dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda.
Not true. I already gave you the link to the replies which addressed this. If you refuse to read it, then that is your own willful ignorance. The link I provided gives all the arguments for and against. You didn't read the conclusion. And you don't seem to have
Post#542 -> link
While we currently lack information to clarify the precise meaning of asherah in the inscriptions, the identification of the term as a common noun has important religio-historical implications and may point us toward a possible answer. We have already seen above that because asherah in the inscriptions is declined with a pronominal suffix, it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. This asherah is by definition distinguished from all other asherahs, including perhaps especially the goddess whose proper name was Asherah.
From the conclusion: A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah
But, it's not just in the conclusion, it's throughout the entire source:
the interpretation of ʾšrt as a reference to the goddess Asherah can account for evidence that the inscription has in view a female deity paired with YHWH as an object of blessing but at the same time is unable to decisively explain the significance of the attached pronominal suffix, while the interpretation of ʾšrt as a cult object/shrine belonging to YHWH resolves the pronominal suffix and yet downplays evidence that the blessing is directed toward a deity.
This line of thinking takes its point of departure from the fact that the h- on ʾšrth is most easily analyzed as a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent and therefore as a declined substantive ʾšrt must represent a common noun rather than a proper name. According to the syntactic context, ʾšrt cannot refer to the goddess Asherah, but must signify something else.
in the final analysis the theoretical argument that a proper name such as Asherah could carry a pronominal suffix is beset by a number of problems. First, although from a materialist perspective deities in the ancient Near East typically had properties of both common and proper nouns, they were nevertheless treated in practice as quasi-distinct persons, i.e. unitary entities. For example, within the immediate context of worship at local cult centers such as Samaria, Teman, and Jerusalem YHWH was not regarded primarily as a member of a class of deities but as the YHWH relevant to the worshipping community. Consequently, we would not expect the discourse surrounding divine names to completely upend conventional norms of the spoken language for distinguishing common vs. proper nouns (cf. Wiggins 1993: 188; Tropper 2001: 100; Smith 2002: 119-20; Irsigler 2011: 142-43). As a matter of linguistic function, the lexeme asherah cannot simultaneously inhabit both determined and indeterminate categories. If ʾšrth is correctly interpreted as the substantive asherah with an attached pronominal suffix it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. By definition the suffix distinguishes this asherah from every other asherah: this asherah is YHWH’s asherah.
And regarding a religious agenda, do you still identify as Baha'i? Clicks on profile... Yup, sure do. So you have an agenda too. My agenda is simply to shut down these rumors in defense of my religion, and there's nothing wrong with challenging false information with fact.
I believe the referebces were sufficient to document that the Ugarit/Canaanite and earlier sumerian texts are sources for the compilation of Genesis, Exodus and other books of the OT.
There wasn't a single thing in anything you posted that refers to Genesis nor Exodus. Your "belief" is false. And since there were at least 3 completely false assertions made mixed with a large volume of irrelevant similarities between the cultures ( example: they both weep for the dead ) there is no reason to trust any of what you are posting until you acknowledge what you posted was false.
Your vain attempts of distortion are dishonest, There were more references than just the 'church' reference.
Not that I saw. All of it appears to be copy-paste from a church website. And when you posted it you didn't give a link to the source. You claimed it was academic, but cannot or will not provide the author or their credentials.
You even hypothetically distorted your own reference double down on the distortion above and NO you did not accurately respond to posts #538 and 539.
Not true. You simply have not actually researched the inscriptions, and you don't seem to have enough knowledge on the subject to understand the reason why it cannot be Asherah in those inscriptions. I'll explain it again.
The claim is: the inscription says "YHWH and His Asherah". But when the inscription is analyzed the letters for the word that are supposed to be Asherah spell "?srth". This does not spell Asherah. The question mark at the beginning is not actually a problem, nor is the lack of any vowels. It is the last two letters, the suffix, "th". There is a way in biblical hebrew to express the possessive "his" or "hers" of a noun by transforming the noun using a suffix. IF this is what happened THEN maybe it's an asherah. But it cannot be THE Asherah.
Transforming the noun = pronominal. That is where the term "pronomial suffix" comes from. That's what it means. It means that a noun is being transformed with a suffix. Examples: The "Torah of Moses" = "Torat-Moshe". The H is replaced with a T showing that the Torah belongs to Moses. The Blessing (B'rachah ) of the Priests (Cohanim) = "Birkat-Cohamin". The H is replaced with a T showing that the blessing belongs to the priests.
All of this is detailed below:
Construct state - Wikipedia
If you read it, you'll see that this transformation NEVER occurs with a name. Never. Why? Because if the name is transformed then it's no longer clear who is being written about.
Let's take your name: Frank, and pretend that I want to say, Frank of RF, RF's Frank. Notice. Your name did not change. It's always Frank. If I start to transform it in the way that is listed above with a pronominal suffix, then Frank becomes Frant. And Frank of RF becomes Frant-RF. Are you starting to see the problem? "Frant" could be referring to Frank or Frany or Frano or Franu or any other name ending with any other letter. A proper noun cannot be transformed this way.
archaeological evidence documents polytheism among Hebrews beyond any reasonable doubt.
So far you have not brought any evidence of this just a claim. But even if it's true it has no connection to the Hebrew myths.
The Hebrews of th eHills of Judah were a polytheistic pastora; tribe in th eHills of Judah and only embraced Monotheism after the return from exile.
Even if you're right, that only shows that this is when monotheism became popular. The Temple Tel Arad and others show that monotheism existed and had a substantial following before the exile. The Temple is dated approx. 1000BCE. The archelogical evidence matches what is described in The Hebrew Bible, and instituions like this do not magically poof into existence. It takes many people and time to setup and support a monotheistic temple of this size.
There's also the Ketef Hinnom. It matches the Hebrew bible. It didn't magically poof into existence. There needs to be a story, a language, scribal schools, artisans, and a demand for production of these sorts of items. That pushes the date of monothiestic Judaism back long before the return of exile.
Last edited: