• 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!

JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
O.M.G................face palm........


Consensus - sourced Mesopotamian myths, Epic of Gilamesh
The flood story in the Epic of Gilgmsh is a late addition.
Consensus of Genesis written - 600 BCE, after return from exile in Babylon where they often read aloud the Epic
I'll get back to you on this "often read aloud" business. I have a lead on this that it wasn't as accessible to the Jews as you would like to assume.
Israelites in 1200 BCE - -Iron age collapse, forming small communities in hill country. Meanwhile Mesopotamian stories were written, being told, popular,
Theres archeological evidence that shows the Jewish people were Shasu nomads from mesopotamia predating 1200 by several hundred years.
or you could always go with everyone is delusional
Can you explain in your own words how "the differences show they were copying"? Betcha can't.

Can you look at the picture of the naos and honestly say it looks like a crescent moon? how about the chair on the pottery? Does it look like a lion throne? how about the inscriptions? Do hey look clear and crisp like the rest of the words on the stone?

Is there any evidence of people worshipping the pillar figurines? Do they resemble any of the other goddesses in the region?

How about an easy one, in Genesis 6 does it say aything about "animals" being selected to go in the ark? Remember you need to look at the original language to know the answer? Now look at Genesis 7, can you see the word that translates to animal? Can you see how anyone who claims these verses contradict are absolutley wrong?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Consensus of Genesis written - 600 BCE, after return from exile in Babylon where they often read aloud the Epic
Hee, I knew I'd find it. First of all, they read the enuma elish, not the epic of gilgamesh, just to be clear. Second, the festival was in the *city* of Babylon. And guess what, the Jews weren't in the city. The Jews were in a town called Yahudu on the outscirts of Nippur which is approx. 100 miles away from Babylon.

Akitu - Wikipedia

The Babylonian festival traditionally started on 4 Nissan, the first month of the year, as a celebration of the sowing of barley. All the people in the city would celebrate, including the awilu (upper class), muskena (middle class), wardu (lower class), High Priest, and the King.
Al-Yahudu Tablets - Wikipedia

the location of the communities mentioned in the documents, where exiled Jews settled, can be traced based on clues found in the documents' contents.

Based on this, researchers estimate that al-Yahudu and the other communities mentioned in the documents are located in the area southeast of the city of Nippur.

Screenshot_20230205_205050.jpg

 

joelr

Well-Known Member
OK, if he sound perfectly rational, please explain in your own words how the differences between two stories show that one was borrowing from the other.

Straman, goalpost move. It's already been established that amateurs opinion is not valuable. Now you want a non-PhD to explain things the PhD field is in consensus in. As if a few examples explain the entire thesis. This is incredibly dishonest and demonstrate you are not interested in what is true but manipulating the discussion to not lose.

I have already established the consensus. If you disagree the email of both scholars are given. I trust their expertise. Your idea that they are mistaken is highly improbable.
This request just demonstrates you cannot handle losing.

A cursory reading ignores the details.

Oh post 583, where you said "But now they're claiming God is inheritting its name. But its not here at all. This one is false too."

I said "They never claim Yahweh takes the name of Leviathan?

In Isa 27:1 Yahweh is fighting a serpent - "Leviathan the fleeing serpent....Leviathan the coiling serpent


In B'aal Cycle T 5
"when B'aal killed... Leviathan the fleeing serpent.................the twisting serpent....."

You were wrong, they never said Yahweh inherited the name. Now we get this long drawn out nonsense which doesn't even answer to your mistake. A huge smokescreen. What a huge waste of time?

Dever's conclusions are not agreed on, there is no concensus. And evidence doesn't suggest it. I went through the video pointed out the flaws.
  1. Similar iconography does not exist, these are imagined
    • The crescent moon is not a crescent moon
    • The lion throne is not a lion throne
  2. The inscriptions are forgeries
  3. The source of one of the inscriptions is not known, it was purchased
  4. The location of pagan artifacts are not in the temples
  5. Bamot are allowed, Dever doesn't know Jewish law
  6. Animal figurines are allowed, Dever doesn't know Jewish law
  7. The inscription on the arrowhead "lion lady" is incorrect
  8. The examples of other goddesses don't match the pillar figurines
  9. And most important, there is no concensus, this was repeated 5-10 times

Yes it is the general consensus. Just look at a Yale Divinity lecture on the early OT. Everything Dever says is consensus. Worship of other deities, the religion being polytheistic until the elites wrote the Bible and changed the past theology. I have no further need to play these time wasting games.
The Stolen Canaanite Gods of Hebrews/Israelites: El, Baal, Asherah


Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -

Evidence that Yahweh is a conflation of El


1:06 - P and E source preserve a memory of a time when Israel worshipped the Canaanite God El.


Lecture 2. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting


0:22 - Bible shares cultural heritage of Near Eastern mythology but has it’s own take.

Bible written by elites (7th to 4th century) had a specific radical new worldview and imposed it on the earlier Israelite religion - monotheism.


Talks about Kaufmann and his apologetics that Israels monotheism is completely different than Near Eastern polytheism

38:30 Same as Dever, Israelite/Judean religion was not what is portrayed in Bible. Bible is written later and re-tells story of Israel.

39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.

Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY

40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests


40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.

Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.

Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.


43:08 literate and monotheistic circles within Israelite society put a monotheistic framework onto the stories and traditions of the nation. They molded them into a foundation myth to shape Jewish identity. Possible start at 8th century. Projected their monotheism onto an earlier time. Monotheism is represented as beginning with Abraham - historically speaking it most likely began MUCH LATER. Probably as a minority movement. This creates the impression of the Biblical religion.


44:54 apologetics forces scripture to be monotheistic, the text is actually contradictory and inconsistent


45:27 - Creation story added to Pentateuch in one of the last rounds of editing, probably 6th century.


46:00 Genesis used and adapted themes from Near Eastern mythology

Yes. You admitted it twice. Let's be clear. I have said from the beginning that Judaism has always been minority position. You have now admitted twice that it existed as a minority position.

"Now, as to these temples, a leading biblical archeologist says these are not typical examples of what the religious climate was like.

file:///Users/joelrivard/Downloads/religions-10-00106.pdf

Still, a detailed study of the archaeological evidence on Israelite cult reveals that Israelite cultic buildings were extremely rare, both in absolute terms and when compared to other ancient Near Eastern societies, suggesting that cultic activity in temples was the exception rather than the norm and that typical Israelite cult was practiced in the household and in other, non-temple settings. Hence, the evidence suggests that ratherthan viewing temples, like the one in Arad, as exemplifying typical cultic activity, they should be viewed as exceptions that require a special explanation"
And also here:

"There is no evidence that monotheism was a big part of the religion. "
So, yes, you have admitted that monothesim existed as a minority position.

The other thing this shows, is that I have brought archeological evidence of monotheism repeatedly. And here you are asking for it again. That's fine.

The evidence is:

Temple Tel Arad
The Temple at Megiddo
The Elah Fortress
Notice now there's 3 good examples. I have already provided links for Tel Arad and Megiddo. So I only put links to the Elah fortress.

What's beautiful about the Temple Tel Arad and the Elah fortress are the Hebrew inscriptions that are found dating to around 950bce. At Tel Arad, there is evidence suggesting a scribal school at that location. See the link to the excavation report below.

This was covered way back when I linked to th efirst Dever interview -
"
Dever: This is awkward for some people, the notion that Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic. But we know now that it wasn't. Monotheism was a late development. Not until the Babylonian Exile and beyond does Israelite and Judean religion—Judaism—become monotheistic.
"

That was my position. It might not be until Persian influence as well. My stance from the beginning is that the Bible is not correct. All minor details - Ashera, Asharte, whatever.
No monotheism, some monotheism, .....my position is scripture is not correct. With all these strawman and diversions I cannot keep track.
So far I have been correct.



More and more evidence of a distinct people with a distinct language prior to the Babylonian exile. Distinct written languages don't just magically poof into existence. Distinct people, with distinct language, and distinct religious practice would also likely have a distinct oral tradition.
And yet Dr. Bowen and Dr. Davis said this is NOT what happened. It wasn't that at 600bce all of a sudden a group of elite gathered around and decided to "write" Judaism.
Error, error, this isn't true. You are mushing together the details.

The temples in Israel do not have depictions of gods and female gods. The examples he showed in the video are not from Israel.

And the only art he brought was a lion figurine in the prone position. Here is the excavation report for the Temple Tel Arad. ( Link ). What you'll see is a good sample of pottery, some Hebrew inscriptions dating to around 950bce. And 1 single male lion figurine.

The other important detail is relating to the so-called matzevot. You may not have noticed this detail in Dever's presentation, so I won't dwell on it. But essentially, these stones were not actually "standing stones", the mistake is understandable based on the plaster. It appears that the stones were moved and plastered to potect them, but they were originally incense altars, not a designation for multiple deities.

Now, about the single, individual, lion figurine. Lions are 100% ok. Having it in the temple is a little concerning, but it's not a sign of idolatry. It's not pagan. It's certainly not evidence that multiple gods are being worshipped there.


]

Another strawman. And a hilarious attempt to suddenly be a biblical archaeologist. Wow, you should publish. Devers position is not changed by a few photos taken from the internet, as if Dever doesn't know what he's doing?
Professor Christine Hayes agrees with Dever.
I noticed a possible error in Dr Carriers work and I wrote him. He explained what I was missing. Write Dever, buy his book, I don't care. I'm interested in what experts have to say. Not incredibly bias people who use apologetics and won't accept the consensus opinion of an entire field.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The temples pre-date the persian influence. And thank you for acknowledging that I have brought archeological evidence.
Doesn't demonstrate monotheism.

I said 1 scholar sounds delusional, he he does in that video. Unless you can explain in your own words how the differences are evidence of borrowing, then, pretty much anyone can understand how observing differences and concluding copying is delusional. Up is not down, black is not white, this is simple.Well, that's not exactly what they said. But, if that's how you take it, then that simply confirms that the argument is, "it's true because they say it's true" which is the weakest of the weak arguments. It is a religious mindset.

right, ignore the explanation of intertextuality and the massive consensus each scholar has reached and agreed upon to frame it in a way that shows you cannot accept losing.
This is rich...."unless you can explain in your own words..... HA HA HA HA"
Unless you can explain quantum electrodynamics in your own words, well it's just a weak argument. These people study this as a career. Your obsession with a few video examples is sad. I'm sorry you are so stuck on not being proven wrong, I've never seen such desperation.

It's the consensus and I'm not interested in these games you are playing. You don't have to admit defeat, I am more interested in what is likely to be true over playing games.
I'll just source more on Genesis and the flood sources from Yale Divinity lectures.
Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method




10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era

(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)


14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story


25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.

Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,


40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender

Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God


Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.

Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.



I'm not sure you know what "conspiracy theory" means, Joel.
Uh-huh. Looks like standard journalist credentials.
:rolleyes: And what precisely about these credentials indicates apologist?


"At a time when Israel’s history, connection to the land and to Jerusalem is being so severely questioned, it is the mercy of God to reveal strong evidence that the Bible is a book of real, tangible history. "

He believes in a deity in space and Adam and Eve were the actual beginning of humanity. And that a sky-deity will reveal evidence. Apologist.
These inscriptions are not new. It has been known that an early form of the Hebrew alphabet was in use in the area. See here: ( link )
No, you are again misrepresenting my position. I have shown again and again that I look at all the evidence you have brought regardless of where it comes from. I didn't say sh was unqualified. I just pointed out that you said one thing and did another. And yes, when you're sources fail on knowing the Hebrew bible, they get "shut down hard". I know that you have deep faith in these people, and it's also evident you don't do any checking to see if what they say is correct.

Yes, there's quite a bit of evidence. I brought a 50 page write-up demonstrating that. And there's evidence of Hebrew writing. Not from apologists, from archeologists.[/QUOTE]

No, you pointed out Meagan and the other were not PhD specialists. You haven't corrected any Hebrew. You thought Yahweh was inheriting a name.

Well, first of all, Dever himself uses scripture as history, and you seem to accept everything he says without a single question. This is not at all uncommon in archeology of that region. Even the attempted dating of the Bible involves looking at the biblical stories as historical, then matching up the themes in the early chapters with what is described in the later chapters.
yesyes, this was explained a few sentences back. Context, Joel.4

Scholars of the past sought to connect the ʿApiru/Ḫabiru to the term “Hebrews” (Heb. ʿibrim). While some ultimate connection cannot be discarded, given the range of dates and places recorded for the ʿApiru/Ḫabiru, it is clear that not all these people can be Hebrews in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the term ʿApiru/Ḫabiru is not to be seen as an ethnic designation at all, but rather refers to people living on the social margins. The wide range of Egyptian and Babylonian texts refer to them as marauders, mercenaries, militiamen, and the like (always in some inferior status), plus, as we have seen above, they were enlisted in state service.​


Dever feels his evidence demonstrates the Israelite religion was different than portrayed in scripture. HE is the expert in archaeology. Many others have studies the history of Judaism is similar ways and drawn the same conclusions. The details are not important, the Bible is not correct. Dever's basic premise is backed up by both scholars I'm sourcing.
The Origins of Judaism | Yonatan Adler PhD


Yonatan Adler methodically engages ancient texts and archaeological discoveries to reveal the earliest evidence of Torah observance among ordinary Judeans. He examines the species of animal bones in ancient rubbish heaps, the prevalence of purification pools and chalk vessels in Judean settlements, the dating of figural representations in decorative and functional arts, evidence of such practices as tefillin and mezuzot, and much more to reconstruct when ancient Judean society first adopted the Torah as authoritative law.

“Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)


28:10

1st and 2nd century good evidence of Biblical Judaism


Prior to 2nd century no evidence, archaeological, textural, or any sort of evidence that Judeans as a group knew of or were observing the laws of the Torah


38:40 Biblical writers might have been esoteric intellectuals on the fringe of society.

No evidence they were elites.



So, yes, the temptation to view 'apiru' as Hebrew should be resisted because not ALL OF THEM were Israelites. And then the paper continues to discuss evidence of Israelites in Egypt.
Yes. The author is distiguishing the Edomites from the Israelites. That's an important distinction.
Yes. The lines are blurry between the different Shasu tribes which was a general designation. Note, it's a "good possibility". That's because there's "quite a bit of evidence", just like I said.
Beautiful! After 50 pages of evidence it is "most likely" Israelites were in Egypt. It's a reputable conclusion. No one said that it "puts it to bed". But there is archeological evidence. Quite a bit. And now we can understand why Dr. Baden said there were semetic slaves, and they left heading for canaan. It just isn't the way the Bible describes it.
Well, that's just a small part of what's been presented. The point is
  1. The exodus story wasn't borrowed
  2. The ancient Jews were a people before the iron age collapse
  3. They had their own language
  4. They had their own religious beliefs
  5. They probably had their own oral tradition

Strawman again.

I never said Exodus was borrowed. I said it's a national foundation myth. And Dr Baden also said this. No biblical Exodus story is true The Canaanite story is accepted as the actual origin of Israelites.
Now when my sources said "most likely" you flipped out but I'm done with these games. Baden said it's complicated and some people may have come up from Egypt.
Bible story couldn't be more of a myth anyways. Like I said.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
LOL. Of course I have. I showed the examples of montheism in the Hebrew bible, before and beyond just late Isaiah. I showed examples of universal inclusion of the nations beyond Isaiah. I showed an example of Noah's flood before Isaiah, and guess what? There's 2 more examples. So yes, another one of your sources that is shown not to know the Hebrew bible. I also showed that the examples of canaanite myths in Psalms and Deuteronomy don't make sense. I also just finished showing you that the assumption that Judaism prohibits "art" is false. I showed you that Bowen's claims about "inheritting names" is false. All of that is scriptual evidence that your sources don't really know the Hebrew bible very well.
Of course you do! The culture has a religion that describes an exile and all sorts of negative consequences if the law is not followed. After the exile, the people want a fresh start so when they return home, they return also to their original religious convictions. This is easy to understand.

We don't know when monotheism started.
The rest are all strawmen.
Noahs flood?
Canaanite myths, what?????
You didn't show Bowen was wrong at anything. It doesn't say Yahweh inherited names, you were corrected on that. So you will just make stuff up to save face? Exactly why I no longer am interested. I have shown what I said is true.
Then you tried tired old apologetics that no historical scholar agrees with.

After the exile they adopted Persian theology as well.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human is a human as a human being human.

You live as an equal mutual human by creation terms our one species....yet express bad not mutual behaviours.

Conscious human advice.

Humans say humans have lived on earth expressing life differently. For a very long time.

Basic human advice is a human is advised.

Those humans lived those humans died.

What a human life is. You live it as a human.

Basic human question what are you researching for?

The science answer is a base power that created all other powers.

Behaviour. It would mean I could use up any type of resource and then it would be put back. By my owned control.

I believe that human behaviour is termed wishful thinking.

Humans argue over literature written by humans.

Yet life you know is lived and those humans lived their life just like you are now.

Why can't you think now... right here now ...as yourself based on self thought..the human or a human?

It's behaviour.

Past a human says was where God was before we existed. I really want to see it. Again it's about a power reaction.

Science says I want to understand if science is correct.

As you can't say human life lived isn't correct because we are doing it.

It's always an argument what human self was correct about scientific terms.

So if you ask how can not a human express your human terms about science?

But you dont. Science is still seeking it's want...I want science to be proven correct.

So science says I've proved all types of life ever lived were not instant and lived together. As now. As I claimed now by my being only the human type.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That's not the concensus... The concensus is that both come from an older mesopotamian tradition. And there's evidence of mesopotamian origins of the inhabitants of Mediggo along with evidence of a tribe there called "ISR" which could be Asher.

Which is what I said, Mesopotamian origin, I was correct.




Also, the original Epic of gilgmesh has no similarity at all to Noah's flood. None. Zero. Zip. The version with all the similarities comes much much later, 1300-1000bce. It's almost as if the flood story was added to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Hmmmm o_O:p
33:65.

While you're listening, take note: Psalm 29 mentions the flood. Ezeiel 14 mentions Noah twice. And Isaiah 54:9 is the nest example:

"For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for just as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you."​

So, yes, not only does the logical argument that your source brought a complete fail, the scriptural argument also fails. Another one of your sources that doesn't really know the hebrew bible, making a claim about it.
The consensus is Genesis was written 600 BCE and sources as a response to older flood stories. No doubt whatsoever. The basics come from even older flood stories.
Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story
25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)



No, it's not meaningless. The point is, many different religions and cultures come up with similar ideas, similar stories, it doesn't mean they were copied. It's not syncretism.
They were sourced and re-written for Israelite needs. Yahweh, Eden, are Near Eastern theological ideas.
Lecture 2. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting

0:22 - Bible shares cultural heritage of Near Eastern mythology but has it’s own take.
39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.

Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY

40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests

40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.

Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.

Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Here's a list of other similar creation stories involving people made from clay, and the original people being sourced from a single couple. 10 Variations of the Adam and Eve Creation Story in Different Cultures
repeating the claim doesn't make it true.A female deity was worshipped where? Not in the temples, not in the homes. Yes, that's the biblcal story, but, you don't beleive those stories.
Yes Judaism is syncretic, I know.


You seem to like the Jewish Encyclopedia? Take a look at the article on Zoroastarianism. It says some things I disagree with, But, in that article you will find this:

"the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians."

Hmmmm, they already were monotheists, and this was stregnthened by the contact with the Persians.

Like I said, they were influenced by the Persians. There is no way to know the exact time monotheism became a thing. Dever seems to think it was a minority but was around. He is the only expert here.
Then if you keep reading the article titled "Causes of Analogies Uncertain." You'll see something very important. These similarities are LATE in the Zoroastarian writtings. How late? Very late! See here - Saoshyant - Wikipedia and see here - Frashokereti - Wikipedia. Both of these concepts which have similarities in Jewish thought ( not so much in writing ) were written 900-1000 CE. That's common era, Joel. Now, if you want to go by whoever wrote it first, then these concepts aren't borrowed at all. Personally, I'll stick with my original claim which is, the direction of influence is unknown.
Yes, more evidence I'm winning this debate. You said you would put this Asherah thing to bed, and said there was concensus, and now you are abandoning the argument all together. You don't need Yahweh to have a wife? That's because I've shown you that the evidence for it is very weak. Yay me!Kind of ironic, As if your proclamations of faith in his conclusion is any less amatuer, you're just a random internet poster as well. Great, you've got evidence of an Israelite people prior to 1200bce. Evidence of a written language prior to 600bce. Next time you read or hear someone claiming there was not Bible before then based on lack of evidence of written language, based on lack of an Israelite people, based on lack of mesopotamian roots. You know now the truth. There is archeological evidence of these things. Someone claiming "there is no evidence" can be deemed ill informed.nope, he maybe shows it in 1 temple, way on the outskirts. And he claims it's egyptian, so it's irrelevant. Then later int he video very close to the end, he shows a picture of some very strange pottery and admits that Yahweh was impossible to imagine, but maybe a female goddess was more down to earth. So, Dever is actually saying the opposite of what you're claiming.

As I said, it isn't about Ashera, the discussion began about the Bible being incorrect. Interesting on how hard you focus on details like this as if you finally can claim to have had a win. The debate is over. Your amateur interpretation on Devers finds are meaningless. Your denial of the historical consensus doesn't change it.
Yout focus on mundane aspects - Ashera, a few slaves from Egypt, doesn't help. Of course the truth is more complicated. Exactly why scripture is wrong.

Now, this nonsense about Persian writing. Mary Boyce is the leading expert.

"
The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C"



"
An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.





Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6)

"







No, you claimed there's concensus. There isn't. You claimed Judaism is syncretic, still no evidence. You claimed the Bible stories are borrowed, still no evidence.

LOL. I'm loving this. There's no butthurt. I've been proven right again and again and again.


Well denial can protect you. I am not interested in your denial, just what is true. You listened to 5 PhDs say Genesis is sourced from older myths and still can't say it. This is how it goes with apologists, if all else fails just say no.
Yeah, ok, that says a lot.


16:00 John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.

“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.


16:28 2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson

“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……


17:24 - The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan

“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

17:55 God in Translation, Smith

“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

18:19 THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer

“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr

“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”


41:00 The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith

“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Hee-hee, you cannot correct it, because its true. It took a while to unwind the false claim about a cosmic messiah. And now that the claim has been scaled back to a messianic era, yes it exists in Judaism, as described in Deuteronomy. The attempt to isloate it to late Isaiah has been refuted.
No, it hasn't. Maybe by you , using denial. You live in a nice world with other deniersI guess. Don't care. For those interested in truth:
Refuted...LOL!!!!!!! By you saying "no, uh-uh..."
Visions of the End: Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature

Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -

Yale Divinity lectures




19:10 Isaiah 3 - a doctrine of final things, end of days, differed from earlier prophetic ideas. This looks to a new time, an earthly paradise, no more sickness, no old age, immortality.

eunuch and foreigners allowed in to paradise, different from old laws.


Apocalyptic deals with end times, revelation by angel, deals with figures from past, predict series of catastrophes, morally dualistic divide human into right/wicked, final public judgement, wicked destroyed.


25:51 shows influence of Persian thought, does seem to be some Persian influence, this is Persian period.

27:29 belief in personal immortality and general resurrection. Marked break from Hebrew Bible about life and immortality.


30:32 - Joel apocalyptic material


34:15 important difference between classical prophecy and apocalyptic prophecy, both speak about final things and end times. Classical did not expect things to end.

In apocalyptic prophecy history is a closed process, it will end and a new order will emerge. Present age is under power of evil force. New age will be free of moral corruption, God must initiate this new world order.


36:53 Daniel, some parts written 167-164 BCE, 7-12 fully apocalyptic

46:24 - last days of end times, time is at hand, birth pains of messiah, messianic age will begin. Only God brings in change, people await.

Resurrection of all dead who died under this rule.

Daniel was written in response to 2nd century issues. Remain faithful, God will make all right. Fully apocalyptic ideas.




Apocalypses and Apocalypticism

Pastor/Historian

33:50

Comes into Judaism from Persian religion. Messianic savior myths also come from Persia. Prior to this there also is no cosmic devil. This comes from Zoroastrianism. Physical resurrection of people and a new world at the end of times battle comes into Judaism from Zoroastrianism.


37:00 during the 2nd Temple Period God becomes more cosmic in scope, not walking around wrestling with people. Visions are attributed to angels and ancient authorities - Daniel, Enoch, Adam…

Daniel

43:53 Daniel attributed to a prophet of the Babylonian period but actually written between 167 and 164 BC. Daniels visions from Gabriel are very specific and accurate up through the year 167 BC and then fail dramatically after 164 BC. Which illustrates the date.


Daniel believes they are at the end times and are totally wrong.

Ezekiel’s prediction of the worlds end failed so the author of Daniel reinterpreted the timeframe so the end would occur in his day.


Danilel’s prediction failed so John the Revelator reinterpreted the timeframe so the world would end in his day. His failure resulted in ongoing recalculations.


Apocalyptic authors suffered from lack of perspective, falsely believing themselves to have been living at the end times.

Their readers share the same lack of perspective, falsely imagining that the text refer to the readers time (when they actually referred to the authors time)


For centuries people have been reading Revelation as future history. Often convinced the signs point to their own time. This is called temporal narcissism.

1:03:40


Joachim of Fiore used Revelation to predict the world would end 1260 AD.


1:08:03 Newton spent equal time studying the Bible to predict the future and inventing calculus. His future calculations were all wrong.


In Revelation - no mention of the Rapture, no anti-Christ, not a message of fear but hope



Revelation is misread as future history. War, famine, pestilence and death are already loosed on Earth. Revelation envisions a world where they will be eliminated.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Nope. Freewill is from beginning to end all throughout the entire Hebrew bible. I said this already when grier was first brought. Now you're repeat posting, but you can't refute anything I'm saying.

I don't understand all of the points, I listen to scholarship to see what they say. Professor Hayes makes many more detailed points about the Persian influence with end times.
J.S is a theological scholar:
Isaiah’s Benevolent Creator as the earliest Persian ‘Influence’ on Judaism | Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions
Persian Influence on Creation.
Though the manner in which Isaiah describes Yahweh has often been discussed in connection with Persia, the Old Persian creation prologues have not received their due recognition. What does it imply for the discourse in Isaiah? One can dispense at once with any simplistic notion of Judaean “conversion” to Iranian religion. Nor can it be seen as in polemical relation to the Persian religion. Nevertheless, the new context of being Persian rather than Babylonian subjects infuses the entire discourse of Second Isaiah.

In Isaiah, creation plays a key role. It serves as one of the prime aspects predicated of YHWH: he is a creator god more than a warrior or dynastic deity. This use of creation thus has three relevant contexts that must be considered to be simultaneously significant: older Judaean traditions of a conflictual creator, Babylonian traditions of Marduk as creator, and the Achaemenid creation prologues. With creation, Isaiah manages to select and adapt Judaean tradition in such a way that it not only provides a point of contrast with the surrounding Babylonian society—as often noted by scholars—but also in a way that is remarkably similar to imperial Persian presentations of the same. Unlike the general conflictual pattern whereby a younger, martial deity shapes the cosmos from an opponent, creation is predicated as an inherent aspect of Yahweh. This use of creation in Isaiah is remarkably similar to that in the Achaemenid creation prologue: not only makes creation a divine attribute, it is a positive thing, and it functions as a justification of YHWH’s servant. By so doing Isaiah has reformulated received tradition—indeed, something new.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Hey, we can look at those. of course, the persian end times myths are written extremely late 900-1000 CE, so showing the direction of influence is going to be extremely difficult.

The eschatological ideas are only alluded to in the surviving texts of the Avesta, and are known of in detail only from the texts of Zoroastrian tradition, in particular in the ca. 9th-century Bundahishn.

Frashokereti - WikipediaOooooh.... this is comparing all "Abrahamic Religions". That's why it looks like it's borrowed, because Christianity and Islam are being mushed together with Judaism.

I mean, this is literally a repeat post. You never refuted anything I said, and now you're repeating. If you care about this source, They're saying monotheism wasn't borrowed.

No you are using a Wiki source that is wrong. I am only using
Mary Boyce,

Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practice

Their myths were fully formed when they invaded Israel.


The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1 700 B. c. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspon,dingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1 700 and 1 500 B.C



This is from "The Early Days of the Religion"

Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

Good vs evil

Harsh experience had evidently convinced the prophet that wisdom, justice and goodness were utterly separate by nature from wickedness and cruelty; and in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the 'Hostile Spirit', Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign. These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: 'Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word and act they are two, the good and the bad .... And when these two Spirits first encountered, they created life and not-life, and that at the end the worst existence shall be for the followers of falsehood (drug), but the best dwelling for those who possess righteousness (asha). Of the two Spirits, the one who follows falsehood chose doing the worst things, the Holiest Spirit, who is clad in the hardest stone [i.e. the sky] chose righteousness, and (so shall they all) who will satisfy Ahura Mazda continually '----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5).


'----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5). essential element in this revelation is that the two primal Beings each made a deliberate choice (although each, it seems, according to his own proper nature) between good and evil, an act which prefigures the identical choice which every man must make for himself in this life . The exercise of choice changed the inherent antagonism between the two Spirits into an active one, which expressed itself, at a decision taken by Ahura Mazda, in creation and counter-creation, or, as the prophet put it, in the making of 'life' and 'not-life' (that is,death); for Ahura Mazda knew in his wisdom that if he became Creator and fashioned this world, then the Hostile Spirit would attack it, because it was good, and it would become a battleground for their two forces, and in the end he, God, would win the great struggle there and be able to destroy evil, and so achieve a universe which would be wholly good forever.


God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.


Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Ok Again, Angels are all over the Hebrew bible. They don't show up late. H4397 - mal'āḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

And there's plenty of examples of God's involvement with all the nations in psalms:

Psalms 22:28
Psalms 46:11
Psalms 67:3
Psalms 67:5
Psalms 72:11
Psalms 98:2

In apocalyptic literature the angels began having names and delivering prophetic messages from God.





Also Genesis 12:3
And there is no firey hell in the Hebrew bible.


Is there an evil force that God will defeat? Is there an end times where a resurrection happens and everyone is immortal and healthy? Does a messianic time begin? Persian.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
No, the point is, you claimed the site was Jewish theology, and it's Christian.I notice you didn't respond to a single one of my points. Changing the subject concedes I was right. Isaiah 42 is not about a "messiah"

Now, did you read this link? What parts of it actually match the persian "messiah"? Ummmmm none.
Well, because in the so-called Jewish theology site they quote Christian commentary.

Isaiah 3 heralds the beginning of the messianic age. As Professor Hayes demonstrates.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Heehee, that's because you ignore all the details. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you, is the Persian messiah a king? Ummmm, nope.


Yes any version of one who will herald a new age.
Apocalyptic prophecy obviously was syncretic with Christianity far more, however Jesus as a messiah is expected, just the wrong version. Messianism is Persian.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member



ביום ההוא יפקד יהוה בחרבו הקשה והגדולה והחזקה על לויתן נחש ברח ועל לויתן נחש עקלתון והרג את־התנין אשר בים׃

ktm e ltn btn brh tkly btn 'qltn šlyt d šb t r’ašm bxare μ Âm trp ym​

That's it. Just 2 words really, and maybe a similar name.

Even if I crop it down, and replace the hebrew letters with english equivilents:

Isaiah: vhhzkh 'l lvytn nhsh brh v'l lvytn nhsh 'qltn vhrg 't-htnyn asr bym

Baal Cycle: ktm e ltn btn brh tkly btn 'qltn šlyt d šb t r’ašm bxare μ Âm trp ym

Now, at least there's a similar sounding word at the end. But it's still not a close match at all. Virtually every sound is different.

The idea that this is like a song with a familiar riff playing in it is false. That's an xmaple hat was given. The idea that this is like the seinfeld episode where the magic bullet from JFK is replaced with a magic loogey, is false. And the idea that this is like the anzu myth compared to the enuma elish where almost all the words match up is also false.

One would think that if they were doing a video on intertexuality, they would bring their best example. If this is the best example, then there isn't really much to this.

And to seal the deal, here's the wikipedia page on intertexuality, and notice, there is nothing there showing some intertexual borrowing of the Hebrew bible from ugarite myths.

Intertextuality - Wikipedia

To seal the deal..... LOL!!!! Like a Seinfeld episode......LOL!!!!!!
O.M.G., so I am done. I;m not looking at any more posts. This is so dishonest I cannot believe you would even type this out for people to see.
The head God is inheriting the same enemy, same description, same words or meaning, yeah this is very obvious this text was used to create a story for Yahweh, who was a storm deity at first.

ISA 27:1
In that day YHWH will punish with his sword - fierce, great and strong- Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, Leviathan, the coiling serpent, and he will kill the monster in the sea.


Baal Cycle

When you killed Litan, the fleeting serpent, finished off the Twisting Serpent, the seven -headed monster of the sea.


Similarities in the enemy -
Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, Leviathan, the coiling serpent,


Litan, the fleeting serpent,,the Twisting Serpent


The political use made of the conflict between storm god and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. Yahweh inheritied the names of Baals enemies.
Yahweh is not only similar but gets an enemy with a similar description, worded in a similar way. It's copied. Both serpents, both fleeing, both twisting/coiling????
And you make a post about how it's COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR AND LIKE A SEINFELD EPISODE?????

Please go away. I have better things to do than correct tricks and games by an amateur apologist who wants to use sleight of hand and hopes no one actually reads the post.






Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

In these passages Yahweh is explicitly called a warrior or directly compared to a warrior. If one

moves out from simple designations to actual functioning, the metaphor or image is even more

extensively present. Yahweh is the subject of many verbs that belong to the sphere of warfare
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Theres archeological evidence that shows the Jewish people were Shasu nomads from mesopotamia predating 1200 by several hundred years.
looked at one darnit. endless streams of mis-information and tricks. Yeah, let's ignore the Yale Divinity speakers and correct career archaeologists.


Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive
It is time to clarify for BAR readers the widely discussed relationship between the habiru, who are well documented in Egyptian and Near Eastern inscriptions, and the Hebrews of the Bible. There is absolutely no relationship!

The first appearance of the term habiru (also ‘apiru1) surfaced in the late 19th century in the cuneiform archive from Egypt known as the Amarna Letters. Seven of the letters in the archive are letters of Abdi-Heba, king of Canaanite Jerusalem, to his overlord, the pharaoh (king) of Egypt.2 “I fall at the feet of my lord, the king, seven times and seven times,” Abdi-Heba’s letters often begin. A frequent complaint is that “habiru have plundered all the lands of the king.” And again: “the habiru have taken the very cities of the king.” If Pharaoh does not send archers, “the land of the king will desert to the habiru.”

Abdi-Heba complains that the pharaoh is not sufficiently helpful to him: “I am treated like a habiru.”

It was not long before some scholars suggested a relationship between “habiru” and the similar-sounding “Hebrew.”

Anson Rainey (d. 2011) is an Emeritus Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has authored and edited innumerable books and articles on the cultures, languages and geography of the Biblical lands, including the 2005 atlas The Sacred Bridge (Carta), co-edited by Steven Notley.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Straman, goalpost move. It's already been established that amateurs opinion is not valuable. Now you want a non-PhD to explain things the PhD field is in consensus in. As if a few examples explain the entire thesis. This is incredibly dishonest and demonstrate you are not interested in what is true but manipulating the discussion to not lose.
You said it sounded perfectly rational. But you can't explain it even a tiny bit. Do you know what rational means? It means "reasoned", it means, there are reasons for believing that it's true. Someone says up is down and black is white, beleiving it based on PHD alone is not rational.

And, it doesn't appear that this intertexuality is a concensus at all. For good reason.
I have already established the consensus. If you disagree the email of both scholars are given. I trust their expertise. Your idea that they are mistaken is highly improbable.
This request just demonstrates you cannot handle losing.
No, it demonstrates that you believe without really knowing why.
Oh post 583, where you said "But now they're claiming God is inheritting its name. But its not here at all. This one is false too."

I said "They never claim Yahweh takes the name of Leviathan?
Correct. In the video you posted, they claim that Yahweh inherits the names of Leviathan, the sea, death, and taninim. Then they give a series of bible verses, and none of them say that at all.
In Isa 27:1 Yahweh is fighting a serpent - "Leviathan the fleeing serpent....Leviathan the coiling serpent


In B'aal Cycle T 5
"when B'aal killed... Leviathan the fleeing serpent.................the twisting serpent....."
And this is a misquote of the Baal cycle. Baal doesn't kill here, and it doesn't say leviathan, it says, LTN. And naturally cutting out all the other words that don't match is exaggerating the claim. if it was string evidence, it wouldn't need to be exaggerated.
You were wrong, they never said Yahweh inherited the name. Now we get this long drawn out nonsense which doesn't even answer to your mistake. A huge smokescreen. What a huge waste of time?
Well, if you could keep the details straight, it wouldn't need to be repeated. They 100% did say it. I gave you a screenshot. It's directly from the video. Here it is again.

Screenshot_20230131_125314.jpg


Yes it is the general consensus. Just look at a Yale Divinity lecture on the early OT. Everything Dever says is consensus. Worship of other deities, the religion being polytheistic until the elites wrote the Bible and changed the past theology. I have no further need to play these time wasting games.
"Everything Dever says is concensus"? No. "His Asherah" is not concensus. God has a wife. Is not concensus. Matzvot at the temples is not consensus. Prohibtion on animal figurines is not concensus. The function of the Pillar figurines is not concensus.
The Stolen Canaanite Gods of Hebrews/Israelites: El, Baal, Asherah

Hee-hee. And you accuse me of playing games. :rolleyes: This isn't *actually* from Yale divinity. It's an editted version. The title of the video from Yale is NOT "The Stolen Canaanite Gods..." It's "Israel in Egypt: Moses and the Beginning of Yahwehism". Also, the video is clipped and snipped together like a propaganda video. The actual video is pretty interesting. ( link ).

At minute 33ish, she says something very important. in 1928 they discovered a library of tablets in a language very very similar to Hebrew. So, how do you think these tablets were deciphered? They look to the Hebrew bible to do so. Is it a surprise that similarities of names are going to occur? No! Of course the names are going to be similar. That's because the canaanit tablets were read using Hebrew.
Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -

Evidence that Yahweh is a conflation of El
And yet, some of things she says is true, and some of the things she says aren't true. For example, she says that Yahweh is poetically described as "bull". She says it twice. But that's not in the Hebrew bible. Not really sure where that comes from. These other similarities are all kind of silly. Yahweh is on a mountain, but that's not the only place he is. That's just one episode in the Bible. El is the father of other gods. Yahweh is the "God of your fathers". That's not really the same thing. Yahweh guides and protects, and so does El? Um so what? That's common for deities. Anyway.
1:06 - P and E source preserve a memory of a time when Israel worshipped the Canaanite God El.
And I think you know what I think about the Documentary Hypothesis. It's based on contradictions. Most of which are completely bogus.
Lecture 2. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting

Yes. this was an interesting video.
0:22 - Bible shares cultural heritage of Near Eastern mythology but has it’s own take.
Not sure if you noticed, but the entire video refutes Judaism as syncretic.
Bible written by elites (7th to 4th century) had a specific radical new worldview and imposed it on the earlier Israelite religion - monotheism.
BUZZZZZZZ! That's a misquote. She doesn't say written. I know, I know you don't really care about details. You care about what's "true". The truth is, she says it was the final editting and redaction. Not "written". Details, details.
Talks about Kaufmann and his apologetics that Israels monotheism is completely different than Near Eastern polytheism
Another misquote! She never calls Kaufmann an apologist. She has a ton of respect for what he says, spends, as you can see from the timestamp, 35+ minutes discussion all the merits of what he says. And, AND, if you watch more of the lecture series, she refers back to Kaufmann repeatedly. She says Judiasm was not an evolution from polytheism, it was a revolution. IOW.... pay attention Joel, it's not syncretic. It's the opposite of syncretic.
38:30 Same as Dever, Israelite/Judean religion was not what is portrayed in Bible. Bible is written later and re-tells story of Israel.
She is very clear to distinguish between "Israelite" and the Biblical religion. She also doesn not say "written later". That's a misquote again! She's not even talking about that at that point in the video.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.
And yet she just finished saying that the "actual practices" are "irretrievable", but there are clues.
Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY
Probably what? Monolartist. Soft monotheism. Nice of you to clip that part out. :rolleyes:
40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests
Similar in many ways... OK, similar is fine.
40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.
Ancient Judah and Israel, but not Judaism. Continuties isn't borrowing.
Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.
and then she says... But only there. In that 1 place. Now, anyone can go and look up the actual reference, it's not the divine beings who mate with humans, it's the children of those divine beings. And there's plenty of debate about who or what those divine beings are.
Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.
I know. People quote this same 1 psalm, but as I said, it makes no sense to translate it that way.
43:08 literate and monotheistic circles within Israelite society put a monotheistic framework onto the stories and traditions of the nation. They molded them into a foundation myth to shape Jewish identity. Possible start at 8th century. Projected their monotheism onto an earlier time. Monotheism is represented as beginning with Abraham - historically speaking it most likely began MUCH LATER. Probably as a minority movement. This creates the impression of the Biblical religion.
Yes! But do you understand what she just said?

Listen carefully. Starting in 800bce montheistic circles, ( people who were monotheists already ) put a monotheistic framework ( preexisting monotheistic ideas, strict monotheism, if you're paying attention to the lecture ) an projected it backwards. They say it started with Abraham, but it probably started much later.

It's not that these monotheistic ideas started much later, but the formation of a monotheistic majority started much later.
44:54 apologetics forces scripture to be monotheistic, the text is actually contradictory and inconsistent
Hee. here you are misquoting. She doesn't say apologetics. And she doesn't say "forces scripture to be monotheistic". That's a huge misquote. If you had a strong argument, you wouldn't need to misrepresent. She says the biblcal record is conflicted. Parts of it a strongly monotheistic, and parts of it are reflecting a past polythiestic practice which the biblical writers are rejecting.
45:27 - Creation story added to Pentateuch in one of the last rounds of editing, probably 6th century.
She says, probably but we don't really know.
46:00 Genesis used and adapted themes from Near Eastern mythology
... to make them into something completely different. Something which strongly rejects polytheism and the culture around it. So not syncretic.
This was covered way back when I linked to th efirst Dever interview -
"
Dever: This is awkward for some people, the notion that Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic. But we know now that it wasn't. Monotheism was a late development. Not until the Babylonian Exile and beyond does Israelite and Judean religion—Judaism—become monotheistic.
"
Dever sees things that aren't there. A crescent moon that's not there, a lion throne that's not there.

And here you are ignoring the disticntion between Ancient Hebrew/Israelite/Judean and Judaism. Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so.
That was my position. It might not be until Persian influence as well. My stance from the beginning is that the Bible is not correct. All minor details - Ashera, Asharte, whatever.
No monotheism, some monotheism, .....my position is scripture is not correct. With all these strawman and diversions I cannot keep track.
You've said a lot more than the bible is not correct.
So far I have been correct.
About the strawman of an inerrent bible? Amazing. :rolleyes:
Another strawman. And a hilarious attempt to suddenly be a biblical archaeologist. Wow, you should publish. Devers position is not changed by a few photos taken from the internet, as if Dever doesn't know what he's doing?
It's not just the pictures. That refute what he's saying.

The pictures show that YOU are unable to admit the flaws in Dever. YOU and anyone can look at these pictures and see something is wrong.

You're refusal to answer a simple question about what is in these pictures shows your mindset.
Professor Christine Hayes agrees with Dever.
And it has the same flaw. The people who had those statues, how do we know they were israelite and not canaanite. Answer: we don't.
I noticed a possible error in Dr Carriers work and I wrote him. He explained what I was missing. Write Dever, buy his book, I don't care. I'm interested in what experts have to say.
But somehow, you can't admit when they make a mistake that's as simple as looking at a picture. And you claim things sound rational, but can't even begin to explain why.
Not incredibly bias people who use apologetics and won't accept the consensus opinion of an entire field.
Yes, you seem to want people to accept, without thinking, without questioning, without thinking.

Screenshot_20230209_135803.jpg
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Doesn't demonstrate monotheism.
Sure they do. Have you actually researched it?
right, ignore the explanation of intertextuality and the massive consensus each scholar has reached and agreed upon to frame it in a way that shows you cannot accept losing.
I actually listened and understand the explanation.
This is rich...."unless you can explain in your own words..... HA HA HA HA"
Yes, you can't explain it in your own words, because, you don't understand it, and therefore you can't identify it's faults.
Unless you can explain quantum electrodynamics in your own words, well it's just a weak argument.
Well, first of all, this isn't quantum anything. Second, you're the one who said that "differences are evidence of borrowing" sounds rational. Bt YOU can't even begin to explain why. The reason of course is because you have a religious style faith in these scholars.
These people study this as a career. Your obsession with a few video examples is sad.
What can I say, you can't seem to bring a single good exmaple of intertexuality from the bible. Not one.
I'm sorry you are so stuck on not being proven wrong, I've never seen such desperation.
Meh. Your opinion is no very valuable to me either.
It's the consensus and I'm not interested in these games you are playing. You don't have to admit defeat, I am more interested in what is likely to be true over playing games.
I'll just source more on Genesis and the flood sources from Yale Divinity lectures.
Great! It's a great series. Not that everything about the hebrw bible is correct. But it's still interesting. As long as it's actually from Yale and not some snipped/clipped/editted version.
10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era

(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)
OK. So #1 the snake isn't borrowed. #2 Satan is not borrowed. Please remember that next time you repeat post from Grier, or whomever he was copying from.
14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story
What a completely superficial statement. They're opposites, Joel. In Eden the humans are prevented from immortality, and in Gilgamesh the purpose is to find the source for immortality. Hopefully you were paying attention and acknowledge these are completely different stories is almost every single way. And BTW, did you know that the ancient Chinese religions were also heavily intereseted in immortality. Their stories also talk about it. I think there's some golden flower elixir... or something. Anyway, these are common themes. Judaism rejects that in the eden story. Not syncretic.
25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons
ok...
26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)
But NOT syncretic.
36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.
And honestly, there is only 1 confusing part of the story if it's read in order. That confusing part is indicating something really cool, mystical actually. People don't get it, the same ay they don't get the creation story. And it's funny/sad beause it's centered around the same hebrew words that are causing problems here in the flood story.
Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,
Yes, non-Jews and pagans have a lot of trouble with God having multiple names and hat those names indicate. But the simple truth is, God in the bible is revealed in different ways. The distinction is 100% consistent throughout. And there's a lot that can be understood about the bible stories if a person analyzes how God is being revealed in each episode.[/quote]
40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender

Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God[/quote]OK. Good. Notice they aren't really contradictions are they? She didn't say, man and woman were made twice. She didn't say watery-world over here, dry-world over there. 7 days over here, 1 day over there. None of that; that's smart. She does get it a little bit wrong saying Yahweh is down to earth, that's kind of true if one think about it as Yahweh is more humane, or more merciful. And God (Elohim) is more by-the-book. Yes, that's true. Same God of course, just different modes of operation.

Also, very important, the way that gender is adressed. Take note. Gen 1 is creating something akin to gender. Not a man, not a woman.

Those same Hebrew words are in the flood story. And that resolves 1 of the major contradictions / so-called doublets. Another one is looking at the commands, the 7 pairs are "take for yourself" The other pairs are for preserving "life". In quotes, because that's a multi-dimensional task. Anyways, there's a lot of things going on, and it doesn't actually repeat. People want it to be a kids story, they want it to be like the other pagan myths where every detail is explained and easily digested. But that's not the Hebrew bible. It operates on multiple levels.
Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.
it's a common misconception
Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.
Who cares? Chronicles is not asserted to be divine revelation.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
"At a time when Israel’s history, connection to the land and to Jerusalem is being so severely questioned, it is the mercy of God to reveal strong evidence that the Bible is a book of real, tangible history. "

He believes in a deity in space and Adam and Eve were the actual beginning of humanity. And that a sky-deity will reveal evidence. Apologist.
This is NOT a quote from DANIEL K. EISENBUD. This is a quote from a random christian website that is siting the article. :rolleyes:

Why don't you just admit that you made an extremely biased claim about a perfectly normal objective reporter based on that fact you don't like what's written?
No, you pointed out Meagan and the other were not PhD specialists. You haven't corrected any Hebrew. You thought Yahweh was inheriting a name.
I pointed that out after you had claimd to be bringing only PHD peer reviewed experts.

I said I had been corecting the Hebrew bible, not Hebrew. Everytime I bring a list of verses o refute the claims made, that is correcting based on the Hebrew bible.

And I did not think Yahweh was inheritting any names. That was your source saying something false, and I proved it. Here it is again.

Screenshot_20230131_125314.jpg

Not a single one of those verses has anything to do with inheriting a name. And trying to find a "politcal" use of those verses is extremely far-fetched as well.

Dever feels his evidence demonstrates the Israelite religion was different than portrayed in scripture. HE is the expert in archaeology. Many others have studies the history of Judaism is similar ways and drawn the same conclusions. The details are not important, the Bible is not correct. Dever's basic premise is backed up by both scholars I'm sourcing.
The details are important if one wants to be accurate. If you don't care about accuracy ( and based on the false quote attributed to Daniel K. Eisenbud, it seems lke you don't ) then why should anyone pay attetion to what you're saying?
The Origins of Judaism | Yonatan Adler PhD


Yonatan Adler methodically engages ancient texts and archaeological discoveries to reveal the earliest evidence of Torah observance among ordinary Judeans. He examines the species of animal bones in ancient rubbish heaps, the prevalence of purification pools and chalk vessels in Judean settlements, the dating of figural representations in decorative and functional arts, evidence of such practices as tefillin and mezuzot, and much more to reconstruct when ancient Judean society first adopted the Torah as authoritative law.

“Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)

Awesome! Thank you so much for bringing this!

Oh dear, 2 hours.... Well. I bet it's good, so I'll watch it.
 
Top