The Occupied Land of Kings and Jeremiah:
Carroll (1992:80) subsequently distinguish the discrepancies within the biblical text as a method of demonstrating the core cause of the myth investigated. The texts of 2 Kings and Jeremiah paints another picture of the exiled land, here it is suggested that the land was not necessarily left barren. With this change of discourse, the ideology of the myth was created, thus indicating the inconsistencies within the preferred source.
2 Kings 24:14 - “14King Nebuchadnezzar took all of Jerusalem captive, including all the commanders and the best of the soldiers, craftsmen, and artisans—10,000 in all. Only the poorest people were left in the land.” – (NLT)
2 Kings 25:12 – “12But the captain of the guard …show more content…
Therefore, there are inconsistencies regarding the intended message of this occurrence. Moreover, as Barstad (2008:98) explains, the main purpose of the Bible is that it should not be read as a historical book, but rather be read as a narrative from different perspectives, suggesting that the interpretation of the Bible from an historic perspective fails to bring justice to the essence of these texts, thus disregarding the main intention of the texts (2008:101).
However, the act of interpreting the ideology of the myth has persisted, modern critics have thus referred to archaeological evidence in order to diminish the belief of an empty land, thus indirectly degrading the facts and narratives of the Bible in its essence. Barstad contradicts himself as he ascribes the importance of reading the Bible as a narrative rather than a historical book (2008:98) but adds his doctrine of the archaeological interpretations of these texts in Blenkinsopp’s and Lipschits’ Judah and the Judeans in the neo-Babylonian period
Carroll (1992:80) subsequently distinguish the discrepancies within the biblical text as a method of demonstrating the core cause of the myth investigated. The texts of 2 Kings and Jeremiah paints another picture of the exiled land, here it is suggested that the land was not necessarily left barren. With this change of discourse, the ideology of the myth was created, thus indicating the inconsistencies within the preferred source.
2 Kings 24:14 - “14King Nebuchadnezzar took all of Jerusalem captive, including all the commanders and the best of the soldiers, craftsmen, and artisans—10,000 in all. Only the poorest people were left in the land.” – (NLT)
2 Kings 25:12 – “12But the captain of the guard …show more content…
Therefore, there are inconsistencies regarding the intended message of this occurrence. Moreover, as Barstad (2008:98) explains, the main purpose of the Bible is that it should not be read as a historical book, but rather be read as a narrative from different perspectives, suggesting that the interpretation of the Bible from an historic perspective fails to bring justice to the essence of these texts, thus disregarding the main intention of the texts (2008:101).
However, the act of interpreting the ideology of the myth has persisted, modern critics have thus referred to archaeological evidence in order to diminish the belief of an empty land, thus indirectly degrading the facts and narratives of the Bible in its essence. Barstad contradicts himself as he ascribes the importance of reading the Bible as a narrative rather than a historical book (2008:98) but adds his doctrine of the archaeological interpretations of these texts in Blenkinsopp’s and Lipschits’ Judah and the Judeans in the neo-Babylonian period