JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[joelr]

Again, preaching.

He sees things that aren't there. The cresent moon, isn't there. That is obvious..

Obvious to the amateur. And now, after "delusional" historians, now we have archaeologists who are seeing things that are not there. Whatever.

And female goddesses next to a male god can be protectors, not wives. There was not a single example of these goddesses paired up in the video. They are independent warrior types. That's in the paper I posted about lion goddesses..

Right, what is th epaper you are sourcing that says supreme Gods had "protectors", and they had breasts?

You can't refute any of my arguments. So, there's the adhom. The sign of a weakness.

You don't have any arguments. You are an amateur and don't understand artifacts. An expert is telling you, meanwhile confirmation bias is making you say bizarre things and think you are suddenly an expert.

Wrong, Joel. everyone knows that the bible confirms worship of the female deity. What's missing is this whole Yahweh having a wife. And there's really very little evidence of that. As I've said from the beginning, and confirmed by the Dever video.

Except the evidence of the leading biblical archaeologist saying the evidence is good that Yahweh had a consort. Well, an amateur internet forum poster disagrees, so.......

 

[joelr]

OK, Just to be clear, this has a lot of things listed which are not in the Hebrwe bible. But, regarding the ressurection at the end of days, it doesn't say "all" will be ressurected. It does say "cosmic saviour", though. And that does not describe the jewish Moshiach, the future king of prophecy.

Future king? Sounds like a Persian messianic savior.

 

[joelr]

View attachment 71247

View attachment 71248

OK, here we have another example. The sources in the video make a claim. For someone like me, someone who knows the Hebrew bible pretty well. I objected.

Let's look at each of these verses.

Psalms 74:12-13

ואלהים מלכי מקדם פעל ישועות בקרב הארץ׃
For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.

אתה פוררת בעזך ים שברת ראשי תנינים על־המים׃
You parted the sea by your strength; you broke the heads of the crocodiles in the waters.​

There's the word Taninim. And God is not inheritting its name. So that's false.

Job 3:8

יקבהו אררי־יום העתידים ערר לויתן׃
Let those who curse the day curse it, who are ready to rouse up Leviathan.

Here's the word leviathan. God is not inheritting anything here. This one is false, too.​

Job 26:12-13

בכחו רגע הים ובתובנתו מחץ רהב׃
He stirs up the sea with his power, and by his understanding he struck Rahab.

ברוחו שמים שפרה חללה ידו נחש בריח׃
By his wind he has made the heavens fair; his hand slew the fleeing serpent.
​

Here's the fleeing serpent. God isn't inheritting its name. This one is false, too.

Job 41:1

הן־תחלתו נכזבה הגם אל־מראיו יטל׃
Behold, the hope of him is in vain; shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
​

I don't even know what they're talking about here. There's no serpent, not death, no taninim. This one is more than false, it's complete rubbish. Someone really really doesn't know what they're talking about.

Isaiah 25:8

בלע המות לנצח ומחה אדני יהוה דמעה מעל כל־פנים וחרפת עמו יסיר מעל כל־הארץ כי יהוה דבר׃
He will destroy death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the insult of his people shall he take away from off all the earth; for the Lord has spoken it.
​

There's death. Where is God inheritting its name? It's not there again. This is false, too.

Isaiah 27:1

ביום ההוא יפקד יהוה בחרבו הקשה והגדולה והחזקה על לויתן נחש ברח ועל לויתן נחש עקלתון והרג את־התנין אשר בים׃
On that day the Lord with his hard, great and strong sword shall punish Leviathan the flying serpent, Leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the crocodile that is in the sea.
​

And here's the example they brought which is *supposed* to show intertexutality. But now they're claiming God is inheritting its name. But its not here at all. This one is false too.

Looking at these verses, I can say again, someone is in fantasy land if they think these verses are God inheritting any of these names or titles. Yes, it's Dr. Bowen again, this time on a script.

So that's 6 false conclusions. Bam right in a row. Joel, why didn't you check any of this? Oh yeah, because they're scholars and they said it, so it must be true. Again and again when it comes to the Hebrew bible, these scholars you're using don't seem to know what they're talking about.
.

I can't .deal with this. You are one giant waste of time.


They never claim Yahweh takes the name of Leviathan?

In Isa 27:1 Yahweh is fighting a serpent - "Leviathan the fleeing serpent....Leviathan the coiling serpent


In B'aal Cycle T 5
"when B'aal killed... Leviathan the fleeing serpent.................the twisting serpent.....

 

[joelr]

24:13 Note: epic of gilgamesh "Fragments of which exist as early as 2100bce".

Uh-huh. Fragments. I wonder what's the date of the version that's being used to see all of these striking similarities? But of course, you don't tell us that. You just repeat the earliest possible date of these *fragments* to make your case.

24:30-32:00 the epic of gilgamesh is retold, there are no striking differences mentioned at all. Probably because this is the older version.



Oh dear, talk about misrepresentation, I mean, wow.

The version of epic of gilgamesh with all the "striking similarities" is written when?

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia.

It's tablet 11 of the "standard babylonian version" dated 1300-1000bce. That's 1000 years off Joel.

O.M.G................face palm........


Consensus - sourced Mesopotamian myths, Epic of Gilamesh


Consensus of Genesis written - 600 BCE, after return from exile in Babylon where they often read aloud the Epic

Israelites in 1200 BCE - -Iron age collapse, forming small communities in hill country. Meanwhile Mesopotamian stories were written, being told, popular,

or you could always go with everyone is delusional

 

[joelr]

As was demonstrated in post#567, the source you brought is beyond deceptive in the characterization of 6 sections of text from Hebrew bible. They claim that Yahweh "inherits" the names of death, leviathan, and the taninim, and that is 100% false.

No Yahweh fights him. He doesn't inherit the names, the monsters he fights do/


"the political use made of the conflict between 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, death, sea, and tanninim"


#translation for those who need it - the monsters Yahweh fought were the same (inherited) as the monsters B'aal fought.

Some political motif were present in both stories in a similar way? Ask, Dr Bowen for clarification. (Beware of delusional tendencies/)

 

[rational experiences]

Theists mechanical sciences by humans discussed destruction.

So the warning is man the destroyer.

When humans live naturally we are awAre a heavens exists. It rains. Thunder and lightning as it rains.

Raining with lightning.

Humans biology is mainly holy water said medical awareness. The tribal healer.

Life of biology it's chemistry from mineral dusts evaporated in water as dust type of biology. From god above law water from God below its dusts. Holy water.

So you live are a human owning your human body functions to discuss it's functions as a human god.

Exactly. Nowhere else by anyone else can a human be discussed except in self presence. Mutual.

As a natural human you survive. Pretty much just minding your own business.

Not human theists however. They want to claim a knowledge about everything.

So mechanics were built. Reactions wanted. Practice of science. Inventive destruction. Pretty basic.

Only after the heavens changed did humans discuss God or gods.

As God did it men claimed. Yet men activated caused it.

So thought put a human before a heavens reaction by intention of I will explain why it's not my fault.

Behaviour of humans proven wrong..

So men say a living monkey is likened to one living cell body as a whole less of a humans.

God theists said hence it lives in the heavens as a spirit parent and gets put into your body. I claim it's energy I want it for machines.

A new way to get energy.

What says his brother?

Your claim it entered a monkeys body by sex to be a human baby born. A typified God.

He never ever truly thinks about his belief.

Topic subject is direct..I want the power lightning.

 

[dybmh]

No he sounded perfectly ratiuonal and he agrees with the consensus.

OK, if he sound perfectly rational, please explain in your own words how the differences between two stories show that one was borrowing from the other.

They were debunking an amateur apologist video saying the same as you and explaining why a cursory reading like that misses the point entirely.

A cursory reading ignores the details.

In post#583, you misquote the Baal Cycle twice and remove all the surrounding words exaggerting the strength of the example. The Baal Cycle does not say "Leviathan", it's "LTN" which as I showed you could be "litan" though it seems most call it "lotan" and it could even be "litanu". Also, it's not Baal who defeats "LTN" in the story it's Anat. See here ( link ) and here ( link ).

Conflating Baal and Anat is standard in your conclusions, it fits that pattern of ignoring the details. By doing this, the comparisson between Yahweh and Baal is exaggerated because Yahweh is imagined to be a storm god, and Baal in the story is a storm God. Yahweh defeats leviathan ( in 1 verse ) and if Baal is incorrectly attributed to defeating "LTN" then that is a manufactured similarity. But, when the details are examined, it's not true.

Then when the claim is made that Yahweh defeats the same "monsters" as Baal does, that is also false on multiple fronts. The only similarity is the name. And it's not Baal is Anat. And Mot isn't a monster in the Hebrew bible. Even if Mot in the Baal Cycle is understood as "death", which isn't quite correct, Death is not eliminated just banished. The theme of the Baal Cycle is a cycle of seasons, Mot will certainly return. In the Hebrew bible, death is permanently and forever destroyed.

Further, we don't really know what some of these words mean. Even "BRH" which is translated as "fleeing" is a guess, I showed you two different translations which indicate this word's meaning is unknown. Translating it as "fleeing" is borrowing from the Hebrew bible. So, as stated, the meaning of these words are borrowed from Isaiah, then a claim is made based on this that Isaiah is instead borrowing. That is duplicitous scholarship.

The proper way to analyze this is to look at the actual text and compare them side by side. And I'll do that in response to your later posts. Doing that, it is clear there are 2 words that match, just two. And maybe a similar name.

Dever has dozens of peer-reviewed papers. Female Goddess, name isn't important. Evidence suggests this. Leading biblical archaeologist feels the evidence easily supports this.

Dever's conclusions are not agreed on, there is no concensus. And evidence doesn't suggest it. I went through the video pointed out the flaws.

1. Similar iconography does not exist, these are imagined
   • The crescent moon is not a crescent moon
   • The lion throne is not a lion throne
2. The inscriptions are forgeries
3. The source of one of the inscriptions is not known, it was purchased
4. The location of pagan artifacts are not in the temples
5. Bamot are allowed, Dever doesn't know Jewish law
6. Animal figurines are allowed, Dever doesn't know Jewish law
7. The inscription on the arrowhead "lion lady" is incorrect
8. The examples of other goddesses don't match the pillar figurines
9. And most important, there is no concensus, this was repeated 5-10 times

What do you mean "admitting"? What is the evidence for early monotheism?

Yes. You admitted it twice. Let's be clear. I have said from the beginning that Judaism has always been minority position. You have now admitted twice that it existed as a minority position.

"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"
​

And also here:

"There is no evidence that monotheism was a big part of the religion. "
​

So, yes, you have admitted that monothesim existed as a minority position.

The other thing this shows, is that I have brought archeological evidence of monotheism repeatedly. And here you are asking for it again. That's fine.

The evidence is:

Temple Tel Arad
The Temple at Megiddo
The Elah Fortress

Khirbet Qeiyafa - Wikipedia
Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon - Wikipedia
​

Notice now there's 3 good examples. I have already provided links for Tel Arad and Megiddo. So I only put links to the Elah fortress.

What's beautiful about the Temple Tel Arad and the Elah fortress are the Hebrew inscriptions that are found dating to around 950bce. At Tel Arad, there is evidence suggesting a scribal school at that location. See the link to the excavation report below.

More and more evidence of a distinct people with a distinct language prior to the Babylonian exile. Distinct written languages don't just magically poof into existence. Distinct people, with distinct language, and distinct religious practice would also likely have a distinct oral tradition.

Devers position was Judaism was what was written in 600BCE by temple religious leaders who re-imagined what Judaism should have looked like.

And yet Dr. Bowen and Dr. Davis said this is NOT what happened. It wasn't that at 600bce all of a sudden a group of elite gathered around and decided to "write" Judaism.

As he says the Temples do not reflect Judaism, they have art, often depictions of Gods and even female Gods.

Error, error, this isn't true. You are mushing together the details.

The temples in Israel do not have depictions of gods and female gods. The examples he showed in the video are not from Israel.

And the only art he brought was a lion figurine in the prone position. Here is the excavation report for the Temple Tel Arad. ( Link ). What you'll see is a good sample of pottery, some Hebrew inscriptions dating to around 950bce. And 1 single male lion figurine.

The other important detail is relating to the so-called matzevot. You may not have noticed this detail in Dever's presentation, so I won't dwell on it. But essentially, these stones were not actually "standing stones", the mistake is understandable based on the plaster. It appears that the stones were moved and plastered to potect them, but they were originally incense altars, not a designation for multiple deities.

Now, about the single, individual, lion figurine. Lions are 100% ok. Having it in the temple is a little concerning, but it's not a sign of idolatry. It's not pagan. It's certainly not evidence that multiple gods are being worshipped there.

Drawing or Sculpting Forbidden Images - Halachipedia

If you read this carefully, the concern is if the images are literally on the walls, on the ark ( aron kodesh ), on the curtain to the ark ( parochet ), or on the windows.

If one looks at the scriptural prohibtion, this is easy to see. In Exodus and Deuteronomy the prohibition is on a graven image. In other words, engraved, in Hebrew, a "pesel". The little figurine would not be a "pesel". It would be an "eeleel". Literally an idol. This is prohibited in leviticus 19:4. But a careful reading will see that the prohibition is making something which is worshipped.

If one researches the lion gods in the region, they are 1) overwhelmingly female 2) they are depicted standing or elevated 3) they are most often a hybrid human with a lion head. So a small figurine of a *prone* male lion which is in defference is not an idol.

Further, as I stated previously, Judah is known as the lion. And Lion iconography is certainly allowed, it's easy to find examples.

Obvious example is the lion on the Jerusalem crest:



Here's examples from Jewish tombstones:







The other example is on menorahs. The first image is a little difficult to see, but the other examples are much easier.

 

[dybmh]

The temples do not suggest monotheism. Since they did encounter it during the Persian period, and they had an influence, and scripture says Yahweh only focus is needed at this time, it sounds like it started in the Persian period.

The temples pre-date the persian influence. And thank you for acknowledging that I have brought archeological evidence.

No, I believe you don't want to change your beliefs and reject it. This is the reason for double standards, weird criticism about scholars being "delusional", thinking a cursory reading of a few examples is enough to say a consensus is wrong.

I said 1 scholar sounds delusional, he he does in that video. Unless you can explain in your own words how the differences are evidence of borrowing, then, pretty much anyone can understand how observing differences and concluding copying is delusional. Up is not down, black is not white, this is simple.

The last video even said an amateur looking at parallels cannot understand the intertextuality and literary word done to understand the borrowings.

Well, that's not exactly what they said. But, if that's how you take it, then that simply confirms that the argument is, "it's true because they say it's true" which is the weakest of the weak arguments. It is a religious mindset.

no conspiracy theories please.

I'm not sure you know what "conspiracy theory" means, Joel.

DANIEL K. EISENBUD
Daniel K. Eisenbud is a reporter and columnist for The Jerusalem Post. He is a multiple award-winning editor from Hearst Magazines and Dow Jones, former New York City Government spokesperson under mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and former police and criminal courts daily newspaper reporter.
He holds a BS in Communication and History from Boston University, and an MA in Journalism from New York University.

Daniel is an American-Israeli and resides in Jerusalem.

Uh-huh. Looks like standard journalist credentials.

Yet another apologist who is eager to believe conspiracy theories that make his religion the oldest in the world. HE probably thinks Noahs Ark is a historical tale and language diversity started at the Tower of Babel.

And what precisely about these credentials indicates apologist?

These inscriptions are not new. It has been known that an early form of the Hebrew alphabet was in use in the area. See here: ( link )

Remember Meagen, just the lowly wife of a PhD OT expert, but still not qualified. Or the psychologist who hobbied in Persian influence on Judaism and was shut down hard.
Well this is infuriatingly poor. Once again, your standards work for you when they work. But they don't have to apply to you. Demonstrating this is not an honest exchange at all. As I have been pointing out.
This just takes it to another level.

No, you are again misrepresenting my position. I have shown again and again that I look at all the evidence you have brought regardless of where it comes from. I didn't say sh was unqualified. I just pointed out that you said one thing and did another. And yes, when you're sources fail on knowing the Hebrew bible, they get "shut down hard". I know that you have deep faith in these people, and it's also evident you don't do any checking to see if what they say is correct.

Quite a bit....LOL

Yes, there's quite a bit of evidence. I brought a 50 page write-up demonstrating that. And there's evidence of Hebrew writing. Not from apologists, from archeologists.

They are not sure. If I entered this as evidence you would be all over it. They also seem to regard scripture as history and it is not.

Well, first of all, Dever himself uses scripture as history, and you seem to accept everything he says without a single question. This is not at all uncommon in archeology of that region. Even the attempted dating of the Bible involves looking at the biblical stories as historical, then matching up the themes in the early chapters with what is described in the later chapters.

"portrays a caravan of Canaanites arriving as immigrants. "

yes

"So, while we should resist the temptation to identify the ʿApiru busy at work in P.Leiden 348 with the Hebrews/Israelites"

yes, this was explained a few sentences back. Context, Joel.

Scholars of the past sought to connect the ʿApiru/Ḫabiru to the term “Hebrews” (Heb. ʿibrim). While some ultimate connection cannot be discarded, given the range of dates and places recorded for the ʿApiru/Ḫabiru, it is clear that not all these people can be Hebrews in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the term ʿApiru/Ḫabiru is not to be seen as an ethnic designation at all, but rather refers to people living on the social margins. The wide range of Egyptian and Babylonian texts refer to them as marauders, mercenaries, militiamen, and the like (always in some inferior status), plus, as we have seen above, they were enlisted in state service.​

So, yes, the temptation to view 'apiru' as Hebrew should be resisted because not ALL OF THEM were Israelites. And then the paper continues to discuss evidence of Israelites in Egypt.

"As such, P.Anastasi VI may reflect the period when the ethnogenesis of Israel was in progress, not quite finalized, and hence the Egyptian scribe referred to the people as Shasu of Edom."

Yes. The author is distiguishing the Edomites from the Israelites. That's an important distinction.

"quite possibly the Shasu of Edom mentioned in P.Anastasi VI are not Edomites per se, for there is a good possibility that they were early Israelites or at least a closely related group of people."

Yes. The lines are blurry between the different Shasu tribes which was a general designation. Note, it's a "good possibility". That's because there's "quite a bit of evidence", just like I said.

"we conclude that early Israelites most likely were in Egypt during the late Ramesside period."

Beautiful! After 50 pages of evidence it is "most likely" Israelites were in Egypt. It's a reputable conclusion. No one said that it "puts it to bed". But there is archeological evidence. Quite a bit. And now we can understand why Dr. Baden said there were semetic slaves, and they left heading for canaan. It just isn't the way the Bible describes it.

Either way, if some early proto-Israelites came down and went back what is the point?

Well, that's just a small part of what's been presented. The point is:

1. The exodus story wasn't borrowed
2. The ancient Jews were a people before the iron age collapse
3. They had their own language
4. They had their own religious beliefs
5. They probably had their own oral tradition

Exodus as a story, is a myth. All of the variations.

Strawman again.

 

[dybmh]

Well now that is delusional if anything is. Dever said it and Baden said it. Your last archaeology paper said they came down from Canaan so they were also Canaanites.

Hee-hee. I said they were "not SIMPLY canaanites". Details matter. The archeology paper said they were Shasu from canaan. Shasu - Wikipedia

You seem to think they are but you haven't pointed anything out. Just apojetics which deny scholarship. Not interested in conspiracy theories.

LOL. Of course I have. I showed the examples of montheism in the Hebrew bible, before and beyond just late Isaiah. I showed examples of universal inclusion of the nations beyond Isaiah. I showed an example of Noah's flood before Isaiah, and guess what? There's 2 more examples. So yes, another one of your sources that is shown not to know the Hebrew bible. I also showed that the examples of canaanite myths in Psalms and Deuteronomy don't make sense. I also just finished showing you that the assumption that Judaism prohibits "art" is false. I showed you that Bowen's claims about "inheritting names" is false. All of that is scriptual evidence that your sources don't really know the Hebrew bible very well.

Baden said after the collapse in 1200 they formed small tribes and slowly were unified through exterior pressure. 1-200 years this may have taken. You don't go back in time from external pressure.

Of course you do! The culture has a religion that describes an exile and all sorts of negative consequences if the law is not followed. After the exile, the people want a fresh start so when they return home, they return also to their original religious convictions. This is easy to understand.

 

[dybmh]

You haven't countered anything? Ever. Noah in Genesis was taken from the Epic of Gilamesh.
See historical consensus. No world flood ever happened, see modern geology.

That's not the concensus... The concensus is that both come from an older mesopotamian tradition. And there's evidence of mesopotamian origins of the inhabitants of Mediggo along with evidence of a tribe there called "ISR" which could be Asher.

Also, the original Epic of gilgmesh has no similarity at all to Noah's flood. None. Zero. Zip. The version with all the similarities comes much much later, 1300-1000bce. It's almost as if the flood story was added to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Hmmmm

who cares? Timestamp it and link the video, I would need to see what context he's talking about.

33:65.

While you're listening, take note: Psalm 29 mentions the flood. Ezeiel 14 mentions Noah twice. And Isaiah 54:9 is the nest example:

"For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for just as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you."​

So, yes, not only does the logical argument that your source brought a complete fail, the scriptural argument also fails. Another one of your sources that doesn't really know the hebrew bible, making a claim about it.

The Egyptians had a supreme deity, Zeus was a supreme deity, it was around. All of these points are meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. The point is, many different religions and cultures come up with similar ideas, similar stories, it doesn't mean they were copied. It's not syncretism.

Here's a list of other similar creation stories involving people made from clay, and the original people being sourced from a single couple. 10 Variations of the Adam and Eve Creation Story in Different Cultures

Genesis is sourced from Mesopotamian myths.

repeating the claim doesn't make it true.

A female deity was worshipped. Dever considers this common practice and considers scripture to be a version made up as ideal.

A female deity was worshipped where? Not in the temples, not in the homes. Yes, that's the biblcal story, but, you don't beleive those stories.

I don't care which Persian theology made it into the NT and which entered the OT. Point is the Persians had a large impact on Judaism.
This is true.

Influence, as in, it galvanized the Jewish position which they already had? OK, that I can probably go along with.

You seem to like the Jewish Encyclopedia? Take a look at the article on Zoroastarianism. It says some things I disagree with, But, in that article you will find this:

"the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians."

Hmmmm, they already were monotheists, and this was stregnthened by the contact with the Persians.

Then if you keep reading the article titled "Causes of Analogies Uncertain." You'll see something very important. These similarities are LATE in the Zoroastarian writtings. How late? Very late! See here - Saoshyant - Wikipedia and see here - Frashokereti - Wikipedia. Both of these concepts which have similarities in Jewish thought ( not so much in writing ) were written 900-1000 CE. That's common era, Joel. Now, if you want to go by whoever wrote it first, then these concepts aren't borrowed at all. Personally, I'll stick with my original claim which is, the direction of influence is unknown.

This nonsense about hanging on a goddess name is ridiculous, as if I need Ashera to be Yahwehs wife. My entire point from the go was very simple and not hard to understand. I'lll go back and source the original words if I have to.

Yes, more evidence I'm winning this debate. You said you would put this Asherah thing to bed, and said there was concensus, and now you are abandoning the argument all together. You don't need Yahweh to have a wife? That's because I've shown you that the evidence for it is very weak. Yay me!

Talk about redundant??? Already covered this. Yeah, thanks for the amateur assessment of Dever, too bad you disagree, I guess I''ll call him up and tell him the bad news. Random internet forum poster says he's wrong.
His 40 years of field work and degress can kiss off because you have some facts to lay down.
Maybe he can stop his books from further printing?

Kind of ironic, As if your proclamations of faith in his conclusion is any less amatuer, you're just a random internet poster as well.

Not interested.
As I said, over and over, I'm interested in what is true.

Great, you've got evidence of an Israelite people prior to 1200bce. Evidence of a written language prior to 600bce. Next time you read or hear someone claiming there was not Bible before then based on lack of evidence of written language, based on lack of an Israelite people, based on lack of mesopotamian roots. You know now the truth. There is archeological evidence of these things. Someone claiming "there is no evidence" can be deemed ill informed.

Dever shows a male deity was in some of these temples. He does assume it was Yahweh. No other male deities were worshipped.

nope, he maybe shows it in 1 temple, way on the outskirts. And he claims it's egyptian, so it's irrelevant. Then later int he video very close to the end, he shows a picture of some very strange pottery and admits that Yahweh was impossible to imagine, but maybe a female goddess was more down to earth. So, Dever is actually saying the opposite of what you're claiming.

Ok, we are done. I demonstrated my point. With 4 (at least ) PhD and 5-6 college text stating thesame.

No, you claimed there's concensus. There isn't. You claimed Judaism is syncretic, still no evidence. You claimed the Bible stories are borrowed, still no evidence.

You don't lose well but I am familiar with this style of butthurt.

LOL. I'm loving this. There's no butthurt. I've been proven right again and again and again.

 

[dybmh]

No, the debate is over, I told you last time. But your level of denial is so high that I cannot even correct these new mistakes, you are a giant waste of time.

Hee-hee, you cannot correct it, because its true. It took a while to unwind the false claim about a cosmic messiah. And now that the claim has been scaled back to a messianic era, yes it exists in Judaism, as described in Deuteronomy. The attempt to isloate it to late Isaiah has been refuted.

 

[dybmh]

But end times becomes a thing with everyone resurrecting. It's known for it's start in Persian thought.

There is no "everyone ressurecting" in Judaism. I told you before, and I'll tell you again. It doesn't exist.

And now that Ive edicated myself about the LATE persian end times prophecy, I can see why this important to your case.

In the persian end times, everyone gets ressurected and there's a final battle between good and evil.

Ummmm, that's not even close to what happens in the Jewish story. Not even close. Read ezekiel 37, read Daniel 9, and tell me who ressurects and when?

Here we have information about what books and that your religion does indeed have a messiah expected. Thankyou Persians.
The Satan thing is in Jewish pseudepigrapha of the time, not scripture. The influence is true.

Oh? Not in scripture? Great we agree. That's a huge difference than saying that the Hebrew bible stories were borrowed. Most people see them as legends not facts. They don't define Judaism at all.

Your denial of solid academic consensus, despite the last video explaining that laymen cannot take a cursory reading and make an uneducated determination, or they will be wrong. Which you did. And proclaimed you are correct. The untimate shoot yourself in the foot.
Judaism is syncretic. Case closed.

It's defninitley not solid. It's full of holes. One word in Genesis 1 is not intertexuality. 2 words in Isaiah is not intertextuality. It needs to be MORE than a similarity.

Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.[] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]

As a genre, apocalyptic literature details the authors' visions of the end times/end of the age as revealed by an angel or other heavenly messenger.[2] The apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the Babylonian exile down to the close of the Middle Ages.[3]

Apocalyptic elements can be detected in the prophetic books of Joel and Zechariah, while Isaiah chapters 24–27 and 33 present well-developed apocalypses. The second half of the Book of Daniel (chs. 7-12) offers a fully matured and classic example of this genre of literature.[3]

The only thing for certain that was predicted was the return of the Jews to their land, which occurred when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in circa 539 BC. Thus, the fulfillment of the Messianic kingdom remained in the future for the Jews.

Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought.

Well, considering your track record on accuracy, I need to review these scriptural references to see if this is true. Let's see, you referenced the Chabad website on this, let's see what they say.

One approach is that the millenium of destruction refers to a period of great persecution of the Jewish people.

the “destruction” may actually refer to the destruction of the coarseness of the mundane world
​

Does this match the Persian apocalypse? No. Not even close.

Since the apocalyptic genre developed during the Persian period, this dualism may have developed under the influence of Persian thought.

Except the Jewish apocalpyse isn't like this ^^.

In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9

Uh-huh... One letter, "hei" is showing some huge shift. And somehow Satan is not acting a God's agent. That's "the strongest evidence". Yup, it's weak. Let's look at it.

1 Chron 21:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to make a census of Israel.
​

2 Sam 24:1

And again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, count Israel and Judah.​

God was angered and moved David against them. Satan stood up and provoked David to make a census. Sounds like Satan is working as God's agent. Regardless of the narrative problem ( who instructed David to count? ) Satan is not working counter to God.

I adressed this earlier, and now it's been proven a non-issue. Where did this come from again? Grier right? Grier is still wrong even if you repeat it. Now it's been shown wrong twice.

The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.

Satan is not in direct opposition to God in the Hebrew bible.

There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.

The serpent in the Hebrew bible didn't lie. Wrong again.

In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2)

Nope. Freewill is from beginning to end all throughout the entire Hebrew bible. I said this already when grier was first brought. Now you're repeat posting, but you can't refute anything I'm saying.

 

[dybmh]

Proto-apocalyptic[edit]

• Isaiah 24–27; 33; 34–35
• Jeremiah 33:14–26
• Ezekiel 38–39
• Joel 3:9–17
• Zechariah 12–14

Apocalyptic[edit]

• Daniel 7–12

Hey, we can look at those. of course, the persian end times myths are written extremely late 900-1000 CE, so showing the direction of influence is going to be extremely difficult.

The eschatological ideas are only alluded to in the surviving texts of the Avesta, and are known of in detail only from the texts of Zoroastrian tradition, in particular in the ca. 9th-century Bundahishn.

Frashokereti - Wikipedia

In Abrahamic religions, the Messianic Age is the future period of time on Earth in which the messiah will reign and bring universal peace and brotherhood, without any evil. Many believe that there will be such an age; some refer to it as the consummate "kingdom of God" or the "world to come". Jews believe that such a figure is yet to come, while Christians and Muslims believe that this figure will be Jesus.
Messianic Age

According to Jewish tradition, the Messianic Era will be one of global peace and harmony; an era free of strife and hardship, conducive to the furtherment of the knowledge of the Creator. The theme of the Messiah ushering in an era of global peace is encapsulated in two of the most famous scriptural passages from the Book of Isaiah:

Oooooh.... this is comparing all "Abrahamic Religions". That's why it looks like it's borrowed, because Christianity and Islam are being mushed together with Judaism.

Take note, in Judaism it's a period of global peace. Also, in the Hebrew bible, it's God who ushers in this messianic era. The Jewish future king is the ruler at that time.

According to the Talmud,[2] the Midrash,[3] and the Kabbalistic work, the Zohar,[4] the Messiah must arrive before the year 6000 from the time of creation. In Orthodox Jewish belief, the Hebrew calendar dates to the time of creation, making this correspond to the year 2240 on the Gregorian calendar.

Uh-huh, Talmud and Zohar say a ton of extremely crazy things. If you want to claim that those two borrowed ideas from other cultures, that's a totally different story.

Boyce is sourcing the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA -

Boyce, Mary (2001). Zoroastrians : their religious beliefs and practices.
There exist many similarities between Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions as pointed about already by The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906).[96] While some scholars consider that key concepts of Zoroastrian dualism (good and evil; divine twins Ahura Mazda "God" and Angra Mainyu "Satan"), image of the deity, eschatology, resurrection and final judgment, messianism, revelation of Zoroaster on a mountain with Moses on Mount Sinai, three sons of Fereydun with three sons of Noah, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will among others influenced Abrahamic religions, …”

Some scholars reject this but are mainly theologians who will not accept their religion isn’t the true word of their God.

No historical scholar doubts the Persian origin, Boyce, the leading scholar on Zoroastrianism believes it influenced all major religions.

So, the expert on Zoroastarinism claims that thei favorite religion influenced everyone. Of course they did.

And you skipped the conclusion at the end of the Jewish Encyclopeida article:

At the present time it is impossible to settle the question; the truth lies probably somewhere between the radical extremes, and it is possible that when knowledge of the Assyrian and Babylonian religion is more precise in certain details, additional light may be thrown on the problem of the source of these analogies, and may show the likelihood of a common influence at work upon both the Persian and Jewish cults.
​

It's impossible to settle this. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween the radical extremes.

The fact that all messianic and apocalyptic references happen during the Persian occupation strongly suggest an influence.

Except that's not a fact. Deuteronomy 28, the blessings are messianic, the curses are apocalyptic.

Each modern sect of Judaism has its own interpretation of Satan's identity. Conservative Judaism generally rejects the Talmudic interpretation of Satan as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, and regard him as a literal agent of God

Again, talmudic interpretation does not show that the Hebrew bible borrowed. Also, the yetzer hara is not an agent working against God. "In traditional Judaism, the yetzer hara is not a demonic force, but rather man's misuse of things the physical body needs to survive." Yetzer hara - Wikipedia

During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[34][8][35] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][36] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.[8]

Some jewish conceptions? OK. Not Judaism, but some people's ideas at that time? OK.

The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,[38] particularly in the apocalypses.[39] The Book of Enoch, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed to have been nearly as popular as the Torah,

What's popular doesn't define Judaism.

Grier was sourcing -
R. C. Zaehner is probably the world's foremost Zoroastrian scholar and he gives the best summary of Zoroastrian influences on Judaism in The Comparison of Religions (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), pp. 134-53.

Who he's quoting doesn't matter if he's wrong.

Zoroastrian influences on late Judaism was pervasive, profound, and continues with us today.1 The traditional claim that the Jews learned monotheism from the Zoroastrians during the Babylonian captivity can be disputed by the fact that by that time Zoroaster's strict monotheism had been compromised by polytheistic practices. The famous inscriptions of Darius, although mentioning the supreme God Ahura Mazda on almost every line, nonetheless refer twice to “other gods which are.”2

All of this has been addressed, and here you are repeating the same thing all over again. I mean, this is literally a repeat post. You never refuted anything I said, and now you're repeating. If you care about this source, They're saying monotheism wasn't borrowed.

 

[dybmh]

It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.

Ok Again, Angels are all over the Hebrew bible. They don't show up late. H4397 - mal'āḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

And there's plenty of examples of God's involvement with all the nations in psalms:

Psalms 22:28
Psalms 46:11
Psalms 67:3
Psalms 67:5
Psalms 72:11
Psalms 98:2

Also Genesis 12:3

The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

And there is no firey hell in the Hebrew bible.

 

[dybmh]

Oh, so now you are suddenly back to respecting people with authority and experience? Flip-flop.

No, the point is, you claimed the site was Jewish theology, and it's Christian.

A messiah is in Judaism, it came from Persia.
What are the criteria that Judaism has established about the messiah?

I notice you didn't respond to a single one of my points. Changing the subject concedes I was right. Isaiah 42 is not about a "messiah"

Now, did you read this link? What parts of it actually match the persian "messiah"? Ummmmm none.

Uh, no? Why would you say that? As usual you don't provide sources or evidence.

Well, because in the so-called Jewish theology site they quote Christian commentary.

 

[dybmh]

Did you notice they were doing a shared video where each person had a part to read?

Yes, I noticed he sounded much less looney on a script.

So do amateurs. You have long since been dismissed. You are still attempting to enter "delusional" as an argument. Ridiculous on so many levels.

So, explain in your own words how differences in a story show that it was copied. Good luck doing so and NOT sounding delusional.

I didn't say Ashera was the consensus I said there is good evidence. Dever agrees and is an expert.

and yet, no good evidence has been brought. The best evidence are two forged inscriptions, an imaginary moon and an imaginary lion throne.

Again, you misuse Badens words. He didn't say it's complex in terms of the Biblical stories are in any way correct. The point I'm demonstrating.
Somehow twisting meaning and nitpicking to you is making a point. It hasn't worked at all, ever.

The end of the conversation was that there is not a complete picture of these events and they can be misinterpretted. And that was "what's important".

The Bible is not accurate. Genesis and other stories are sourced from older myths, not revelations from Yahweh.
PErsian influence is clear.
Your denial of consensus, even after quoting about 7 text books is desperation. Don't care, I've made my point.

sure, keep repeating it, doesn't make it true.

Another fallacy you like to use. No, I cannot rise to the level of explanation of Baden or Bowen. Or Kipp.

Right, you can't explain it in your own words, because you don't really understand the concepts involved. Well, I *do* understand thee concepts. Intertexuality is MORE than a similarity. It's more than a common sounding name. It saying that the differences shows it's borrowing is delusional. That's why you cannot explain it. It makes no sense at all. And that's what Bowen was claiming.

However they are clear that the consensus is that the Israelites used Mesopotamian myths to write their own.

Sure, plenty of people make claims, but can't seem to bring evidence. It's irrational to believe these ideas, and foolish to try to convince others that their true.

And see this is how it goes, back to the non-point of taking 1-2 examples of intertexuality and using your amateur apologetics knowledge to dismiss it.

There was 1 example, and it wasn't intertexual. Eventually I'll get to your reply and I'll show you why this is true.

Please continue living in your make believe fantasy world.
In the same video an apologist does the same and they explain he is wrong and doesn't understand what is going on.

The major complaint about the apologist was they were not precise, and made starwman arguments claiming scholars are saying things that they aren't. That's not what I'm doing. And as I've shown, the details of the Baal Cycle don't sync up even a little.

Bowen advises reading that book to begin to understand the process.
OR you could just make up what you really want to be true and then claim that is true. Wow apologetics is great.
Then pretend like you did something amazing.
Of course other amateurs, nope, they cannot have an opinion.

But it's great how that doesn't apply to you!

When we look at the details your claims always fail. It's a consistent pattern.

You haven't made an argument.
Bowen is delusional?
The consensus stated in 6 textbooks is wrong?

They would be fine if a single good example could be given.

The Jewish influence of the Persians didn't happen? Jews are waiting for a messiah, end times, ..

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...sh/Does-Judaism-Believe-in-the-Apocalypse.htm

"So in answer to your question, if you’re referring to the original meaning, then yes, Judaism definitely believes in the apocalypse—as in the coming of Moshiach and the resurrection of the dead."

Good grief, what's the original meaning they reference? "The word “apocalypse” (literally translated as “an uncovering”) historically referred to revelations and prophecies related to the ultimate destiny of humanity, what some would call “the end of days” (eschatology)."

And then they go on to say that it doesn't match what other's call an apocalypse.

"The details of what will happen vary significantly from the prophecies and traditions familiar to other religions. Learn more about it here.)"

So what's similar? The name, that's it. The details are completely different. As usual.

The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Joel and Hosea all refer to the messianic era. (For full references, the reader is referred to the book Moshiach by Rabbi Dr. J.I. Schochet.) It is interesting to note that the wall of the United Nations Building in New York is inscribed with the quote from Isaiah (11:6), “And the wolf shall lie with the lamb.” Furthermore, it is clear from the prophets, when studied in their original Hebrew, that Moshiach is a Jewish concept, and his coming will entail a return to Torah law, firmly ruling out any “other” messianic belief.

What sort of leader will Moshiach be?
Moshiach will be a man who possesses extraordinary qualities. He will be proficient in both the written and oral Torah traditions. He will incessantly campaign for Torah observance among Jews, and observance of the seven universal Noahide laws by non-Jews. He will be scrupulously observant, and encourage the highest standards from others. He will defend religious principles and repair breaches in their observance. Above all, Moshiach will be heralded as a true Jewish king, a person who leads the way in the service of G‑d, totally humble yet enormously inspiring."

Uh-huh, now compare that to all the stuff you've quoted below. You really didn't read this or understand it, did you?

Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

And none of this matches what you brought from Jewish thought.

So no, there is nothing borrowed here. Please, keep copying and pasting without reading or understanding any of it.

Virgin born



An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

And this confirms your extreme ignorance. There is no virgin birth in Judaism.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, Judaism is syncretic by adopting Mesopotamian, Egyuptian and Persian theology to meet it's own needs.

Well, I need to review the new claim about the apocaplyse in the later prophets. But other than that, there has been no evidence of borrowing, just claims.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/281644/jewish/Jewish-Resurrection-of-the-Dead.htm

Did you read this? It clearly says that only the righteous ressurect. So, I was right. The persian myth has everyone ressurecting for a final battle. Correct? Or maybe you don't know the persian myth? Anyway, it's not a match.

See this is so dishonest. You claim other non-PhDs cannot comment, yet you want to say a consensus is wrong based on an uneducated assessment of 2 examples. When I simply demonstrate a consensus you find ways to call it spamming.

No, what's dishonest is this claim that I said other nonPHDs can't comment. I've corrected you, but you keep repating the same false words.

Then you call yourself qualified yet these conclusions came from years of study. I have no interest in debating an amateur on 2 examples when in the video the 2 PhDs actually say you cannot use a superficial comparison to make a judgment. You are not debating to find truth but to save face. That is your sole motive.

If you have no interest in debating, then guess what? That's preaching. You won't comment on the pictures I posted because in your heart, you probably know I'm right. The moon isn't a moon, the chair isn't a lion throne, the inscription looks fake. You can't explain how differences in a story are evidence of borrowing.

I am not interested. You have lost. The consensus is not going to change on Mesopotamian influence. You are not qualiified to say what figurines are related to a goddess, yet Dever is more than qualified.

I am certainly qualified to look at pictures and determine if the relataionships are manufactured. The Pillar figurines don't resemble any of the goddesses he brought. Not one. The closest was a primitive figure in a house, but the arms were wrong, he chest was wrong. It had eyes, and a round head, whoopee, and it didn't even come from the correct region.

So now this is your new weapon. Muddy the waters based on amateur interpretations of what you think palm trees lok like on artifacts you are not even an amateur in.
This is a complete work.

No, I'm trying to get you to actually discuss the material you've presented, and maybe engage your brain a little.
My points have been demonstrated.
[/quote]
Yes, you believe it because they say it. Then you parrot it.

Dever, who is qualified, feels there is beyond enough evidence that polytheism was a large part of Judaism.

Dever likes the divine feminine and wants it to be a part of Judaism. He even said so at the end of the video with a cute story about his daughter. But the evidence is completely lacking.

I am convinced. If you are not, write to him and tell him you feel it isn't a palm tree.

I have asked you look at the picture and tell me if it's a moon. You refuse to do that, because you know it'll make you look foolish. Here it is again. Answer please, is this a moon? Dever says we have to take his word for it. That's a pretty strong indicator even he knows it's not a moon.

Your massive bias and I mean massive has already been exposed so I have no doubt you are not searching for truth but to save face and use denial.
As I said, I'm done.

I'm not the one who refuses to comment on a picture that's right in front of their face. Dever is imagining conections where they do not exist. The evidence is right there ^^.

 

[dybmh]

Obvious to the amateur. And now, after "delusional" historians, now we have archaeologists who are seeing things that are not there. Whatever.

Then look at the picture and honestly tell me if that is a moon, or not.

Right, what is th epaper you are sourcing that says supreme Gods had "protectors", and they had breasts?

asked and answered, it is in the paper I brought on lioness goddesses. You obviously didn't read it. Here it is again: Felines and Female Divinities: The Association of Cats with Goddesses, Ancient and Contemporary on JSTOR. It's right there in the first page, you don't even need to login. Independent warrior types. Not someone's wifey-pooh.

You don't have any arguments. You are an amateur and don't understand artifacts. An expert is telling you, meanwhile confirmation bias is making you say bizarre things and think you are suddenly an expert.

Well, I certainly know more about the Hebrew bible than you do. And it seems I know more than your sources too. Remember, Dever says there's no art allowed, but that's false. He says no bamot are allowed, that's false. Matzevot in Tel Adar? Ummm not according to the excavation report.

And there's monotheism before Isaiah? False

And there's no flood story mentioned by the prophets? False

And there's no archeological evidence of monotheism? False

Except the evidence of the leading biblical archaeologist saying the evidence is good that Yahweh had a consort. Well, an amateur internet forum poster disagrees, so.......

And a random internet poster believes what he says. Yup. One of us is examining the evidence, and one of us is acting like a true believer.

 

[dybmh]

Future king? Sounds like a Persian messianic savior.

Heehee, that's because you ignore all the details.

Let me ask you, is the Persian messiah a king? Ummmm, nope.

 

[dybmh]

I can't .deal with this. You are one giant waste of time.

They never claim Yahweh takes the name of Leviathan?

You can't deal? I know, I know, its hard when someone's heros turn out to be frauds.

And yes, yes they did claim it. I gave you the screenshot, but you seem to be in ostrich mode... head in the sand.

In Isa 27:1 Yahweh is fighting a serpent - "Leviathan the fleeing serpent....Leviathan the coiling serpent

Yes.

In B'aal Cycle T 5
"when B'aal killed... Leviathan the fleeing serpent.................the twisting serpent.....

Nope, it's not Baal. It's Anat. And it's not Leviathan, it's LTN. And the twisting serpent is SLYT.

And LTN isn't a sea monster. And Death isn't eliminated. And God doesn't inherit any names.

No Yahweh fights him. He doesn't inherit the names, the monsters he fights do/

Well, the problem is that "mot" aka death, isn't a monster that Yahweh battles. And it's not Baal who battles LTN. And Mot isnt eliminated like it is in the Hebrew bible.

"the political use made of the conflict between 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, death, sea, and tanninim"

Notice how the connection is being exaggerated. Baal, the storm god, doesn't battle with LTN. So even if there's a connection between Yahweh and Baal, there isn't a connection between Baal and LTN.

#translation for those who need it - the monsters Yahweh fought were the same (inherited) as the monsters B'aal fought.

hee. They're not the same. Mot isn't a monster, Leviathan is a sea monster and LTN isn't. Had the author sais they were the same monsters, they would have had an even worse problem with accuracy.

Some political motif were present in both stories in a similar way? Ask, Dr Bowen for clarification. (Beware of delusional tendencies/)

Yeah, I hear ya. Finding a political motif is going to be huge stretch.

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

Let's look at the example of intertexuality that they brought from the anzu tablet compared to the enuma elish. And this matches the other examples they brought. Basically everything in the two stories are the same except for one swapped out word.

It's bascially the same words, with only minor differences.

Let the winds bear off his wing feathers as glad tidings.
And let the winds bear up her blood to give the good news.

sa-a-ru kap-pi su ana bu-us-ra-a-ti lib-lu-u-ni
sa-a-ru dam-mi-sa an-a bu-us-ra tum li-bul lu-ni​

That's pretty similar. it follows the same cadence, it has most of the words in common

Now let's look at Isaiah compared to the Baal Cycle.

On that day the Lord with his hard, great and strong sword shall punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; and he shall slay the monster that is in the sea.

When you smite Litan the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisting serpent, SLYT of seven heads [.....] on the earth, with [....] to Yamm!​

As you can see, even in the english translation, it's not nearly as similar as the original example. Also note, the translation of this in ugaritic is not known. I already showed the different opinions about the translation.

Now let's look at it in the original language since, supposedly, the language is similar enough to share words. That's what they are saying in the video. If the languages aren't really similar then none of it is a match. Remember, this is supposed to be a motif that sounds similar, to the ear. Like a song.

ביום ההוא יפקד יהוה בחרבו הקשה והגדולה והחזקה על לויתן נחש ברח ועל לויתן נחש עקלתון והרג את־התנין אשר בים׃

ktm e ltn btn brh tkly btn 'qltn šlyt d šb t r’ašm bxare μ Âm trp ym​

That's it. Just 2 words really, and maybe a similar name.

Even if I crop it down, and replace the hebrew letters with english equivilents:

Isaiah: vhhzkh 'l lvytn nhsh brh v'l lvytn nhsh 'qltn vhrg 't-htnyn asr bym

Baal Cycle: ktm e ltn btn brh tkly btn 'qltn šlyt d šb t r’ašm bxare μ Âm trp ym​

Now, at least there's a similar sounding word at the end. But it's still not a close match at all. Virtually every sound is different.

The idea that this is like a song with a familiar riff playing in it is false. That's an xmaple hat was given. The idea that this is like the seinfeld episode where the magic bullet from JFK is replaced with a magic loogey, is false. And the idea that this is like the anzu myth compared to the enuma elish where almost all the words match up is also false.

One would think that if they were doing a video on intertexuality, they would bring their best example. If this is the best example, then there isn't really much to this.

And to seal the deal, here's the wikipedia page on intertexuality, and notice, there is nothing there showing some intertexual borrowing of the Hebrew bible from ugarite myths.

Intertextuality - Wikipedia