JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[joelr]

No, not really. The only evidence actually brought on polytheism in scripture is Psalms 82, which if translated polytheistically makes no sense when one gets to the last verse. At the beginning the gods are being condemned, and at the end the gods are told to rise? Of course you need to know Hebrew to understand that. And Deuteronomy 32 doesn't really actually point back to some canaanite myth. When it comes to the prohibition of "other gods", that's a practical matter. If the prohibtion were against idols, then a person could simply believe in other false gods without breaking the rules. So, the concept of "other gods" was outlawed which includes outlawing idols. They're still false gods. Calling them "other gods" doesn't encourage or acknowledge a belief in them by the author.

there is scriptural evidence and massive archaeological evidence.
Yahweh and multiple deities

13:02 original myth was Israel was given to Yahweh which was divided among the sons of the Gods (Gods/divine beings). Editor of King James got rid of that.


Modern Bible is from translation of Hebrew done in 11th century CE. Leningrad Codex.

Every manuscript has changes, mistakes etc…

11th century manuscript was an attempt to fix narrative problems.

Im having trouble parsing this. regardless of what Francesca says, Dr. Baden says otherwise. Montheistic worship of Yahweh was the practice of the elites, and probably some said "yeah, Yahweh, just him".

The only evidence was this was the practice of the elites at the 2nd Temple Period. Not before. William Dever feels the archaeological evidence backs that up.

And besides, Francesca lied and said the arrowheads had inscriptions of Ashera on it. So, she's dismissed because she's someone who changes the facts, and exaggerates evidence.

Many scholars agree with her. The paper I sourced also agrees.
Also, fallacy. Because she sides with the scholars who feel it says Ashera doesn't mean all of her information is invalid.

Nope, common misconception. If the target audience is polytheistic, then it might use some polytheistic imagery at times. But, the actual text, if analysed in the original language, isn't henotheistic.

Looks like ancient Israel was polytheistic according to archaeological evidence and some textual. Does Henotheism not recognize lower divinities?

It's not a non-secuitur. You've been accusing me of imagining things, and making things up. And here it is, your own source agreeing with me.

Provide evidence so I can debunk it.

And speaking of non-sequitur, the comment about syncretism is coming from where, exactly? Just another random claim, preaching your truth.

The video I posted first shows Genesis sourced older religious mythology. In fact it's been established that it's the consensus. Creation, flood, a supreme deity.
End times, resurection after end times, messianic expectations, God allows freewill.

And Judaism isn't syncretic. You need to bring an original source and then show a later source that has adopted foriegn ideas. You only have 1 source, there are no 2 sources to compare. So you'll never be able to show foreign ideas entering or being adopted. All you can show are similarities and claim they are copied based on who wrote them first.

THe consensus on Genesis. Moses birth story is adapted from an Egyptian God. see 27:30

Authorship/Moses
Dr Joel Baden

6:47

The idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch has been out of favor in scholarship for the last 400 years.


23:18

Is Moses stories historically accurate and true, no.



27:30

Moses childhood story same as Egyptian story 1000 years before - hidden, put in basket in river, etc…same as birth narrative of Sargon. Clearly same story.

Person writing Moses birth story clearly drawing on well known and far older Mesopotamian tradition.

But, who wrote them first is irrelevant. Ancient myths begin as oral story-telling.

Back to this now. Sigh. Apologists/fundamentalists like to do this. Circle back to old debunked arguments.
There were no Israelites telling oral stories in Mesopotamia. They were not Hebrew, if in Egypt they were Egyptian and so on. When the myths were written in 600BCE they adapted older stories.

Ummm, YOU said you were putting this to bed. And then your own source proves me right again and again. So, the point is, I'm not imagining, nor making things up.

They weren't all canaanites, they weren't all polytheists. That's what Dr. Baden is saying. And we know this because I took the time to actually listen and actually quote what he says. Note: I didn't snip out the parts that I didn't like. That would be dishonest. Proof that you're wrong about me.

It's in bed. The Bible is mythology. Generally Canaanites moved to the highlands. Your quibble about a few slaves is literally ridiculous and reeks of an inability to just face the fact you were wrong.
You think you are special because you listened to the whole video? Good, listen, but stop with the denial. My point is the Bible is mythology, if you go back you will see.
Not "Well Exodus isn't true but a few slaves might have come from Egypt so that means....uh......what does that mean...????? No one knows?
Exodus is not true, that isn't what happened? Of course there were a few here and there from other nations?

It's in bed. Genesis sourced Mesopotamian myths.

Now, why didn't you quote him correctly or fully? That's the question.

I did. None of the stories about Exodus in the Bible are true. Dr Baden said that. I'm arguing against a supernatural agent and literal stories. I'm arguing that actual real life happened. Which includes people coming from different places, but here it's mostly Canaanites which is the point and NOT what scripture claims.

How hard is this to understand. But ok, let's do it.

Hey, Exodus isn't true. The Bible is a myth. Israelites are really Canaanites. That whole thing about Israel uniting and breaking free and Yahweh leading them in the desert, myth. But a few slaves might have come up from Egypt, we don't know but that is a possibility.

Wow, that's so different.

No, that was when it was compiled. It was compiled over time, and 600 seems to be when that process concluded.

No that is when Genesis was written. Some was written before Persian period, 8th century, some after ^00.

Now, listen to what you just said, 600 bce wasnt polytheism. But Dr. Baden just said people were doing whatever they want, and only the elites believed in the biblical religion. So, he is not describing 600bce. He's describing before that, before persia, during the time where polytheism was the norm.

According to Professor Stavrakopoulou

at 3:30 they began to focus on Yahweh only worship during the 2nd Temple Period. bBut they were not monotheism which is a more modern term.

According to Dever the elites wanted this but the folk people were doing different things.

Please refer back to the quote from Peter Enns, the bible was compiled over time from written sources, oral sources, or both.

Yes, from 1000 on. Not in Mesopotamia.

No, they weren't all canaanites. That's what Dr. Baden said. A lot of them were, but, some immigrated from elsewhere, and perhaps a small group of slaves from Egypt.

LOL!!!!! When you found a "probably" in my source you went bat ship. Now we get a "maybe".
2 sets of standards, once again. Move that goalpost!
You are playing games here. The Bible myths are not true, that is my position. Some may contain some historical information, depends.

 

[joelr]

Oh boy, this one is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

That's the host speaking, the atheist preacher...

Uh-huh, there's the claim. I notice you skipped posting the actual examples.

Yes, he finds a book on the shelf and reads us the title. Wow! There's no explanation, just a book title off the shelf.

Next, there's 15-20 minutes where some foreign myth is told. Woopee!

Starting at 19 minutes, we start to hear the so-called evidence of intertextuality.

"The eluma elish begins with a dependent clause. The eluma elish went on high, blah,blah,blah. In Genesis 1 it begins with a dependent clause, when God began creating..."

Ummmm, that's a misquote from Genesis 1. It doesn't say "When God began creating". So your source doesn't know the Hebrew bible. Not only that, it's go to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. What's the classic beginning of a fairy tale? "Once apon a time" Does that mean that every fairy tale is copying from each other. So dumb, so so dumb.
​

"T'home is in Genesis 1 and it's the same root as Tiahmat [ a god from the eluma elish ]"

So what? That is so stupid. Two words that sound a like means the story is copied? Is "T'home" a central part of the story. Is it even a being? Is it a character in the story? And he thinks that people will hear the word, or see the word T'home abd that's going to remind them of some other myth where there's a god named tiamat?


​

The examples brought of "copying" are so weak, and so absurd. Also, he's claiming that the jewish exiles *must* have known this, because they *must* have attended this festival. More weak assumptions. And you're parroting them.



Which one was written first is irrelevant. Ancient myths begin as oral storytelling. Your source brought 2 words that are supposed to remind people of eluma Elish when they hear/read genesis 1. 2 words, that's it. And then he talks about all the differences, which he says are so important. But he can't put together any evidence to show this intertextuality. Not with Genesis 1.

It's also obvious that this person is infatuated with the akkadian myths, so obviously he's going to see them everywhere even if there's no real connection. That's what's nice about video; one can see the passion and can see it's effect.

In one myth, the main god has the "tablet of destinies", and there isn't one in Genesis, that, in this person's mind is proof that the myths are related. How totally stupid. "Because they're different, the one copied from the other". Oh boy. That's like delusions of the highest order.


How about you explain in your own words how this statement ^^ shows that Genesis 1 was copied from the Eluma Elish? Hmm? Betcha can't do it. I don't think you understand any of this.

​

​

Being butthurt that stories you believed in are actually myths is understandable. Picking a few examples and saying "no..." as if this isn't just a small sample of what is happening. Yes he reads a book title, because if you want to understand how this is done it's a good source.
So go ahead, write a paper on how it's all bunk and get it peer-reviewed. Remember how Meagen and her Masters isn't qualified to comment.
How about random internet poster?
Sorry, its been established. When you submit your paper I'll ask Dr Kipp or Bowen to review it and we can see how well you have debunked something a PhD is required to fully understand.
Laughing at Joel Baden but having no actual reason....hmmmmmmm

I don't care if an unqualified apologist (exactly like the video being debunked here) is bias and cannot accept consensus. Neither can the apologist. I care about what is true.
This video isn't explaining much it's giving examples.


Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan

5:30 - 2 stories from Gilamesh widely considered by scholars to have variously influenced Genesis

6:19 - obvious literary parallels

7:29 - wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that there were just a few similarities? No and this is a ridiculous caricature of consensus scholarly views about Genesis.

9:25 - techniques for understanding borrowing (not with point by point precision), scholars study clever and more subtle use of language. Must recognize how authors intently and unintentionally crafted narratives.


16:00 John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.

“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.


16:28 2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson

“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……

It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.

In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”

17:24 - The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan

“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

17:55 God in Translation, Smith

“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

18:19 THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer

“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

19:30 Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible, Zevit

Methods for identifying intersexuality and understanding borrowing

19:55 examples of intersexuality


25:27

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr

“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”


30:15 specific criteria that can be used to form a methodology for identifying intertexuality (availability, volume, shared language, )


39:24 Isaiah 27:1 and Baal Cycle Tablet V comparison

41:00 The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith

“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

"There's primordial water [ then he spaker gestures a lot ]"

So what? Both stories have water in them. That's not obvious copying. That's obvious coincidence. Oh yeah, he's a scholar so we should just lap this up.​

No both stories use creation from primal cosmic waters. It would be coincidence if it was the only thing. But the fact that you are using a superficial reading is hilarious, the apologist they debunk also does that and they explain why he's crank. The several quotes from textbooks demonstrates it's widely known and for good reason. Me not fully understanding the consensus is not relevant to the information being true.​

 

[joelr]

The Temple at Arad. Looks to be pre 1000BCE. The House of Yahweh. There's an inscription found there. No polytheistic anything has been found there. Dever ignores it when claiming the ancient Israelites were all polythiestic. Remember? I mentioned it before.
Tel Arad Temple - Madain Project (en)

First of all, he made a joke about taking the bible literally when making the comment about the storm god. 2nd, thank you for considering granting that some people were monotheistic. That's the sort of flexibility and moderation that I'm asking for. 3rd, sorry, but you're the argument against God speaking to people is a STRAWMAN. I have not claimed any of that. I have not brought my personal beliefs into this debate. Not once. I'm just looking at the evidence to see if it makes sense.

Again, Temple at Arad shows a monotheistic belief. And, I doubt very highly that you have early text showing that. You might have a text about ?L? and ?Y?W?. But I doubt you'll be able to bring the actual text, just someone's attempt at reconstructing it and assuming the vowels. I ask again, is your name Julie? If not then the vowels matter. And BTW, there is no Asherah in those texts either.

Yup. You brought this video to "put this to bed" relating to "his Asherah", and guess what your own source says? The MIGHT be evidence of it. MIGHT. So, it's not a concensus among all experts, is it? Nope. You didn't watch this whole video before posting it, did you? You didn't expect me to actually listen and take notes, right? You really don't know me very well do you?

The Mesopotamian consensus is done.
Ashera is done, in bed.
Now, first the paper has concluded that it does in fact say Ashera. But the actual word Ashera doesn't matter as much as the fact that there was a common female deity worshipped.

I agree, the word Ashara (given high probability by the paper) doesn't matter as much as the Israelites did give Yahweh a consort deity.

Of course I watched the video? Stop patting yourself on the back for watching a video like you are some dynamo researcher?
The archaeological evidence for some goddess is vast.

Dr. Baden says, the israelites were mixed to the point that you couldn't distinguish one from the other. So now you're making a claim which contradicts "your favorite" source.

Sorry you will have to give a timestamp and a link. He is talking about the 12 tribes being mixed, not nationalities.

Dever makes conclusions about Asherah based on hairstyle, and ignores evidence that doesn't match his conclusions.

Strawman. That "big wig" we now call it was a big part of Goddess mythology, so were lions.
There is no doubt that female deities were worshipped in Israel for many centuries and Yahweh looked to have a wife. The Ashera name you can dispute, still a Goddess. The paper has concluded it does in fact say Ashera. Based on all th eimagery found with the figires, lions, big hair, breasts, often next to a male deity, it's one of the goddesses either Ashera, Astarte or a 3rd.

You don't have the knowledge to identify what is "extremely" likely about the inscriptions.

We are talking about theology. Not Practice. The claim is, there was no monotheism it was borrowed from the persians. Monotheism is a theology. Judaism is a theology. Remember how I defined it. Belief in a single creator god, who gives laws, and reveals itself to people to make its will known.

Looks like that was written later by elites who wanted monotheism to be the norm.

The evidence for folk religion being popular and having multiple deities is good:
Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

William G. Dever,

17:30 Bible written centuries later by elites and not representative of mainstream Israelite religion. Bible is reconstruction of what elites believed religion should have been in Israel. Last 20 years of archaeology presents this picture.


25:50 Israelite figurines, male and female

28:00 Female figurine

29:00 mold for female figurine, Dever and “most” scholars take this for Ashera. Female holding cake, Bible mentions females baking cake for queen of heaven


30:55 Israelite arrows read “servant of lion lady” and Bin Anat.

Anat, Ashera and Astarte are the 3 female deities worshipped by Canaanite religion.


32:50 Tell el-Farah site, female goddess figurines


33:42 model of temple (palm trees on side) find with goddess symbol crescent moon


34:30 Temple model find with goddess in doorway and window

Temples were considered house of gods


35:46 examples of Ashera and temple in Egypt


52:46 drawing - may X be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera


54:35 tomb inscription 8th century belonging to a governor “may x be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”


101:28 8th century female figurines from Jerusalem and 103:57

Many examples of Ashera/Astarte in Egypt/Canaan with similar features, lion theme, big wig

This isn't me making that up. That's the story of Abraham. That's what defines Judaism. If that's not the definition, then anyone can claim anything is Judaism, the labels don't matter anymore. Up could be down, black could be white, beep-boop language is meaningless. Without this definition, I could claim "of course there's evidence of Judaism, Judaism is making a sacrifice. Judaism is everywhere... wooppee."


The point, which you conveinently dodged. Your source, in the video that was supposed to "put to bed" this whole consort business said, there MIGHT be evidence for it.

Abraham is another myth:
The Real Origins of Ancient Israel

Lester L. Grabbe

Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, England


10:21 Abraham is probably a fictional character, a foundation myth/character developed for theological and philosophical reasons. The Biblical text was not written down until 7/8th century from oral stories. Abraham was an envisioned character who did things but likely is a literary invention. Anachronisms in his story show they were developed later on.

His story was likely developed with the oral history. Hebrew language was developed around the 7/8th century.

 

[joelr]

Says the person who skipped 90% of the interview.

Uh-huh. A folk religion. Not Judaism. It doesn't matter what was popular.

For you, maybe, following what's popular is the most important thing. And ignoring those outliers is what makes you feel good? I understand. That feeling of certainty, like "I've got this all figured out." or maybe there's a bit of elitism "I know more than those God beleivers." I can understand how that would make an atheist feel good.

But I didn't put a single word in his mouth. He said:

"It doesn't surprise me at all. Just as it doesn't surprise me that some people said no, just him [Yahweh] just his own thing. So that's the important thing."​

Then I said:

Your own source leaves open the possibility for a strict monotheist among the general population. And he says this is the important hing to keep in mind when considering Yahweh and a consort.
​

He says he wouldnt be surprised if people only believed in Yahweh, just as much as he's not surpirsed if people believed that Yahweh had a consort. And Joel.... AND. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING. And that's how he ended the discussion on Yahweh and His asherah.

So that video put it to bed, just like you claimed it would. There might be evidence, but ther might not. And it's equally likely that some people were strict Yahweh monotheists "just him". And that's the important thing.

It's a truly moderate position. I love it.

When did I say that video would put it to bed. The paper ruled that the vast evidence looked at says it's more likely the inscription said Ashera. Now look at you jumping up and down except you don't mention that paper?
Nope.
William Dever is 100% that the early Judaism worshipped female deities along with Yahweh.

The point is, Dr. Baden is saying that the best we can say is probably, but we don't have records for a lot of the conclusion made about ancient religious practices.

My comment wasn't about who wrote Asherah first. Although, it is interesting that Asherah doesn't actually exist in any other religion besides Judaism. And that's assuming that she's a deity not a concept.

Dever mentioned Ashera is a popular goddess in the Near Eastern religions including Canaan. In th evideo I posted last post.

 

[joelr]

I'm not watching any more videos. You'll need to find the evidence of borrowing, and point them out with a time stamp. I've spent plenty of time watching your videos. I agree the stories are similar, I'm not wasting my time, relearing about the similarities when it's likely that the differences are ignored.

When the nation of israel is formed is irrelevant. Both the Jewish story and the Epic of Gilgamesh could have come from an older tradition. Which means no copying, just similar stories.

.

ok, denial it is. The consensus of OhD who specialize in this as well as numerous textbooks literally saying Genesis comes from Mesopotamian literature.
If you are interested you can find textbooks that walk you through all of the evidence. I don't care. I also am disinterested in your denial and inability to face facts.
YOu continue to represent the apologist opinion, which was debunked in this video as being amateur, uneducated and uninformed. And he tried to make a case. He simply isn't qualified to do scholarship at that level.
So if you cannot move past fundamentalism and crank apologetics then I'll take my win and move on.

 

[joelr]

Dr. Bowen sounds delusional. .

H A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. As I said, cake. Thank you. Fundamentalist apologetics always shows its true colors.

Is he also possessed by Satan? Maybe Satan makes him delusional and fills his mind with false information?




Yale Divinity School
Prof. Joel Baden works widely in the field of Hebrew Bible, with special attention to the literary history of the Pentateuch. He is the author, most recently, of The Book of Exodus: A Biography (Princeton University Press, 2019). His other books include J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (Mohr Siebeck, 2009); The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (Yale University Press, 2012); The Promise to the Patriarchs (Oxford University Press, 2013); The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (HarperOne, 2013); Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness (with Candida Moss; Princeton University Press, 2015); and Bible Nation: The United States of Hobby Lobby (with Candida Moss; Princeton University Press, 2017). He is the co-editor of the volumes The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (TVZ, 2009), Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls (Brill, 2017), and The Oxford Handbook of the Pentateuch (with Jeffrey Stackert; Oxford University Press, 2021).

Current projects include editing The Routledge Handbook of Marginalization in the Bible and a special issue of the journal Religions devoted to the Hebrew Bible, race, and racism, along with writing forthcoming commentaries on Deuteronomy (IECOT), Exodus (Anchor), and Lamentations (Oxford).

Prof. Baden has published numerous scholarly articles and essays. He has also written widely for a popular audience, in venues such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, Slate, The Los Angeles Times, Politico, CNN, and The Daily Beast.

 

[joelr]

Here's a little test. What is the required proniminal suffix and how does it translate to "his"?

If you understand that it's probable, you should be able to answer this. It's actually very simple, and only requires about 3-4 words. It's discussed in the paper a bit, but you'll have to work for it to find it. It's not explained clearly.

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:

You did say it. You said it was a line of evidence. Then you directed me to arrowheads which supposedly have Asherah on them... but they don't. You were lied to. I'm sorry. I thought it was true too. Francesca let us both down.

The evidence actually points both ways. There's reasons to believe it's his Ashera, and reasons to believe it's something else. I can see both sides of it, and yes, "his Ashera" requires at least 2 assumptions. One of them is that pronominal suffix. And the second one is turning that suffix into "his". Now I've just given you a huge hint on the little test I gave you.

Dever has given plenty of evidence to suggest a goddess. Ashera, Astarte, doesn't matter. Paper suggests Ashera in inscription.

See? You are bringing the documentary hypothesis. They aren't two stories without it. How much do you actually know about the documentary hypothesis?

Nope, thats not wht you said. You said they were the same because the flood ended after 7 days in both. And you left out the forty-days forty nights part..

It does say 7 days. 40 nights it also says because it's a contradiction. The Documentary Hypothesis is probably true. I have Badens book on it.

 

[joelr]

You're not understanding the story. In Noah's flood, it took seven days for the flood to start, the rains continued for forty days and forty nights. That's what the story says. Not that it's literally true, but, it would take a while to get the flood going. 7 days makes sense ( if that's an accurate word ) for the rain to start to flood the whole earth.

Me thinks you didn't read this... it has zero evidence of your claim, and actually proves my point, God is the savior. It's only three pages, and that's at the top of page three. You're just throwing spaghetti at the wall. No analysis what so ever.

wow, apologetics. Nope. You mean an amateur, me, didn't get it right. Well actual scholarship has already done the work I am not qualified for. Neither are you.
The flood lasted 40 days.
And the flood was forty days upon the earth. Genesis 7:17
The flood lasted 150 days.
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. Genesis 7:24
And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. Genesis 8:3
Yes, everything died except for those on the ark.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:21-23
No, some survived.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Numbers 13:33
Two
Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark. Genesis 6:19
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. Genesis 7:8-9

Every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. Genesis 7:14-15

Seven
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female. Genesis 7:2
Seven days before the flood began.
And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark.... And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. Genesis 7:7-10
The day that the flood began.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark. Genesis 7:11-13

For seven months or so.
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 8:4
For at least ten months.
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. Genesis 8:5

On the first day of the first month.
In the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth. Genesis 8:13
On the 27th day of the second month.
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. Genesis 8:14

Umm, did you read this? Do you understand what it's saying? I already refuted this. You're repeating the same failed arguments.

You have not refuted anything. You have just said you don't agree with scholars. So?

The author is an amatuer researcher with zero credentials, not even a bachelors degree. You wouldn't know if this is true or not. You don't know enough to read and understand what's being said.

Perfect. My point exactly. Your lame denial isn't qualified to argue with the field. OF course when the scholar isn't a PhD in my source then it's not qualified, yet you can change the consensus of the entire field. Wow, how about that.

Lame. Hey, is he delusional too?

What's the required pronominal suffix? How does it get translated to "his"?

If you can't answer that, any one can claim it's "most likely" and you would never be able to identify if it was bogus.

Uh-huh... Whats the "lexical-syntactic" evidence he's talking about?

Nope. It's not a lie that you can't comprehend what this paper is saying. It absolutely is based on assumptions. At least two. And that's the simplest way to get to "his". The others require much much more than that.

What is the required pronominal suffix, and how does it get translated to "his"? It requires an assumption in addition to the assumed suffix.

You really should look at the inscription itself. Have you done that?

Sorry, end times resurrection, messianic ideas, these happened after the Persian occupation. Boyce is a qualified scholar.
Calling Dr Baden delusional, repeatedly denying the consensus of historical OT field. You cannot be trusted to be honest (you haven't done one single thing with honesty yet) so it's just apologetics.


Doctrines



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

 

[joelr]

Translation: "I follow the herd, but can't defend the position myself."

Strawman. A dishonest strawman. I prove the consensus while you frame it as if I'm "following the herd".
As if you are not following the herd, believing in a myth, using crank apologetics.

"oh Exodus happened because a few slaves......blah blah..."

Calling sources "regurgitation", strawman. Obvious denial and anger at finding out these are myths.

Nope. I've demonstrated pretty clearly you don't have the knowledge to identify the weak points in your sources claims. There has been no evidence of anything you've claimed about syncretism, borrowing, original sources for the mythology, a canaanite connection. None of it. It's all just copy-paste. Look at those last three links you brought from Isaiah. It's pretty obvious you didn't even read them.

Just wanted to keep this to demonstrate dishonest tricks. Pure denial. This is usually how it goes with apologists.

18:19 THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer

“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

No, they weren't true. You haven't been able to refute my objections. Just copying more people to show a popular opinion. But you can't seem to bring any evidence that makes any sense.

Denial is technically an objection. Claiming some of the best scholars "don't make sense" is hilarious. You are trying every desperate trick in the ..... book to continue to deflect and ....I don't know what you people do, it's this game where you can never lose an argument, you just keep denying or deflect or claim you have these grand points when all you did is use one example and call scholars names. The tricky fundamentalists pretend they are going to argue fair and actually have a proper exchange. Was a ruse.

Remember, one of your sources claimd that the flood wasn;t mentioned in the later prophets. As if that's evidence of anything. But besides that, it's not true Psalms 29. Your own source doesn't know the Hebrew bible, and you don't know it enough to identify a bogus claim on a youtube video.

you have to demonstrate something is bogus, link, timestamp, evidence. Most of your objections are made up.

Yes, it's popular to claim syncretism. Popular doesn't mean it's true. You just claim it, no evidence has been provided. Just a popluar claim.

Strawman, call consensus in scholarship "popular opinion".

Garbage in >>> garbage out
There is no evidence of influence. Just similar stories with a common source. That source could have been a Jewish tradition in mesopotamia.
Temple Tel Arad: Tel Arad Temple - Madain Project (en)

Garbage in ....garbage out.

Dr Baden - "delusional"

consensus in scholarship - "wrong, not proven at all, trivial, popular opinion (opinion not rigorous scholarship), refuse to admit it

using sources - "regergitation", "following the herd"

PhD - needed for my sources (which are later denied or cannot be right,) not needed to form his opinions which are final and correct and can be entered as evidence

Exodus isn't true - "nitpick, nitpick, a few slaves maybe...."

Maybe - "you ca't use MAYBE, that means NO........

this can go on and on...............garbade in garbage out.

The borrowing has been demonstrated by intertextuality, which you are not qualified to comment on.
But asking for PhD sources only (pointing out what sources are not qualified) then when I do you call it "following the herd" is gaslighting. "It's not good enough, do better" (does better) "all you do is follow the herd"............the denial tap dance. Seen it before.

Admitting some scholars are not qualified shows you are not remotely qualified to say anything about the evidence. Not understanding the full reasoning of how the intertextuality is demonstrated and jumping to a conclusion without being qualified is absolute crank. Crank in crank out. Complete and utter fail.

 

[joelr]

Well, it seems like you need the repetition because you keep bringing claims without evidence. I'm not losing this debate at all. The only thing you;re winning is the strawman contest.You just can't stop misquoting. I said Jewish oral tradition, not Israelites.

You abuse scholarship.
Except when they're wrong. Outliers exist.

You are not losing, you have LOST.
The historical consensus is what I claimed it is. The apologist in the video makes the same claim, that Genesis is not syncretic with Mesopotamian myth. HE is debunked and the consensus is shown with many textbook quotes from other experts.
The evidence for a goddess is extremely good. No doubt the average Israelite worshipped multiple deities. Dever has demonstrated this.

Those were the topics.
But look, a new apologetic has emerged................these scholars are WRONG!!!!!!!! LOL!
Just say it, Satan has influenced them.

 

[joelr]

Look at that, it's not copied from Epic of Gilgamesh. Could be that Jewish people were in mesopotamia. It's a region not a culture.

Epic of Gilgamesh, ancient Mesopotamian odyssey recorded in the Akkadian language about Gilgamesh, the king of the Mesopotamian city-state Uruk

speaking of not knowing the argument

Look at that, it's not copied from Epic of Gilgamesh. Could be that Jewish people were in mesopotamia. It's a region not a culture.

Look at this, pure denial. Here we are, after all that proof, back with the crank apologetics.
Dr Baden has given the information of early Judaism. No evidence before 1200 BCE but early proto-Isralite setlements were emerging around 1000BCE.
They were Canaanites who moved to the hills. Never were they in Mesopotamian when Gilamesh was written 1000 years before. But even this plain fact cannot be accepted.
He posed as a debater but is really a fundamentalist. Will not accept any scholarship if it goes against beliefs. If something cannot be debunked just use denial and make false claims.
sorry, I'm interested in what is true, not your fantasy. I said this from the first post because I knew you would do this. And you did.
I'm glad I know, no matter what I demonstrate you will just deny, as you did with the Mesopotamian influence. Fundamentalists will never argue fairly. You will pretend to and then slip in Baden is delusional or deny scholarship. I don't follow the herd, I follow what is the best version of truth.


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.

“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.

2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson

“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……

It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.

In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”

The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan

“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

God in Translation, Smith

“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”


THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer

“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr

“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”

The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith

“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

Dr Kipp Davis
"Genesis 1 IS a contemporary version of an Enamu Elish story"

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
@joelr, I would like to comment on what you are discussing. especially the Wife of God. I been in another topic, so bring me up to Speed on this WIFE of God.

question, "Do you believe God is espouse to a wife, yes or no?"

101G.

 

[joelr]

GINOLJC, to all.
@joelr, I would like to comment on what you are discussing. especially the Wife of God. I been in another topic, so bring me up to Speed on this WIFE of God.

question, "Do you believe God is espouse to a wife, yes or no?"

101G.

There is an inscription on an arrow that possibly reads Yahweh and his Ashera but we don't know for sure.
The bigger issue is it's very clear the Israelites were wrrshipping a female deity and was paired with Yahweh in some cases.
It's a lot of temple finds from Israel from 8,8,6 BCE that show this evidence.
Archaeologist William Dever goes over it all in a presentation.
Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

William G. Dever,

17:30 Bible written centuries later by elites and not representative of mainstream Israelite religion. Bible is reconstruction of what elites believed religion should have been in Israel. Last 20 years of archaeology presents this picture.


25:50 Israelite figurines, male and female

28:00 Female figurine

29:00 mold for female figurine, Dever and “most” scholars take this for Ashera. Female holding cake, Bible mentions females baking cake for queen of heaven


30:55 Israelite arrows read “servant of lion lady” and Bin Anat.

Anat, Ashera and Astarte are the 3 female deities worshipped by Canaanite religion.


32:50 Tell el-Farah site, female goddess figurines


33:42 model of temple (palm trees on side) find with goddess symbol crescent moon


34:30 Temple model find with goddess in doorway and window

Temples were considered house of gods


35:46 examples of Ashera and temple in Egypt


52:46 drawing - may X be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera


54:35 tomb inscription 8th century belonging to a governor “may x be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”


101:28 8th century female figurines from Jerusalem and 103:57

Many examples of Ashera/Astarte in Egypt/Canaan with similar features, lion theme, big wig

 

[101G]

There is an inscription on an arrow that possibly reads Yahweh and his Ashera but we don't know for sure.
The bigger issue is it's very clear the Israelites were wrrshipping a female deity and was paired with Yahweh in some cases.
It's a lot of temple finds from Israel from 8,8,6 BCE that show this evidence.
Archaeologist William Dever goes over it all in a presentation.
Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

William G. Dever,

17:30 Bible written centuries later by elites and not representative of mainstream Israelite religion. Bible is reconstruction of what elites believed religion should have been in Israel. Last 20 years of archaeology presents this picture.


25:50 Israelite figurines, male and female

28:00 Female figurine

29:00 mold for female figurine, Dever and “most” scholars take this for Ashera. Female holding cake, Bible mentions females baking cake for queen of heaven


30:55 Israelite arrows read “servant of lion lady” and Bin Anat.

Anat, Ashera and Astarte are the 3 female deities worshipped by Canaanite religion.


32:50 Tell el-Farah site, female goddess figurines


33:42 model of temple (palm trees on side) find with goddess symbol crescent moon


34:30 Temple model find with goddess in doorway and window

Temples were considered house of gods


35:46 examples of Ashera and temple in Egypt


52:46 drawing - may X be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera


54:35 tomb inscription 8th century belonging to a governor “may x be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”


101:28 8th century female figurines from Jerusalem and 103:57

Many examples of Ashera/Astarte in Egypt/Canaan with similar features, lion theme, big wig

We will let you in on a little secret, God is espouse to a WIFE, as our brother @dybmh asked in another topic, was EVE "BUILT, or FORMED. listen closely. God is building/forming his WIFE now, even as we speak.
she is called the CHURCH. supportive scripture, Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

and we, who do not worship Idols, will be Joined to him in Holy Matrimony. see, not all worship idols. only a REMNANT worship God in spirit and TRUTH.

understand, God WIFE is Spiritual, and not physical. this is why we know that all these scholars, LIE, for the Word of God is Spiritual, and not Carnal.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

@joelr ,

I never never never said Dr. Baden sounded delusional. Not once. I said baden sounded sensible and moderate. And he does. I said Dr. Bowen sounded delusional about the intertexuality and he did in the video you posted.

Now, I know this is difficult, probably because of all the videos you watch, and the details all blend and mush together when someone watches too many youtubes. But, I said Dr. Baden was sensible and a I liked his moderate position.

Baden is fine. Bowen sounded delusional. The argument he brought, BOWEN. Get it BOWEN brought was insane.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There is evidence of montheism prior to the persian exile it is Temple Tel Arad. Unless you think that this temple sprouted out of the ground magically, and the religious practices poofed out of thin air, then that's archeological evidence of Jewish monothiesm long before the exile.

You keep ignoring it. Pretty typical.

Tel Arad Temple

-----------------------------------------------------------

There is archeological evidence of the nation of Israel pre 1300BCE.

The concensus opinion, which you should accept is that a "people" of Israel was conquered, but their seed survived.

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

Unless you think these people poofed magically into existence, then there were Israelites prior to 1300BCE, prior to the bronze age collapse, prior to the phillistines invading canaan. They were large enough to be described as a people. That doesn't happen overnight.

------------------------------------------------------

Yes, you have been misquoting. I linked to it, when I said it.

Everytime you claim I called Baden delusional, that's a misquote. I corrected you in Post#508, but you repeatedly misquote me about it. Like 3 times in this last round of posts. The best example is here: Post#526. I literally say "Bowen", you laugh a bunch and then post Baden's credentials. I'll attach a screenshot in a spoiler.

Spoiler: Screenshot

Here's some others.

Post#483 - you're misquoting your own source, I explain that in the post

I have repeatedly been talking about an oral tradition since the beginning of the debate. And you have repeatedly claimed that I was talking about the Israelites writing.
My claim about oral tradition is in Post#482. Your claim that I was talking about Israelite writing is in post#495. And I called you on it in post#512.

--------------------------------------------------

Everytime you prove "it's a myth" it's a strawman. I have never once denied it's a myth. All of these accusations about how I must feel about it being a myth is false.

--------------------------------------------------

Regarding Asherah, you have again admitted you don't understand how any of the conclusions are made regarding it. You have admitted it could be another goddess, and you don't really care which one. But the problem is, if it's not Asherah, then the "his" gramatically is even weaker. If its Asherah, it's maybe 50/50. But that's an assumption based on an assumption, based on an assumption. But of course you don't understand that, because you haven't actually read nor understand the material you're posting.

Yes, you actually need to understand what you're posting.

You asked when did you ever claim that you were putting this, the Asherah issue to bed? It's here. Post#459. Its right above the video where Dr. Baden confirms virtually everything I've been saying.

--------------------------------------------

You also asked for a timestamp on the video when Dr. Baden said that the canaanites and the Israelites were so closely mixed that you couldn't tell them apart?

Here it is: It begins at 3:40 and goes to 3:59.

Just so we have it on record, here's the entire quote:

"Israel and Canaan were not nearly as seperate as the bible wants us to believe. In fact, Im not even sure if like they might have drawn, like the Israelite on the ground would have known, that like they were an Israelite, and the person across the line there in that tent over there was a canaanite. Like, it's that close."

So, we don't really know if these people who had inscribed Yahweh and whoever-it-was was an israelite, nor do we know if they were a canaanite. If it's not Asherah, then it makes it even less likely to be Israelite.

The video is posted in post#459. This has been addressed several times. This is your own source You don't seem to be able to keep track of the details, or your ignoring what your" favorite scholar" is saying.

He also said that he wouldn't be surprised if there were strict monotheists among the general population.

---------------------------------------------

I refuted Nick Grier's claims here: post#450

---------------------------------------------

The Mary Boyce copy-paste is a repeat. It doesn't make sense. She says, the Jews were staunchly devoted to their traditions. Which means they would have agreed with the persians on the ideas which they already agreed on. That's a *DUH*.

I addressed this and other faults in the Boyce copy-paste in post#399.

---------------------------------------------

You have yet again posted 3 articles with Isaiah and Persia in the title. You posted them already, and you're posting them again. But it's obvious you haven't read them, nor understand them. The first one proves my point. It's 3 pages long, it's an easy read. The second one is pretty complicated. I didn't read the whole thing myself, but, there's a screenshot which shows there's reason to doubt the conclusion you are assuming based on the title. The author actually says that the original source cannot be determined by what is presented. And the third is also extremely nuanced. In that third article it says "First Zechariah is the local version of an official report on temple re-foundation. This is supported by a close look at the phenomenology of visions and at the Persian interaction with Near Eastern temples." I asked you to explain in your own words this phenomenology. You can't do that, because you didnt read it, and couldn't understand it even if you did.

All of this including the screeshot is in post#510, which you ignored, and simply reposted ( spammed ) the same links without reading the articles yourself.

The problems with the Isaiah argument is:

1. There is no cosmic savior in Isaiah. Christians think there is, and scholars assume there is. But anytime we examine the actual story, it doesn't pan out.
2. The claim that this is the first instance of monothiesm in the Hebrew bible is false. it's in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. I pointed that out previously. You can' refute it. Here you need this: Deuteronomy 4:39, Psalms 86:10:

"Know therefore this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is no other."

"For you are great, and you do wondrous things; you are God alone."

So no, it didn't begin in the later chapters of Isaiah. Whoever says that doesn't know what they're talking about and can be dismissed on anything having to do with Judaism or the Hebrew bible. and that includes you, Joel.

And "This is recent because they weren't monothiests, and we know they weren't monotheists because this is recent." Is circular logic.
​

-------------------------------------------------------

Now, this will be the new paradigm for this debate. No more endlessly quoting your posts. If you keep repeating ( aka spamming ), the same false conclusions over and over, posting the same videos over and over, I'll just be linking right back here. If you can bring something new, then I might quote it.

 

[dybmh]

​

Being butthurt that stories you believed in are actually myths is understandable. Picking a few examples and saying "no..." as if this isn't just a small sample of what is happening. Yes he reads a book title, because if you want to understand how this is done it's a good source.
So go ahead, write a paper on how it's all bunk and get it peer-reviewed. Remember how Meagen and her Masters isn't qualified to comment.
How about random internet poster?
Sorry, its been established. When you submit your paper I'll ask Dr Kipp or Bowen to review it and we can see how well you have debunked something a PhD is required to fully understand.
Laughing at Joel Baden but having no actual reason....hmmmmmmm

I don't care if an unqualified apologist (exactly like the video being debunked here) is bias and cannot accept consensus. Neither can the apologist. I care about what is true.
This video isn't explaining much it's giving examples.


Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan

5:30 - 2 stories from Gilamesh widely considered by scholars to have variously influenced Genesis

6:19 - obvious literary parallels

7:29 - wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that there were just a few similarities? No and this is a ridiculous caricature of consensus scholarly views about Genesis.

9:25 - techniques for understanding borrowing (not with point by point precision), scholars study clever and more subtle use of language. Must recognize how authors intently and unintentionally crafted narratives.


16:00 John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.

“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.


16:28 2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson

“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……

It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.

In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”

17:24 - The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan

“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

17:55 God in Translation, Smith

“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

18:19 THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer

“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

19:30 Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible, Zevit

Methods for identifying intersexuality and understanding borrowing

19:55 examples of intersexuality


25:27

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr

“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”


30:15 specific criteria that can be used to form a methodology for identifying intertexuality (availability, volume, shared language, )


39:24 Isaiah 27:1 and Baal Cycle Tablet V comparison

41:00 The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith

“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

No both stories use creation from primal cosmic waters. It would be coincidence if it was the only thing. But the fact that you are using a superficial reading is hilarious, the apologist they debunk also does that and they explain why he's crank. The several quotes from textbooks demonstrates it's widely known and for good reason. Me not fully understanding the consensus is not relevant to the information being true.​

No, I didn't waste my time watching the video.

It's your claim, you watched it, why didn't you bring actual examples? Is it because when you type those out, you realise how silly they sound?

So, the claim is, there are subtle similarites, similar motifs.

And these motifs aren't all concentrated from one source. So to show it was borrowed or copied a person has to blend together and mush up all the evidence, ignoring all the differences? Yeah, that sounds like whats been happening. It happened with Asherah, and now it's happening here.

There's a couple of name drops, but no real examples.

The word intertexuality was dropped, as if mentioning a word means anything.

But it's a concensus and you believe it, so it must be true. Good work. Nice reporting.

 

[dybmh]

There is an inscription on an arrow that possibly reads Yahweh and his Ashera but we don't know for sure.
The bigger issue is it's very clear the Israelites were wrrshipping a female deity and was paired with Yahweh in some cases.
It's a lot of temple finds from Israel from 8,8,6 BCE that show this evidence.
Archaeologist William Dever goes over it all in a presentation.
Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel

William G. Dever,

17:30 Bible written centuries later by elites and not representative of mainstream Israelite religion. Bible is reconstruction of what elites believed religion should have been in Israel. Last 20 years of archaeology presents this picture.


25:50 Israelite figurines, male and female

28:00 Female figurine

29:00 mold for female figurine, Dever and “most” scholars take this for Ashera. Female holding cake, Bible mentions females baking cake for queen of heaven


30:55 Israelite arrows read “servant of lion lady” and Bin Anat.

Anat, Ashera and Astarte are the 3 female deities worshipped by Canaanite religion.


32:50 Tell el-Farah site, female goddess figurines


33:42 model of temple (palm trees on side) find with goddess symbol crescent moon


34:30 Temple model find with goddess in doorway and window

Temples were considered house of gods


35:46 examples of Ashera and temple in Egypt


52:46 drawing - may X be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera


54:35 tomb inscription 8th century belonging to a governor “may x be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”


101:28 8th century female figurines from Jerusalem and 103:57

Many examples of Ashera/Astarte in Egypt/Canaan with similar features, lion theme, big wig

Nope, I didn't watch it. waste of time.

And we know these were israelites because????

And Asherah is canaanite because????

cakes? what does that have to do with canaanite goddesses, or any other goddesses? That sounds pretty unique? how do you know it was borrowed from anywhere?

And now there's another deity in the mix "anat"?

And it seems that there's an egyptian diety borrowed by the canaanites too? they couldn't possibly have borrowed yahweh, even though there's evidence they borrowed deities?

And lions are a world wide common motif for female deities, that's not positive identifcation for anything. See here: Felines and Female Divinities: The Association of Cats with Goddesses, Ancient and Contemporary on JSTOR

there's female goddesses at the temples? who's temple was it? how do you know?

Did you know that Asherah is not Astarte per scholars? I linked to that on post#502. The scholary paper is attached at the bottom. Don't worry, the distinction about astarte is at the top of the document. You don't have to dig for it. And this is confirmed here: Astarte - Wikipedia. Any source equating Asherah and Astarte is out dated.

So all that's left is a hairstyle and female, and that's the big similarity?

And guess what? They dont actually have the same hairstyle. You really really need to start checking your facts.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to ALL.
now with all this mythology out the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.

101G is of this belief, that there is only ONE GOD, and ONE person who is God in THREE dispensations. meaning in an ECHAD of First and Last, which are his ordinal designations in the OT, "FIRST"/Spirit/Father. and the NT, "LAST"/flesh/Son, and finally in the New Creation in the Amalgamation of the Spirit/the First in Glorified Flesh/the Last. God the NEW CREATION, and EVERYTHING, and ONE in HIM...... Spiritually.

so, KNOWING that, the OT and the NT are one in the OLD CREATION. what do 101G means by that? 101G means that the OT is the NT "HIDDEN", and the NT is the OT "REVEALED". supportive scripture, Romans 15:4 "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Now, KNOWING that, the Lord JESUS/YESHUA is the God of the OT as well as the NT. in the OT he was not MANIFESTED in Flesh bone and blood, hence his name was not yet, (NOT in PERSON), but was foretold to be GIVEN ,,,,, as to "WHO" he is in name, and not "WHAT" he is in name. for "WHAT" he is in name was given in Exodus 3:14.

but "WHO" he is in name was A. foretold, and B. Given,

A. foretold. Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I."

if God name as to "WHO" he is was Given in Exodus 3:14, why now LATER in Isaiah say his people shall know his name? .... THINK, because his NAME as to "WHO" he is was not GIVEN at Exodus 3:14, repeat was not Given at Exodus 3:14.

B. Given. when was it Given? to both his sorrgent-mother and sorrgent-father, or foster-parent.

his foster-mother, Luke 1:26 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth," Luke 1:27 "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." Luke 1:28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:29 "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." Luke 1:30 "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God." Luke 1:31 "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

his foster-father, Matthew 1:19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." Matthew 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

so. both foster-parent got the same memo.

the Name of God manifested in flesh is "JESUS/YESHUA".

now that we have establish GOD Holy Name. next time, why his two designations as ordinal First and Ordinal Last.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

The Mesopotamian writings are dated to FAR before the Israelites.

From 34:14 of the video posted in post#522:

From the Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

The Israelite people existed before 1300BCE.

No evidence before 1200 BCE but early proto-Isralite setlements were emerging around 1000BCE.
They were Canaanites who moved to the hills. Never were they in Mesopotamian when Gilamesh was written 1000 years before.

Ummm, your own source says Gilgamesh was written between 1500BCE - 1000BCE. That's not 1000 years before because of .... math.

 

[dybmh]

God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

Nope. This one is 100% false. And you don't know enough to tell the difference.

Show me God taking the name of Leviathan.