Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The story operates on more than one level. There are some things happening in the text which indicate he took the spirit of everyone and everything that moved and put it in the spiritual ark that he made. The secondary story doesn't replace the first. It adds and explains.

I rarely consider the "genetic bottleneck" issue; it's not important to me. However, I wonder if this additional spiritual layer explains that too.

But Noah was a jerk. He wasn’t better than anyone else. It sounds like the part where he preaches to the audience about the flood is inserted to counter the criticism that he was a horrible person.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Myths of that era originated as stories passed down verbally.

But that works for the Akkadians, too. The Hebrew Scriptures have blinders on, treating the foundation of their tribe with the existence of people, as one does. However, it’s apparent that other people existed before Hebrews. That’s why Cain can found a city.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Scribes who wrote the Torah would not copy from other religions on principle

Watching the political drama in the USA hammers home the idea that people will straight up lie.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yahweh, the God of Israel.

I disagree that Yahweh is the primary God of Israel. It’s called Isra-EL, not Isra-YAH.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Something that claims the following:
"I am alpha and omega, I was before time began and I will be all the remains at times end"
Cannot be tested or proven:

I would argue that if Yahweh were eternal, there would be references to Him that predate Hebrews.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is this the same as the Atra-Hasis? The wiki link directs to book on the Atra-Hasis as the source for the flood details. Dating these things is such tricky business. They're all relative dates based on lists of kings. And usually the dates given don't include any range at all; no margins for error. And sometimes Kings were named after the father, or after the grandfather further complicating the determination of when something occured.

I disagree. You're being hypothetical and that is not an adequate argument, because it contradicts archaeological and text evidence. There is more than adequate actual dating of archaeological evidence that refutes your hypothetical error dating of possible lineages of Kings.

If I understand, all fixed dates for the composition of ancient myths of that period come from 1 source. Something called the Venus Tablet. It recorded an eclipse, I think, and then people use that to establish fixed dates on all the other relative dates. But it could be several hundred of years off. At least one person is saying it's 300 years later than expected. This pushes the composition of the tablets in the link you brought right in line with the Iron Age collapse, a period where the cultural mixing of myths would be expected. But, it also means that determining who borrowed from whom is near impossible.

Actual archaeological evidence and text comparison of known texts have determined that mixing goes back through the whole known evidence of Hebrew history, as previously cited.

 

[dybmh]

But Noah was a jerk. He wasn’t better than anyone else. It sounds like the part where he preaches to the audience about the flood is inserted to counter the criticism that he was a horrible person.

It would probably be good to go back and re-read what I've written. And please try not to omit qualifying statements.

I didn't say he was better than anyone else. I said that he fit the pattern of Jewish heros and leaders that start out good and then have problems, and become corrupt. However, that doesn't prohibit him from being a unique rare type of individual that was capable of solving the problem that caused the corruption of everything and everyone that moved on the earth.

Anyway, if you think he was a jerk that was after the flood right? Isn't that what I said?

 

[dybmh]

But that works for the Akkadians, too.

Yes, but not in this case. It's known that the flood story did not originate with the Akkadians. It was added sometime between 2000 and 1000 BCE. They had an old version, and they had a new version. The old version had no flood in it. Then magically poof it appears around the time of the Iron Age Collapse.

And they, like all polytheistic religions borrowed and shared their myths and gods. Neither of the monotheistic religions appear to have done that. There are a few minor similarities, but who else has a sabbath? Who else prohibits wool+linen? Who else prohibits grafting trees? Who else has a binding like Isaac? Who else has a ladder like Jacob? Who else has creation by divine fiat? No one.

People like to point to the Enuma Elish as if it was the source for the creation myth in the Hebrew bible. But no one actually reads it. Most people don't actually read the Akkadian myth either. Just like the Akkadian flood myth, there's an early version of the Enuma Elish that has absolutely zero similarities. Then there's a later version, guess when? Around the Iron Age Collapse, where, magically, there's a few words and a few phrases in common IF the Hebrew is retranslated. Then, much much later there's another version that has a few real similarities. There's a firmament. And the people are created from the god's blood. Which people like to imagine is the same as being in a god's "image and likeness". They ignore that the blood came from decapitating the god, and they ignore that this version that has the real similarities is documented by Berosus in 300CE, but, people get very excited to throw stones at the Hebrew bible.

The Hebrew Scriptures have blinders on, treating the foundation of their tribe with the existence of people, as one does. However, it’s apparent that other people existed before Hebrews. That’s why Cain can found a city.

Please forgive the color-coding. I think it really helps understanding the Hebrew and the pattern of the phrases which are removed in some ( many? ) English translations.

Hyper-literally:

Cain went to a land ( an eretz "אֶֽרֶץ" ) not a city ( an eer "עִ֔יר" ). In fact, he builds a city there and names it. The word "Nod" could be a name, but that doesn't match other examples of lands that are named. That would be in Hebrew: "Eretz Ha-Nod" similar to just a few chapters back: the Land of Chavilah ( Eretz-Ha-Chavilah ). But here, it's just "Eretz-Nod".​

​

The word "Nod" literally means: to wander or wanderer: link and link. This word is repeated 3 times connected to the word for land. Verses 12,14,16. When reading it in Hebrew, this repetitive phrase stands out indicating it's not that Cain went to the land-of-Nod. He went to a land-of-wandering. So, God tells him, "shove off, you will be a wanderer in the land (V'Nad Tehyeh Va-Eretz)" And Cain says "I'll be a wanderer in the land??? ( V'HaYeetee V'Nad B'Eretz ). And then he goes to the land-of-wandering (Eretz-Nod)​

​

Verse 12: wanderer in the land (Nad Va-Eretz)​

Verse 14: wanderer in the land ( Nad B'Eretz )​

Verse 16: where does he go? "Eretz-Nod" The land-of-wandering. It's not a city and not populated.​

​

InB4: Yes, hyper-literally, Cain's wife would have been his sister that he brought with him, or perhaps she went and found him in his wanderings.​

InB4: After murdering his brother, there's several possible reasons for Cain's fear of retribution from all the others that do not require people outside of the offspring of Adam and Eve.​

For the less hyper-literal reader: Adam and Eve were not literally the first and only people, they were the first people who were significant to the Hebrew origin story.

 

[dybmh]

I disagree that Yahweh is the primary God of Israel. It’s called Isra-EL, not Isra-YAH.

That is properly pronounced "Yisrah-AIL" With a long-A sound. It is a word which can be a name for God, but it's primary definition is generic divinity. link and link

The word "EL" is a prepostion in Hebrew meaning "to" or "towards". link

The canaanite god, technically is "EL or IL". Which in biblical Hebrew is literally any generic idol "ELIL". link

Here's a wiki link to for the canaanite god, EL. On the very first line, they list the cognates. They're all "IL", but they do include the mispronounciation of the Hebrew god. They say it's "EL", but, it's not.

El (deity) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ultimately, mispronouncing the Hebrew word for generic divinity as "EL" instead of "AIL" goes back to a major difference between modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew. Modern hebrew for some bizarre reason, which I don't understand, dropped the distinction between the vowel called a segol, and the vowel called a tzeirei or tzayray and they basically pronounce both the same. But, they're not the same. link and link.

The important thing is, IsraEL, is not the canaanite god, regardless of the similarity. It's actually just a word for "divine power".

 

[dybmh]

I would argue that if Yahweh were eternal, there would be references to Him that predate Hebrews.

Oral story telling of Yahweh predates the "Hebrews". It's just not in writing. If Yahweh prohibits idols and graven images then there will not be ... idols or graven images or primitive art that would be used to prove it had revealed itself to primitive people.

Not finding an elephant in the ocean, doesn't mean there's no such thing as an elephant. Looking for references before there would be references doesn't mean Yahweh is not eternal.

 

[dybmh]

. . . I did not neglect the TAQ? for the Hebrews. I acknowledged that the Hebrew compilation contains Hebrew myths and traditional beliefs,

TAQ is about the dates specifically. Are you sure you are familiar with this? At first it sounded like you did, but now it sounds you don't.

the documented evidence is that the TAQ origin of foundation beliefs is from earlier Ugarit/ Canaanite texts incorporated as the foundation of Hebrew texts. If we go back to archaeology we find the Ugarit/Canaanite idols in the early Hebrew settlements in the Hills of Judah.

That's because they were assimilated and mixed with canaanites. They were literally neighbors. And this confirms the stories in the Hebrew bible. The Israelites immediately adopted the indigenious religions. That doesn't mean that the origin myths were copied.

The evidence is clear the Hebrews evolved as a subculture if the dominant Ugarit/Canaanite Kingdom. The evidence indicates that the Hebrews were originally polytheistic, and developed a monotheistic belief over time.

The general population, sure? It took them all of 40 days to construct a golden calf and worship it.

The argument for the existence of a truly Monotheistic God from a Christian perspective is severely crippled by ah ancient tribal mythology.

Not really.

 

[dybmh]

I disagree. You're being hypothetical and that is not an adequate argument, because it contradicts archaeological and text evidence. There is more than adequate actual dating of archaeological evidence that refutes your hypothetical error dating of possible lineages of Kings.

No, that's not true for the Atra-Hasis. It actually comes from a king list. And there are some lists that have this king listed twice with the same name given to the grandson, but the date is assuming it's the grandfather. There is NO fixed date for this inscription. It actually comes from the "king-year" at the bottom of the tablet, which connects it to a king-list, which is connected to the Venus Tablet. And that's how the fixed date is applied.

Atra-Hasis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Chronology of the ancient Near East - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Actual archaeological evidence and text comparison of known texts have determined that mixing goes back through the whole known evidence of Hebrew history, as previously cited.

You dumped a bunch of stuff in the thread, some I've seen, some I have not. Often when people make these kinds of claims about the Hebrew bible, the do not fact check. It's a typical bandwagon fallacy whch ignores that Hebrew myths like all myths of that era begin as oral story telling, and anything that is dated is actually TAQ the latest begining, but it could be much earlier. And it also usually ignores that the dates given are when the storis were compiled, not written, and not created.

The only way to conclude the direction of influence is to ignore that "the whole known evidence" especially for myths of that era are the latest beginning and not its origin. But! Since you are claiming that there is something conclusive about the texts when compared, I'll go through what you posted and see what sort of comparisons are made and how strong are the matches.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I would argue that if Yahweh were eternal, there would be references to Him that predate Hebrews.

Oral story telling of Yahweh predates the "Hebrews". It's just not in writing. If Yahweh prohibits idols and graven images then there will not be ... idols or graven images or primitive art that would be used to prove it had revealed itself to primitive people.

Not finding an elephant in the ocean, doesn't mean there's no such thing as an elephant. Looking for references before there would be references doesn't mean Yahweh is not eternal.

I would postulate that the name YHWH may not have always been the name or title of the same deity. I've come to the belief that the God of Hebrew faith is the evolution of what originated out of the Proto-Indo-European cultures and their deity/ies.

I would argue that there are certain details that are eerily similar to traditions that come from those long-forgotten cultures.

 

[dybmh]

I believe the Creation myths, flood, and polytheistic references in OT do indicate mixing and sharing in the time before the known written versions of Genesis, Exodus, and the Pentateuch as a whole, which is quite late.

Those late dates are the dates of compilation. They do not describe the date of origin, only the lates possible beginning TAQ.

I do not believe that the Zoroastrian scriptures picked up anything from the Hebrew beliefs, which are later compilations from mixed sources, after the exile.

I didn't say they did. What they picked up was circumstantial.

The earliest Hebrew writing and texts have origins in Ugarite, and Canaanite writings they to a degree evolved from including polytheistic references. Also, style and sections of the Psalms have distinct origins in earlier Ugarit/Canaanite writings.

The eariest writing is irrelevant for myths of that era, most people could not read or write. The source of the myths probably could not read or write.

 

[dybmh]

Note: Genesis 2 Creation is likely an earlier version than the Genesis 1 version

This is old scholarship based on the documentary hypothesis which has lost its concensus. There is no "E" source. There is no "J" source. There is no "D" source. None of those designations had any value from the very beginning. Just people who don't understand the different names and what they meany so they MUST have been different sources with different god concepts. That's a fail.

Non-biased computer anaylisi of the text has determined there are 2 sources, or essentially 2 styles of writing. And Gen 1+Gen2 have the same source. The entire process is described below. Reading the text does not require a subscription, just a google account. Click login, then look for the link which says, login with google. If you don't have a google account I'll figure out a ay to get you the info. It's a facinating read on how modern computer science defeated the documentary hypothesis.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1342.2015.2754?read-now=1&seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents

Beyond this, almost all so called contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2 can be resolved with a careful reading of text.

 

[dybmh]

I would postulate that the name YHWH may not have always been the name or title of the same deity. I've come to the belief that the God of Hebrew faith is the evolution of what originated out of the Proto-Indo-European cultures and their deity/ies.

I would argue that there are certain details that are eerily similar to traditions that come from those long-forgotten cultures.

For me there doesn't need to be an origin, singular. Multiple people can come up with the same god concept in geographically distant cultures. It's the same with any archetype. All humans have a common experience in fundemental ways. In Judaism, the tradition that's told about Abraham is he starting contemplating monotheism from looking at the stars. All people have access to the stars. It's a common experience. The awe and wonder that comes from watching the stars and watching the moon move across the sky at night is a common experience. It's the same with a great flood.

And this ignores the possibility that if there is a god, I'm a strong beleiver in it, that this god could have contacted multiple people at different times who had no contact with each other at all.

So there is no need for AN origin. No one needs to own Yahweh and be the first. No one needs to own the flood story and be the first. It's just a story about a flood and a god and a person and a boat. Lots of people can come up with that same story without copying or borrowing just by living and being a human.

 

[dybmh]

By the way, the Hebrew written language is a late-evolved version...

Myths of that era began as word-of-mouth stories. Dating the written language is TAQ and irrelevant.

 

[dybmh]

The texts which were discovered at Ugarit aroused interest because of their international flavor. That is, the texts were written in one of four languages; Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritic and Ugaritic.

This is evidence that the Ugarits were collecting myths. This increases the probability that they were borrowing from Hebrew myths not the other way around.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

For me there doesn't need to be an origin, singular. Multiple people can come up with the same god concept in geographically distant cultures. It's the same with any archetype. All humans have a common experience in fundemental ways. In Judaism, the tradition that's told about Abraham is he starting contemplating monotheism from looking at the stars. All people have access to the stars. It's a common experience. The awe and wonder that comes from watching the stars and watching the moon move across the sky at night is a common experience. It's the same with a great flood.

And this ignores the possibility that if there is a god, I'm a strong beleiver in it, that this god could have contacted multiple people at different times who had no contact with each other at all.

So there is no need for AN origin. No one needs to own Yahweh and be the first. No one needs to own the flood story and be the first. It's just a story about a flood and a god and a person and a boat. Lots of people can come up with that same story without copying or borrowing just by living and being a human.

Yes, agreed. I may not have emphasized cultures plural and deities plural well enough to portray this idea.

 

[dybmh]

@shunyadragon ,

WOW! There is not one thing in all of those posts that have anything to do with Hebrew myths. Not 1 single reference. Nada Zip Zilch. There is virtually nothing from the first 5 books which are considered the strongest revelation, and when they ARE mentioned it's complete and utter rejection of the Ugarit / Canaanite religion. It's like you saw the word Ugarit and had an autonomous reaction.

None the less I appreciate it. Like I said I've heard many of these claims before. A few newbies are in the mix, so that's good. The claims fall into 3 major categories:

1. So What?
2. Inaccurate.
3. Judaism rejected that!

The biggest isuse here is the "So what?". All these things really show is that the common people mixed with canaanites. It doesn't show that the source/authors/scribes/redactors/compilers/whomever were borrowing from the canaanites. If anything it shows that if they were influenced, they were influenced to REJECT it. I

t seems like people like to throw stones at Jews saying, "Ya'all were idol worshippers, don'tcha knowit?" Yeah, I know it. But Judaism actually rejects all of that and rejected it from the beginning. And bringing examples of the majority mixing with the canaanites during the time of the Kings and the Prophets supports the Hebrew bible; it doesn't refute it.

the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as כספסיגים which means "like silver"

So what? Proverbs was written late and it's not considered prophecy. So what if a word was borrowed.

but the Ugaritic word gzr means "young man" and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

False: The verse is: Then you spoke in a vision to your pious one, and said, I have laid help upon one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people.

That makes perfect sense with the word "help" and it makes less sense with young man, unless they want to pretend it's a prophecy about Jesus. But that doesn't fit the context of the psalm.

Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women.

So what? It's a proverb. Proverbs is not prophecy. And the direction of influence is more likely the Ugarit borrowing since they have beaucoup evidence of .... drumroll .... borrowing. Your own souce they did this and had access to many other cultures due to being a port town.

hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn
ilm w tstn. tstnyn d sb
trt. d. skr. y .db .yrh

Eat, o Gods, and drink,
drink wine till you are sated,

Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;

So what? This is a very common idea. You probably didn't notice how they spelled gods here. It is IL not EL.

There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit.

Notice the vague term "in the bible" I highly doubt that it's actually spread throughout the whole book. Having read most of the Tanach, the poetry is mixed, all different types, all different meter.

This is a "so what?" again. If you cast a net on 22 books, you're going to find common elements of poetry. That doesn't show any kind of borrowing or any kind of influence, and it certainly doesn't show the direction of influence.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh;

Nope, wrong name. Their god was EL or IL. The name of God in the Hebrew bible that is similar is AIL.

El is called the father of men, creator, and creator of the creation. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

But, their EL/IL is not creator of everything. And Yahweh is not a literal father. And this ignores the differences. for example Baal lived in a tent on a mountain. The Tabernacle wasn't on a mountain, and Yahweh is onmipresent.

KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8!

Please bring KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 so we can actually compare it. Did you do that? Did you actually compare?

Psalm 82 is written by Asaph, not a prophet, not a representative of the Jewish religion. It would make sense if he was influenced AT THAT TIME.
Psalm 89 is written by Ethan, not a prophet, not a representative of the Jewish religion. It would make sense if he was influenced AT THAT TIME.

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council

Hee. Did you read the episode that's referenced above? Do you even know the details of the story there. The prophet has been brow-beat 3 times repeatedly by the king, finally gives a vision, which is like a dream and is not literal. But that one, is the only actual ocurance of a divine council anywhere in Tanach. That's it, that's the one example. Whoopie-Doo. So what?

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith.

Ah. Not so fast. It's not the Hebrew version of those names. And besides EL Berith, isn't a name used in the Hebrew bible. So that right there shows this author doesn't know what they're talking about. Please go search for it. You'll see it's not there.

Also, EL ELYON, guess who uses that name? it only occurs 5 times. Four times, it's malchitzedek, not an israelite. The last occurance, guess who? It's Asaph! not a prophet, not a representative of the Jewish religion. Just writing poetry.

There she is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh

BUZZZZZZ. Nope, have you actually researched this?

Inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BCE) say:

I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria,
and through his Asherah!

Here's what you're actually looking at: Read it right to left, there is no word for "his", it says ?srt. The first letter they are guessing is aleph, but, it can be anything, that piece is missing. Assuming it is aleph, it can be any vowel sound. And the last letter, "t" a tav... that does not mean "his" that would be... drumroll.... "HERS", feminine possessive. There's many different theories about what this actually says. But it's not a slamdunk. Also considering where it was found, and the rest of the art on vase, it's super fringy stuff. This would not be representative of Judaism the religion or what was written by the powers that be.

And, just look at it. Not much certain can be said about it.

And at El Qom (from the same period) this inscription:


Uriyahu, the king, has written this.
Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh,
and his enemies have been conquered
through Yahweh's Asherah.

Nope, it actually doesn't say that, and like I said. The pronomial sufix used there would make Yahweh a SHE. And lesbians everywhere would high fiving, "...told you so...". In order to make it "HIS" Asherah, a few leaps of faith are needed. But the author of this article doesn't know that.

Anyways, that assumes that it's even a legit inscription. Do you know anything about this? It came from, ugh, I have to think... Dever, right Dever, and he purchased the inscription from someone who approached him on a dig site. He tells the story in a video presentation. He doesn't even know where the thing came from officially or when it was made. And, the words that are imagined to be "his Asherah" are scratched on after the fact. Let me see if I can find pictures. hang on... ... ...

OK. found'em. You see, I have *actually* researched this stuff. So I went and looked at the inscriptions myself. And like I said, the arceologist who purchased it has admitted it's nothing more than graffiti in a shared shrine on the outskirts with oodles of pagan stuff in it.

Anyway, when looking at the pictures. First notice the handwriting. Does that, in anyway look like official scribal work? In anyway? Have you looked at what is produced by the pros? Second, look at the green box. That's the part that is supposed to be "His Asherah", notice the position. That looks like it was added later. Then, notice the long line extending down from the last letter in the green box. ( This is semetic so it's read right to left. ) That's a crack in the brick. The person who wrote the "His Asherah" incorporated an age-mark in the writing. That shows it was added after the part about Yahweh above it. But this is also evident by comparing the handwriting from above to the handwriting in the green box. But you have to look at the incription itself to see that the handwriting is different.

This is not a work of a single person, it's two people, one person came first and inscribed, somewhat neatly, something about Yahweh while the brick was moist. The brick lived in a shared site where travelers went to do their thing while they traveled. Someone else who worshipped Asherah, added her at the bottom. But it wasn't actually THE Asherah. By that time the word "Ashera" had become a generic catch all word for a type of guardian.

There's many people who have tried to decipher what the word actually means. And there's many theories. Critics who want t throw stones love-love to pretend that Judaism had Yahweh+wife. But at best that would be just a fringe element.

Here's the top row:

Here's the part in the green box which was added later:

It's totally different.