Shocked To Find Out Yahweh Was Originally A Canaanite God Who Had A Wife, Asherah

[SeekingAllTruth]

Yes, but you're assuming that there is no God, or in this case that man made god. A god that is created is no god, and if there is a God (which I believe) then he didn't originate with anyone or any culture.

I don't know if there is a God. He doesn't communicate with man or interact with him in any way so whatever He is He's a deist God. My contention is that the real GOD is not Yahweh. Yahweh is a man-made pagan god that originated among the Canaanite culture but Christians think Yahweh is the real deist God. He isn't.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

He did. And if he did, how do you expect you'd know about it?

He did. And if he did, how do you expect you'd know about it?

How do you know God made himself known to earliest man 50-100,000 years ago?

 

[Batya]

I don't know if there is a God. He doesn't communicate with man or interact with him in any way so whatever He is He's a deist God. My contention is that the real GOD is not Yahweh. Yahweh is a man-made pagan god that originated among the Canaanite culture but Christians think Yahweh is the real deist God. He isn't.

And how do you know YHWH is not the real God? Relying on some ancient cultures idols or lack of idols to tell you who is the real God is not a very dependable method.
And I do think he communicates with people if they are listening.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

And how do you know YHWH is not the real God? Relying on some ancient cultures idols or lack of idols to tell you who is the real God is not a very dependable method.
And I do think he communicates with people if they are listening.

Pardon the earlier response. I jumped the gun. He may communicate with you but he doesn't communicate with the millions of people who are dropping out of Christianity.

 

[Batya]

How do you know God made himself known to earliest man 50-100,000 years ago?

I never said I believed he revealed himself 50-100,000 years ago, but in any case, it is my belief that he revealed himself to Adam, just as it is a belief of yours that he did not reveal himself.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I never said I believed he revealed himself 50-100,000 years ago, but in any case, it is my belief that he revealed himself to Adam, just as it is a belief of yours that he did not reveal himself.

You believe Adam was a real man?

 

[Batya]

You believe Adam was a real man?
View attachment 47392

Yes, as opposed to a real ape.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Yes, as opposed to a real ape.

You believe God only got around to making man--and that man was Adam--6000 years ago?

 

[Batya]

You believe God only got around to making man--and that man was Adam--6000 years ago?

There's no problem with it being 6000 years ago, if it was 6 billion years it wouldn't be a negative thing- we're here now.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There's no problem with it being 6000 years ago, if it was 6 billion years it wouldn't be a negative thing- we're here now.

But I asked you if you personally believe God created the first man 6000 years ago. That's a simple yes/no question. If you don't have an opinion on it, it's okay to say so. I'm trying to pin down if you're a fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

 

[Batya]

But I asked you if you personally believe God created the first man 6000 years ago. That's a simple yes/no question. If you don't have an opinion on it, it's okay to say so. I'm trying to pin down if you're a fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

Yes, I do believe that. I don't think everything in the bible is strictly literal, there are figures of speech/ metaphors, etc, but I don't use that as an excuse to explain the bible away.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Yes, I do believe that. I don't think everything in the bible is strictly literal, there are figures of speech/ metaphors, etc, but I don't use that as an excuse to explain the bible away.

Very interesting. I enjoyed our little chat but it's late and I must away. Adieu.

 

[Batya]

Very interesting. I enjoyed our little chat but it's late and I must away. Adieu.

Same here.

 

[Trailblazer]

You believe Adam was a real man?
View attachment 47392

Baha'is believe that Adam was the first Prophet in the Adamic Cycle of religion which ended with Muhammad, who was the Seal of the Prophets, but we do not believe that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden existed as real places or real people, we believe they are fictional characters in a metaphorical story.

Baha'is do not believe that Adam was the first man, because humans have existed for about 200,000 years; although the first humans were not the same as the humans of today, they were still humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know God made himself known to earliest man 50-100,000 years ago?

I believe that God has spoken through Messengers ever since man has existed as man. The fact that there are no records of any Messengers that preceded Adam is no proof that they did not exist.

“And now regarding thy question, “How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?” Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.

Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 172-173

 

[firedragon]

But even if it became a slang term for God over generations, if someone gets called it later on, they still become an ancient Caananite deity once again!

Not really.

Its like saying the western world is worshiping an asian, ancient God simply because they also used the same word God.

 

[firedragon]

No. Just by saying Asian country A, God X - we cannot know if it is monolatry.
Monolatry can be personal, coming from devotee's side "I shall not worship anyone but You" --- that is monolatry, out of love, commitment.
OR this God X called Devi can say "Thou shalt have no gods besides Me" --- as a commandment -- Then and only then will it be monolatry.

Monolatry is not a bad thing as long as it is voluntary, devotional, and not out of fear or threat.

By definition, Brahman sees Oneness, and is extremely generous with love and respect.

So this Asian God that you are suggesting, will most likely teach Oneness

Yes. It is oneness. The word is simply "God".

 

[firedragon]

The god Christians pray to has origins in a pagan culture.

Thats a "Christian theology you are speaking of". Not the God of the Bible. Thats a whole different topic altogether. Since you are referring to YHWH, and not the Christian theology as a topic, it is not easy to mix them both in this discussion.

This conflicts with what Genesis says about the Hebrew god. In Genesis, god says he existed from before the universe began and Jesus and the holy spirit were with him.

Genesis does not say that.

This is untrue dogma because at the time Yahweh came into being among the Canaanites,

Maybe this same name was used earlier by someone else. Or at least in a different language.

For example, there is a deity called "Ama" which basically means the same thing in some asian cultures. Simple word, but it in its fundamental means the same.

I respect your manner of discussion brother. I am sure you could understand what I am saying. You have taken an absolutely naturalistic approach to this topic as well which I admire. Keep it that way. Dont get into theology.

The very fact that 50,000 years ago Yahweh didn't even exist in any culture should be proof positive Yahweh is a made-up deity because if Yahweh were real--if he existed from before the universe began then he would have made himself known to the earliest Homo erectus. Does that make sense to you?

It absolutely makes sense. Just that it is a very narrow way of looking at it.

Lets take an example of a God called "El". This means "Power". Elohim means "Powers" in the plural but its pluralis majestatis which means its singular. If you find that in a far away place, there was a God in the ancient times called "Balavath", which means the exact same thing, would you say they were the first?

Lets take the YHWH. It means "He exists" or a derivation of that which means he was never created, he always existed, he was basically generated by himself. The word Bu in Sanskrit means "born" or generated. Swayam means "self". The word "Swayambu" means the same thing. It is a name used for the God. Brahma.

Thus, one could not contend that they were all copies.

I understand what you say. But I am just urging you to go deeper in your analysis.

 

[joelr]

Canaan was the grandson of Noah (Noah>Ham>Canaan), and Abraham (a descendant of Shem) was the first to be called a Hebrew, so technically the Canaanites existed before the Hebrews. That doesn't mean the Hebrews were an offshoot of the Canaanites. YHWH existed before the Canaanites or anyone, so whether the Canaanites worshipped a god by that name or not proves nothing.

Biblical archeologist William Denver writes about the consensus in his field being that the Israelites came from the Canaanites.
In this interview he sums it up:

"No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

 

[joelr]

So the etymological root of the word "Yahweh" traces back to the Caananites... So Jesus Christ, the person, became an ancient Caananite when he took on that name... I think I get it now... It's irrefutable.

In a sense you are correct. His point is to point out the mythical origins of the OT. Meaning the OT is as mythic as any Canaanite religion. So you could call any God from any myth Cannanite or whatever you want. They are still just stories created by people.
This doesn't prove anything but the evidence does support that.