JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[dybmh]

I need to know when the flood myth was written.

There it is ^^. Confirmed. All of the conclusions are based on when it was written. That's what I've been saying all along. This ignores that these stories were originally passed down as oral traditions.

Flood myths are the one thing that are universal to cultures surrounded by water.

Agreed.

The difference is the Epic of Gilamesh is so exact to Noah that it's impossible it wasn't used.

It's not exact as shown. And from what I can tell, no scholars say they are exact. That's an exaggeration that's being added. It's impossible is to say that Epic of Gilgamesh didn't borrow from Jewish oral tradition.

In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia.

Look at that, the Genesis story didnt borrow from the Epic of Gilgamesh after all. They both come from a common tradition. Huh? That's a lot different than what you're saying, isn't it.

Again, thank you for not snipping out the parts that refute your claim.

The Hawaian myth was from settlers who went there as late as 1300 CE, and - "Along with the surviving traditions, some Hawaiians practice Christianized versions of old traditions. Others practice the old faith as a co-religion."

The flood story of Nu'u is a "surviving tradition". Again, you are assuming Nu'u came from the settlers the same as you are assuming the Genesis stories were borrowed.

 

[dybmh]

But Noah isn't the only Mesopotamian myth used?

Or, the mesopotamians used the Jewish myths and adapted them to their beliefs. That's it. People assume the Hebrew bible borrowed from Mesopotamia because....???

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity

The Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God.[2

The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies..


Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[19][20]

"borrowed" is an unfounded assumption. They are similar, the two cultures were in close proximity. That is true. Who borrowed from whom is just a claim. A lot of people make the claim; parroting it as gospel truth is "flat-earth" logic.

Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.

Or mesopotamian myths copied from the Jewish creation story and expanded it. You're still not addressing the issue. Probably because you can't, and I'm right on all of this.

Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.[25]

Close parallels do not show causation...

1) copy and pasting is providing evidence that historical scholarship agrees with this and is where I'm taking the idea from. I am familiar with critical historical scholars so I know this is the consensus.

You're not addressing the issue. And neither are your sources. You would say the same thing if all i did was copy-paste an english translation of the Hebrew bible at you repeatedly.

2)No one said the Mesopotamians were the original authors. They may have copied from the Sumerians.

And the sumerains may have copied from the first Jews. BTW, you did claim the sumerians originally conceived of these stories. ( post#316 buried in the middle ) That's when I originally objected, and ... here we are. We can be finished at any time. All that's needed is ackowledgement that the sumerians may not have been the original source either and it may have come from the original Jews all along.

Religious syncretism is in every religion, Judaism and Christianity are completely full of it.

I agree that Christianity is, but not that Judaism is syncretic. Show me, a tallit in a religion predating Judaism. Show me tefillin in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a mezuzah in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a weekly day of rest in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a sukkah in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a sabbatical year or a jubilee in a religion predating Judaism. Judaism is the exception, the outlier, a nation set apart. Not syncretic.

That "faulty logic" is yours.

Show me. Where is the faulty logic?

The people who sign off on this are all familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Mesopotamian cuniform.

Knowledge of the written language doesn't show which story came first.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou speaks on this, Dr Josh Bowen speaks on this and the historian /pastor who lectures are on youtube:

Kindly direct me to where in the 1 hour 24 minute video a Jewish oral tradition is ruled out as the source for the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

3)The Hawaiian flood myth is not a "counter example", it is not "strikingly similar" and a myth that "the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.". It's already known that all water civilizations have flood myths. Just not similar to Noah.

It *is* similar to Noah. It has just as many "striking" similarities.

Here's the similarities of the genesis flood story to epic of gilgamesh

1. world wide flood
2. the cause is sin
3. a man is contacted by god
4. an ark is built
5. after the rain stops and bird is sent out
6. on dry land an offering is brought

Here's a list of the similarities of the genesis flood story to the hawaiian flood story

1. world wide flood
2. the name of the hero is approx. the same
3. the hero is a big kahuna ( perfect in his generation )
4. the cause of the flood is sin
5. an ark is built
6. there is a rainbow at the end
7. an offering is brought
8. the hero has 3 sons

Hmmmmm... seems like they both have approx. the same number similarities.

Regarding those who have no doubt, I have introduced a very simple, obvious, logical problem with the conclusion which hasn't been addressed. Ignoring this obvious logical problem in favor of those who have no doubt is an appeal to authority. That is a logical fault.

Religious journal paper,

Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

OK, lets see what they say

Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories)

Sure, legends and stories. No argument there.

The Mesopotamian comparisons are numerous and were picked up during the exile.

Or, the mesopotamians picked them up. Again, the source doesn't address the issue. Just makes a claim.

The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim—properly griffins rather than angels—was known to the Canaanites. In the Bible, however, this mythical garden of the gods becomes the scene of man’s fall and the background of a story designed to account for the natural limitations of human life

The word "becomes" is an assumption. The correct word is "contrasted". There is no evidence of causation or borrowing only of similarities. This is flat-earth logic.

in the Bible this detail is omitted because,

again, the word "omitted" assumes that the written story came first. The whole conclusion is based on this one weak assumption that ignores these are stories told orally and originated before written language.

 

[rational experiences]

Man's ignorance.

A man is first living with and in the highest heavens. Highest exists is the only status. The only human bio support. Highest. Water cooled ice mass presence by body mass.

In his human life with father first there is no science no thesis no advice about before. Human life in natural laws exact. Human.

No such status as before in a Conscious human life except the term a deceased human.

The teaching is about two.

You live you own a Timed life span to exist survive until you die. Bio life. Age is exact present only as each individuals age now. So time span of one human is 100 years.

If one human is 100 years old and dying now it's your life span too. As you're mutual. You aren't dying however as you are younger. Basic teaching advice highest heavens supports 100 years life survival.

Mutual equal in law says the same heavens that supports life allows the same life to die. Law. Exact. No argument.

Basic intelligence says that advice is why you don't change earths heavens.

Hence one human represents all humans.

Humans died owning a life span as the exact same timed life span yet they died Sacrificed. The review two lives living the same life.

Two reviews parallel. Side by side.

You look back at human memory and you realise humans died in unnatural circumstances. It can happen to anyone.

The reicarnated life memory gives exacting details proven by modern life studies. Same DNA type patterning is reborn in human sex. Same conscious awareness re emerges. Baby human remembers what happened in that past.

Studied...known to be real. Humans not lying.

You have archaeological evidence old temple sites and old pyramids. Yes says humans they murdered us the scientists. Humans did evil in temples. Sciences.

All the advice says yes it's real by humans sickness now. Advice that life was irradiated in a huge heavenly nuclear event. Most of bio genetics left biology. Is Exact advice.

Science nearly eradicated all natural bio species on earth. Genesis exodus the term.

Flooding became a new heavens law for saving life. As it's a law of GOD above to flood below. It stops burning gases falling above caused by UFO sun mass cross. The cross above seen on the mountains where science temples once stood.

All correlated advice of men said were life's warnings on earth. Statement testimonial of the old sciences to never do nuclear science.

Greedy men returning to trade and powermongering life in greed controls who cared less. Said we'll do whatever we want. You humans are meaningless in our rich humans life.

Yet everyone's family. Same DNA human origin parent. We are brothers sisters. Being rich is behaviour only and it does not save life.

Thesis if I follow Jesus he's king of the heavens and owns gods power riches. False teachings. I'm safe hence. Heavens one holy mass the same for everyone. Brain change effect only.

Falsely advised humans science beliefs.

First humans liars bullies were rich men king lords. High priest of science technology were rich men. Whose position they took said no one can challenge me I just kill you.

Unnatural control of humans choices by small groups of evil thinking men.

So ignoring the data correlated as the written word study of the old....life was attacked as sacrificed life again.

The wandering star law was changed above. It's natural position it had cooled passed by earth... and it began to enter and hit ground earth again.

The warning. Phenomena attack sporadic as cooling above heavens flow shifts moves wanders naturally.

Cooling in space and earths heavens is the law. The wandering star had returned passing earth and was not hitting it. Considered a holy sign by wise men. Who watched stars.

Rome choice made it hit earth again.

So memory said Rome caused mother abomination as they had caused it by the repractices of nuclear temple science.

No science beginning allowed as Alchemy. It was outlawed as they were so afraid of any type of conversion of any substances Including herbal concoctions.

 

[101G]

Man's ignorance.

100%

101G.

 

[joelr]

GINOLJC, to all.
the KJV so far is the only bible translation that exposes add on to it. it is the only self-correcting bible translation out there. and it's the only false Prophet destroyer in existence. it corrects contradiction claims by men, by exposing the so-call contradictions. it's the only translation that has a built in dictionary within itself.

all these things are accomplish by the teaching and guidance of God himself, the Holy Spirit.

so. yes, scholars lie.... men, but God do not.

have a nice day, or a least try to...... (smile).

101G.

That doesn't address my answer at all. I pointed out that religious scripture is often proven lies. Like Epistles 3 which is a known forgery as well as the other fake Epistles.
But there are hundreds of contradictions listed here:
Contradictions as listed in the SAB book

some have apologetics for some do not

Historian Bart Ehrman has a lecture on some of the serious theological contradictions here:

and goes over his top 3 here:

but beyond that even if there was no contradictions this has no bearing on if a prophet is false. You need evidence to demonstrate a prophet is real. There is no evidence in the NT to show any of that is from a supernatural source. It's fictive literary style and uses Hellenistic and Persian theology. Dying/rising savior demigods were not new at all so even that isn't original. This looks to be another myth in every way and in no way does it look to be actually supernatural events.

 

[joelr]

personal opinion? u know what I go with them ..... (smile). lol, lol, lol.

Cool, please demonstrate evidence that Yahweh is more real than Brahman.

see above

Nope, not personal opinion. Consensus of historical scholarship. If you are comfortable being misinformed go right ahead. But you are wrong calling this personal opinion. Once again.

Within modern Christianity there remains pervasive misunderstandings regarding the date(s), authorship and transmission of various portions of the New Testament. One of the most prolific New Testament authors was the Apostle Paul. Of the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul, the current mainstream consensus among scholars is that no more than nine are authentic. The remaining five, some would argue seven, are known forgeries- falsely attributed to the Apostle Paul.

As mentioned before, seven of Paul’s Epistles are accepted as authentic by an overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars. This statement should not be construed as some sort of argumentum ad populum or appeal to the masses, but is in fact limited to a select group of highly specialized scholars, who continually examine, affirm or discount the assertions of their colleagues in peer-reviewed literature. With that said, the following seven Pauline Epistles are regarded as genuine, and having been personally authored by the Apostle Paul during his Christian ministry: Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and First Thessalonians.
The Forgeries:
There are currently five Pauline Epistles which are known frauds: First and Second Timothy, Hebrews, Ephesians and Titus. These texts are known as pseudepigraphical- falsely claimed (assigned) authorship. Each of these Epistles have their own issue(s) which demonstrate their status as forgeries. By way of a short example, both First and Second Timothy contain structure(s) and language not found in any of Paul’s other letters. These internal clues have led modern scholars to date these texts to the late 1st and/or early 2nd century CE (c. 90-130 CE). Attempts to place either of these works within the decade of Paul’s genuine writings are unconvincing. In the case of Hebrews, no extant copy of the text attributes its authorship to Paul. Even in antiquity, the author of Hebrews was generally considered unknown (anonymous) by early Church scholars (Fathers), such as Origen, Tertullian and Hippolytus. The assignment of authorship to Paul was rooted in tradition and the increasing popularity of Paul’s other works. It wasn’t until the late 4th century CE, when St. Augustine pushed vehemently (and successfully) for the authorship of Hebrews to be assigned to Paul- despite little or no evidence to support it.
The Pauline Epistles: Known and Suspected Forgeries.

see above

See above. Seven Epistles are known to be authentic. The others are forgeries.

Spoke too soon, see above, above.

The gospels are anonymous and not eyewitness. The Greek intro to each Gospel, "Kata Evangelion" translates to "as told to me by Mark...." and so on.
They literally say they are not the person who heard or saw anything. The names were added much later, way after they were being used. There is plenty of evidence internal and external to demonstrate this.

see above, above, above. ..... (smile) ...lol. Oh dear

There is nothing "above" except "see above" which is all wrong. The question is please demonstrate scholars are wrong or lie. You haven't done that. YOu seem too lazy to even explain what you are talking about never mind answer a question. Everything I claimed is true and I have as much evidence as needed.
Instead of bothering to explain what your face is doing (smile, not smile, don't care at all) or exclamations of "oh dear" (don't care) back up your claim maybe.
You haven't made a single valid point with evidence or a source yet. What is actually true is not important to you, ok I get it.

 

[joelr]

this is just copy-paste lacking any critcal analysis, Joel.

I don't buy that for one second. You clearly don't like what it's saying so are hand waving it off. If I said this you would ask for a source. I give a source and it's "not critical analysis".... Total B.S.
The critical analysis has been done, that is a small summary. Dever, Thompson, Fransesca S., all these historians are in consensus. These articles do a good job of summarizing the consensus.
Genesis is Mesopotamian mythology. What is the big deal?

Ah! Finally. And thank you! So, these inscriptions don't define Judaism. Brilliant. I agree!

Right, what Judaism became was very different than the roots. Jewish people will want to say a God actually spoke to Abraham and started real Judaism but that obviously is a myth. The Israelite religion was much more like the Canaanite or Mesopotamian religions it was molded after.
During the 2nd Temple Period they took the Persian concepts, monotheism, a coming messianic savior, a general resurrection after a final battle, God vs the devil, frewill for humans to choose sin or not, and formed what we know of today as Judaism.

 

[joelr]

Confirmed. 1 religious site. Not religious sites plural. Just 1. And this does not address that there is no word for "his" in the ancient language, possession is indicated with vowels which are missing.

Again, vowels. What was the name of the Canaanite god? No one actually knows. Without vowels it could be el, ol, ool, eel... or even elo, eeloo, or ooloo. In this ancient language, your written name would be JL. Is your name Joel the same as Jool, or Jeel, or perhaps Julie?

So, the conclusion that YHVH had a consort is derived from 1 religious site, where the word "his" is assumed and added, combined with a Canaanite pantheon who had a god with short name that is *assumed* to the same as one of the names of the Jewish God. It's weak evidence + weak evidence + weak evidence being exaggerated into strong evidence. And you have not addressed these weaknesses. Instead you're copying and pasting more weak evidence. Keep going.

Yeah right, weak evidence from the worlds leading Biblical archaeologist? I never said it was the totality of the evidence? You are assuming that? I'm sensing a huge agenda here to wipe this away as quickly as possible. I imagine you believe these stories literal and cannot accept this information?
Anyways, this is the consensus.


At 34:00 Dr. Stavrakopoulou, professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at Exeter University talks about Ashera and says "lots" of evidence.
She also says Yahweh and his Ashera. I don't know what you mean about vowels? There are personal pronouns in Hebrew? Shelo is "his" possessive.
I don't know how early this was either. They used a proto-Canaanite language at first.

The weaknesses I have not addressed are things you made up. I am just covering one example of how scholars believe Ashera was paired to Yahweh. Early settlements showed goddess figurines that said Yahweh and his Ashera. That would be one line of evidence. It's how history is done. Don't tell me you believe in a deity from a book and you are talking about weak evidence.

You are talking about evidence and I haven't seen anything about Canaanite language except things that suggest the language was familiar and the name of the supreme deity was not in question. Please post a Phd explaining the language is not possible to parse and "El" is a fabrication.

"Mycenaean, Cretan, Hurrian, and Mesopotamian. Most of what is known about Canaanite religion is derived from a series of tablets discovered at Ras Shamra. The principal god was El, but the jurisdiction over rainfall and fertility was delegated to Baal, or Hadad. Other important deities included Resheph, lord of plague and the nether world; Kothar, the divine craftsman; Asherah, consort of El; and Astarte, goddess of fertility.


The language of the Canaanites may perhaps be best described as an archaic form of Hebrew, standing in much the same relationship to the Hebrew of the Old Testament as does the language of Chaucer to modern English. The Canaanites were also the first people, as far as is known, to have used an alphabet. In Late Bronze Age strata at the site of Lachish, archaeologists have found a form of script that is recognized by most scholars as the parent of Phoenician and thence of the Greek and Latin alphabets. They also found that a curious cuneiform alphabet was in use at Ugarit. Side by side with these innovations, however, the traditional syllabic cuneiform of Mesopotamia was regularly employed."
Canaan | Definition, History, & Facts

 

[joelr]

So what? The claim in discussion is that of a consort. Were YHVH and asherah actually connected, or were the ancient people basically throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks? IOW, were they saying "These two gods go together", or were they saying "These people claim YHVH is a god, and these people over here say asherah is a god, I'm going to hedge my bets and worship both of them"?

Based on later evidence from scripture and early finds it looks like Yahweh had a consort Ashera during the polytheist times before monotheism became important to them.
The people they came from, the Canaanites probably had similar pairings and they were used to this.
Yahweh was a national deity and a warrior deity so this was a different concept than supreme God of everything.

See here: Archaeologist claims to find oldest Hebrew text in Israel, including the name of God

This ^^ is older than the inscription found by Dever, and guess what??? No ashera. YHVH is alone on this archeological discovery. How would you explain that? Now apply that same explanation to the other inscriptions which include ashera, and I think you're on your way to an honest, balanced, fair conclusion of what the ancient writing means.

.

How would I explain it?
Well first, - "
“The fact that they are publishing it in the news before being published scientifically is a bit off,” said one established academic. Another cautioned that since he hasn’t been able to view the inscription himself, it was impossible to know whether the claims were factual or a case of “overdeveloped imagination.”

"However, the researchers have not yet published the find in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Likewise, they are not yet releasing clear images and scans of the inscription for other academics to weigh in on."

"Also challenging the secure dating of the object is the fact that the tablet was not discovered during a carefully excavated stratified context. Rather, it was found during a 2019 re-examination of earth from a dump pile formed during 1980s excavations at Mount Ebal that were held under Prof. Adam Zertal. The earth had been dry-sifted then, and in 2019 Stripling’s team resifted it using a wet sifting technique that was developed at the Temple Mount Sifting Project, where Stripling once worked. Stripling current heads ongoing excavations at biblical Shiloh."

and


"Archaeologists approached by The Times of Israel were unwilling to comment on the record until they viewed the hopefully forthcoming academic paper and scans."


Why would you be looking for an explanation of something not yet reviewed by scholars?

Something is off here. You are accusing me of a non fair and balanced approach yet I'm just going by William Dever, Fransesca Stavrakopoulou, Dr Josh Bowen and a few other Phd academics. This is their opinion?????

 

[joelr]

No, not at all. I'm not objecting to the idea of syncretism. I'm objecting to the direction of the borrowing and to the assumption that those who wrote it first are the originators. That's all. I'm applying critical analysis to the claims made to see if they make sense. And they don't. It's the certainty that I object to. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

You've got 1 very good example with the story of the flood that ideas were being shared between two groups of people who lived in close proximity.

I don't know why you keep saying this even after I addressed this? No one is saying who the original authors are. Just not the Israelites because they emerged from Canaan around `1200 BCE. The Mesopotamian myths are far older and possibly taken from Sumer. How would Israelites be around in Sumer?

 

[joelr]

Uh-huh Seems you don't know much about the history of Hawaii.

Colonial epidemic disease in Hawai'i - Wikipedia

Evidence that the Hawaiian's were isolated ^^

Yes once I read some of the flood myth I see it isn't related to Noah.

What a minute, wait a minute, so if the details don't match precisely then there wasn't borrowing? That's a pretty major flip-flop compared to what you said about the creation myth. Before it was "close enough", but here it's not. That's an arbitrary choice, aka bias.

Gilamesh and Noah are obvious matches. If it's vague then why would syncretism be suspected? All scholarship agrees Noah and Gilamesh are a match, why are you opposed to this?

YOU have no doubt. That's true. But again this is only based on who wrote down the story first. That's it. Nothing you've brought addresses this very simple, obvious problem with your conclusion.

Gilamesh.
The Epic of Gilgamesh (/ˈɡɪlɡəmɛʃ/)[2] is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, and is regarded as the earliest surviving notable literature and the second oldest religious text, after the Pyramid Texts. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about Bilgamesh (Sumerian for "Gilgamesh"), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2100 BC).[

No one in historical scholarship believes the Israelites were around during this time. What are you even talking about?

[

What you'll find is that different people have different versions of the story. Some are remarkably similar, some are less similar. Not surprising.

The Hawaii myth is a flood myth but not much like Gilamesh or Noah. The similarities between those are too much to be coincidence. This is a known fact.

Um. Devil vs. God is Christian. Hell is Christian. So if you want to claim Christianity borrowed from Persian beliefs, fine. Have at it. At least there you have plausible motive. Christianity attemted to create a universal world religion. So including elements from the various neighbors and peoples they encountered on their mission makes sense. What's the motive for the Jewish people to adopt other people's practices? Is this "adoption" at all in any way encouraged in Jewish mythology? I mean anywhere and in anyway.

Yes but the prediction of a coming savior and general resurrection at the end of the world is PErsian. It was during the 2nd Temple Period the OT was canonized and revised. They borrowed Persian myths.

Belief in a world Saviour (Mary Boyce)

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6

In this case, I have to say, your copy-paste method is a blessing. At least you didn't snip out the parts that refute your claim. And I really appreciate that. Someone less honest, would have done that.

Which is what?
The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.

Here she is pointing out that the Jewish writers changed Yahweh to be just like Ahura Mazda. Yahweh becoming supreme is from Persian mythology.

These paragraphs explain what was taken by Judaism and Christianity from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took more. So Judaism was syncretic with the Persian religion, so what? What is the big deal?

Note. Post exhilic period, meaning, after Babylonia, after scholars claim the Hebrew bible was written. IOW, these ideas can be found in COMMENTARY. Sure. No arguments there.

No, we need a Hebrew Bible PhD here. At 3:45 Professor Stavrakopoulou will explain that during the Persian period the OT was canonized and re-branded into a new Judaism. They did indeed use Persian mythology. Again, so what?

 

[joelr]

This is confusing, isn't it. On the one hand the author claims Jews were open to influence, but then immediately admits they were "holding staunchly to their own beliefs". So, which is it? Oh! The author says that the Jews agreed when there were congenial elements. That makes sense, right. When the Jewish people encountered a foreign belief that matched their own beliefs, they agreed with it. Well.... duh. Obviously.

Not really. They did not have Persian beliefs, then the Persians invaded and they canonized the OT and suddenly they adopt all these Persian ideas. Messianic saviors, freewill, resurrection at the end of the world.

Ah. The Parthian period. Long after the Torah was written. According to scholas who claim the Torah was written in Babylonia, that would be 1000 years or so, right? So all of this is comletely irrelevant, and your source admits that the Jewish people simply agreed with the elements that agreed with their prior mythology.

No, as F.S. says and Boyce, they were influenced by them. The Persian period is when they decided to also focus on monotheism and blamed Yahweh for "sleeping" during the invasion. Monotheism was also a Persian theology.
Monotheism



presenting Zoroastrianism to Muslim Iran he was naturally happy to stress the theory of Zoroaster's rigid monotheism, without any taint even of theological dualism. 'The contest is only between the spirits of goodness and evil within us in the world .... Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, stand as the fundamental principles of the religion of Zarathustra. And this is a perennial source of glory and pride to Iran and the Iranians, that once in that land one of its sons gave this grand message to humanity, to keep themselves aloof even from bad thoughts' (pp. 48, 50-1). The Zoroastrians warmly welcomed Pur-Davud's efforts to win recognition for the nobility of their faith among those who had so long despised it as polytheism and fire-worship.

Other scholars have written about this as well, Hundley, Sanders, Wright:

During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.

Heaven - Wikipedia

All of this is a big, so what?

She is explaining why the Persians were liked and why their theology became part of Judaism.


Boyce says it directly here:
Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n.( pg 29 Zorastrians Their Beliefs and Practices)

This is standard historicity? Many many scholars write about this, it's not disputed. Fundamentalists dispute it, who are not historians but cannot admit their religion isn't direct from a God. That is the only reason to object to scholarship. Not a valid reason. Unless you have evidence of God.

 

[joelr]

Yup, what are the common elements?

1. the name of the hero is "Noah" and "Nu'u"
2. The hero is "perfect in his generation" and "a great kahuna"
3. a world wide flood occurs as the result of sin
4. the hero escapes in an "ark" and a "house boat"
5. The hero takes the animals with him in both stories
6. At the conclusion of the flood there is a rainbow
7. The story ends with the hero making an offering

Naturally not all Hawaiian's agree with this version of the story. But, Hawaiian's didn't have a written language, so, deviations in the story are expected.

Oxford reference, it was changed over the years, after missionaries went there:

The Hawaiian Noah. Nu'u-pule, ‘praying Nu'u’, escaped the flood in a large vessel with a house on top of it. Having landed at the summit of a mountain on Hawaii and sacrificed kava, pig, and coconuts to heaven, the god Kane descended on a rainbow and explained ‘his mistake’. The tidal wave, a familiar catastrophe in the Pacific Ocean, was connected with the rising of an ‘undersea goddess’ from the depths. The Banks islanders relate how the Melanesian hero Qat built a canoe on high ground and awaited the coming of the deluge there. The biblical flood story has been entwined with both Melanesian and Polynesian legend, but there is no reason to suppose that independent stories did not exist prior to the arrival of missionaries. In Hawaii there was said to be a certain tree that grew over Ka-wai-o-ulu, ‘the waters of generation’, and held these waters together with its great roots. Were it not for this tree water would submerge all the valleys.

Nu'u - Oxford Reference

Let's see.

On the 7th day. That doesn't match the story.

Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned
Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.

the point of the lines is verbatim. She returned.

The 17th day is not veratim of the 7th day.

Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;

No, they both use 7.

Hmmm, gathered like flies compared to an end to cursing the earth. That doesn't match.

Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Verbatim, sweet savour. Every word isn't exact. The stories are clearly copied. This is consensus opinion. The point of the line is verbatim. Sweet savour.

Anyway, animal offerings are super common in ancient religions, they're in the African religions, the South American religions, the Polyneisan religions. Everybody was doing it, so, here you have 2 stories with offerings. Great! Makes perfect sense.

sweet savour. What is up with this denial? Are you a fundamentalist?

well, this isn't "verbatim". It's actually the opposite. The criticism of Noah is that he *didn't pray*, he merely accepted what was happening, never tried to change the course of events, never tried to convince people of their evil ways, never appealed to God's mercy, he just accepted it. This is why Noah is described as "perfect in his generation" why not completely perfect? because he didn't appeal to God.

Noah is an ancient myth. It isn't real. It's a story inspired by the Gilamesh story. World floods and Gods who talk are not real.

The stories are verbatim in terms of lines, plot and some wording.

Um, this isn't verbatim. I think you are confusing the word "were upon" as if that means they began and ended in seven days. The story in the Hebrew bible has the flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights. Most people know this. So in Gilgamesh, the flood lasts a week, in the Hebrew bible it lasts over a month. The stories don't match verbatim.

Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.


This is the same. Day 7 the storm ended. Exact same thing.

well, the two heros die, that's supposed to be a massive "aha" moment?

Not as much as sweet savour or 7 day storm but it's yet another similarity.

I'm looking at the wiki article on the Giglamesh flood story and they claim the hero becomes immortal in the original oldest version. And the wiki article claims this is mportant because the entire story of Gilgamesh is about immortality. So no, not a verbatim match.

But in the version that was copied he died. So not immortality. The version they copied from he died. So did Noah. I just posted some lines not the whole story.
so the Israelites used Gilamesh to make their flood story, why is this such a big deal?
By all means, write a paper and get it peer-reviewed and change everyones mind if you don't agree. The
rabbinic scholar in the quote below has said what you are saying, both stories probably draw from another flood story that was in Mesopotamia.


Noah's flood[edit]

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

 

[joelr]

There it is ^^. Confirmed. All of the conclusions are based on when it was written. That's what I've been saying all along. This ignores that these stories were originally passed down as oral traditions.

Because if it's modern it was changed after missionaries went there with the Bible. Which is what happened.

It's not exact as shown. And from what I can tell, no scholars say they are exact. That's an exaggeration that's being added. It's impossible is to say that Epic of Gilgamesh didn't borrow from Jewish oral tradition.

Every scholar says Noah was written with Gilamesh as a source.

Why do you keep saying that Gilamesh could be influenced by Jewish anything? This is bizarre? They came from Canaanites around 1200 BCE, Mesopotamian myths are 1000 years older? Why would you say this?

Look at that, the Genesis story didnt borrow from the Epic of Gilgamesh after all. They both come from a common tradition. Huh? That's a lot different than what you're saying, isn't it.

No it isn't. Genesis is known to be using older myths. It doesn't matter what myth and who. It's syncretic religious mythology. That is all.

Again, thank you for not snipping out the parts that refute your claim.

My claim is Genesis and many other parts of scripture are syncretic myths. That is all.

The flood story of Nu'u is a "surviving tradition". Again, you are assuming Nu'u came from the settlers the same as you are assuming the Genesis stories were borrowed.

Genesis stories were borrowed. Eden, man from clay, Noah, all borrowed. Job has a Babylonian counterpart. No religion isn't syncretic? The only peoplke who believe that think a God in the sky dictated the stories. Which are incredibly similar to older stories. And there are no Gods.

 

[joelr]

Or, the mesopotamians used the Jewish myths and adapted them to their beliefs. That's it. People assume the Hebrew bible borrowed from Mesopotamia because....???

"borrowed" is an unfounded assumption. They are similar, the two cultures were in close proximity. That is true. Who borrowed from whom is just a claim. A lot of people make the claim; parroting it as gospel truth is "flat-earth" logic.

Or mesopotamian myths copied from the Jewish creation story and expanded it. You're still not addressing the issue. Probably because you can't, and I'm right on all of this.

Close parallels do not show causation...

You're not addressing the issue. And neither are your sources. You would say the same thing if all i did was copy-paste an english translation of the Hebrew bible at you repeatedly.

And the sumerains may have copied from the first Jews. BTW, you did claim the sumerians originally conceived of these stories. ( post#316 buried in the middle ) That's when I originally objected, and ... here we are. We can be finished at any time. All that's needed is ackowledgement that the sumerians may not have been the original source either and it may have come from the original Jews all along.


Show me. Where is the faulty logic?

Knowledge of the written language doesn't show which story came first.

Kindly direct me to where in the 1 hour 24 minute video a Jewish oral tradition is ruled out as the source for the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

It *is* similar to Noah. It has just as many "striking" similarities.

Here's the similarities of the genesis flood story to epic of gilgamesh

1. world wide flood
2. the cause is sin
3. a man is contacted by god
4. an ark is built
5. after the rain stops and bird is sent out
6. on dry land an offering is brought

Here's a list of the similarities of the genesis flood story to the hawaiian flood story

1. world wide flood
2. the name of the hero is approx. the same
3. the hero is a big kahuna ( perfect in his generation )
4. the cause of the flood is sin
5. an ark is built
6. there is a rainbow at the end
7. an offering is brought
8. the hero has 3 sons

Hmmmmm... seems like they both have approx. the same number similarities.

Regarding those who have no doubt, I have introduced a very simple, obvious, logical problem with the conclusion which hasn't been addressed. Ignoring this obvious logical problem in favor of those who have no doubt is an appeal to authority. That is a logical fault.

OK, lets see what they say

Sure, legends and stories. No argument there.

Or, the mesopotamians picked them up. Again, the source doesn't address the issue. Just makes a claim.

The word "becomes" is an assumption. The correct word is "contrasted". There is no evidence of causation or borrowing only of similarities. This is flat-earth logic.

again, the word "omitted" assumes that the written story came first. The whole conclusion is based on this one weak assumption that ignores these are stories told orally and originated before written language.

This is a bunch of crank.

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text


The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.



The Mesopotamian writings are dated to FAR before the Israelites. Your suggestion about the Sumerians copying Jewish people is ridiculous.
Please source a historical scholar who says the Israelites were writing the same time as the Mesopotamians or around when the Sumerians were?

That is complete crank. You keep talking about sources yet come up with wildly bizarre concepts (Jews in Sumer) and NEVER source anything as if you can just come up with any nonsesne and it makes sense. Then you attack actual summaries of the consensus of scholarship. These are cheap fundamentalist tactics. Psuedo-scientific crank apologetics. You ask for sources then make wild claims based on fantasy mythology concepts.

Then claim I haven't addresses a "logical "problem, as if saying the word "logic" means you are making sense.

Gilamesh was a Sumerian story translated to Babylonian. Again you suggest there were Jewish people? There were not? which PhD historian said this?

The Mesopotamian writings are dated, do you think scholars who study this for a living don't know what they are doing? You have given ZERO sources.

I agree that Christianity is, but not that Judaism is syncretic. Show me, a tallit in a religion predating Judaism. Show me tefillin in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a mezuzah in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a weekly day of rest in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a sukkah in a religion predating Judaism. Show me a sabbatical year or a jubilee in a religion predating Judaism. Judaism is the exception, the outlier, a nation set apart. Not syncretic.

Oh Christianity is syncretic but your religion isn't. Wow, so convienant! I'm guessing you think Yahweh called down from space and told these stories to people? Is that what the issue is?

Genesis, messianic predictions and other Persian myths I touched on as well as other writings. It isn't all copied? No religion is completely just a copy of older religions, you just set up a huge strawman here. I have mentioned what is syncretic.
The words and doings of Yahweh are also syncretic. Everything said about Yahweh and his action, words, doings, are all similar of Gods thousands of years before. A mezuzah is a Jewish invention. This isn't complicated.

 

[joelr]

Or, the mesopotamians used the Jewish myths and adapted them to their beliefs. That's it. People assume the Hebrew bible borrowed from Mesopotamia because....???

"borrowed" is an unfounded assumption. They are similar, the two cultures were in close proximity. That is true. Who borrowed from whom is just a claim. A lot of people make the claim; parroting it as gospel truth is "flat-earth" logic.

.

Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh, the legendary subject of the Epic of Gilgamesh, is said to be Lugalbanda’s son. Gilgamesh is believed to have been born in Uruk around 2700 B.C.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is considered to be the earliest great work of literature and the inspiration for some of the stories in the Bible. In the epic poem, Gilgamesh goes on an adventure with a friend to the Cedar Forest, the land of the Gods in Mesopotamian mythology. When his friend is slain, Gilgamesh goes on a quest to discover the secret of eternal life, finding: "Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created man, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands."

King Lugalzagesi was the final king of Sumer, falling to Sargon of Akkad, a Semitic people, in 2334 B.C. They were briefly allies, conquering the city of Kish together, but Lugalzagesi’s mercenary Akkadian army was ultimately loyal to Sargon.

Mesopotamia

These are dated by several methods. I cannot find the information in my books, it's somewhere.

I have never ever seen historical or archaeological information putting the Israelites before 1200 BCE and there is no reason to suspect they were around.
Please source a historical expert who would find a reason to find them in Sumer.
The Babylonians and then Hittites were around, then Israel. Never heard anything that contested this without proper evidence.

Early Israel wrote in proto-Canaanite language showing more evidence they were Canaan before separating. Canaanites are from Egypt before that.

 

[101G]

That doesn't address my answer at all. I pointed out that religious scripture is often proven lies. Like Epistles 3 which is a known forgery as well as the other fake Epistles.
But there are hundreds of contradictions listed here:
Contradictions as listed in the SAB book

some have apologetics for some do not

Historian Bart Ehrman has a lecture on some of the serious theological contradictions here:

and goes over his top 3 here:

but beyond that even if there was no contradictions this has no bearing on if a prophet is false. You need evidence to demonstrate a prophet is real. There is no evidence in the NT to show any of that is from a supernatural source. It's fictive literary style and uses Hellenistic and Persian theology. Dying/rising savior demigods were not new at all so even that isn't original. This looks to be another myth in every way and in no way does it look to be actually supernatural events.

GINOLJC, to all.
joelr, you believe the LIES of men like your Dr. Bart Ehrman's. example, David eating the bread of the priest, and who was the priest at that time Oh how foolish for someone to be.

listen to the Scripture, Mark 2:25 "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?" Mark 2:26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"

notice the terms "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" your first ERROR, we suggest you read this, and it will straighten out YOU, and your and Dr. Ehrman's so called contradiction. Concerning who was High priest when David ate the showbread. Was Ahimelech the father or the Son of Abiathar? - BibleAsk

101G.

 

[101G]

Now, let's continue. it is very important to hear what God says. and not JUMP the gun, so to speak. scripture, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

God, the LORD "JESUS" said...... "HEAR", and many still haven't hear, even unto today. God said, "Your God is ONE, ..... LORD". but is he not also one, one, one, ..... "Lord" also? let's see it. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."

notice, God is the First "LORD" and he is "WITH" the Last, then he said, "I am he." so God, JESUS is ONE LORD/title Father, the First, and the same One God who is the Last, Lord/Title Son. let's see it in scripture. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; (ONE PERSON), I am the first, I also am the last."

"Also" means in addition to. is 101G saying that there are two Gods.... NO, one God, (who is one person), Shared/diversified in two designations of TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK.
supportive scripture of this Diversity/Sharing of one's-self in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK. John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

while on earth, (PLACE), as the Ordinal Last, (ORDER), the Lord, (RANK), speaking with the Pharisees, named Nicodemus. at the same (TIME), he Jesus as the Spirit, the Ordinal First, (ORDER), was in Heaven, (PLACE) as the LORD, (RANK).

so, the "LORD" and the "Lord" is the ONE TRUE and LIVING GOD.
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and/"ALSO", Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

the "ALSO", as in Isaiah 48:12.

this is too Easy not to understand.
101G

 

[dybmh]

I don't buy that for one second. You clearly don't like what it's saying so are hand waving it off. If I said this you would ask for a source. I give a source and it's "not critical analysis"....

There is no critical analysis of these sources. I am asking a simple question, how do these souces determine the direction of influence? Answer, it's assumed that the ones who wrote it first were the original source, and the ones who wrote it later borrowed from the first.

I can say the same thing about you, Joel. You don't like the question, because it sinks the whole theory, so you hand wave it away saying "but they're scholars, they must have considered this and ruled it out". No, it doesn't appear that they have.

Lets see, maybe somewhere in your latest round of replies ths will finally get addressed.

Total B.S.

Your devotion to your beliefs is noted.

The critical analysis has been done, that is a small summary. Dever, Thompson, Fransesca S., all these historians are in consensus. These articles do a good job of summarizing the consensus.

Oh? Then why can't you direct me to one single source that explains how the direction of influence was determined? It seems like you are familiar with the summary, but not the details. You are devoted to the concensus.

Let's apply a tiny bit of critical analysis to Dever.

William Dever took the goddess connection a step further and theorized that Asherah was one and the same as the goddesses Anat, Astarte, Elat, and Kudshu. One point of his reasoning is the similarity between the hairstyles of the Asherah representation found at Kuntillet Ajrud and the Syro-Palestinian Astarte figures from the 9th-8th centuries BCE. For him, the Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions were conclusive proof of an Asherah cult in Israel and that the JPFs were physical vestiges of this cult and used as fertility talismans. On the other hand, it must be mentioned that although the Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions associate Yahweh with Asherah, there were no JPFs found in association with the important Yahwistic temple found in Arad.

Judean Pillar Figurines
​

Note: Dever makes a conclusion based on "hair style". That's weak evidence right there. Also, he seems to ignore the absence of figurines where they would be expected to exist.

Genesis is Mesopotamian mythology. What is the big deal?

Well, it's an exaggerated claim about my religion. The same would happen, and does happen, when people make an exaggerated claims about atheism.

Right, what Judaism became was very different than the roots. Jewish people will want to say a God actually spoke to Abraham and started real Judaism but that obviously is a myth.

It sounds like a myth. Now that you got to take a swing at Judaism, can we try to stay on topic? The topic is, did the Jewish religion borrow, or was it borrowed from?

The Israelite religion was much more like the Canaanite or Mesopotamian religions it was molded after.

Or, the Canaanite and Mesopotamian religions were molded after ancient Judaism. The direction of influence is assumed in one direction, no reasons have been given.

During the 2nd Temple Period they took the Persian concepts, monotheism, a coming messianic savior, a general resurrection after a final battle, God vs the devil, frewill for humans to choose sin or not, and formed what we know of today as Judaism.

And, what is written in commentary during or after the 2nd Temple period has nothing to do with the written Hebrew bible. ( and God vs. Devil and a messianic savior is not really Judaism, those are Christian. ) I'm noticing a pattern: Adding things to Judaism that aren't really there.

Yeah right, weak evidence from the worlds leading Biblical archaeologist? I never said it was the totality of the evidence? You are assuming that?

Yes, the connection to the canaanite religion is weak.

I'm sensing a huge agenda here to wipe this away as quickly as possible. I imagine you believe these stories literal and cannot accept this information?

Your imagination is noted.

Anyways, this is the consensus.

Your devotion is noted.

At 34:00 Dr. Stavrakopoulou, professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at Exeter University talks about Ashera and says "lots" of evidence.

No, that's not what she says. She says there are "distorted refractions" "not direct" to the Canaanite pantheon. She says, "when we find *bits* of archeological evidence" it makes more sense to apply it to the canaanite pantheon even though the written Hebrew bible is vehemently opposed to it.

Why does it make sense? It's not said. If you watch though, and pay attention, it's obvious that she has affection for the canannite myth, calling one of their gods "kick-***". She talks a bit about how cool the pantheon is. That's the nice thing about video. One can tell if the speaker is infatuated with an idea. So it makes sense for her to see "bits" and apply them to a favored fun concept.

So, what are the "lots" of evidence? She says that many burial sites have inscriptions including both Yahweh and Asherah. Not that they are consorts, only that many people included them together. But there's examples where Yahweh is alone. So some people assimilated, some people didn't. That's a much more moderate and accurate statement.

She also says Yahweh and his Ashera.

Nope. She doesn't say that. You are misquoting. Watch it again. The host says it, but she does not.

I don't know what you mean about vowels?

Yes, that's one of the problems.

There are personal pronouns in Hebrew? Shelo is "his" possessive.

The "o" sound is what makes it possessive. "o" is his, "ee' is mine, etc.. Anyways, find me an inscription with the word "Shelo" in any of these inscriptions. All I'm seeing is "and" not "and his".

I don't know how early this was either. They used a proto-Canaanite language at first.

Let's look at the proto-canaanite script, ok?

The weaknesses I have not addressed are things you made up.

Hee-hee. Translation: YOU haven't researched this yourself. Let me help you.

Here's the proto-canaanite alphabet:

Ugaritic alphabet - Wikipedia.

See those blank spaces? That means people don't really know what that letter represents in Hebrew.

Here's another one:

Do you see the question mark? This alphabet assumes the letter indicates an "i" sound, but they don't really know. Where else are there question marks? All the vowel sounds are question marks. Hmmmmm, was I making it all about about the vowels? Nope.


Now. There is one other diagram of the alphabet on the wikipedia page, and it has removed the question marks. Why? I don't know. But what I've brought is 3 out of the 4 postualted alphabets indicate the vowels are ambiguous.

And just to be super-duper clear. The article says:

"Ugaritic was an augmented abjad. In most syllables only consonants were written, including the /w/ and /j/ of diphthongs. However, Ugaritic was unusual among early abjads in also writing vowels after the glottal stop"​

Do you understand what a glottal stop is? We don't have them in American english. But maybe you're british, some people pronouce "bottle" as "Bohh'el". Is there a single divine name in the Hebrew canon that has a glottal stop? No.

Now, let's look at an example that scholars use to connect Yahweh to the ugarite text:

There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.​

Quartz Hill School of Theology
​

Let's use a bit of critical analysis.

1. the ugarite "ilt" is claimed to be "El". But! The "i" should be "?". No one really knows what this letter means. Also, what about the "t"? So, really, the word should be "?L?T?", because there could be a vowel sound at the end which is missing too.
   • Oolt?
   • Ooltoo?
   • AhLT?
   • AhLToo?
   • EelT?
   • EeLToo?
   • AhlooT?
   • OhlahT?
   • Etc.
2. the word they claim to be Yahweh, is actually just two letters. Including all the options, it should be written, "Y?W?"
   • Yohwoo
   • Yohwee
   • Yeewoo
   • Or my favorite YeeHaw! The god of the american west!

Is "EL" anything close to "?L?T"? Nope. Is "Yahweh" anything close to "Y?W?"? Nope. A person can make assumptions, but they'll all be weak because there are so so many possiblilties that are ignored for absolutely no reason.

So, I'll accept your apology at anytime for claiming I made it up, simply because you didn't know this, or bothered to look it up.

 

[dybmh]

Early settlements showed goddess figurines that said Yahweh and his Ashera.

Nope. They didn't say that, Joel. Same source as above: Judean Pillar Figurines

Your souce didn't say it, these firgurines didn't say it, and one of your sources makes conclusions based on hairstyle. Keep going!

That would be one line of evidence.

That line is a fail. No figurines have been found with inscriptions.

. It's how history is done

By inventing and misquoting?

Don't tell me you believe in a deity from a book and you are talking about weak evidence.

Ad hominem is the sign of a weak argument. Keep going!

You are talking about evidence and I haven't seen anything about Canaanite language except things that suggest the language was familiar and the name of the supreme deity was not in question. Please post a Phd explaining the language is not possible to parse and "El" is a fabrication.

Please post a PHD showing how El and Yahweh are derived from the Canaanite written text including how the ugarite alphabet was decoded?

Besides, it's a bit silly to claim that a normal person who is familiar with the semetic language in question cannot identify a weak point in a linguistic claim.

I brought you some information, I showed you that I didn't make it up. Now, if you can't bring a PHD yourself, then please show me where what I brought is faulty logic, or a misinterpretation of the facts.

"Mycenaean, Cretan, Hurrian, and Mesopotamian. Most of what is known about Canaanite religion is derived from a series of tablets discovered at Ras Shamra. The principal god was El, but the jurisdiction over rainfall and fertility was delegated to Baal, or Hadad. Other important deities included Resheph, lord of plague and the nether world; Kothar, the divine craftsman; Asherah, consort of El; and Astarte, goddess of fertility.

Congrats on the copy-paste! It's "derived" how was it derived? What assumptions were made?

The language of the Canaanites may perhaps be best described as an archaic form of Hebrew, standing in much the same relationship to the Hebrew of the Old Testament as does the language of Chaucer to modern English. The Canaanites were also the first people, as far as is known, to have used an alphabet. In Late Bronze Age strata at the site of Lachish, archaeologists have found a form of script that is recognized by most scholars as the parent of Phoenician and thence of the Greek and Latin alphabets. They also found that a curious cuneiform alphabet was in use at Ugarit. Side by side with these innovations, however, the traditional syllabic cuneiform of Mesopotamia was regularly employed."
Canaan | Definition, History, & Facts

Another irrelevant paragraph!