Ancient Democracy Vs Modern Republic

The choice of Snefru as the fictional king is significant because Snefru was generally viewed as a good and wise king who brought stability and prosperity to Egypt. According to a translation by Hans Goedicke, the name “Snefru” means “the one who makes proper.” He also describes Snefru as “as a ruler whose concern for the country does not end with his official obligations: he is shown as trying to expand his understanding of the problems facing the country and contribute to their solution” (Goedicke, 15). This characterization supports the interpretation of The Prophecy of Neferti as a plea for King Amenemhat I to take action in the Eastern border regions. Neferti harkens back to the time of King Snefru in order to inspire Amenemhat to also understand the problems facing the country and contribute to their solution. In The Protocol of Neferyt, Hans Goedicke theorizes that, “At the time of his presentation Neferti could not have been sure of the reaction he might encounter. The romantic disguise modified the possibilities of adverse reaction” (Goedicke,12). This would explain Neferti’s use of the Fourth Dynasty as the setting for the

The king was had more power than the President today but he also had a “Senate and congress”. He had many advisers and people under him helping with other problems. He ultimately had control but also was advised and helped. In today's government we have a president who has people under him just like Babylonian kings. The government in Babylonia influenced ours today and helped shape and model our government structure.

his righteous turn to rule the kingdom since he is the oldest of the four sons of

In this case, there were four key factors of government. The first was the Council of Elders, which was made up of about thirty men that came from a great lineage, had to be at least sixty years in age, and they were chosen by the people for life. The second component was the rule of two kings. To be a king a person had to be born into it, as the position was only inherited. These two kings were also a part of the council of elders. The third and most powerful part were the ephors, which translates to overseers. The ephors were five men who were elected annually and were usually elderly. The last component of the government was the assembly, which was open to all adult male citizens. The thing about the assembly was that they were not allowed to debate or propose anything at meetings. They only had power to approve or deny proposal that were drawn up by the council of elders. They showed their approval by

In accordance with Sparta, it had two Kings from diverse people. So these Monarchs are patterned by the Ephors who are chosen by the popular assembly.

Our Old Testament Scripture Reading found the tribes of Israel uniting with their new king, King David. The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles lead us to believe that in ancient Israel, there was the hope that this would be an enduring dynasty, meaning that a descendant of King David would always rule over Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-3). The Davidic dynasty did last several hundred years, but to make a long story short, Israel eventually ceased to exist as a nation with a King. There is an Israel today but it is a democracy, like us, and it does not have a king.

Israel was surrounded by many nations, and all of those nations had a king. It is recorded in I Samuel 7-8 that the Israelites had requested a king. This was a rejection of God as their leader. They were warned of the consequences of their decision but they ignored all of Samuel’s warnings. For many years Israel lived under human rule beginning with the rule of Saul. Even though they had a few good kings, the many of them were evil. There were tree king who were especially vile. These three were King Ahab, Manasseh, and Amon.

James I argued that monarchs, or kings, take charge over the land, appealing to the authority of God (DR, p. 1). Despite his argument that earthly authority does not apply to the king, I have to disagree with his argument.

There are two types of monarchs one with limited authority and other with unlimited authority, also called absolute monarch. They believe in divine right of kings which say that the king has supreme power and is chosen by the god. People were under his rule and are his subjects. Usually, Kingship is passed down the family to their son/daughter and so on in a hierarchical manner. An example for absolute monarchy is King Henry IV in France from 1589 to 1610.

The nation of Israel was set apart as holy to the LORD. But they When the children of Israel demanded a king, they did so to be like the other nations. The first three kings were Saul, (outwardly tall, handsome and strong—a seemingly good choice for a king, but inwardly arrogant, proud and unrepentant—not God’s choice), David (a man after God’s own heart who repented of his sins and as such was God’s choice), and Solomon (the wisest man who ever lived, but because of covenant disobedience became the catalyst for the division and ultimate exile of Israel.

Nebuchadnezzar is the biblical form of the name Nabukudur. He was the king of Babylon and he was the son of Nabopolassar, who was a Chaldean chief which also led against the Assyrians. Nebuchadnezzar born 630 BC defeated Egyptian the people at the Carchemish empire, giving his father control over Syria. His first motion when he given to the throne was to expand the empire of Babylon. But the way he made it to the throne was his father died and Nebuchadnezzar took the throne that’s how he made it to the throne.

The year of approximately 1051 B.C. of the United Kingdom Period of Israel was a significant year in that it was marked by a shift in the Hebrew view of God and his position over their nation (Hindson and Yates, 2010). For centuries prior to this date, the Hebrew people not only dwelled under the theocratic institutes of Yahweh, but for a time, also viewed him as their supreme leader and judge (Johnson, 2012). By around 1051 B.C., however, the Hebrew mindset had altered, and desiring to imitate the surrounding nations, the Hebrews demanded that a monarchy be established over them (Hindson and Yates, 2010). The ultimate result was the founding of the Hebraic monarchy under the first three kings of Israel: Saul, David, and Solomon. Tragically,

Moses makes it clear that the lord they were to set over themselves was to be a ruler that they browse among their own particular individuals. They were not to set a nonnative over themselves, but rather a king from among their own particular brethren. Indeed, even concerning a ruler, they were still to remain God's picked and separate individuals. In contrast to Herod the Great, he does not fit this qualification. In fact, Herod the Great is not even of Judea, and was not chosen by the people, but by the Roman

King David, a member of the tribe of Judah was chosen by God to lead his people. As everyone knows, he proved by his wise choices to be a very effective leader. As a great military strategist David united the tribes and extended the national boundaries so that in his time Israel enjoyed a greater fraction of

I Kings 11: 9-11 the lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this matter, that he should not follow other gods, but he did not observe what the Lord commanded. Therefore the lord said to Solomon, since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. The Deuteronomistic History talks about the kingship of David, Saul and Solomon but portrays the monarchy as corrupt, improper and always bringing calamity to the people.