Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[shunyadragon]

And neither can you. The date of a written tablet does not represent the date of origin. It's that simple. So it doesn't matter if or when the Hebrews wrote the myths. That does not mean anything.

I do not. I only cite dated written records that are ALL earlier than any other Hebrew written records.

 

[dybmh]

I do not. I only cite dated written records that are ALL earlier than any other Hebrew written records.

But neither dates, Hebrew or otherwise, describe the date of origin.

Also, you have not responded to several of the issues I have presented with what you have claimed:

1) You said that the word GZR is a better fit in the Psalms 89:20, but the word GZR does not exist in Psalms 89:20.
2) You said that there is little doubt that the Ugarit Danil is the origin for the Biblical Daniel, but there is no correspondence at all between those stories.
3) You said that the fact that both Jews and the Ugaritic religion weep for the dead is significant, but doesn't everyone do that?
4) You said it was significant leviathan is in both Isaiah and in the Baal Cycle, but they are clearly different monsters.
5) You said that Azazel ( the scape goat ) is a demon when those are two different words with different spellings.
6) You said that EL was borrowed from Ugaritic religion, but the word is AIL in Hebrew, and you repeatedly refer to it as IL when it is in the Ugaritic tablets
7) You said that YHWH was borrowed from the Ugaritic tablets but the'r god only has two letter YW, and they had the letters for H in their alphabet.
8) You claim it is signicant that a psalm has a verse that has boats in it, but this is just 1 verse. how can that be significant? They're boats. A lot of cultures had sailors.
9) The inscriptions of YHWH and asherah/asart cannot grammatically be a divine name, and they are considered graffiti, not representative of Judaism. Why do you think it is significant?
10) The king in Judaism is a the chief diplomat, and the Ugaritic king is deemed the chief diplomat, why do you think this is significant? Aren't most Kings considered the cheif diplomat?

Most important: None of these examples have anything to do with Hebrew myths, or the stories in the first 5 books of the bible. So why do you think any of this is signficant to ... the myths in the first five books of the bible?

If you cannot answer these questions, I hope you will realize that your research needs to consider 1) is it *actually* true. 2) is it *actually* significant. And it does not appear that you considered either of these things.

 

[dybmh]

"Bilgamesh" is the transliteration for the Sumerian name "Gilgamesh", but there were substantial modifications to the epic after it was passed along in Akkadian. Sumerian was a language isolate, which no known related languages, as was Hurrian. We don't have a complete version of the Sumerian myth, so people usually focus on the later Akkadian versions, which are better attested. Akkadian is the oldest record of a Semitic language, although it is wrong to think that later Semitic languages evolved from it. We just have no preserved records of related languages. AFAIK, the Atra-hasis represents a version of the Gilgamesh myth that likely served as the inspiration for the Hebrew myths.

So, when you talk about "Bilgamesh" the Sumerian flood myth, are you talking about a myth, a collection of versions of the same basic story? And the Atra-Hasis is a version from this collection? Have you read the Bilgamesh Epic(s)?

If you have been following the other recent posts to this thread, hopefully you understand why I am repeatedly asking people to read the actual texts if they are available. People say so many things about the Hebrew bible that are simply false. Pretending that a specific word exists to support Jesus, for example.

Well, TBH, I think that this particular myth was also spread by written record in the Sumerian and other languages. The one commonality to all of them that is remarkable is the ark, so there is speculation that there was a flash flood in which a large ship survived, probably saving the lives of important people. The story became embellished and more elaborate over time. It was written in verse so that it could be remembered, recited, and performed. Written language spread from these "cradles of civilization", and the Gilgamesh epic probably traveled along with the spread of recorded language--written symbols adapted to new languages and recorded myths adapted to new cultures. The Sumerians were in touch with other centers of culture, because the pictographic writing system that gave rise to Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic systems seems to have been common. Even the Brahmic scripts of India descend from it, and I expect that the Flood myth spread through those vectors of trade and communication. (Vedic scholars were the most accomplished linguists in the ancient world, in large part because their script became an excellent tool for exploring articulatory phonetics. So their ancient records are the best preserved in their original form over time. In fact, modern linguistic theory in Europe arose from the discovery of Sanskrit and Vedic linguistic theories.)

From a purely logistic perspective, can you describe how this would work? A tablet would be constructed, and copied, over and over, and carried on a boat, and the tablet would be, pictoral? What I'm imagining makes no sense. The tablet would be too big, it would take too much work to produce, and a primitve traveler wouldn't take it with them. And all of those tablets wuld need to be manufactured. they would need scribes. And people are paying for these picture-tablets?

I disagree about monotheists not assimilating other myths, because that cultural evolution seems to have evolved out of a henotheistic stage in which one god of several is worshiped to the exclusion of others. Not only do we see traces of this in the Hebrew Bible, but we see a similar trend with Mahayana Buddhism, in which alternative gods are all rendered subordinate to divine Buddha and enlightened Bodhisattvas. Anyway, the history of Christianity is one of coopting pagan traditions. For example, the celebration of Christmas was a pagan holiday. Halloween and Easter coopt pagan traditions for the Fall and Spring seasons. It is no accident that the Resurrection takes place in Spring.

My objection is the conclusion that is drawn from the "traces that are seen in the Hebrew bible". Are these "traces" positive role modeling or negative? And, most people do not ever check the original version, in Hebrew to see if those traces *actually* exist. What I've found is there are layers and layers and layers of assumptions that are made about the polythesitic elements in Judaism.

And I think it's important to note that when a conclusion is drawn from a chain of assumtions, the margins for error increase. It's not the same as gathering a quantity of weak evidence where the volume of evidence produces a probable conclusion. When the assumptions are not declared by the source, or known by the reader, then the probability naturally considered to be increasing, when it should be decreasing. I think you can undertand the temptation, for anyone presenting a theory to neglect communicating the assumptions that are being made. People teaching about Judaism on YouTube are probably the worst.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. I am no expert in the history, or even the languages, of the Middle East, so my observations and speculations are FWIW. I'll leave it to others to carry on with the discussion.

Thank you too. I appreciate the tip on Bilgamesh. If you have any sources to connect those dots, is it one myth or a collection of myths, that would be great. Also helping me understand the logisitics of primitive written transmission of myths circa 3000BCE-ish, 2000BCEish, 1000BCE-ish, would be appreciated as well.

 

[shunyadragon]

But neither dates, Hebrew or otherwise, describe the date of origin.

Also, you have not responded to several of the issues I have presented with what you have claimed:

The archaeological dating of the Ugarit/Canaanite documents is ALL older than any known Hebrew written documents.

The Oldest known Torah text is the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest Genesis text is from the first century BCE. Fragments date from the 4th to 2nd century BCE

Ancient Hebrew writings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The earliest known precursor to Hebrew, an inscription in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, is the Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription (11th–10th century BCE),[1] if it can be considered Hebrew at that early a stage.

By far the most varied, extensive, and historically significant body of literature written in Biblical Hebrew is the Hebrew scriptures (commonly referred to as the Tanakh), but certain other works have survived as well. Before the Aramaic-derived Hebrew alphabet was adopted circa the 5th century BCE, the Phoenician-derived Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was used for writing, and a derivative of the script still survives to this day in the form of the Samaritan script.

Still no response to #538-539.

 

[Copernicus]

So, when you talk about "Bilgamesh" the Sumerian flood myth, are you talking about a myth, a collection of versions of the same basic story? And the Atra-Hasis is a version from this collection? Have you read the Bilgamesh Epic(s)?

If you have been following the other recent posts to this thread, hopefully you understand why I am repeatedly asking people to read the actual texts if they are available. People say so many things about the Hebrew bible that are simply false. Pretending that a specific word exists to support Jesus, for example.

We don't have any full text for the Sumerian version, just pieces of it. I have read a full version of the Akkadian myth and selected portions of the Sumerian story--all translated into English. I don't read Cuneiform and don't know any of the actual languages involved. That includes Hebrew and Aramaic. I am highly suspicious of most translations of biblical material, because we (and I, in particular) lack the historical context in which those passages were written. I have to rely on scholars who know the material, but I am not qualified to judge the quality of their work. I tend to take religious arguments over the meaning of Biblical scripture with a huge grain of salt, unless I am reading material from people with real expertise.

From a purely logistic perspective, can you describe how this would work? A tablet would be constructed, and copied, over and over, and carried on a boat, and the tablet would be, pictoral? What I'm imagining makes no sense. The tablet would be too big, it would take too much work to produce, and a primitve traveler wouldn't take it with them. And all of those tablets wuld need to be manufactured. they would need scribes. And people are paying for these picture-tablets?

I don't know what you think I was saying. I made no claims about anyone on the alleged boat, only that it seems there was a flood in which a large boat or ship managed to save some lives of people considered noteworthy at that time. And this is pure speculation about what may have generated the Flood myth, but like so many myths, the details became more and more elaborate in the retelling. The Akkadian myth and later versions were certainly embellished with many details not in the original Sumerian. Ut-napishtim replaced Ziusudra in the Akkadian tale, and details about the ark became more elaborate.

As you probably know, Cuneiform writing was impressed into clay tablets with a wedge-shaped stylus, and then the clay was hardened. So it wasn't difficult to produce records, and this method of writing lasted from at least 3200 BCE until the second century. It was used by writers of many different languages, even Indo-European languages such as Hittite.

My objection is the conclusion that is drawn from the "traces that are seen in the Hebrew bible". Are these "traces" positive role modeling or negative? And, most people do not ever check the original version, in Hebrew to see if those traces *actually* exist. What I've found is there are layers and layers and layers of assumptions that are made about the polythesitic elements in Judaism.

But what is your training and background when you carry out this research? Have you been trained to read Akkadian? Classical Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? Or are you just debating the meanings on the basis of your knowledge of modern Hebrew, which had been extinct for centuries before it was revived in a modern form?

Thank you too. I appreciate the tip on Bilgamesh. If you have any sources to connect those dots, is it one myth or a collection of myths, that would be great. Also helping me understand the logisitics of primitive written transmission of myths circa 3000BCE-ish, 2000BCEish, 1000BCE-ish, would be appreciated as well.

It is a topic that fascinates me enough to get me reading histories and articles on the subject from time to time. I wish I had another lifetime to pursue questions on subjects like this. As a linguist, of course, I have some idea of the language families, writing systems, and cultures involved, but this is not an area that I have specialized in. I'm currently just learning a little Modern Hebrew and thinking about maybe taking on Yiddish afterwards. My wife has Ashkenazi Jews in her paternal ancestry, and I'm very interested in European Jewish culture. Yiddish is a fascinating language, too, and I feel a bit sad that it is dying.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

In the following video, he traces back through the evidence and signs of religiosity throughout the Indo-European region.
It culminates in showing that the oldest original religious stories were of nature and that the idea of god/s was interpolated into the stories by man:

Edit: He concludes that religion and thus god/s are manmade ideas to share stories and record history through oral tradition, and surprisingly to me a lot of music.

 

[dybmh]

We don't have any full text for the Sumerian version, just pieces of it. I have read a full version of the Akkadian myth and selected portions of the Sumerian story--all translated into English. I don't read Cuneiform and don't know any of the actual languages involved. That includes Hebrew and Aramaic.

OK, so you're talking about a collection of myths. The version virtually everyone choses for comparison is dated 1300-1000BCE. None of the other earlier version have details which are signficant enough to show any direct influence. But by grouping them all together, an early date can applied the the late version. But I cannot remember any one who declares this upfront.

I am highly suspicious of most translations of biblical material, because we (and I, in particular) lack the historical context in which those passages were written.

The point is not translation. It's adding a word that does not even exist in the text. Then trying to claim that the existence of this word with a Ugarit meaning applied to it is a better fit. I'm trying to think if a way to describe this easily ... ... ... Ah! Got it. Louie-LouiAYE. By the Kingsmen. It's a song, do you know it? It's famous because the FBI opened a file on it because they thought the lyrics were subversive. LINK.

So, because the lyrics in Louie-LouAYE are so difficult to discern, I could easily claim that it's satanic, and people did. I could say that it includes demonic names, when it doesn't. And since you can't figure out what the lyrics are, you might just believe it, and believe the conspiracy theory about the song without checking it. See what I mean?

In the analogy, I'm accusing the Kingsmen of being influenced by satan because a word in their song resembles some demon's name that drives the kids wild. WILD! But when checking the actual lyrics, that demon's name isn't *actually* anywhere to be found. It's a hoax. But people believe it because, well, they've heard the lyrics, can't figure it out, and just assume whoever said it must be credible. Like a pastor, or church leader or something.

In this thread, the same exact thing is happening. Except, people literally can't read Hebrew, so when someone says, "Oh there's this word that was copied from Ugarit in Psalms 89", they literally cannot double check it. I checked it and the word is not even in the psalm anywhere, much less the verse in question. It's a hoax. Searching for the source it looks like it's coming from a Church. So, ya know, they do stuff like this to Judaism. And it's not the only thing that's false that was posted here.

It's actually worse because even if the word were in the verse, it doesn't actually support the claims being made. And that is something that anyone can check very easily. But people almost never double check the facts when it comes to rumors told about Judaism. Basically never.

But, now that this Quartz Hill Community Church is on my radar, I know to watch out for them.

Does that make sense? It's like saying the the US Constituion was copied from Mexico because it has the word Gaucho in Article 5, and article 5 makes so much more sense with Mexicano Cowboys in it. But the person who said it, doesn't know any of the constitution, much less article five. AND Article 5 doesn't have the word Gaucho in it, and they didn't even bother to check. And even if it did, the word Guacho doesn't make more sense there at all. And even if it did, it's just one word. That doesn't mean anything. It's fail from beginning to end.

This happens All. The. Time.

I don't know what you think I was saying

This is my fault. I'm sorry. I don't do a good job of choosing when to crop out and emphasize what I am responding to.

You said: "I think that this particular myth was also spread by written record in the Sumerian and other languages." So my question is: what are the logistics behind this? The myths would have needed to spread far and wide. And the tablets would be produced and sold? And people would purchase them and travel with them? These stories are so simple they can be memorized and told by anyone. why would they purchase them? Why would they carry them? And most poeple couldn't read anyway?

You also said: "The Sumerians were in touch with other centers of culture, because the pictographic writing system that gave rise to Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic systems seems to have been common."

Right! They were engaged in commerce! The writing was transmitted, but the stories would not travel by writing. This is why I started talking about ships. It doesn't make sense to me for the myths to be shared in the same way as the written language.

But what is your training and background when you carry out this research? Have you been trained to read Akkadian? Classical Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? Or are you just debating the meanings on the basis of your knowledge of modern Hebrew, which had been extinct for centuries before it was revived in a modern form?

I am able to read biblical Hebrew and understand a good chunk of it. I'm not fluent. My aramaic is rough, but I do OK. But I have the resources to figure out just about anything in Aramaic and biblical Hebrew. But that doesn't matter, these are simple things to fact check.

Anyone can double check the claims that are made in the form of "Yahweh is like who EL lived on a mountain in a tent." That is a false trace. That does not describe Yahweh. I can double check a claim in the form of "Noah and the flood were never mentioned by any of the later prophets." That's a false claim. It takes a tiny bit of tapping on a keyboard to figure this out. Or "sprinkling of water as a symbol of rebirth on those dry bones in Ezekiel first appeared after their contact with the Persians". That's also false. All of these are things that are said by so-called scholars and experts who have been "trained". But they're all false.

I dont know if it's just facts about the Hebrew bible that get botched and bungled by these so-called experts or if its the entire field of biblical history and theology. It's not my field. But any time someone is spreading a rumor about the Hebrew bible, it doesn't matter who it is, Jewish or not, Scholar or not, expert or not. It needs to be double checked.

Yiddish is a fascinating language, too, and I feel a bit sad that it is dying.

Chassidic Jews in Israel speak yiddish.

 

[dybmh]

He concludes that religion and thus god/s are manmade ideas to share stories and record history through oral tradition

Yes!!!! Through oral tradition. Everyone knows this. The ones who wrote it first are not going to be the source of the myth in this era!

 

[dybmh]

The archaeological dating of the Ugarit/Canaanite documents is ALL older than any known Hebrew written documents.

That's not how dating works. Any date applied to the Hebrew written documents ( and the Ugarit/Canaanite tablets ) are TAQ, terminus ad quem, the latest beginning.

The Oldest known Torah text is the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest Genesis text is from the first century BCE. Fragments date from the 4th to 2nd century BCE

Ancient Hebrew writings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The earliest known precursor to Hebrew, an inscription in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, is the Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription (11th–10th century BCE),[1] if it can be considered Hebrew at that early a stage.

By far the most varied, extensive, and historically significant body of literature written in Biblical Hebrew is the Hebrew scriptures (commonly referred to as the Tanakh), but certain other works have survived as well. Before the Aramaic-derived Hebrew alphabet was adopted circa the 5th century BCE, the Phoenician-derived Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was used for writing, and a derivative of the script still survives to this day in the form of the Samaritan script.

None of this is relevant to determining when where and who was the source for a Hebrew myth in this era. People could not read or write. Myths originated as word-of-mouth story telling.

Still no response to #538-539.

This will be the third time I've responded. I gave you everything you asked for, rapidly. Links are below:

I replied to #538 here -> post 542 -> link. All the reliable sources you asked for showing the incsription was purchased not found. There is evidence of two people inscribing not one. It's more like graffiti than professional scribe work which would represent Judaism, the religion.

I just posted a reply to #539 here -> post 545 -> link. You are cherry picking and ignoring the conclusion. At that time "asherah" was not a specific deity it was a catch-all term. There is a major grammatical problem which people gloss over, but the author of that meta-study refutes those. Probably because he spent time in Israel and speaks the language.

When are you going to respond to the questions I asked? When are you going to admit you copied from a Community Church and didn't fact check any of it?

---

1) You said that the word GZR is a better fit in the Psalms 89:20, but the word GZR does not exist in Psalms 89:20.
2) You said that there is little doubt that the Ugarit Danil is the origin for the Biblical Daniel, but there is no correspondence at all between those stories.
3) You said that the fact that both Jews and the Ugaritic religion weep for the dead is significant, but doesn't everyone do that?
4) You said it was significant leviathan is in both Isaiah and in the Baal Cycle, but they are clearly different monsters.
5) You said that Azazel ( the scape goat ) is a demon when those are two different words with different spellings.
6) You said that EL was borrowed from Ugaritic religion, but the word is AIL in Hebrew, and you repeatedly refer to it as IL when it is in the Ugaritic tablets.
7) You said that YHWH was borrowed from the Ugaritic tablets but their god only has two letter YW, and they had the letters for H in their alphabet.
8) You claim it is signicant that a psalm has a verse that has boats in it, but this is just 1 verse. how can that be significant? They're boats. A lot of cultures had sailors.
9) The inscriptions of YHWH and asherah/asart cannot grammatically be a divine name, and they are considered graffiti, not representative of Judaism. Why do you think it is significant?
10) The king in Judaism is a the chief diplomat, and the Ugaritic king is deemed the chief diplomat, why do you think this is significant? Aren't most Kings considered the cheif diplomat?

 

[dybmh]

@shunyadragon , Do you know what a pronominal sufix is, and why it is completely beyond weird for it to ever be applied to a name? Maybe @Copernicus can help?

Copernicus, can you help explain why possesive transformations would be completely inappropriate for a name? Do any languages, any at all do that?

Well known example that matches here is the Torah of Moses, "Moses' Torah", in hebrew is Torat Moshe. The Proniminal suffit "T" transforms the word "Torah" into T. In Hebrew, or any language I've ever heard, the name is not transformed. Moses ( Moshe ) would never, NEVER be changed to Moshet, to communicate, The Moses of Dybmh, or Dybmh's Moshe. The name would never be changed to show possession. There aren't examples of this in the Hebrew bible anywhere. Yes, in english, there's apostraphe-s. But they didn't have apostraphe. They had no punctuation.

Do you know of any language anywhere that transforms a name, with a prefix or a suffix, for any reason? Any? It wouldn't make any sense. Who would they be talking about? The person named "Moshe" or the person named "Moshet".

This is why I brought that actual inscription:

1. ⊃ryhw.h⊂šr.ktbh
2. brk.⊃ryhw.lyhwh
3. wmsryh l⊃šrth hwš⊂lh
4. l⊃nyhw
5. l⊃šrth
6. wl⊃??rth

The words that are supposed to be Asherah are: ⊃šrth and ⊃??rth. The 'T' in the middle makes no sense. If it's possesive, that's not a name "Asherah", it's a noun that has been transformed with a suffix to indicate possession.

It doesn't mean that some fringe random person connected Yahweh with some other divine power, angel, guardian, whatever. It just means it's not the canaanite Asherah.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The ones who wrote it first are not going to be the source of the myth in this era!

Ya. His arguments, while convincing and strong, didn't set the final nail in the coffin.

Still in the same ol' quandary, if you ask me. I can't shake my beliefs, that's all I know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes!!!! Through oral tradition. Everyone knows this. The ones who wrote it first are not going to be the source of the myth in this era!

And the ones that wrote it far later are even more unlikely to be the originators of the myth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ya. His arguments, while convincing and strong, didn't set the final nail in the coffin.

Still in the same ol' quandary, if you ask me. I can't shake my beliefs, that's all I know.

Huh!?!?! All this says is, 'I am going to believe what I believe regardless of any evidence presented. The stone wall defence.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Huh!?!?! All this says is, 'I am going to believe what I believe regardless of any evidence presented. The stone wall defence.

I posted the following in another thread if you wish for a bit more.
The question asked to another member was, "Why should I be convinced that you know, or are even capable of knowing?"

I think you're asking the wrong question. Or, perhaps, asking the question wrong? I don't believe anyone knows. Only believes.

I struggle to rationalize myself, as to why I can't shake the belief, and I've come to think the reason is because the source is illogical, like an M. C. Escher piece, making sense when looking at the parts but not the whole. It's my personal perception now, that what inspired me was not in my skull, but something in my core or heart.

I was preconditioned for it, as my parents raised us as (albeit, rarely/non-practicing) Christians.

It was a feeling, that stirred a belief which catalyzed with thoughts and equilibrated into a damned dilemma or contradiction in my cortex. I've narrowed it down to a minimal of possibilities that my brain will not accept as dismissible, and they are untestable. i.e. Simulation theory or clockwork god; Deism.

And that's where I'm at, I still can't shake the feeling, but it gives me something to ponder and philosophize over.
Don't mind me! I'm just a realist that had something slipped into his Cup of Life and developed an addiction to God as a result.

Hope that assisted at all.

 

[We Never Know]

I posted the following in another thread if you wish for a bit more.
The question asked to another member was, "Why should I be convinced that you know, or are even capable of knowing?"

Hope that assisted at all.

"Why should I be convinced that you know, or are even capable of knowing?"

Doesn't that apply to a claim of a god not existing as well as a claim of a god existing?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

"Why should I be convinced that you know, or are even capable of knowing?"

Doesn't that apply to a claim of a god not existing as well as a claim of a god existing?

Wasn't my question, I just had a reply.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon , Do you know what a pronominal sufix is, and why it is completely beyond weird for it to ever be applied to a name? Maybe @Copernicus can help?

Copernicus, can you help explain why possesive transformations would be completely inappropriate for a name? Do any languages, any at all do that?

Well known example that matches here is the Torah of Moses, "Moses' Torah", in hebrew is Torat Moshe. The Proniminal suffit "T" transforms the word "Torah" into T. In Hebrew, or any language I've ever heard, the name is not transformed. Moses ( Moshe ) would never, NEVER be changed to Moshet, to communicate, The Moses of Dybmh, or Dybmh's Moshe. The name would never be changed to show possession. There aren't examples of this in the Hebrew bible anywhere. Yes, in english, there's apostraphe-s. But they didn't have apostraphe. They had no punctuation.

Do you know of any language anywhere that transforms a name, with a prefix or a suffix, for any reason? Any? It wouldn't make any sense. Who would they be talking about? The person named "Moshe" or the person named "Moshet".

This is why I brought that actual inscription:

1. ⊃ryhw.h⊂šr.ktbh
2. brk.⊃ryhw.lyhwh
3. wmsryh l⊃šrth hwš⊂lh
4. l⊃nyhw
5. l⊃šrth
6. wl⊃??rth

The words that are supposed to be Asherah are: ⊃šrth and ⊃??rth. The 'T' in the middle makes no sense. If it's possesive, that's not a name "Asherah", it's a noun that has been transformed with a suffix to indicate possession.

It doesn't mean that some fringe random person connected Yahweh with some other divine power, angel, guardian, whatever. It just means it's not the canaanite Asherah.

You are dishonestly jerry rigging stretch of the evidence to justify your ancient agenda.

The bottom line is the evidence is that the Hebrews were a pastoral polytheistic tribe in the Hills of Judah, with no significant writing thus no scriptures. There later writings were based on and greatly influenced by KNOWN Ugarit/Canaanite writings. ALL the examples you are overstating are the result of late writing They were a polytheistic culture with overwhelming evidence of the worship of Gods including the female God Asherah as referenced. The common carved pillars depicting Gods supports this.

You are constanting appealing oral traditions to support Monotheism and later written Biblical view of later Judaism and absolutely no evidence supports this. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that Exodus as described ever happened.

No known early Hebrew writings support your agenda. Again and again you have failed to respond to the citations from your own reference in posts ##538-539.

Still waiting. . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes!!!! Through oral tradition. Everyone knows this. The ones who wrote it first are not going to be the source of the myth in this era!

The Sumerian, Ugarit/Canaanite writings were first, and the source of the myths for the primitive Hebrew pastoral Hills of Judah

Again you have failed to respond to the citations from your own reference in posts ##538-539.

 

[Kenny]

By and large IMV, the main argument against God is "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason". Exception are for those who are actually looking with an open mind.

 

[Brian2]

I would bring up the history of belief in God and argue that belief in God is recent. Anybody not accepting this I would consider uninterested in the facts.

If the story in the Bible is true then the God of Abraham is the creator and the God that the first humans knew.