Talk:Shiloh (biblical city)

Delete?

I added the factual accuracy and neutrality templates for the section at the bottom, but the more I read it I think the section may just need to be deleted. What does everyone else think? It contains nonsensical ramblings, unreferenced claims, and at best represents an extreme minority viewpoint. I'm familiar with most major Biblical viewpoints and I've never heard of a group that believes the stuff in this section. At the very, very least it needs to be cleaned-up, have all claims cited, and the majority viewpoint presented (since as I said, this would appear to be a minority viewpoint). 71.207.192.47 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it should go. It's unreferenced, and very clearly sectarian. DrGaellon 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in working to clean this up; so don't delete. If anyone has pertinent information, some good sources, and so on, let me know. I can start by looking into the archaeology, and as for the meaning of the term I can not only reference Hebrew, but the Jewish sources. Further...can anyone point me to the section on referencing? I don't know how many people quote ancient texts; this will require not just that, but also some insight into the text-criticism on the words. Also, I would like to know what is thought to be sectarian about it...I'm no expert here, so what do your eyes see? It may/not be, I don't know...but I should after doing the research. : ) So...be patient: I'll be working for a while. :) TheResearchPersona 15:46, 19 February 2008 Mountain

Clean Up Tag

I'm not an expert of the bible; please reference appropriately. Danke.100110100 08:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Location

The article mentions Samaria as the location of Shiloh. This may have been the name of the area in biblical times, today it belongs to either the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to the Republic of Palestine, whatever you prefer. Describing the location as Samaria without further specification is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.141.34 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Divine Commission of Paul Mwazha

If you need an indeepth understanding, you can access "The Divine Commission of Paul Mwazha of Africa part 1 and part 2" online via Amazon Uk - www.amazon.co.uk . If more information is required, please keep posting on here. This information represents the truth, which is in the bible and its fulfilment; there are more issues linked to this, that will bring the subject to a better light for a layman to understand.

oh now I know who this is. http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-religion-byo-25284.html 108.18.136.147 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Word

I just checked the Biblical Concordance (sorry not online) the etymology of the word "Messiah" comes from the Hebrew "masiach" from the verb "limshoach" or to anoint. A Masiach is an anointed one. If there are other theological connotations placed upon the word I admit I'm unaware from the simple meaning is not "peaceful one" but "anointed one". 89.0.163.202 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite true that Messiah means "anointed one" - but Hebrew words, unlike English ones, don't come from verbs. (They come from trilateral roots - three consonants, around which vowels are added to make up different parts of speech). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

As I recall from yeshiva, "anointed one" freely means "fragrant or perfumed one". One is anointed with oil of joy or gladness. Hebrew: שָׂשׂוֹן sason. Phonetic: saw-soen'. Cf. Vidal Sassoon. The Hebrew tri-consonantal roots are literally called verb-roots (shoresh, http://www.hebrew-verbs.co.il/ ). They are first conjugated with suffixes to make them other than verbs, and THEN placement, and last prefixes. Modern Hebrew doesn't require verbs to come first in sentence structure. Mouselb (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Who got Shiloh?

When Joshua divided the Holy Land among the Hebrew, who did get Shiloh, the city where there was the Ark of Covenant? --Minartih (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

German Link

In german wikipedia shiloh is separate as city and person, two different pages. How to link these correctly?--Umrcht (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to split this article as you suggested. It seems to be about two totally different things, the city and the person. MarkBuckles (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Split Shiloh as Person content to new article

Since both of these articles now reference the Bible, I'm now going to rename this article Shiloh (Biblical city). MarkBuckles (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious material

It seems like two editors were fighting a battle in the article itself. I'm moving this here in case someone wants to clean this up:

After Joshua had passed from the scene, some inhospitable men in Gibeah raped the concubine of a Levite man when the couple was passing through on their way home to Mount Ephraim. The outraged Levite sent a provocative message to all the tribes demanding justice, and the people responded. The leaders of Benjamin refused to turn over the perpetrators so the other tribes went to war and killed every man, woman, and child of Benjamin save for 600 young men who had holed up at the Rock Rimmon. When their blood cooled, the people repented of having nearly wiped out an entire tribe, and set about finding wives for the surviving men so as to perpetuate the tribe. All who had participated in the killing rampage had sworn to never again allow their daughters to marry Benjamites. They found just one city that had not participated in the bloodbath. They took 400 virgins from that (Levite) city, but still had 200 bachelors on their hands.

The men found out where the girls of Shiloh went to dance, and "carried them off," with the tacit agreement of the girls and their parents.[www.ou.org] It was a way to get around their vow not to let the daughters marry Benjamites.

The two sentences above, apparently from ou.org, are incorrect. Perhaps it is an attempt to hide what actually happened; kidnapping and rape.

In the story we are specifically told they hid in the bush, ran out and kidnapped the young women.(Jdg 21:21) As per the time, they would have raped the young women to make them their property - "wives!"

This was NOT done with the agreement of the girls and their parents (as or.org asserts,) as we are specifically told - "WHEN" the fathers and brothers come to fight for their daughters, say to them ... (Jdg 21:22) These young women were kidnapped and raped to get around the oath the men had taken.

Ltwin (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Temporary capital of Israel

it was the temporary capital of israel befor the holy TORAH was came to temple in JERUSALEM . פארוק (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with saying it was the "temporary" capital. It served as the capital for hundreds of years during the time of the Judges. Saying it was "temporary" makes it sound like that someone had designated Jerusalem as the capital, and they were just using Shiloh as a makeshift place to stick the Ark of the Covenant until they could get the temple built - but that is ridiculous.

Remove the word "temporary", please: it's misleading. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem became the Capital when King David built his Palace there. David was a king, not a priest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.181.195 (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem was the first city that ever served in any way as the "capital" of ancient Israel and Judah--as a capital in the ancient world served as both the religious and the political-military-administrative center of the country. In this context, Shiloh was a holy site, not a "capital"....The tent shrine was there, and is unclear whether any physical sanctuary stood there during the Israelite period. Nothing compels the interpretation of I Samuel 1-3 as referring to a temple. Eli, his sons, and Samuel may all have lived in physical residences overlooking the tent shrine. Doktorschley (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

clean up

The first two paragraphs under Biblical Period are partly redundant with each other. Please fix this. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

POV

" It could be a figure, perhaps the Messiah," There is an external link associated with this which points to a Christian site. The verbage should say "there are Christian interpretations of this as the Messiah" so as not to confuse people who might not realize that there is a specific POV behind the term "the Messiah" as used in the external link. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

better data and verbage needed

"One of the more intriguing finds was that of a heap of pottery outside the city wall before the advent of the Israelite culture (c1000 BCE). " The most commonly accepted date for Israelites to enter the Holy Land, AFAICT, is prior to 1200 BCE; the Merneptah stele identifying Israel as living in the same overall region as the Canaanites is 1207 BCE. Since the Egyptians could distinguish the two cultures well enough to give them separate names requires that the Israelite culture existed when the stele was put up, in the absence of evidence that Merneptah's troops performed an ethnographic survey while stealing grain during a period of dessication. So the date here is wrong. Second, other material in the article provides radiometric dating. If there's no radiometric dating to back up this statement, then how was the dating established? What's more, there's no citation of the source of the statement. Just because the next paragraph refers to Finkelstein's radiometric dating doesn't mean it applies to the paragraph I'm talking about. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Khirbet Seilun, a tell or archaeological mound

I'm unable to find archeological mounds referred to as tell (with 2 ells, "l"). Even Wiktionary doesn't handle this as some kind of homophonic synonym, https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/tel Mouselb (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tell (archaeology). Editor2020 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

I don't see why I can't use the actual verses in question to disprove schley as in writing his book he just ignores those verses to come to the conclusion he wants. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)