threads started by others and nothing usually comes of it, whereas my threads are getting a lot of activity (albeit with the usual ratio of 80% sheer insults and 20% substance). So if I go your route I will be a lot more bored here because I like good discussion and dialogues and debate. Takes two. Even mordant has stated that he was getting very bored here till I came along and got some interesting threads going.

Maybe the coffee house is different. We'll see.

I have put up conciliatory posts that are perfectly sincere. One of them has five stars on it (however that is determined). The insulters keep right on relentlessly insulting. It makes no difference.

But if most folks here have no interest whatsoever in talking to a theist who is an apologist and can defend his views, why is there a sub-forum called "Atheism & Theism," which currently has 49,404 posts, second only to the political forum (134,988)? Isn't that where such discussions are sought after and encouraged? Isn't that the very purpose of it? That's where I've been, except for one thread I started about Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. If atheists are so opposed to discussions with theists, why is that sub-forum so popular? Just so they can insult us up and down with childish and inane posts, which most commenters here do with theists?

So it's a bit difficult to understand your point. I should maybe leave Atheism & Theism and hang around the Coffee House because I'm posting too much in the very place where atheists and theists theoretically dialogue, and which is the second most popular place in here? That makes little sense to me.

[no one]

You cannot defend your views. That's hilarious.

Show me how jebus died for my sins. Without the aid of your scripture. Show me anything.

[Aliza]

I've tried to make replies to threads started by others and nothing usually comes of it, whereas my threads are getting a lot of activity (albeit with the usual ratio of 80% sheer insults and 20% substance). So if I go your route I will be a lot more bored here because I like good discussion and dialogues and debate. Takes two. Even mordant has stated that he was getting very bored here till I came along and got some interesting threads going.

NGL, I was too.

I have put up conciliatory posts that are perfectly sincere. One of them has five stars on it (however that is determined). The insulters keep right on relentlessly insulting. It makes no difference.

But if most folks here have no interest whatsoever in talking to a theist who is an apologist and can defend his views, why is there a sub-forum called "Atheism & Theism," which currently has 49,404 posts, second only to the political forum (134,988)? Isn't that where such discussions are sought after and encouraged? Isn't that the very purpose of it? That's where I've been, except for one thread I started about Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. If atheists are so opposed to discussions with theists, why is that sub-forum so popular? Just so they can insult us up and down with childish and inane posts, which most commenters here do with theists?

Your logic is solid here. If the atheists did not want to engage with you, they simply wouldn't. Each of them is empowered with the ability to not read a post in a subforum or from a poster they know they don't like. 

So it's a bit difficult to understand your point. I should maybe leave Atheism & Theism and hang around the Coffee House because I'm posting too much in the very place where atheists and theists theoretically dialogue, and which is the second most popular place in here? That makes little sense to me.

Let me clarify my point: Get to know the people here. You might have more productive conversations if you get to know them personally and they can see that you respect who they are (as they are).

[no one]

Funny how Aliza is a godder, and yet, the lover of peacocks is nothing but pleasant.

[Dave Armstrong]

Let me clarify my point: Get to know the people here. You might have more productive conversations if you get to know them personally and they can see that you respect who they are (as they are).

That's fine, but they have to want to get to know me, too. Again, maybe 20% of the people I have interacted with, show the slightest interest in that. The rest is all insults and lies about me as a person and about my arguments. I have bent over backwards trying to show that I DO respect atheists as people. I'm not the one saying they are morons and liars and all the rest that is said about me every day here. I don't deny their sincerity. I've done all that. It doesn't stop the naysayers from doing what they do. Nothing will ever stop that.

I can sit and talk about the history of baseball or the Beatles or classical music or traveling or ancestry.com or psychology or any number of interests I have besides theology (which are many). I highly doubt that it would make any difference, though. We can easily agree to disagree and not talk about theology and mutual critiques, but then that gets back to my question: why, then, is there a forum devoted to atheism & theism?

So I partially deny your point. I'm all for getting to know people ("over a beer" so to speak). I'm a people person. I like that. But it doesn't change people who are hostile and acrimonious to Christians; just because I am nice as I can be, do small talk and write posts about Schubert. The ones who are friendly and think I am "okay" are already dialoguing with me in a normal manner, based on what I have written so far, and how I have treated them. We didn't have to spend months in the coffee house to get to that point. They've even defended me against the vitriolic loudmouths here (which was very kind of them to do, and I'm sure they caught hell for it. Thanks again to them!).

[no one]

It's not because you are a christiboi fan Dave, but keep playing the victim.

[brewerb]

My take, most of the time and from the initial post Dave comes in over zealous and long winded. Makes it feel like a lecture or preaching.

Not a way to start a conversation or win friends and influence people (sorry Dale). My guess is that fellow christians probably eat it up, could be we are the wrong audience.

PS: Dave, did you think to ask if anyone wanted to talk/know about Schubert? If I remember correctly it had an initial post that I considered a copy/paste lecture.

[pattylt]

My take, most of the time and from the initial post Dave comes in over zealous and long winded. Makes it feel like a lecture or preaching.

Not a way to start a conversation or win friends and influence people (sorry Dale). My guess is that fellow christians probably eat it up, could be we are the wrong audience.

PS: Dave, did you think to ask if anyone wanted to talk/know about Schubert? If I remember correctly it had an initial post that I considered a copy/paste lecture.

That’s been my issue as well.  TLR is my feeling.  It’s why they don’t interest me and I know Dave doesn’t care what my feelings are…that’s fine, too.  It’s never felt like a start to a conversation, just a lecture like I’m expected to answer each and every point right off the bat.  I guess that’s just his “style”.  It’s not conducive to a conversation and I’m not interested in writing an entire page of rebuttals or agreements.  So, I leave it to those that want to.

[mordant]

Even mordant has stated that he was getting very bored here till I came along and got some interesting threads going.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt but you ARE starting to seem a bit like a one note pony. So far at least, the essence of your arguments are neither novel nor robust and therefore not particularly interesting or stimulating. They are arguments I've heard a thousand times dressed up at times in some theological ideas and assumptions that I'm less familiar with -- but in their basic essence, old news. Sorry.

[Szuchow]

Even mordant has stated that he was getting very bored here till I came along and got some interesting threads going.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt but you ARE starting to seem a bit like a one note pony. So far at least, the essence of your arguments are neither novel nor robust and therefore not particularly interesting or stimulating. They are arguments I've heard a thousand times dressed up at times in some theological ideas and assumptions that I'm less familiar with -- but in their basic essence, old news. Sorry.

christian coming with new (and good) arguments is about as likely as Lenin coming back to life and building communism.

[Dave Armstrong]

My take, most of the time and from the initial post Dave comes in over zealous and long winded. Makes it feel like a lecture or preaching.

Not a way to start a conversation or win friends and influence people (sorry Dale). My guess is that fellow christians probably eat it up, could be we are the wrong audience.

PS: Dave, did you think to ask if anyone wanted to talk/know about Schubert? If I remember correctly it had an initial post that I considered a copy/paste lecture.

That’s been my issue as well.  TLR is my feeling.  It’s why they don’t interest me and I know Dave doesn’t care what my feelings are…that’s fine, too.  It’s never felt like a start to a conversation, just a lecture like I’m expected to answer each and every point right off the bat.  I guess that’s just his “style”.  It’s not conducive to a conversation and I’m not interested in writing an entire page of rebuttals or agreements.  So, I leave it to those that want to.

If even a post about Schubert that I put up precisely because it wasn't theological, to try to get some non-controversial friendly, something-in-common discussion going about classical music, is controversial and is regarded as proof that I am (somehow) an arrogant blowhard, then there is no hope here, so I'm out. The hostility is simply too great. It was a sub-forum about art and music. I didn't HAVE to ask. That's bullshit. I'm supposed to take a survey and say, "hey, does anyone care about an article I wrote about Schubert's Eighth Symphony?" and get permission before putting it up? Music was my first love, long before theology. I played classical piano as a kid and my first job was ushering at the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

It wasn't a "lecture." Give me a break. It was a fun, speculative, purely subjective topic I wrote about just a month ago, and so I thought that there were probably a lot of lovers of classical music here and that it would be good to discuss just for fun. But that was too good to be true, I reckon.

Part of what I posted in my time here were two perfectly sincere ultra-conciliatory posts about atheists from a Christian perspective. But that's not enough. I sure as hell don't know what is, then.

I did enjoy the discussion for a while here, but this was the final straw. So back to your regularly scheduled program.

[Cavebear]

So yeah. Maybe chill on the thread creation and step on over to the coffee house and get to know some of the people here. They're really cool folks! I'm sure you are too.

I've tried to make replies to threads started by others and nothing usually comes of it, whereas my threads are getting a lot of activity (albeit with the usual ratio of 80% sheer insults and 20% substance). So if I go your route I will be a lot more bored here because I like good discussion and dialogues and debate. Takes two. Even mordant has stated that he was getting very bored here till I came along and got some interesting threads going.

Maybe the coffee house is different. We'll see.

I have put up conciliatory posts that are perfectly sincere. One of them has five stars on it (however that is determined). The insulters keep right on relentlessly insulting. It makes no difference.

But if most folks here have no interest whatsoever in talking to a theist who is an apologist and can defend his views, why is there a sub-forum called "Atheism & Theism," which currently has 49,404 posts, second only to the political forum (134,988)? Isn't that where such discussions are sought after and encouraged? Isn't that the very purpose of it? That's where I've been, except for one thread I started about Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. If atheists are so opposed to discussions with theists, why is that sub-forum so popular? Just so they can insult us up and down with childish and inane posts, which most commenters here do with theists?

So it's a bit difficult to understand your point. I should maybe leave Atheism & Theism and hang around the Coffee House because I'm posting too much in the very place where atheists and theists theoretically dialogue, and which is the second most popular place in here? That makes little sense to me.

It's not the thread creation so much as the contents of the threads. You are a dedicated theist trying to insert your beliefs into an atheist forum. Why? I don't go invading theist forums. And I don't really want to bother with theists here. I just want a safe place to talk to fellow atheists about general things without religious opinions and religious idiots intruding all the time.

What is it about you (and your kind - because there are always a few just like you) that you can't just leave us alone to discuss things among ourselves?

I don't care about the religious/superstitious view of history; I care about a non-religious view of it. I don't care about the religious/superstitious view of politics; I care about the free-of-religion view of it. The religious view of science makes me both laugh (at the absurdity of it), and cry (that so many theists are so ignorant of what science actually is).

Do I sometimes argue with you? Yes. because what you post is so ridiculous. Bad logic offends me and sometimes I think it has to be refuted. But if you and the next and the next and the next theist who thought they could convert me just went away or didn't arrive in the first place, I sure would be happier.

[brewerb]

That’s been my issue as well.  TLR is my feeling.  It’s why they don’t interest me and I know Dave doesn’t care what my feelings are…that’s fine, too.  It’s never felt like a start to a conversation, just a lecture like I’m expected to answer each and every point right off the bat.  I guess that’s just his “style”.  It’s not conducive to a conversation and I’m not interested in writing an entire page of rebuttals or agreements.  So, I leave it to those that want to.

If even a post about Schubert that I put up precisely because it wasn't theological, to try to get some non-controversial friendly, something-in-common discussion going about classical music, is controversial and is regarded as proof that I am (somehow) an arrogant blowhard, then there is no hope here, so I'm out. The hostility is simply too great. It was a sub-forum about art and music. I didn't HAVE to ask. That's bullshit. I'm supposed to take a survey and say, "hey, does anyone care about an article I wrote about Schubert's Eighth Symphony?" and get permission before putting it up? Music was my first love, long before theology. I played classical piano as a kid and my first job was ushering at the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

It wasn't a "lecture." Give me a break. It was a fun, speculative, purely subjective topic I wrote about just a month ago, and so I thought that there were probably a lot of lovers of classical music here and that it would be good to discuss just for fun. But that was too good to be true, I reckon.

Part of what I posted in my time here were two perfectly sincere ultra-conciliatory posts about atheists from a Christian perspective. But that's not enough. I sure as hell don't know what is, then.

I did enjoy the discussion for a while here, but this was the final straw. So back to your regularly scheduled program.

I thought you were ignoring me.

Damn, and just when I was on the verge of conversion, oh well. Buh Bye!

[Deesse23]

I would like to use a line from Einstein to use as my new signature. But i dont want to appear dishonest (aka quote mining). So i am asking Dave for his opinion, before i use it.
Any thoughts, Dave?  

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.

[Dānu]

I wonder what he'll write about us on his blog now?

[brewerb]

I wonder what he'll write about us on his blog now?

Atheists are 99% assholes.

[Minimalist]

I wonder what he'll write about us on his blog now?

I bet it won't be how he tucked his tail between his legs and ran away!

[mordant]

I wonder what he'll write about us on his blog now?

The same thought crossed my mind. Not that it's going to keep me awake nights.

I don't agree that some here needed to be shrill and insulting to him but at the same time if you're a champion of your faith and "professional apologist" it really shouldn't be hard to ignore the noise, either. In my view he left primarily because we weren't impressed with his line of reasoning. In fact it's surprising to me that he basically lasted no longer than Charlie24, a guy who made not even a pretense at being rational.

Both realized they were getting nowhere and would not have stories of slain dragons to tell later.

[Szuchow]

I wonder what he'll write about us on his blog now?

The same thought crossed my mind. Not that it's going to keep me awake nights.

I don't agree that some here needed to be shrill and insulting to him but at the same time if you're a champion of your faith and "professional apologist" it really shouldn't be hard to ignore the noise, either. In my view he left primarily because we weren't impressed with his line of reasoning. In fact it's surprising to me that he basically lasted no longer than Charlie24, a guy who made not even a pretense at being rational.

Both realized they were getting nowhere and would not have stories of slain dragons to tell later.

He left? That's one dumb troll less to pollute the forum.

[mordant]

He left?

In post #14 of this thread.

Basically because someone took exception to something he wrote about Schubert, of all things. I've been meaning to go and find that post to see what all the fuss was about.

[url=https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=8559&pid=415249#pid415249][/url]

[pattylt]

Dave doesn’t really know how to approach atheists on a forum. For someone that claimed he liked the Socratic method, none of his posts opened asking us our opinion or views…he just posted long cut n paste of someone else’s argument for a trivial side point on the scripture. When someone challenged him on one part of it, he was miffed that we hadn’t refuted all the other points…that is not the Socratic method I’ve ever seen.

As an apologist, he is a defender of the faith. He should be talking about how Catholisism is the truth yada yada. Instead, he posts about water rocks, Luke’s proper use of a word, etc. perhaps we should have started threads questioning some Catholic position and he would have shined….nah, I doubt it.

[Cavebear]

He left?

In post #14 of this thread.

Basically because someone took exception to something he wrote about Schubert, of all things. I've been meaning to go and find that post to see what all the fuss was about.

[url=https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=8559&pid=415249#pid415249][/url]

For some things, discovering "why" isn't worth the effort. Sometimes, you just say "hurrah" and go on. LOL!