Draupadi
Active Member
If it is pseudo history then the whole book should be rejected. Not added to with explanations by scholars.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yawheh the creation tribal god?
- Thread starter vskipper
- Start date
If it is pseudo history then the whole book should be rejected. Not added to with explanations by scholars.
He's not. He is saying that as Yahweh and El became less distinct as separate entities, the word El eventually lost its original meaning and became a title for Yahweh, meaning God. You are aware that language is not a static entity right? It changes to meet the cultural needs of its users. With a shift to monotheism, such a change is not surprising.
Whether or not he's right I confess my ignorance on the subject. (Although that's going to change once I get my hands on some decent books.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
el is the word for all the gods. Even Satan the devil is the 'el of this world in the bible.
el is just the word god in the bible. The hebrews used it as a title, not a name. But he is claiming their God is El of the Canaanite religion. That is false connection.
Its the same with Allah. That is the arabic word for god and it is used in Islam as a proper name. But its not really a proper name like Peter or John or Jesus. Its a title like 'doctor' or 'judge' or 'minister'
Pegg said:
As he stated (and is obvious) this shift occurred before the emergence of Hebrew texts as we know them today. As far as my limited reading on the subject goes, the Torah itself is a compilation of earlier texts that were redacted several times to deal with the theological and cultural shifts of the Israelites. (I think there's about four distinct texts that can be determined) It gets even worse as Deuteronomy itself is likely an outright forgery made to solidify King Josiah's Yahwist agenda. Hebrew itself is just a branch of Canaanite language as the Hebrews were just another Canaanite tribe whose distinct identity as "God's chosen" was constructed by a fabricated history.
I really don't know what to think anymore, but the OT being what traditional Christian and Jewish belief says they are, is making less and less sense to me. But I'm not going to shy way from what we know is likely to be the truth even if it puts my Christianity in danger again.
Last edited by a moderator:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The key is to put "El" and its variations in context as how it's being used in order to determine whether it's referring to the monotheistic God or whether it's referring to gods in general. It is with certainty being used as a reference to the one God in many, if not most, of the verses in the Tanach, but not all.
outhouse
Atheistically
Definitely.
The monotheistic redaction edited everything the best the could to one god, or a general definition.
outhouse
Atheistically
No credible scholar explains the conquest, because it did not happen.
Israelites who evolved peacefully from 1200 BC to 1000 BC slowly migrated to the highlands of Israel over a 200 year period, there was no mass exodus. They were considered at this time to be proto Israelites.
At this time they used the Canaanite deities, Alphabet, and pottery.
All religions contain pseudo history, they are not going to can lessons and morals taught for thousands of years.
They key is interpretation of text.
That is where Judaism riles over all the other Abrahamic religions as they do not view it as literal history, less orthodox fundamentalist.
outhouse
Atheistically
It is factual pegg
And it is not up for debate.
And I have provided credible links to back up my statements.
You do have a habit of not accepting credible education and knowledge though.
outhouse
Atheistically
IBSS - The Bible - The Bible Unearthed
Finkelstein and Silberman state, “The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it” (p.118).
So using Canaanite deities is not up for debate.
Finkelstein and Silberman posit that Judah was a small isolated kingdom until the Assyrians conquered Israel in 720 BC. Many refugees flooded into Judah which then developed complex state institutions. There was a need to unite all the Israelites together. Thus a united history was created with a united kingdom.
Finkelstein and Silberman state, “The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it” (p.118).
So using Canaanite deities is not up for debate.
Finkelstein and Silberman posit that Judah was a small isolated kingdom until the Assyrians conquered Israel in 720 BC. Many refugees flooded into Judah which then developed complex state institutions. There was a need to unite all the Israelites together. Thus a united history was created with a united kingdom.
Archealogy discovers new truths every day. Theologians ponder & reponder. Historians write, study, and rewrite as new evidence is discovered. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.
If two men come to a judge with two altering stories he is not going to say this one is a liar and that one isn't (normally). But, he will hear both sides & try to decipher the truth.
Archealogy can never paint a full picture. But, if the knowledge of history, archaelogy and biblical accounts are all taken into account the full picture can be seen. The devil is inthe details
If two men come to a judge with two altering stories he is not going to say this one is a liar and that one isn't (normally). But, he will hear both sides & try to decipher the truth.
Archealogy can never paint a full picture. But, if the knowledge of history, archaelogy and biblical accounts are all taken into account the full picture can be seen. The devil is inthe details
outhouse
Atheistically
Archealogy can never paint a full picture. But, if the knowledge of history, archaelogy and biblical accounts are all taken into account the full picture can be seen. The devil is inthe details
In context, religion paints much less a picture of reality, a fraction. Because it is not based on evidence, and was never intended to be used as history.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
+1
When we ask questions like "Did these events really take place as written?", that's often the wrong question. Instead, "What is the author trying to tell us?" is a better approach, imo.
outhouse
Atheistically
I will do my best to remember that, as I find it true.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Well then you would have to also make the claim that Satan is the God of the Christians because he is called El in the new testament... and the christians worship El.
:yes: But will you go so far as to make that claim???
Last edited:
And Jesus is called Lucifer once.
I was actually talking about a passage in one of Peter's epistles. Jesus was clearly the subject of the title "lucifer".
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Well there you go.
The christian God must be lucifer too.
This is the sort of messed up 'reasoning' (if i can call it that) people are applying to the bible. No wonder its the most widely misunderstood book in the world.
Last edited:
Oh, I didn't mean that the Christian God is Lucifer. Obviously, they're two different entities entirely. God is Zeus, Lucifer is Prometheus. (Figuratively speaking, that is.)
I don't know about the devil being given the name "El" in the New Testament, but one of God's names in the Tanakh is El-Shaddai: God Almighty.
Incidentally, "Lucifer" just means "morning star", and was a reference to the planet Venus. Jesus being given that title in the New Testament is perfectly fine with that context in mind.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
i knew you were'nt claiming that, i was being sarcastic in making the point that people use such ambiguous references to make rediculous claims, such as the word El in the bible applying to the cananite god and claiming Yahweh is the cananite god. Likewise they would have to say that same thing about lucifer.