JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[dybmh]

Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan

OK, so, the video basically says, no, not stolen. And that's why the word stolen is in quotes in the title.

That's pretty much the whole point. They critisize this particular youtube video. Saying that they don't define terms and that they misrepresent, making grand conclusions that aren't true. That this youtube video ignores details and ignores the actual conclusion that scholars are making. Yeah, that's a problem. I see a lot of that in this debate.

What's most important about the video is, it refutes this idea of syncretism.

Syncretism: the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

The video clearly states, that these intertexual links ( if they actually exist ) do demonstrate individual and unique theological differences. Even if there was influence, the influence was used as a polemic to communicate a completely different theology. That's not syncretism.

 

[dybmh]

More on the Temple Tel Arad: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba on JSTOR

 

[dybmh]

God has a wife? William G. Dever,

14:10 The introducer says "The notion that the God of Israel having a wife is difficult to swallow. And like other topics dealt by Bill [ William Dever ] is still debated by scholars."

Uh-huh. No concensus, still debated. And this is common for the topics Dever researches.
​

17:27 Dever is now speaking: "Tonight I want to talk about folk religion."

Look at that! That's exactly what I said. It's a folk religion.
​

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.

OK, this is not a word for word quote. There's details missing. What details? These were "temple elites" and "court elites". The temple and the court are large intitutions. Unless these institutions magically poofed into existence, this shows that the religion rendered into the bible predated the bible.

Also, the stories in the bible were written after the events took place sometimes cetnuries later. That means making unqualified statements about the bible being "written" post exile, which is what you've been doing, Joel, leads to a false conclusion. Dever is saying the stories were compiled over time. As Dr. Baden said, these things can be misinterpretted. As Francesca said, some parts of the bible may be ancient. She cited psalms and dueternonomy ( both have verses proclaiming strict monotheism ). And most recently, Dr. Kipp Davis discourages making a grand conclusion that the elites gathered around and wrote the bible out of whole cloth. He says, that is NOT what scholars are saying. And here we have Dever saying the same thing.
​

18:48 "The bible is a minority report"

Yes! That's what I said. "Judaism has always been the minority position." Double vindication. Remember how you keep saying I'm imagining things? And yet whenever we examine the details, it turns out I'm right? Yup. Here it is again.
​

19:16 "The bible is a secondary source"

So the bible can be used as a source. Interesting. So mesopotamian nomads 2000bce as the origins of Jewish culture is still on the table.
​

21:57 "Matzevot/Matzebot were acceptable in early Judaism but were prohibited later by the monarchy"

Yes, Jacob was most famous for it, Moses did it, and then after the Jewish people had demonstrated they had trouble with idol worship, it was abolished. So, to be clear, these standing stones are not a canaanite practice.

Also, if you look at the picture, all that's there is a series of 5 stones in a row. Kind of difficult to conclude what those are.
​

22:38 "Here is a Bamah, what's wrong with that? The bible mentions in the book of Kings a bamah at Dan, this could very well be it."

Wow, the bible was accurate about this detail? Could be.
​

22:51 "They're [ bamot ] always condemned at least in the later portions of the Hebrew bible"

I'm pretty sure this is false. The commandment in the later Hebrew bible says to abolish all of "their" bamot. It's not prohibited to have a bamah.
​

24:18 "In the bible the borders of israel are from Dan to Beer-Sheba"

Interesting. This is on the border.
​

25:50 Israelite figurines, male and female

OK. Good. There's the pictures of figurines. This isn't a quote. Does Dever tell you where these figurines were found? No. If you pay close attention to the details, he has switched topics a little. Just a few seconds earlier, he describes an olive pressing installation. Where is this installation "at another cultic site". Not in the temple, near the temple, maybe, but not in the temple itself. Then he shows us pictures of the figurines. Where were the figurines found? Not in the temple!

For confirmation, here's a detailed description of the excavation at Dan. They have the same pictures of the same figurines. And they confirm it was NOT in the temple.

Two Discoveries at Tel Dan on JSTOR

Details matter.

Now. Notice, a few minutes earlier he shows a picture of a 4 horned alter found at Beer-sheba. Another border town, remember. There were also polythiestic pagan artifacts found there. Guess where they were found? Outside the temple, in what appear to homes and maybe a shop.

Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba on JSTOR

So, the pattern is, the people were polytheistic in the border areas, but in spite of that, the temples weren't. Does any of this support a conclusion that God had a wife? No. Not a single one. It shows that the people were polytheistic, but, the temple remained pure. Pure like the temple at Tel Arad.​

28:00 Female figurine

Note: We have now changed location. we are now exploring what Dever calls a family shrine. Not a temple. A place where he says multiple familes joined to do various activities.

Also, it's not a figurine. It's on an altar. Let's not mix up the details.

He says this is clearly israelite. Um, how do you come up with that conclusion?

This location has been conquered by various peoples, at various times. It's a very old city. We really don't know who's god this is.

Then he directs us to the bottom of the statue, where there is a female figure holding onto the ears of two lions. Hmmm. Take note of the placement of the hands. Not on the breasts. The breasts aren't prominent. Also, look at the hair. Is it the same "hairstyle as the figurines" ( the ones that have hair, that is )? No, its not.

Also note, he says this is a figurine of a "mother goddess". No. The canaanite Astarte, is not a mother, is no one's consort. She's a warrior, she's independant. Are there any other gods or goddesses at this site, are there any other gods or goddesses on this pillar? No and No.

Note: He says, he "argues" that this is Asherah. No concensus on who this figure is.

What else is Dever leaving out? Theres an extremely important archealogical find in this area. It's a temple estimated to have been constructed 3000bce. Hear that? 3000bce. What have they found there? Bones used in sacrifice. no figurines, no polythiesitc inscriptions. But they did find bones. What kind of bones? Bones that would be considered KOSHER.

Here's a link to a very detailed analysis of what was found at *multiple* temples in the area. Pottery, yes, figurines, no. The purpose of the document is to analyze the dates of construction of the temples. If you read it carefully, there's an intereting detail. One of the palaces in the city suggests mesopotamian construction. Interesting. More clues to a mesopotamian origin of these people. Archealogical evidence.

The Megiddo Temples on JSTOR

Further evidence of mesopotamian origins are here:

The Discoveries at Megiddo 1935-39 on JSTOR

And summing up the reseach, it seems that the Egytpians conquered the area sometime in 1500bce. That syncs up with the timing of the inscription in 1200bce that documents the Israelite people being conquered by the Egyptians but a seed suvived.

There is very minimal evidence that these temples were used polytheistically. 3 altars were found. Maybe they were for 3 different deities. But, the Hebrew bible describes 3 altars as well, for 1 deity. So the number of altars isn't evidence of anything. And there was found a place in later construction where, maybe, a status for a god was located. That's it. The oldest evidence of the temple is from 3000bce, kosher animal bones used for offerings.​

 

[dybmh]

28:43 "I am very fond of Asherah. she has been very good to me"

There you have it. he likes this idea, so it's oerfectly natural to see this concept refelcted inplaces, where it isn't.​

"This is Asherah, the lion lady, who's been written about in many texts"

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

Um, this is a misquote. He gives several different opinions about what the figurines are.

1. Toys
2. Votive offerings "they represent human females"
3. They represent the goddess herself, I take that view

He literally says "not everyone agrees, but I think that opinion is growing"

So, no Joel, you are WRONG. You are misquoting your own source. He does not say "most", as you have put in quotes. That is FALSE. Details matter. He thinks the opinion is growing. That is NOT a concensus.

Also notice the major differencs between the picture he has on the screen as the mold for the figurines. The hair is different, the hands are different.

There's still been no evidence of God having a wife. None.

30:07 "This is the only mold that's been found, but they must have been mass produced"

Hmm, and yet the pictures of the figurines that were found everywhere are not molds. They aren't holding bread, they're holding their chest. The hair is wrong, the hands are wrong, and they weren't molds. That's a lot of differences being ignored.
​

30:27 "Look what's in her hands. The round object. Some say it's a tamborine, but a tamborine isn't played that way"

Um, sure it is. This is a primitive mold. How do you expect to represent a tamborine being played in a mold perfectly? Regardless there is debate about what this object it. It's not concensus, again.
​

30:49 "Who is the queen of heaven and why are they baking cakes for her"

What is Dever not telling you? Showbread - Wikipedia There is nothing wrong with depicitng women baking bread. The assumption is, that this is a pagan practice, baking bread. But, it's not.
​

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

Ah-ah. That's not a direct quote. He actually says it means "servant of the lioness". He also says, it's a very ancient script. How can we tell it's feminine? There's probably a huge number of assumptions being made there. Who were the lions? The tribe of Judah. Where were the arrows found? Outside of Jerusalem. So, maybe "lion" maybe "lioness", It's unlikely to be able to tell. Then we insert the word "lady", and put it after the word lion. That's not really what it says. If it says "lioness", then expanding that would be "servant of the lady lion". Not "lion lady". Two totally different meanings here. Details matter.

And, he says, that Anat, is another female deity. Not Asherah. So, why associate the arrowheads to Asherah? There is no reason. An honest description would be, this arrow head is about Anat.

Now he's changing the subject, so the arowheads are completely irrelevant to Asherah. Glad we cleared that up.
​

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

Nope, not Asherah. It's not in the canaanite texts. The closest is "atrt". That's it. So "s", ends in a "t", vowels are missing.

He keeps saying, the name on the arrow head is Asherah, but he stumbles a few times wile saying it, because, it doesn't actually say Asherah at all.

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

Right at the top of the picture, what are those figurines called? "Tambourine goddesses". And if you look closely at the pictures, they don't look like bread anymore. Dever doesn't explain this. He assumed previously that the round object was bread and not a tambourine. But, here it's clear that many people *do* think these are tambourines and not bread.

Also note, he said scholars call this goddess, simply the naked goddess. and what does Dever say? "I like to call them Asherah". No real evidence. he just "likes" it. Got it.

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

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

Well. All I see are columns with curly tops. Maybe they're trees, they're not "palm trees" and he says that. Is it a cresent moon? Umm no. Does a cresent moon actually point that way at all, in any phase of the moon? No. he says "You have to take my word for it, it's a moon." But it's not.



So, no, it's not a cresent moon, the columns don't really look like trees. I mean, maybe they do. And notice, we've completely departed from the lion motif.

So, what is the crecent shape? It's a curtain. Note that two pegs holding it up. Note the texture. That's not a moon.

Does a moon have circles at the tips? No. It's sharp and comes to a point. Is a moon ever oriented that way? No. Does the moon have parallel creases going through it? No.

Did the Hebrew bible describe their entry ways to the sacred places with curtains covering the entrance? Yes.

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

Temples were considered house of gods

OK, good, here we is a better example. Where's the crescent moon? Are those really trees? Is it the same goddess as under the pillar? Is it the same goddess as the figurines? Where's the lions? Where's the hair? Where are her hands? Where was this found? Idalion is crete, as in greece! How do we know it's Israelite?

35:15 Here's an example from trans Jordan.

It has a dove. he says the bird is a symbol of a phoenician god Tanit. Which he says is another version of Asherah. Um, so now another goddess. Blending them together. What's the actual connection? Naked, warrior, lion, and the name is originally ishtar, and seems to be borrowed from Astarte. Tanit - Wikipedia But there aren't any of these elements in the example given. It's a dove. It's an outlier.

35:22 "The old mother goddess has been around a long time"

Astarte, Ishtar, Anat, Qudush, are not mother goddesses. They're not consorts.

Where does all of this begin? It begins in canaanite religion, in approx 1400bce. When the Israelites and the Canaanites were living in close proximity. Note, the canaanites are borrowing the name Asherah.

See here: this is from a 500 page extremely detailed dissertaion on female goddesses. Note the date when the deities were being blended together in writing. I can't attach the whole pdf, it's too large. But here's a screenshot.

​

35:57 Another picture of a shrine, but, he says the columns are trees. But, they're not. This one has lions at the bottom. But the trees are missing, there's still no crescent moon in any of these. Not a single one. That's false and does nothing but exaggerate the evidence.


36:23 An Egyptian example, no trees, no moon, no lion, the goddess isn't naked, the hair is different, the hands are holding a staff. But there's a bird. All the differences are being ignored.

36:28 "another example from cyprus". Aha! Note, the complete shrine with the goddess in the window is not Israelite at all!

36:33 Anytime you see this hair style that's the egyptian cow goddess hathor.

Ummm, what? So now there's a 4th or is it 5th goddess that's being blended together. And What's this with her hair? There's plenty of pictures of hathor. The hair isn't a positive identification. Hathor - Wikipedia

35:46 examples of Ashera and temple in Egypt

No, it's not. It's just a figure in a shrine on a headress. There is no connection at all.

37:02 "There's many examples of this especially from cyprus"

Uh-huh, but not israelite examples.

37:37 There's a picture of a head rest in a tomb, and it's a curved shape, and somehow this is evidence for what? Nothing.

 

[dybmh]

37:50 - Temple Tel Arad

Oh Good, he's going to talk about this important site. You know what I notice @joelr, You skipped all of this in your comments on the video, You go from 34 minutes to 56 minutes. So there's 20 minutes of stuff in here. I wonder what it's going to say that you skipped all of that.


39:32 "At the base of the altar was found a bronze lion."

It's clear from the picture this is a male lion. Not a "lady lion".
​

40:54 "There are two standing stones, and one is shorter than the other. Originally there were three"

What doesn't he tell you? He doesn't tell you about the inscription that says House of Yahweh, and no other deity is mentioned. Then he changes the subject.
​

41:10 "They were found buried"

So these supposed standing stones, weren't actually in the locations where he says they were. And now they're assumed to be standing stones. Oooookay.
​

42:00 Here's an example of a naked female on a horse with a headress, but no lion.

And he says this is evidence that Asherah can take on many forms. Or, it's evidence that there's many different female gods. Blending them all together makes no sense. Who's temple was this anyway??? Its the Temple at Lachish. Lachish was Assyrian and Egyptian! There were three temples all built one on top of the next. How is this Israelite?

Tel Lachish - Wikipedia
The 'Lachish Reliefs' and the City of Lachish on JSTOR

42:27 - He equates Ail with Ailat, why? Because the names sound similar. See how this works?

44:14 OK, he's completely changed subjects and is now talking about trees. There's pendants with female faces on them, some of them have the same hairstyle, some don't. Some have what appears to be a little branch, or could be a feather sprouting from the bottom. Then he goes to egypt and has a picture of someone, maybe, maybe, being nursed by a tree's breast. It's pretty big stretch. But, there's no lion, no bird, no consort, no pairing. But at least we're getting closer to Asherah. All the other stuff before this has been completely irrelvant. If they dig up some stones and put them in the middle of a room, and one is shorter than the other, I guess that would be a pair.

45:57 - So he just finished convincing us that tree worship was completely anethema to Judaism. And you can find this in cyprus ( same place the shrine with the woman in the window is found ). And at a tree in desert "in the Arab world" there's people leaving prayers to trees to this day. So how is the Israelite, again?

47:39 Now we're moving on to the inscriptions. Where is this? It's a isolated area, a place where travelers would come to pray. It makes sense that it would have multiple gods represented

He also shows a picture of a complete inscription that says nothing about Asherah. "May Yahweh make it good." Note: he describes this as "ancient graffiti". Not official inscriptions by temple priests.

48:48 "There shouldn't be any israelite art that's prohibited".

That's wrong, the tabernacle in the desert had pictures of animals on the fabric walls.

49:20 Several pictures of animals, one is a MALE lion.

50:28 There's several images from pottery that needs to be redrawn and enahnced to make it out. And it's extremely bizarre. And he says that there's a woman seated far behind the other two seemingly male, maybe female, maybe both figures. The supposed female in the back is completely clothed, head to toe. There are no pronounced breasts, the hands are holding a book, maybe, there's no lions, no birds, no trees, no hairstyle, nothing that matches any of the other motifs that have been presented. And he says these are egyptian, not canaanite.


51:29 This is hilarious. Dever spends some time showing us thrones that are supposed to be lions. Then he says look at the picture on the pottery and notice that it's the same. It's nt the same at all.





That is not a lion throne!!!

52:40 "I have argued from the very beginning since the 1980's that she represents Asherah. Not everyone agrees."

So no concensus.
​

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

This is a misquote. You snipped out the most important part!!!!

But NOTE: He says that on analysis they were written by two different people!!!

53:50 The argument is that you don't have possessive pronouns on the proper names of people, but there are exceptions.

Uh-huh. he doesn' give any of those exceptions. In the mega-paper you brought there were no exceptions. There was not a single example of an inscription of a God-X and his/hers God-Y. None.​

54:42 Now we have switched venue and are talking about a tomb, not a temple.

Note: This is a stone that he bought it from a local! He doesn't know where it came from! Also note. The bottom part that supposedly says "and by his Asherah looks like a late addition by someone else.

Not only that, but let's look at the actual inscription.

Here's an example from the top lines. Notice how the inscription is pretty clear, the letters are sharp.

Now let's look at the part that seems added at the end. Notice how soft it is. And everything depends on the last letter in order for it to be "his".

what exactly is that ^^. The letters aren't clear and sharp as above. There's barely any letters at all. This is a guess.

Let's compare his reconstruction with the actual inscription. There's really only one clear letter, and the remaining letters ESPECIALLY THE LAST LETTERS are completely obscured.

56:10 "That's the way i read it, but not everyone agrees."

No concensus.
​

57:33 Here he shows you something that may be a relic from the Solomon's temple. And admits that the inscription is thought to be a forgery added later. There you go. All three of these examples show signs of being forged. Asherah ( if that's even what it says ) was added, it appears to both the inscriptions. and now he's bringing another forgery, as if that's supposed to prove anything. The only thing it proves is that people were adding to these ritual items after they were made, and the original craftsperson did not intend for thes einscriptions the way they are now.

58:02 Now we're looking a actual figurines found in Jerusalem. where's the hair? where's the bread? where's the lion? or a bird? Or anything that resembles what was previously brought? It's all missing. None of these look like they were made by a mold. These are different, and it's obvious.

The only thing is, the base of the figurine does look a little like a tree trunk. Just from a practical perspective, that could be so they can stand up on a shelf, or on furniture. So, sure, these, could be Asherim... that's what was mentioned in the bible, AsherIM. 'IM' means male. So it's not the best fit.

Also, we're looking at hand drawings. Let's look again at the real examples. They don't actually look like trees. They're just the base.




And then there's one hand drawn image of a figurine with bread in it's hands. But, I can't find any actual images of this.

59:49 - OK, now he's showing us several completely irrelevant artifacts. But, he does show us one, which he says demonstrates that Yahweh was too great to be represented, all that could be represented were his feet.

Now he's bringing archeaological evidence of Jewish monotheism. Yahweh is formless, cannotbe represented except for his feet.

1:00:00 now he shows actual figurines. Note, they match the picture I brought. Note, the hair is different, there is no bread. No dove, no lion. Nothing that relates at all to Astarte.

1:03:00 He says "In canaanite religion the female goddess is the whore, In Judah she is the goddess of sustanance. Vast Difference".

Uh-huh. So now he admits they are totally difference goddesses. He's just using the word Asherah to describe ANY female goddess in the region and beyond. Could be Egypt, could be Cyprus, could be anywhere. if it's female, it's Ashera to him.
​

1:05:00 Here he connectes Aphrodite with Asherah. why? because it's a female goddess in the nude. that's all.

1:07:00 Here he misquotes the bible. Of course. Let us make humans... that's not what it says in that verse. Then he correctly quotes it, male and female were created. But he doesn't know the difference. Common misconception.

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

Nope. The don't have all those similar features. A few of them do. They are usually egyptian. But really he just showed a bunch of female goddesses.

​

 

[dybmh]

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.

well, you said it, not me. It's not that you're an amatuer. It's that you don't read or understand the sources you bring. You ignore details. And can't seem to tell the difference between two different scholars. You misquote and misrepresent. You resort to name calling and spamming the thread with repeat videos. You strawman, like constantly. Those are your problems as I see it.

Now, lt's look at the details you miss in the noah's flood story, or the scholarship you've copied from has missed the details... either way.

The flood lasted 40 days.
And the flood was forty days upon the earth. Genesis 7:17

What does it mean that the flood was upon the earth? It means it was raining. It doesn't mean that that as the end of the flood. How do we know? because that's what it says, just a few verses back. You even quoted those verses a little later.

And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

See. You quoted it, but, for whatever reason, you ignore it. Or maybe your source ignores it. Either way. it rained for 40 days, 40 nights. Anyone who knows the story knows this. And it's clearly stated.

The flood lasted 150 days.
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. Genesis 7:24

Yup. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Then there's 7 verses describing how the water continued to rise and continued to thrash everyone around. And here we are 7 verses later saying that the *water* not the flood continued for 150 days.

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

Uh-huh. where's the problem?

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

Yup.

No, some survived.

Nope.

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

Yup.

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

Who's Anak? He didn't live pre-flood. Who are the giants? They are the children of angels right? That's from the verse you just quoted, Gen 6:4. Were the angels killed in the flood? No. So no contradiction. Nice try though.

Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark. Genesis 6:19

yup. All flesh. 2 of every sort

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

yup. They all entered 2x2. Clean and unclean

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

Yup. There's no problem yet.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female. Genesis 7:2

Yup, the clean animals were taken 7 pairs each. No contradiction

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

Yup.

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

Where's the contradiction? This is what I said before. They went into the ark, it starts raining. it takes 7 days for the flood to fill / cover the earth. How long do you think it would take for rain to cover and flood the whole earth. I know it's a myth, but, d you think it magically poofed and all of a sudden in one day the earth was flooded?

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

yup

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

Uh-huh. The ark is in the water. The mountains are in the water. The bottom of the ark in the water rested on the mountains that were in the water. Then later, the water recedes, nd the mountain can be seen. This is pretty simple.

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

yup

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

Yes, the water dried off the earth, that means on top of it. Then the earth was dried. Again, I know this is a myth, but, do you think that the water would go away and immediately after the earth would be dry enought ot walk on. These aren't contradictions.

 

[joelr]

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.

That is according to scripture. It' clear that for many centuries the Israelites worshipped male and female deities, had religious art and images of Gods.

Matthew is a creative re-interpretation of Mark, is anonymous, not an eye-witness and basically a re-write of a myth.

 

[joelr]

@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.

Equally as ridiculous. You cannot debunk the field so call my source insane. That says nothing.
All I do is respond to time wasting posts about how this scholar is "insane" or you "don't agree" yet are not qualifies to disagree as you like to often point out about any source that isn't a PhD.

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

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

https://madainproject.com/tel_arad_temple
First I wasn't ignoring it, I said Yahweh was worshipped with a female deity. Point being the Bible is not an accurate picture of what the Israelites actually were like. Point proven.

Now, as to these temples, a leading biblical archeologist says these are not typical examples of what the religious climate was like.

file:///Users/joelrivard/Downloads/religions-10-00106.pdf

Still, a detailed study of the archaeological evidence on Israelite cult reveals that Israelite cultic buildings were extremely rare, both in absolute terms and when compared to other ancient Near Eastern societies, suggesting that cultic activity in temples was the exception rather than the norm and that typical Israelite cult was practiced in the household and in other, non-temple settings. Hence, the evidence suggests that ratherthan viewing temples, like the one in Arad, as exemplifying typical cultic activity, they should be viewed as exceptions that require a special explanation

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

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.

Right, I should accept consensus opinion, which I do, meanwhile you deny it. More inconsistent rubbish.

Dever mentioned this - "No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt."

in the interview you seemingly read. It's an inscription. The consensus opinion is what Dr Baden explained. They came from Canaan.
I do not care what you accept. That is the most likely truth.


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

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.

Imagine that, I get sloppy after having to correct 15 nonsense posts, containing zero counter information, all denial of scholarship and pointless points about how a few people may have come from Egypt? As if that has anything to do with the point?

Spoiler: Screenshot

View attachment 71099

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.

Another topic you abused. The consensus puts the Israelites far after Mesopotamian myths were written. Although there isn't evidence of oral stories it doesn't matter. Sometime around 1000 BCE some scholar read Mesopotamian myths and maybe began an oral story. Evidence does not back that up.
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.



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

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.

If you agree it's mythology then great, we agree.

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

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.

The lecture from Dever provides more than enough evidence to demonstrate a female deity was worshipped. The name doesn't matter, my position is th eBible is not an accurate picture and you understood this from the start.

In fact, post #383 - "Early religious sites show Yahweh was worshipped with his consort Ashera in many homes."

"There is no doubt among historical scholarship that Genesis and other myths in the OT are taken from Mesopotamian sources and later theology from Persian."

MANY HOMES a female goddess was worshipped. The evidence bears this out.

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

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.

Great, that backs up what I've been saying all along. The Israelites did not come from Egypt as Exodus says but were Canaanites who moved to the hills. This is excellent evidence, and it shows they were not around as a formed nation until 1000 BCE.

There is no evidence that monotheism was a big part of the religion. Whatever you are going for here, looking for something, anything to show some sort of issue on my part is pointless. Yes I'm getting fed up with responding to nothingness.

 

[joelr]

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

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

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...al-first-and-last.266342/page-23#post-8007184

The Persian thing isn't a debate. Messianic ideas, end times and a resurrection for everyone is part of Judaism and it shows up after the Persian occupation.

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

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.

Sorry, you are not qualified to change Boyce's opinions based on evidence. She feels the Israelites were influenced by the Persian theology.
As F.S. explains, it happens subtley. A religious thinker one days claims.."we are also getting a messiah" and then they too beging getting revelations about a coming messiah, and they too are going to have the end times with a resurrection for all.

From a Jewish theology site:



In spite of the scholarship debate over the application of the title “Servant” in the opening verses of Isaiah 42, the majority of ancient Jewish commentators have interpreted Isaiah 42:1-4 to refer to the King Messiah.


In the second part of scroll of Isaiah there are four distinct Messianic servant prophecies (Isaiah 42:1-7; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12).


It’s important to understand and distinguish between the two types of servant prophecies. The Brit Ha-Chadashah (NT) applies the Messianic Servant passages of Isaiah to Yeshua (Jesus) the King Messiah (Matt. 12:17-20, Luke 2:32; 4:16-18, Acts 8:30-35).


In Isaiah 42:1-4 it is clear that the servant is an individual who has been given the Ruach Ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) and called to establish justice in the land (earth).


Isa 42:2 He will not cry out, lo-yisa nor exalt Himself (endure, resist, lift up), nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.


“He will not strive, nor cry; neither will any man hear his voice in the streets.” -Matthew 12:19


“He will not lift up his voice…” - Yarchi, Kimchi, & Ben Melech


To put it concisely, He will not seek glory for Himself or cry out in defence of Himself.


Isa 42:3 Kaneh A reed ratzutz crushed, (bruised, oppressed) lo He will not break, and the smoking flax (a dying flame) He will not quench: le-emet for truth He will bring forth judgment.


“A bruised reed He will not break, and dying flame He will not put out, until He sends forth judgment to victory.” -Matthew 12:20


Notice that the Septuagint (Greek OT) version quoted by Matthew (Levi) further illuminates the form that the judgement Messiah brings will take. His judgement will bring about the immutable truth of all things and victory over judgement that condemns, for those who receive Him.


"The meek, who are like a bruised reed, shall not be broken; and the poor, who are as obscure as flax (or a lamp ready to go out), shall not be extinct:'' -Targum Yonatan


“Ratzutz” describes something cracked, that is, half broken. Thus, it is inferred that not only will He not break it, He will also restore it.


Isa 42:4 He will not yichheh grow weak (fail, be faint, be restrained) nor be yarutz discouraged (crushed, oppressed), until He has yasiym set (appointed) mishpat judgment ba-aretz in the land (earth): u’torato and His Torah will be awaited by the iyiym islands (coastlands, Mediterranean).


The Servant (Yeshua) is now identified alongside the figures of the previous verse. He will both ensure the restoration of the broken (v.3) and remain in strength to bring about justice in the land of Israel (v.4). Thus, the Torah (Instruction) He imparts will bear fruit among the nations. Notice that the Torah is His. Both the literal Torah of Moses and the living Torah (Instruction) of the Messiah are born of His authorship. Messiah is the author and goal of the Torah (Romans 10:4).


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

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.

I'm sorry, the debate is over. You spent 15 posts denying scholarship, calling scholars delusional, picking at nonsense points. Now it appears you did this to waste enough time to get to a point where you can now claim I'm "spamming endlessly" and put it in a bad light.
I'm not falling for this, which was spoken about already.
I have given enough sources. It's clear now that even if you have no argument against the source or consensus you will just call them "delusional", or simply say they are wrong.
Meanwhile anytime I use anything less than a PhD they are automatically disqualified to weigh in.
Yet you want to change a consensus opinion. Even when the last video linked to was an apologist attempting to debunk intertextuality by using superficial comparisons. Which they explained was a huge mistake and lack of education.

Then I get a new fallacy, now I have to "bring something new" as if the consensus isn't enough. Or, oh yeah, since you "debunked " it. Or one source was "delusional". Right. Oh please, I hop you will quote my new sources and please keep stringing me along so you can just again use complete denial, and use a lack of personal education to tell scholars what is correct?
"New paradim". HA.

 

[joelr]

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.

Again, you gift me posts that make my point. First making fun of an entire consensus in a field shows a massive disingenuous streak. But then making fun of intertexuality when:
1)you asked how this was determined, made a criticism that I didn't explain deeper
2) so now we get into a small study of examples and you put it down claiming it doesn't mean anything. Yet you asked for more information
sound familiar? This is an argument style of which I will not say. But you can never argue with this because they will resort to any measure. Even just saying "wrong"..
3)the video does explain how it's a mistake to use a superficial understanding of intertextuality as the apologist does
4) earlier I source people with Masters and non-PhD researchers and they are immediately DISqualified because they are not experts and are not allowed to weigh in.
YET, now the consensus of the people who are allowed is treated as if it's meaningless. Oddly, just when I demonstrate it's definitely the consensus.
Then, suddenly it's discounted, spoken about in a sarcastic way and also made to look like a fallacy. Suddenly.......right when the information is enough to prove consensus.
5) Oh, and there are "no real examples" and I'm just "name dropping" despite the last issue was "ok so it's the consensus but WHY? You haven't shown HOW THEY KNOW?".........

this. This is all dishonest and a huge waste of time.

This ENTIRE RESPONSE is just managing poor form, fallacies, dishonest tricks


Once again. I do not care if you use denial, I am interested in what is true. But I am done with playing games.

 

[joelr]

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.

View attachment 71089

Ha. Well some are in Jerusalem and even the Biblical society and archaeologists were uncomfortable admiting they were Israelites. But the evidence was enough to demonstrate it was. Yahweh is also in the mix.
Dever explains everything. There is no doubt many Israelite religions were worshipping a female goddess.

The hairstyle is explained a bit in the video. It's associated with female deities in Egypt, Canaan and other nearby nations. So were lions and palm trees in the doorway of the temples.
The evidence is strong. You don't need to watch the video. Dever is convinced and there is good evidence. I'm looking for what is true. You do you.

 

[joelr]

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

View attachment 71100

From the Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

The Israelite people existed before 1300BCE.



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

The original was 2100, re-written a few times. The Merneptah inscription is an inscription. The lines are talking about a campaign in Canaan.
Also the date -
"The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele or the Victory Stele of Merneptah, is an inscription by Merneptah, a pharaoh in ancient Egypt who reigned from 1213–1203 BCE.

That isn't before 1300 BCE, because of....math. An area of Canaanites maybe were calling themself Israelites before they moved out or were in a separate part of Canaan or nearby? Could be a small village? That is what Dr Baden said, Canaanites moved out and formed small villages.

The source material for Genesis is older by far. Dever and Baden both understand this fact, what is this supposed to demonstrate?

 

[joelr]

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

Show me God taking the name of Leviathan.

It's in the video.

 

[joelr]

OK, so, the video basically says, no, not stolen. And that's why the word stolen is in quotes in the title.

That's pretty much the whole point. They critisize this particular youtube video. Saying that they don't define terms and that they misrepresent, making grand conclusions that aren't true. That this youtube video ignores details and ignores the actual conclusion that scholars are making. Yeah, that's a problem. I see a lot of that in this debate.

What's most important about the video is, it refutes this idea of syncretism.

Syncretism: the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

The video clearly states, that these intertexual links ( if they actually exist ) do demonstrate individual and unique theological differences. Even if there was influence, the influence was used as a polemic to communicate a completely different theology. That's not syncretism.

What you described is syncretism. Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern Strom deity. Syncretism. Moses birth, syncretic. Messianic saviors, end of the world, everyone resurrects, Persian.

 

[joelr]

14:10 The introducer says "The notion that the God of Israel having a wife is difficult to swallow. And like other topics dealt by Bill [ William Dever ] is still debated by scholars."

Uh-huh. No concensus, still debated. And this is common for the topics Dever researches.
​

17:27 Dever is now speaking: "Tonight I want to talk about folk religion."

Look at that! That's exactly what I said. It's a folk religion.
​

OK, this is not a word for word quote. There's details missing. What details? These were "temple elites" and "court elites". The temple and the court are large intitutions. Unless these institutions magically poofed into existence, this shows that the religion rendered into the bible predated the bible.

Also, the stories in the bible were written after the events took place sometimes cetnuries later. That means making unqualified statements about the bible being "written" post exile, which is what you've been doing, Joel, leads to a false conclusion. Dever is saying the stories were compiled over time. As Dr. Baden said, these things can be misinterpretted. As Francesca said, some parts of the bible may be ancient. She cited psalms and dueternonomy ( both have verses proclaiming strict monotheism ). And most recently, Dr. Kipp Davis discourages making a grand conclusion that the elites gathered around and wrote the bible out of whole cloth. He says, that is NOT what scholars are saying. And here we have Dever saying the same thing.
​

18:48 "The bible is a minority report"

Yes! That's what I said. "Judaism has always been the minority position." Double vindication. Remember how you keep saying I'm imagining things? And yet whenever we examine the details, it turns out I'm right? Yup. Here it is again.
​

19:16 "The bible is a secondary source"

So the bible can be used as a source. Interesting. So mesopotamian nomads 2000bce as the origins of Jewish culture is still on the table.
​

21:57 "Matzevot/Matzebot were acceptable in early Judaism but were prohibited later by the monarchy"

Yes, Jacob was most famous for it, Moses did it, and then after the Jewish people had demonstrated they had trouble with idol worship, it was abolished. So, to be clear, these standing stones are not a canaanite practice.

Also, if you look at the picture, all that's there is a series of 5 stones in a row. Kind of difficult to conclude what those are.
​

22:38 "Here is a Bamah, what's wrong with that? The bible mentions in the book of Kings a bamah at Dan, this could very well be it."

Wow, the bible was accurate about this detail? Could be.
​

22:51 "They're [ bamot ] always condemned at least in the later portions of the Hebrew bible"

I'm pretty sure this is false. The commandment in the later Hebrew bible says to abolish all of "their" bamot. It's not prohibited to have a bamah.
​

24:18 "In the bible the borders of israel are from Dan to Beer-Sheba"

Interesting. This is on the border.
​

OK. Good. There's the pictures of figurines. This isn't a quote. Does Dever tell you where these figurines were found? No. If you pay close attention to the details, he has switched topics a little. Just a few seconds earlier, he describes an olive pressing installation. Where is this installation "at another cultic site". Not in the temple, near the temple, maybe, but not in the temple itself. Then he shows us pictures of the figurines. Where were the figurines found? Not in the temple!

For confirmation, here's a detailed description of the excavation at Dan. They have the same pictures of the same figurines. And they confirm it was NOT in the temple.

Two Discoveries at Tel Dan on JSTOR

Details matter.

Now. Notice, a few minutes earlier he shows a picture of a 4 horned alter found at Beer-sheba. Another border town, remember. There were also polythiestic pagan artifacts found there. Guess where they were found? Outside the temple, in what appear to homes and maybe a shop.

Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba on JSTOR

So, the pattern is, the people were polytheistic in the border areas, but in spite of that, the temples weren't. Does any of this support a conclusion that God had a wife? No. Not a single one. It shows that the people were polytheistic, but, the temple remained pure. Pure like the temple at Tel Arad.​

Note: We have now changed location. we are now exploring what Dever calls a family shrine. Not a temple. A place where he says multiple familes joined to do various activities.

Also, it's not a figurine. It's on an altar. Let's not mix up the details.

He says this is clearly israelite. Um, how do you come up with that conclusion?

This location has been conquered by various peoples, at various times. It's a very old city. We really don't know who's god this is.

Then he directs us to the bottom of the statue, where there is a female figure holding onto the ears of two lions. Hmmm. Take note of the placement of the hands. Not on the breasts. The breasts aren't prominent. Also, look at the hair. Is it the same "hairstyle as the figurines" ( the ones that have hair, that is )? No, its not.

Also note, he says this is a figurine of a "mother goddess". No. The canaanite Astarte, is not a mother, is no one's consort. She's a warrior, she's independant. Are there any other gods or goddesses at this site, are there any other gods or goddesses on this pillar? No and No.

Note: He says, he "argues" that this is Asherah. No concensus on who this figure is.

What else is Dever leaving out? Theres an extremely important archealogical find in this area. It's a temple estimated to have been constructed 3000bce. Hear that? 3000bce. What have they found there? Bones used in sacrifice. no figurines, no polythiesitc inscriptions. But they did find bones. What kind of bones? Bones that would be considered KOSHER.

Here's a link to a very detailed analysis of what was found at *multiple* temples in the area. Pottery, yes, figurines, no. The purpose of the document is to analyze the dates of construction of the temples. If you read it carefully, there's an intereting detail. One of the palaces in the city suggests mesopotamian construction. Interesting. More clues to a mesopotamian origin of these people. Archealogical evidence.

The Megiddo Temples on JSTOR

Further evidence of mesopotamian origins are here:

The Discoveries at Megiddo 1935-39 on JSTOR

And summing up the reseach, it seems that the Egytpians conquered the area sometime in 1500bce. That syncs up with the timing of the inscription in 1200bce that documents the Israelite people being conquered by the Egyptians but a seed suvived.

There is very minimal evidence that these temples were used polytheistically. 3 altars were found. Maybe they were for 3 different deities. But, the Hebrew bible describes 3 altars as well, for 1 deity. So the number of altars isn't evidence of anything. And there was found a place in later construction where, maybe, a status for a god was located. That's it. The oldest evidence of the temple is from 3000bce, kosher animal bones used for offerings.​

You are not qualified to weigh in on ancient archeology. Just like if I sourced another random internet dude saying Dever was correct you would reject it.
You are still on about the fantasy that the Epic of Gilamesh was written in 2100 and then Israelites went back in time and influenced them. Despite the vast consensus that it's clear that that material served as a source for Genesis.
Despite there are ways to tell which story is doing the borrowing and which is the source.

A mock temple was found with a God/Goddess inside. I don't care if it's called "folk religion" the point is the Bible is not an accurate picture of what was happening.

"Maybe" near the temple??? Wow. Dever, the actual qualified expert feels the evidence says the majority worshipped a female deity. The lecture gives an overview. He's going by his 30+ years in the field and knowledge of other finds. So now internet forum guy is going to write to William Dever and suggest some corrections. Uh huh.

 

[joelr]

28:43 "I am very fond of Asherah. she has been very good to me"

There you have it. he likes this idea, so it's oerfectly natural to see this concept refelcted inplaces, where it isn't.​

"This is Asherah, the lion lady, who's been written about in many texts"


Um, this is a misquote. He gives several different opinions about what the figurines are.

1. Toys
2. Votive offerings "they represent human females"
3. They represent the goddess herself, I take that view

He literally says "not everyone agrees, but I think that opinion is growing"

So, no Joel, you are WRONG. You are misquoting your own source. He does not say "most", as you have put in quotes. That is FALSE. Details matter. He thinks the opinion is growing. That is NOT a concensus.

Also notice the major differencs between the picture he has on the screen as the mold for the figurines. The hair is different, the hands are different.
[
There's still been no evidence of God having a wife. None.

You have misquoted. HE said some EARLIER GENERATION scholars THOUGHT they were toys and states THEY ARE NOT TOYS.

29:50, "and I connect them with the goddess Ashera as most scholars do in some way"


I was not wrong.

30:07 "This is the only mold that's been found, but they must have been mass produced"

Hmm, and yet the pictures of the figurines that were found everywhere are not molds. They aren't holding bread, they're holding their chest. The hair is wrong, the hands are wrong, and they weren't molds. That's a lot of differences being ignored.
​

30:27 "Look what's in her hands. The round object. Some say it's a tamborine, but a tamborine isn't played that way"

Um, sure it is. This is a primitive mold. How do you expect to represent a tamborine being played in a mold perfectly? Regardless there is debate about what this object it. It's not concensus, again.
​

30:49 "Who is the queen of heaven and why are they baking cakes for her"

What is Dever not telling you? Showbread - Wikipedia There is nothing wrong with depicitng women baking bread. The assumption is, that this is a pagan practice, baking bread. But, it's not.
​

Ah-ah. That's not a direct quote. He actually says it means "servant of the lioness". He also says, it's a very ancient script. How can we tell it's feminine? There's probably a huge number of assumptions being made there. Who were the lions? The tribe of Judah. Where were the arrows found? Outside of Jerusalem. So, maybe "lion" maybe "lioness", It's unlikely to be able to tell. Then we insert the word "lady", and put it after the word lion. That's not really what it says. If it says "lioness", then expanding that would be "servant of the lady lion". Not "lion lady". Two totally different meanings here. Details matter.

And, he says, that Anat, is another female deity. Not Asherah. So, why associate the arrowheads to Asherah? There is no reason. An honest description would be, this arrow head is about Anat.

Now he's changing the subject, so the arowheads are completely irrelevant to Asherah. Glad we cleared that up.
​

Nope, not Asherah. It's not in the canaanite texts. The closest is "atrt". That's it. So "s", ends in a "t", vowels are missing.

He keeps saying, the name on the arrow head is Asherah, but he stumbles a few times wile saying it, because, it doesn't actually say Asherah at all.



Right at the top of the picture, what are those figurines called? "Tambourine goddesses". And if you look closely at the pictures, they don't look like bread anymore. Dever doesn't explain this. He assumed previously that the round object was bread and not a tambourine. But, here it's clear that many people *do* think these are tambourines and not bread.

Also note, he said scholars call this goddess, simply the naked goddess. and what does Dever say? "I like to call them Asherah". No real evidence. he just "likes" it. Got it.






Well. All I see are columns with curly tops. Maybe they're trees, they're not "palm trees" and he says that. Is it a cresent moon? Umm no. Does a cresent moon actually point that way at all, in any phase of the moon? No. he says "You have to take my word for it, it's a moon." But it's not.

View attachment 71166

So, no, it's not a cresent moon, the columns don't really look like trees. I mean, maybe they do. And notice, we've completely departed from the lion motif.

So, what is the crecent shape? It's a curtain. Note that two pegs holding it up. Note the texture. That's not a moon.

View attachment 71167



Does a moon have circles at the tips? No. It's sharp and comes to a point. Is a moon ever oriented that way? No. Does the moon have parallel creases going through it? No.

Did the Hebrew bible describe their entry ways to the sacred places with curtains covering the entrance? Yes.



OK, good, here we is a better example. Where's the crescent moon? Are those really trees? Is it the same goddess as under the pillar? Is it the same goddess as the figurines? Where's the lions? Where's the hair? Where are her hands? Where was this found? Idalion is crete, as in greece! How do we know it's Israelite?

35:15 Here's an example from trans Jordan.

It has a dove. he says the bird is a symbol of a phoenician god Tanit. Which he says is another version of Asherah. Um, so now another goddess. Blending them together. What's the actual connection? Naked, warrior, lion, and the name is originally ishtar, and seems to be borrowed from Astarte. Tanit - Wikipedia But there aren't any of these elements in the example given. It's a dove. It's an outlier.

35:22 "The old mother goddess has been around a long time"

Astarte, Ishtar, Anat, Qudush, are not mother goddesses. They're not consorts.

Where does all of this begin? It begins in canaanite religion, in approx 1400bce. When the Israelites and the Canaanites were living in close proximity. Note, the canaanites are borrowing the name Asherah.

See here: this is from a 500 page extremely detailed dissertaion on female goddesses. Note the date when the deities were being blended together in writing. I can't attach the whole pdf, it's too large. But here's a screenshot.

View attachment 71171

​

35:57 Another picture of a shrine, but, he says the columns are trees. But, they're not. This one has lions at the bottom. But the trees are missing, there's still no crescent moon in any of these. Not a single one. That's false and does nothing but exaggerate the evidence.


36:23 An Egyptian example, no trees, no moon, no lion, the goddess isn't naked, the hair is different, the hands are holding a staff. But there's a bird. All the differences are being ignored.

36:28 "another example from cyprus". Aha! Note, the complete shrine with the goddess in the window is not Israelite at all!

36:33 Anytime you see this hair style that's the egyptian cow goddess hathor.

Ummm, what? So now there's a 4th or is it 5th goddess that's being blended together. And What's this with her hair? There's plenty of pictures of hathor. The hair isn't a positive identification. Hathor - Wikipedia



No, it's not. It's just a figure in a shrine on a headress. There is no connection at all.

37:02 "There's many examples of this especially from cyprus"

Uh-huh, but not israelite examples.

37:37 There's a picture of a head rest in a tomb, and it's a curved shape, and somehow this is evidence for what? Nothing.

You are not remotely qualified to be interpreting archaeological finds from religions you literally know nothing about. Dever says he sees goddess symbols his opinion is qualified.
The goddesses are consorts because they are sometimes found alongside a male deity.

This video alone presents excellent evidence that what Dever is saying is correct. A cursory, amateur reading of photos is completely meaningless.
Your evidence is literally nothing.
Again I do not care if denial is your thing. Avoid what is true all you like.
You have already demonstrated you will just resort to dishonesty and call scholars "delusional" or simply deny a consensus demonstrated in textbook after textbook.
Not only is your opinion amateur here it's disqualified by your rules. Once someone is dishonest they are out.

 

[joelr]

37:50 - Temple Tel Arad

Oh Good, he's going to talk about this important site. You know what I notice @joelr, You skipped all of this in your comments on the video, You go from 34 minutes to 56 minutes. So there's 20 minutes of stuff in here. I wonder what it's going to say that you skipped all of that.

​

I skipped material because it wasn't finds related to Ashera.
Wow you have a lot of archaeological opinions about photos, do you have a PhD and field experience?
An actual archaeologist seems to think these finds demonstrate a goddess was part of early Israelite religion. One who understands what to look for and saw the actual finds.
Good for you, writing off intertexuality and now archaeology with that confirmation bias.

 

[101G]

That is according to scripture. It' clear that for many centuries the Israelites worshipped male and female deities, had religious art and images of Gods.

101G can careless what someone worshipped many centuries ago.

now if you want to discuss the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES, which is my evidence, that do not change lets discuss.

101G.

 

[joelr]

well, you said it, not me. It's not that you're an amatuer. It's that you don't read or understand the sources you bring. You ignore details. And can't seem to tell the difference between two different scholars. You misquote and misrepresent. You resort to name calling and spamming the thread with repeat videos. You strawman, like constantly. Those are your problems as I see it.

"You ignore details". - No, you present mundane details as if they matter. Like a few slaves may have come up from Egypt so Exodus is real.

"And can't seem to tell the difference between two different scholars." - yes I got tired after looking at 15 posts of pure nonsense, denial, nitpicking, zero points that mattered, calling scholars "delusional" as if that solves that, flat out denial of the consensus, complete desperation to save face, which did nothing except tire me out

"You misquote and misrepresent." right like the Dever quote which you didn't listen to. And nitpicking details and thinking it changes the entire point.

"You resort to name calling " no that was you calling a scholar delusional.

"spamming the thread with repeat videos." - had you accepted the consensus I would have stopped but you resisted so I had to post more evidence. Of course you would use this against me. Ask for information and then claim it's too much. Hmmmmmm, that sounds like a familiar style of argument that isn't very honest.

"You strawman, like constantly. " By constantly you mean NEVER. I stated the facts. Genesis is sourced by Mesopotamian myths. As are other things in the OT.
Ashera or some goddess was part of Israelite beliefs, unlike what the Bible claims.

But thanks for listing all my fake problems. My arguments were proven a long time ago. But knowing what happens when I do make my case I never care to discuss anything with you again.

Now, lt's look at the details you miss in the noah's flood story, or the scholarship you've copied from has missed the details... either way.
What does it mean that the flood was upon the earth? It means it was raining. It doesn't mean that that as the end of the flood. How do we know? because that's what it says, just a few verses back. You even quoted those verses a little later.
See. You quoted it, but, for whatever reason, you ignore it. Or maybe your source ignores it. Either way. it rained for 40 days, 40 nights. Anyone who knows the story knows this. And it's clearly stated.
Yup. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Then there's 7 verses describing how the water continued to rise and continued to thrash everyone around. And here we are 7 verses later saying that the *water* not the flood continued for 150 days.

Uh-huh. where's the problem?
Yup. Nope.Yup.Who's Anak? He didn't live pre-flood. Who are the giants? They are the children of angels right? That's from the verse you just quoted, Gen 6:4. Were the angels killed in the flood? No. So no contradiction. Nice try though.yup. All flesh. 2 of every sortyup. They all entered 2x2. Clean and uncleanYup. There's no problem yet.Yup, the clean animals were taken 7 pairs each. No contradictionYup.Where's the contradiction? This is what I said before. They went into the ark, it starts raining. it takes 7 days for the flood to fill / cover the earth. How long do you think it would take for rain to cover and flood the whole earth. I know it's a myth, but, d you think it magically poofed and all of a sudden in one day the earth was flooded?yupUh-huh. The ark is in the water. The mountains are in the water. The bottom of the ark in the water rested on the mountains that were in the water. Then later, the water recedes, nd the mountain can be seen. This is pretty simple.yupYes, the water dried off the earth, that means on top of it. Then the earth was dried. Again, I know this is a myth, but, do you think that the water would go away and immediately after the earth would be dry enought ot walk on. These aren't contradictions.

Oh wow, thanks for those apologetics that don't fix anything except apologists minds. A Harvard PhD can recognize clear and obvious contradictions yet the apologists have corrected him?
Take it up with Dr Baden. Please source a PhD historian who agrees with this ridiculous conflation.

Oh you forgot? Sorry, I guess you forget when it's convenient , amateur interpretations do not trump experts with a PhD in the field. You have been making that clear. So source someone if those apologetics are so great.
I am interested in what is true, not denial and confirmation bias, when all scholars are saying there are obvious contradictions they are probably on to something.
When only amateur apologists with an agenda to make the Bible something it isn't seem to agree on something it's sketchy to say the least. However contradictions in scripture are really not important, it does look like 2 stories were used. Experts often agree. Don't care. It's a myth. One or two, doesn't matter if it's a perfect myth with no contradictions. There isn't anything there related to my original point.

 

[dybmh]

Equally as ridiculous. You cannot debunk the field so call my source insane. That says nothing.

He sounded delusional in the video. The claim was "The differences show they were borrowing". And he was emphatically gesturing, raising his voice, and repeating himself. This notion that diamterically opposing themes and imagery is evidence of copying is insane. Two culures meet, and one says the gods are evil, the other one says, that's interesting ours is opposite. That's not borrowing, that's two cultures meeting with two different god concepts.

All I do is respond to time wasting posts about how this scholar is "insane" or you "don't agree" yet are not qualifies to disagree as you like to often point out about any source that isn't a PhD.

No, what I pointed out was you claimed all of your sources are peer-reviewed PHDs. But They're not. When you told me to go find peer-reviewed material, I pointed out that you weren't providing peer-reviewed material.

First I wasn't ignoring it, I said Yahweh was worshipped with a female deity. Point being the Bible is not an accurate picture of what the Israelites actually were like. Point proven.

Except, none of the evidence shows Yahweh is worshipped with a female deity. Watch the Dever video. 50+ minutes of examples of femle goddesses not a single one of them paired with a male god. Not one. The temples don't have these elements. The homes don't have Yahweh at all. The family shrines only have 1 deity represented. The only evidence that's left is the very very weak evidence from 2 inscriptions, both appear to have been forgeries where the second deity ( or whatever it is ) was added after the fact by a different person than the one who was supplicating to Yahweh. And the iconography on the pottery for one of these inscriptions isn't yahweh, dever says its an egyptian god named Bes. The supposed "asherah" doesn't match a single one of the female goddesses, the best Dever can do is compare it to an egyptian throne, but even that doesn't match.

Regarding monotheism. Yes, you were either ignoring it, or were not aware of it. See below

Jewish is a late term. The early religions were not monotheism and neither was the Israelite religion until around 600 BCE when they encountered the Persians who were.

During the 2nd Temple Period they took the Persian concepts, monotheism

But now you are admitting that yes, there was monotheism. But it wasn't popular and didn't describe the common practices.

Now, as to these temples, a leading biblical archeologist says these are not typical examples of what the religious climate was like.

And, so, we agree. Judaism has always been the minority position. I've said that multiple times already. It's not that it never existed before 600bce. It simply wasn't popular. Why would a group of people "return" to their roots after being freed from exile and "returning" to their homeland? Well, that's obvious.

Still, a detailed study of the archaeological evidence on Israelite cult reveals that Israelite cultic buildings were extremely rare, both in absolute terms and when compared to other ancient Near Eastern societies, suggesting that cultic activity in temples was the exception rather than the norm and that typical Israelite cult was practiced in the household and in other, non-temple settings. Hence, the evidence suggests that ratherthan viewing temples, like the one in Arad, as exemplifying typical cultic activity, they should be viewed as exceptions that require a special explanation

These are instituitions, they don't just poof magically into existence. They take people to support them, to operate them, to bring offerings to them. These are evidence of monotheistic institutions.

Right, I should accept consensus opinion, which I do, meanwhile you deny it. More inconsistent rubbish.

No, I question it. I examine it when it doesn't make sense.

Dever mentioned this - "No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt."

And Dr. Baden disagreed and said there is evidence of semetic people arriving in egypt, enslaved in egypt, and leaving egypt headed for Canaan. Please see the attached 50 page reseach paper which brings the archeological evidence in magnificent detail.

Pictures of the heirogliphics are there. Translations and sources of the egyptian inscriptions are there. A Joseph type figure is identified. There's eve reference to a potential Moses figure named Irsu. Goshen is identified, the location of the slave labor camps are identified, where the slaves were doing the construction is identified. Reasons to believe that these slaves are part of the pre-Israelite people are there. It describes how the conclusion is made that slaves routinely escaped and headed to canaan. It also backs up my observation that Mediggo was an early Israelite city. Whom does the inscription claimed lived there? The tribe of Asher. Before the settlements, before the supposed fictive kinship. There's archeological evidence of the tribe of Asher. And like I said, the timing all syncs up.

It also brings the counter arguments, when a claim is weak it explains why, when a claim is strong it explains why. If there's debate it brings both sides. Eveything is footnoted. It's a great paper. And now you have a complete and detailed answer to why Dr. Baden said, there were were slaves and an exodus just not the way the bible describes, and there's evidence of these slaves leaving and heading for egypt.

Also, there's Sania 115. It's new, discovered in 2012, and reported in 2016. This is evidence of Israelites in Egypt as far back as 1800bce.

Expert claims inscriptions from Egyptian exodus proves Hebrew is world’s oldest alphabet

in the interview you seemingly read. It's an inscription. The consensus opinion is what Dr Baden explained. They came from Canaan.
I do not care what you accept. That is the most likely truth.

There's quite a bit of good evidence that Israelites were in egypt too. Drought conditions sent some of them to egypt, they were enslaved, left, and returned to their kin in canaan.