-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last
- Thread starter 101G
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Proving the idea is popular is a strawman. All the "cool kids" are saying it? Good for you.
And I can't wait to see how you "go heavy". This will be fun. Oh, oh "on all matters". All of them, huh. Another grand claim. That usually means it'll turn out false. Let's see if I'm right.
Ummm, Dr. Joel Baden confirmed pretty much everything I've been saying. And the only one imagining has been you. Remember those figurines, and how you imagined that they had incriptions on them? Yup, you imagined that. Remember how you claimed I imagined the lack of vowels and ambiguity in the ugarite texts? Yup, you were wrong there. Remember how you imagined noah's flood lasted for seven days? Yup, you imagined it. ( or were just ignorant ). And the messianic savior in Isaiah? You imagined it. God vs the Devil in the Hebrew bible? You imagined it. The inscription says "Yahweh and His Asherah", because Dever says so, but the scolarship you brought requires that this be ASSUMED. You're just wrong, wrong, wrong, all the time in this thread. And I've been right the whole time. Your own sources say so.
Remember Francesca? "Biblical scholarship is fraught with dispute and disagreement". The bible is a "distorted refraction" compared to the canaanite mythology. But you say there's no disagreement. And you say, it's obvious borrowing. And the last person you brought says, "They're so different, they must be borrowing".
Good for you! You're admitting it. Who wrote it first is irrelevant. Hey! There's hope for you. Now. The next step is to understand why for yourself, so you're not just parroting someone's ideas.
Ad hom, again. You label it as an apologist, a fundementalist, but your own sources say I'm right.
Did the exiles attend this festival? How do you know? It's assumed right? They might not have attended, they might have avoided the foriegn religion.
Remember what Dr. Baden said. The elites definitely believed in what was eventually put in the bible. They would have avoided the foreign religion. They were the ones who compiled the bible later, so they probably avoided the festival and weren't influenced by it.
Unless you can show the elites at this festival each year, it's just another theory. And your own source says, they were true believers, true monotheists. So, they probably avoided it.
Your regurgitation of the popular opinion is noted. But you can't seem to bring any valid reasons for the conclusion. Only who wrote it first.
It's true. I doubt anyone is reading your posts. These preacher style claims of absolute truth, are foolish to the nth degree.
Do you know what ancient historical scholarship is, Joel? It's story-telling. All historians are story tellers. You think these stories are absolutley true? And you think there is no doubt? Of course people ignore it.
I brought you the ugarite alphabet, and showed you the lack of vowels in the ugarite written record of the canaanite mythology. I brought you the actual story of Noahs flood. I brought you criticism of Dever's conclusions. I brought you a scholar that claims oral tradition might have been the source for the Hebrew bible. And I keep showing you how your own sources support what I'm saying. None of that is imagined. If anyone is actually reading any of this, it's obvious.
No no. You're misrepresenting.
You have chosen the version of the Epic of Gilgamesh that most agrees with Noahs flood to make your point. That means I get to choose the version of the Hawaiian flood myth that most agrees with Noah's flood.
The point of bringing the Hawaiian myth is that it shows that two cultures can come up with similar stories without copying.
And yet, you can't seem to come up with valid reasons for this idea. You can't seem to explain it. You brought things you claim to be "verbatim", and yet, they're not. So, all you seem to be able to do is point at other's ideas and say "they're right, because, they say they're right." You know what that sounds like? Circular reasoning.
All you're doing is copying and pasting, but you can't actually explain any of it in your own words.
The general population of Israelites do not define Judaism.
Please do. And note: You just claimed to be able to show the origins of Judaism. Not the Israelites, but the actual religion. Show origin, and try to explain it in your own words. Good luck. If you can do it, you could probably publish and become famous.
Uh-huh, an older oral tradition of monotheists. Don't forget, you can't rely on who wrote it first. And Dr. Baden says it's an imcomplete picture that can be misinterpretted, and also the archeology is not clear.
Nope. Its not. I gave you several examples of completely unique practices. you can't refute them. You brought a professor of philosophy and each example was a fail. You don't know enought about Judaism to make that claim. And you can't identify the faults in these so-called experts claims either. Bring some actual evidence and not someone's parroted opinion.
You made the claim. You have the onus to bring the evidence.
Ah. So now you've back-pedaled again. It's not all scholars, it's the best scholars. Do you know what a super-fan is? It's someone who is so enamoured with someone that they could urinate in their ears, and the super fan would just love it and say it was great. In other words, your bias is showing.
Last edited by a moderator:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
"explaining" I don't think you know what that means. the sources that explain show I'm right. I did indeed bring sources. And I'm using your against you. All the evidence is "unclear" according to Dr. Baden, and Francesca says there are "bits" of evidence. And then an extra-biblical narrative is created to fill in those blanks. That's not a version of truth. That's story-telling. All historians are story-tellers.
Oh, he's your favorite. Don't worry. Our secret. I won't tell Francesca.
Oh boy, you're misquoting again. the actual quote is "There was no slavery no exodus, at least not in the way the bible has it"
You get that, Joel. There could have been slavery, there could have been an exodus.
Then Dr. Baden says, "I'm going to tell you a story, a complicated story" You left that part out too. Do you have selective hearing? You only hear the parts that agree with you?
Anyway, the point is, the historian is a story-teller. The other detail here is the word "most". Most the israelites are being described. Not all.
Ummm, you skipped something very important. The bronze age collapse. This would bring a huge number of customs, traditions, stories, religion practices into the region. Meaning, Canaan was not a closed civilization where the Judaism simply evolved out of the existing canaanite religion. It could have been imported. And, the timing syncs up.
The fictive kinship is a guess. He has no evidence.
You are misquoting. The actual quote is "PROBABLY pressure from Philistines cause..." He emphasises the word probably. You left that out. Naughty, naughty. This is your favorite scholar. Why would you dishonetly misquote him to exaggerate the confidence in his conclusion? Oh, nevermind, I think I know why.
And you misquoted again! Again and again. The actual quote is "Where does Yahweh come from? I don't know. Probably from the south, almost certainly from the south." And then he makes a little joke about taking the bible literally. So, let's not misquote or take it out of context. The comment about coming from the south, "certainly" is not "certain".
Ah! Then he talks about other people migrating to these settlements from other parts of the world. Take note Joel. The ancient israelites might have gotten their myths from these people coming from outside of canaan. That' what i said at the beginning of this reply. So, I have been right all along that these truth claims you keep making are bogus. You know the origins of Judaism. You can show it. Hah! It could have come from outside of canaan. He says "Maybe even from Egypt".
He says: "We have records of semetic peoples who were enslaved and left heading towards canaan". Holy moley Joel. One of them could have been carrying the ancient Jewish myths with them. They could have been the first montheists int he region. But somehow, you have ruled this out.
BTW, remember how you said all expert scholars agree that the israelites were canaanites? That was ummmmm, FALSE. Your own source says that's probably not true. Some of those people immigrated there.
And your source says that it makes sense for a small group of semetic slaves to settle in these small villages along with the newly identified israelites. These outsiders assimilate, and poof, all the israelites were not originally canaanites. Wrong again, Joel. I wonder if you'll stop making these grand unqualified statements?
He says, Yahweh could have come with these people immigrating to the area. He literally says, "we don't have the answers." So what were you saying about the consensus of all the expert scholars? Hmmmmm? I'm ready to accept your apology at any time for claiming I'm imagining all of this.
He's your favorite scholar, why do you ignore him?
BTW, it doesn't matter at all which direction Yahweh comes from. Yahweh comes from the south, evil comes fromthe north. Let's not take these things too literally, right? They're stories.
4:50 Take note: he is guessing as to why the Jewish dietary laws were established. There's no evidence for this. He's just telling a story.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Ah, so what were you saying about showing the origin of Judaism? Seems like you can't do it.
Uh-huh. And maybe the oral traditions myths and religious practice came from there. Not from canaan. Good. Your own source is making good sense. Remember how you said all israelites were from canaan. Yup, that was false.
And, so what? This has nothing to do with the origin of Judaism. It's off topic.
OH! Its another strawman. Hear me. I am not claiming the bible is true. You may have a religious-style mission to preach against the bible. But that is not the topic.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Your source said otherwise. And ow they are labeled has nothing to do with Judaism.
Wow, you are totally into this one youtuber. Let's see if this source is less delusional than the other one. Oh, and to be clear, this is Megan Lewis the PHD *student*. You're calling a student as one of your experts?
7:30 It wasn't plagerising, they were using original source material.
Original source material. OK. I like it.
11:00 she says there's a point of contact because of the 3 birds. Not the same three birds. Not verbatim. She says its the same basic story. But also very different.
Where's the evidence that the hebrew bible borrowed? There's only 2 minutes left. Where's the explanation? Most of the video was talking about how akkadiams borrowed from their own myths.
Nope, she doesn't explain the direction of influence. No evidence of borrowing at all.
The stories are similar, but also very different. Nothing new ha been added to the debate by this. But at least this person is less looney-tunes.
Ah, I see you added the "mesopotamian" part to the quote. She doesn't say that. She clearly says they were not plagerizing. You just can't keep from misquoting.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Well, your track record on accuracy is sub-par, so, let's see if it says what you think it says.
Um, No, Joel. Nothing, absolutley nothing you have brought has discussed oral tradition. Nada-zip.
Dr. Baden said none of it is clear. He's your favorite, but you are ignoring him.
Joel, do you know what any of this means? None of this is evidence that Yahweh had a consort.
This is evidence that the inscription is referring to a deity. That's all.
Let's do a little test.
Joel, please read this, and explain what it means in your own words.
"The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt,"
What does the "l-" attached mean? What does the "w-" mean? Also, note that the suffix is missing.
Since you clearly have no idea what any of this stuff means, I'll read the article, and see if there is actually any evidence of "his" asherah.
joelr
Well-Known Member
It didn't disprove anything? But there are many contradictions, over 200 listed there. Plus the issues with doublets and contradictions in the OT like:
Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile.
The second category of narrative inconsistency is doublets: stories that are told twice. In order to qualify as a literarily problematic repetition, two passages must not only tell a similar story, but do so in a way that renders them mutually exclusive: they must be events that could not possibly happen more than once. Thus one of the most often cited doublets in the Pentateuch, the patriarch pass- ing off his wife as his sister in a foreign land (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:6–11)—which is actually a triplet—does not count. As hard as it is to believe that Abraham would pull the same trick twice, and that Isaac would do the same a generation later, there is nothing in these stories that prohibits such a reading. The two stories about Abraham and Sarah are set in different regions (Egypt and Gerar), with different characters (Pharaoh and Abimelech), while the story about Isaac and Rebekah, although set in Gerar with Abimelech, obviously features differ- ent protagonists at a different time. On the grounds of narrative alone, all three stories could well belong to a single author.
There are truly problematic doublets, however. The city of Luz is renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, as he is on his way from his father’s house to stay with his uncle Laban. The city of Luz is again renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 35:15, on his way from his uncle Laban’s house to rejoin his father in Canaan. (Not to mention that Abraham had already built an altar at Bethel, already not called Luz, in Gen 12:8.) Similarly, the site of Beersheba is given its name on the basis of the oath sworn (nišba ̄ ‘) between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. It is named again by Isaac in Genesis 26:33, on the basis of the oath sworn between him and Abimelech. Jacob’s own name is changed to Israel when he wrestles with the divine being in Genesis 32:29. Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel again by God at Bethel in Genesis 35:10. These doublets are mutually exclusive: in each case, the naming or renaming is recounted as if it is happening for the first and only time.
More striking are the narratives relating the thirst of the Israelites in the wil- derness. In Exodus 17:1–7, just after they have crossed the sea and before they arrive at the mountain in the wilderness, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to strike a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named Massah and Meribah. In Numbers 20:2–13, well after the Isra- elites have left the mountain, in the midst of their wilderness wandering, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to speak to a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named “the waters of Meribah.” In these stories not only is the same name given to two different places, and for the same reason, but the stories themselves are remarkably similar.
In fact, all of these doublets, and others not discussed here, overlap with the previous group, that is, narrative contradictions. For the double telling of a single event entails two competing historical claims about, at the very least, when that event happened. As we have seen, not only when, but also the char- acteristics of where, who, how, and why may vary from passage to passage, even when the central “what” remains the same.
Contradictions and doublets can be found both across pentateuchal texts, as described above, and within individual pericopes; that is, the same problems exist on both the macro level and the micro level. The standard example of this is the beginning of the flood story, in Genesis 6:17–7:5. In 6:17–22, God tells Noah that he is going to bring a flood and instructs him to bring into the ark two of each kind of animal; we are then told that “Noah did so; just as God had commanded him, so he did” (v. 22). In 7:1–5, Yahweh tells Noah that he is go- ing to bring a flood and instructs him to bring into the ark two of each unclean animal and seven pairs of every clean animal; we are then told that “Noah did just as Yahweh commanded him” (v. 5). The story thus presents the same events happening twice—God’s announcement of the flood, instructions about the animals, and the fulfillment of those instructions by Noah—which marks it as a doublet. The story also tells us that on the one hand, Noah is to bring two of every animal (and he does so), and on the other, that he is to bring two of every unclean and seven of every clean animal (and he does so)—a glaring contradiction.
Similarly, in Numbers 14, after the episode of the spies, Yahweh tells Moses that the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised
The Documentary Hypothesis 19
land, all except for Caleb (Num 14:21–24). Immediately thereafter, he speaks again and says almost the same thing: the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 29–35). Virtually the same message is delivered twice in a row—it is a doublet—but there is a significant distinction in the content, a disparity in precisely who is to survive—and it therefore also entails a contradiction.
The third category of narrative problems may be called discontinuities.
joelr
Well-Known Member
If you like the Bible than you are into myths.
Relationship to the Bible[edit]
Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Hebrew Bible correlate with the Epic of Gilgamesh – notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.
Garden of Eden[edit]
The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[64][65] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. However, a major difference between the two stories is that while Enkidu experiences regret regarding his seduction away from nature, this is only temporary: After being confronted by the god Shamash for being ungrateful, Enkidu recants and decides to give the woman who seduced him his final blessing before he dies. This is in contrast to Adam, whose fall from grace is largely portrayed purely as a punishment for disobeying God.
Advice from Ecclesiastes[edit]
Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[66]
A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope, "a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken", is common to both books.[citation needed]
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.
Additional biblical parallels[edit]
Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[70]
Many characters in the Epic have mythical biblical parallels, most notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. It is suggested that this story served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[71] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.[72]
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes it's Persian. It's known in scholarship that the Persians had a huge impact on Judaism during the ocupation. Messianic ideas, end of the world and a general resurrection and monotheism were all taken from Persian myths.
First just compare the story. This was already written when they occupied Israel and Israel had no such myths.
Revelations
but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.
Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which
there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).
This Pastor/historian explains these ideas come from Persian religion:
Apocalypses and Apocalypticism
33:50
Comes into Judaism from Persian religion. Messianic savior myths also come from Persia. Prior to this there also is no cosmic devil. This comes from Zoroastrianism. Physical resurrection of people and a new world at the end of times battle comes into Judaism from Zoroastrianism.
37:00 during the 2nd Temple Period God becomes more cosmic in scope, not walking around wrestling with people. Visions are attributed to angels and ancient authorities - Daniel, Enoch, Adam…
Daniel
43:53 Daniel attributed to a prophet of the Babylonian period but actually written between 167 and 164 BC. Daniels visions from Gabriel are very specific and accurate up through the year 167 BC and then fail dramatically after 164 BC. Which illustrates the date.
Daniel believes they are at the end times and are totally wrong.
Ezekiel’s prediction of the worlds end failed so the author of Daniel reinterpreted the timeframe so the end would occur in his day.
Danilel’s prediction failed so John the Revelator reinterpreted the timeframe so the world would end in his day. His failure resulted in ongoing recalculations.
Apocalyptic authors suffered from lack of perspective, falsely believing themselves to have been living at the end times.
Their readers share the same lack of perspective, falsely imagining that the text refer to the readers time (when they actually referred to the authors time)
For centuries people have been reading Revelation as future history. Often convinced the signs point to their own time. This is called temporal narcissism.
1:03:40
Joachim of Fiore used Revelation to predict the world would end 1260 AD.
1:08:03 Newton spent equal time studying the Bible to predict the future and inventing calculus. His future calculations were all wrong.
In Revelation - no mention of the Rapture, no anti-Christ, not a message of fear but hope
Revelation is misread as future history. War, famine, pestilence and death are already loosed on Earth. Revelation envisions a world where they will be eliminated.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Weak assumptions. Every scholar I sourced said it's virtually 100% on Mesopotamian borrowing and Persian and Ashera are also stronhgly supported by my sources. This is a boldface lie. You are now resorting to dishonesty.
That's rich. I used that to get you to comment on a scholar out of his field. You are continually making a guess and putting the Israelites way beyond where they could possible be to have them not have to borrow stories from 2900 BCE. You have no sources for this, no field, nothing. It's pure fundamentalist crank. Yet you continue to pick at my sources as if that discredits what is most probable. Since I can only use PhD in the proper field your complete fantasy idea is been smashed into the dirt.
Mesopotamian myths were sourced. Ashera being his consort is highly probable and the evidence favors the answer being yes. Multiple lines of evidence, not just literary.
Persian influence is put forth by Mary Boyce and hasn't been challenged. I have plenty more sources.
S
So? I follow actual scholars. You think you have ground to make that complaint with your fantasy apologetics? Nope.
Ah, more gaslighting continue to deny scholarship or raise issues, produce your own un-sourced wild ideas and expect it's ok for you to enter that as an argument. THEN come back and complain when I have to continue to remind you what is a probable fact based on consensus scholarship.
Why do I continue to post consensus? Because it's a strawman. OR....,.is it because you are playing dishonest games? Why yes, that is why.
But THEN, go ahead and use that fact against me.
Right, so if they disgree, they must be fundemenalists. And you claim to know "all historical scholars".
Uh-huh. Nice claim.
YEs I'm familiar with scholars talking about the consensus and what ideas are largely backed and what isn't. So great, lets make sure this was said:
Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus
Prof. Joel Baden
1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.
6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations on the story here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.
No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.
So the myths had to be sourced.
Now, if a scholar doesn't agree they may be a fundamentalist, yes. It depends. If you source answersinGenesis explaining the flood story was original and from God, with it's 2 sources neither peer-reviewed works but other apologists, then that will be a fundamentalist.
HA! Here we go again with the apologetics. You need EVIDENCE to back a claim. You don't just make things up based on making sure a religion is really true and not borrowed and directly from a God.
Dever has evidence that the majority were polytheistic. Canaanites were very polytheistic and that is where Israel came from.
We have scriptural evidence beliefs were polytheistic. Monotheism did come, after the Persian influence.
I sourced Professor Fransesca S. saying according to the Bible Yahweh focus was started during the Persian period. Not that a group existed who only worshipped Yahweh.
Uh, no the Bible is Henotheism. The people the Bible doesn't represent are the polytheists who worshiped multiple Gods.
Wow, non-sequitur. I don't care. The Bible is syncretic, that is what I've been saying.
Man, I thought you were putting this to bed? This is a festival of diversion and who cares, wrong argument?
So yes when the Bible was written, in 600BCE that wasn't the polytheism time. They had encountered Persia and were embracing those ideas which included monotheism.
No, sorry. These digs show a proto-Cananite language which identifies early Israel. Now if you were correct and they were Canaanite you forgot one big issue - Yahweh would have been borrowed from Canaan. These villiages are Israelites, just early versions.
Last edited by a moderator:
joelr
Well-Known Member
But the EVIDENCE, which matters shows monotheism comes from Persian theology. They had not yet been exposed to this. Making a guess based on what you want to be true is fundamentalism.
HE didn't say that . He was a storm deity. Some may have believed he had a wife, some didn't. Even if I grant some monotheists, this demonstrates people were playing around with myths. No deity came and spoke and rode a chariot on a pillar of clouds. People had myths.
The evidence shows some people did. That doesn't make them monotheistic? According to your no-evidence logic I can also say they believed El was Yahwehs father or Yahweh was part of a pantheon who gifted him Israel. We have early text that shows that was a belief.
Wow, confirmation bias is something.
1)these are early Israelite sites
2)the evidence here suggests some people held this belief. The written analysis shows it's extremely likely. Dever says the MAJORITY held these different beliefs. That is religion? No religion is in complete agreement with theology.
It shows the emergence out of Canaan, shows polytheism, shows that it's a mythology.
3) If it's a Canaanite then Yahweh is also part of the syncretism. Their religion had dozens of Gods and is completely different. Showing Yahweh did not contact a man and so on, it demonstrates it's all myth. The "one true God" was actually a syncretic borrowing from Canaan? That's even better.
Wow, cherry picking season I guess. What he said is "However, we should have guessed already that polytheism was the norm and not monotheism from the biblical denunciations of it. It was real and a threat as far as those who wrote the Bible were concerned. And today archeology has illuminated what we could call "folk religion" in an astonishing manner."
The NORM. You put all those words in his mouth.
Sigh. Wrote Ashera? What? No you said "who wrote it first is irrelevant" regarding the Mesopotamian myths. Because you were entering an idea that the Israelites existed way before they did so you could avoid the consensus and obvious syncretism of Genesis.
joelr
Well-Known Member
The above has been dealt with. You have nothing. You seem to think if not all Israelites worshipped Ashera as Yahwehs wife that means something? It actually adds to my point. The Bible is syncretic. No God flew down and talked to people and performed all sorts of magic deeds. And a bunch of confused beliefs adds to that.
This shows what the Bible says is not true. A unified Israel, coming from Egypt, following a deity who speaks and has a body and a chariot.
This supports that even better.
Now the next thing, I said. And you claim examples don't reflect this.
Yahweh is a mix of all sorts of stuff
Original Yahweh - he is a storm God from the south
Bible says this.
Then there is all this stuff Israel borrowed from Canaanite religion
not sure about Canaan except Ashera
Then there is stuff Israel borrowed from Egyptian religion and Mesopotamian religion in various ways.
I've more than shown this is extremely likely and is consensus opinion. I'll add more. Don't need any more at this point.
Echoes of Gilgamesh
The Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the book of Genesis by thousands of years. In this early Toronto Centre Place lecture, John Hamer looks at the many ways themes from the ancient Sumerian epic are echoed in the later Biblical account.
33:50 Gilamesh is one of the earliest works of literature, thematic, mortality, life’s meaning, very sophisticated. Made its way to all nations nearby.
108:55 Both Noah flood stories (documentary hypothesis) match creation stories
The Flood Myth
John Hamer of Toronto , Historian, Pastor
24:49
Map of timeline. 1200 BCE Bronze Age Collapse, Israel formed around 1000BCE.
Epic of Gilamesh 2900 BCE, Sumerian and Mesopotamian empire.
36:55
No evidence that stories like Noaha Ark were transmitted by oral storytelling. No early prophets mention Noah. Noah was written later. Flood stories do not suggest there was any flood. They are telling philosophical stories.
Parts of the Bible Yahweh appears to be part of a pantheon, just as Canaanite Gods.
The Real Origins of Ancient Israel
Lester L. Grabbe
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England
33:43 Genesis uses what we would call plagiarism from Mesopotamian literature.
Plagiarism as an idea was not around back then.
38:30 When it comes to the flood story Noah is “almost exact” to the older flood stories.
Hebrew story is probably a borrowing from Mesopotamia. The creation story was influenced by Mesopotamian creation myths.
47:35 Yahweh possibly borrowed from Egyptian text (Yahweh from south)
51:20 original text appears Yahweh was given Israel from the head deity El. Appears authors tried to remove these early beliefs from scripture but missed some references.
Yahweh is also a “son” of El.
Dr Baden describes why the Bible in full isn't actually "The Bible" but at 12:55 goes into the variant text that show Yahweh may have been a part of a pantheon.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Not a strawman, I'm demonstrating the Bible is syncretic mythology, this has been my stance all along.
Are you talking about Harvard scholar Joel Baden? Oh that's rich, well that makes two of us because I'm also enjoying this handwaving. Especially after you actually think putting forth a fantasy senario, with zero evidence, in all seriousness, about Israelites living far before they possibly could have actually settled the main dispute. And now, you put forth lame attempts at discrediting Dr Baden? Heh, I knew this would be cake.
Please continue to call the historical consensus "far-fetched", it just makes this win so much easier and in writing. Desperation won't help you.
Make sure to bring up how some apologists don't like the documentary hypothesis as if that has anything to do with what we are talking about.
So while Dr Baden is giving daily lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity you are on an internet forum calling him "far-fetched". LOL.
So were the Israelites around during early Homo Sapien times also? Maybe even with H. Heidelbergensis?
Because you have gone apologist fundamentalist I'm also throwing in other examples of scripture not likely being from a magic deity.
I could be wrong but someone who cannot accept some basic historical consensus that one myth used older myths as a source is probably coming from some sort of fundamentalist position. Calling a world class scholar (in your religion) delusional and far fetched = Satan has influenced your scholars.
The desperation to find something to critique is some other weird thing.
If you find it off topic, I don't care. Skip it. Or do that weird thing you did.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Don't care. Mis-use of a fallacy is a fallacy. This isn't a strawman, I'm not proving the idea is popular,. I'm demonstrating it's consensus which requires massive evidence. I don't need to provide every single detail. I just need to back up what I said with evidence. There are many ways to go, textbooks, papers, radiometric dating papers, it's all used. But I'm not pandering to delusion.
You likely know about scholars, consensus which is why I used an article from a non-PhD. I wanted that response to demonstrate you respect and understand academia. So this is all disingenuous nonsense.
I've proven my points. How you deal with it is your choice, it's your look.
Right because so far I've demonstrated everything I've said is true. Borrowed myths. Ashera was Yahwehs wife and Persian influence. Evidence points to this.
1)The paper I gave demonstrated the Yahweh and his Ashera is probable.
2I didn't say the figurines had inscriptions, I said there is an inscription. If I mis-spkoke who cares. The point is it's true that the evidence points to Yahweh and his Ashera has been demonstrated.
3)Noahs flood story contains 2 flood stories merged into one. I wasn't wrong
And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
what I said was this -
"Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."
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;
Messianism in Isaiah? End times, messianic concepts, all Persian, in Isaiah.
MESSIANISM IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH on JSTOR
MESSIANISM IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH
ISAIAH’S BENEVOLENT CREATOR AS THE EARLIEST PERSIAN ‘INFLUENCE’ ON JUDAISM
This post is a summary of the recently published article, Jason M. Silverman, “Achaemenid Creation and Second Isaiah” Journal of Persianate Studies
Isaiah’s Benevolent Creator as the earliest Persian ‘Influence’ on Judaism | Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions
II Isaiah and the Persians on JSTOR
II Isaiah and the Persians
Judaean Elite Encounters with the Fledgling Persian Empire: The Evidence of Second Isaiah and First Zechariah
Judaean Elite Encounters with the Fledgling Persian Empire: The Evidence of Second Isaiah and First Zechariah | Bible Interp
By Jason M. Silverman
Docent in Old Testament Studies
University of Helsinki
God vs Devil is in Christianity, I asked you last post about it in the OT. So add di** moves to the list of poor accomplishments you have.
What the paper says is the evidence is strong enough to conclude it MOST LIKELY says Yahweh and his Ashera.
"
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent."
That isn't "assumed" that is the conclusion of weighing all of the evidence, 200 sources in the source list. You are just telling lie after lie.
Syncretism is consensus, proved.
Yahweh and his Ashera, most likely
all according to current scholarship.
My position had been demonstrated.
Your position of weaseling out of being dead wrong has been demonstrated.
The scholars who commented on the Mesopotamian syncretism were absolutely sure.
The ashera paper ruled it most likely.
My points are demonstrated.
My points were demonstrated in my first post.
It was written first by Mesopotamian nations on cuniform. Thousands of years earlier.
You say, no Ashera the Hebrew was wrong. Paper demonstrates you are wrong.
You say no syncretism. Consensus says you are wrong.
Your denial of basic concepts in scholarship are fundamentalist type arguments using denial, and every tactic you can think of to not be wrong.
This tap dance will not help you.
Obviously we don't know. What we do know is Genesis is using older myths. Not disputed in historical scholarship that Noah is a re-working of a Mesopotamian story and Genesis was influenced by older myths.
Remember what Dr Baden said.
Then there is stuff Israel borrowed from Egyptian religion and Mesopotamian religion in various ways.
You are desperately cherry picking, suddenly Dr Baden makes sense when he says something you want to believe. You have no interest in what is actually true, just what you want to be true.
What matters is Genesis was influenced so somehow they saw the stories.
There is no evidence of monotheism before the Persian period. You are changing information in your mind to somehow fix theological problems you are having. You seem to have an agenda that is a fundamentalist agenda. Somehow make a religion true and find ways around obvious problems.
What the source said was:
"The portrait of Israelite religion in the Hebrew Bible is the ideal, the ideal in the minds of those few who wrote the Bible—the elites, the Yahwists, the monotheists. "
Who WROTE THE BIBLE. The Bible was written down as Professor F.S. says, during the Persian Period. Monotheism came then because it's a syncretic myth.
This is what the evidence suggests.
How the early Israelites saw the older myths, we don't know. But they did.
We know who made it up first. Israel didn't exist as a nation before 1000-800BCE. Your attempts to discredit scholarship (meanwhile you quote from it when it helps AND point out when a source isn't the highest level, all inconsistent and dishonest tactics).
I made statements you challenged. I demonstrated they are either consensus or very likely.
Cheaply attacking sources as "strawmen" as if you haven't used sources and as if the consensus was in your favor you would not use it?
Please stop this shallow and waste of time diversion.
When I say something, I'll back it up with scholarship. Trying to go "but you didn't say how they know...." as if it's going to turn out they made it all up and scholarship consensus is a big joke and pretend is just dishonest.
You just look desperate.
I gave you information on the consensus of the origin of Israel. They were not around to also have oral stories. They were Canaanites with different myths or not even, still in Egypt possibly. We understand how Israel came about.
joelr
Well-Known Member
[/QUOTE]
It's true. I doubt anyone is reading your posts. [/QUOTE]
First, don't care. Do. Not. Care. I don't need people attacking me because they are butthurt about losing. You are just repeating yourself over and over at this
[/QUOTE]
These preacher style claims of absolute truth, are foolish to the nth degree.[/QUOTE]
Which is why your assertion that Israelites were around far before possible is so ridiculous. You even claimed it was settled because of your fantasy claim. You didn't even have consensus anything, just a made-up claim. And from that you said it was done.
BUT, I use scholarship and you raise all these points. Total gaslighting. Dishonest and immoral. To that degree.
Now, historical information is never as absolute as scientific proof, who doesn't know that? But we have good evidence to find these things very likely.
It's cool, I just win more. And I don't care. What is definitely not absolutely true are myths in religion. Talking Gods and such. I suspect you believe myths are absolutely true while I produce evidence and you lecture me on history not being absolutely true.
So you have a lot of issues all in one post.
Also as if you are the president of the forum and have a daily meeting about who reads what. HA.
Hey just wondering if nobody reads my posts why are my ratings higher than yours?
History is about looking at evidence and finding what is probable. Of which you have ZERO.
Z.E.R.O.
Yes which did not have the far more advanced arguments on literary and other aspects of the debate, and concluded it was LIKELY. Yahweh and his Ashera.
-
1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).
Noaha flood is consensus opinion taken from Gilamesh. Literary analysis, intertexuality, and other methods.
Denver is backed up by Fransesca AND THE PAPER with 200 references which concluded:
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah
It's true. I doubt anyone is reading your posts. [/QUOTE]
First, don't care. Do. Not. Care. I don't need people attacking me because they are butthurt about losing. You are just repeating yourself over and over at this
[/QUOTE]
These preacher style claims of absolute truth, are foolish to the nth degree.[/QUOTE]
Which is why your assertion that Israelites were around far before possible is so ridiculous. You even claimed it was settled because of your fantasy claim. You didn't even have consensus anything, just a made-up claim. And from that you said it was done.
BUT, I use scholarship and you raise all these points. Total gaslighting. Dishonest and immoral. To that degree.
Now, historical information is never as absolute as scientific proof, who doesn't know that? But we have good evidence to find these things very likely.
It's cool, I just win more. And I don't care. What is definitely not absolutely true are myths in religion. Talking Gods and such. I suspect you believe myths are absolutely true while I produce evidence and you lecture me on history not being absolutely true.
So you have a lot of issues all in one post.
Also as if you are the president of the forum and have a daily meeting about who reads what. HA.
Hey just wondering if nobody reads my posts why are my ratings higher than yours?
History is about looking at evidence and finding what is probable. Of which you have ZERO.
Z.E.R.O.
Yes which did not have the far more advanced arguments on literary and other aspects of the debate, and concluded it was LIKELY. Yahweh and his Ashera.
-
1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).
Noaha flood is consensus opinion taken from Gilamesh. Literary analysis, intertexuality, and other methods.
Denver is backed up by Fransesca AND THE PAPER with 200 references which concluded:
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah
Last edited by a moderator:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes which did not have the far more advanced arguments on literary and other aspects of the debate, and concluded it was LIKELY. Yahweh and his Ashera.
-
1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).
Noaha flood is consensus opinion taken from Gilamesh. Literary analysis, intertexuality, and other methods.
Denver is backed up by Fransesca AND THE PAPER with 200 references which concluded:
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah
OMG, why are you still repeating tired old debunked posts????????????
SERIOUSLY??????? YES ORAL STORIES FROM 1000BCE - 7/800 BCE that is it. They were NOT ISRAELITES BEFORE THEN. They were Canaanites. These stories developed when the tribes began settling and unifying. in 8/7 BCE. Not in Mesopotamia or in 3500 BCE???????
Now also there isn't much evidence of oral storytelling. It was heard in Babylon and then written down. Note, 35:55
The Flood Myth
John Hamer of Toronto , Historian, Pastor
24:49
Map of timeline. 1200 BCE Bronze Age Collapse, Israel formed around 1000BCE.
Epic of Gilamesh 2900 BCE, Sumerian and Mesopotamian empire.
36:55
No evidence that stories like Noaha Ark were transmitted by oral storytelling. No early prophets mention Noah. Noah was written later. Flood stories do not suggest there was any flood. They are telling philosophical stories.
No, I'm not. Here is tyhe origin of Israel
Israel Origins
Dr Joel Baden (author of The Composition of the Pentateuch) Harvard PhD
1:20
No slavery in Egypt, no Exodus, in 1300 BCE most “Israelites” lived on coastlines and major cities and were Canaanites. In 12000 all eastern Mediterranean civilization failed (crop failure, late Bronze Age collapse, happens in all nearby regions) as well as arrival of Philistines. Cities were not safe or sustainable. Eastern migration happens. Archaeologically it’s known many towns arise suddenly in mountain regions.
These communities begin to form larger tribes.
A fictive kinship is created tracing these people back to Judaism. Pressure from Philistines cause military alliances and brings a new sense of identity.
Yahweh likely comes from southern myths (Bible actually says Yahweh is from south).
Not known exactly when Yahweh began to be worshipped.
All of Israel was never in Egypt. Some individual people may have come from Egypt.
These people organized into one nation unlike Philistines who were individual city-states. Bible actually says this is why they came together.
External pressure to unite, defense, economic, similar to U.S.
This is not at all what the Bible says but is the consensus opinion based on all available archaeological, literary and comparative data.
Yeah sure except we are not scholarship. They already know (because evidence) the version used was Gilamesh. They were in Babylon, the stories are very similar, some scholars say basically identical. You are making nonsense points I've already dealt with. Is wasting my time now your goal?
The Real Origins of Ancient Israel
Lester L. Grabbe
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England
38:30 When it comes to the flood story Noah is “almost exact” to the older flood stories.
Hebrew story is probably a borrowing from Mesopotamia. The creation story was influenced by Mesopotamian creation myths.
-
1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).
Noaha flood is consensus opinion taken from Gilamesh. Literary analysis, intertexuality, and other methods.
Denver is backed up by Fransesca AND THE PAPER with 200 references which concluded:
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah
OMG, why are you still repeating tired old debunked posts????????????
SERIOUSLY??????? YES ORAL STORIES FROM 1000BCE - 7/800 BCE that is it. They were NOT ISRAELITES BEFORE THEN. They were Canaanites. These stories developed when the tribes began settling and unifying. in 8/7 BCE. Not in Mesopotamia or in 3500 BCE???????
Now also there isn't much evidence of oral storytelling. It was heard in Babylon and then written down. Note, 35:55
The Flood Myth
John Hamer of Toronto , Historian, Pastor
24:49
Map of timeline. 1200 BCE Bronze Age Collapse, Israel formed around 1000BCE.
Epic of Gilamesh 2900 BCE, Sumerian and Mesopotamian empire.
36:55
No evidence that stories like Noaha Ark were transmitted by oral storytelling. No early prophets mention Noah. Noah was written later. Flood stories do not suggest there was any flood. They are telling philosophical stories.
No, I'm not. Here is tyhe origin of Israel
Israel Origins
Dr Joel Baden (author of The Composition of the Pentateuch) Harvard PhD
1:20
No slavery in Egypt, no Exodus, in 1300 BCE most “Israelites” lived on coastlines and major cities and were Canaanites. In 12000 all eastern Mediterranean civilization failed (crop failure, late Bronze Age collapse, happens in all nearby regions) as well as arrival of Philistines. Cities were not safe or sustainable. Eastern migration happens. Archaeologically it’s known many towns arise suddenly in mountain regions.
These communities begin to form larger tribes.
A fictive kinship is created tracing these people back to Judaism. Pressure from Philistines cause military alliances and brings a new sense of identity.
Yahweh likely comes from southern myths (Bible actually says Yahweh is from south).
Not known exactly when Yahweh began to be worshipped.
All of Israel was never in Egypt. Some individual people may have come from Egypt.
These people organized into one nation unlike Philistines who were individual city-states. Bible actually says this is why they came together.
External pressure to unite, defense, economic, similar to U.S.
This is not at all what the Bible says but is the consensus opinion based on all available archaeological, literary and comparative data.
Yeah sure except we are not scholarship. They already know (because evidence) the version used was Gilamesh. They were in Babylon, the stories are very similar, some scholars say basically identical. You are making nonsense points I've already dealt with. Is wasting my time now your goal?
The Real Origins of Ancient Israel
Lester L. Grabbe
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England
38:30 When it comes to the flood story Noah is “almost exact” to the older flood stories.
Hebrew story is probably a borrowing from Mesopotamia. The creation story was influenced by Mesopotamian creation myths.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No it's history, based on evidence. The evidence here is good. Present evidence to the contrary. All you have is "it's not 100%".
Fransesca sounds quite sure. You are talking words she says and making like it's all a mystery and she has no idea.
What evidence is unclear? You can't even say.
At 8:54 What Dr Baden says is "there is various stuff the Bible borrows from Mesopotamia".
What is unclear is the origin of Yahweh. You are twisting these words dramatically to find a way to dispute this scholar. He is clear on the borrowing and is familiar with how it's determined.
So you are simply telling a lie.
This is a Colossal waste of time. Beating you isn't even worth it. But I did that So I'm good.
They said there may have been a few slaves who came to Egypt. The Biblical Exodus is not true. All of Israel did not come from Egypt. Moses is a literary creation. Yahweh is a fictional deity. They came from Canaan not Egypt.
You are getting so trivial it's become more dishonesty.
You are so dishonest and I'm so tired of this babysitting.
4:06
It certainly didn't happen like these sources say.
There isn't even one true version.
There are probably people who fled from Egypt and went to Canaan and brought their story of escape and small versions changed into these great epics.
That means the Exodus stories as written did not happen. All Israel did not flee from Egypt, supernatural things happened and then they defeated the Canaanites by force.
This is a myth. A few people may have escaped from Egypt and joined the growing Israelite/Canaanite towns.
So the Bible is a myth, Exodus is a myth. How you can quibble on this is gross.
A few people coming from Egypt is not Exodus as written in any way. That is a bold face lie.
Yes I never said it wasn't complicated? Of course itr's more complicated? That isn't a poinbt for you? My point is the Bible is not telling a historical story, it's a myth.
This scholar absolutely agrees.
Wow, you have made no point at all.
I don't care where the myths came from, they used other myths, point is a Yahweh didn't fly down and tell them. This quibbling is gross.
Again, not what the Bible says. They left Canaan. What other kind of kinship do you think brought them together? How do tribes come together? They didn't all come from Juda. There is no evidence off that. But they made up a fictive kinship? It's what people do when they first get together?
How can this possible be a point raised? America was land and then they created a name and a fictive kinship. POINT IS they are people, the supernatural tales are NOT TRUE.
"
You are misquoting. The actual quote is "PROBABLY pressure from Philistines cause..." He emphasises the word probably. You left that out. Naughty, naughty. This is your favorite scholar. Why would you dishonetly misquote him to exaggerate the confidence in his conclusion? Oh, nevermind, I think I know why.
YOu don't know why because you are lying once again. He said it says so in the Bible.
Again, it says in the Bible he came from the south. That is why I said he came from the south? Nonsense. 7th grade bickering with my neice is what this is.
Scholarship knows they used Mesopotamian stories because of how exact they are. They also used Egyptian stories, like Moses birth story. Maybe other places as well. I don't care. The Bible has syncretic myths. I was correct.
EVIDENCE. History goes by EVIDENCE. Not made up theories. We have evidence monotheism came from Persia. AND EVIDENCE, of other Persian myths at that time. Taking on the supreme deity makes sense when they took other things. Apoctalyism is from Persian myth. Judaism adopted that from them. Most likely, as evidence demonstrates.
So it still isn't false. Every scholar and archaeologist says this. Yes some people may have walked up from Egypt. Mainly they are Canaanite.
so now are you going to call William Dever and say" hey I'm sorry but you were wrong about the Canaanite thing, y'know I heard some may have walked up from Egypt, so your theory is wrong now huh? Face Palm.
The majority of Israelite settlements came down from Canaan. You think because some other people, a "small group" of people who were slaves joined them it means I was wrong?????????????
Oh my God.
Hey guess what, maybe some people came down from the NORTH as well? OR the WEST. WOW. Canaanites moved out and became Israelites.
Go away with this.
I am sorry and embarrassed for you. This is pathetic. I'm sorry you are compelled to write strage things.
Never said where Yahweh came from, just that he isn't real and is a made up myth.
No one knows.
What? Did you just say something correct? I'm thrown off?
Because there is no evidence. Of where they came from there exists evidence. Scriptural, archaeological......
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
No he said in 1200 BCE teh Bronze Age collapse began the process which led to Israelites. So around 7-800BCE they were a nation.
Here is a chart since you can't seem to understand scholars.
John Hamer of Toronto , Historian, Pastor
24:49
Map of timeline. 1200 BCE Bronze Age Collapse, Israel formed around 1000BCE.
Epic of Gilamesh 2900 BCE, Sumerian and Mesopotamian empire.
Yes he has good scholars on. Love to see your youtube list.
Yes I'm sourcing Lewis, she's married to Dr Bowen and familiar with the consensus. There are plenty more phD.
[
Dr Bowen said it direct. You need a reminder. I can get many many more but it's clearly the consensus. The encyclopedia articles were also sourced and explained the consensus, wow you forgot already?
Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen
Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions
1:25
OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say
“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…
2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.
References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.
21:00
Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.
Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.
23:22
“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”
at 7:14 she says Israelites used source material and expanded on it. Mesopotamia was mentioned.
But since being a sore loser is apparently the thing people do now,
The Real Origins of Ancient Israel
Lester L. Grabbe
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England
38:30 When it comes to the flood story Noah is “almost exact” to the older flood stories.
Hebrew story is probably a borrowing from Mesopotamia. The creation story was influenced by Mesopotamian creation myths.
Oh no "probably" did you know that means probably? You said "NO IT'S NOT". I win.
Looney-tu.....I have a feeling that the pot has just called a kettle a certain color.
I think there is now a med for denial...
Oh, the debate is over. I had several scholars, all PhD, including Dr Baden, one of the most respected scholars in OT Bible studies, explain the consensus.
Genesis is sourced by Mesopotamian myths.
But if anyone wants details listen to these timestamps:
The Bible Needed Ancient Myth's
3:15
The obvious to scholars, Genesis and other OT, is beholden to ancient Near Eastern myths and other literatures, it’s patently obvious..
13:12 - scholars determine literary connections with very rigorous techniques
13:50 - Obviously clear Bible is doing the same thing
15:50 quote on scholars understanding literary borrowing and textual dependence in Bible
Then both Drs use the methods outlined in the book at various points in this video to show how they determine borrowing, intertexuality and other methods used to understand a text is reliant on another.
The book shown is likely more complete in analysis of the methods.
I did mention this with a timestamp when I first posted another video but it was ignored as if it didn't exist.
Actual video on techniques
Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan Myths?
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Everything I claimed is true, backed up by scholarship. This is pure denial.
You made it sound unclear by changing what Dr Baden said. He was very straight. The Bible borrowed from Mesopotamia, as was Dr Bowen, he said it's CLEAR.
Ugg, I have to explain this? Mesopotamian oral stories were written down FAR before Israel was even a concept. Yes the Israelite Kings probably heard the stories then made up oral stories. But the clay writings and Gilamesh existed in 3500 BCE. So written or oral, Israel used Mesopotamian mythology as a source to construct a flood and creation myth. Probably Eden and Adam and Eve as well.
This is where the evidence points. That they came from Canaan is clear. He said this. The syncretism isn't doubted? Those are my points.
But I'll have someone say it clear.
OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say
“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…
2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.
References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible i
HEY, 3:13 - THERE IS NO QUESTION IT IS BORROWING SUBTLEY OR DIRECTLY TEXT FROM MESOPOTAMIA
23:22
“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”
HEY - Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”
not clear???????????????????????????????????????????????????
Well then lets get Dr Majors to literally say "it's CLEAR that there is enough evidence to say there is some borrowing , theologically or textually. He cautions against finding "parallelmania" but he does that because there is a scholarly methodology to saying if a text was sourced which scholars use to determine while amateurs can make mistakes. However they are CLEAR and I'm not doing it myself but relying on consensus opinion.
Mesopotamian Parallels To The Bible
36:12
DrJim Majors
With denial it can mean whatever you want, and you will use that. But a plain reading isn't hard (for some) I mean, a scholar said "there is no question...." and you came away with "no it doesn't show any syncretism"
Cool, Ive got an apologist on my hands. Ok, I get it. I leave you to your delusions.
anyway, for anyone else reading.
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
There is other lines of evidence that suggest the deity is Ashera to which you will cry about how it's this or that. Boo hoo. I'll stick with the scholarship and until evidence demonstrates something else the experts analysis holds. You will use denial and say "they didn't go back in a time machine so it's not true"
"This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent."
no thank you
act like a grown man then ask me to do something and I might
K.M.A.
Here is what it means -
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
Oh, right, luckily I have this thing called a "conclusion" because I'm not a scholar in that language.
Here, let me put it in text:
Conclusion
Through examining the various proposals that have been made for elucidating ʾšrth from KA and KQom we have been able to establish that it most likely has reference to a common noun denoting YHWH’s female partner: “his asherah.” This understanding of the phrase not only does no violence to the evidence that inscriptional asherah is a female deity paired with YHWH, but it also harmonizes best with the lexical-syntactic evidence that asherah is declined with a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent.
…we can begin by pointing out that the argument in favor of interpreting ʾšrth as a deity is in fact functional in nature and has fairly little to do with the lexical-semantic value of the term asherah as used in other NWS texts. The argument combines a number of factors both internal and external to the inscriptions, which can be listed in the order of their importance:
1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).
then K.M.A.
I'm not interested in re-explaining everything you blundered all over again, which you will do.
It's clear you are not going to be honest here. (see above on that lack of clarity post)
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
So, the 99% don’t define Judaism but a few 1%ers do?